1 Draft Zoning By-law and Draft Sign By-law - 52 St. Lawrence Street (Don River)

2 Urban Design Guidelines for Railway Lands Central and West (Downtown)

3 Draft Sign By-law - 1 Dundas Street West Et Al (Eaton Centre) (Downtown)

4 Tree Removal - 706 ½ Gerrard Street East (Don River)

5 Appeal of Denial of Application for Boulevard Cafe - 785 Carlaw Avenue (Convenience Address for 560 Danforth Avenue) (Don River)

6 Conversion of New Street, Between Davenport Road and the West End of New Street from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking' (Midtown)

7 Report on Site Plan Application No. 397070 - 100-108 Charles Street West and 4 St. Thomas Street (Downtown)

8 Tree Removal - 24 Yonge Boulevard (North Toronto)

9 Driveway Widening - 53 Lawrence Avenue West (North Toronto)

10 Commercial Boulevard Parking and Boulevard Marketing - Fronting 317 Carlton Street and on Sackville Street Flankage (Don River)

11 Extension of Boulevard Cafe - Edwin Avenue Flank of 1627 Dupont Street (Davenport)

12 Boulevard Cafe - Montclair Avenue Flank of 390 Spadina Road (Midtown)

13 Boulevard Cafe - Ashdale Avenue Flank of 1438A Gerrard Street East (East Toronto)

14 Boulevard Cafe - 481 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue Flankage (Downtown)

15 Boulevard Cafes - 71 Front Street East (The Jersey Giant Pub and Restaurant) and 73A Front Street East (The Red Pepper) (Downtown)

16 Boulevard Cafe - 847 Dundas Street West, Euclid Avenue Flank (Trinity-Niagara)

17 Commercial Boulevard Parking - 186 Strachan Avenue (Convenience Address for 937 Queen Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

18 Draft By-law - Narrowing of Pavement on Blackthorn Avenue Between St. Clair Avenue West and Rockwell Avenue (Davenport)

19 Draft By-law - Narrowing of Pavement on Dundas Square Between Yonge Street and Victoria Street - Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment Project (Downtown)

20 Draft By-law - Realignment of Intersections - College Street, from Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street (Trinity-Niagara)

21 Draft By-law - Installation of Speed Humps - Roehampton Avenue from Mount Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road (North Toronto)

22 Draft By-law - Narrowing and Realignment of Pavement on Sudbury Street Between King Street West and Dovercourt Road (Trinity-Niagara)

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

24 Realignment of Northeast and Southwest Corners of the Intersection - Massey Street at Adelaide Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

25 Naming of Private Road at 55 Kildonan Road - Glenn Morrow Mews (East Toronto)

26 Temporary Street Closures on Mercer Street, from Blue Jays Way to a Point 200 Feet East of Blue Jays Way (Downtown)

27 Closing of Portion of Public Lane Extending Easterly from Elmer Avenue, Between 71 and 75 Elmer Avenue (East Toronto)

28 Local Improvement - Private Lane South of St. Clair Avenue West, Extending Westerly from Spring Grove Avenue Between Premises Nos. 34 and 36 (Davenport)

29 Installation of Speed Humps - Castlefield Avenue from Chaplin Crescent to Caldow Road (North Toronto)

30 Introduction of One-Way Traffic Operations and Adjustment of Parking Regulations - Day Avenue and Sellers Avenue Between Morrison Avenue and Rogers Road (Davenport and York-Eglinton)

31 Implementation of One-Way Westbound Operation -
Temperance Street from 50 Metres West of Yonge Street to Bay Street (Downtown)

32 Introduction of "No Stopping" Regulations - Adelaide Street West and King Street West (Downtown)

33 Introduction of Permit Parking on the West Side of Mutual Street, Between McGill Street and Carlton Street (Downtown)

34 Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (High Park, Davenport, Don River and East Toronto)

35 Extension of Permit Parking Hours - Logan Avenue, Between Langley Avenue and Riverdale Avenue (Don River)

36 Introduction of Permit Parking on Both Sides of Davenport Road, from Christie Street to Bathurst Street and from Ossington Avenue to Christie Street (Davenport and Midtown)

37 Extension of Permit Parking Hours - Latimer Avenue, Between Eglinton Avenue West and Crestview Road (North Toronto)

38 Rescindment of Traffic Calming Proposal - Portugal Village, Area Bounded by Crawford Street, College Street, Grace Street/Bellwoods Avenue and Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

39 Rescindment of "U" Turn Prohibition - St. Clair Avenue West Between Dufferin Street and Oakwood Avenue (Davenport)

40 Amendments to Parking Regulations - Eastern Avenue at Dibble Street (Don River)

41 Amending Agreement - Section 37 of the Planning Act - 55, 60, 70 and 80 Mill Street (Gooderham and Worts Distillery Complex) (Don River)

42 Heritage Easement Agreement - 905 Queen Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

43 Operation of the 1999 Molson Indy Race - Exhibition Place (Trinity-Niagara)

44 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Decision - 233 Pearson Avenue (High Park)

45 Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

46 Installation of Two Speed Humps - Heydon Park Road (Trinity-Niagara)

47 Appointments to Committee of Management - Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre

48 Proposed Eastbound and Westbound Left-Turn Prohibition During the Morning Peak Period - Bathurst Street and College Street (Downtown, Trinity-Niagara)

49 Narrowing of Pavements on Argyle Street and Markham Street - Garrison Creek Initiatives (Trinity-Niagara)

50 Dogs Off-Leash Hours - Craigleigh Gardens and Ramsden Park

51 Designation of Number of City's Allocation of Bus Shelter Advertising Spaces - Task Force to Bring Back the Don 10th Anniversary Efforts

52 Installation of Speed Humps - Bellwoods Avenue Between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

53 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - City-Owned Trees - 159 and 161 Beatrice Street (Trinity-Niagara)

54 Erection of Street Sign - Rua da Madeira (Davenport)

55 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision - 15 Edith Avenue (Davenport)

56 Removal of Three Parking Meters to Provide for Bus Parking Space on the South Side of Dundas Street, West of Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

57 Provision of Litter Bins With Advertising

58 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (May 10, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto;

(2) Recommendations Nos. 1-5, as amended, of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (April 28, 1999) be adopted; and

(3) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be instructed to include in a Registered Agreement to be drawn up as part of the site plan approval, a provision requiring that the owner of the building provide a minimum of once-a-week garbage pick-up, restricted to weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the Municipal Act. The public meeting was held on May 26, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 10, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The attached Draft By-law (1) is a draft zoning by-law to permit the conversion of the existing vacant industrial building to 71 live-work units. Draft By-law (2), also attached, amends the Sign provisions of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto to provide that a roof sign may not be erected or displayed on the subject property. Both by-laws implement recommendations contained in the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (April 28, 1999) with one addition orally requested by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services being that the draft zoning by-law provide that all 8, rather than 4, of the on-site parking spaces be permitted a minimum width of 2.4 metres.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of Draft By-law (1) in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act and in respect of Draft By-law (2) in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend that:

(2) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (May 10, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto;

(3) Recommendations 1-5, as amended, of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (April 28, 1999) 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 (April 28, 1999) at its meeting to be held on May 26, 1999 concerning the above noted subject. That report recommends, inter alia, that a Draft By-law be prepared by the City Solicitor to amend the General Zoning By-law to permit the conversation of the existing industrial building to 71 live-work units and to prohibit a roof sign which prohibition has been implemented through a by-law amendment to the Sign provisions of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the planning report.

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor

Telephone: 392-7237

Fax: 392-0024

E-mail: whawryli@toronto.ca

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

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

1. None of the provisions of Sections 4(5)(b), 4(5)(f)(I), 4(8)(b), 4(12), 4(13) and 9(1)(f) of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the conversion of the building existing in the year 1998 and known municipally as No. 52 St. Lawrence Street to 71 live-work units, provided:

(1) the lot on which the building is located comprises the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on the attached Plan;

(2) indoor residential amenity space at least to the extent of 130 square metres is provided and maintained;

(3) outdoor residential amenity space at least to the extent of 60 square metres is provided and maintained on the lot;

(4) at least 8 parking spaces of a minimum width of 2.4 metres each, notwithstanding the minimum width requirement of the definition of parking space contained in Section 2 of By-law No. 438-86, are provided and maintained on the lot including 4 parking spaces designated for the exclusive use of visitors to the building;

(5) at least 20 parking spaces are provided and maintained within 300 metres of the lot to serve the residents of the building;

(6) an outdoor loading space is provided and maintained on the lot having a minimum width of 3 metres and a minimum length of 12 metres; and

(7) at least 30 bicycle parking spaces - occupant are provided and maintained on the lot.

2. For the purpose of this By-law:

(1) "indoor residential amenity space" means a room located on the first floor above grade of the building wholly situated within 20 metres of the east limit of the building for the exclusive, common use of residents for recreational or social purposes and which contains kitchen and washroom facilities;

(2) "outdoor residential amenity space" means a landscaped outdoor area located between the east wall of the building and St. Lawrence Street for the exclusive, common use of residents of the building for recreational and social purposes, and which is directly accessible from the indoor residential amenity space; and

(3) "outdoor loading space" means an outdoor area located adjacent to the north wall of the building, situated within 60 metres of the east limit of the lot which is used for collecting garbage from the building.

3. Except as otherwise provided in this By-law, the definition of the words "lot" and "grade" and of the expressions "live-work unit", "parking space" and "bicycle parking space - occupant" contained in this By-law shall have the same meaning as such words and expressions as defined in By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

To amend the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Ch. 297, Signs,

respecting No. 52 St. Lawrence Street.

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

1. Section 297-11 of Chapter 297, Signs, of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto is amended by adding the following subsection:

HH. No person shall, on the lands known in the year 1998 as No. 52 St. Lawrence Street, erect or display a roof sign.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of a site specific Zoning By-law amendment to permit the conversion of an existing vacant light industrial building to 71 live-work units.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) That the Zoning By-law, By-law No. 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a) exempt the site from Sections 4(5)(b), 4(8)(b), 4(12), 4(13) and 9(1)(f) of By-law 438-86, as amended;

(b) permit the erection and use of a maximum of 71 live-work units within the existing building on the lot as shown on Map 1 of this report provided that:

(i) a minimum of 130 square metres of indoor residential space is provided and maintained within the building;

(ii) a minimum of 60 square metres of outdoor residential amenity space is provided and maintained on the lot between the east wall of the building and St. Lawrence Street;

(iii) a minimum of 8 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot, including 4 parking spaces designated for the exclusive use of visitors to the building;

(iv) a minimum of 20 parking spaces are provided and maintained within 300 metres of the lot to serve residents of the building;

(v) an outdoor loading space is provided and maintained on the lot having a minimum width of 3 metres and minimum length of 12 metres; and

(vi) at least 30 bicycle parking spaces - occupant are provided and maintained within the building; and

(2) For the purposes of this By-law:

(a) "live-work unit," "bicycle parking space - occupant" and "lot" shall have the same meaning as in By-law 438-86 as amended;

(b) indoor residential amenity space means a room located on the first floor above grade of the building wholly situated within 20 metres of the east limit of the building for the exclusive, common use of residents for recreational or social purposes and which contains kitchen and washroom facilities;

(c) outdoor residential amenity space means a landscaped outdoor area located between the east wall of the building and St. Lawrence Street for the exclusive, common use of residents of the building for recreational and social purposes, and which is directly accessible from the indoor residential amenity space;

(d) outdoor loading space means an outdoor area located adjacent the north wall of the building, situated within 60 metres of the east limit of the lot which is used for collecting garbage from the building; and

(e) parking space shall have the same meaning as in By-law 438-86 as amended except that up to 4 parking spaces provided and maintained on the lot may have a minimum width of 2.4 metres; and

(3) That the City Solicitor amend the appropriate City By-law to prevent the erection of a roof sign at 52 St. Lawrence Street;

(4) That the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant to, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council; and

(5) That the owner submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements.

Background:

The applicant seeks permission to convert a vacant 6,500 square metre industrial building to 71 live-work units. The applicant has addressed the planning concerns associated with the proposal and I am prepared to recommend its approval.

Comments:

1. Site and Surrounding Area (Map 1):

The site is located on the west side of St. Lawrence Street just south of King Street East. It is occupied by a vacant three storey industrial building which was most recently used for garment manufacturing. The footprint of the building occupies most of the site except for a right-of-way to its north and a paved area along its St. Lawrence Street frontage. To the north of the property is a mix of older low scale light industrial and residential buildings. The site is bordered on the south by a vacant industrial property which is intended for re-use as a low rise affordable housing project. The Richmond/Adelaide Street flyover is located to its immediate south. To the west of 52 St. Lawrence Street is a series of rowhouses along Percy Street. To the east of the site is a large vacant cement plant which forms the northern limit of the West Don Lands.

2. Existing Planning Controls:

The I1D3 zoning of the property does not permit the use of 52 St. Lawrence Street for live-work units as proposed, and instead contemplates the use of the property for light industrial purposes which are environmentally compatible with adjacent residential uses. The height limit affecting the site is 12.0 metres while the existing building is somewhat higher.

The King-Parliament Part II Official Plan encourages the gradual redevelopment of the Corktown area in which the site is located, in a manner that reinforces the scale and physical character of the neighbourhood. The Plan permits City Council to rezone light industrial buildings to permit their conversion to residential or live-work uses provided the development does not include any additions, it creates a good quality living environment, and adequate parking and loading is provided.

3. Reason for the Application:

The proposed live-work units are not a permitted use in an I1D3 zone.

4. Public Consultation:

A public meeting was held on the application at Enock Turner Schoolhouse on October 26, 1998. Approximately 10 area residents attended the meeting. They generally support the introduction of more residents into the neighbourhood. However, residents felt certain issues needed to be addressed. They included issues of potential overlook and privacy intrusion, and noise from the building's loading and amenity spaces. They requested that the loading and amenity areas be relocated closer to St. Lawrence Street. One adjacent land owner, who could not attend the meeting, wrote to express concern about the amount of parking provided with the development.

5. Planning Issues:

5.1. Appropriateness of the Land Use:

The King-Parliament Part II Official Plan permits the conversion of existing industrial buildings to live-work uses. The proposed land use is consistent with the objectives of the Plan.

5.2 Parking:

The existing building covers the majority of the site, and as such it is not feasible to provide all of the required parking on the site. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services requires that 28 parking spaces, including 4 parking spaces for visitors be provided to serve the project. The parking proposed meets the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning By-law for dwelling units within the downtown. Only 8 of the 28 parking spaces required can be provided on site without seriously compromising the design of the project, including the outdoor amenity space. As a result the applicant was required to seek a lease for 20 off site parking spaces. The applicant has secured the off site parking on St. Lawrence Street underneath the Richmond/Adelaide Street flyover. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is satisfied with the form of the lease and the layout of the off site parking.

5.3 Garbage Removal:

The building requires a an indoor garbage storage room and a loading space for garbage collection from bulk lift vehicles. The garbage room is proposed midway along the north side of building. A 3m by 12m outdoor loading area is proposed adjacent to the storage area. On collection days bins will be placed along a right-of-way to the north of the building for private garbage pick up. Once pick up occurs the collection bins will be transferred back into the storage area for refilling. The applicant, in conjunction with two adjacent property owners has modified the terms and conditions of usage of the right-of-way to permit the loading to occur off the right-of-way. The modifications to the right-of-way have been registered against the title of the property.

5.4 Residential Amenity Spaces:

The proposal includes the provision of a common indoor amenity area for the residents of the building. The common room is approximately 130 square metres in size and includes washroom and kitchen facilities. The common room is located on the ground floor adjacent to St. Lawrence Street.

A common outdoor landscaped area for the use of residents is located just east of the building next to St. Lawrence Street. The location of the indoor and outdoor amenity areas has been moved adjacent to St. Lawrence in order to accommodate concerns of area residents.

5.5 Privacy:

The existing building is located close to its south, west and north property lines. Existing windows overlook areas where proposed or existing residential buildings are located. As such the re-use of 52 St. Lawrence Street requires the mitigation of privacy intrusion to surrounding properties. The applicant has proposed a plan for opaque glazing on the lower half of windows along the west side and portions of the north and south sides of the existing buildings. The window glazing will be clear on the upper half of the windows. The undertaking for the development will secure the window treatment.

5.6 Environmental:

The Medical Officer of Health requested that the applicant prepare environmental studies related to the soil and groundwater conditions on the site, demolition and dust control protocols, and the presence of any hazardous materials within the building. The studies were submitted and they indicate that there are no environmental issues associated with the use of the site for live/work purposes. The Medical Officer of Health finds the studies acceptable.

6. Roof Sign:

Prior to submission of this rezoning application, an individual who declared himself as the property owner, applied and received a demolition permit for a non-conforming roof sign at 52 St. Lawrence Street. The roof sign was then removed. Since that time a sign company and the current owner of the site have expressed interest in replacing the roof sign. Initially, a sign company requested permission to construct a larger roof sign on the site. This is not permitted by the Sign By-law and the request was denied by the City. Subsequently it was argued that the City issued the demolition permit in error as the declared owner was not the actual property owner. City staff indicated that the roof sign was non-conforming to the Sign By-law and therefore cannot be replaced without a variance. After discussions with City Legal Services staff, I am recommending that the City Solicitor introduce appropriate legislation to prevent the erection of a roof sign at 52 St. Lawrence Street.

Conclusions:

The proposed rezoning of 52 St. Lawrence Street to permit 71 live-work units is consistent with the objectives of the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment is acceptable to me, and I am therefore recommending its approval.

Contact Name:

Lance Alexander

Planner, Community Planning, South District, East Section

Phone: (416) 392-7573

Fax: (416) 392-1330

e-mail: Lalexand@toronto.ca

Confirmed Municipal Address: 52 St. Lawrence Street.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

1. Urban Planning and Development Services, February 18, 1999:

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Make interior alterations

Zoning Designation: I1 D3 Map: 51G 323

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

Plans prepared by: Ambient Designs Limited

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 minimum required 28 parking spaces have not been provided entirely on the "lot", as required. 20 parking spaces are provided offsite at No. 33 St Lawrence St.. (Section 4(5)(f)(I))

2. The by-law requires one loading space - type G to be provided on the same "lot". The loading space provided will not be a "loading space - type G"and it will not be provided on the same "lot", as required.. (Section 4(8)(b))

3. The by-law requires 142 square metres of outdoor residential amenity space. Proposed is 63.83 sq metres. (Section 4(12))

4. The by-law requires at least 42 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 11 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. No bicycle parking spaces are proposed. (Section 4(13)(a) and (c))

5. The proposed use, "live-work unit", is not permitted. (Section 9(1)(f))

6. Any encroachment into the right-of-way will be required to be registered on title.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals:

1. The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2. The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3. The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

4. The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code."

2. Works and Emergency Services, February 25, 1999

"Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

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

(b) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirement;

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

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

(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 28 parking spaces, consisting of 24 residential spaces and 4 visitor spaces, to serve the project, of which the on-site spaces can have dimensions of 2.4 m by 5.9 m and the remaining spaces can be provided off-site, within 300 m of the site;

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

(g) Agree to advise all tenants/owners of the units that refuse and recyclable material generated by this building must be collected by a private refuse collection firm;

(h) Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council; and

(i) File an application for an Encroachment Agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the existing encroachment on St. Lawrence Street; and

2. That the owner be advised:

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

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

Comments:

Location:

West side of St. Lawrence Street, south of King Street East.

Proposal:

Conversion of an existing light industrial building into a residential building containing 71 live/work units.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated August 18, 1998. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access:

The owner is proposing to provide 8 on-site parking spaces and 20 off-site parking spaces. The provision of 8 surface parking spaces located at the front of the site and 20 off-site parking spaces satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the proposed conversion for 28 spaces, consisting of 24 spaces to serve the residents and 4 visitor spaces and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for 23 spaces. Given the retention of the existing building it is not practical to provide all the required parking on the site. Accordingly, the provision of leased parking in the vicinity of the site to satisfy the parking demand is satisfactory provided that the leased parking on the donor site is surplus to the requirements of the Zoning By-law. In this regard, the owner forwarded to this department, under date of February 22, 1999, a copy of a lease arrangement for the provision of 20 off-site parking spaces at Premises No. 33 St. Lawrence Street on City owned land underneath the Richmond/Adelaide structure, which is located within 300 m of the subject site. This is satisfactory.

The layout of the on-site and off-site parking spaces is generally acceptable. The plans show that the 8 on-site parking spaces will have widths of 2.4 m whereas 2.6 m is required under the By-law. Given the site constraints, the substandard width of the parking spaces is acceptable.

Access to the on-site and off-site parking spaces is provided from St. Lawrence Street, which is acceptable.

Refuse Collection:

Residential developments of this size are typically serviced by the bulk lift method of refuse handling and disposal, which requires, among other things, the provision of a Type G loading space and sufficient manoeuvring area for trucks to safely enter and exit the site. The owner and the owner's representative have indicated in several meetings with our staffs, that they are unwilling to provide the facilities necessary for garbage and recyclable material collection by the City. Under these circumstances, the City is unable to provide any collection service to this building. As a result, there appears to be no other alternative but to have the garbage generated by the building collected by a private hauler. The owner indicated that he is willing to provide this project with private garbage collection. However, the tenants/owners of the residential units must be advised that refuse and recyclable generated by this building will be collected by a private refuse collection firm. Garbage must not be stored within the City road allowance. Garbage must be stored within the garbage room with the private hauler having access to the room in order to remove garbage and recyclable material.

In the event that the owner wishes to receive City refuse collection service for the project, the owner would be required, in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste, to provide the following facilities:

- a Type G loading space on the site;

- a garbage room with a minimum size of 20 m², equipped with a stationary compactor;

- a recyclable material storage room with a minimum size of 10 m²; and

- a concrete pad adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of 4 container bins on collection day.

Encroachments:

It is noted that the plan of survey submitted with the application shows the existing building and a door, when open, encroaching onto the St. Lawrence Street road allowance. The owner is required to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City, if the encroachments are to remain.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management:

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

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Section (telephone no. 392-6787) of this Department."

August 18, 1998:

"Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

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

(b) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirement;

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

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

(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 54 parking spaces to serve the project, of which the on-site spaces can have dimensions of 2.4 m by 5.9 m and the remaining spaces can be provided off-site, within 300 m of the site;

(f) Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 20 square metres in size to serve the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(g) Provide and maintain a recyclable material drop-off/storage room at least 10 m² in size within the building;

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

(i) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2 percent adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 4 compactor containers on collection day;

(j) Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

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

(l) Install a garbage chute in order to connect the upper floors of the project to the garbage room;

(m) Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(n) File an application for an Encroachment Agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the existing encroachment on St. Lawrence Street; and

(o) Submit revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos.1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h), 1(I) and 1(l) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

2. That the owner be advised:

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

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

Comments:

Location:

West side of St. Lawrence Street, south of King Street East.

Proposal:

Conversion of an existing light industrial building into a residential building containing 71 live/work units.

Parking and Access:

The plans show that 11 spaces are provided, however, the application indicates that 10 spaces are proposed. The provision of 11 surface parking spaces located at the front of the site is less than the estimated parking demand generated by the proposed conversion for 54 spaces and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for 40 spaces. The parking supply should be increased to satisfy the estimated parking demand. Given the site constraints and the retention of the existing building, it does not appear practical to provide additional parking on site. Therefore, this Department is prepared to accept the provision of leased off-site parking spaces for the remaining spaces to serve the project, subject to these spaces being located within 300 m of the site and surplus to the Zoning By-law requirements of the donor site.

The layout of the on-site parking spaces is generally acceptable. The plans show that the 10 parking spaces parallel to St. Lawrence Street will have widths of 2.4 m whereas 2.6 m is required under the By-law. Given the site constraints, the substandard width of the parking spaces is acceptable.

Access to the parking spaces is provided from St. Lawrence Street, which is acceptable.

Refuse Collection:

The City will provide this project with the bulk lift method of refuse collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(f) to 1(l), above. The size of the garbage room is too small and should be increased to 20 m² and, as well, a separate recyclable material drop-off/storage room at least 10 m² in size should be provided. A double door or an overhead door leading to the loading facility from each room must also be provided. Furthermore, a garbage chute has not been shown connecting the upper floors to the garbage room.

The plans do not indicate the provision of a Type G loading space. However, the plans show a loading platform and garbage room at the west end of the building, which would require garbage trucks to enter from St. Lawrence Street using the 3.0 metres wide right-of-way along the north property line to access these facilities. The trucks would then have to back-up for approximately 60 metres along this narrow driveway to exit the site, which is problematic. Recognizing the constraints imposed by the retention of the existing building, a back-up manoeuvre onto St. Lawrence Street to exit the site is acceptable, however, the proposed length of this manoeuvre is unacceptable. Furthermore, a level concrete pad bordering the front of the Type G loading space where a total of 4 containers are to be stored has not been indicated on the plans. The plans should be redesigned to incorporate the above.

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

Encroachments:

It is noted that the plan of survey submitted with the application shows the existing building and a door, when open, encroaching onto the St. Lawrence Street road allowance. The owner is required to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City, if the encroachments are to remain.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management:

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

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Section (telephone no. 392-6787) of this Department."

3. Public Health, March 2, 1999:

"Further to our letter dated January 13, 1999 our Department has received a Soil Testing Program (February 20, 1999) prepared by Soil Eng Limited. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this document and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The testing consisted of 6 test pits which were excavated to depths ranging from 1.2 metres- 3.0 metres below grade. One representative sample from within the industrial building was selected for analysis of the general and inorganic parameters outlined in the MOE Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites (revised February 1997), Table B residential/parkland land use criteria. A review of the certificates of analysis has indicated no exceedances of the soil quality criteria for residential use in a non-potable groundwater condition. Based on these results, the consultant states that past land usage and the environmental quality of on-site soils are considered to have had no significant environmental impact on the site and that there is low potential for environmental liability, and as such, the site is suitable for residential development. The report has also provided an adequate dust control plan that will be implemented during all site activities.

Based on the information provided, I would indicate to you that I have no objection to the issuance of a building permit at this time. By copy of this letter I have advised the owner/applicant accordingly.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 392-7685."

August 31, 1998:

"Thank you for your request of May 29, 1998 to review and comment on the above referenced site. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The applicant proposes the construction/conversion of a light industrial building for live/work purposes containing 3-storeys and 10 parking spaces. A review of the files available to us indicate that the site was zoned industrial in 1949. Additional information is required by EHS staff in order to conduct a review of the environmental conditions at the site. This should include a Historical Review, Site and Building Audit, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, and a Dust Control Plan. This information will identify any environmental concerns with respect to soil and groundwater on the site.

Recommendations:

1. That the owner immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could have resulted in negative environmental effects to the subject site. This report should be submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

2. That the owner conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on the site and in existing buildings. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment Guidelines. A report on the site and building audit should be submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

3. (i) 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 Commissioner of Urban Development Services, for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

(ii) That the owner 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.

4. (i) That the owner prepared a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit.

(ii) That the owner implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

By copy of this letter I have advised the owner/applicant accordingly. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 392-7685."

4. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, June 11, 1998:

"Authority staff has reviewed the above noted application and we offer the following comments.

The subject property is located within the fill regulation area and the regional storm flood plain for the Lower Don River. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 158 a permit is required from the Authority prior to any of the following works taking place:

(a) construct any building or structure or permit any building or structure to be constructed in or on a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to flooding during a regional storm; and

(b) place or dump fill or permit fill to be placed or dumped in the areas described int he schedules whether such fill is already located in or upon such area, or brought to or on such area from some other place or places.

We note that the subject property is located within an area which has been recognized as a Special Policy Area (SPA). The SPA concept recognizes that, for a community which has historically existed in the flood plain, strict adherence to province-wide policies prohibiting development in the flood plain wold result in social and economic hardships. Therefore, under the SPA criteria, development is permitted in the flood plain provided that floodproofing measures are incorporated and a permit is obtained from the Authority.

Based upon the above, we wold have no objections to the approval of this application as submitted. Please note, a permit is required under Ontario Regulation 158 prior to the issuance of building permits.

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. Toronto Catholic District School Board, September 24, 1998:

"Further to your letter of July 29, 1998, regarding the above-noted proposal, please be advised that although the Board does not object to this application, it would like to express its concern regarding the overcrowding and lack of permanent facilities at Notre Dame Catholic Secondary School.

In addition, elementary students residing in the subject area could be accommodated at St. Paul Catholic School while male secondary students could be accommodated at Neil McNeil Catholic Secondary School.

Should you require additional information regarding this matter, please contact Joe Ruscitti at 222-8282, extension 2281."

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 were forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover:

- (May 20, 1999) from R. Ross Reid, The Lung Association; and

- (May 25, 1999) from Ms. Suzan Hinds.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 2, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Attached are submissions received by the City clerk respecting the foregoing matter:

- (May 20, 1999) from R. Ross Reid, The Lung Association; and

- (May 25, 1999) from Ms. Susan Hinds.)

(Copies of the foregoing submissions are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following additional members be appointed to the Urban Design Task Force listed in Appendix B:

- a representative of the Toronto District Heating Corporation;

- a representative of the Toronto Hydro Corporation;

- a representative of the Toronto Environmental Alliance;

- a member of the Environmental Task Force Sustainable Energy Sub-Committee; and

- the Chair of the Environmental Task Force, or his designate.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to amend her report dated May 11, 1999, to ensure the correct designation of Nelson Mandela Boulevard and Dan Leckie Way.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of Urban Design Guidelines and the District Public Art Plan for the Railway Lands Central and Railway Lands West and to establish terms of reference and membership of the Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council adopt the Urban Design Guidelines attached as Appendix A to this report;

(2) Council adopt the membership of the Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group attached as Appendix B to this report, including the provision that this membership may change from time to time to allow for full public consultation;

(3) Council adopt the Terms of Reference for the Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group, included in this report as Section 2;

(4) Council direct Urban Planning and Development Services staff to convene meetings of the Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group as necessary to provide input respecting individual development applications or public initiatives in the Railway Lands Central and Railway Lands West; and

(5) Council adopt the District Public Art Plan attached as Appendix C of this report.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of June 3 and 4, 1998, City Council adopted Clause 26 contained in Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council authorizing the establishment of an Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group for the Railway Lands Central and Railway Lands West and directed staff to prepare urban design guidelines for the area and report on the terms of reference and membership of the Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group.

This report also responds to the City's obligation under the Part II Official Plan to prepare a District Public Art Plan for the area. The Urban Design Guidelines and the District Public Art Plan have been prepared by staff as inter-related documents with mutually supportive objectives .

Comments:

1. The Urban Design and Environmental Advisory Group:

In the spring of 1998, the City of Toronto established an Urban Design Task Force representing area landowners, local residents groups and other interested parties to establish a summary of issues to be addressed in the urban design guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West. The attached urban design guidelines (see Appendix A) address the issues identified through this earlier consultation process. These guidelines will provide the framework for evaluating future development applications in the area including proposals for public spaces such as streets and parks. An illustrated version of these guidelines will be distributed prior to the consideration of this report by the Community Council.

The future development of the Railway Lands presents particular challenges with respect to integrating this area with other established areas of the City and creating a safe and amenable public realm. In order to ensure that the specific interests of those stakeholders likely to be affected by future development are adequately addressed, it is recommended that staff of Urban Planning and Development Services convene meetings with an Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group as development applications are submitted to my Department for review. Staff from other departments will be called upon as required. It is not envisioned that all members of the Advisory Group (see Appendix B) will be required to meet on all development applications, but rather that different groups will be called upon depending on the scope of issues raised and location of particular development applications.

2. Terms of Reference:

The Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group will provide an opportunity for area landowners and community and business groups to review individual development proposals, including proposals for the public realm such as parks, streetscape, etc., in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law and the Urban Design Guidelines. The review of each proposal will consider matters such as:

(a) how the proposal acknowledges and enhances the Open Space Master Plan for the Railway Lands Central and West;

(b) the proposal's design response to the public open space system, streetscape and civic design, view corridors and buffering from the negative aspects of the rail corridor;

(c) the location and phasing of public art;

(d) public safety and accessibility;

(e) the improvement of connections to the rest of the City;

(f) the relationship of grade level uses to the street and abutting open space;

(g) the relationship of development proposals to historic aspects of the community (including Fort York and Garrison Creek); and

(h) the significance of landmark buildings.

Comments of the Advisory Group will be subject to further review by staff and each applicant would be asked to respond to the issues raised. The Advisory Group will also consider Environmental matters and objectives as set out in the Part II Official Plans in accordance with initiatives of the City's Environmental Task Force to identify opportunities for environmental improvements in the area, including innovative approaches in energy conservation, storm water management, etc. It is important to note that this group will act as an advisory body only to provide input respecting new development in the Railway Lands Central and West. Their comments will be considered during staff's comprehensive review and be reflected in the reporting on any applications.

3. The Urban Design Guidelines:

The objectives of the Urban Design Guidelines can be summarized as follows:

Objective 1: Parks and Open Space Systems:

The Railway Lands Central and West are structured around a system of high quality useable, linked parks, open spaces, and setbacks which provide spatial relief to, and appropriate settings for adjacent development.

An open space master plan has been prepared as part of these guidelines which illustrates the location of existing and future open spaces, both public and privately owned, and indicates how and where connections should be made.

The connected system of parks and open spaces should consist of a variety of spaces, and extend existing city patterns wherever possible. Optimum microclimate, noise and vibration conditions should be achieved throughout the system.

Objective 2: Connections to the City:

An important objective in developing the Railway Lands Central and West is to unite the central city with the waterfront by extending the existing urban pattern southwards towards the waterfront and by decreasing the impact of the existing Rail Corridor and Gardiner Expressway barriers. This is combined with the objective to create a new neighbourhood with a strong sense of place centered at the intersection of Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard.

Supporting this objective development should:

(a) strive to have public infrastructure in place as early as possible, recognizing its key role in creating a positive public realm;

(b) provide a continuous public realm forming a southern extension of the King Spadina neighbourhood;

(c) establish Bremner Boulevard as a significant public street acting as an east-west spine for the entire Railway Lands; and

(d) incorporate Bremner Boulevard as a new street joining the major open spaces in the Railway Lands and acting as an address for public buildings and community facilities in the district, in addition to its functional role of providing frontage for new development, and accommodating pedestrians, cyclists, public transit and private vehicles.

Objective 3: Creating the Public Realm: Built Form:

The public realm is considered to include all areas to which the public generally would have access, including streets, parks and other public open space. The public realm creates the structure, setting and support for public life in Toronto. A public realm that is well proportioned, connected, visually comprehensible, comfortable, safe and attractive contributes to the quality of life for all citizens. In the Railway Lands Central and West the public realm is the framework around which private development should occur. The public realm should:

(a) be made up of generously proportioned public streets, parks and publicly accessible open spaces;

(b) be defined by buildings that help to create a public realm that is amenable, safe and inviting for the residents, workers and visitors to this neighbourhood; and

(c) establish edges created by adjacent buildings and landscape elements, the types of grade uses such as retail which help to animate the public realm, and the relationship of the grade uses to the public realm.

4. District Public Art Plan:

Section 7.3 of both the Railway Lands Central and Railway Lands West Part II Plan sets out Council's policy to adopt a District Public Art Plan for the area. Staff have prepared a District Public Art Plan (see Appendix C) which ensures that public art will be provided in a coordinated manner. This plan was presented to the Public Art Commission and received unanimous support for the document at the Commission's March 4, 1999 meeting.

This District Public Art Plan identifies priority sites, on both public and private lands, as opportunities for public art projects throughout the district. This plan also establishes the process and objectives for future more detailed public art plans as each phase of the development progresses. As such, it provides the basis for preparing and evaluating the public art proposals which will be prepared by the landowner(s) and submitted to the city for approval by the Toronto Public Art Commission and City Council. An illustrated version of the District Public Art Plan will be distributed prior to the consideration of this report by the Community Council.

Conclusion:

The adoption by Council of the Urban Design Guidelines, the District Public Art Plan and the membership and terms of reference of the Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group are an essential step required prior to staff being able to proceed with the review of development applications within the Railway Lands West and Railway Lands Central. The first development application for the lands known as 401 Front Street was submitted on February 22, 1999. The adoption of the recommendations of this report will allow for review this application to proceed smoothly.

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca

Objectives for City Building:

Introduction:

The Railway Lands West and Central is the area of the city generally bounded by Front Street, the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor, Bathurst Street and Simcoe Street. It includes the SkyDome and the CN Tower at the east end, and abuts Fort York at its west. These Urban Design Guidelines are intended to provide a context for development of these lands into a predominantly residential neighbourhood for approximately 7,500 residential units, along with non-residential and entertainment uses, new streets, parks, schools, day cares and other amenities.

Role of Urban Design Guidelines:

These Urban Design Guidelines are an attachment to the Part II Official Plans for the Railway Lands Central and West. The City's Part I Official Plan, Zoning By-Laws No. 1994-0806, 1997-061, 1994-0805, and 1997-0614 as amended, and the Railway Lands Precinct Agreements, work together to address, among other matters, the objectives of the City with respect to the definition and design of the public realm and the role of buildings and building uses to define and support it.

The urban design guidelines illustrate and describe an urban design framework; and provide a context for coordinated incremental development, and for evaluating development applications for review under Section 34 and 41 of the Planning Act.

Similar urban design guidelines have been implemented for the University of Toronto, Harbourfront, the Railway Lands East, and the East Bayfront in order to achieve many of the same City building objectives.

Guidelines are intended to:

(a) promote the highest quality of design;

(b) describe the anticipated approach to site planning, built form and amenity;

(c) provide a coordinated approach to the design and definition of the public realm; and

(d) allow for a range of development scenarios, ownership patterns, architectural and landscape architectural expressions and phasing approaches.

While these guidelines apply to the public realm for the entire Railway Lands Central and West, the blocks currently owned by the City of Toronto (18AB, 31, 32 and 36), Canada Lands Corporation (18C) and Wittington (33 and 37) continue to be governed by the 1994 By-laws, and therefore, should reference the Urban Design Guidelines prepared by the City as an appendix to the 1994 Official Plans for built form issues.

Site Plan Review and Development Context Plan:

The Railway Lands Central and West Part II Official Plans require that a Development Context Plan be prepared as part of any site plan application to provide context, ensure coordinated incremental development, and assist City Council in evaluating site plan applications. The Development Context Plan will assist the City in coordinating new developments with existing and anticipated developments in the vicinity, and will be reviewed by the ongoing Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group for the Railway Lands, as well as City staff.

The City has developed a Public Art Master Plan for the Railway Lands Central and West identifying opportunities and priorities for the Public Art Program on these lands as a companion to these Urban Design Guidelines.

History and Significance of the Site:

The Railway Lands historically were occupied by rail lines and railway related infrastructure as passenger and freight access to the City was focused on the water. As industry and related freight services moved out of the City core, plans began to evolve for this area to permit more urban uses and to provide connections from the central city to the waterfront. Along with numerous opportunities to acknowledge the railway heritage of this site as it develops the Railway Lands also includes parts of the former shoreline of Lake Ontario and the mouth of Garrison Creek. Historic analysis and background information about the Railway Lands can be obtained in the following documents:

(a) City Patterns: An Analysis of Toronto's Physical Structure and Form. Produced as a background to CityPlan91 (No. 29), it provides detailed information about the City context;

(b) Urban Design Guidelines Railway Lands Central (Revised September 8, 1994) and the Urban Design Guidelines Railway Lands West (Revised June 2, 1994). These are appended to the 1994 Official Plans Part II for the Railway Lands Central and West; and

(c) The Garrison Creek Linkage Plan, approved by Toronto Community Council in September 1998, it provides a background of the Garrison Creek system, including the historic shoreline, and recommends a coordinated approach to civic improvements along the Garrison Creek alignment.

The Structure Plan:

The structure plan (Figure x) which forms part of the Official Plans for the Railway Lands Central and West summarizes the urban design objectives for the area and shows this neighbourhood in the context of the Harbourfront, Bathurst/Strachan and King Spadina districts.

Objectives:

Objective 1: Parks and Open Space Systems:

The Railway Lands Central and West are structured around a system of high quality useable, linked parks, open spaces, and setbacks which provide spatial relief to, and appropriate settings for adjacent development.

An open space master plan has been prepared as part of these guidelines which illustrates the location of existing and future open spaces, both public and privately owned, and indicates how and where connections should be made (see diagram B)

The connected system of parks and open spaces should consist of a variety of spaces, and extend existing city patterns wherever possible. Optimum microclimate, noise and vibration conditions should be achieved throughout the system.

Objective 2: Connections to the City:

An important objective in developing the Railway Lands Central and West is to unite the central city with the waterfront by extending the existing urban pattern southwards towards the waterfront and by decreasing the impact of the existing Rail Corridor and Gardiner Expressway barriers. This is combined with the objective to create a new neighbourhood with a strong sense of place centered at the intersection of Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard.

Supporting this objective development should:

(a) strive to have public infrastructure in place as early as possible, recognizing its key role in creating positive public realm;

(b) provide a continuous public realm linking to the King Spadina neighbourhood, Harbourfront, Railway Lands East and Bathurst Strachan;

(c) establish Bremner Boulevard as a significant public street acting as an east-west spine for the entire Railway Lands; and

(d) incorporate Bremner Boulevard as a new street joining the major open spaces in the Railway Lands and acting as an address for public buildings and community facilities in the district, in addition to its functional role of providing frontage for new development, and accommodating pedestrians, cyclists, public transit and private vehicles.

Objective 3: Creating the Public Realm: Built Form:

The public realm is the structure, setting and support for public life in Toronto. A public realm that is well proportioned, connected, legible, comfortable, safe and attractive contributes to the quality of life for all citizens. In the Railway Lands Central and West the public realm is the framework around which private development should occur. The public realm should:

(a) be made up of appropriately proportioned public streets, parks and publicly accessible open spaces;

(b) be defined by buildings that help to create a public realm that is amenable, safe and inviting for the residents, workers and visitors to this neighbourhood; and

(c) establish edges created by adjacent buildings and landscape elements, with uses at grade such as retail which help to animate the pedestrian realm.

The sidewalks of the public streets, paths in public parks and areas of private property where the public is welcome are shown on Map x as the general location of public pedestrian routes.

Introduction to Built Form:

Buildings should clearly define and give form to the edges of streets, parks and open spaces, and contribute to the creation of public streets with pleasing proportions, appropriate scale and visual continuity, adequate sunlight and sky views. An intensive development of street frontages provides for clear public private demarcation and helps promote an active public realm.

The aim of built form guidelines is to achieve the following:

(a) create a-well defined public realm;

(b) ensure adequate street walls through appropriate base building heights adjacent to public streets and open spaces;

(c) recognize Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard as the principle spines to the new neighbourhood, and their intersection as a significant place;

(d) allow for flexibility within the Zoning By-law envelopes (see Figure E illustrating the building envelopes in which buildings can be designed);

(e) allow for architectural expression and permit high quality architectural design, particularly on the landmark tower on block 22, through design competitions, whenever possible;

(f) create "gateways" to the neighbourhood at the intersections of Spadina Avenue and Front Street and Spadina Avenue at Lake Shore Boulevard West with streetwalls and towers to clearly define the public realm at both the pedestrian and cityscape scales;

(g) minimize sun shadows and wind effects on the pedestrian realm;

(h) contribute to mitigating the impact of the Gardiner Expressway and the Rail Corridor through building massing; and

(i) arrange towers to allow views through the Railway Lands, to frame open spaces, and to create gateways.

Participation in Design:

(a) the use of one architect to design multiple buildings is not appropriate and will not achieve the objectives of these guidelines;

(b) the use of multiple architects will ensure diversity in architectural styles in the context of a co-ordinated development plan;

(c) a single architect may design individual projects across the street from each other to create a sense of cohesive containment and to generate "gateways" where appropriate; and

(d) over time, the entire Railway Lands Central and West should be the result of the collaborative effort of many architectural firms.

Street Wall: Build to Zone and Height:

A street wall building is a building or a part of a building adjacent to the public street that provides spatial definition and sense of enclosure for that street. The low rise buildings and the bases of taller buildings will be the street wall building elements that define the public realm The street wall is controlled by a built to zone and a street wall height identified in the appropriate Zoning By-law.

Build to Zone:

The Zoning By-law for the Railway Lands includes build to zones along major streets which ensures that buildings will provide a substantial presence along the build to position at the street edge. The exception to this principle is on Bathurst Street north of Bremner Boulevard where the "street wall" has been eroded to open the site to the street for the interpretation of historic Garrison Creek and to improve views from Fort York's "West Gate" toward the skyline view of the financial district towers. Where the lot is not fronted with buildings, additional building or landscape elements should be considered to define the edge of the public realm.

Street Wall Height:

An appropriate street wall height depends on many factors, including the width and intended character of the street. The Railways Lands Zoning By-law sets out minimum and maximum street wall heights for new buildings. Within this range of heights the urban design guidelines includes a preferred street wall height that reflects the scale and importance of each street.

Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard are two generously scaled streets which traverse the Railway lands north south and east west. These unifying elements of the plan should have the characteristics of great urban boulevards including well defined edges, publicness, lively uses and attractive sidewalks. A strong and continuous street wall system should be established for these two streets. Building setbacks along the north side of Bremner Boulevard should follow the curve of the street.

The public realm will should be defined with the following appropriate street wall heights:

(a) 12 metres on side streets;

(b) 20 metres on Bremner Boulevard and Portland Street (between Bremner Boulevard and Lake Shore Boulevard); and

(c) 30 metres on Spadina Avenue and Front Street.

Spadina Avenue:

The built-form guidelines recommend a street wall height of 30 metres for 75 percent of the frontage base buildings along Spadina Avenue, and a maximum of 35 metres. This ensures compatibility with the King Spadina built form to the north, and an appropriate streetwall environment within these major thoroughfares.

Bremner Boulevard and Portland Street:

A street wall height of 20 metres is recommended for the north side of Bremner Boulevard and Portland Street. Along these streets, a minimum of 66 percent of the block frontage must be occupied with a building, and the maximum height for a base building is 26 metres. Buildings constructed on these important frontages should form generally contiguous street walls.

Corner Conditions, Spadina and Front, Spadina and Bremner:

Street corners, which sometimes entail the convergence of canopies, colonnades, tall buildings and podiums of different heights require special architectural resolution. To allow for different forms of design expression, a zone extending 18 metres to either side of the building envelope corner should be developed in a particular manner other than that which governs the respective constituent streets, as long as adequate wind deflection and pedestrian weather protection is maintained.

At the intersection of Bremner Boulevard and Spadina Avenue, the Zoning By-law identifies a corner condition with modified build-to requirements that permit more flexibility and allow for a range of massing alternatives. The minimum percentage of built-to is increased from 75 percent to 90 percent to ensure that the corners are defined and occupied.

Local Streets:

The recommended street wall height for buildings along minor north-south streets is 12 metres, which will achieve an effect similar to typical Toronto residential streets.

Buildings constructed on these frontages should form generally contiguous facades at the build to zones within the 12 to 18 metre height zone.

Individual expression of buildings is encouraged through the provision of a two-metre lateral zone for the build-to. This will allow for individual building expression as well as building articulation that will promote quality residential design.

At grade this zone will allow for the building of porches, stoops and other residential building elements appropriate for grade accessible units that are encouraged in these locations. Above grade this allows for the provision of habitable bay windows and other residential building elements.

Building Massing:

Building and building elements rising above the street wall height may be the source of undesirable wind effects which could, at least locally, compromise sunlight and sky exposure. Street wall buildings and other lower building elements can mitigate the effects of tall building downdrafts. Taller building elements above the base building height will be reviewed in conjunction with the requirements for the street wall and base buildings on each block.

Setback:

Buildings rising above the maximum street wall height should step back a minimum of two metres from the street wall, to ensure that the primary definition of the street is in proportion with the width of the street and that the adjacent streets and open spaces are protected from adverse wind effects.

Cornices:

The consistent use of such architectural elements as a cornice and belt courses on individual street wall buildings is encouraged.

These types of elements can provide for the harmonious composition of several buildings into a single street wall and when they are applied to buildings on opposing sides of the street, will help to unify the space between the buildings.

The general location for these elements is up to individual builders and will be examined at the time of site plan review.

To allow for building articulation, reveals and variations in the thickness of construction materials, all build-to zones allow for a building face to be located within a specific distance of the setback line. Depending upon which building face it is, this thickness is either 1.2 or 2.0 metres.

Permitted projections are allowed into setback areas for certain building elements including cornices, canopies, lighting fixtures and other building elements.

The design of adjacent buildings on the same block should be coordinated to provide continuity to any street wall elements such as canopies, arcades, and projecting cornices.

Towers:

The relationship of tall buildings in the Railway Lands West to others in adjacent areas is an important consideration for the location and height of the zoning envelopes for tall buildings. Priority is placed on consistency of the street wall in terms of scale, alignment and pedestrian level protection, but tall buildings will also develop architectural character and contribute to the visual coherence of the city. The greatest permitted building heights are along Spadina Avenue ranging in total height between 95 and 160 metres. Height at these locations is encouraged to assist in establishing Spadina as a significant, processional street; a street of arrival to the City. A building of up to 160 metres in height at the northeast corner of Bremner and Spadina will provide a landmark for other heights and buildings in the area. All other heights descend from this location. An architectural competition should be held for this building.

Tower locations have been coordinated to ensure views from and across the Railway Lands. Map 7 shows the preferred placement of towers to ensure landmark elements, framing of public spaces, skyline composition, and coordinated views.

Location:

Most development blocks can accommodate more than one tower. In each case, a primary and a secondary tower for each block should be established, and placed, to reflect the primary and secondary streets in the area. Map 7 shows their preferred location.

The main entrance and address for primary towers should be off a major street; the entrance and address for secondary towers may be off a minor street.

The position and shape of the towers should be considered as one composition to create urban design coherence, frame streets and parks, and define intersections.

Significant pairings of towers are encouraged between Bremner and Lake Shore Boulevard and at Front street. The design of each pair should create a gate at these important threshold locations.

Towers should be placed to form a cluster at the two north corners of the community park at Bremner Boulevard and Brant Street and Bremner Boulevard and Portland Street

Heights and Spacing:

Tower heights, as shown on Map 6 and Map 7, illustrate the maximum heights set out in the Zoning By-law.

Tower separation is regulated by the Zoning By-law which has a minimum facing distance of 11 metres. No two towers may be joined to create a double floor plate tower.

Orientation and Floor Plate Restrictions:

The orientation of the towers should generally be in a north/south direction to permit views and sunlight.

Floor plate restrictions in the Zoning By-law provide a maximum floor area for towers on some development blocks. This is to ensure slender towers which cast smaller shadows, have shorter hallways and permit better sky views between buildings and through the site.

It is anticipated that residential towers in the Railway Lands will be "point towers" or concentric rather than elongated slab construction.

Design:

The design of all towers should include distinct base conditions, a shaft, and a skyline or roof treatment. Corner conditions should receive a distinctive architectural treatment.

Given the visual prominence of the land mark tower on Block 22 on the skyline of the City every effort to ensure architectural design excellence should be pursued including the possibility of a design competition. Detailed design guidelines for the landmark tower on Block 22 should include: a description of base, shaft and cap definitions and potential for a tapering floor plate.

Grade Related Uses:

The provision of community services, restaurants, cafes, stores and display windows at grade provides visual interest, encourages the use of sidewalks, promotes retail continuity and feasibility, and contributes to a safer and more vibrant pedestrian environment. Priority retail is no longer mapped in the By-law, but is permitted and encouraged over time at the base of all buildings.

Over time, ground floor uses will change to adapt to a variety of community needs. The design of each building should anticipate and allow for residential, live/work and retail to occur at grade.

(a) A floor-to-ceiling height of at least 3.6 metres for grade level spaces will ensure flexibility of use for these spaces over time;

(b) Along Bremner Boulevard, Spadina Avenue and Front Street, the ground floor level of buildings should follow the level of abutting sidewalks;

(c) Entrances to all retail and public uses should be at grade and street related. No entrances to these uses will be permitted from courtyards (Blocks 20, 22, 24, 25);

(d) Residential uses at grade should be either set back an additional 2.0 metres from the build-to line or be elevated a half level above the grade of the finished sidewalks in order to generate some protection and privacy from the street (particularly Bremner Boulevard); and

(e) Commercial and live/work uses should be constructed at the same grade of the sidewalk, or within 0.2 metres.

Pedestrian, Parking and Service Entrances:

In order to reinforce the street as a primary public space the location of pedestrian and parking and service entrances needs to be carefully considered. In general principal pedestrian entrances for large buildings should occur off of major streets while parking and servicing access should occur off of minor streets.

Pedestrian Entrances:

The general location of principal pedestrian entrances is indicated on Map 8.

Principal pedestrian entrances have been located away from major intersections in order to avoid unnecessary congestion and conflict associated with pick up and drop off.

Buildings on north/south streets should reflect the topography of the site by having entrances at the same grade as the adjacent sidewalk.

As the number of retail stores and community services is limited, residential units directly accessible from grade are encouraged at the base of buildings along streets, in courtyards and at mid-block connections to assist in animating the public realm.

The use of traditional elements like stoops, small porches and gardens to provide privacy are encouraged at the base of taller apartment buildings on both street and lane faces, and on interior courtyards.

It is intended that the final location of principal pedestrian entrances will be determined in the context of full site plan review for any given lot. All applicants will be expected to demonstrate a coordinated solution which does not provide unnecessary congestion with adjacent development on the block.

Parking and Service Entrances:

The general location of service and vehicular access has been identified on Map 9.

These locations take into account vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist safety. In general ramps and access to underground servicing and parking should take place within the mass of building, not in open space.

The number of crossings of pedestrian sidewalk and the width of these access points should be minimized to reduce potential conflicts.

Minimize the width of access points and the visual impact of the opening on the facade.

Service and parking access should be consolidated wherever possible within blocks and off lanes.

In general, parking and service access should be coordinated on the block to achieve the above guidelines.

Placement of exhaust vents should be incorporated into building faces at 2.0 metres or greater above grade, or remote from any pedestrian activity.

Above Grade Parking Garages:

The Zoning By-law requires that above grade parking garages be constructed to have an animated facing use with a minimum depth of 9 metres. This is to mask the parking from public view. The facing use should occur for the full height of the parking structure, and should resemble adjacent typical residential or commercial buildings with respect to windows, entrances, materials and roof lines, and grade uses.

(a) The facing uses should be directly accessible for pedestrians from the street or adjacent public areas; and

(b) The parking should be directly accessible for pedestrians from the street or adjacent public areas.

Parks and Open Space Systems:

The Open Space Master Plan for the Railway Lands west of SkyDome (Map 10) includes a full network of parks, linkages into publicly accessible open space, and public streets. The design and location of all existing and future open spaces should be components of the overall system and priority placed on the streets as primary open spaces. Consideration should be given to the seasonal effect of landscape materials, particularly the use of evergreen plant materials, for public areas such as the community park and linear parks, as well as in private open spaces and courtyards.

A plan for an interconnected system of bicycle and pedestrian routes within the Railway Lands and surrounding area (Map 11), forms a layer of the Open Space Master Plan, and should seamlessly overlap with the streets, bridges and pedestrian connections.

Views:

Views through the site are a primary way of connecting the site to the city and the Lake and assuring its status as a public place for the larger city. Views are largely coincident with north south streets and pedestrian ways. All major view corridors and termini are indicated on the Structure Plan (Map 4).

(a) Consider views along major and minor corridors, and through mid-block openings;

(b) Preserve and enhance all significant vistas through the site, especially those from the existing city to the water and the skyline view of the city from the water;

(c) Locate high quality architectural features at points were views terminate within the new development (such as corner sites, ends of streets and sites which frame open spaces); and

(d) Place towers to structure views and act as landmarks and organizing elements which can be seen from across the city. (See Map 7, tower placement and structure plan, Map 4)

Central Community Park:

The community park located south of Bremner Boulevard between Portland Street and the proposed school/community center is the principal public open space in the Railway Lands west of Spadina Avenue. The Round House Park and the Central Community Park are the two major public places located along the serpentine Bremner Boulevard as it traverses the land between Fort York and the Air Canada Center. The process for its detailed design and development and construction is outlined in the Agreements.

The needs of the local residents should be accommodated in the design of the community park, as well as the programming requirements of the proposed community center, elementary schools, and daycare. The park should provide a focus for the neighbourhood, and be designed to organize all programmatic requirements and be integrated into the surrounding urban form.

Despite the functional purposes which must be provided by the park , it must remain cohesive and sustain an open space amenity as its primary objective. The functional requirements should be subjected to this purpose, keeping equipped and screened activities in landscaped areas at the periphery of the park.

Program and Design Considerations:

(a) active and passive uses, e.g. playing fields, strolling;

(b) community center programming, e.g. outdoor classes, community events;

(c) school requirements, e.g. hard and soft play areas;

(d) preschool daycare requirement for secure outdoor play space;

(e) hard and soft areas;

(f) adults' and children's programs;

(g) local circulation patterns and views;

(h) planting and greening;

(i) historic references, e.g. shoreline; and

(j) storm water detention.

Grading:

There is an approximately 8 metre change in elevation across the north/south section of the park, and this could be used creatively in the design of the park.

Any changes in grade across the park space should be carried out in a manner that minimizes stairs and is accessible everyone.

The perimeter of the park should be maintained at the same elevation as the adjacent streets.

View Corridor:

The 20-metre zone at the east end of Community Park will provide a view corridor across the park to the Toronto harbour south of Queens Quay.

(a) This space should be designed as an extension at the same level as the Bremner Boulevard sidewalk connecting to the southern Linear Park;

(b) This space should contain elements of the design language of the adjacent public realm including decorative paving, pedestrian scale lighting and street furnishing including benches, landscape and bicycle storage; and

(c) Any paved area necessary for service access to the adjacent block or park should be minimized and integrated into the larger landscape design for the space. The space will be accessible at all times.

Linear Parks:

In addition to the community park, two linear parks (Northern and Southern Linear Parks) are planned within the Railway Lands West. They are to be considered extensions of the public street system, and should be treated as streets with an address and visual overlook. Above-grade parking garages, if adjacent to the linear parks, are required to be faced with a compatible use, such as retail, amenity space or residential. The minimum depth for these uses is 9 metres. Buildings adjacent to the linear parks with at-grade units should have entry doors and principal windows facing the park; upper storey units should also have principal windows facing this area. Landscape design and furnishings should reflect the public nature of these spaces.

Northern Linear Park:

The 23-metre wide northern linear park is south of the rail corridor, and extends from the existing northern linear park under Spadina Avenue to Block 37 at Bathurst Street, which is intended for the interpretation of Garrison Creek, and then under the Bathurst Street Bridge to Fort York and Garrison Park. The Garrison Creek system begins within the Railway Lands West, (Block 36) where the old shore line met the creek (see map). Interpretation of the mouth of the creek is proposed at this location to orient and commemorate this system. Northern linear park design strategies should include: privacy zone adjacent to residential uses; provision for pedestrian and bicycle passage; and coordinated tree and shrub planting.

(a) This linear park may have a private road to service the adjacent development blocks on its southern 15 metres. The design should complement the linear park's primary role to provide pedestrian, bicycle circulation and landscaping that will help provide a buffer to the rail corridor;

(b) The northern linear park should be defined and designed as a public route in its entirety, including design of facing uses, a fire access route, if necessary, pedestrian and bicycle access, and a continuous narrow street, if feasible, to enhance safety and public character;

(c) A lane along the northern limit of Block 32 should be considered as an extension of the road system, and materials used in the lane should be the same as those used in the park;

(d) Introduce planting along the northern limit of the park, possibly a double row of trees;

(e) The design of the space should allow for informal play areas for children;

(f) There should be no street or lane along the northern limit of Block 36, immediately east of Bathurst Street;

(g) Provide bicycle and pedestrian routes in the parks, particularly in the northern and southern linear parks;

(h) Grade the northern linear park to permit connections under the Bathurst Street Bridge, under or over the Portland Street Bridge abutment, under the Spadina Avenue Bridge, and connections to the Garrison Creek system;

(i) The change in elevation from the finished park level and the railway track level should be either a retaining wall or absorbed as part of the landscape design; and

(j) The fire route along the northern limit of Block 24, visually an extension of Blue Jays Way and an entrance into the northern linear park, should be designed to read as a public route, with standard city pavers, lighting, curbs and benches. The fire access route should have a clear dimension of 6.0 metres. A stair and/or ramp in this area will connect the northern linear park under Spadina Avenue.

Southern Linear Park:

Adjacent to Lake Shore Boulevard, along the south edge of the Railway Lands West, a 12-metre wide linear park is proposed. Its role is to provide a transition between the development on the adjacent blocks and the Gardiner Expressway/Lake Shore Boulevard Corridor and to connect the Roundhouse Park, across Spadina Avenue, to the community park. The park will also provide an opportunity for pedestrian circulation, bicycle circulation and linkage between blocks, and in particular will link Spadina Avenue, Globe Street and the Bathurst-Spadina community park:

(a) the Southern Linear Park should be graded to be compatible with adjacent development blocks and provide barrier free connections to all adjoining public streets and parkland.

Bicycle Planning:

A master plan for bicycle and pedestrian routes in the entire area of the Railway Lands West and Central conforms with the Open Space Master Plan. (See Map 8/10)

(a) Separate bicycle and pedestrian routes should be provided in the parks, particularly in the northern and southern linear parks; and

(b) Bicycle routes and systems should connect to the proposed pedestrian bridges.

City Connections - Streets and Pedestrian Routes:

The Railway lands is structured by a grid-like public street system which creates blocks comparable in size to blocks elsewhere in the city, allows for street-oriented development, and establishes new and existing north-south streets as major connections between the central city and the waterfront. Streets, the primary pedestrian open space of the district, should be the primary address (i.e. front door access) for all buildings.

Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard, the two major streets in the neighbourhood, should have all the characteristics of a great urban boulevard. All built form and open space guidelines should be met to achieve well-defined edges, a public character, lively uses and attractive sidewalks and the intersection should act as a focus for building and public space design.

Spadina Avenue:

Spadina Avenue is a major north south streets which passes through the railway lands and connects the City to the waterfront. South of Front Street it has a right of way width of 45 metres. Development along both sides of Spadina Avenue will be set back an additional 7.5 metres from the street line allowing for generous sidewalks, landscaped areas and where possible, a continuous double row of trees. It is also an important area for street related retail and service uses.

(a) The existing public sidewalk and the setback from the street line should be treated as continuous landscape space that reinforces pedestrian passage to the waterfront;

(b) Conceptual "gateways" to the neighbourhood at the intersections of Spadina Avenue and Front Street and Spadina Avenue at Lake Shore Boulevard should be created through street design and adjacent building design; and

(c) Streetwalls and towers at these locations should clearly define the public realm at both the pedestrian and the cityscape scale.

Bremner Boulevard:

To facilitate its role as a east-west primary spine, the Bremner Boulevard right-of-way is wider than normal streets at 30 metres. This boulevard creates important intersections with north south streets, links public open spaces and is the address for public institutions in the area and accommodates pedestrians cyclists, public transit and private vehicles. The intended landscape quality and pavement width for this street has been realized in the section of Bremner Boulevard adjacent to the Round House park between Rees Street and York Street.

(a) A generous landscaped boulevard (of approximately 10 to 14 metres wide) is proposed along the north side of Bremner Boulevard, and is meant to connect the open spaces with significant street tree planting, cafes, benches, and weather protection. (See Figure) The section of Bremner Boulevard between Portland Avenue and Bathurst Street will be reviewed in further detail to ensure adequate landscape treatment on both the north and south sides; and

(b) Buildings on the both sides of Bremner Boulevard will be set back and have weather protection canopies and/or colonnades at the significant corners.

Local Streets:

New local north-south streets will serve as addresses for adjacent development as well as connect the northern linear park to Bremner Boulevard.

(a) Views and access along these streets should connect south to the community park, Lakeshore and north to Front Street wherever possible;

(b) The minor streets and open spaces will be narrower, with less traffic, smaller sidewalks and lower scaled buildings;

(c) Portland Street will eventually continue as a bridge across the rail corridor to Front Street, either as a temporary pedestrian bridge, or more appropriately as a vehicular bridge, connecting northwards to the existing Portland Street, and southwards to Lake Shore Boulevard and Queen's Quay. The local north-south streets between Spadina and Portland will connect south of Bremner Boulevard into a public park; and

(d) The bridges at Portland Street, Brant Street as well as Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street will be the major pedestrian connectors to the waterfront. On these streets, buildings will be systematically set back allowing for generous sidewalk, landscaped areas and, where possible, a continuous double row of trees.

Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor:

The Gardiner/Lakeshore corridor forms the southern boundary of the neighbourhood. These roads currently form a barrier both physical and visual between the neighbourhood and the waterfront.

As future plans may include removing the elevated Gardiner Expressway, the neighbourhood has been planned to anticipate this scenario.

(a) All north south streets in this area should be designed for future extension across the corridor; and

(b) Pedestrian connections across, through or over this corridor are critical to integrating the Harbourfront neighbourhoods with the Railway Lands, and will be examined both as part of incremental development and as City initiatives.

Weather Protection:

The Part II Plans call for a coordinated system of weather protection. Locations for colonnades and canopies are identified in the Railway Lands Central and West Zoning By-law and are summarized on Map 12. The location, scale and dimensions of these elements are in the Zoning By-law:

"Dimensions for colonnades should be: minimum width of 3.5 metres and maximum width of 5.0 metres, with a minimum vertical clearance of 4.5 metres except for beams, suspended lighting fixtures and signing element, which may have a minimum vertical clearance of 3.5 metres. Canopies must have a minimum vertical clearance of 3.0 metres and a maximum vertical clearance of 4.0 metres and cover a minimum horizontal width of 3.0 metres."

These elements are intended to reinforce the public sidewalk at grade as the primary pedestrian realm by providing shelter from sun, wind and rain parallel to the public sidewalk and open spaces. The continuity of this system will ensure its success in enhancing the public realm.

(a) Design of colonnades should take into account the ease of maintenance to ensure long term attractiveness. They should be inviting and safe to use;

(b) A continuous colonnade or canopy should be built along the length of Spadina Avenue from Front Street to Lake Shore Boulevard, including spaces between buildings and across the bridge. Upon submission of the context plan for this street, a single and consistent treatment will be determined. The first building on either the east or west side of Spadina will dictate whether this entire section of street is arcades or canopies in order to ensure cohesiveness;

(c) Weather protection along Bremner Boulevard beyond that which is required in the By-law is encouraged and could vary depending on the type of building facing the street;

(d) Colonnades or canopies must be provided at the following corners: Bremner and Spadina, Bremner and Bathurst;

(e) Ensure that canopies are permanent, well maintained, and of the appropriate height and width;

(f) At the south edge of Blocks 22 and 25 along Spadina Avenue adjacent to the Gardiner where there is no build-to requirement, a permanent colonnade structure is preferred which can either be stand-alone as part of the park entrance or incorporated into a building;

(g) Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue will each have a continuous colonnade system to provide weather protected access to the waterfront; and

(h) Bathurst Street may be reconstructed after the development of Blocks 36 and 37. Integrated colonnades within the new development for pedestrian circulation are to be linked by bridges to the existing Bathurst Street bridge as an interim condition.

Bridges:

Design of Permanent Pedestrian Bridge:

The location of the pedestrian bridge between Spadina Avenue and Portland Street has not been determined. Location criteria will be established as part of the Development Context Plan for the area and consideration be given to a technical review of the alternate locations at either the Brant or Draper Street alignments.

A design competition is encouraged for the permanent pedestrian bridge and the design team should include an artist. Similar bridges in the Toronto region are the John Street bridge (52-metre span, 15 metres wide), the Humber Bridge (100-metre span, 6.5 metres wide), the Mimico bridge, the Wallace Avenue rehabilitation and the Innis Avenue bridge. The design process for this bridge will include further participation of the Railway Lands Urban Design Advisory Group.

The following considerations should be included in the design brief for the pedestrian bridge:

(a) sufficient widths to accommodate two-way, bicycle and pedestrian use;

(b) use/lane distinctions: colour, texture changes, low barrier or edging;

(c) connections to the northern linear park, the community park, the community center and the school;

(d) locations for public art;

(e) lighting (including low level lighting of the bridge deck);

(f) "landmarking" or identification features, such as the verticals of the John Street Bridge, the arch of the Humber bridge;

(g) improve sidewalks along Front Street and south secondary street;

(h) signage;

(i) level changes at verges: ramping, no stairs, maximum gradient 1:12;

(j) safety;

(k) wind conditions;

(l) clearances over the rail corridor; and

(m) seating.

Any future development on parcels that span the rail corridor must provide a minimum clearance of 8.3 metres (27 feet 3 inches) above the tracks to allow for future electrification, as per GO Transit standards.

Temporary Pedestrian Bridge:

The objectives and guidelines for the temporary bridge at Portland are the same as the previous section, except that this bridge will be constructed for at least a twenty year life span. Design consideration should be the same as for the permanent bridge.

Portland Street Bridge:

The Portland Street bridge should be built early, including the vehicular bridge over the rail corridor and connections across Lake Shore Boulevard West.

The phasing of the bridge should not take precedence over the construction of Bremner Boulevard. The design process is subject to approval by the City of Toronto.

Design of Spadina Avenue Bridge:

A split level sidewalk could be constructed along the Spadina Avenue bridge, with one level following the grade of the street, and another level aligning with the finished floor level of the adjacent buildings. Both levels should be designed as part of a single public walkway, with frequent connections and clear views.

The design of the bridge should recognize the long-term potential for retail uses being incorporated into the structure of the Spadina Avenue bridge.

Safety and Accessibility:

The objectives for both the Central and West Railway Lands calls for "generously proportioned public streets, parks and publicly accessible open spaces". It is the intent of these guidelines that these spaces should be safe and accessible.

(a) The linear parks should include wide pedestrian paths to ensure a clear view of destinations; paving stones or concrete paths should be finished with a hard, smooth surface to accommodate wheelchairs and strollers comfortably;

(b) In parks and parking lots, trees and shrubs should allow a line of sight from knee to head level. Low shrubs and trees with high crowns of foliage allow anyone using the spaces to be aware of other people in the area;

(c) Pedestrian bridges should provide a direct sight line over the top of the railway yards, and views to the bridges from surrounding public and private spaces is encouraged to passively monitor these "movement predictors";

(d) Entrances onto the bridges at either end should be generous and include seating, telephones and clear views to and from passing traffic;

(e) Access onto the bridges should include stairs and ramps for wheelchairs, bikes and strollers;

(f) Mid-block pedestrian routes should be clearly marked with directional signage and clear views of destinations where possible. Dead end streets should have clear walkways to other public spaces;

(g) Informal surveillance such as street facing windows, balconies and porches increases the safety of the neighbourhood;

(h) Street related uses should be built and occupied early, to generate a sense of animation and safety. Doors to residential units should be visible from the street, not sunken or tucked behind corridors;

(i) Lighting should be at both at the upper level and at a pedestrian scale, and should be throughout the parks and along walkways; and

(j) The City's Safe City Guidelines should be incorporated into each Development as well as the public realm.

Streetscapes:

Developments in the Railway Lands Central and West will continue the Toronto streetscape tradition by using high quality materials, both hard and soft. The streetscape elements include pavers, tree planting, pedestrian scale lighting, and street furnishings and when implemented consistently along streets will provide a sense of unity to the public realm district.

(a) Coordinate underground servicing in order to optimize tree planting opportunities;

(b) In particular, on Spadina Avenue, Portland Street and the north side Bremner Boulevard, a second row of trees to complement curb side street trees will be secured and coordinated at the time of site plan approval;

(c) Pedestrian scale lighting and general street lighting are proposed to follow the theme as developed by the City and implemented along the constructed Railway Lands streets;

(d) Lighting fixtures are to be "Railway Lands" types, and should be both high level and pedestrian-level luminaries. This fixture type should extend into parks and other publicly accessible open spaces. Smaller residential streets should have a lower-scaled, closer spaced, lower-intensity light quality;

(e) Benches, waste receptacles and bicycle parking rings will be provided where appropriate;

(f) Where the entire lot is not fronted with buildings, additional building or landscape elements should be considered to define the edge of the public realm;

(g) Coordinated location of underground servicing is required within street rights-of-way with Works and Emergency Services and others to ensure maximum potential for healthy tree planting within the public realm; and

(h) Planting beds within the boulevard should be raised, and include appropriate irrigation, under lighting, low fencing, and be maintained by adjacent developments to City Parks and Recreation standards.

Pedestrian Crossings at Major Intersections:

(a) Preliminary designs should be reviewed for the intersections at: Lake Shore Boulevard West and Bathurst Street, Portland Street, Spadina Avenue and Rees Street; Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard; and Bathurst Street at Bremner/Fort York Boulevard. Full pedestrian movements and signals should be incorporated, and the designs should consider options with and without the Gardiner Expressway. See Map 11, Pedestrian Routes, and Map 4, Structure Plan; and

(b) Pedestrian safety and TTC access should be considered in the design of the Bathurst Street and Bremner Boulevard intersection. Design solutions could include special lighting, paving, weather protection and planting.

Setbacks, Mid-Block Pedestrian Connections and Courtyards:

Privately Owned Setbacks and Open Spaces:

The provision of publicly accessible, privately owned open spaces in the Railway Lands Central and West continues a tradition in Toronto of providing high quality open spaces as part of development. These open spaces will complement the public open space system and proceed incrementally with development.

(a) Develop private gardens, setbacks and courtyards as complementary spaces related to the public open space system;

(b) Developments facing Spadina Avenue and at the corners of Bremner Boulevard will extend the public streetscape to the building face on setbacks. Additional trees will be placed level with the ground and on privately-owned setbacks at regular intervals;

(c) Attach lighting on buildings in association with canopies and arcades along with other benches, waste receptacles, bicycle parking rings and other amenity as appropriate;

(d) The primarily residential streets which run north and south from Bremner Boulevard may have soft landscaped setbacks between the public sidewalk and building face. This area will provide an additional zone for landscaping. Planted elements in the setback, including hedges and trees, should be planted flush with the adjacent sidewalk or to provide a transition up from the public sidewalk to the finished floor of adjacent residential units; and

(e) Architectural elements of traditional residential architecture are encouraged here, including stoops, gates and low hedges, fences and gates.

Mid-Block Connections:

Mid-block pedestrian connections are encouraged within the development parcels, and are intended to be designed as pedestrian landscaped mews (for example Block 20/23).

The design of these spaces should visually and physically connect Bremner Boulevard sidewalks to the linear parks.

The sidewalks should be flush to and connected to the public sidewalks to the north and south. Any changes in grade should be taken up in a manner that minimizes stairs and is accessible.

On Block 20, the east edge will define an open space. If there are residential units at-grade they should face this open space, and have a transitional landscaped "front yard" zone.

Mid-block connections should provide pedestrian access and an address to individual residential units along its frontage.

Any paved area necessary for service access to the adjacent blocks should be integrated into the larger landscape design for the space. This space should contain elements of the design language of the adjacent public realm such as decorative paving, pedestrian scale lighting, benches, and bicycle rings, if practical it should be accessible to the general public.

Residential Courtyards:

Courtyards will be formed by most of the residential developments. Their principal role will be to provide for an on-site open space amenity for the residents in the adjacent development. In the context of site plan review for the first development on a block, applicants will be expected to demonstrate a coordinated design concept which will provide appropriate grading, facilities for pedestrian circulation and landscaping, coordinated servicing and automobile access and connectivity to the adjacent lands to maximize amenity and usefulness for pedestrians. To be most effective, the courtyard should have a unified landscape design, with open space amenity such as gardens and play areas on individual sites shared with those of the block.

The design of residential courtyards should consider:

(a) venting for parking garage below;

(b) air quality;

(c) noise quality;

(d) sun/shade patterns;

(e) access from units;

(f) access from street; and

(g) impact of rail corridor (particularly Blocks 21 and 28).

In addition to the above, courtyards should have low level lighting, wheelchair access, solid surface pathways, benches, garbage receptacles, and weather protection. Secured gates should prevent general public from access, but should be designed to be visible and accessible to residents. A view into the courtyards from adjacent streets, parks, walkways and surrounding units allows informal surveillance.

Courtyards should be physically accessible from within the development as well as from the public street. However, the principal address should always be from the public street.

Elevated courtyards should not have any service functions.

Trees planted on slabs in courtyards should have appropriate soil cover on top of waterproofing to permit the design intent to be met.

Block 36:

A portion of the Block 36 residential courtyard has been given to the interpretation of the mouth of the former Garrison Creek. The on-site amenity and uses are reduced by the change in size of the courtyard. The amenity and uses associated with courtyards in the district should be relocated to the roofs of the buildings on this block.

Special care should be taken in designing roof top amenity space to provide adequate shelter from prevailing winds with architectural and landscape elements to promote comfortable use.

Public Transit Facilities:

The Bathurst and Spadina Streetcars currently pass along the perimeter of the neighbourhood, connecting to the Bloor Danforth subway line. Future service may include a streetcar line or buses along Bremner Boulevard, with stops at the major intersections.

(a) Redesign Bremner Boulevard to accommodate a surface bus route rather than a dedicated LRT right-of-way in order to minimize the pavement width within the right-of-way; and

(b) TTC stops along Bathurst, Spadina and Bremner Boulevard should be coordinated with building entrances, location of adjacent weather protection, crosswalks and pedestrian routes through and around adjacent blocks.

Environmental Issues and Micro Climate Remediation:

One of the objectives for the Railway Lands is that all new buildings meet current environmental standards. New buildings in the Railway Lands Central and West should incorporate energy efficient, environmentally friendly materials and systems, such as locally produced or recycled building material, solar energy systems, heat recovery, roof top gardens, zero ozone depletion refrigerants, thermally efficient glazing, high efficiency heating systems, natural ventilation for cooling systems, zone-controlled lighting, heating and cooling, and light reflective surfaces (i.e. underground garages), to the extent that such systems are required and being implemented elsewhere in the City of Toronto.

The following environmental issues should be addressed in new buildings:

(a) microclimate studies remediating wind and shade;

(b) landscape and planting including species diversity, use of native plants, planting for energy conservation and the potential of planting to improve air quality;

(c) storm water management including use of permeable surfaces and other various techniques;

(d) auto minimization through the design of street sections, priority for bicycles, pedestrians and transit routes;

(e) district heating and cooling;

(f) energy efficiency and conservation including the use of renewable energy sources;

(g) water conservation including treatment of on-site water;

(h) air quality including indoor air quality; and

(i) waste management and sewage treatment.

Phased Implementation and Long Term Planning:

The development of the Railway Lands will occur incrementally over a long period of time. It is important to consider the following interim measures and long term strategies as these lands develop:

Landscaping Undeveloped Blocks:

Undeveloped blocks should have setbacks areas planted as part of the public sidewalk area, a fence or barrier at the built-to line, and hydroseed planting.

Streetscape paving, planting and lighting should occur at the time of the road construction.

Dismantling of the Gardiner:

Blocks abutting the existing Gardiner should be designed to anticipate future dismantling of the structure with appropriate setbacks, window treatment, building access, and openings between buildings.

The ongoing recommendations of the Gardiner/Lake Shore Task Force should be taken into consideration for the design of the southern edge of the Railway Lands Central and West.

View corridors should be graded to allow for views over the Gardiner where possible.

Decking of the rail corridor:

Initial grading of the lands immediately south of the rail corridor between Portland Street and Spadina Avenue should not preclude eventual decking of the rail corridor. Development along the northern linear park should not preclude this possibility.

All temporary uses and structures on these lands should have regard for these guidelines.

Landscaping of interim at-grade parking:

In order to minimize the visual impact of parking at grade within the Railway Lands, all parking will be screened from the street in a manner that contributes to the continuity of the street edge and provides for the safety of the parking lot user and the pedestrian on the public sidewalk.

The design of this screen will consider the use of landscaping including shade trees, shrubs and ground cover planting, and architectural elements including fences and curbs designed to respond to the specific site and building program.

Block Guidelines:

The following guidelines have been prepared to ensure site specific issues are addressed during the preparation of site plans for these blocks.

Block 20/23 (east side of Spadina):

(a) The extension of the public street system through Block 20/23 may be appropriate and will be reviewed at the time of site plan review;

(b) The design of the publicly accessible open space on the east edge of block 20, should be co-ordinated by Urban Planning and Development;

(c) Buildings on the east edge of this space should face and define it. Residential uses at grade should include a landscaped setback of 3.0 metres; and

(d) Each retail space located on these blocks must have a direct street related entrance.

Blocks 21 and 28 (Front Street):

(a) The Front Street parcels north of the rail corridor help to visually define the north limit of the neighbourhood, and act as a gateway between the neighbourhoods. The 'pairing' of towers is encouraged at the Spadina and Front Street intersection to create this gateway;

(b) These parcels are permitted to be commercial or residential, and should include street related retail;

(c) Careful shadow studies are required as part of any submission on these blocks to examine impact on the public realm along Front Street, Clarence Square and adjacent private developments; and

(d) Views and pedestrian walkways should be continuous and consistent on both sides of Front Street.

Block 22 (Landmark Tower):

(a) The design of this building by way of an open design competition should be considered; and

(b) Detailed design guidelines for the landmark tower on Block 22 include a requirement for distinct base, shaft and cap definitions and potential for a tapering floor plate.

Blocks 24 and 25 (west side of Spadina):

(a) Permission is maintained for an emergency access route along the northern limit of Block 24; and

(b) Each retail space on these blocks must have a direct street related entrance.

Blocks 26 and 29 (north of the Park):

(a) Towers on these blocks north of the community park should be placed to frame the park, and mark its east and west limits (as shown on Map 6);

(b) Views from the park to the base building and towers should be architecturally terminated;

(c) Entrances at grade should reflect the park design, entry points, and crosswalks; and

(d) Permission is maintained for a lane along the northern limit of Block 29.

Blocks 32 and 36 (City of Toronto):

(a) The northeast corner of Block 36 has been designated for lands to interpret Garrison Creek, which historically was located here;

(b) This open space should, in general, be designed to be an extension of the form and character of Fort York Park, contiguous with physical and visual connections to that Park and to the Northern Linear Park;

(c) These lands are to be designed in a way that is inviting to the public, amenable, useful and comfortable;

(d) The design should be coordinated as a physical extension of the park to the west to promote the interpretation of the site's heritage;

(e) Buildings located along the Bathurst frontage of Block 36 should be set back sufficiently to permit a pedestrian walkway from the corner of Bremner and Bathurst to the Garrison Creek interpretive open space;

(f) A tower in this location should not overshadow Fort York; and

(g) Consider a lane along northern limit of Block 32.

Appendix B

Urban Design Task Force

Railway Lands Central and West

Task Force Members:

Ward Councillors

Concord Adex Developments Corp.

Wittington Properties Limited

SkyDome

Canada Lands Company

TrizecHahn

CN Rail

Toronto Terminal Railways Company

GO Transit

Housing, City of Toronto

Royal Bank

Harbourfront Square Residents Association

Harbourfront Residents Association

Harbour Terrace

Harbourfront Centre

Toronto Entertainment District Association

Niagara Neighbourhood Association

Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association

Draper Street Residents Association

Friends of Fort York

Garrison Creek Community Project

VIA Rail

CP Railway Company - Real Estate

Harbourfront Community Centre

Appendix C

Railway Lands Central and West - District Public Art Plan

1. Introduction:

The Railway Lands is one of the last large tracts of undeveloped lands in the downtown area of Toronto. The recent Site Plan Approval and Rezoning (to remove the "H" designation) applications by Concord Adex triggered the requirement in the Part II Official Plan that Toronto City Council approve Urban Design Guidelines and a District Public Art Plan. The construction of the first residential community is anticipated to commence before the end of 1999. Completion of the overall area will likely take the next 15 to 20 years.

The Railway Lands Central and Railway Lands Part II Plans, the Heritage and Public Art Sections, state that Council (through Urban Planning and Development Services) shall prepare, adopt and administer a District Public Art Plan for the whole of the Railway Lands Central and West to ensure that public art is provided in a coordinated manner to enhance and humanize the public realm, taking into consideration issues of public use, scale, coherence, visibility and safety of particular sites.

This requirement for Council to prepare and adopt a District Public Art Plan was the result of ruling by the Ontario Municipal Board (September, 1994) pertaining to the Part II Plans. Traditionally it has been the practice that such public art plans be prepared by the landowner and submitted to Council for approval. Previous examples of such District Public Art Plans as prepared by the landowner include: Southtown (1993), Gooderham and Worts, (1994) and Canada Life (1995). In the case of the Railway Lands, urban design staff have drafted the District Public Art Plan, presented it the Public Art Commission and received unanimous support for the document at its March 4, 1999 meeting. This document is now being submitted to Council for approval. Concord Adex, the majority landowner, is preparing a more detailed Public Art Master Plan for the Concord Adex-owned lands, within the areas covered by the Part II Plans.

This District Public Art Plan has been prepared as a companion document to Urban Design Guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West, with the intent that the public art program will reinforce the City's urban design objectives for the area.

1.1 Site Context:

The Railway Lands West and Central are bounded by Front Street, the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor, Bathurst Street and Simcoe Street. It includes the SkyDome and the CN Tower at the east end, and abuts Fort York at its west.

The King-Spadina neighbourhood, with its new live/work policies, lies to the north of the Railway Lands, and Harbourfront with its prominent recreational facilities, lies to the south.

The Urban Design Guidelines and the District Public Art Plan are intended to provide a context for development of these lands into a predominantly residential neighbourhood for approximately 6,500 residential units, with new streets, parks, schools, day cares and other amenities.

These lands are currently in the ownership of four main landowners: Concord Adex, Wittington, the City of Toronto, and the Canada Lands Corporation.

2. District Public Art Plan Objectives:

As it is imperative that the public art be planned and implemented throughout the public realm in a coherent way that addresses each development phase over time, this District Public Art Plan has been formulated as a broad framework to be used as the guide for all future applicants.

This District Public Art Plan identifies priority sites as opportunities for visible and prominent public art projects throughout the district. These prominent and publicly accessible sites, as described in Section 5 and identified on the attached map, are on both private and public lands. As such, this plan addresses the public art opportunities for the whole area.

This plan also establishes the process and objectives of future public art plans which will be submitted to Council for approval. To fulfill these objectives, three types of documents will be prepared in the following chronology. A District Public Art Plan will be prepared by the City; a Public Art Master Plan will be prepared by Concord Adex; and the subsequent Tower Public Art Plans will be prepared by the landowner(s) as each phase of the development progresses.

2.1 Public Art Master Plan:

Following Council's approval of the Railway Lands District Public Art Plan, the land owner will be expected to prepare and submit for approval by the Toronto Public Art Commission and City Council a Public Art Plan, prior to or in conjunction with its first site plan application for its landholding. For the purposes of clarity, the Public Art Plan (as referred to in document title: section 11.d) will hereafter referred to as the Public Art Master Plan and the objectives are outlined in Section 6.

2.2 Tower Public Art Plans:

As outlined in the Precinct Agreement, Section 4 entitled: Public Art for the Public Art Lands, the owner is required to prepare and submit a Public Art Plan for each Tower erected on the Public Art Lands which exceeds 20,000 sq. metres of gross floor area. These Tower Public Art Plans will provide greater detail as to the owner's intent in fulfilling the public art obligation. The objectives for this type of document are outlined in Section 7.

3. Urban Design Objectives:

The City has prepared Urban Design Guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West, which are a companion to this document. The city's urban design objectives should be reinforced by the public art program, and can be summarized briefly as follows.

The north/south streets, particularly Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street, connect the city to the waterfront, and will be designed as major urban boulevards to knit the Railway Lands into the city. Bremner Boulevard is the main east west spine to the new neighbourhood, and will serve as the primary address for most of the new residential developments, as well as the school, Community Centre and park. The intersection of Bremner Boulevard and Spadina Avenue is the focal point to the neighbourhood, and a landmark tower is proposed at the north/east corner.

Two new bridges are planned to be constructed over the course of development. One is a permanent pedestrian bridge located west of Spadina Avenue, and the other is a temporary pedestrian bridge located along the Portland Street alignment, which may later become a permanent vehicular bridge.

The public realm will be defined and contained by urban street walls. The heights of the streetwall vary according to the street, but it is anticipated that Spadina Avenue will continue to have a built form character similar to the area north of Front Street.

It is anticipated that the pedestrian experience be urban, friendly, and safe. Frequent building entrances, retail uses at sidewalk level, and views into windows, along the street, and through the site to the city and water should enliven and enhance the quality of the place.

The neighbourhood has a central community park, which abuts the Gardiner Expressway, and two linear park systems connecting the development sites along the north and south edges. These open spaces will serve to connect and focus the neighbourhood, as well as integrate into a larger city wide system of paths, bike trails and parks. An interpretation Centre for the history of the site is planned at the northwest corner of the Railway Lands (Block 36).

It is also anticipated that the buildings constructed in the Railway Lands will be of a quality and type not typical in Toronto to date. The densities are high, and so most sites will develop as slender, high rise residential towers with small floor plates. These buildings will have an impact on the skyline, and the composition of the base, shaft, and particularly the top, will be prominent and highly designed.

4. District Public Art Opportunities:

4.1 Site Potentials and Art Selection Methods :

Public art should complement and reinforce the City's urban design objectives for this areas as appropriate. It can be used as the conceptual framework to organize the open spaces of a development or adjacent to the development including streets, parks, plazas, setbacks or streetscapes. As such, public art opportunities should be identified at the earliest stage in order to provide a well-balanced public art program with a variety of public art types and locations.

The sites will also suggest the types of public art opportunities to be pursued such as integrated, semi-integrated or discreet installations. Within the Railway Lands, it is expected that a full range of possibilities exist. These types of opportunities will also inform the owner about required timing and integration into construction schedules in order to fulfill expectations.

4.2 List of Priority Sites in the Public Realm:

The map attached illustrates the most important sites for public art. Please note that these priority sites are not listed in order of importance. They are as follows:

Community Park:

Public art opportunities in the community park could contribute to the overall landscape treatment of the park. The edge treatment, particularly along Bremner Boulevard, will require stairs or ramps, and the two north corners are anticipated to be framed as "gateways" into the park. The south edge of the park is immediately adjacent to the Gardiner Expressway, and it is anticipated that land form may play a role in environmental remediation.

Linear Parks:

The north and south linear parks will serve as walkways, and are encouraged to be designed with lots of animation and access. Frequent placement of entrances, furnishings, and a continuity of lighting and signage will hopefully enhance safety. Planting levels will be relatively low to permit long sight lines, and view will terminate in the major open spaces.

Publicly Accessible Open Space on Block 20/23:

This open space differs from the community park as it is almost immediately south of the SkyDome. It is aligned with the view corridor extending south from Blue Jays Way, and has a level grade relationship with Bremner Boulevard.

Garrison Creek Interpretive Site on Block 36:

This site is described in some detail in the document The Garrison Creek Linkage Plan, approved by Toronto Community Council in September 1998. It provides a background of the Garrison Creek system, including the historic shoreline, and recommends a coordinated approach to civic improvements along the Garrison Creek alignment.

Bremner Boulevard and Spadina Avenue Intersection:

The intersection of Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard is the convergence of two major urban streets, and as such, will be extremely important in creating an identity for the area around it. Views along Spadina will terminate at this point because of the grading of the Spadina Avenue bridge. The building on the north east corner of the intersection (block 22) has provision for a 56 storey (160 metre) tower which will become a significant component of the Toronto skyline.

Bremner Boulevard Streetscape:

The design of the Bremner Boulevard streetscape, particularly the north side, will be unique as a wide urban boulevard with a double row of trees, providing addresses for much of the new residential and retail development. It will also connect the Fort York open space system with the Roundhouse Park.

Spadina Avenue Streetscape:

Freestanding weather protection is encouraged along both sides of Spadina Avenue as it crosses the rail corridor and approaches the Gardiner Expressway (south portion of blocks 25 and 20/23). Both locations are seen as difficult building sites, but important pedestrian connections from the city to the waterfront. These elements may provide opportunities for interpretation for public art.

Front Street and Spadina Avenue Intersection:

This site is identified in the Urban Design Structure Plan as a gateway, into the city and from the railway lands. The existing grades and built form also make it a logical transition place, and an opportunity may exist to consider, all four corners as a coherent whole.

Permanent Pedestrian Bridge:

The Urban Design Guidelines encourage a design competition for the permanent pedestrian bridge spanning the rail corridor between Spadina Avenue and Portland Street. As part of the selection process, an artist is may be required to be part of the design team.

4.3 Individual Development Sites:

Each block will offer a public art component. Such opportunities should be consistent with the City's overall objectives for public art on private lands and must be sited on publicly accessible areas within the privately-owned development.

4.4 Community Involvement:

It is important to recognize that community involvement is vital in the development of any public art plan. Given the large expanse of area, the community can be involved in many ways. Competitions are effective methods in which the local, national and, if possible, international artistic community can participate in influencing the area. Representatives of the residential, commercial and non-profit communities could also be invited in the art selection process. Other methods of community involvement could range from temporary public art projects to apprenticeship programs. The owners are encouraged to be creative in their proposals to involve the community.

5. District Art Selection Methods:

The prominence of a site, its opportunities, and the required time line for public art implementation will help determine the art selection methods chosen. These should include a range of different types of competition types. Art selection methods could include open competitions (one, two or three stage), invitational competitions and direct commissions. Other methods include artists as members of a design team. Competitions may be local, national or international based on the site criteria and budget. The owners are also encouraged to explore different approaches in anticipation of more than one area being developed at the same time.

6. Public Art Master Plan Objectives:

The District Public Art Plan will be used as a framework in the preparation of a Public Art Master Plan, which will include a greater level of detail. The Public Art Master Plan should demonstrate how the public art can affect the area through planned implementation planned in tandem with the overall development of the most publicly accessible sites. This Public Art Master Plan, which will be prepared by the land owner, will be reviewed by the City for consistency with objectives of the District Public Art Plan and the City's public art guidelines (as published by the Urban Planning).

As outlined in (document name 11.d), the City requires that the Public Art Master Plan addresses the following overall areas:

(a) a general description of the objectives for the Public Art Master plan;

(b) identification of public art priorities and potential site opportunities;

(c) a description of the proposed competition methods for the selection of artists and art projects;

(d) a preliminary estimate of the projected overall budget, based on currently estimated construction costs, including how and when the funding will be dispersed; and,

(e) a description of the administrative process required to implement the Public Art Plan.

The conditions of the Stadium Precinct Agreement will also be referenced in the preparation of the Public Art Master Plan.

7. Tower Public Art Plan Objectives:

The previously approved Public Art Master Plan will be used as the guiding principles in the preparation of the individual Tower Public Art Plans. As the development progresses, the individual plans will be presented by the landowner for approval by the City. The Acknowledgment Agreement will specify the determined timing and required details for the approval by the City of each of these plans. The Development Approval Manual, as published by Planning and Development outlines the requirements for public art plans. These individual plans will provide the specific program details that have been developed in consideration of the various site conditions and opportunities. This plan will also include a detailed budget based on the anticipated gross construction costs, the art selection method, competition and installation projected schedule, administrative structure details, and proposed public relations program. Maintenance responsibilities and obligations will also be outlined, if it is anticipated that the public art will be sited on publicly-owned lands. The individual names of the art selection committee members will be listed and submitted for approval along with the names of the invited artists, if the competition is by invitation.

8. Maps:

Please see attached.

9. Reference Documents

1. Development Approval Manual: "Public Art Plan Requirements", published Urban Planning and Development Services, 1996.

2. Urban Design Guidelines: Public Art Section, published Urban Planning and Development Services, 1997.

3. Southtown District Public Art Plan, 1993

4. Gooderham and Worts District Public Art Plan, 1994

5. Canada Life District Public Art Plan, 1995

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following reports, which where forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover:

- (May 1999) Railway Lands - Uran Design Guidelines; and

- (May 1999) Railway Lands - District Public Art Plan.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated June 8, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the encroachment of Sign No. 17 and the associated stage described in the May 12, 1999 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be approved by Council and that Metro By-law No. 118 be amended to permit an encroachment of up to 4.5 metres into the road allowance, at a height of not less than six metres above grade;

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to submit a Bill in Council to amend Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the encroachment of said Sign No. 17 and the associated stage;

(3) the applicant make a separate application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for all aspects of the proposed encroachments and enter into the necessary legal agreements with respect to these encroachments and matters which may be required further to conditions of the Site Plan Approval of this development, all prior to the issuance of a building permit; and

(4) the lease of rights including, but not limited to air rights, commercial uses and signage be reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and be subject to a fair market rental determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and payable to the City of Toronto, Transportation Services Account, as of the installation date.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-law attached to the report (May 20, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2) Recommendations Nos. 1-7 of the report (May 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Act. The public meeting was held on May 26, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council. 

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a site specific amendment to Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit the erection of a variety of first and third party signs on the Yonge and Dundas Street facades of the Toronto Eaton Centre including a media tower.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Application No. 999021 to permit the erection of 32 signs and sign areas on the Yonge and Dundas Street facades of the Toronto Eaton Centre including a media tower, be approved substantially in accordance with the plans on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(2) The City Solicitor be authorized to submit a Bill in Council substantially in accordance with the provisions set out in Appendix A, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the installation of signage proposed by this application on the Yonge and Dundas Street facades of the Toronto Eaton Centre including a media tower;

(3) The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report directly to Council, if necessary, in the event that a proposed encroachment of Sign No. 17 is recommended; including consideration of the following:

(a) that an encroachment agreement be entered into between the applicant and the City of Toronto for the encroachment of Sign No. 17 identified on Maps attached to this report, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b) that the City Solicitor be authorized to submit a Bill in Council to amend Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the encroachment of said Sign No. 17; and

(c) that the lease of rights including, but not limited to air rights, commercial uses and signage be reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and be subject to a fair market rental determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and payable to the City of Toronto, Transportation Services Account, as of the installation date; and

(4) The applicant be advised , upon approval of Application No. 999021 of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(5) The applicant, Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd., pay all legal costs of the City of Toronto in the preparation and registration of any agreements required;

(6) The applicant be advised that the City reserves the right to amend the proposed by-law in the future with respect to the signs and sign areas proposed by this application in order to address potential future conflicts which may arise with respect to ensuring pedestrian and vehicle safety in the vicinity and potential future conflicts with respect to existing or future residential buildings in the vicinity; and

(7) The appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to undertake the steps necessary to give effect to the foregoing.

Background:

Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd. is undertaking a major reconstruction of the exterior of the Toronto Eaton Centre along Yonge Street between Queen and Dundas Street. Phase I, which is currently under construction between Queen Street and Trinity Way, includes a new facade with individual storefronts accessible from the street and large format fascia signage on a 3 metre strip of land purchased from the City. Phase I received Site Plan Approval on April 21, 1998 and an amendment to Chapter 297 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 (By-law 835-1998).

Phase II of the reconstruction from Trinity Way north to Dundas Street includes a minor expansion of the Eaton's store within the existing colonnade area on Yonge Street, the reconstruction of the Yonge Dundas corner entrance pavilion and the erection of a media tower above the corner pavilion. The Committee of Adjustment approved a minor variance on February 18, 1999 for the height of the proposed "Eaton Centre Media Tower" structure. Site Plan Approval is pending for Phase II and will be issued in May 1999.

The purpose of this report is to discuss the application by Cadillac Fairview to amend Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit signage on the facade of the Phase II reconstruction including signage on the "Eaton Centre Media Tower".

Site and Surrounding Area:

The site is located on the west side of Yonge Street, south of Dundas Street West (see Figure 1).

The site, known municipally as 1 Dundas Street West, accommodates the Toronto Eaton Centre including the Eaton's department store.

The site is immediately to the west of a new public square which is under development south of Dundas Street East. North and east of the square, additional development is planned including "Metropolis", a retail and entertainment complex which will include large format signage. To the south of the new public square on the east side of Yonge Street between Dundas Square and Shuter Street are a variety of retail stores, services and office uses in buildings ranging up to 6 storeys or 20 metres in height. North of the site, there is a new Gap store with enhanced parapet signage and the Atrium on Bay, where new retail uses and a 55-metre media tower are under construction.

The immediate context of this site is almost exclusively non-residential with Ryerson Polytechnic University to the north east across the new public square and a variety of commercial buildings in the surrounding area. Further to the east, along Dundas Street East, there is residential development which, with the creation of the public square, will have a view west to Yonge Street and portions of the signage which is proposed. The nature of this impact is discussed in the Planning Considerations below.

Since 1994, City Council has approved a number of initiatives with a view to stimulating the revitalization of lower Yonge Street, centred on the intersection of Yonge and Dundas Streets. Known as the Downtown Yonge Street Regeneration Program, the initiatives have included the adoption of a Community Improvement Plan including a facade improvement program, Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and undertaking the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project, a four-parcel redevelopment on the east side of Yonge Street which includes the aforementioned public square and Metropolis project.

These initiatives are intended to provide a stimulus for private sector reinvestment in the area which has included large scale improvements such as the development of a media tower by the Atrium-on-Bay and the reconstruction of the Toronto Eaton Centre exterior. This area of Yonge Street is emerging as an "urban entertainment centre" featuring showcase retail, entertainment uses including cinemas and live theatre, restaurants and spectacular, large format and high quality signage. It is anticipated that the image of Yonge and Dundas will strengthen as a focal point for residents, workers and tourists when the unique experiential quality of the area is enhanced by additional complimentary redevelopment.

Proposal:

The proposal is to amend Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit various types of signage to be affixed to the building facade and proposed media tower at the corner of Yonge and Dundas. In general, the signage proposal is an extension of the pattern of signage and the sign types approved for both Phase I of the Eaton Centre facade reconstruction and the Atrium Media Tower to the north of Dundas Street.

32 signs or sign areas are proposed as follows (See maps attached to this report):

(a) 9 large format fascia signs located on the upper Eaton's department store Yonge Street facade;

(b) 7 small format fascia signs located within a reconstructed 2-storey base along the lower Eaton's department store Yonge Street facade;

(c) 5 sign areas for fascia and animated signage located in a parapet signage band wrapping around the corner of Yonge and Dundas capping a reconstructed entrance pavilion including 1 rotating sign which will enclose a "pop-out" stage used for special events;

(d) 9 building or tenant identification signs in various sizes in individual sign letter or fascia sign formats at various locations on the upper Eaton's department store facade and above building entrances;

(e) 1 feature animated sign at the corner of Yonge and Dundas; and

(f) a media tower providing a general display area for signage, including on-site projecting signage, above the podium at Yonge and Dundas .

Compliance with Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code:

The general areas of non-compliance with Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code for the following sign types as numbered on the maps attached to this report are as follows:

Sign Sign Description of sign and compliance issue

Types Numbers

(a) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 1 - 9 9 Fascia signs used for the purpose of identification and/or third party advertising; compliance issues include: signs not permitted on the upper facades of the building; exceeding the maximum areas for signs; interference with windows (although they are windows of exit stairs only); proximity to other large signs; and third party advertising not permitted

(b) 6 10 - 16 7 Fascia signs used for the purpose of identification and/or third party advertising; compliance issues include third party advertising not permitted and the lack of a relationship to the commercial unit

(c) 5, 8 and 11 24 - 32 9 Sign Letter Identification Signs; compliance issue is that certain locations are above permitted heights for building identification signs

(d) 9 17 1 Fascia sign (rotating stage location); compliance issue includes exceeding the maximum areas for signs; not permitted on the upper facades of the building; proximity to other large signs; third party advertising not permitted and encroachment into Right of Way beyond permissible extent

(e) 10, 12, 13 and 15 18 - 21 4 fascia parapet area; compliance issues same as d) above

(f) 11 22 Media Tower: The proposed media tower does not comply with Chapter 297, signs of the Municipal Code in that it is an undefined sign type. Recognizing this, the application contemplates a site specific exception to permit signage to be affixed at any given time to the media tower subject to the standards and regulations set out in the exception; other issues of compliance: exceeds the extent of coverage permitted, animated signage will face Dundas Street West, proximity to other large signs and interference with windows.

(g) 16 23 Corner Animated Sign; compliance issues include undefined sign type

While a significant number of the above noted signs encroach into the Yonge or Dundas Street road allowances, the proposed encroachments are within 0.45 metres which is permitted under the Metro by-law governing former Metropolitan Road Allowances.

Sign No. 17 is associated with a proposed stage area located on the roof area approximately 11 metres above grade. This stage area would be used for special events primarily held in the new public square on the east side of Yonge Street. Subject to appropriate use and design requirements, the stage would "pop out" or project into the road allowance with the sign dropping or rotating below it to facilitate a clear view. The maximum encroachment is approximately 3.65 metres into the road allowance when the stage area is deployed and 11 metres above grade, with a component hanging below the deployed stage at 6 metres above grade. The appropriateness of this encroachment is under review and may require further reporting in respect of the any encroachment agreement which may be required and the amendment of former Metro By-law No. 118.

Planning Considerations:

(a) Compliance with the Official Plan:

Both the Part I Official Plan and Section 18.355 contain policies which provide a framework supportive of the proposed sign by-law amendments in this application. This area generally between Queen Street and College Street, which has been identified as Downtown Yonge Street, is designated a Prominent Area, a Priority Retail Street and a Reinvestment Area in the Official Plan. The area is also subject to the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan.

Taken together, these policy and implementation initiatives are intended to bring about the regeneration of Downtown Yonge Street as the major shopping and entertainment focus within the Greater Toronto Area. It is the stated policy of Council to "substantially increase the proportion and range of residents of the Greater Toronto Area and visitors who use Downtown Yonge Street". The initiatives are intended to rebuild the historic role that this portion of Yonge Street has played as a significant tourist, shopping and entertainment destination. The Toronto Eaton Centre, which is playing a significant part in the revitalization of the area, is itself the City's number one tourist destination, with over 50 million visitors per year, a quarter of whom are tourists.

The means through which the planning objectives are to be achieved include improving the amount and quality of street-related retail space, building a new public square and improving the quality and variety of building facades and signage.

The addition of large format, high quality signage in the area will create a stronger sense of place and visual identification, urban vitality and experience in a similar fashion and character as the signage in New York City's Times Square and in London, England's Piccadilly Circus. Improving the amenity of the street through such measures as signage will promote a sense of liveliness and safety for pedestrians and tourists alike.

Section 3 of the Official Plan contains policies which address the impact of built form on the public realm among other matters. Compliance with this policy is discussed in c) below.

(b) Compatibility with area redevelopment:

The signage proposed with this application is consistent with the signage programme approved for the Phase I reconstruction of the Yonge Street facade of the Toronto Eaton Centre and will complete and unify the appearance of the Centre from Queen to Dundas Streets, responding to a long standing concern that the Centre should relate better to the Yonge Street environment.

Additional large format, high quality signage which is approved or proposed in the vicinity of the new public square includes the Atrium Media Tower and the enclosed parapet signage at the GAP building on the north west corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets, a "media and signage facade" proposed for the Metropolis development on the north east corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets and potential signage associated with Parcel C of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project at Victoria and Dundas Streets.

All of these developments, in which a significant signage component is characteristic, will contribute to a critical mass and an exciting, experiential image, distinguishing the vicinity of Yonge and Dundas from other areas of the downtown and the City where the approach to signage is more intensively regulated.

(c) Reconciling building presence, signage flexibility and impact:

It is a clear design objective to create a dramatic building presence at the south west corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets through the introduction of the Eaton Centre media tower constructed above the proposed new entrance pavilion. The signage erected on the tower will create significant interest and serve as a landmark on the west edge of the new public square. In addition, the applicant has advised that the use of signage in this format is an emerging trend with rising standards of design and technical understanding and a desire for flexibility to respond to market demand. Recognizing that the stated aim of large format signage is to achieve high impact, visibility and market flexibility, staff have also discussed with the applicant design and regulatory approaches which achieve the following objectives relating to mitigating impact:

(i) the desire to mitigate the impact of shadows which may be cast by the media tower on the public sidewalks north of Dundas Street during the early afternoon;

(ii) the desirability of revealing the structural quality of the media tower, of providing a degree of transparency provided by the ribbed appearance of the tower and of providing measures which break down the mass of the tower;

(iii) the desire to reduce potential conflicts with respect to vehicles and pedestrians and with existing or future residential uses in the vicinity; and

(iv) the desire to harmonize signage with the architecture, conceptual design and the massing to achieve a high quality appearance.

Upon evaluating detailed shadow studies prepared by the applicant, reviewing several options for potential signage on the media tower, reviewing locations for existing and future residential development and reviewing potential traffic impact, the following measures are being recommended to achieve the objectives noted above:

(i) restricted coverage of 25 percent of the outside columns (columns 1 and 7) and the top rail of the media tower and minimum average one metre separating distance between signs with the display area of the media tower;

(ii) a requirement for 15 percent or 32 square metres of the upper portion of the media tower in the vicinity of columns 4 and 5, where no sign coverage will be permitted;

(iii) minimum requirements to concentrate animated signage within the parapet signage band, corner feature sign and media tower and with application of animated signage limited to tri-vision elsewhere on the facade;

(iv) defined areas for fascia signage to harmonize signage with the facade reconstruction; and

(v) requirements for measures to ensure high quality signage mechanics and direct lighting towards signs.

There are two main areas of future potential conflict which staff have discussed with the applicant.

(a) While it is recognized that some occupants of existing or future residential buildings to the east may experience increased visibility of signage at Yonge and Dundas, the pattern and extent of signage being considered is limited to buildings in the immediate proximity of Yonge Street and the Yonge and Dundas intersection. By focussing the new signage in and around Yonge and Dundas, the initiative is intended to take advantage of visibility primarily from approaches north and south on Yonge Street, east and west on Dundas Street and from the new public square. For example, the existing residential building to the east at Bond Street is approximately 220 metres away from the proposed media tower. This separation mitigates the impact of the signs and future buildings may serve to block views which now exist. Residential which is constructed on Yonge Street south of Dundas Street would face some of the new fascia signs, although the use of animation in this area would be limited to tri-vision; and

(b) A significant amount of animated signage may be erected in the vicinity of Yonge and Dundas including the proposed Eaton Centre Media Tower. It is recognized that this area is in a transition, where future large format signage is intended to be noticed and may cause distractions. Awareness of the changes by motorists and pedestrians may be gradual. While the proposed media tower is set back approximately 11 metres from the curb and further from the traffic signals on Dundas Street West, the City will monitor the situation with respect to pedestrian and vehicular safety, with specific regard to the hours of operation of the lighting, the intensity of illumination and animated signage.

The limits of the Yonge and Dundas sign precinct and the measures taken to mitigate impact, understanding that visibility is a key characteristic of this kind of signage, represents a reasonable approach within the City's current experience and an appropriate balance of objectives and interests for this important revitalization area. Nevertheless, through future by-law amendments, the City retains the right to place restrictions on the hours of operation of the lighting, the intensity of illumination and animated signage and the use of back and front lit fascia signs and within the media tower signage display area in order to address the potential future conflicts which may arise with respect to ensuring pedestrian and vehicle safety in the vicinity and potential future conflicts with respect to existing or future residential buildings in the vicinity.

It should be noted that the Pedestrian Level Wind Study submitted with the Site Plan Approval application associated with this sign application found that the existing wind conditions were generally unchanged and the wind climate for the proposed development is predicted to be acceptable for the anticipated pedestrian activities in the vicinity of the tower.

It should also be noted that as a condition of Site Plan Approval, the owner has agreed to a requirement that a third party consulting engineering firm be retained by the City and paid for by the owner to provide the City with assurances with respect to the quality, durability and maintainability of the physical materials used in the construction of the media tower.

Overall, it must be emphasized that the reduced regulatory approach at Yonge and Dundas and with this proposal is intended to clearly signal that this intersection and new development and related signage which surround it should be different, special and unlike any other downtown or main streets in the city. The rationale for this approach as expressed in this report is intended to prevent the initiative at Yonge and Dundas from becoming a precedent or justification for signage of a similar scale in less suitable locations.

(d) Clarification between first and third party signage:

In By-law 835-1998, certain fascia signs were permitted to contain first party signage, with the intent that they identify business, products or services associated with the Toronto Eaton Centre site, a large mixed-use property containing hundreds of stores and services. In order to clarify that, in this somewhat unique situation where some first party signage may be construed to be third party, it is proposed that the Phase II by-law recommended in this report provide an appropriate site specific definition which applies to the Phase II signage (Sign Nos. 10-16) to permit first party signage which is associated with business, products or services found on the entire site.

Implementation:

Appendix A attached to this report contains an outline of the by-law amendment recommendations developed to permit the proposed signage and the regulatory measures outlined in this report.

Conclusions:

The Phase II reconstruction of the exterior of the Toronto Eaton Centre between Trinity Way and Dundas Street will complete the rejuvenation of the face of a full city block on Yonge Street. The signage proposed in this application is complimentary to the signage approved in Phase I of the reconstruction and will be consistent with the nature of large format, high quality signage which has been approved and proposed in the immediate vicinity of the intersection of Yonge and Dundas. The proposal is consistent with the Official Plan policies in this area and contributes to the regeneration program now underway. Through various regulatory measures, steps have been taken to achieve a balance between the intended high impact of the signage and the visibility of the signage for existing and potential residential developments and vehicles and pedestrians moving through the area. The dynamic characteristics of these signs is an integral part of distinguishing this area and rebuilding the image of the area into one of prominence and excitement, unique in the Greater Toronto Area.

Contact:

Gregg Lintern

Community Planning, East Section, South District

Telephone: 392-7363

Fax: 392-1330

Email:glintern@toronto.ca

Draft By-law Recommendations - Toronto Eaton Centre Phase II Exterior Signage

A. Amendment to Metro By-law 118 for Sign No. 17 sign encroachment may be required

B. Amendment to former City of Toronto Municipal Code Ch. 297, Signs;

Definitions:

Parapet Signage Band Display Area - The area on the surface of the parapet which is made available on the structure for the purpose of erecting or displaying signage.

Media Tower Display Area - The area on the surface of the media tower which is made available on the structure for the purpose of erecting or displaying signage.

On-site Signage Projection Area - On-site area delineated on plans where signage is permitted to project beyond the surface of the media tower.

Media Tower Restricted Cover Zone "A" - Column 1 and 7 and the top rail delineated on plans and elevation drawings where no more than 25 percent of the total aggregate area may be covered by signage otherwise permitted by this by-law at any time.

Media Tower Restricted Cover Zone "B" - Upper portion of the media tower delineated on plans and elevation drawings where 15 percent or 32 square metres of the total area must not be covered by signage at any time.

Animated Signage - Illuminated signs which may contain animated copy, changeable copy, electronic message display copy, tri-vision panels, video screens which may feature animated graphics, real moving images and/or text utilizing televisions, computer video monitors, liquid crystal displays, light emitting diode displays, neon displays and similar displays.

Corner Animated Sign Area - A sign which may have a maximum size of 10 by 10 metres to be permitted within a defined area identified as Sign No. 23 at the corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets which may only be Animated Signage.

1. Schedules to show elevations of facade and media tower including plan drawings as necessary delineating fascia sign locations and areas as defined above, in plan and elevation as required (sign types and numbers as per maps attached to this report)

2. Permit 7 illuminated fascia signs - Sign Types 1,2,3 and 7 (Sign Nos. 1 -6 and 9)

(a) back-lit or front-lit illumination; and

(b) third party advertising permitted.

3. Permit 1 illuminated fascia sign - Sign Type 4 (Sign Nos. 7 and 8)

(a) back-lit or front-lit illumination;

(b) tri-vision permitted; and

(c) third party advertising permitted.

4. Permit 9 illuminated sign letter identification signs - Sign Types 5, 8 and 11

(Sign  Nos. 24-32)

(a) back-lit illumination only;

(b) sign letters;

(c) tenant or building identification; and

(d) for Sign Nos. 30 and 31, front-lit or back-lit illumination and fascia sign option permitted.

5. Permit 7 illuminated fascia signs - Sign Type 6 (Sign Nos. 10 - 16)

(a) back-lit illumination only; and

(b) signage related to businesses, products and services provided on the entire Eaton Centre site.

6. Permit 1 rotating illuminated fascia sign - Sign Type 9 (Sign No. 17)

(a) back-lit or front-lit illumination;

(b) animated signage permitted; and

(c) third party advertising permitted.

7. Permit Parapet Signage Band Display Area - Sign Types 10, 12, 13 and 15 (Sign Nos. 18 - 21)

(a) animated signage permitted; 50 percent of display area required to be animated signage by July 1, 2003;

(b) back-lit illumination for fascia signs;

(c) third party advertising permitted; and

(d) for tri-vision signs, front-lit permitted .

8. Permit Media Tower Display Area - Sign Type 11 (Sign No. 22) - Media Tower Display Area, Media Tower Restricted Cover Zone "A", Media Tower Restricted Cover Zone "B", On-site Signage Projection Area all as shown in plan and elevation as appropriate

(a) third party advertising and animated signage permitted;

(b) not more than 10 percent of the Media Tower Display Area has signs which have an area less than 15 square metres;

(c) back-lit illumination permitted; use of front-lit illumination limited to 50 percent of display area with the exception that tri-vision and three dimensional signage where it occurs may be front-lit;

(d) minimum average separation distance between all signs of 1 metre;

(e) signs permitted to project beyond the surface of the media tower provided projection within the On-site Signage Projection Area;

(f) static tension vinyl signs permitted; no flags, banners, pennants, cloth, other forms of plastic or similar flexible material permitted;

(g) all sign and media tower surfaces are sealed or covered in a manner that prevents the exposure of all mechanics, electronics, internal sign elements and minimizes corrosion; and

(h) indirect signage illumination, where permitted, is located so as to direct light solely towards signs

10. Permit Corner Animated Sign - (Sign No. 23)

(a) permit animated signage only; and

(b) maximum sign display area of 10 by 10 metres permitted within defined location on map; not permitted to be erected in such a way as to overlap with signs permitted within the Parapet Signage Band Display Area.

General Provisions:

(a) All exposed sign framing shall be corrosion resistant;

(b) Unless otherwise indicated, the signs or display areas shall not contain Animated Signage or consist of flags or pennants;

(c) Unless otherwise indicated or in the case of tri-vision, the signs are illuminated with internal illumination with the light source located within the sign or behind the copy;

(d) All display areas shall contain sign copy at all times save and except Sign Nos. 1 - 9 and No. 22, subject to appropriate repair, maintenance and sign changing; and

(e) No sign shall be erected or displayed with resembles an official traffic signal, traffic sign or other traffic regulating device unless the sign is erected and displayed for the purpose of direction and is entirely on private property.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To make recommendations respecting an encroachment of Sign No.17 and an associated stage further to recommendations for the approval of a site specific amendment to Chapter 297, Signs of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code at 1 Dundas Street West (Toronto Eaton Centre).

Financial Implications:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) The encroachment of Sign No. 17 and the associated stage described in the May 12, 1999 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be approved by Council and that Metro By-law No. 118 be amended to permit an encroachment of up to 4.5 metres into the road allowance, at a height of not less than 6 metres above grade;

(2) The City Solicitor be authorized to submit a Bill in Council to amend Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the encroachment of said Sign No. 17 and the associated stage;

(3) The applicant make a separate application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for all aspects of the proposed encroachments and enter into the necessary legal agreements with respect to these encroachments and matters which may be required further to conditions of the Site Plan Approval of this development, all prior to the issuance of a building permit; and

(4) The lease of rights including, but not limited to air rights, commercial uses and signage be reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and be subject to a fair market rental determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and payable to the City of Toronto, Transportation Services Account, as of the installation date.

Background:

At its meeting of May 26, 1999, Toronto Community Council adopted my May 12, 1999 report respecting a request for approval of a site specific amendment to Chapter 297, Signs of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit signage on the Yonge and Dundas Street facades of the Toronto Eaton Centre including a media tower.

Recommendation 3 of my report provides authority to report directly to Council respecting a proposed encroachment associated with Sign No. 17 discussed in the report and the need to enter into an encroachment agreement and amend Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the encroachment.

Comments:

Sign No. 17 is associated with a proposed stage located on the roof area approximately 11 metres above grade. The stage is to be used in association with special events which may occur in the vicinity including the City's new public square on the east side of Yonge Street. The stage is designed to "pop out" into the road allowance above the sidewalk, with the sign dropping or rotating below it to facilitate a clear view. The maximum encroachment is approximately 4.5 metres into the road allowance when the stage is being deployed, with an encroachment of approximately 3.65 metres in a fixed position with the sign component hanging below the deployed stage at 6 metres above grade.

A preliminary review of the feasibility of the proposal has been undertaken by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. In addition, the merit of this kind of facility has been considered in light of the planning objectives for the revitalization of this area. Based on these considerations, the proposal can be conceptually endorsed. There are further details to be finalized by the applicant including but not limited to structural considerations, compliance with the Building Code and operating parameters including a Crowd Control Plan. I am recommending that the encroachment of Sign No. 17 and the associated stage be approved by Council and that Metro By-law No. 118 be amended to permit the encroachment described above. I am further recommending that the applicant make a separate application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for all aspects of the proposed encroachments and enter into the necessary legal agreements with respect to these encroachments and matters which may be required further to conditions of the Site Plan Approval of this development, all prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Contact:

Gregg Lintern

Community Planning - South District (East Section)

Telephone: 392-7363

Fax: 392-1330

Email: glintern@toronto.ca)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 706 1/2 Gerrard Street East.

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 has caused concern due to falling fruit has been filed by Mr. Que Nguyet Chau, 706 ½ Gerrard Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4M 1Y3, owner of 706 ½ Gerrard Street 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.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty centimetre diameter horsechestnut in fair condition. The applicant is concerned with the falling chestnuts and the threat that they pose to his children. The fruit of the chestnut is approximately six centimetres in diameter and in certain years the tree will produce an abundant crop that can be a nuisance when the fruit ripens in September. The tree in question provides an aesthetic screen between the properties located on Gerrard Street East and those located on Simpson Avenue. The view from both sides would be significantly changed if the chestnut tree were to be removed. The chestnut tree should be pruned by a qualified tree expert to repair improper pruning cuts that have occurred in the past. The pruning will also provide some clearance of branches overhanging the applicant's rear yard.

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. Two 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

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The Toronto Community Council, on January 20, 1999, deferred consideration of the January 4, 1999 report for removal of a privately owned horsechestnut tree from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and 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.

Source of Funds:

There are no funding implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments:

On February 4, 1999, a meeting took place at 706 ½ Gerrard Street East with the applicant, a representative from Councillor Layton's office and representatives from Public Health and Forestry. The issue of pruning the fifty centimetre diameter horsechestnut was discussed at the meeting and in the opinion of Urban Forestry staff, pruning could be undertaken to reduce the amount of fruit fall in the yard of the applicant without injuring the tree. The applicant agreed to the pruning of the tree and withdrew the request for tree removal. Urban Forestry staff agreed to help the applicant obtain quotations for tree pruning from private tree companies. The lowest bid to undertake the agreed upon pruning was $250.00.

On February 12, 1999, a second meeting took place with Urban Forestry staff, the applicant and their choice for a tree service company. At this meeting the applicant indicated that she does not want to spend the money to have the tree pruned and requested that Toronto Community Council proceed with the application for tree removal.

The problem that the applicant is experiencing with the chestnuts that fall in the late summer can be dealt with by pruning some of the limbs that overhang their property. In the opinion of Urban Forestry staff, the inconvenience resulting from the falling chestnuts is minor and not a valid reason to remove a majestic shade tree.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

(416) 392-6644

(A copy of the letters in opposition, referred to in the foregoing report dated January 4, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 26, 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 (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Myrna Moore, in opposition to the application, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue be approved, 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 this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 9, 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 fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue, because of a negative public poll. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue; or

(2) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Ms. Maria Biliouras, in a letter dated March 16, 1999 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse her application for a boulevard cafe fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue.

Comments:

Ms. Maria Biliouras, owner of Caffe Picasso, 785 Carlaw Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 1R1, submitted an application on September 11, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 63.48 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). It can accommodate 14 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 57 people.

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

As the proposed cafe flanks a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until two years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated October 22, 1998 to November 23, 1998 was conducted on Carlaw Avenue, between premises 795 to 831 and 796 to 834, including 538 and 560 Danforth Avenue, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 2 languages). The results of the poll were as follows:

Ms. Biliouras was advised in writing on December 11, 1998 that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued. Furthermore, Ms. Biliouras was advised that a further application for a boulevard cafe fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the public poll which was November 23, 1998.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Ms. Biliouras a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue because the poll result was negative.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal for the operation of a boulevard cafe fronting 785 Carlaw Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

(A copy of a letter, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 26, 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 following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (April 21, 1999) from Ms. Kathryn Oughtred;

- (May 19, 1999) from Mr. Jim Kopatsaris; and

- Petition with 54 names in favour, submitted by Bildmas James.

Mr. Tony Biliouras, on behalf of Ms. Maria Biliouras, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) permit parking on New Street, between Davenport Road and the west end of New Street, be converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To convert permit parking on New Street, between Davenport Road and the west end of New Street, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking' with the current hours of 24 hours daily, 7 days a week. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the conversion of permit parking on New Street, between Davenport Road and the west end of New Street, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; or

(2) (a) permit parking on New Street, between Davenport Road and the west end of New Street, be converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; and

(b) 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 John Adams, on behalf of the residents, to have permit parking on New Street, between Davenport Road and the west end of New Street, converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'.

Comments:

New Street is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 5E, and the hours of operation are 24 hours daily, 7 days a week.

In area 5E, there are 532 on-street permit parking spaces with 505 permits issued to date. On New Street itself, there are 3 on-street permit parking spaces with a total of 3 permits issued to residents on the street.

The conversion of permit parking on New Street, between Davenport Road and the west end of New Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on February 24, 1999 and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

New Street, between Davenport Road and the west end of New Street, has already reached 100 percent space allocation. Any further applications for permit parking would have to be placed on a waiting list.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that permit parking be converted to a street name basis on the section of New Street.

Contact Name:

Lisa Forte

Telephone: (416) 392-1801

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the applicant's request to amend the settlement for the Victoria University Hotel by redesigning the proposed hotel at 100-108 Charles Street to incorporate the demolition of the existing historic houses and to request Council approval to do so and to make any associated revisions with respect to the current approvals. Should Council agree with the applicant's request, this report requests authority to inform the Ontario Municipal Board of this decision and authorize City staff to take the necessary steps to implement this decision.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council concur with the applicant's request to demolish the historic houses at 100 -108 Charles Street as part of the new hotel proposal for these lands;

(2) Should City Council adopt Recommendation 1, that:

(a) the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be instructed to amend the Site Specific By-laws to permit the revised hotel proposal; and

(b) the City Solicitor be requested to inform the Ontario Municipal Board of these amendments and that City staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to implement such decision.

Council Reference/Background/History:

This site is located at the north-west corner of Charles and St. Thomas Streets southwest of the intersection of Bay and Bloor Streets. The site is adjoined by two apartment buildings to the north and a four storey office building currently under construction to the west (the McKinsey building). These buildings are located on lands owned by Victoria University, as are the Jackman Hall Residence (8 storeys) and the Centre for Christian Studies buildings (4 storeys) on the south side of Charles Street. East of the site, the developer of 1 St. Thomas received Ontario Municipal Board approval for a 36.3 metre high hotel in 1991.

In 1989, Victoria University issued a proposal call for the development of a larger site which included 21 and 23 Sultan Street. Following a hearing between the City, Victoria University and Huang and Danczky, in 1991, the Ontario Municipal Board approved an application for a much larger hotel than is currently proposed. However, that transaction was not completed and the University pursued other options for the site. The Board Order for that proposal was not taken out.

In 1993, as a result of the Cityplan process, and in recognition of the Board decision, the City redesignated the site from University to Low Density Mixed Commercial/Residential Area and rezoned it to CR T3 C2 R3. In light of the fact that there was still an outstanding Board Order, the University appealed these new designations to the OMB.

In 1997, Victoria University agreed to separate the site into two smaller parcels with the easterly portion to be developed as a hotel. The amended proposal was significantly reduced in size and improved from that previously approved by the Board. As a result, the City and Victoria University reached a settlement under which the appeal against Cityplan was dropped and new site specific by-laws were written for a reduced hotel proposal which included the retention of the front facades of the existing historic buildings on the north side of Charles Street. The previous proposal which had been approved by the Board similarly included the retention of such facades. Despite an objection by the Windsor Arms Hotel to the settlement, the Board ultimately issued a decision approving the revised hotel and office development but required minor amendments to the by-laws to reflect changes to the parking ratio and the requirement for amenity space.

The Order has not yet been taken out as during the course of completing the design of the building, the applicant concluded that the requirement to include the facades of the historic houses was not possible as originally intended.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Factors in Considering the Request of the Applicant to Amend the OMB Settlement:

1. Changing Context of the Area:

The context in which this 1999 hotel application has been made is different from that of the 1993 Board hearing. One building has been erected and another has been approved that, while complementary to each other, change the streetscape of Charles Street.

(a) The McKinsey Building:

At the time of the 1993 Board hearing, the proposal was to construct a much larger hotel on a site that included the area fronting on Charles Street and St. Thomas as well as Sultan Street. It was proposed that the height of that hotel be 10 to 11 storeys. Since that time, the original site has been divided into two smaller, separate parcels and the westerly portion has been approved for a four storey office building, the McKinsey building, which is currently under construction.

Both the McKinsey building and the proposed new hotel have been designed by the same firm which has allowed for the inclusion of similar design features and the use of complementary building facades and materials. Common elements shared by these two buildings include the height of the podium, the podium setback from the lot line and the use of similar claddings of split face stone, rubble stone and brick.

In recognition of its design merits, the McKinsey building won the 1997 Award of Merit from the 'Canadian Architect', a national review of Canadian architecture.

(b) Victoria University Theatre:

At the time of the original proposal for the whole site, the property on the south side of Charles Street to the west of this site was used as a tennis court. Since that time, a 500 seat theatre has been approved for the site. While not designed by the same architects, in designing both the McKinsey building and the proposed new hotel, efforts were made to achieve similar massing, setbacks and compatible materials. It is the intention of Victoria University to use identical cladding materials as used in the office building and proposed for the new hotel, when constructing the theatre.

2. Condition of Existing Historic Buildings:

The applicant's contractor has advised that structural repairs to the existing masonry and the repair and removal of masonry units of the historic buildings will likely be required given their current state of repair. To construct an efficient parking structure, the excavation and construction that would have to occur under and around the facades could also create a safety hazard. The alternative of dismantling the facades now and reconstructing them after the garage construction was completed, would be extremely difficult and unsatisfactory from the perspective of historic preservation and was found to be undesirable, when presented to the Heritage Toronto Board in November 1998. At that time, the Board agreed that it would not oppose the demolition of the houses but that an extensive record of what is contained within the houses should be undertaken and salvageable architectural material be made available to any interested party. The applicant has indicated their agreement with such a condition.

3. Patio:

At the time of the most recent Board hearing, the provision of a patio on the Charles Street side of the hotel was addressed. Access to the patio was to be gained through the historic facades. In the current proposal, the patio, while slightly smaller than the original design, is proposed for the same location on the Charles Street frontage with similar access points.

4. Required Amendments to the Existing By-laws:

The applicant requests the City's agreement to amend the settlement for Victoria University Hotel, as these matters have proceeded to the Board by way of a settlement between the parties. Should Council agree to the demolition of the historic houses, the following amendments would be required for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law:

(a) Official Plan Amendment:

Official Plan Amendment 118 would need to be amended so as to delete from Section 18.424 (3) the words following "Section 41 of the Planning Act" in order to remove the requirement for an agreement to secure the conservation and maintenance of the portions of the Charles Street houses;

(b) Zoning By-law Amendments:

The following changes would be required to the Zoning By-law to permit the building as proposed:

(i) Amend the building envelope to delete the references and outline of the existing buildings that were to be retained and to reflect the new proposed envelope;

(ii) Increase the podium height from 12.3 to 13.7 metres;

(iii) Extend the podium setback to a distance of 1.085 metres from the lot line;

(iv) Amend the building envelope to permit the projection of a one-storey podium element (4.625 metres in height) to a distance of 0.2 metres from the lot line;

(v) Delete Section 1."440. Sections (xi) and (xii) pertaining to the entrances from the historic buildings; and

(vi) Delete references in (xvi) to Section 8 (3) PART XI 2(I) and (ii) so as to leave in place the requirement for entrances and main floor to be at grade.

Contact Name:

Helen Coombs

Telephone: (416) 392-7613

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: hcoombs@toronto.ca

Confirmed Municipal Address: 100, 102, 104, 106 & 108 Charles Street West and 4 St. Thomas Street.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

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

- (May 25, 1999) from Ms. Lisa Levitt;

- (May 20, 1999) from Mr. Mark Young; and

- Drawing submitted by Mr. Joe Berridge.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 24 Yonge Boulevard.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 7, 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 close to a garage and drops sap on parked vehicles has been filed by Mr. Grieg Mason, Tradewinds Tree Care, 69 Larmont Street, Aurora, Ontario, L4G 1V8, agent for the owner of 24 Yonge Boulevard, Mr. Edward O'Sullivan, 90 Cheritan Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4R 1S6.

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 sixty-two centimetre diameter black walnut in fair condition. The tree is located next to a dilapidated wooden garage, and a portion of the crown overhangs the parking area for the property. The issue of falling fruit and sap onto parked cars can be remedied with the purchase of a car cover, or construction of a simple carport. The walnut tree is a healthy and very significant specimen that is environmentally and aesthetically important to properties on McNairn Avenue and Yonge Boulevard, and a tree worthy of protection in the community.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection was received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council for consideration in this matter.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone: (416) 392-6644

(A copy of a letter, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 26, 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 following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. Barry Campbell, Campbell & Partners Communication; and

- (Undated) from Scott and Laura Purdy.

Mr. Bob Dejong appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for driveway widening for a second parking space at 53 Lawrence Avenue West, notwithstanding that it does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit a second parking space. 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:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening for a second parking space, at 53 Lawrence Avenue West, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; or

(2) City Council approve the application for driveway widening for a second parking space at 53 Lawrence Avenue West, notwithstanding that it does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 28, 1999, had before it a communication (April 22, 1999) from Councillor Walker, requesting an exemption, on behalf of the owner, from the Municipal Code, to permit driveway widening for 2 spaces at 53 Lawrence Avenue West.

The Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report, at its meeting to be held on May 26, 1999 on this matter.

Comments:

The subject property was initially approved for front yard parking for one parking space in January 1989. The subsequent owners submitted an application for a second parking space, and were granted approval in February 1995, under the previous more permissive regulations at the time. However, the parking pad was never constructed and the property was not licensed for the second parking space.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 248 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current driveway widening criteria of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248, limits the number of licensed parking space to one.

Ms. Branislava Sutulov and Mr. Aleksej Sutulov, the current owners of 53 Lawrence Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario M5M 1A3, submitted an application for a single parking space in May 1998. The property is currently licensed for the one parking space.

They subsequently submitted a further application for a second parking space in November 1998, and were refused, as the request for the second parking space was not permitted under the current criteria of the Code.

Given that the Municipal Code does not permit the licensing of 2 parking spaces, approval for a second parking space cannot be granted.

Notwithstanding that the criteria of the Code does not permit the licensing of a second parking space, the submitted proposal was reviewed to determine if it meets the physical criteria of the Code. The submitted proposal shows that the area of the two parking spaces will be paved in Turfstone pavers to a maximum width of 4.48 m. The proposal will meet the physical requirements of the Code, i.e. the minimum landscaped open space, soft landscaping and clearances around trees.

Conclusions:

As the property is already licensed for one parking space, and the property is not eligible for a second parking space, under the criteria set out in Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the request for a second parking space should be denied by Council.

Contact Name:

Nino Pellegrini

Telephone: (416) 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (April 22, 1999) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council recommend that the request for driveway widening at 53 Lawrence Avenue West be approved for two spaces from the present one, subject to the applicant entering into an agreement with the City and paying all applicable fees.

On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Sutulov, I am requesting an exemption to the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit driveway widening for two automobiles. This request is made for the following reasons:

(1) Both Mr. and Mrs. Sutulov run their business out of their home. Each requires their own automobile but there is only one off street parking space. Street permit parking is not available, as Lawrence Avenue West is a four lane arterial road.

(2) Mr. and Mrs. Sutulov mutual drive between the two adjacent houses is not wide enough for an automobile to pass through (2.28 metres wide). That is why driveway was approved for one automobile several years ago.

(3) With the rebuilding of their parking area, Mr. and Mrs. Sutulov propose to resurface the parking area with turfstone pavers which allow for drainage, within each paver, thereby increasing the porous area for drainage from the present 42.75 percent of the front yard to 46.70 percent of the front yard.

(4) A permit was issued several years ago by City staff for a second driveway widened parking space but the work was not done. In 1996, City policy changed and when Mr. and Mrs. Sutulov requested permission to widen the parking area for two cars, it was refused.

(5) Mr. Aleksej Sutulov's has poor health, and needs his automobile to be productive and there just aren't any other places for the two to park both cars.

Since there is ample room to park a second car on the front of the property, there is no permit parking available on this arterial road and there are numerous reasons listed above that illustrate merit for this application to grant a second off street parking space, I therefore ask the Toronto Community Council to adopt the above-noted recommendation to enable the owners of 53 Lawrence Avenue West to proceed with their application for driveway widening.

(A copy of the letters, referred to in the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 26, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council:

(1) approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Sackville Street flank of 317 Carlton Street, subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) approve the application for boulevard marketing fronting 317 Carlton Street and on the Sackville Street flank and the continued maintenance of the 2.4 metres high chain link fence, subject to the business operator entering into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto and the business operator agreeing to remove the fence from the boulevard upon receipt of 60 days written notice to do so.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 10, 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 applications for commercial boulevard parking and boulevard marketing, together with a request to maintain a 2.4 m high chain link fence. As these matters are of public interest, they are scheduled as deputation items.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) (a) City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Sackville Street flankage of 317 Carlton Street; or

(b) City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Sackville Street flank of 317 Carlton Street and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) (a) City Council approve the application for boulevard marketing fronting 317 Carlton Street and on the Sackville Street flank, subject to the removal of the chain link fence; or

(b) City Council approve the application for boulevard marketing fronting 317 Carlton Street and on the Sackville Street flank and the continued maintenance of the 2.4 m high chain link fence subject to the business operator entering into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto and the business operator agreeing to remove the fence from the boulevard upon receipt of 60 days written notice to do so.

Background:

Mr. David Drinkwalter, o/a Wisteria, 317 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2L8, submitted applications on December 9, 1998 requesting licences for commercial boulevard for the parking of one vehicle positioned parallel to the road and for boulevard marketing fronting 317 Carlton Street and on the Sackville Street flank allowing him to display goods in areas of 11.0 sq. m and 59.6 sq. m., respectively, on the boulevard. In addition, Mr. Drinkwalter is requesting permission to maintain an existing 2.4 m high chain link fence which encloses the proposed marketing area on Sackville Street (Appendix A).

Comments:

Application for Commercial Boulevard Parking - Sackville Street Flank of 317 Carlton Street

Applications for commercial boulevard parking are governed by the criteria set out in § 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. One of the provisions of the Municipal Code requires that reference shall be made to the applicable Zoning By-law with respect to a commercial boulevard parking application to ensure the current use is either permitted under the applicable Zoning By-law or as a legal non-conforming use.

The property is situated within an area zoned R3 Z1.0 which is being used as a flower shop. Urban Planning and Development Services have advised that the use of the property for retail use, as a grocery store, is permitted as per a former Committee of Adjustment decision (legal non-conforming use). According to a representative of Urban Development Services, the current use of the property as an antique and flower shop is not permitted in a residential district. In addition, an addition to the property has been constructed without authority.

Section 313-42(F) of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code states that parking on boulevards, in residential areas where the property is used for legal non-conforming uses, does not apply to any property in an area that is in a residential use district under the applicable Zoning By-law which is not used as a residential property by reason of a legal non-conforming non-residential use.

Under the circumstances and in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, the property does not qualify for consideration of commercial boulevard parking. However, due to an administrative oversight, the application was deemed to be feasible and a poll of the area residents on Sackville Street was conducted to determine their support.

The Municipal Code requires that in cases where the proposal for commercial boulevard parking meets the criteria and flanks a residential street, a poll is required of owners and residents within 100 m of the proposed parking. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated March 10, 1999 was conducted on Sackville Street between Nos. 322 to 348 and 361 to 387, including 315 and 317 Carlton Street, to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Mr. Drinkwalter was advised in writing on April 15, 1999 that given the response to the public poll did not indicate support of his application, a licence could not be granted for commercial boulevard parking. Regrettably, Mr. Drinkwalter should also have been made aware that the location did not qualify for consideration for commercial boulevard parking because of the legal non-conforming status of the property.

Applications for Boulevard Marketing Fronting 317 Carlton Street and on The Sackville Street Flank and Request to Maintain Chain Link Fence - Sackville Street Flank of 317 Carlton Street:

We examined Mr. Drinkwalter s request for boulevard marketing fronting 317 Carlton Street and determined that consideration could only be given to a reduced area of 11.0 square metres, due to the presence of a community notice kiosk and a bench for public use. With respect to the Sackville Street flank of the property, Mr. Drinkwalter s request to occupy 59.6 square metres of City boulevard is acceptable.

In accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, a licence may be issued to shopkeepers wishing to display merchandise on the sidewalk/boulevard adjacent to their respective businesses provided sufficient sidewalk space remains for unimpeded pedestrian use. The display is to be confined to within the licensed area and displayed upon properly constructed display stands.

Although the Municipal Code is silent as to what times the merchandise must be removed from the boulevard to within the main premises, the intent of the Municipal Code and the practice of the Department is to require shopkeepers to remove their merchandise at times when the business is not in operation. As such, there are no provisions within the Municipal Code to allow for fencing to enclose licensed marketing areas.

While we can appreciate that the business operator may have erected the 2.4 metres high chain link fence in response to vandalism, as indicated in Councillor Pam McConnell s letter of March 3, 1999 (Appendix B ), there are no provisions within the Municipal Code to allow for the fence to remain. For the information of the Toronto Community Council, there are numerous fences that have been constructed within the City boulevard fronting the residential properties in the vicinity of 317 Carlton Street, the majority of which are constructed of wrought iron. The height of the fences vary in height from approximately 0.91 m to approximately 1.83 m. The existing 2.4 metres high chain link fence on the Sackville Street flank of 317 Carlton Street does not adversely impact the street allowance.

We can proceed to issue a boulevard marketing licence fronting 317 Carlton Street and on the Sackville Street flank, once the fence has been removed.

Conclusions:

As the property is being used for a non-permitted use within a residential district, the Municipal Code does not permit commercial boulevard parking. Furthermore, the public poll, although not required, did not indicate support of the application for commercial boulevard parking. Under the circumstances, staff cannot issue Mr. Drinkwalter a licence for commercial boulevard parking.

With respect to Mr. Drinkwalter s request for boulevard marketing, staff can proceed to issue Mr. Drinkwalter a boulevard marketing licence.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to grant the requested commercial boulevard parking and permission to maintain the 2.4 m high chain link fence.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: (416) 392-7564

(A copy of Appendix B, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 26, 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 following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (May 21, 1999) from Ms. Paula King and Mr. Tim Woolstencroft;

- (Undated) Petition - 11 signatures in support submitted by Wisteria;

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. Gordon Robinson and Mr. David Grant; and

- (May 26, 1999) from Ms. Stephanie Brooks-Keeley.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council

(1) approve the request to transfer the existing licensed cafe privileges on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street, 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; and

(2) approve the application for an extension to the boulevard cafe for a total area of 44.1 square metres on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. In addition, a commercial boulevard parking spot for one vehicle will require cancellation due to the extended cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on staff's refusal of an application for an extension of a boulevard cafe on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street, because of a negative public poll. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) (a) City Council deny the request to transfer the existing licensed cafe privileges on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street; or

(b) City Council approve the request to transfer the existing licensed cafe privileges on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street, 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; and

(2) (a) City Council deny the application for an extension to the boulevard cafe on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street; or

(b) City Council approve the application for an extension to the boulevard cafe for a total area of 44.1 square metres on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. In addition, a commercial boulevard parking spot for one vehicle will require cancellation due to the extended cafe.

Background:

Councillor Betty Disero, in her letter of April 28, 1999 (Appendix 'A'), has requested us to report on the denial of an application for a boulevard cafe extension on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street.

Comments:

Ms. Laura Urciuoli, owner of Federal Star Ltd., o/a Toto's Tavola Calda Cafe, 1627 Dupont Street, Toronto, Ontario M6G 3A7, submitted an application on February 10, 1999, requesting consideration of boulevard cafe privileges on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street for an additional area of approximately 14.02 square metres.

Our records show that a boulevard cafe licence was issued to Ms. Urciuoli's parents in August 1996 for an area of 25.1 square metres, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). It can accommodate six tables, with a potential seating capacity of 23 people.

Given the inconsistency with the applicant's proposal compared with the previously licensed area, staff contacted Ms. Urciuoli to arrange for an on-site meeting to clarify the situation. Subsequently, staff met with Ms. Urciuoli's father on February 23, 1999, at which time Mr. Urciuoli indicated that they were interested in extending the existing licensed area. On Appendix 'B', we have also included the extended area requested for cafe purposes.

Applications to transfer existing licensed boulevard cafes are forwarded to the appropriate Ward Councillors for comments and do not require public polling of the neighbourhood. A transfer application means that the previously licensed boulevard cafe is not altered in any way, physically or operationally.

However, in cases for all new applications or the applicant requests an extension to a previously licensed area and the application flanks a residential zone, Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 metres from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until two years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

In keeping with the applicant's request to extend the existing licensed area, a poll dated March 10, 1999 to April 9, 1999 was conducted on Edwin Avenue, between Nos. 73 to 101 and 84 to 106, including 1625 and 1635 Dupont Street, to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ms. Urciuoli was advised in writing that because of the negative response, we could not issue a licence for a boulevard cafe. Furthermore, Ms. Urciuoli was advised that a further application for a boulevard cafe on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the poll which was April 9, 1999.

In response to our letter, Ms. Urciuoli forwarded a letter dated April 29, 1999 to us advising that the residents should have never been polled and that she was only interested in transferring the previously licensed area (Appendix 'C').

Subsequently, Councillor Disero has requested us to report on staff's denial to transfer the existing cafe licence.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Ms. Urciuoli a licence for the extended boulevard cafe area on the Edwin Avenue flank of 1627 Dupont Street because the poll result was negative. However, if the Toronto Community Council feels that it is appropriate to transfer the existing boulevard cafe licence to Ms. Urciuoli, she will be required to provide a third party liability insurance policy to indemnify the City and enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the transfer of licensed cafe privileges.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: (416) 392-7564

(A copy of Appendices A and C, referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations; and the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services, was requested to direct the applicant to cease and desist from operating the boulevard café forthwith, pending a Council decision on the applicant's 1999 licence application.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the continuation of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flankage of 390 Spadina Road. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the continuation of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road; or

(2) Should City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of July 14, 1997, approved the application for a boulevard cafe, notwithstanding the negative response to the public poll on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Avenue on a trial basis for one year only, subject to:

(a) the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(b) the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., seven days a week;

(c) the applicant agreeing to serve no alcohol to patrons in the boulevard cafe for the first year; and

(d) the applicant agreeing that no music be played within the area of the outside patio and that this also be noted as a condition in the licence.

Comments:

Licences for boulevard cafes are governed by the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The provisions of the Municipal Code require the applicant approved for a boulevard cafe, prior to receiving a licence or permission to operate a boulevard cafe, to pave the area for cafe purposes, provide a third party liability insurance policy to indemnify the City, pay in advance an annual rental fee for the use of the City boulevard used for cafe purposes and enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Paving of the boulevard was completed in October 1997 and on June 23, 1998, the requisite insurance documentation was received. Subsequently, a licence was issued on June 25, 1998 to Mr. Ian Genua.

Although a licence for the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road was not issued until June 25, 1998, advice of complaint was received on May 19, 1998 through Councillor Adam's office, on behalf of an area resident, that the cafe was operating beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction and alcohol was being served within the boulevard area. In addition, the complainant indicated that amplified sound, being played inside the restaurant, was being emitted onto the patio area.

Staff met with Mr. Genua, the business operator, to discuss the area resident's concerns pertaining to the operation of the cafe and noise related matters as affecting Montclair Avenue. In addition, Mr. Genua was advised of his responsibility in ensuring that the cafe must be closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. and all doors and windows, located on the residential flankage (Montclair Avenue), must be closed while there is music or amplified sound being played inside his restaurant.

Following the issuance of the cafe licence, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Inspections showed that the cafe operated according to the conditions of approval with the exception of one occasion, namely July 10, 1998. Again complaints were received from area residents pertaining to the cafe being operated past the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction and alcohol being served and consumed within the boulevard cafe area. On July 10, 1998, staff observed that patrons were seated within the cafe area at approximately 11:35 p.m., however, no table service was being provided by the restaurant.

According to Mr. Richard Coulis, Legal Counsel for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, staff of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission have conducted periodic inspections because of complaints pertaining to the serving of alcohol on the patio and on one occasion observed alcohol being served to the cafe patrons of Savorie Restaurant on July 22, 1998. At a hearing on May 7, 1999 to review the liquor licence application for the outdoor patio, the business operator was issued a suspension of the liquor licence for the restaurant for 5 days (last 2 days of July and first 3 days in August 1999).

In addition, his licence application for the outdoor patio was not approved pending decision on the continuance of the boulevard cafe by City Council.

Conclusions:

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council approve the continuance of the boulevard cafe on the Montclair Avenue flank of 390 Spadina Road annually under the present terms and conditions imposed by City Council of the former City of Toronto.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: (416) 392-7564

Ms. Hanya Kizenchuk appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. David P. Silcox;

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. John M. Dirks; and

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. Joseph L. Bloomenfeld, Barristers & Solicitors requesting deferral.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (May 25, 1999) from Mrs. Eyton Jennings, President, York Condominium 33 regarding the issuance of a boulevard cafe license for Montclair Avenue, flankage of 360 Spadina Avenue (Midtown); and

(ii) (June 8, 1999) from Mr. Joseph L. Bloomenfeld, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Savorie Restaurant, requesting that Council either grant an extension of the boulevard cafe license or alternatively, refer this matter back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve the boulevard cafe application on the Ashdale Avenue flank of 1438A Gerrard Street East, on condition that the cafe be required to close and clear by 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, as set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 10, 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 public poll conducted in connection with the business operator's request for a boulevard cafe licence on the Ashdale Avenue flank of 1438A Gerrard Street East. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the applicant's request to operate the boulevard cafe on the Ashdale Avenue flank of 1438A Gerrard Street East; or

(2) (a) Should City Council approve the boulevard cafe application on the Ashdale Avenue flank of 1438A Gerrard Street East, the cafe be required to close and clear by 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, as set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of February 17, 1999, in considering my report (January 28, 1999) entitled "Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - 1438A Gerrard Street East, Ashdale Avenue Flankage", deferred consideration of the matter and directed the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a further poll in the area in English, Chinese and Hindi.

Comments:

A poll dated March 9, 1999 to April 8, 1999 was conducted on Ashdale Avenue, between 277 to 325, including 1432 and 1438 Gerrard Street East, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in French, English, Chinese and Hindi (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in four of languages). The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Conclusions:

Although the proposed cafe meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (i.e. setbacks, physical design, location), this criteria cannot address all public concerns which relate to additional noise, garbage, pedestrian and car traffic.

Given the favourable results of the second poll, should the Toronto Community decide to recommend that City Council grant the applicant's appeal and issue a boulevard cafe licence on the Ashdale Avenue flank of 1438A Gerrard Street East, it may be appropriate to issue a temporary cafe licence until the end of the 1999 cafe season and I be requested to monitor the cafe operation during the 1999 cafe season and report back to the Toronto Community Council at the end of the 1999 summer cafe season on the operation of the cafe for consideration as a deputation item.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: (416) 392-7564

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 28, 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 on the Ashdale Avenue flankage of 1438A Gerrard Street East, because of a negative public poll. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Ashdale Avenue flankage of 1438A Gerrard Street East; or

(2) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Ashdale Avenue flankage of 1438A Gerrard Street East, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Satinder Gulerya, in his undated letter which was received by our Department on December 18, 1998, together with 1 original and 5 photocopied ballots from area residents and businesses supporting his application, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his application for a boulevard cafe on the Ashdale Avenue flankage of 1438A Gerrard Street East.

Comments:

Mr. Satinder Gulerya, owner of Chaat Rendezvous, 1438A Gerrard Street East, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1Z8, submitted an application on August 26, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Ashdale Avenue flankage.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 24.32 square metres, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 5 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 22 people.

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

As the proposed cafe flanks a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 metres from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until two years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated September 22, 1998 was conducted on Ashdale Avenue between 277 to 325, including 1432 and 1438 Gerrard Street East, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Gulerya was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued. Subsequently, Mr. Gulerya forwarded an undated letter which was received by our Department on December 18, 1998, together with one original ballot and five photocopies of ballots from area businesses and residents in the area, requesting an appeal of staff's refusal to grant him boulevard cafe privileges. Mr. Gulerya feels that given the low response to the poll compared to the number of ballots issued and the results of his own poll, that he should be granted the boulevard cafe privileges requested.

Although there are clear criteria surrounding the physical design, setbacks, location, and hours of operation of boulevard cafes, these technical criteria alone cannot address all public concerns which may also relate to the quality of the operation of a boulevard cafe or the behaviour of current and future clientele. Because cafes do introduce a new level of activity in an area, the use of a confidential poll to determine neighbourhood opinion is the basic premise for the current polling system. Since secret ballots may only be cast by residents within the affected area, it provides an unbiased result. A copy of the standard ballot for boulevard cafes sent to property owners and tenants currently on the assessment rolls within the polling area is attached (Appendix 'B'). These ballots may be issued in multiple languages, depending on the Ward Councillor(s)' wishes, and explain clearly the reasons for the poll and how the results will be used.

The polling period is 30 days from the date the ballots are mailed. Original ballots may be received until 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the poll. In cases where a ballot is forwarded to a property and the ownership or occupancy of the property has changed, the ballot will be accepted and tabulated in the results of the poll if the ballot is returned with supporting documentation noting the change in the ownership and/or occupancy of the property.

With respect to the ballots that were attached to Mr. Gulerya's appeal, the ballots were received well after the closing date of the poll which was October 22, 1998. Furthermore, since these ballots were not confidential, they were considered null and void.

In consideration of the foregoing, these locations were not taken into consideration when tabulating the results of the poll.

For Toronto Community Council's information, a licence for a boulevard cafe was issued to the former restaurant operator of 1438A Gerrard Street East on July 12, 1984. The cafe licence was cancelled on February 18, 1997, as the restaurant operator failed to maintain a third party liability insurance policy to indemnify the City.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Gulerya a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Ashdale Avenue flankage because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied that the public poll was conducted properly.

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

Contact Namer:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: (416) 392-7564

(A copy of Appendix B referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 28, 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 on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West, because of a negative public poll. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West; or

(2) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Jonathan Vrozos, in his letter of December 8, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a boulevard cafe on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West.

Comments:

Mr. Maurice Jouenne, acting on behalf of Mr George Vrozos, 1222373 Ontario Inc., o/a Ye Olde Brunswick House, 481 Bloor Street West, submitted an application on August 11, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 142.37 square metres, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). It can accommodate 32 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 127 people.

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

As the proposed cafe flanks a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated September 22, 1998, to October 22, 1998 was conducted on Brunswick Avenue between Nos. 249 and 289 and 252 and 298, including 481 and 483 Bloor Street West, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 2 languages). The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Maurice Jouenne was advised in writing that because of the negative response, we could not issue a licence for a boulevard cafe. Furthermore, Mr. Jouenne was advised that a further application for a boulevard cafe at 481 Bloor Street West could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the poll which was October 28, 1998.

A brief history of the 6 applications made by the Brunswick House since 1985 is outlined in Appendix 'C'.

For your Committee's information, the Noise Control Section has an ongoing file regarding complaints with respect to loud music and noise emanating from the interior of 481 Bloor Street West. In addition, I have consulted with a representative of Toronto Police Service, Division No. 14, who advised that complaints have been received relating to noise, rowdiness and alcoholic related matters in the vicinity of 481 Bloor Street West especially on Bloor Street West. Staff of Toronto Police Service, Division No. 14, are concerned that if a patio is permitted to operate on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West and similar problems, as identified above, were encountered, this would have a negative impact on the neighbouring residential properties.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. George Vrozos a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Brunswick Avenue flankage because the poll result was negative.

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

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: (416) 392-7564

(A copy of Appendices A and C, referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following transmittal letter (April 7, 1999) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council, on March 30, 1999, had before it a report from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - 481 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue Flankage (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council also had before it the following communications:

- (February 11, 1999) from Mr. Keith P. Sharp;

- (March 24, 1999) from Mr. Keith P. Sharp;

- (March 24, 1999) from Mr. M. Swartz;

- (March 24, 1999) from Ms. Rhea Plosker and Mr. Michael Carter;

- (March 24, 1999) from Ms. Gail Misra and Mr. Mark Rowlinson;

- (March 29, 1999) from Dr. Daniel Contogiannis; and

- (undated) from Mr. Mark Mainguy.

The Toronto Community Council, given the overwhelming opposition of the residents, and given that there were 155 calls for police assistance at the corner of Brunswick Avenue and Bloor Street West in the past 12 months:

(1) deferred consideration of this matter to permit the applicant to consult with the community; and

(2) directed that, should the applicant wish to continue processing the application in four months' time, a poll be undertaken at the applicant's expense.

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

- (February 11, 1999 and March 24, 1999) from Mr. Keith P. Sharp;

- (March 24, 1999) from M. Swartz;

- (March 24, 1999) from Ms. Rhea Plosker and Mr. Michael Carter;

- (March 24, 1999) from Ms. Gail Misra and Mr. Mark Rowlinson;

- (March 29, 1999) from Dr. Daniel Contogiannis;

- (undated) from Mr. Mark Mainguy; and

- (May 20, 1999) from Ms. Cornelia Schuh.

- (May 26, 1999) from Dr. Daniel Contogiannis;

- (Undated) from Robin Donovan, D.I.G. I.T. Productions;

- (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Anne Racz;

- (March 20, 1999) from Mr. Bill Townley;

- (March 23, 1999) from Pasquale Ciancio;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Karl Pirrsalu;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Losend;

- (March 24, 1999) from Mr. Stanley Cach;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Ken Kennedy and Mr. John McDonald;

- (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Janet Goodfellow;

- (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Wendie Mudie;

- (Undated) from Mr. Donald McCardle;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Michael Bool;

- (Undated) from Mr. Irving Phelm;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Nunfie;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Jack Hans;

- (March 26, 1999) from Mr. John Green;

- (March 27, 1999) from J. Chronopoulos;

- (Undated) from Ms. Kristi Lynch;

- (March 25, 1999) fro Ms. Melanie Campbell;

- (March 25, 1999) from Ely Sbrozzi;

- (Undated) from Janelee Jordon;

- (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Mary Legakis;

- (Undated) from Ms. Sarah Craig;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Courtney Muier;

- (March 25, 1999) from Magold Potemski;

- (March 24, 1999) from Mr. Daniel Aucsin;

- (March 22, 1999) from Mr. Daniel Sirk;

- (March 21, 1999) from Mr. Alan Sirk;

- (Undated) from Shawn Hood;

- (Undated) from R.M. Billington;

- (Undated) from Mr. Andrew Beveridge;

- (March 25, 1999) from Jason James;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Mark Munro;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Omar Maxwell;

- (March 25, 1999) from Stan Allenby;

- (March 23, 1999) from H. Dann;

- (March 25, 1999) from Kazia Stusarenko;

- (March 24, 1999) from Corrine Chin-Fook;

- (March 25, 1999) from Mavis Waters;

- (May 25, 1999) from Ol'ga Floegl-Huntley;

- (May 25, 1999) from Ms. Margaret Ma;

- (May 23, 1999) from David and Katherine Wurfel;

- (May 22,1999) from Dr. Julian Tsafaroff;

- (May 21, 1999) from Mr. Keith Sharp;

- (May 24, 1999) from Ms. Juta Auksi;

- (May 20, 1999) Petition - 55 signatures in opposition;

- (May 19, 1999) from Ms. Gail Misra and Mr. Mark Rowlinson;

- (May 21, 1999) from Ms. Rosie Schwartz;

- (March 1999) Petition - 51 signatures in support;

- (May 26, 1999) from Mr. Gable;

- (May 24, 1999) from Ms. Leah Cohen;

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. Robert Wilson;

- (May 25, 1999) from Ms. Sandra DeAthe and Mr. John Newton;

- (Undated) from M. Swartz;

- (May 26, 1999) from Ms. Judith Robertson;

- (May 26, 1999) from Mr. Keith Cowling, Superintendent, 14 Division, Toronto Police Service; and

- (May 20, 1999) Petition - 22 signatures in support.

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

- Mr. Robert Barnett, Sussex-Ulster Residents Association;

- Mr. David Huntley;

- Mr. A. O'Donohue;

- Mr. Daniel Contogiannis; and

- Mr. Paul Voulgaris, Boomerang Design Planning Inc.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition to the granting of a boulevard cafe:

(i) (May 20, 1999) from Ms. Elisabeth Bruckmann and Mr. Rikk Salamat, Toronto;

(ii) (May 21, 1999) from Mr. Keith P. Sharp;

(iii) (May 26, 1999) from Mr. Mark Mainguy; and

(iv) (June 9, 1999) from Mr. Loui Masouras, President, Friendly Greek '99 Inc.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 71 Front Street East, 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.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owners' appeal of staff's refusal of applications for boulevard cafes fronting 71 Front Street East and 73A Front Street East. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) (a) City Council deny the applicant's requests for tree relocation and for a boulevard cafe fronting 71 Front Street East; or

(b) should City Council approve the request for a boulevard cafe fronting 71 Front Street East, notwithstanding non-compliance with the requirement of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the applicant be required to pay for the removal of 2 parking meters in front of the proposed cafe and pay for the annual loss in parking revenue for the loss in the three metered parking spots; also to pay for the relocation of the trees; and

(2) (a) City Council deny the applicant's request for a boulevard cafe fronting 73A Front Street East; or

(b) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 73A Front Street East, 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.

Background:

Councillor Rae, in his letter of February 15, 1999 (Appendix 'A') addressed to Commissioners Joe Halstead, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Barry Gutteridge, Works and Emergency Services, together with a letter dated November 18, 1998, from Mr. Philip Noble, on behalf of Mr. David Rimmer, owner of The Jersey Giant Pub and Restaurant, 71 Front Street East has requested a report on outlining the history of this request and what steps could be taken to consider a cafe.

In addition, the cafe operator of the neighbouring property at 73A Front Street East, The Red Pepper, also requested an appeal on staff's decision to refuse his application.

Comments:

Setback Requirements for Boulevard Cafes:

Boulevard cafes are governed by the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. One of the provisions of the Municipal Code is that boulevard cafes shall not extend beyond a line located 0.46 metre back of and parallel to the sidewalk and that is not less than 2.1 metres from the curb or a further distance from the roadway as may be determined, in order to sustain unimpeded pedestrian movement. The Department's policy is to provide a 2.13 metres clearance from the curb and/or any street furnishings (i.e. trees, benches, utility poles, etc.) in order to maintain adequate pedestrian space.

71 Front Street East - The Jersey Giant Pub and Restaurant:

Mr. David Rimmer, owner of 1180890 Ontario Ltd. o/a The Jersey Giant Pub and Restaurant, submitted an application on June 1, 1997, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 71 Front Street East.

At this location, the City sidewalk at its narrowest point is approximately 2 metres in width measured from the building wall to the edge of a decorative paving strip and the width of the sidewalk becomes greater as you travel easterly. The paved strip consists of decorative pavers around an in ground tree and two parking meters. The paved strip measures approximately 2.6 metres (see Appendix 'B').

As indicated, the Municipal Code requires that a minimum clearance of 2.1 metres be maintained for pedestrians. Inspection showed that the distance from the tree to the building wall of 71 Front Street East is approximately 2.46 metres and taking into consideration the clearances requirement as described above, this would leave only 0.33 metre available for a boulevard cafe.

In short, there is insufficient sidewalk space to accommodate a boulevard cafe and still meet the minimum clearances. Accordingly, Mr. Rimmer was advised in our letter dated October 6, 1997, that his application could not be considered.

Subsequently, Councillor Rae, in his letter of February 15, 1999, together with an information package from Mr. Philip Noble of Street Events Management, on behalf of The Jersey Giant Pub and Restaurant, has requested Commissioners Halstead and Gutteridge to report on the feasibility of relocating the trees fronting 71 Front Street East to facilitate a boulevard cafe.

The trees in question are two 15 cm diameter honey locusts. The trees are in good condition, valued at $339.30 and do not qualify for removal. There is insufficient room at the existing site to relocate the trees. The trees cannot be successfully relocated to another site due to their size. These planting locations would be lost permanently should the proposal be approved.

Requests for removal or relocation of these trees have occurred annually since 1995 as previous owners applied for boulevard cafe privileges.

The costs to remove these trees are $272.40 and the costs to plant two replacement trees in tree pits at another location are $2,445.94, for a total of $3,057.64. There are also additional costs of approximately $500.00 for Works & Emergency Services to permanently cap the existing pits and approximately $400.00 to break open new tree pits for new trees to be planted at another location in the City. These costs can vary, depending on the type of pavement involved. If City Council would approve tree removal contrary to the recommendation in this report, it should be conditional on the applicant paying all costs involved, as noted above for a total of $3,957.64. In addition, the cost involved in the removal of the parking meters No. 12-555, No. 12-556 and No. 12-257, located in front of 71 Front Street East, The Jersey Giant Pub and Restaurant, is $150.00 per meter, while the annual revenue generated by the three parking meters is estimated to be $9,060.00.

Should your Committee decide to proceed to grant a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 71 Front Street East, The Jersey Giant Pub and Restaurant, in order to facilitate pedestrian movement in the vicinity of the proposed cafe area, the applicant should be required to pay for the removal of three parking meters and pay for the annual loss in parking revenue for the loss of 3 metered parking spots. In addition, the applicant must pay the cost of all associated cost for the removal of the two trees.

73A Front Street East - The Red Pepper:

City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of December 18, 1995, considered a similar request from Ms. Schram, former business operator of an adjoining business, Uno Restaurant and Bar, 73A Front Street (convenience address for 71 Front Street East), to remove two City owned trees fronting the location for boulevard cafe purposes.

City Council of the former City of Toronto denied the request for the relocation of the trees and approved the operation of a boulevard cafe fronting 73A Front Street East, subject to the relocation of 2 parking meters in front of the proposed cafe and all associated costs being paid by the applicant, and notwithstanding non-compliance with:

(a) the application procedure set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b) the notification procedure set out in § 90-5 of Municipal Code Chapter 90 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

A cafe licence was issued to the business operator of Pizzeria Uno Restaurant on April 10, 1996. The boulevard cafe fronting 73A Front Street East provided the perimeter of the cafe fence to be installed no closer than one metre to the back edge of the tree planter. As such, this would provide a distance of 1 m clear space for pedestrians between the cafe area and the inner edge of the tree pits and an additional area of 1.16 metre measured from the outer edge of the tree pits to the curb, for an overall width of 2.16 metres to accommodate pedestrians. In addition, in order to facilitate pedestrian movement in the vicinity of the proposed cafe area, the applicant paid for the removal and relocation of two parking meters in front of the cafe. Subsequently, the licence was cancelled in April 1997 when the business vacated.

As indicated, the Municipal Code requires that a minimum clearance of 2.1 metres be maintained for pedestrians. The intent of the Code is that this sidewalk space be provided as a continuous, unbroken pathway for pedestrians which is 2.1 metres wide, not separated strips which taken together total 2.1 metres in width.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue licences for boulevard cafes fronting 71 and 73A Front Street East due to insufficient sidewalk available space due to the existing trees.

The honey locusts trees contribute to the enhancement of the street scape. Since it would be necessary to permanently eliminate the planting sites in order to accommodate the proposed boulevard cafe, and such tree removal would set an undesirable precedent for tree removals in Toronto, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism is opposed to removal or relocation of these trees.

I have consulted with a representative of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Parks and Recreation Division who concurs with this report.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire; Telephone: (416) 392-7564

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, 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 (May 10, 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 application for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West, as requested by Councillor Pantalone. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West; or

(2) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in §313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone requested us to report on the denial of the application for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West.

Comments:

Ms. Rosa Flores of Novo Ideal Cafe Ltd., o/a Novo Ideal Cafe, 847 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6J 1V6, submitted an application on October 14, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 25.5 square metres, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 6 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 23 people.

We have examined this application and have determined that it meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafe privileges as set out in § 313-36 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.

However, as the proposed cafe flanks a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 metres from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until two years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated March 9, 1999 was conducted on Euclid Avenue, between premises 163 to 203 and 162 to 202, including 837 and 847 Dundas Street West, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English, French, Portuguese and Chinese (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 4 languages). The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ms. Rosa Flores was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued. Furthermore, Ms. Flores was advised that a further application for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the poll which was April 8, 1999.

Our records show that City Council of the former City of Toronto, at it's meeting of February 24 and 25, 1992, approved a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West, subject to closing times restriction namely; Sunday to Friday 10:00 p.m. and Saturdays 12 midnight. In this regard, a cafe licence was issued on June 4, 1992 to a former business operator of the property. Furthermore, an application was received to transfer the cafe licence to another occupant of the property on May 15, 1996. Although the transfer application was approved, the business operator failed to execute the requisite boulevard cafe agreements and pay the applicable street allowance rental fees to use the boulevard for cafe purposes. Accordingly, the file was closed on October 28, 1996.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Ms. Flores a license for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank because the poll result was negative.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Euclid Avenue flank of 847 Dundas Street West.

Contact Name:

Ken McGuire

Telephone: (416) 392-7564

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 186 Strachan Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 10, 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 commercial boulevard parking fronting 186 Strachan Avenue because of a negative public poll. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 186 Strachan Avenue; or

(2) City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 186 Strachan Avenue, notwithstanding the negative results of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Ted K. Anton, on behalf of Mr. J. A. Martens, in his letter dated April 7, 1999, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse Mr. Martens' application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 186 Strachan Avenue.

Comments:

Mr. J. A. Martens, owner of 1245790 Ontario Inc., o/a Chair Unlimited, 937 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6J 1G7, submitted an application on June 16, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking fronting 186 Strachan Avenue for the parking of 3 motor vehicles to be positioned right angled to the building.

We have examined Mr. Marten's request and have determined that consideration could only be given to 2 vehicles, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'), due to the physical characteristics of the location (i.e. existing entrance, presence of a 0.6 metre diameter City-owned tree fronting 186 Strachan Avenue).

As the proposed boulevard parking is located within a residential district, the Municipal Code requires a public poll to be conducted of owners and tenants within 100 m of the proposed parking. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated July 24, 1998 was conducted on the east side from 152 to 184 Strachan Avenue, including 935 Queen Street West, and on the west side from 161 to 187 Strachan Avenue, including 929 Queen Street West, to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Martens was advised in writing on September 15, 1998 that given the negative response to the public poll did not indicate neighbourhood support of his application, a licence could not be issued. Furthermore, Mr. Martens was advised that a further application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 186 Strachan Avenue could not be considered for 24 months from the closing day of the poll which was August 24, 1998.

Our records show that a licence for commercial boulevard parking was issued on August 4, 1984 to a former business occupant of 186 Strachan Avenue for the parking of 2 passenger motor vehicles, positioned parallel to the travelled roadway. The licence was cancelled on March 15, 1995 as the occupant vacated the property.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Martens a licence for commercial boulevard parking fronting 186 Strachan Avenue because the poll result was negative.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (May 25, 1999) from Ms. Susanne Wussow and Mr. Earl Helland, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 72 of Report 6 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue - Proposed pavement narrowings (Davenport)" which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on May 7, 11, 18 and 25, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law:

Bill No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Blackthorn Avenue by narrowing the pavement between St. Clair Avenue West and Rockwell Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on ____________, ______________, _______________, _______________, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on ____________,1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration;

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

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

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

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 72 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue - Proposed Pavement Narrowings (Davenport)":

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidents of motorists unlawfully travelling against the one-way operation on Blackthorn Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and Rockwell Avenue, particularly motorists exiting St. Marks' and Calvary Anglican Church parking lot by the introduction of traffic islands.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $3,000.00 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavement at selected locations on Blackthorn Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, described as follows:

"The narrowing of the pavement from a width of 8.5 metres to a width ranging from 5.0 metres to 8.5 metres on the north/west side of Blackthorn Avenue, from 99 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 10 metres further north thereof, and to a width ranging from 3.8 metres to 7.3 metres on the west side of Blackthorn Avenue from Rockwell Avenue to a point 15 metres south thereof, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5353, dated March, 1999"; and

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

Background:

In considering Clause 59 of Report No. 4, Item "p" Toronto Community Council at its February 17, 1999 meeting, requested staff to review the feasibility of installing planter boxes on Blackthorn Avenue immediately south of Rockwell Avenue, and on Blackthorn Avenue immediately south/west of the St. Marks' and Calvary Anglican Church parking lot to reduce the incidents of motorists unlawfully travelling against the one-way operation on Blackthorn Avenue, and to report back to the Community Council on March 30, 1999 with the results of the feasibility study.

Comments:

Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to S.A.D.R.A. Park has a pavement width of 8.5 metres, and 7.3 metres for the remaining portion to Rockwell Avenue. Blackthorn Avenue has a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and operates two-way from St. Clair Avenue West to the first lane north thereof, and one-way (northbound) for the remaining portion to Rowntree Avenue.

Parking is prohibited on the east side, and allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the west side, from St. Clair Avenue West to S.A.D.R.A. Park. The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily, and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours from S.A.D.R.A. Park to Rockwell Avenue.

Twenty-four hour traffic surveys conducted between July 31, 1998 and August 2, 1998 revealed that approximately 800 to 1000 vehicles travel on this portion of Blackthorn Avenue per day, of which approximately 60 to 100 vehicles travelled the wrong way.

In light of the above, to reduce the number of motorists unlawfully travelling against the one-way operation on Blackthorn Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and Rockwell Avenue, particularly motorists exiting the St. Marks' and Calvary Anglican Church parking lot, traffic islands could be installed generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5353, dated March, 1999.

The changes proposed to Blackthorn Avenue as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It should be noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Joe Gallippi

Transportation Technologist, 392-7711

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 44 of Report 6 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Narrowing of the Pavement on Dundas Square between Yonge Street and Victoria Street - Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment Project (Downtown)" which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on May 7, 11, 18 and 25, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law:

Bill No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Dundas Street by narrowing the pavement between Yonge Street and Victoria Street.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on ____________, _______________, _____________, ________________, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on ______________,1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration;

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

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

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

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 44 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Narrowing of the Pavement on Dundas Square Between Yonge Street and Victoria Street - Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment Project (Downtown)":

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the existing pavement on Dundas Square between Yonge Street and Victoria Street, in order to provide an improved overall pedestrian environment and enhanced landscaping treatments in conjunction with the Dundas Square open space initiative.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the pavement narrowing and related streetscape improvement work in the estimated amount of $200,000.00 are to be accommodated within Urban Planning and Development Services Capital Budget Account No. 216-195, the Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment Project Capital Account No. 216-692, and the Toronto Parking Authority Reserve Fund.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavement on Dundas Square, described as follows:

"the narrowing of the pavement on DUNDAS SQUARE from a width of 11.0 metres to a width of 6.1 metres between Yonge Street and a point 60.5 metres east thereof, and a width ranging from 6.1 to 10.0 metres from a point 60.5 metres east of Yonge Street to Victoria Street, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5348, dated March 1999";

(2) That one-way eastbound traffic operation be implemented on Dundas Square between Yonge Street and a point 60.5 metres east thereof, and Schedule 1 of Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended accordingly as indicated in Appendix A of this report;

(3) That the parking regulation amendments to Schedules 23, 25 and 30 of Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code indicated in Appendix A of this report be approved; and

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

Comments:

Dundas Square is a two-way local street extending from Yonge Street to Dundas Street East, abutting the south side of the site of the Dundas Square open space initiative (bounded by Yonge Street, Dundas Street East, Victoria Street and Dundas Square). The existing pavement has a width of about 11.0 m within a right-of-way of 20.1 m. There are concrete sidewalks/paved brick boulevards with a combined width of 4 metres and 5 metres on the north and south sides of the street respectively. Metered parking (1 hour, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday) is permitted on the south side of the street.

The Dundas Square project was awarded through a design competition process in December 1998. The project consists of an underground parking facility to be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA), and a public square above the garage. A vehicular entrance/exit for the garage is proposed on Dundas Square roughly 15 m west of the Dundas Square/Victoria Street intersection.

Preliminary conceptual plans for the square provide for a number of paving and landscaping elements that will extend into the abutting rights-of-way to increase the open space and draw attention to the square. One of the key elements is the proposed edge treatment along the north side of Dundas Square. This treatment includes the provision of stairs adjacent to the sidewalk and a planting bed for trees immediately north of the stairs. The narrowing of the roadway and south boulevard on Dundas Square is recommended to ensure that the planting bed and trees are outside of the limits of the underground parking garage structure, thereby ensuring the viability of this feature of the square. Another benefit of the roadway narrowing is that it will create a more pedestrian friendly environment overall.

The proposed narrowing of Dundas Square is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5348, dated March 1999. It is recommended that the pavement be narrowed from 11.0 m to 6.1 m between Yonge Street and the entrance/exit to the parking garage, and this segment of the street be designated one-way eastbound. The remaining section of the road between the parking entrance/exit and Victoria Street would remain two-way, and it is recommended that this section be narrowed from 11.0 m to 10 m. O'Keefe Lane between Shuter Street and Dundas Square would remain one-way northbound. Lastly, the boulevard/sidewalk on the south side of Dundas Square would be narrowed from 5.0 m to 4.0 m.

The narrowing of Dundas Square and conversion of a portion of the road to one-way eastbound is feasible given the relatively low traffic volumes and predominant eastbound traffic flow. Maintaining two-way traffic operations at the eastern end of the block is required to accommodate the future parking garage traffic.

In light of the changing nature of the street and the future availability of the new underground parking facility, it is also recommended that parking be prohibited along the full extent of Dundas Square and the existing parking meters on the south side be removed accordingly.

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

The narrowing of the pavement on Dundas Square constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nigel Tahair, 392-7711

Appendix A

Traffic and Parking Regulation Amendments

to be Implemented in Conjunction with the

Proposed Narrowing of Dundas Square

Between Yonge Street and Victoria Street

1. Add the following:

§ 400-54. Schedule I: One-Way Highways

2. Add the following:

§ 400-76. Schedule XXIII: No Parking Certain Times

3. Delete the following:

§ 400-78. Schedule XXV: Time Limit Parking

4. Delete the following:

§ 400-83. Schedule XXX: Parking Meters

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 28 of Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Realignment of Intersections - College Street from Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street (Trinity-Niagara)" , which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on May 7, 11, 18 and 25, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law:

Bill No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of College Street between Manning Avenue and Bathurst Street, Manning Avenue near College Street, Euclid Avenue near College Street and Markham Street near College Street by narrowing and realigning the pavement.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on ___________, _____________, _____________, _____________, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on ______, 1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration;

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

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

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

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 28 of Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Realignment of Intersections - College Street from Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street (Trinity-Niagara)":

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February  3, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize a minor realignment of the pavement on College Street between Manning Avenue and Bathurst Street, at intersecting streets, enhance pedestrian amenities through wider sidewalks and boulevards, decrease pedestrian crossing distances, deter the unlawful entry of vehicles onto one-way streets, and facilitate the planting of in-ground trees.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the reconstruction of the College Street sidewalks and curbs have been accommodated in the Transportation Services 1999 Capital Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to realign the intersections of College Street with Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Avenue, Palmerston Boulevard and Markham Street, described as follows:

(a) The narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 20.3 metres to a width varying from 16.3 metres to 20.3 metres on College Street at various locations from Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999;

(b) The narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 6.1 metres to 7.3 metres on the east side of Manning Avenue from College Street to 15.0 metres south of College Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999;

(c) The narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 6.1 metres to 7.3 metres on the west side of Euclid Avenue from College Street to 15.0 metres south of College Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999;

(d) The narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 6.1 metres to 7.3 metres on the east side of Markham Street from College Street to 9.0 metres north of College Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999; and

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

Comments:

The implementation of a revitalization concept for College Street in the vicinity of Bathurst Street has been the subject of considerable discussion between the local merchants, resident groups, the local BIA and City staff since about 1996, at which time the character of the area began undergoing a transformation due largely to the opening of a number of eating establishments, cafes, etc.

College Street from Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street has a pavement width of 20.3 meters and was reconstructed in 1974. The pavement is presently in good condition not requiring any work at this time. The thoroughfare functions as an arterial road and carries TTC streetcar service. The sidewalks on both sides of the street vary in width from 4.0 metres to 5.5 metres, are approximately 40 years old and for the most part are in need of reconstruction.

The current parking regulations on College Street between Manning Avenue and Bathurst Street are as follows:

North Side - One hour metered parking allowed, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday; and

- No Parking Anytime between Markham Street and a point 23.5 metres west thereof.

South Side - One hour metered parking allowed, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday;

- No Parking Anytime between Manning Avenue and a point 23 metres east thereof; and

- No Parking Anytime between Palmerston Avenue and a point 30 metres west thereof.

In 1996, Toronto Hydro completed an extensive underground and conversion program along College Street in the adjoining area between Crawford and Manning Avenues that presented an excellent opportunity for the City to reconstruct the sidewalks in this area and introduce various sidewalk amenities and improvements. This year, Toronto Hydro will also be working within the Euclid-Manning block in the Spring and Summer months. The planned work by both Toronto Hydro (Manning to Euclid) and the City's planned sidewalk work (Manning to Bathurst) presents a good opportunity to address some of the community's needs in a timely and cost effective manner.

The 1999 Transportation Services Capital Programme includes the reconstruction of the sidewalks and curbs on College Street between Manning Avenue and Bathurst Street scheduled to commence in early Fall of this year. The feasibility of providing intersection realignments in connection with programmed work has been assessed with due regard to the functionality of the local streets. Factors considered included traffic operation and direction of flows, on-street parking, pavement width and adjacent land use. The recommended modifications at the intersecting thoroughfares of Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Avenue/Boulevard and Markham Street are described in Recommendation No. 1, above, and shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999.

College/Manning intersection:

Manning Avenue operates one-way southbound both south and north of College Street. In keeping with the overall objectives of the community initiatives, there is an opportunity to narrow the roadway south of College Street from a width of 7.4 metres to a width of 6.1 metres. Parking is prohibited on both sides of Manning Avenue to the first lane south of College Street and so existing parking regulations on Manning Avenue will not be affected. The realignment along the College Street flankage will be configured in a way so as to maximize metered parking along College Street.

College/Euclid Intersection:

Euclid Avenue operates one-way northbound for that portion south of College Street and in two-way for that portion north of College Street up to the first lane. Euclid Avenue at the south-west corner can be narrowed from 7.3 metres to 6.1 metres without affecting the functionality of the thoroughfare. There is ample opportunity to narrow portions of College Street at all four corners by 2 metres so as to align with existing parking stalls in order that the travelled portion of College Street is not compromised. Consideration on the length of the build-outs took into account TTC operations and local merchant concerns regarding loading provisions. Again, realignment along College Street will be configured in a way so as to maximize metered parking.

College/Palmerston Intersection:

Palmerston Boulevard/Avenue operates two-way both north and south of the intersection at College Street. Given that Palmerston operates in two directions on both sides of this intersection, there is no opportunity to narrow the pavement. There is however opportunity to narrow the College Street pavement to the extent of the existing bike lane, as in other cases above, at all four corners. The lengths of the build-outs were kept to a minimum so as to maximize on-street parking.

College/Markham Intersection:

Markham Street operates two-way south of College Street and one-way southbound immediately north of the intersection at College Street. All four corners can be altered to produce wider sidewalks on the College sides of the street with the lengths of the build-outs kept to a minimum so as to maximize on-street parking.

Consideration will also be given to the planting of trees where permitted by underground utilities and the installation of post and ring bike stands. In addition, the paving of concrete crossing areas across the local streets will be included in the proposed work and none of the proposed work will impact on the existing bike lanes which will only be shifted somewhat while maintaining lane widths. On the basis of the preliminary work done to date, it appears that 20 to 30 new trees could be planted and about 20 bike stands installed, depending on demand.

With respect to on-street parking, the existing configuration and size of parking stalls were re-examined with a view to maximizing available space to produce up to 15 additional parking spaces.

The realignment of the curbs and narrowing of the pavements at the intersections of Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Avenue/Boulevard and Markham Street constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

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

Contact Name:

J. Condarcuri

Programmes Engineer

Telephone: 392-7711

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 4 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road (North Toronto)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on May 7, 11, 18 and 25, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law:

Bill No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road by the installation of speed humps.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , , and , 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on ,1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration;

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

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

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

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 4 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road (North Toronto)":

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

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $13,200.00, funds for which are available in Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Roehampton Avenue, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5262, dated September 1998,"

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5262 dated September 1998, consists of six speed humps with spacings between the speed humps of approximately 40 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would also be appropriate. As no impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60 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 Roehampton Avenue, as described above, constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

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

Contact Name:

Teresa Carmichael

Traffic Investigator

Telephone: 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 30, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of a speed hump poll of residents and to advise that conditions for the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Roehampton Avenue have been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of October 28, 29, and 30, 1998, in adopting Clause 4 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, approved the alterations of the pavement on the above-noted street, subject to the favourable results of polling the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above will be advertised in a daily newspaper on four consecutive weeks in May 1999.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations and that at least 60 percent of the valid responses to the poll support the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken in March 1999 on Roehampton Avenue between Mt. Pleasant Road and Cardiff Road showed that 23 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll, of which, 112 (67 percent) supported the installation of the speed humps and 54 (33 percent) were opposed to the plan.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, has been satisfied on the subject section of Roehampton Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 56 of Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council titled "Narrowing and Realignment of the Pavement on Sudbury Street Between King Street West and Dovercourt Road (Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on May 7, 11, 18 and 25, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law:

Bill No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Sudbury Street by narrowing and realigning the pavement between King Street West and Dovercourt Road.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on ,1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration;

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

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

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

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits clause 56 of Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Narrowing and Realignment of the Pavement on Sudbury Street Between King Street West and Dovercourt Road (Trinity-Niagara)":

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 be adopted; and

(2) the traffic lights, to be paid for by the developer, be installed concurrently with the opening of the project.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing and realignment of the pavement on Sudbury Street to provide improved pedestrian amenity and enhanced landscaping treatments in conjunction with the development of the adjacent properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the streetscape improvements and pavement realignment are to be borne by the developer of the abutting property pursuant to Site Plan Undertakings. Funds to cover the cost of the reconstruction of the Sudbury Street pavement have been accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow and realign the pavement on Sudbury Street, described as follows:

"the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 11.7 metres to a width varying from 8.5 metres to 10.5 metres on Sudbury Street from King Street West to Dovercourt Road, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2211, dated December 30, 1998"; and

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

Comments:

The Statements of Approval in respect of the housing developments at Premises Nos. 12 and 15 Sudbury Street, issued on December 10, 1998 and October 29, 1998, respectively, provide that the owners shall be responsible for the costs of certain municipal services including among other things, the cost of realigning the pavement, reconstructing the curbs and sidewalks and providing streetscape improvements on both sides of Sudbury Street between King Street West and Dovercourt Road.

The existing pavement on Sudbury Street has a width of 11.7 metres within a right-of-way of 19.1 metres. The street functions as a two-way collector and parking is prohibited on the south side. One hour parking is allowed on the north side of the street between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A minor narrowing of the pavement has been proposed in order to provide improved pedestrian amenities, facilitate on street lay-by parking on the south side as well as to introduce an element of traffic calming recognizing the changing nature of the street. The narrowing of the pavement as described in Recommendation No. 1 and shown on the attached print of sketch No. SK-2211, will not adversely affect the functioning of the street.

One key aspect of the functional plan is the realignment of the Sudbury Street pavement at its intersection with King Street West. This realignment is required in connection with the planned signalization of this intersection which is also to be paid for by the developer. I will be reporting further on this aspect as well as any necessary or associated operational changes on Sudbury Street (changes to traffic and parking regulations and the introduction of a bike lane) in due course.

In accordance with the obligations set out in the Statements of Approval, the developer is responsible for all costs associated with the Sudbury Street pavement narrowing and realignment as well as all associated streetscape improvements on both sides of the street. The work will be implemented by the City early in the 1999 construction season in connection with the planned pavement rehabilitation, funds for which have been included in the 1999 Capital Budget request.

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

The narrowing and realignment of the pavement on Sudbury Street constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing.

Contact Name:

John Niedra

Manager

Infrastructure Asset Management and Programming

Telephone: 392-7711

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 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:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to install two non-illuminated trellis wall signs for identification purposes at 250 Front Street East.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999007 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to install two non-illuminated trellis wall signs for identification purposes at 250 Front Street East; and

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999007, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the northeast corner of Front Street East and Berkeley Street, in the King-Parliament Reinvestment Area. The property accommodates a one storey retail commercial building. The proposal is to install two non- illuminated trellis wall signs for identification purposes. Each sign is 0.91 metre long and 0.73 metre high, with an area of 0.66 m². The signs will be erected on two decorative masonry walls located at southwest corner and at northwest corner of the property (see Figure 1). These 1.79 metres long and 2.79 metres high decorative walls are to be built as a part of the proposed landscape design for the site.

The proposed signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that fascia signs are required to be mounted wholly against the wall of a building. The signs will be mounted against decorative masonry walls which are not a part of the building, therefore the signs do not meet the definition of a fascia sign. Approval of a sign variance application is required because the signs do not conform to any of the sign types defined in the Municipal Code.

The signs most closely resemble fascia signs, excepting that they will not be, in their entirety, placed against the wall of the building. I consider the variance to be technical in nature and therefore acceptable.

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

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit ten illuminated banner signs at 204-214 King Street East and 185 Frederick Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No.999010 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit ten illuminated banner signs on condition that they only be used to identify the tenants on the ground floor and first floor levels of the building; and

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999010, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is bounded by King Street East, Frederick Street and Sherbourne Street, in a reinvestment area (RA) district. The property accommodates a four and six storey commercial building. The property is listed on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties. The applicant is requesting permission to install five illuminated projecting banner signs on the King Street frontage and five illuminated projecting banner signs on the Frederick Street frontage to identify the commercial tenants on the ground floor and first floor levels (see Figures 1 and 2). The signs each have a length of 0.45 metres and a height of 2.7 metres, with an area of 1.2 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the area of sign in aggregate on King Street exceeds the permitted area by 0.3 m² and the area of sign in aggregate on Frederick Street exceeds the permitted area by 2.3 m² and they will not identify a business within the building.

The maximum area for a projecting signs is based on the amount of frontage the unit has on the street. The banner signs will run lengthwise along the building's south and west facades. In my opinion, the signs are appropriately sized for this block long corner property and will not negatively impact the building or the streetscape. The applicant has confirmed that the signs will only be used to identify the commercial tenants located on the ground floor and first floor levels. Identification signage already exists for the main tenant who occupies the upper five storeys of the building.

Heritage Toronto staff have advised that they have no objections to the proposed banner signs.

I am recommending approval of this application on condition that the signs only be used to identify the commercial tenants on the ground floor and first floor levels.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for minor variances to permit one illuminated fascia sign for third party advertising on the north wall of the building at 672 Dupont Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999015 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign for third party advertising on the north wall of the building at 672 Dupont Street; and

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999015, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Dupont Street and Christie Street, in a Industrial-Commercial zoning district. The four storey commercial building is listed by Council under the Ontario Heritage Act. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated fascia sign for third party advertising on the north wall of the building (see Figure 1). The sign is 6.1 metres long and 3.0 metres high, with an area of 18.3 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the proposed illuminated fascia sign for the purpose of third party advertising will be erected on a building listed by Council under the Ontario Heritage Act; and

(2) the height of the proposed sign (12.5 metres ) exceeds by 2.5 metres the maximum 10.0 metres height permitted by the Municipal Code.

The first variance occurs because an illuminated fascia sign for the purpose of third party advertising is not permitted on a building listed by Council under the Ontario Heritage Act. In this case, however, the sign will be mounted on the north wall, which is a plain brick wall and contains none of the heritage features of the building. Staff of the Toronto Historical Board have reviewed the plans and advised that the plans are acceptable.

The original application also requested a height variance for the proposed sign. During discussions, the applicant revised his plans so that the height of the proposed fascia sign is 10 metres, as required by the Municipal Code.

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

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes on the west elevation at 55 Bloor Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999016 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes on the west elevation, on condition that the sign be illuminated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and that this be achieved by means of an automatic device; and

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999016, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The subject property, known as "Manulife Centre", occupies the entire block bounded by Bloor Street West, Bay Street, Charles Street West and Balmuto Street. There is a three-storey high shopping concourse that runs along the Bay Street frontage between a high-rise office tower on the north and a high-rise residential apartment building on the south end of the property. A retail book store, "Indigo" Books, Music & Cafe occupies a major portion of the shopping concourse.

A two-storey high archway entrance and the store lobby is located on the Bay Street frontage. An existing illuminated "Indigo" fascia sign is erected on top of the archway entrance. The sign is 9.15 metres long and 4.42 metres high, with an area of 40.44 m²(see Figure 1).

The applicant is requesting permission to maintain the illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the fascia sign is not wholly mounted against the wall of the building;

(2) the sign is erected above the second storey and more than 10 metres above grade; and

(3) the area of the sign ( 40.44 m² ) exceeds by 15.44 m² the maximum 25 m² sign area permitted by the Municipal Code.

The first variance occurs because fascia signs are required to be wholly mounted against the wall of a building. The top portion of the sign projects above the parapet wall and appears to be attached to the backdrop columns of the shopping concourse building (see Figure 2 & 3).

The second and third variances relate to the size and height of the sign. The size and height of signs above grade is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the buildings to which they are attached, on the streetscape and on upper floor residential units in the immediate vicinity.

In this instance, the sign has been sized and positioned to compliment the proportions of this long and rectangular facade of the building. The closest residential unit would be more than 30 metres away from which the sign in the high rise residential building across on the west side of Bay Street. Due to this separating distance, there should not be any adverse impact on the surrounding residential uses. To ensure this, however, I have required that the hours of illumination be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. The owner is in agreement with this recommendation.

I am recommending approval of this application, with a condition respecting the restriction of hours of illumination, 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

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to amend the existing sign permissions for the Atrium Media Tower, as approved by the former City of Toronto Council on October 6 and 7, 1997.

The property is located on the west side of Yonge Street, one property north of Dundas Street West. The immediate context of the site is almost exclusively non-residential with the Atrium on Bay building to the west, Ryerson Polytechnic University to the north east, the Toronto Eaton Centre to the south, and a variety of commercial and office buildings in the surrounding area. Immediately to the east, a new retail and entertainment complex "Metropolis" is planned and to the south a public square.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 999018 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit amendments to the existing sign permissions on condition that the three-dimensional sponsor logo not depict or represent any advertisement which is discriminatory in tone or content, as so defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards; and

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999018, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Background:

Since 1994, City Council of the former City of Toronto has approved a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging and providing for the revitalization of lower Yonge Street, with special emphasis on the intersection of Yonge Street and Dundas Street. Significant changes to the existing appearance of this portion of Yonge Street are being undertaken in order to create new development opportunities and to rebuild the image of downtown Yonge Street as the major tourist, shopping and entertainment destination within the Greater Toronto Area.

The means through which the planning objectives are to be achieved include improving the amount and quality of street-related retail space, improving the quality and variety of building facades and signage and building a new public square.

Numerous businesses in the area have undertaken, or have applied for municipal approvals to undertake building facade improvements and major renovations and expansions that have incorporated exciting and dynamic proposals for signage. These include, among others, the new Gap store with enhanced parapet signage, the Toronto Eaton Centre storefront expansion which will feature high quality oversized signage and a media tower at its north-east corner, the Metropolis, a large urban retail and entertainment complex on the east side of Yonge Street north of Dundas Street, which will feature a media and signage "facade" and the renovation of the Atrium on Bay building where new retail uses and a 55 metres high media tower been approved.

Approval has been given for a two storey commercial building on the site which will connect to the Atrium on Bay. The building is currently under construction and is nearing completion.

On July 23, 1997, the Committee of Adjustment of the former City of Toronto approved a minor variance to permit a 55 metre high skeletal media tower structure on top of the two storey building. The Committee's decision was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and was subsequently approved on February 23, 1998.

The purpose of this report is to discuss an application by Aird & Berlis to amend the existing sign permissions for the Atrium Media Tower. The variances being requested are as follows:

(1) one hundred percent (100 percent) of the gross surface display area will be utilized for third party advertising in lieu of the maximum permitted of eighty-five percent (85 percent);

(2) the sponsor logo three-dimensional sign will not comply with the definition as it will contain third party advertising; and

(3) the sponsor logo three-dimensional sign will have a length, width and height of 6 metres in lieu of the maximum permitted of 5 metres.

Comments:

The first variance occurs because the current sign permission allows up to 85 percent of the signage display area on the media tower to be utilized for the purposes of third party advertising. This was to allow an opportunity for the tenants in the Atrium building, some with no frontage at grade, to secure advertising space on the media tower.

The applicant's solicitor has advised that the average cost of design and production of a simple back-lit sign box which could be used on the media tower is between $75,000.00 - $100,000.00. Signs employing the latest in modern technology can cost upwards of $1 million, exclusive of the costs of leasing the space on the tower itself. The applicant's solicitor further advised that the current retail tenants in the Atrium building are not of the size or type who typically have advertising programs or budgets for this type of advertising and have, to date, not been and are not likely in future to become interested or able to invest the funds necessary to produce an appropriate sign of the design and quality being sought for the media tower. The applicant's submission is, therefore, that the 85 percent restriction detrimentally affects the owner's ability to fully lease the media tower with the high quality innovative signage desired.

Dynamic signage is an integral part of the entertainment experience of this emerging district and contributes to the new sense of place which is one of the goals of renewing the street. The variance is supportable because it will give the landowner more flexibility to fully lease all available space on the media tower while at the same time not precluding the opportunity for first party signage. The Atrium on Bay building which occupies an entire city block provides sufficient opportunities for signage for its commercial tenants and in my opinion the request to allow the flexibility of up to 100 percent third party advertising on the media tower is in keeping with the media tower proposed on the Toronto Eaton Centre site.

The second and third variances have to do with the sponsor logo three-dimensional sign. The Municipal Code permits a sponsor logo three-dimensional sign to be installed on top of the media tower as a beacon or crowning element to the tower and restricts this element to a sculptural depiction of a logo, corporate symbol, corporate name or product of the owners or a tenant of the Atrium building. The applicant is seeking a variance to expand the definition to allow for third party advertising on the sponsor logo and to increase the depth and width of the logo from 5.0 metres to 6.0 metres to accommodate the third party advertiser.

The applicant's solicitor argues that the "first party" limitation on this element is severely restricting the owner's ability to secure the best sign "tenant" for this key location on the media tower. She contends that the media tower will ultimately become known by this crowning element and that this element will also set the standard for the quality and innovation in construction and design for the signage which will follow below.

Illuminated logos are currently permitted on buildings having a height of 34 metres or greater to identify the corporate name or owner or main tenant of the building. At issue is whether this media tower is viewed as having a different urban presence than the adjacent building, the Atrium. The Ontario Municipal Board, in it's decision approving the media tower, refers to the media tower as "...not a solid building mass, but an open steel skeleton to permit sign placement and (which).... will help sustain and enhance this highly visible area that gives the city its distinctiveness."

The applicant's solicitor was not able to advise my staff, at this time, of the potential leaseholder or content of the three-dimensional sponsor logo sign. My recommendation includes a broad condition that the eventual sponsor sign must not depict or represent any advertisement which is discriminatory in tone or content, as so defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. These phrases have been included in order to highlight the importance of this element in the future cityscape,

The Atrium Media Tower is a unique and exciting signage component and will contribute to the distinctiveness of the emerging Yonge and Dundas public spaces from other areas of the City where the approach to signage is more intensively regulated. In my opinion, the variances requested are supportable. Further, there are also other opportunities on the Atrium building for corporate identification.

Given these reasons, I am recommending approval of this application.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit an undefined sign type at 23 Spadina Avenue.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 999038 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit the proposed three undefined signs; and

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999038, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located with the block bounded by Spadina Avenue, Bremner Boulevard, Navy Wharf Court and Blue Jays Way within a mixed-use (commercial-residential) district.

The applicant is requesting permission to install signage on the west and east elevations of the building (see Figures 2 and 3). The proposed signage will identify the building as a sales office for condominium projects to be located within the Railway Lands Central and West.

The proposed signs have dimensions as follows:

West Elevation:

(i) overall length of 18.3 m (60 ft.) and a height of 0.88 m (34.6 in.)

East Elevation:

(i) overall length of 13.04 m (42 ft. 9.3 in) and a height of 0.6 m (13 in.)

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the proposed signs do not fit within any of the current definitions of sign types; and

(2) as the proposed signs are not defined and as the site is within the defined area of expressway corridors and waterfront such an undefined sign type is not permitted, although various types of signage are permitted.

The site is situated at the intersection of Bremner Boulevard with Spadina Avenue to the west of SkyDome in the heart of the Railway Lands development area owned by Concord Adex Developments Corp. The signs would consist of individual cut-out lettering with neon backlighting. The lettering would be located above a "brise soleil" (or open sun screen) which acts as a cornice below the roof line and above the eastern doorway access from the parking lot located at the rear of the building.

In my opinion the proposed signage would modestly identify the function of the building, while maintaining its significance as the new sales centre for the first phase of residential development within the Railway Lands. 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:

Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca