TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on September 28 and 29, 1999


TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 12

1 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Decision - 7 Gange Avenue (Midtown)

2 Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - (Downtown, High Park, North Toronto)

3 Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 306 Yonge Street (595 Bay Street) (Downtown)

4 Amendment to Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement and Development Agreement - 7 Station Street (Downtown)

5 Tree Removal - 1560 Yonge Street (Midtown)

6 Speed Hump Poll Results - Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road (North Toronto)

7 Castle Knock Road, From Eglinton Avenue West to Roselawn Avenue - Proposed Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto)

8 Installation of Speed Humps - St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow Road (North Toronto)

9 Installation of Speed Humps - Campbell Avenue, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street (Davenport)

10 Installation of Speed Humps - Macdonell Avenue, Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue (High Park)

11 Speed Humps - Gladstone Avenue, Between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, and Lindsey Avenue, Between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street (Trinity-Niagara)

12 Adjustment of "No Stopping" Regulation - Armadale Avenue, Both Sides, North of Bloor Street West (High Park)

13 Designation of Exclusive Northbound Right-Turn Lane - Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West (Downtown)

14 Removal of Disabled Persons On-Street Parking Space - Margueretta Street, fronting Premises No. 238 (Trinity-Niagara)

15 Introduction of Overnight Permit Parking - North Side of Queen Street East, Between Rainsford Road and

Kingston Road (East Toronto)

16 Introduction of Overnight Permit Parking on the East Side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue (Davenport)

17 Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Valifor Place, Between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road (East Toronto)

18 Extension of Permit Parking Hours on the South Side of Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a Point 36.6 Metres West of Jane Street (High Park)

19 Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Brunswick Avenue, Between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street (Midtown)

20 Adjustment of Parking Regulations - Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road (Midtown)

21 Adjustments to Parking Regulations - Inglewood Drive, from Rose Park Drive to Heath Street East (Midtown)

22 Adjustments to Parking Regulations and Implementation of One-Way Northbound Traffic Operation - Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road (Midtown)

23 Prohibition of Standing at Anytime - Widmer Street, West Side Between King Street West and Adelaide Street West (Downtown)

24 Prohibition of Stopping at Anytime - Wellington Street West, South Side, between York Street and University Avenue (Downtown)

25 Reduction of Maximum Speed Limit - Bingham Avenue Between Kingston Road and Bracken Avenue (East Toronto)

26 Provision of Parking - Queen Street East, South Side, between 93 Metres East of Woodland Avenue and 26.3 Metres further east (East Toronto)

27 Proposed Lane Designation and Right-turn-on-red Prohibition for Southbound Traffic - Bay Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West (Downtown)

28 Installation of Eastbound and Westbound "Stop" Signs - Intersection of Coatsworth Street and Poulett Street (Don River)

29 Installation of Northbound "Stop" Sign - Intersection of Penny Lane and Orchard Park Boulevard (East Toronto)

30 Installation of "Stop" Sign - Jerome Street at Indian Road (Davenport)

31 Installation of Signs to Direct Tourists to Downtown Chinatown (Downtown)

32 Safety and Operational Road Improvement - Avenue Road at Oxton Avenue (Midtown)

33 Sale of Surplus STC Property - 14 Norwood Terrace (East Toronto)

34 Sale of Surplus STC Property - 84 Beach View Crescent (East Toronto)

35 Fundraising for Playground Redevelopment Project - Eglinton Park (North Toronto)

36 Fundraising - Playground Improvements, Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre (Midtown)

37 Construction of Underground Parking Garage and Enclosed Stairway and Maintenance of Ventilation Exhaust Grill - 285 Yonge Street (Downtown)

38 Naming of Private Lane - Pear Tree Mews (Davenport)

39 Naming of Street after Police Constable William Hancox (East Toronto)

40 Installation /Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (Davenport, Don River, East Toronto, Midtown and North Toronto)

41 Proposed Installation/Cancellation of Speed Bumps in Public Lanes (Davenport)

42 Appointments to Board of Management - Balmy Beach Park

43 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - 207-217 Roslin Avenue (North Toronto)

44 Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

45 Installation of Fencing along CN Rail Tracks Between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road (East Toronto)

46 Prohibition of Standing - Front Street East Between Cherry Street and Trinity Street (Don River)

47 Construction of Layby - Front of Premises No. 60 Harbour Street (Downtown)

48 Establishment of "Student Pick-Up and Drop-off Area" Brock Avenue, West Side, North of College Street (Trinity-Niagara)

49 Installation of Flagpole Fronting 438 University Avenue (Downtown)

50 Designation Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House, William Smith House and Robert Smith House) (Midtown)

51 Designation Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) (Downtown)

52 Removal of Holding Symbol (H Zoning) - 401 Front Street West (Downtown)

53 Natural Garden Exemption Request - Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 202 - 19 Beaty Avenue (High Park)

54 Boulevard Cafe - 3-5 Isabella Street (Convenience Address for 625 Yonge Street) (Downtown)

55 Discharge of Historical Designation and Heritage Easement Agreement - 333 Bloor Street East (Downtown)

56 Retention of Existing Paving - 62 Stibbard Avenue (North Toronto)

57 Tree Removal - 378 Russell Hill Road (Midtown)

58 Tree Removal - 306 Beresford Avenue (High Park)

59 Tree Removal - 308 Beresford Avenue (High Park)

60 Appeal - Commercial Boulevard Parking - Arlington Avenue Flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

61 Tree Removal - 1309 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

62 Driveway Widening - 115 Elmer Avenue (East Toronto)

63 Tree Removal - 256 MacDonell Avenue (High Park)

64 Driveway Widening - 543 Windermere Avenue (High Park)

65 Tree Removal - 478 Roncesvalles Avenue (High Park)

66 Tree Removal - 460 Balliol Street (North Toronto)

67 Tree Removal - 126-128 Kilbarry Road (Midtown)

68 Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing - 281 Augusta Avenue (Downtown)

69 Removal of Trees - 10 Shorncliffe Avenue (Midtown)

70 Installation of Speed Humps - Albany Avenue from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue (Midtown)

71 Installation of Speed Humps - Hillsdale Avenue East, Soudan Avenue and Manor Road East from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road (North Toronto)

72 Installation of Speed Humps - Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue (Davenport)

73 Installation of Speed Humps - Roselawn Avenue from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue (North Toronto)

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

75 Installation of Speed Humps - Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East (North Toronto)

76 Installation of Speed Humps - Prescott Avenue from Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue (Davenport)

77 Installation of Speed Humps - Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue (North Toronto)

78 Installation of Speed Humps - McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road (Davenport and York-Eglinton)

79 Narrowing of Pavement - Merton Street near Yonge Street (North Toronto)

80 Narrowing of Pavement - Dufferin Street north of Canadian National Exhibition Grounds (Trinity-Niagara)

81 Narrowing and Realigning of Pavement - Argyle Street from Ossington Avenue to Givens Street and Markham Street from Queen Street West to Robinson Street (Trinity-Niagara)

82 Appeal - Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit - Bathurst Street, East Side, 9.5 Metres South of Queens Quay West (Downtown)

83 Tree Removal - 317 Rhodes Avenue (East Toronto)

84 Appeal - Sidewalk-Boulevard Vending Permit - Gould Street, 5.9 Metres East of O'Keefe Lane (Downtown)

85 Tree Removal - 2 May Square (Midtown)

86 Appeal - Driveway Widening - 15 Fulton Avenue (Don River)

87 Tree Removal - 34 Rhyl Avenue (East Toronto)

88 Draft By-law - Zoning By-law Amendment - 40 Colgate Avenue, 64 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue (Don River)

89 Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 460 Yonge Street (Downtown)

90 Draft Zoning By-law - 350 Russell Hill Road (304 Lonsdale Road) (Midtown)

91 Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 866 Avenue Road (North Toronto)

92 Draft Zoning By-law - 103 West Lodge Avenue (High Park

93 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto


REPORT No. 12

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on September 14, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Pam McConnell, Chair)


As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on September 28 and 29, 1999


1

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of

Adjustment Decision - 7 Gange Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated September 27, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that the outside planning costs related to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Appeal for 7 Gange Avenue be part of the draw-down on Corporate Contingency requested by the City Solicitor for Municipal Board Hearings in 1999, in his report of August 5, 1999, titled "Source of Funding for Outside Consultants required for OMB Hearings", as recommended to Council by the Policy and Finance Committee of Council on September 16, 1999.' ")

The Toronto Committee Council recommends that:

(1) the City Solicitor and appropriate staff be directed to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the Committee of Adjustment Decision to refuse the application for the development at 7 Gange Avenue; and

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to retain outside planning consultants, as needed.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Policy and Finance Committee to report directly to Council on identification of source of funds to implement the above recommendations.

--------

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (September 14, 1999) from Councillor Bossons:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City Solicitor and appropriate staff be directed to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in support of the Committee of Adjustment Decision to refuse the application for the development at 7 Gange Avenue;

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to retain outside planning consultants as needed, and

(3) that the Policy & Finance Committee be requested to report directly to Council on a source of funds to implement recommendations 1 & 2.

Background:

The applicant was before the Committee of Adjustment (C of A) on June 15, 1999. The C of A reserved its decision and requested the applicant to consider revisions to address concerns of abutting property owners on Birch Avenue. On July 12, 1999 the C of A considered the applicant's solicitor's June 25, 1999 letter outlining revisions to the plan and the revised plans dated June 22, 1999. The Cof A, in its refusal Decision noted specific concerns about minimum frontage requirements creating a possible over-development; variances to the maximum permitted gross floor area on all lots, which could, in new construction, be designed to comply; adequate setback to the north lot line not being provided, representing over-development.

On June 14, 1999, Raymond David, Manager, North Section, Community Planning, South District, wrote to the Committee of Adjustment indicating that the application seeks variance regarding frontage, window setbacks and gross floor area and noting that his concerns set out in his May 18, 1999 letter to the Committee respecting overlook and amenity had been addressed to his satisfaction. As the committee has raised additional concerns, I want Planning staff to do a fresh review of this proposal and prepare to argue at the OMB for no over-development, no variances to the maximum permitted gross floor area on any lot and for adequate setback to the north lot line.

--------

Councillor Adams declared an interest in this matter in that he owns property within the Committee of Adjustment notice area of the subject site.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To identify a source of funding for Outside Planning Costs, OMB Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Decision - 7 Gange Avenue (Midtown), as directed by the Policy and Finance Committee of Council on September 16, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This amount will be drawn from Corporate Contingency as outlined in the report dated August 5, 1999 by the City Solicitor titled "Source of Funding for Outside Consultants required for OMB Hearings" on the September 28, 29 and 30, 1999 Council agenda.

Recommendation:

That the outside planning costs related to the OMB Appeal for 7 Gange Avenue be part of the draw-down on Corporate Contingency requested by the City Solicitor for Municipal Board Hearings in 1999, in his report of August 5, 1999, titled "Source of Funding for Outside Consultants required for OMB Hearings", as recommended to Council by the Policy and Finance Committee of Council on September 16, 1999.

Council Reference/Background/History:

During the 1999 budget process, Council increased Legal Services Division budget for the retention of outside consultants for Ontario Municipal Board hearing from $209,800.00 to $500,000.00.

Subsequently, the City Solicitor has advised in his report dated August 5, 1999, titled "Source of Funding for Outside Consultants Required for Ontario Municipal Board Hearings" to Policy & Finance on September 16, 1999, that these monies have been fully committed. Further, the City Solicitor has indicated that an additional amount of $300,000.00 is estimated to cover expenditures to the end of the year. His recommendation is that future costs of this nature in 1999 expected to be up to $300,000.00 be funded from Corporate Contingency.

This specific request is for funds to cover outside planning consultants in regard to a Committee of Adjustment decision related to 7 Gange Avenue that will be at the Ontario Municipal Board. It should, therefore, be treated as a draw down on Corporate Contingency that the Policy and Finance committee of Council has recommended to Council, for this purpose, on September 16, 1999.

Conclusion:

As recommended by the City Solicitor and subsequently Policy and Finance Committee, outside planning costs associated with this development application and future other such planning costs estimated at $300,000.00 before the OMB should be funded from the Corporate Contingency Account.

Contact Name:

Val Sequeira

Manager, Budgets Services

Finance Department

Tel: 397-4225

Fax: 392-3649)

(A copy of the submissions referred to in the foregoing communication is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(Councillor Adams, at the meeting of Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he and his wife own a home within the Committee of Adjustment notice area.)

2

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Downtown, High Park, North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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:

(August 5, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit three illuminated fascia signs for identification and direction purposes on the south elevation of the building at 2300 Yonge Street. (Application No. 999040)

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999040 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit three illuminated fascia signs for identification and direction purposes on the south elevation of the building at 2300 Yonge Street.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999040, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-west corner of Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue West, in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a multi-storey office building with retail uses at grade and concourse levels of the building.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect three illuminated fascia signs for identification and direction purposes on the south elevation of the building at 2300 Yonge Street. The proposed fascia sign "Yonge Eglinton Centre" is 2.74 metres long and 3.36 metres high with an area of 9.21 mē. The proposed fascia sign "Mall Entrance" is 2.74 metres long and 8.23 metres high with an area of 22.55 mē. The proposed sign "Entrance" is 2.74 metres long and 0.38 metre high, with an area of 1.04 mē, (see Figure 1).

The proposed signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the area of the proposed sign "Yonge Eglinton Centre" exceeds the maximum sign area permitted of 15% of the building face of the second storey; and

(2) the proposed fascia sign "Mall Entrance" will be located above the second storey and more than 10 metres above grade.

Regarding the first variance, the area of the proposed fascia sign "Yonge Eglinton Centre" does exceed the maximum sign area permitted of 15% of the building face of the second storey. This provision is in place in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on buildings to which they are attached. In this instance the sign has been sized and positioned to complement the proportions of this narrow and recessed facade.

The second variance occurs because the proposed fascia sign "Mall Entrance" will be located above the second storey and more than 10 metres above grade. Signs are permitted to be located only within the first two storeys of a building. This provision restricts signs to their traditional locations in order to minimize the impact of signage on the building, on the streetscape and on upper floor residential units in the immediate vicinity. In this case, the sign has been sized and positioned to complement the proportions of this narrow and recessed facade and there is no residential unit in the immediate vicinity.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999040)

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999040)

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999040)

(August 6, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit three illuminated encroaching fascia signs for identification purposes on the east elevation of the building at 2300 Yonge Street. (Application No. 999041)

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999041, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit three illuminated encroaching fascia signs for identification purposes on the east elevation of the building at 2300 Yonge Street.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999041, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-west corner of Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue West, in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a multi-storey office building with retail uses at grade and concourse levels of the building.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect three illuminated encroaching fascia signs for identification purposes on the east elevation of the building at 2300 Yonge Street. The proposed "Yonge Eglinton Centre" fascia sign is 1.23 metres long and 0.72 metres high with an area of 0.89 mē. The proposed multi-tenant fascia sign is 4.99 metres long and 2.13 metres high with an area of 10.63 mē. The proposed "Dominion" fascia sign is 4.57 metres long and 1.07 metres high with an area of 4.89 mē (see Figure 1).

The proposed signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

Proposed "Yonge Eglinton Centre" fascia sign:

1. the proposed fascia sign will not be mounted wholly against the wall of the building; and

2. the sign will obstruct and interfere with windows of the building.

The first variance occurs because the proposed fascia sign will not be mounted against the wall of the building. In this instance, the sign is mounted in the archway of the building wall. The sign most closely resembles a fascia sign, excepting that it will not be placed against the wall of the building. I consider this variance to be technical in nature and therefore acceptable.

Respecting the second variance, the sign would not impact adversely upon outward views or inward light transmission because the hallway behind the archway /windows is mainly used for the line ups by the movie goers to purchase theatre tickets.

Proposed multi-tenant fascia sign and Dominion fascia sign:

1. The proposed facia signs will not be mounted wholly against the wall of the building;

2. the proposed fascia signs will not be located on a wall that is part of the commercial unit; and

3. the proposed fascia signs will obstruct and interfere with windows of the building.

The first variance occurs because the proposed fascia signs are not mounted against the wall of the building. In this instance, the signs are mounted in the archway of the building wall. I consider this variance to be technical in nature and therefore acceptable.

Respecting the second variance, although the signs are not located on the wall of the tenant's commercial unit frontage, all the advertised tenants are located within the building. All of the retail tenants in the building do not have the opportunity to display signage on their unit frontage, which purpose is then provided by this sign.

For the third variance, the signs would not impact adversely upon outward views or inward light transmission because the hallway behind the archway /windows is mainly used for the line ups by the movie goers to purchase theatre tickets.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999041)

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999041)

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999041)

(August 27, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations for an application for variances to erect two illuminated fascia signs in the form of individual letters which identify a restaurant use "The Pickle Barrel". The signs will be located on the east and south elevations of the building at 2300 Yonge Street for identification purposes. (Application No. 999062)

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999062, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to erect two illuminated fascia signs in the form of individual letters which identify a restaurant use "The Pickle Barrel". The signs will be located on the east and south elevations of the building at 2300 Yonge Street for identification purposes.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999062, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property known as "Yonge-Eglinton Centre" is located on the north-west corner of Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue West, in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a thirty-storey office building with retail uses at grade and concourse levels below.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect two illuminated fascia signs in the form of individual letters which identify a restaurant use "The Pickle Barrel". The signs will be located on the east and south elevations of the building at 2300 Yonge Street for identification purposes (see Figure 1). Each of the proposed fascia signs is 12.20 metres long and 1.02 metres high with an area of 2.44 mē.

The proposed signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the proposed fascia signs will not be mounted wholly against the wall of the building;

2. the proposed fascia signs will not be located on a wall that is part of the commercial unit; and

3. the proposed fascia signs will be located above the second storey of the building.

The first variance occurs because the proposed fascia signs will not be mounted against the wall of the building. In this instance, the individual letters which comprise each proposed sign will be mounted against a carrier box with 0.23 metre projection, which is, in turn, mounted against the columns of the building. The signs most closely resemble a fascia sign, excepting that they will not be placed against the wall of the building. I consider this variance to be technical in nature and therefore acceptable.

Regarding the second and third variances, each sign will be located on a wall that is not a part of the commercial unit of the tenant and will be erected above the second storey of the building. These variances are acceptable as, the design of the building facade does not provide any reasonable opportunities for signage on the wall that is part of the commercial unit and on the first or second floor level.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999062)

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999062)

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999062)

Insert Table/Map No. 4

2300 Yonge Street (No. 999062)

(August 6, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to install one illuminated projecting sign on John Street frontage for identification purposes at 172 John Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999043 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to install one illuminated projecting sign on John Street frontage for identification purposes at 172 John Street.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999043, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located north of Queen Street West on the west side of John Street, in a light industrial zone district. The property accommodates a four storey brick building. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one projecting sign on the front elevation of the building to identify the building tenant. The sign is 0.5 metre long and 5.5 metres high, with an area of 2.75 mē (see Figure 1).

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the proposed sign is not a defined sign type; and

2. the proposed sign is not permitted.

The first variance occurs because the proposed sign is not a sign defined by the Municipal Code. The second variance occurs because the Municipal Code prohibits the erection of signs which are not specifically permitted by the Code.

The projecting structure has been designed by an architect to add prominence to the building entrance. The proposed projecting structure projects out a distance of 1.25 metres from the face of the building. However, the sign copy is 0.5 metre long and 5.5 metres high, with an area of 2.75 mē. The sign most closely resembles a projecting sign. Although the projecting structure extends above the second floor and more than 10 metres above grade, all sign copy is located below the second storey level and below a height of 10 metres from grade. It is my opinion that the proposed variances are technical in nature and therefore acceptable.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the requested variances to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

172 John Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

172 John Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

172 John Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

172 John Street

(August 12, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated mural sign on the north elevation and one illuminated mural sign on the south elevation for first party advertising purposes at 193 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve application No. 999046 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated mural sign on the north elevation and one illuminated mural sign on the south elevation for first party advertising purposes at 193 Yonge Street.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Yonge Street, in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates an eight storey mixed-use commercial building, which is designated historical under the Ontario Heritage Act. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated mural sign on the north elevation and one on the south elevation of the building for first party advertising purposes. The sign on the north elevation is 3.66 metres long and 6.71 metres high, with an area of 24.56 mē and the "L" shaped sign on the south elevation is 9.76 metres long and 9.76 metres high with an area of 65.49 mē (95.26 mē- 29.77 mē, see Figure 1).

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the first party advertising, illuminated mural sign, if erected above the fourth storey of the building which does not face a street is not permitted.

2. the area of the proposed sign on the south elevation ( 65.49 mē) exceeds by 40.49 mē the maximum 25.00 mē sign area for the illuminated mural sign permitted by the Municipal Code.

The first variance has to do with the height limit of the signs above grade. The regulation is aimed at preserving the appearance of commercial streetscapes and minimizing the negative impact of illuminated signs on the adjacent residential uses. On both the north and the south elevation of the building, the signs are proposed to be painted over the top of the location where mural signs were painted previously. Also, there is no viable opportunity to display the proposed signs below the fourth floor of the building. The surrounding uses are commercial in nature and there are no residential units in the immediate vicinity. It is my opinion that the signs would not impact the commercial streetscape or the surrounding uses.

The second variance relates to the size of the signs on the building. This provision restricts the size of signs in order to minimize their impact on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. The signs would be installed along the blank portion of the north wall and south wall of the building. The signs have been sized and positioned to compliment the proportions of the side walls and the architectural features of the building.

Staff of the Toronto Historical Board have reviewed the plans and have advised that they are acceptable.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

193 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

193 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

193 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

193 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

193 Yonge Street

(August 11, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for minor variances to maintain five illuminated fascia signs for identification purposes at (St. Joseph's Health Centre) 30 The Queensway.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999045 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain five illuminated fascia signs at (St. Joseph's Health Centre) 30 The Queensway.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999045, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property known as "St. Joseph's Health Centre", an eight storey building is listed by Council under the Ontario Heritage Act. The property is located on a block bounded by Glendale Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue and The Queensway, in a residential zone district. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain five illuminated fascia signs for identification purposes.

The five signs are shown on the attached plans and involve the following words and dimensions:

on the West Elevation:

(a) Fascia Sign # 1 "H" is 3.05 metres long and 3.05 metres high, with an area of 9.30 mē.

(b) Fascia Sign # 4 "The New" is 3.66 metres long and 2.03 metres high, with an area 7.43 mē.

(c) Fascia Sign # 5 "St. Joseph's Health Centre" is 13.72 metres long and 3.15 metres high, with an area 43.22 mē.

on the Southeast Elevation:

(d) Fascia Sign # 2 "The New" is 1.82 metres long and1.02 metres high, with an area 1.86 mē.

on the South Elevation:

(e) Fascia Sign # 3 "The New" is 1.82 metres long and1.02 metres high, with an area 1.86 mē.

on the West Elevation: for Fascia Sign # 1, Fascia Sign # 4 & Fascia Sign # 5

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the area of the sign # 1 (9.30 mē) exceeds by 6.80 mē, the area of the sign # 4 (7.43 mē) exceeds by 4.93 mē, and the area of the sign # 5 (43.22 mē) exceeds by 40.72 mē the maximum 2.50 mē sign area for each of the sign permitted by the Municipal Code;

2. the height of the sign # 1 (3.05 metres) exceeds by 1.05 metres, the height of the sign # 4 (2.03 metres) exceeds by 0.03 metre, and the height of the sign # 5 (3.15metres) exceeds by 1.15 metres the maximum 2.00 metres sign height for each of the fascia sign permitted by the Municipal Code; and

3. only one fascia sign for the purpose of identification is permitted on any frontage of a building.

The first and second variances relate to the area and height of the signs. The area and the height of the signs is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. In this case, however, the signs are erected on a block long frontage of an eight storey hospital building. Although larger than permitted, it is my opinion that these well designed and properly spaced signs do not adversely impact the building or streetcape.

The third variance relates to the number of signs permitted within a single frontage, which is regulated so as to prevent sign clutter. Given that the west frontage is a block long, these well spaced signs are acceptable.

on the South-East Elevation: for Fascia Sign # 2,

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that only one fascia sign for the purpose of identification is permitted on any frontage of a building. A small size additional fascia sign does not impact the building or the streetcape.

on the South Elevation: for Fascia Sign # 3

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that only one fascia sign for the purpose of identification is permitted on any frontage of a building.

The south elevation is also a block long and a small size additional fascia sign does not impact the building or the streetcape.

Staff of the Toronto Historical Board have reviewed the plans and have advised that they are acceptable.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

30 The Queensway

Insert Table/Map No. 2

30 The Queensway

Insert Table/Map No. 3

30 The Queensway

Insert Table/Map No. 4

30 The Queensway

Insert Table/Map No. 5

30 The Queensway

(August 17, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to erect three illuminated pedestal signs for identification purposes at 483 Bay Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999047 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to erect three illuminated pedestal signs for identification purposes at 483 Bay Street.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999047, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property known as "Bell Trinity Square" is located on the northeast corner of Bay Street and Albert Street in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a nine-storey office building with retail uses at grade. The applicant is requesting permission to erect three illuminated pedestal signs for identification purposes (see Figure 1).

The sign "A" which is located at the southwest corner of the property is 2.00 metres long and10.00 metres high with an area of 20.00 mē. The sign "B" which is located at the southeast corner of the property is 2.0 metres long and 8.30 metres high with an area of 16.60 mē. The sign "C" which is located at the northwest corner of the property is 2.0 metres long and 7.20 metres high with an area of 14.40 mē.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the height of the sign "A" (10.00 metres) exceeds by 5.50 metres, the height of the sign "B" (8.30 metres) exceeds by 3.80 metres, and the height of the sign "C" (7.20 metres) exceeds by 2.70 metres the maximum 4.50 metres sign height for each of the pedestal signs permitted by the Municipal Code;

2. only one pedestal sign for the purpose of identification is permitted on any frontage of a property;

3. the proposed sign "A" is not set back 2.00 metres from the street line and it will not be located 6.00 metres from the intersection of two street lines;

4. The proposed sign "C", which is to be located on the north-west corner of the property will be less than 20 metres from a lot in a "G" (park) zone district; and

5. the proposed pedestal signs are not permitted to be illuminated.

The first variance occurs because the height of each of the proposed pedestal signs exceeds the maximum 4.50 metres sign height for pedestal signs permitted by the Municipal Code. The height of the signs is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the surrounding buildings and the streetscape. In this case, the signs are architecturally designed to compliment the sculptural quality of the surrounding buildings and the streetscape.

The number of signs permitted within a single frontage is regulated so as to prevent sign clutter. In this instance, each lot frontage is a full block long and these three signs erected on three corners of the block would not cause sign clutter.

The third variance relates to the setback requirement for pedestal signs which is aimed at ensuring that, where possible, commercial streetscapes and view corridors are preserved or enhanced and sight lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved. In this instance, the signs do not block sight lines or otherwise endanger or inconvenience pedestrians.

Regarding the fourth variance, although the separation distance between the sign and the "G" (park) zone district is not 20 metres, the parkette is located across the road on west side of Bay Street. Also, while visible from the parkette, the sign is directed towards motorists and pedestrians on the Bay Street therefore the sign should not impact the park.

With respect to the fifth variance, the signs are to be internally illuminated, constructed with frosted glass panels. The construction of the signs with frosted glass panels should inhibit the glare from illumination, make the signs translucent and reduce the apparent mass of the pylons.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

483 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

483 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

483 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

483 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

483 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

483 Bay Street

3

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

306 Yonge Street (595 Bay Street) (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve application No. 999054 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit an illuminated three dimensional third party advertising sign, that will travel up and down, to be attached to the Yonge Street face of the Atrium Media Tower at 306 Yonge Street.

(2) the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999054, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations for an application for a variance to permit an illuminated bottle shaped three dimensional third party advertising sign, that will travel up and down, to be attached to the Yonge Street face of the Atrium Media Tower at 306 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve application No. 999054 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit an illuminated bottle shaped three dimensional third party advertising sign, that will travel up and down, to be attached to the Yonge Street face of the Atrium Media Tower at 306 Yonge Street.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999054, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Yonge Street, in a mixed-use zoning district. The property will accommodate the Atrium Media Tower. The applicant is requesting permission to erect a bottle shaped three dimensional illuminated sign for third party advertising. The sign's dimensions will be 4.0 metres long, 10.5 metres high and 3.0 metres deep. The sign will travel continuously up and down on the Yonge Street face of the media Tower at 306 Yonge Street.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the proposed illuminated and animated, three dimensional sign component to the media tower for third party advertising is not permitted.

The dimensions of the proposed three dimensional sign have been revised from the first proposal which was 4.5 metres long, 4.0 metres deep and 12.0 metres high. The existing By-law provisions for the media tower permit a 4.5 metres long, 2.0 metres deep and 6.0 metres high sign to "hang" off the Yonge Street face of the media tower. The revised application is more in keeping with the urban design objectives of ensuring extensive animation in the Yonge Dundas area while minimizing intrusion into the 4.0 metres setback area along Yonge Street. The owner has further agreed to write the City with his undertaking that the 10.5 metres height will only be utilized if needed because of the bottle shape of the 3-D sign. Otherwise the height of the sign will be reduced to 9 metres.

My staff have consulted with Works and Emergency Services staff who were of the view that the sign size should be reduced to minimize distraction to motorists. The reductions in scale as noted above should assist in this regard.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

306 Yonge Street (595 Bay Street)

Insert Table/Map No. 2

306 Yonge Street (595 Bay Street)

Insert Table/Map No. 3

306 Yonge Street (595 Bay Street)

Insert Table/Map No. 4

306 Yonge Street (595 Bay Street)

Insert Table/Map No. 5

306 Yonge Street (595 Bay Street)

4

Amendment to Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement

and Development Agreement - 7 Station Street (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To seek Council authorization to amend the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement for the SkyWalk to permit temporary reductions to the width of the pedestrian walkway to facilitate programmed activities within the walkway.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement registered on October 28, 1988 as Instrument No. C515235 and the Development Agreements registered on October 18, 1988 as Instrument Nos. C512661 and CT984969 for a trial period of 2 years, as they apply to the pedestrian walkway through the site, to permit temporary reductions to the SkyWalk width, subject to the following conditions:

(a) a minimum 6 metre clear width be maintained at all times;

(b) all displays, furnishing, exhibits or any other obstructions be temporary in nature and not permanently affixed to the structure;

(c) any area used by people viewing the displays, exhibits, etc., or engaged in any activity associated with the temporary reduction, shall not be included as part of the 6 metre clear width requirement;

(d) the temporary reduction shall be permitted only within the area between a point 6 metres west of the stairs identified as "Stair #8" to a point 6 metres east of the doors identified as "West Doors to Platform" and in any case, shall not obstruct "Stair #2" and Stair #3" within the building on the north side of the SkyWalk (See Map 1);

(e) the owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that the revisions will satisfy all relevant "Code" requirements, including the Ontario Building Code and Fire Code, with particular reference to exit capacity and occupant load requirements; and

(f) the owner and the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, mutually agree on the definition of a "major event", the precise areas to be allowed for reductions, and that the temporary reductions of the SkyWalk will not be allowed to occur when the SkyWalk would be used to give access to such "major events".

Comments:

Location

The portion of the SkyWalk under review is that part located on the south side of the former Station Street, west of York Street shown on Map 1.

Proposal

The applicant has requested permission to narrow the functional width of the walkway to allow the current 9 metre (31.7 ft.) width to be reduced to allow for programmed activities within the SkyWalk. The purpose of such activities would be to enhance the vitality of the space with programming meant to reach out to SkyWalk users and to encourage potential new users of the walkway. Typical events could include staging areas for stair climbs at the CN Tower, fashion shows, displays related to events being held at SkyDome, craft fairs, dinners, etc. It is anticipated that these displays or events would be of a temporary nature which would not be allowed to occur on days when there might be a "major event" occurring at SkyDome.

SkyWalk Requirements

The portion of the SkyWalk subject to this request has a current minimum width of about 9 metres, except at the York Street Bridge connecting the SkyWalk to Union Station which is required to be maintained with a minimum width of 8.2 metres. Along the length of the SkyWalk, however, the doorways reduce the functional width of the pedestrian walkway to about 5.5 metres. Due to this functional reduction to 5.5 metres at existing doorways, it is not expected that the proposed reduction to 6 metres elsewhere within the walkway would reduce its overall pedestrian flow. This proposal has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services who has agreed with the requested reductions, subject to the above noted conditions. (See Appendix A).

It should also be noted that the current Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement allows for the applicant to request permission to permanently close the SkyWalk subject to various conditions being met. These conditions include the construction of the now built portions of Bremner Boulevard and the construction of satisfactory pedestrian connections from Bremner Boulevard to Union Station. The comments from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advise the applicant that a request to permanently close the SkyWalk would require a separate application to him for review and approval.

Conclusion:

In the review of this application, it has become clear that throughout much of time the SkyWalk is open, it is significantly underutilised. This has been reflected in the viability of the retail commercial uses adjacent to the SkyWalk and the ability of the owners to attract advertising for the walkway walls. Given that the everyday usage of the SkyWalk has declined, I am recommending that subject to the above noted conditions, the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement and the Development Agreement be amended to permit the temporary reduction of the required width of the SkyWalk from 9 metres to 6 metres in the portion of the SkyWalk generally south of Station Street.

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval: Y Application Number: 399026
Rezoning: N Application Date: March 19, 1999
O. P. A.: N Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address: 7 Station Street.

Nearest Intersection: Southwest corner of Station Street and York Street.
Project Description: To amend a previous application #388074.
Applicant:

Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

250 Yonge St. #2400

979-2211

Agent:

Goodman Phillips & Vineberg

250 Yonge St. #2400

979-2211

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: FDS - Area A Site Specific Provision: 612-85; 568-91
Zoning District: CR BLOCK 6 Historical Status: No
Height Limit (m): 137.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area: Height: Storeys:
Frontage: Metres:
Depth:
Indoor Outdoor
Ground Floor: Parking Spaces:
Residential GFA: Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA: (number, type)
Total GFA:
Density
Residential Density: Non-Residential Density: Total Density:
Comments
Status: Application received.
Data valid: March 19, 1999 Section: CP South District Phone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1. Works and Emergency Services (August 6, 1999)

Location

South side of former Station Street, west of York Street (the CN Express Building) forming a portion of the pedestrian walkway system (SkyWalk) between Union Station and SkyDome.

Proposal

To amend the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement and the Development Agreement for the site to allow the portion of the SkyWalk located within the CN Express Building to be used for programmed activities. The applicant's proposal involves occupying portions of the SkyWalk through the building with displays, furnishings, etc. to accommodate temporary programming activities except on days when a "major" event is occurring at SkyDome.

Agreements

The Development Agreement for the site was registered on October 18, 1988 as Instrument Nos. C512661 and CT984969, and the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement was registered on October 28, 1988 as Instrument No. C515235.

SkyWalk Requirements

The subject portion of the SkyWalk has a minimum width of about 9 m. The York Street Bridge, which connects the SkyWalk to Union Station is required to be maintained with a minimum width of 8.2 m, and the Simcoe Street portion of the walkway, which connects to the west end of the subject portion of the walkway, has a minimum width of 9 m. Notwithstanding the above-noted widths, it is acknowledged that there are certain constraints to pedestrian flow along the SkyWalk, in particular, the doorways between the various SkyWalk sections. These constraints reduce the width of the pedestrian walkway to about 5.5 m at these locations. As a result, the temporary closing of portions of the SkyWalk through the subject building, to a limited extent, does not appear to be problematic from a pedestrian capacity perspective. Accordingly, I have no objections to amendments to the applicable agreements to permit the temporary narrowing of the SkyWalk through the subject building provided that a minimum 6 metre clear unobstructed width is maintained at all times, that all displays, furnishings, and any other obstructions are temporary in nature (i.e. not permanently fixed to the structure) and that the temporary closings satisfy all referent "Code" requirements, all as more particularly set out in the recommendations below. I note that the 6 metre clear width required should not include any areas likely to be used by people viewing displays or engaged in any activity associated with the temporary closing.

Finally, any proposal to close off, entirely, the SkyWalk within this building, or to reduce the clear width of the SkyWalk to less than 6 metres, will require a separate application to this Department for review and approval.

Recommendations:

1. That the Precinct 7 Precinct Agreement and the Development Agreement be amended, as they apply to the pedestrian walkway through the site, to permit temporary reductions to the SkyWalk width, subject to the following conditions:

(a) A minimum 6 metre clear width be maintained at all times;

(b) All displays, furnishings, exhibits or any other obstructions be temporary in nature and not permanently affixed to the structure;

(c) Any areas likely to be used by people viewing the displays, exhibits, etc. or engaged in any activity associated with the temporary closing, shall not be included as part of the 6 metre clear width requirement;

(d) The temporary closing shall be permitted only within the area between a point 6 metres west of the stairs identified as "Stair #8" to a point 6 metres east of the doors identified as "West Doors to Platform" and in any case, shall not obstruct "Stair #2" and "Stair #3" within the building on the north side of the SkyWalk;

(e) The owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official that the revisions will satisfy all relevant "Code" requirements, including Building Code and Fire Code, with particular reference to exit capacity and occupant load requirements; and

2. That the owner be advised that any proposal to reduce the clear width of the SkyWalk to less than 6 metres, or to close off the SkyWalk entirely, will require a separate application to Works and Emergency Services for review and approval.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

7 Station Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

7 Station Street

5

Tree Removal - 1560 Yonge Street (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Forestry has received a request from the owners of 1560 Yonge Street, to remove five City-owned trees at this location to facilitate the development and expansion of Delisle Court. The trees must be removed in order to allow for construction of an underground garage and vehicular access ramp.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Toronto Community Council approve the request for removal of five city-owned trees at 1560 Yonge Street conditional upon the applicant paying for all costs associated with the value of the trees and proposed removals, for a total of $4146.56.

Background:

This request for tree removals has been received in connection with an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application which proposes to construct a residential condominium on the property. The proposed development precludes the retention of the trees in question given the size and scale of the development.

Comments:

Forestry is in receipt of a request from NAK Design Group, acting on behalf of the owner of 1560 Yonge Street that the City consider the removal of five city-owned trees situated on Delisle Avenue. The trees in question are elm and mulberry, in fair condition with diameters ranging from 20 to 24 centimetres. The trees are currently growing in a poor location on the city road allowance within a retaining wall constructed between the Delisle Court parking area and the proposed location of the condominiums.

As required by Forestry Services, the applicant must provide payment to the City in the amount of $4146.56 to cover the value of the trees in question and the associated removal and replacement costs.

Conclusion:

The applicant has agreed to pay for all costs associated with the value of the trees, the removal costs and replacement costs for a total of $4146.56. In addition, a landscape plan has been submitted that demonstrates that the applicant will plant six new trees on the City road allowance at this location once construction is complete.

Contact Name:

Vicky Jeffery, 392-7390

6

Speed Hump Poll Results - Castlewood Road from

Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road

(North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that, in view of the negative poll results, Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

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 Castlewood Road have not been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the draft by-law to alter the section of Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road by means of the installation of speed humps not be enacted in light of the negative poll results.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, in adopting Clause No.73 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, approved the alterations of the pavement on the above-noted section of Castlewood Road, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the policy governing speed hump installation.

Comments:

The speed hump policy (as adopted by the former City of Toronto 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 endorse the speed hump proposal.

A total of 95 ballots were mailed out to eligible voters on Castlewood Road, from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road. The results of this poll, undertaken in June, 1999 are as follows: a total of 56 (59 percent) of the eligible voters responded to the poll, and of these, 35 (62.5 percent) opposed the plan and 21 (37.5 percent) supported the installation of speed humps.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps requires that 60 percent of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal. As only 37.5 percent of the poll respondents were in favour of the speed hump proposal, in accordance with Council policy, no further action should be taken in this regard.

I note for Council's information that the policy further stipulates that a two year moratorium on further polling be imposed following an unsuccessful poll.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Senior Traffic Investigator, (416) 392-7771

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause 50 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road - Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Castlewood Road

7

Castle Knock Road, From Eglinton Avenue West

to Roselawn Avenue - Proposed Installation

of Speed Humps (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from North Toronto Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston to report on a plan to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on Castle Knock Road, from Eglinton Avenue West to Roselawn Avenue, by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost to implement this plan is $3,000.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Castle Knock Road, from Eglinton Avenue West to Roselawn Avenue, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results to the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on CASTLE KNOCK ROAD, from Eglinton Avenue West to Roselawn Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5446, dated August 1999";

(2) That a speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour be introduced on Castle Knock Road, from Eglinton Avenue East to Roselawn Avenue, coinciding with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

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

Comments:

Transportation Services' staff, at the request of the Ward Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston, on behalf of residents of Castle Knock Road, have investigated the feasibility of installing speed humps on Castle Knock Road, from Eglinton Avenue West and Roselawn Avenue, to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.

Castle Knock Road, between Eglinton Avenue West and Roselawn Avenue, operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 m with a speed limit of 40 km/h. Parking is prohibited at any time on both sides of the roadway from Eglinton Avenue West to Burnaby Boulevard and on the west side, between Burnaby Boulevard and Crestview Road. Parking is prohibited between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, but permitted to a maximum period of one hour at other times, on the east side, between Burnaby Boulevard and Willowbank Avenue. Parking is permitted but restricted to a maximum period of one hour anytime on the east side of Castle Knock Road, between Burnaby Boulevard and Crestview Road. Parking is prohibited between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., from Crestview Road to a point 36.5 m south of Roselawn Avenue, on the west side and from Elwood Boulevard to a point 41 m south of Roselawn Avenue, on the east side. Otherwise, parking is permitted to a maximum period of three hours.

A speed and volume survey conducted on weekdays by Transportation Services' staff in June 1998, recorded an average two-way traffic volume of about 1,800 vehicles daily with an average operating speed (speed at which 85% or less of the traffic travels) of 58 km/h in the southbound direction and 52 km/h in the northbound direction. The average speed of vehicles on the street is 43 km/h and about 16% of the vehicles travel in excess of 55 km/h.

The grade of the roadway on Castle Knock Road, between Burnaby Boulevard and Crestview Road, is in excess of the maximum allowable grade (for speed humps) of 5% and the short block between Eglinton Avenue West and Burnaby Boulevard does not have a speeding problem. As a result of meetings and correspondence with representatives of the residents of Castle Knock Road, they were not satisfied with the original speed hump plan proposed by staff earlier this year and accordingly, at a meeting of July 22, 1999, it was agreed to provide two speed humps as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5446, dated August 1999. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. If this proposal were to be implemented, no impacts on parking would be anticipated, no changes to parking regulations would be required, and the effect on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection would 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 the street, and also of households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installation. Under this policy, at least 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, subject to approval by your Council of the above recommendations, Transportation Services' staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to Castle Knock Road as set out above constitute alterations to public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure the proposal does not unduly hamper their operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

This project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for the Municipal Roads Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Michael J. Harris,

Supervisor of Traffic Engineering,

District 1, Central Area.

(416) 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Castle Knock Road

8

Installation of Speed Humps - St. Clements Avenue,

from Avenue Road to Caldow Road

(North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 19, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the Toronto Community Council for a report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on the subject section of St. Clements Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $18,000.00, funds for which are available in the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow 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 St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Castlewood Road and St. Clements Avenue, from Castlewood Road to Caldow Road generally as shown on the attached prints of Drawings Nos. 42IF-5414 and 42IF- 5428 dated June 1999 and July 1999, respectively.";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow Road coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures and as legislation permits; 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.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of December 9, 1998, in considering a communication (November 24, 1998) from Councillor Anne Johnston, requested that Transportation Services report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on St. Clements Avenue, from Castlewood Road to Caldow Road.

Comments:

As a result of the above - noted request from the Toronto Community Council, as well as a request from North Toronto Councillor Michael Walker to investigate the feasibility of installing speed humps on St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Castlewood Road, Transportation Services has reviewed the entire section of St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow Road.

St. Clements Avenue, from Avenue Road to Caldow Road, operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

Transportation Services' staff recently conducted a 24-hour speed and volume surveys on St. Clements Avenue over a four-day period. The results of the survey on the section of St. Clements Avenue, between Avenue Road and Castlewood Road, revealed a daily combined total of 1,762 vehicles in both directions during this period, of which 1,260 (72 percent) travelled at a rate of speed of 55 kilometres per hour or less and 502 (28 percent) travelled at a rate of speed in excess of 55 kilometres per hour. The combined average operating speed (the speed at or below which 85 percent of the vehicles travelled) over the four- day period was 59 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 48 kilometres per hour.

The results of the survey on the section of St. Clements Avenue, between Castlewood Road and Caldow Road revealed a daily combined total of 1,132 vehicles in both directions during this period, of which 1036 (92 percent) travelled at a rate of speed of 55 kilometres per hour or less and 96 (8 percent) travelled at a rate of speed in excess of 55 kilometres per hour. The speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travelled for the period was 52 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 42 kilometres per hour.

The traffic calming proposal for the section of St. Clements Avenue, between Avenue Road and Castlewood Road, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5414 dated June 1999, consists of six speed humps, while the traffic calming proposal for the section of St. Clements Avenue, between Castlewood Road and Caldow Road, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5428 dated July 1999, consists of four speed humps. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also households on sidestreets 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, subject to the recommendations noted above being approved, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the subject section of St. Clements 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 will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Randy Hillis, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (September 13, 1999) from Mr. Mark K. Evans, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

St. Clements Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

St. Clements Avenue

9

Installation of Speed Humps - Campbell Avenue,

from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street (Davenport)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Campbell Avenue, between Wallace Avenue and Dupont Street, by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work and associated signage in the estimated amount of $7,500.00 are available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Campbell Avenue, between Wallace Avenue and Dupont Street, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of 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 CAMPBELL AVENUE, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5427, dated July 1999.";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Campbell Avenue, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; 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 are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero and residents of Campbell Avenue, Transportation Services' staff investigated the feasibility of installing speed humps on Campbell Avenue, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street.

Campbell Avenue, from Wallace Avenue to Dupont Street, operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

A speed and volume survey was conducted on the subject section of Campbell Avenue over a four-day period in December 1998. The survey found that on average, 1,130 vehicles per day travelled northbound and southbound on Campbell Avenue, between Wallace Avenue and Dupont Street, with an operating speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the vehicular traffic travels at or below) that ranged from 50 to 58 kilometres per hour over the period of the survey with an average speed limit of 43 kilometres per hour. On a daily basis, approximately 14 percent of vehicular traffic travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Campbell Avenue was further reviewed in accordance to the secondary criteria set out in the policy established by the former City of Toronto Council in August 1997, i.e., using a technical screening mechanism to evaluate the need for speed humps based on prevailing traffic conditions, vehicle speed percentages and pertinent collision data (according to Police Service collision records, there were no reported collisions on the subject section of Campbell Avenue for the three-year period ending September 30, 1998, which could be attributed to speeding). During the course of this evaluation the subject section of Campbell Avenue received 51 points out of a possible 100.

In light of the above, it has been determined that the installation of speed humps is technically warranted on the subject section of Campbell Avenue.

In accordance with the above noted Speed Hump Policy, once it has been determined that the criteria for speed hump installation has been satisfied, a formal poll must be conducted of adults, 18 years of age and older, whose residence directly abuts Campbell Avenue or whose sole access to their residence is from Campbell Avenue. Further, at least 60 percent of returned ballots must be in favour of the installation of speed humps in order to proceed with the proposal. Accordingly, staff will conduct this poll and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project.

The speed hump proposal, as illustrated on the attached copy of Drawing No. 421F-5427, dated July 1999, consists of five speed humps. A speed limit reduction from the present 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Campbell Avenue, concurrent with the installation of the speed humps, would be appropriate. No alterations to the parking regulations are required nor will the number of on-street parking spaces be affected.

The installation of speed humps on Campbell Avenue constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Consequently, the proposed changes to the roadway must be advertised and be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with emergency service agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the design and layout of speed humps does not adversely affect their operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Campbell Avenue

10

Installation of Speed Humps - Macdonell Avenue,

Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on MACDONELL AVENUE, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5356, dated March 1999";

(2) the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures and as legislation permits; and

(3) 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.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 20, 1999) from Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request of Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski for a report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on Macdonell Avenue between Wabash Avenue and Seaforth Avenue.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

At the request of Ward Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and area residents, we assessed the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, in response to concerns about the volume and excessive speed of traffic on this street.

Macdonell Avenue operates two-way from Wabash Avenue to Rideau Avenue, operates one-way southbound from Rideau Avenue to Seaforth Avenue and operates two-way from Seaforth Avenue to Queen Street West, with a 40 kilometres per hour speed limit and a pavement width which varies from 6 metres to 9.8 metres. The Toronto Transit Commission provides regularly scheduled bus service (Lansdowne No. 47 bus route) on Macdonell Avenue, between Seaforth Avenue and Queen Street West.

A twenty-four hour speed and volume survey was conducted on Macdonell Avenue over five consecutive days and it was found that the street carries an average daily combined total of 1,165 vehicles per day (507 northbound and 658 southbound) between Wabash Avenue and Wright Avenue, of which 26 (2.2 percent) travelled at an excessive rate of speed (over 55 kilometres per hour). The combined average operating speed (the speed that 85 percent of the motorists travelled at or below) recorded was 48 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 36 kilometres per hour.

On the section of Macdonell Avenue, between Galley Avenue and Garden Avenue, of the average daily combined total of 1,153 vehicles per day, (4.9 percent) travelled at an excessive rate of speed (over 55 kilometres per hour). I advise that the combined average operating speed (the speed that 85 percent of the motorists travelled at or below) recorded was also 48 kilometres per hour with an average speed of 38 kilometres per hour.

Macdonell Avenue was further reviewed in accordance to the secondary criteria set out in the policy established by the former City of Toronto Council in August 1997, i.e., using a technical screening mechanism to evaluate the need for speed humps based on prevailing traffic conditions, vehicle speed percentages and pertinent collision data (according to Police Service collision records, there were no reported collisions on the subject section of Macdonell Avenue for the three-year period ending March 31, 1997, which could be attributed to speeding). During the course of this evaluation, the subject section of Macdonell Avenue received only 27 points out of possible 100. Based upon the relatively low score and taking into consideration the speed profile noted above, no further action is recommended at this time.

Notwithstanding the above and bearing in mind that the primary criteria for the installation of speed humps have been technically satisfied, should Toronto Community Council wish to proceed with the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Macdonell Avenue, then the following recommendations would be adopted:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5356, dated March 1999";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Macdonell Avenue, from Wabash Avenue to Seaforth Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures and as legislation permits; 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.

The traffic calming plan, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5356, dated March 1999, consists of eight speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

In the event that Council deems it appropriate to consider a speed hump plan, 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, subject to approval by Council, Transportation Services' staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the Macdonell Avenue roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

This project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Project.

It is estimated that the cost to implement this proposal is $17,600.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

MacDonell Avenue

11

Speed Humps - Gladstone Avenue, Between College Street

and Sylvan Avenue, and Lindsey Avenue, Between

Dufferin Street and Havelock Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) that approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on GLADSTONE AVENUE, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5440, dated August 1999.";

(2) that approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, 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 LINDSEY AVENUE, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5404, dated June 1999.";

(3) that a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(4) that a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits;

(5) 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.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request of the Toronto Community Council for a report on the feasibility and effectiveness of installing speed humps on Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, and on Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 26 and 27, 1999, in considering a communication (May 10, 1999) from Trinity-Niagara Councillor Joe Pantalone, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the feasibility of installing speed humps on Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue and on Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street.

Comments:

Transportation Services' staff have reviewed traffic conditions on Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, and on Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street, in order to report on the feasibility of installing speed humps to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on these streets.

Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue

Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, operates one-way northbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys conducted by Transportation Services staff over a seven day period indicated the subject section of Gladstone Avenue carries an average daily volume of approximately 1,200 vehicles.

In terms of vehicular speed, the above studies have revealed that the average daily speed on this section of Gladstone Avenue was 31 kilometres per hour. The average operating speed (the speed at which 85% of the traffic volume operates at or below) was 38 kilometres per hour. Incidents of excessive speeding (vehicles travelling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour) represented less than 0.2% of the average daily traffic volume.

A review of the Toronto Police Service's collision data records for Gladstone Avenue between College Street and Sylvan Avenue for the three year period beginning January 1, 1996 and ending December 31, 1998, revealed there were no collisions reported.

Although the primary criteria as set out in the speed hump installation policy established by the former City of Toronto Council in August 1997, has been technically satisfied, based upon the secondary criteria i.e., using a technical screening mechanism to evaluate the need for speed humps based on prevailing traffic conditions, vehicle speed percentages and pertinent collision data, our assessment indicates that the speed profile for Gladstone Avenue, between College Street and Sylvan Avenue, is typical of many local/residential streets across the City and that the majority of motorists travel at safe operating speeds. Although the installation of speed humps would certainly eliminate any excessive speeding on these streets, the incidence of excessive speeding represents less than 0.2 percent of the daily traffic volume and is relatively minor when compared to a number of other locations where excessive speeding constitutes a much greater percentage of the total daily traffic volume. Accordingly, no further action is recommended on Gladstone Avenue between College Street and Sylvan Avenue at this time.

Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street

Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street operates two-way eastbound/westbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres with a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys conducted by Transportation Services' staff over a four day period indicated the subject section of Lindsey Avenue carries an average daily volume of approximately 600 vehicles. These volumes are significantly below the minimum requirement of 1,000 vehicles per day necessary for further consideration of the installation of speed humps.

In terms of vehicular speed, the above studies have revealed that the average daily speed on this section of Lindsey Avenue was 30 kilometres per hour for both directions. The average operating speed (the speed at which 85% of the traffic volume operates at or below) was 38 kilometres per hour for both directions. Incidents of excessive speeding (vehicles travelling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour) represented 1% of the average daily traffic volume.

A review of the Toronto Police Service's collision data records for Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street, for the three year period beginning January 1, 1996 and ending December 31, 1998, revealed there were two midblock collisions reported and speeding was not a factor in either situation.

Based upon the criteria set out in the policy established by the former City of Toronto Council in August, 1997, i.e., using a technical screening mechanism to evaluate the need for speed humps based on prevailing traffic conditions, vehicle speed percentages and pertinent collision data, the speed profile for Lindsey Avenue, between Dufferin Street and Havelock Street, is typical of many local/residential streets across the City and that the majority of motorists travel at safe operating speeds. Although the installation of speed humps would certainly eliminate any excessive speeding on these streets, the incidence of excessive speeding represents less than 1 percent of the daily traffic volume (6 vehicles) and is relatively minor when compared to a number of other locations where excessive speeding constitutes a much greater percentage of the total daily traffic volume. Accordingly, no further action is recommended on this section of Lindsey Avenue at this time.

Notwithstanding the above, the installation of speed humps on adjacent residential streets in the immediate vicinity (Havelock Street, between College Street and Bloor Street West, and Sylvan Street, between Havelock Street and Dufferin Street) have been supported by Toronto City Council and the affected residents, and the installation on same is currently underway.

Should Toronto Community Council wish to proceed with the installation of speed humps on the subject sections of Gladstone Avenue and Lindsey Avenue, the following recommendations should be adopted:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5440, dated August 1999.";

(2) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, 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 Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 42IF-5404, dated June 1999.";

(3) That a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Gladstone Avenue, from College Street to Sylvan Avenue, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits; and

(4) That a speed limit of thirty kilometres per hour be introduced on Lindsey Avenue, from Dufferin Street to Havelock Street, coincident with the implementation of speed humps and as legislation permits;

(5) 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.

The traffic calming proposals for the subject sections of Gladstone Avenue and Lindsey Avenue are illustrated on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 42IF-5440 and 42IF-5404, respectively. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected sections of the streets, and also of 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, subject to approval by your Council of the above recommendations, Transportation Services' staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the sections of Gladstone Avenue and Lindsey Avenue, as described above, constitute alterations 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. Again, subject to your Council's approval of the above recommendations, consultations with the emergency services will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations. However, the introduction of speed humps would result in slower operating speeds for all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, resulting in increased response times.

These projects would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for the Municipal Roads Project.

It is estimated that the cost to implement this proposal is $10,500.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Capitol Budget.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Gladstone Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Lindsey Avenue

12

Adjustment of "No Stopping" Regulation -

Armadale Avenue, Both Sides, North of Bloor Street West

(High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To relieve traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity of the Jane Subway Station.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $1,000.00 funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No parking anytime" on both sides of Armadale Avenue from Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north be rescinded;

(2) That the "No stopping 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" on both sides of Armadale Avenue from Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north be rescinded;

(3) That stopping be prohibited at anytime, on both sides of Armadale Avenue from Bloor Street West to points 15 metres north;

(4) That stopping be prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on both sides of Armadale Avenue from points 15 metres north of Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north;

(5) That parking be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Armadale Avenue from points 15 metres north of Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Ward Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and area residents, Works staff assessed the feasibility of introducing more stringent parking regulations on both sides of Armadale Avenue, between Bloor Street West and the Jane Subway Station, to relieve traffic congestion.

Armadale Avenue operates two-way with a 50 kilometres per hour speed limit and a pavement width which varies from 11 metres, from Bloor Street West to a point 59 metres north, to 8.5 metres north of that point. Daily traffic volumes average 2,000 vehicles per day.

Parking is prohibited at anytime on both sides of the street, from Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north, and stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from Bloor Street West to points 87 metres (east side) and 69 metres (west side) north. Alternate side parking operates on this street and parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, outside of the 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily permit parking hours of operation. Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

In consideration of the present traffic congestion on the subject portion of Armadale Avenue, to facilitate the safe movement of vehicular traffic, to improve the turning radius for transit vehicles and reduce congestion, the regulation changes noted in Recommendation Nos.1 to 5, above, should be implemented to prohibit stopping at anytime on both sides of Armadale Avenue from Bloor Street West to points 15 metres north.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

13

Designation of Exclusive Northbound Right-Turn Lane -

Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West

(Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To designate the easterly northbound curb lane for right turns only on Spadina Avenue at Queen Street West.

Funding Sources:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the easterly northbound lane on Spadina Avenue at Queen Street West be designated exclusively for right-turning vehicles, from Queen Street West to a point 30.5 metres south thereof; and

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

Comments:

At the request from a member of the public, Transportation Services' staff have reviewed the operations of the northbound approach on Spadina Avenue to Queen Street West with the view of creating an exclusive northbound right-turn lane to improve safety for motorists and cyclists.

The intersection of Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West is controlled by traffic control signals. The northbound approach to this intersection consists of a left-turn lane, two through lanes and a right-turn lane. Two northbound discharge lanes are provided on the far side of this intersection.

The northbound left-turn lane is currently adequately marked with pavement markings and is provided with an exclusive signal phase. The right-turn lane, whose taper starts approximately 50 metres south of Queen Street West, is marked with pavement markings only. Designation of the northbound curb lane for right turns only and the associated installation of the lane designation sign will provide better guidance for northbound motorists and cyclists approaching this intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Danny Budimirovic, P.Eng.

Traffic Engineer, District 1 - Central Area

(416) 392-5209

14

Removal of Disabled Persons On-Street Parking Space -

Margueretta Street, fronting Premises No. 238

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 27, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a request for the removal of a disabled persons on-street parking space.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $150.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the west side of Margueretta Street, from a point 304 metres south of Bloor Street West, to a point 9 metres further south (implemented by By-law No. 1994-0282), be rescinded;

(2) That the appropriate permit parking schedule be amended by increasing the number of parking spaces by one; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, Transportation Service's staff have investigated the feasibility of removing the on-street disabled persons parking space fronting Premises No. 238 Margueretta Street as this privilege is no longer required.

The rescindment of the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the west side of Margueretta Street between a point 304 metres south of Bloor Street West and a point 9 metres further south will increase the available number of permit parking spaces by one.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771.

15

Introduction of Overnight Permit Parking - North Side of

Queen Street East, Between Rainsford Road

and Kingston Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of overnight permit parking on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road, on an area basis, within permit area 9C, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) permit parking be introduced on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road, on an area basis within permit area 9C, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday;

(2) the newly created Schedule AD, of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be introduced to incorporate the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road; and

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

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, gave consideration to Clause 45 contained in Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Introduction of Pay-and-Display Parking Machines where Parking is Currently Allowed - Queen Street East, both sides, from Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue". Council adopted the Clause without amendment, and by so doing, recommended, among other things, a poll be conducted of the residents of Queen Street East with respect to the introduction of permit parking on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road.

Comments:

Under the provision of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, we are required to conduct a poll of the residents to determine if there is support to introduce permit parking.

Ballots were mailed out on June 3, 1999, with the last date for filling a response being July 5, 1999. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast

opposed 4

in favour 12

16
No response 145
Returned by post office 19
Total ballots issued 180

A field survey has determined that there are thirty seven (37) potential on-street permit parking spaces available on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of permit parking on Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road. It is therefore, recommended that permit parking be introduced on the north side of Queen Street East, between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road, on an area basis within permit area 9C, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Saturday and Sunday.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

16

Introduction of Overnight Permit Parking on the East Side of

Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road

and Westport Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) permit parking be introduced on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, within permit parking area 3D, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

(2) Schedule F of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue;

(3) the existing no parking 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday prohibitions on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, be rescinded; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of overnight permit parking on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, within permit parking area 3D, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the introduction of permit parking on Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, being a former Metro Roads (main arterial roads), where authority currently does not exist for the implementation of permit parking privileges.

OR

(2) (a) permit parking be introduced on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, within permit parking area 3D, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

(b) Schedule F of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue;

(c) the existing no parking 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday prohibitions on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, be rescinded; and

(d) 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:

City Council at its meeting of December 16 & 17, 1998, amended Clause No. 3 of Report No. 16, entitled "Extension of Permit Parking Hours - Westport Avenue, between Old Weston Road and Davenport Road (Davenport)". Council requested the foregoing Clause be amended to provide that the extended permit parking hours also apply to Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, and that the authority be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Comments:

Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, is not licenced for permit parking. Under the provision of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, we are required to conduct a poll of the residents to determine if there is support to introduce permit parking.

Ballots were mailed out on May 12, 1999, with the last date for filling a response being June 11, 1999. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast

opposed

in favour

12

4

8

No response

26

Returned by post office

0

Total ballots issued 38

A field survey has determined that there are seven (7) potential on-street permit parking spaces available on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue.

The provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, provides the authority to license permit parking on City streets and does not provide the authority to license former Metro Roads (main arterial roads).

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of implementing permit parking on the east side of Old Weston Road, between Davenport Road and Westport Avenue, within permit area 3D, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

The Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend permit parking be introduced on a former Metro Road (main arterial road) where authority currently does not exist.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

17

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Valifor Place,

Between the Canadian National Railway and

Torbrick Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week to 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) the permit parking hours of operation on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2) Schedule E of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Sandra Bussin to have the permit parking hours reduced on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 8B, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Permit area 8B has a total of 2,377 on-street parking spaces with 1,959 permits issued to date. On Valifor Place itself, there are 8 on-street permit parking spaces with a total of 4 permits issued to residents on the street.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, 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 Sun on May 18, 1999 and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Valifor Place, between the Canadian National Railway and Torbrick Road, be amended to indicate 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

18

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on the South Side of

Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a Point 36.6 Metres

West of Jane Street (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on the south side of Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) the permit parking hours of operation on the south side of Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2) Schedule P of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street: and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, on behalf of an area resident to, have the permit parking hours extended on Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit area 1E, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Weatherell Street, from Jane Street to a point 36.6 metres west of Jane Street, is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

19

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Brunswick Avenue,

Between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and Sunday, and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Saturday.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) the permit parking hours of operation on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, be reduced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and Sunday, and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Saturday;

(2) the newly created Schedule AB, of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be introduced to incorporate Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor John Adams and Councillor Ila Bossons to have the permit parking hours reduced on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, from the current hours of 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and Sunday, and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Saturday.

Comments:

Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 5D, and the hours of operation are 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Permit area 5D has a total of 1,001 on-street parking spaces with 969 permits issued to date. On Brunswick Avenue itself, there are 10 on-street permit parking spaces with a total of 8 permits issued to residents on the street.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells 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 and The Gleener on April 1, 1999 and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Brunswick Avenue, between Bernard Avenue and Wells Street, be amended to indicate 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and Sunday, and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Saturday.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

20

Adjustment of Parking Regulations -

Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To enhance the flow of traffic on Roxborough Street West in the vicinity of Avenue Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are available under the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to a point 30.5 metre further east; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, staff reviewed the existing parking regulations on Roxborough Street West, in the vicinity of Avenue Road, with the intention of improving traffic flow and enhancing the sightlines for pedestrians.

Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to Molson Street, operates two-way on a pavement width of 10.1 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to a point 30.5 metres further east, to ensure that westbound traffic is unimpeded by parked vehicles in the designated right turn lane when departing the intersection of Avenue Road and Roxborough Street West. Left turns onto Avenue Road from Roxborough Street West are prohibited at all times. Parking is permitted for a maximum of one hour, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, on both sides of Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to Molson Street.

During the course of investigations, Transportation Services' staff observed that vehicles park for extended periods of time within the 30.5 metre prohibited parking area located on the north side of Roxborough Street West, east of Avenue Road , impeding the traffic flow, reducing sightlines for pedestrians and creating delays to westbound traffic. To address this situation, and enhance traffic flow at this intersection, the more stringent "No Stopping Anytime" regulation should be implemented on the north side of Roxborough Street West, from Avenue Road to a point 30.5 metres further east.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, Traffic Investigator, 392-7711

21

Adjustments to Parking Regulations - Inglewood Drive,

from Rose Park Drive to Heath Street East (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To discourage long-term, non-residential parking on this portion of Inglewood Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That parking be permitted for a maximum period of one hour, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on both sides of Inglewood Drive, from Rose Park Drive to Heath Street East; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor John Adams, on behalf of area residents, staff have investigated the feasibility of implementing a one hour daytime maximum parking limit to discourage long-term, non-resident parking on both sides of Inglewood Drive, from Rose Park Drive to Heath Street East.

Inglewood Drive from Rose Park Drive to Heath Street East, operates two-way on an 8.5 metre pavement width. Permit parking operates on both sides of the street between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. daily. Parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum period of three hours.

In a letter and accompanying petition to Councillor Adams, area residents have expressed concerns regarding non-residents, who work or shop in the Yonge Street/St. Clair Avenue area, who regularly park their vehicles on Inglewood Drive for extended periods of time throughout the day. The introduction of a one hour maximum parking limit should address this concern. Residents in possession of a valid parking permit would be exempt from this temporal restriction. In this regard, I would recommend that parking be permitted for a maximum periodof one hour as described in Recommendation No. 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, Traffic Investigator, 392-7711

22

Adjustments to Parking Regulations and Implementation of

One-Way Northbound Traffic Operation -

Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to

Davenport Road (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To provide additional parking spaces and to implement a one-way northbound traffic operation on Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue and Davenport Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing "No Standing at Anytime" regulation on the east side of Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to a point 85.0 metres north, be rescinded;

(2) That the existing one hour maximum parking regulation, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of Madison Avenue, from a point 45 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 85.0 metres north of MacPherson Avenue be changed to operate from a point 45 metres south of Davenport Road to MacPherson Avenue;

(3) That a one-way northbound traffic operation be designated on Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road; 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:

At the request of Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, on behalf of representatives of the Alan Howard Waldorf School, Premises No. 250 Madison Avenue, staff have investigated the feasibility of rescinding the current "No Standing at Anytime" regulation on the east side of Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to a point 85.0 metres north and introducing a "One Hour Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation in its place and further, to consider the feasibility of implementing a one-way northbound traffic operation on Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road.

Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road, operates two-way on a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of the subject section of Madison Avenue. On the east side of Madison Avenue, standing is prohibited at anytime from MacPherson Avenue to a point 85.0 metres north (fronting Premises No. 374 Madison Avenue), parking is prohibited from Davenport Road to a point 45.0 metres south and in between, parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Premises No. 375 Madison Avenue, formerly used by Toronto Hydro, is presently vacant. Previously, Toronto Hydro utility vehicles would halt momentarily to load/unload on Madison Avenue and the area in front of this property was generally kept clear of parked vehicles to enhance the turning radius for Hydro trucks entering/exiting the premises; hence the reason for standing prohibition on the east side of Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to a point 85.0 metres north. In light of the current status of Premises No. 375 Madison Avenue, this standing prohibition is no longer required and parking could be allowed to maximize the parking opportunities on this section of Madison Avenue.

Accordingly, for conformity with existing parking regulations on the remainder of the street, parking should be permitted on the east side of Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to a point 45 metres south of Davenport Road, to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Implementation of this proposal will create approximately nine additional parking spaces on Madison Avenue, between MacPherson Avenue and Davenport Road.

In addition to the above, representatives of the Allen Howard Waldorf School have expressed concerns regarding the impact of vehicles turning south on Madison Avenue from Davenport Road on the safety of children in the vicinity of the school. Motorists have been observed using this portion of Madison Avenue as a "short-cut" to the Davenport Road/Dupont Street intersection. There are no residential properties on Madison Avenue, from MacPherson Avenue to Davenport Road and the implementation of a one-way northbound operation should not negatively impact on residential streets in the immediate area. Implementation of this proposal should also enhance safety for school children destined to/from the school.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, Traffic Investigator, 392-7711

23

Prohibition of Standing at Anytime - Widmer Street, West Side

Between King Street West and Adelaide Street West

(Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 13, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To enhance tour bus loading/unloading operations at the flankage of Premises No. 370 King Street West (Holiday Inn Hotel) and to resolve operational safety concerns on the street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking at Anytime" regulation on the west side of Widmer Street, from King Street West to a point 68.6 metres further north, be changed to "No Standing at Anytime"; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a representative of the Holiday Inn Hotel (Premises No. 370 King Street West) and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, staff of Transportation Services have reviewed the parking regulations on Widmer Street, flanking the hotel, with the view of allowing tour buses improved access to the curb to load/unload patrons to the hotel and enhance traffic operation and safety on the street.

Widmer Street, from King Street West to Adelaide Street West operates two-way on a variable pavement width ranging between 7.3 metres and 10 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of the street from King Street West to a point 68.6 metres north and from that point to Adelaide Street West, parking (controlled by meters) is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Otherwise parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Widmer Street, from Adelaide Street West to a point 90 metres south, and from that point to King Street West, parking (controlled by meters) is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Otherwise parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Under the authority of the Highway Traffic Act, a vehicle, while actually engaged in loading/unloading passengers, may legally do so in an area where standing or parking is prohibited. Accordingly, vehicles (buses, delivery trucks, taxis and passenger vehicles) may legally stop on the west side of Widmer Street, between King Street West and a point 68.6 metres north (flankage of the Holiday Inn Hotel) to load/unload passengers or merchandise. However, if a vehicle is left unattended, it is unlawfully parked and subject to appropriate enforcement.

A site inspection by Transportation Services' staff has revealed that tour buses often cannot gain access to the curb and are forced to double park to load/unload patrons destined to the Holiday Inn Hotel due, in part, to the presence of parked vehicles displaying a valid disabled persons parking permit which may legally park for extended periods of time on the west side of Widmer Street, from King Street West to a point 68.6 metres further north (flankage of the Holiday Inn Hotel). This, in combination with parking on the east side of the street, narrows the pavement width of Widmer Street making passage along the street very difficult and adversely impacts on traffic operation and pedestrian safety.

To resolve this situation, a "No Standing at Anytime" prohibition should be designated on the west side of Widmer Street, from King Street West to a point 68.6 metres further north (the first parking meter stall) and in conjunction therewith, to enhance motorists' awareness of the pick-up/drop-off potential at the subject section of the street, staff of Transportation Services will post advisory signs indicating "Tour Bus Loading Area". This will enhance tour bus loading/unloading operations at the flankage of Premises No. 370 King Street West (Holiday Inn Hotel) and resolve the operational safety concerns noted above. Although this will result in the loss of an area that is currently used for on-street parking by disabled persons permit holders, as well as for delivery vehicles to halt momentarily to load/unload merchandise to the Holiday Inn Hotel, the benefits of providing enhanced operational safety on this section of Widmer Street outweighs the minor inconvenience that the loss of the "No Parking Anytime" area will create.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771,

24

Prohibition of Stopping at Anytime - Wellington Street West,

South Side, between York Street and University Avenue

(Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To keep the curb/sidewalk area clear of parked vehicles to ensure the safe and efficient flow of both pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The implementation cost of this proposal is approximately $500.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the stopping prohibition from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to Simcoe Street, be rescinded;

(2) That the parking prohibition at anytime on both sides of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to Clarence Square, be rescinded;

(3) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Wellington Street West, from York Street to University Avenue;

(4) That stopping be prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to Simcoe Street;

(5) That stopping be prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to York Street, and from University Avenue to Simcoe Street;

(6) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to Clarence Square;

(7) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Wellington Street West, from Yonge Street to York Street, and from University Avenue to Clarence Square; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a representative of the Empire Plaza, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 932 located at Premises No. 33 University Avenue and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, staff of Transportation Services have reviewed the parking regulations on the subject section of Wellington Street West, flanking the Empire Plaza, with the view of enhancing traffic operation and safety on the street.

Wellington Street West, between York Street and University Avenue, is a four lane arterial roadway operating one-way westbound on a pavement width of 12.8 metres. Stopping is prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of this portion of Wellington Street West. Otherwise, parking is prohibited at all other times.

The subject section of Wellington Street West is approximately 77.4 metres in length. Traffic control signals are in operation at both of the intersections of Wellington Street West with York Street and with University Avenue. Under the provisions of the Metropolitan Toronto Uniform Traffic By-law and of Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, no person shall park a vehicle within 30.5 metres of a signalized intersection. This is a uniform parking prohibition City-wide at all signalized intersections to ensure that traffic is unimpeded by parked vehicles when approaching and departing the intersection. A recent site inspection by Transportation Services' staff revealed that signs are posted and clearly visible identifying this regulation.

It is illegal for vehicles to mount the curb/sidewalk to load/unload merchandise, pick-up/drop-off pedestrians or as in this case, to park in order to purchase goods at the Coffee Time Cafe located on the south side of Wellington Street West, midblock, between York Street and University Avenue. Notwithstanding, this does happen from time to time throughout the City when motorists have nowhere else to conveniently temporarily stop their vehicles to load/unload merchandise, pick-up/drop-off pedestrians or as in this case, to park in order to purchase goods at an adjacent business, and are trying to maintain sufficient roadway space so other vehicles can safely pass by.

A site inspection by Transportation Services' staff confirmed the presence of parked vehicles, not only at the curb but also across the curb/sidewalk, which were parked illegally for short periods of time on the south side of Wellington Street West, between York Street and University Avenue. The illegal parking eliminated the use of the curb lane to moving traffic, made passage along the street difficult and adversely impacted on traffic operation and pedestrian safety on the sidewalk.

To resolve this situation, a more stringent "No Stopping at Anytime" regulation should be designated on the south side of Wellington Street West, between York Street and University Avenue, and in conjunction therewith, staff of Transportation Operations will install bollards immediately in back of the curb to curtail vehicles from mounting the curb/sidewalk in the future. This will result in the loss of an area that is currently used by delivery vehicles (outside the prohibited stopping times as indicated above) to halt momentarily to load/unload merchandise to businesses in the vicinity. However, the benefits of providing enhanced operational safety on this section of Wellington Street West outweighs the minor inconvenience that the loss of the "No Parking Anytime" area will create.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771,

25

Reduction of Maximum Speed Limit - Bingham Avenue

Between Kingston Road and Bracken Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 27, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a proposal intended to reduce speeding on this street and bring the speed limit on this section of Bingham Avenue into conformity with the other local streets in the neighbourhood.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the maximum speed limit on Bingham Avenue from Kingston Road to Bracken Avenue be reduced from 50 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour; and

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

Comments:

At the request of residents of Bingham Avenue and in consultation with East Toronto Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, staff have investigated reducing the speed limit from a maximum of 50 kilometres per hour to a maximum of 40 kilometres per hour on Bingham Avenue from Kingston Road to Bracken Avenue.

A recent 24-hour speed survey on Bingham Avenue recorded 397 vehicles travelling on the street of which 4.0% were recorded travelling at a rate of speed in excess of 50 kilometers per hour.

Although the traffic volume and incidence of speeding are low compared to most residential streets in the City, Bingham Avenue satisfies the former City of Toronto criteria for the introduction of a 40 kilometre per hour maximum speed limit. Implementing same would bring this street in line with the majority of surrounding streets in the neighborhood and could reduce the incidence of "top end" speeding over 50 kilometres per hour.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator

(416)392-7771

26

Provision of Parking - Queen Street East,

South Side, between 93 Metres East of Woodland Avenue

and 26.3 Metres further east (East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To increase the number of parking spaces on this section of Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the south side of Queen Street East from a point 34 metres west of Rhodes Avenue to a point 62 metres further west be rescinded;

(2) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Queen Street East from a point 72 metres east of Woodward Avenue to a point 21 metres further east and from a point 119.3 metres east of Woodward Avenue to a point 14.7 metres further east;

(3) That parking be allowed for a maximum period of 2 hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday from a point 93 metres east of Woodward Avenue to a point 26.3 metres further east; and

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

Comments:

At the request of local business proprietors and in consultation with Councillor Tom Jakobek, staff of Transportation Services have investigated rescinding a portion of the parking prohibition on the south side of Queen Street East opposite Premises No.1574 Queen Street East.

Based on our assessment, parking could be allowed for a maximum period of two hours from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and for a maximum period of three hours at other times (except for 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday when stopping is prohibited on all of Queen Street East). This would provide about four additional parking spaces within the immediate area and benefit patrons of the nearby businesses and visitors to the neighbourhood without adversely affecting operational safety.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

27

Proposed Lane Designation and Right-turn-on-red Prohibition

for Southbound Traffic - Bay Street and Lake Shore

Boulevard West (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 21, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To designate the two westerly- most southbound lanes as right-turn lanes and to prohibit right-turns on red for the southbound approach on Bay Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West in order to reduce delays.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage, pavement marking and traffic signal indication adjustments in the estimated amount of $7,000.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing regulation designating the westerly, most southbound, lane on Bay Street for right-turning vehicles only (except buses), from Lake Shore Boulevard West to a point 30.5 metres north thereof, be rescinded;

"BR2">

(2) That the two westerly-most southbound lanes on Bay Street be designated for right-turning vehicles only, from Lake Shore Boulevard West to a point 60 metres north thereof;

(3) That southbound right-turns-on-red be prohibited at all times at the intersection of Bay Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West; and

(4) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

In response to public requests, Transportation Services reviewed the operation of the southbound right-turn movement at the above-noted intersection. The inquirers' main concerns were dual southbound right turns and the delay that southbound right turns encounter at this intersection.

The intersection of Bay Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West is controlled by traffic signals. During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday approximately 25,000 motorists, 5000 pedestrians and 150 cyclists use this intersection. The southbound approach on Bay Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West is comprised of a right-turn lane (buses excepted) and a through lane. Traffic control signals at this intersection operate under the SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique) system, whereby signal timings are automatically adjusted in response to changing traffic patterns by analyzing traffic flow data obtained from sensors embedded in the roadways.

Due to significant conflicts between southbound right-turning motorists and pedestrians crossing the west leg of this intersection, in 1994 we subdivided the southbound green time into two phases. During the first phase southbound through vehicles and pedestrians crossing the west leg of the intersection are permitted to move. During the second phase, only southbound through and right-turning vehicles are permitted to move and no pedestrian crossings on the west leg are permitted. This modification reduced the pedestrian/vehicular conflict in this area and it also increased the capacity of the southbound right-turn movement.

During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday, approximately 3,500 pedestrians cross the west leg of this intersection and approximately 3,000 southbound right turns are made at this intersection. This movement experiences minimal delays during the weekday morning peak period and the off-peak period. However, during the weekday afternoon peak period significant delays occur and the queues in the southbound curb lane often extend to Front Street West. As a result, some frustrated southbound motorists perform illegal, dual right turns from the through lane and thus compromise the safety of pedestrians and motorists at this intersection. Similar situations occur after events at the Air Canada Centre. The following table summarizes the southbound right-turn movement (vehicles per hour) during each time period of a typical weekday:

Time period Legal right turns Dual right turns Total right turns
Weekday morning peak 308 1 309
Off-peak 367 9 376
Weekday afternoon peak 389 132 521

Unfortunately, congestion at this intersection is typical of many downtown locations during the weekday afternoon period. Because of the high concentration of office/business/retail activities in the downtown core and the limited amount of available road space, there is a high demand for the existing road capacity during the weekday afternoon peak period. This creates congestion at many downtown intersections, particularly on southbound routes such as Bay Street, York Street and Spadina Avenue that lead to Lake Shore Boulevard West and/or the Gardiner Expressway.

Existing regulatory and guidance signs, pavement markings and traffic signal indications conform to the provincial standards and provide clear direction and guidance to southbound motorists. Recently, a major construction project and lane closures on York Street, between Front Street West and Lake Shore Boulevard West, had a significant impact in this area by displacing north-south traffic to adjacent routes such as Bay Street. After this project was completed on July 9, 1999, we reviewed signal timings at the intersection of Bay Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West in hopes of decreasing delays for southbound right-turning motorists during the weekday afternoon peak period. In a field test, we modified some of the parameters in the SCOOT system and delays to southbound right-turning motorists were reduced. However, since the green time was reallocated from the westbound direction, increased delays were experienced by westbound motorists approaching this intersection. Therefore, we did not retain this signal timing modification because westbound volume is significantly higher than the southbound right-turn volume (approximately 1900 vehicles per hour vs. 520 vehicles per hour) during this time period.

As an alternate, we reviewed the existing pavement markings and the pavement width of Bay Street near Lake Shore Boulevard West. By adjusting pavement markings, a second southbound right-turn lane can be accommodated, while maintaining other north-south traffic lanes, within the existing pavement width of Bay Street. This modification will increase the capacity and decrease delays for the southbound right-turn movement at this intersection. A TTC southbound bus stop on Bay Street is located approximately 90 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard West. As a result, buses are currently exempted from the right-turn lane designation for the curb lane. We have consulted with TTC staff and they indicated that they already have operational concerns with this stop. As a result, they will either relocate this stop to the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West or they will remove the stop. In either case their southbound buses will proceed from the through lane and they no longer have to be exempted from the right-turn lane designation.

Currently, a minimal number of southbound right-turns on red are completed. This movement should be prohibited based on safety concerns for pedestrians and motorists. Firstly, some southbound right-turning motorists still proceed during the exclusive pedestrian crossing phase share on the west leg of the intersection creating safety concerns for pedestrians. Secondly, sightlines between southbound right-turning motorists and westbound through motorists are limited due to one of the Gardiner Expressway pillars on the north-east corner of the intersection. These concerns would only be exacerbated with dual southbound right-turns. Taking into account the addition of a second southbound right-turn lane, this prohibition will have negligible impacts on capacity. To reflect the above-noted modifications we will also modify the location of the southbound right-turn and through signal indications in order to provide motorists better direction and guidance.

A review of the Toronto Police Services collision records over a five-year period ending December 31, 1998 did not disclose any collisions that involved dual southbound right-turning vehicles or pedestrian crossing the west leg of the intersection. However, the above-noted modifications would be a preventative safety measure which would also increase capacity at this intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Danny Budimirovic, P.Eng.

Traffic Engineer, District 1 - Central Area

416-392-5209

28

Installation of Eastbound and Westbound "Stop" Signs -

Intersection of Coatsworth Street and Poulett Street

(Don River)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on clearly establishing right-of-way and improve the overall operating safety at this location.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary poles and signs installation in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That "stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Coatsworth Street at Poulett Street; and

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

Comments:

At the request of the Toronto Police Service, staff have investigated installing "Stop" signs for eastbound and westbound traffic on Coatsworth Street at Poulett Street to improve operational safety.

Coatsworth Street is a public lane, varying in width from 4.3 metres to 5.6 metres, operating two-way from Parliament Street to Berkeley Street . Poulett Street operates one-way northbound from Shuter Street to Dundas Street East on a pavement width varying from 5.5 metres to 6.3 metres. There is currently no "Stop" sign control at this intersection.

Due to the proximity of adjacent buildings, westbound motorists on Coatsworth Street at Poulett Street have very poor sight lines across the corners of the intersection. Although this is not unusual

at intersections involving public lanes and minor roadways, traffic volume generated by residential developments on Poulett Street has increased traffic volume on both streets and justifies the installation of "Stop" sign control to clearly establish right-of-way. In this regard, "Stop" signs should be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Coatsworth Street at Poulett Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Gary O'Neil, Traffic Investigator

392-7771

29

Installation of Northbound "Stop" Sign -

Intersection of Penny Lane and Orchard Park Boulevard

(East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To establish right-of-way for vehicles on Orchard Park Boulevard.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary sign installation in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Divisions 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That a "Stop" sign be installed for northbound traffic on Penny Lane at Orchard Park Boulevard; and

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

Comments

At the request of Councillor Tom Jakobek and in consultation with East Toronto Councillor Sandra Bussin staff have investigated installing a northbound "Stop" sign at the subject intersection to improve operational safety and clearly establish right-of-way.

Penny Lane and Orchard Park Boulevard form a T-type intersection with Orchard Park Boulevard being the through road. Penny Lane operates two-way and Orchard Park Boulevard operates one-way southbound. No "Stop" signs are posted at this intersection at the present time.

Based on our assessment, the intersection of Orchard Park Boulevard and Penny Lane satisfies the requirement for a northbound "Stop" control, to clearly establish right-of-way.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

30

Installation of "Stop" Sign - Jerome Street

at Indian Road (Davenport)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To install a "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Jerome Street at its intersection with Indian Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary pole and sign installation in the estimated amount of $200.00 are available in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That a "Stop" sign be installed for westbound traffic on Jerome Street at Indian Road; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Davenport Councillor Betty Disero, Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated installing a "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Jerome Street at its intersection with Indian Road.

Jerome Street meets Indian Road to form a "T"- type intersection with Indian Road being the through street. There is currently no "Stop" sign control at this intersection.

As a means of establishing right-of-way at this intersection, it is recommended that a "Stop" sign be posted for westbound traffic on Jerome Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

31

Installation of Signs to Direct Tourists

to Downtown Chinatown (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that signs advertising Downtown Chinatown be installed in the Front Street and Spadina Avenue area, at a location to be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chinatown Development Committee.

Purpose:

To respond to a request from Toronto Community Council to report on the feasibility of installing signs at appropriate locations directing traffic to Downtown Chinatown as a tourist destination.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 26, 1999, in considering a communication (May 25, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow, requested staff to report on the feasibility of installing signs at appropriate locations, directing traffic to Downtown Chinatown as a tourist destination and to consult with the Chinatown Development Association on possible locations for such signs (Clause 58(w) in Report No. 8).

Comments:

Councillor Chow, in her correspondence to the Community Council, suggested that signs similar to those installed for the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum be considered on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway directing traffic to Downtown Chinatown. The municipality has over the years received many requests from communities, business improvement associations, interest groups and attractions for the installation of "Special Attraction" signs to direct tourists to their attraction. As many of the preferred sign locations requested were on the expressways and major arterial roads, it was deemed necessary to develop a policy in order to prevent the proliferation of signs as well as to retain locations for future regulatory traffic signs on the road network. Therefore, a policy was developed for determining which special attractions are eligible to have signs installed. The policy states that a major activity centre must meet all of the following criteria to be considered:

(1) It is unique to the City of Toronto;

(2) It is government sponsored or owned;

(3) It forms a major attraction and destination for persons living outside of the limits of the City of Toronto; and

(4) Has a minimum annual attendance of 40,000 persons.

Transportation Services staff have reviewed Councillor Chow's request against the criteria for "Special Attraction" signs and found that not all the criteria are met. Specifically, there are many similar areas in the City of special identity and it is not a government sponsored facility. In the past, similar requests for communities such as Greektown and Little Italy have been reviewed but have also not met the criteria and therefore not been signed. We have consulted with Councillor Chow with regard to the foregoing.

Conclusion:

Since Downtown Chinatown does not meet all the criteria for "Special Attraction" signs, we do not recommend the installation of directional signs on the freeways. However, we suggest that when the Chinatown Development Association advertises for Downtown Chinatown they advise tourists to exit the F.G. Gardiner at Spadina Avenue and proceed north to Dundas Street West. Transportation Services has recently upgraded the overhead guide signs on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway including the Spadina Avenue exits. It should also be noted that traffic can only proceed northbound when exiting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway at Spadina Avenue.

Contact Name:

Myles A. Currie, Manager

Signs & Pavement Markings, District 1

Telephone: 397-5179

Fax: 392-8504

32

Safety and Operational Road Improvement -

Avenue Road at Oxton Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 1 and 2:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to construct a safety and operational road improvement on Avenue Road at Oxton Avenue and to advertise the required construction by-law.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for this road modification is contained within Capital Account C-TR-380, Safety and Operational Improvements. The Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the Updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit approved by City Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Approval be given to proceed with the construction of this safety and operational road improvement described in this report, at an estimated cost of $140,000.00 and that the following traffic control measures be approved:

(a) a "Stop" sign be installed for northbound traffic on Avenue Road at its intersection with Oxton Avenue;

(b) the existing parking prohibition on the north side of Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and Oriole Parkway, in effect from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, be rescinded;

(c) the existing parking prohibition on the south side of Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and Oriole Parkway, in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, be rescinded;

(d) stopping be prohibited at all times on the north side of Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and a point 46 metres further east thereof;

(e) stopping be prohibited at all times on the south side of Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and a point 36 metres east thereof;

(f) parking be prohibited at all times on the west side of Avenue Road, between Chaplin Crescent and Hillholm Road;

(g) parking be prohibited at all times on the east side of Avenue Road, between Chaplin Crescent and a point 20 metres south of Hillholm Road;

(h) the westerly southbound lane on Avenue Road at Oxton Avenue be designated exclusively for through vehicles, from Oxton Avenue to a point 30.5 metres north thereof; and

(i) the easterly southbound lane on Avenue Road at Oxton Avenue be designated exclusively for left-turning vehicles, from Oxton Avenue to a point 30.5 metres north thereof.

(2) the appropriate City By-Law(s) be amended accordingly; and

(3) the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background:

In response to a number of requests from Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons and the local residents, Works & Emergency Services Department staff reviewed the feasibility of improving traffic operations at the intersection of Avenue Road and Oxton Avenue. The objectives of improvements were to increase the westbound-to-northbound and southbound-to-eastbound capacities in order to reduce traffic on local roads in this area and to reduce westbound rear-end collisions at this intersection.

The reconfiguration of this intersection has been under discussion for over five years. At its meeting on March 28 and 29, 1994, the former City of Toronto Council amended and adopted Clause No. 48 of Report No. 4 of the City Services Committee entitled "Revised Traffic Plan - North Hill District Home Owners' Association (Ward 14). This report endorsed in principle the reconfiguration of the Avenue Road and Oxton Avenue intersection. It also deferred the implementation of the proposed southbound right-turn prohibitions from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Avenue Road at Hillholm Avenue, at Killarney Road and at Kilbarry Road, as well as at Oriole Parkway and Kilbarry Road, until the effects of the Avenue Road and Oxton Avenue intersection reconfiguration could be evaluated.

Discussion:

The proposed reconfiguration of this intersection will increase through capacity to achieve the local traffic benefits requested by the Councillors and the Community and is expected to reduce westbound rear-end collisions. This is achieved by increasing the capacity for westbound and southbound motorists by providing them with free-flow conditions. The northbound traffic, which accounts for approximately 20 percent of the total traffic at this intersection, and currently has the right-of -way at this intersection, will be controlled by a "Stop" sign.

The reconfiguration of the intersection also features the narrowing of the road south of Oxton Avenue to widen the sidewalk on both sides of the road. The curb radii at Hillholm Road have been reduced to increase sidewalk space and to slow drivers making their right turns. All day parking on Oxton Avenue will provide a "buffer" between the through traffic and this sidewalk. The 24 hour a day parking can be permitted because Oxton Avenue, between Avenue Road and Oriole parkway is wide enough to operate as a four-lane roadway. However, traffic effectively operates in one lane in each direction even during peak periods. Therefore, in conjunction with the intersection realignment the existing peak period parking prohibitions should be rescinded to provide parking on both sides of Oxton Avenue on a 24-hour basis. Also, stopping should be prohibited on Oxton Avenue, in the vicinity of Avenue Road in order to provide safe and efficient traffic movements as well as to provide better sightlines for motorists using the driveways on the north side. This will result in a loss of approximately five parking spaces which could be accommodated further east along Oxton Avenue.

To accommodate the proposed intersection and curb reconfiguration on Avenue Road it is necessary to prohibit parking at all times on both sides of Avenue Road, between Chaplin Crescent and the general vicinity of Hillholm Road. This will result in the loss of approximately eight parking spaces on the west side and seven parking spaces on the east side of Avenue Road. The parking demand in this area is relatively light and can be accommodated at other locations in this area.

In order to provide better guidance and reduce potential conflicts for southbound motorists, the southbound median lane on Avenue Road near Oxton Avenue should be designated as a left-turn lane and the curb lane should be designated as a through lane.

Once the intersection reconfiguration is complete, we will conduct follow-up studies to determine the traffic impacts on this intersection as well as the surrounding area. Based on the results of those studies we will take appropriate action as necessary.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

This road modification provides a positive change for pedestrians and cyclists and has been developed to conform with the departments guidelines for the accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists. It provides for bicycle friendly curb lanes, reduced corner radii where feasible and wider sidewalks and no compromises have been made with respect to the space allocated to these users.

Scope of Construction:

To construct this road modification, the following work will be undertaken:

(a) The removal and reconstruction of concrete curbs, gutter and sidewalks;

(b) construction of concrete road base and asphalt pavement;

(c) construction of concrete medians; and

(d) removal and reconstruction of catch basins and connections.

Conclusions:

The road modification outlined in this report is proposed to address the safety and operational problem at this location on the City of Toronto road system. The estimated construction cost is $140,000.00, which has been included in the 1999 Capital Budget estimates.

Contact Name:

David Crichton, Manager

Design and Construction

District 1, Area 1

Telephone: 392-7674

Fax: 392-7874

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Avenue Road At Oxton Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Avenue Road At Oxton Avenue

33

Sale of Surplus STC Property - 14 Norwood Terrace

(East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorise the disposal of the property municipally known as 14 Norwood Terrace.

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $135,500.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorised to accept the highest offer in the amount of $135,500.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No.14, Report No. 36 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28,1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA700CA2547

(4) the City Solicitor be authorised and directed to take the appropriate action to complete the transaction on behalf of the City of Toronto and be further authorised to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as considered reasonable; and

(5) the appropriate City officials be authorised and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The City of Toronto is the owner of 14 Norwood Terrace, Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of the Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorised its disposal. The processes with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, the property was listed with Realty World-Homeward on July 8,1999 at an asking price of $129,900.00. As a result the following offers were received:

Purchaser Purchase Price Deposit Terms

Rachel Louise Gaskins $135,500.00 $6,775.00 (certified cheque) no conditions

Margaret Mary Saxon $131,001.00 $6,500.00 (certified cheque) no conditions

Elena Dubinski

Michael Dubinski $130,000.00 $6,500.00 (certified cheque) no conditions

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Property Address: 14 Norwood Terrace

Legal Description: Part of Lots 20, 22 and 24 Block 5, Plan 635, City of Toronto

Approximate Lot Size: 4.95 metres (16 feet) fronting onto Norwood Terrace

33.09 metres (111 feet) depth

Location; North side of Norwood Terrace, east of Woodbine Avenue,

north of Gerrard Street

Improvements: Semi-detached, 2-bedroom brick veneer and aluminium

dwelling

Occupancy Status: Vacant

Recommended Sale Price: $135,500.00

Deposit: $6,775.00 (certified cheque)

Purchaser: Rachel Louise Gaskins

Closing Date: October 28, 1999

Terms: cash on closing, less the usual adjustments

Listing Broker: Realty World-Homeward

Selling Broker: Coldwell Banker Case Realty

Commission: Four (4) per cent, plus GST, payable on closing of the

transaction.

Accounts (Costing Units) have been put in place to charge costs directly related to the

maintenance and sale of City owned properties, and include such items as sales commissions,

surveying and registration of the sale. A recommendation is included in this report to direct a

portion of the sale proceeds to close out the account for this property.

Conclusion:

Completion of the transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Melanie Hale Carter

Valuator/Negotiator

Real Estate Services

Telephone: (416) 397-0585

Fax: (416) 392-1880

E-mail.: melanie_halecarter@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(tcc99115.doc)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

14 Norwood Terrace

34

Sale of Surplus STC Property -

84 Beach View Crescent (East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the property municipally known as 84 Beach View Crescent

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $150,000.00, less closing costs and the usual adjustments is anticipated.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept the offer in the amount of $150,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No.14, Report No. 36 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28,1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA700CA2474

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to complete the transaction on behalf of the City of Toronto and be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as considered reasonable; and

(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The City of Toronto is the owner of 84 Beach View Crescent, Toronto. By its adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of the Corporate Administration Committee on May 22, 1996, the former Metropolitan Council declared the property surplus pursuant to By-law No. 56-95 and authorized its disposal. The processes with respect to By-law No. 56-95 have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

Comments:

Pursuant to the May 22, 1996 authority, negotiations were conducted with the tenants, Lindsay and Beth McQuade, and the following offer was received:

Property Address: 84 Beach View Crescent

Legal Description: Part of Lots 58 and 59 on the west side of Beach View Crescent, Plan 444E together with and subject to a right of way as set out in Instrument No. 85565EX, City of Toronto

Approximate Lot Size; 7.62 metres (25 feet) fronting onto Beach View Crescent 30.48 mettres (100 feet) depth

Location: West side of Beach View Crescent, east of Woodbine Avenue, north of Gerrard Street

Improvements: Detached, 3-bedroom brick dwelling

Occupancy Status: Tenanted

Recommended Sale Price: $150,000.00

Deposit: $1,000.00 (money order)

Purchaser: Lindsay McQuade

Beth McQuade

Michael McQuade

Closing Date: November 15, 1999

Terms: Cash on closing, subject to the usual adjustments

Accounts (Costing Units) have been put in place to charge costs directly related to the maintenance and sale of City owned properties, and include such items as sales commissions, surveying and registration of the sale. A recommendation is included in this report to direct a portion of the sale proceeds to close out the account for this property.

Conclusion:

Completion of the transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Melanie Hale Carter

Valuator/Negotiator

Real Estate Services

Telephone: (416) 397-0585

Fax No. (416) 392-1880

E-mail: melanie_halecarter@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

84 Beach View Crescent

35

Fundraising for Playground Redevelopment Project -

Eglinton Park (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To grant authority to the community group known as the Tommy Flynn Playground Committee, on behalf of the City of Toronto, to seek private donations for improvements to the playground in Eglinton Park.

Source of Funds:

There is no impact to the budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) authority be given to the community group known as the "Tommy Flynn Playground Committee", on behalf of the City of Toronto, to seek private donations for improvements to the playground in Eglinton Park; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Tommy Flynn Playground Committee have been working with staff from the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, the Advisory Council of the North Toronto Memorial Community Recreation Centre, and Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston, to develop a plan for the redevelopment of the playground in Eglinton Park. The Tommy Flynn Playground Committee is proposing that the playground be designed and built by community volunteer resources.

A similar venture in High Park was implemented and welcomed in the community with the second phase of the playground redevelopment taking place in the Spring/Summer of 1999.

All donations received for the Eglinton Park playground redevelopment, by the City of Toronto, will be held separately in an account designated for this purpose, and receipts for income tax purposes will be issued to donors in accordance with Section 110 and Section 118 of the Income Tax Act A...donations to Canadian Municipalities are tax deductible.

Conclusions:

That the Tommy Flynn Playground Committee be given authorization to fundraise for the playground redevelopment project.

Contact Name:

Mario Zanetti, 392-1905

Anne Valliere, 392-1909

36

Fundraising - Playground Improvements, Hillcrest Community

Recreation Centre (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To grant authority to the community group known as the Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee, on behalf of the City of Toronto, to seek private donations for improvements to the playground at the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre.

Source of Funds:

There is no impact to the budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Background:

The Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee, have been working with staff from the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, and Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, to develop a plan for the redevelopment of the playground at the shared use site between the Toronto District School Board and the City of Toronto, of the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre. The Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee is proposing that the playground be designed and built by community volunteer resources.

A similar venture in High Park was implemented and welcomed in the community with the second phase of the playground redevelopment taking place in the Spring/Summer of 1999.

All donations received for the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre playground redevelopment, by the City of Toronto, will be held separately in an account designated for this purpose, and receipts for income tax purposes will be issued to donors in accordance with Section 110 and Section 118 of the Income Tax Act ".....donations to Canadian Municipalities are tax deductible."

Maintenance responsibilities for the playground is currently with the Toronto District School Board. It is understood by the Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee that all future maintenance to the new equipment and the playground will be the responsibility of the Advisory Committee.

Conclusion:

That the Playscape 2000 Citizen's Advisory Committee be given authorization to fundraise for this project at the Hillcrest Community Recreation Centre.

Contact Name:

Mario Zanetti, 392-1905

Anne Valliere, 392-1909

37

Construction of Underground Parking Garage and

Enclosed Stairway and Maintenance of

Ventilation Exhaust Grill - 285 Yonge Street (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 27, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a request to construct an underground parking garage and enclosed stairway and to maintain a ventilation exhaust grill which will encroach within the public right-of-way, on the Dundas Square flank of 285 Yonge Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve the construction of the underground parking garage and enclosed stairway, and the maintenance of a ventilation exhaust grill which will encroach within the public right-of-way on the Dundas Square flank of 285 Yonge Street, subject to the Toronto Parking Authority, 33 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario M5C 1R5, and such other licensees as may be required by the City Solicitor, entering into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto, agreeing to:

(a) Indemnify the City of Toronto from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b) Maintain the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill, in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) Permit additions to the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and exhaust grill, to allow additional connections to same and to permit and pay for such alterations and modifications to the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill, as may be required at any time by the City to serve the public interest;

(d) Relocate any underground pipes or other connections, that may be required to facilitate the construction of the new underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e) Pay an annual rental fee for the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill, as determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(f) Accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the Corporation.

Background:

This site encompasses the block bounded by Yonge, Dundas and Victoria Streets and Dundas Square and is part of an overall development which has been the subject of Site Plan Approval for, among other things, the construction of an underground parking garage and stairway and maintenance of a ventilation exhaust grill by the Toronto Parking Authority, in connection with the development of a public square by the City of Toronto.

Comments:

Mr. Darren Wint, of Read Jones, Christoffersen Limited, 144 Front Street West, Suite 510, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2L7, acting on behalf of Toronto Parking Authority, requested permission to construct an underground parking garage and enclosed stairway and to maintain the ventilation exhaust grill, which will encroach within the public right-of-way, on the Dundas Square flank of 285 Yonge Street.

The underground parking garage will encroach a maximum of 4.7 m x 29.3 m within the public right-of-way, and the enclosed stairway, which will provide access to the garage, will encroach 2.4 m x 6.6 m. The ventilation exhaust grill measures 1.5 m x 4.7 m and is situated adjacent the proposed underground parking garage.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this location and have determined that the underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and ventilation exhaust grill will not impact negatively on the area.

Conclusion:

As the proposed underground parking garage, enclosed stairway and existing ventilation exhaust grill will not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, these encroachments should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, at 392-7894

38

Naming of Private Lane - Pear Tree Mews

(Davenport)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the City Surveyor, Technical Services Division:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the private lane at the rowhouse development at 1 Rankin Crescent be named Pear Tree Mews.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated costs of $600.00 for the street name signs are to be paid by the developer.

Recommendations:

(1) That the private lane at the rowhouse development at 1 Rankin Crescent, illustrated on the enclosed Map A, be named "Pear Tree Mews."

(2) That NEXXT Development Incorporation be required to pay the costs, estimated to be in the amount of $600.00, for the fabrication and installation of the appropriate signage; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

I have a request from Jerald Silverberg of NEXXT Development Corporation (1 Atlantic Avenue, Toronto, On M6K 3E7) to name the proposed private lane at the rowhouse development at 1 Rankin Crescent, "Pear Tree Mews." Mr. Silvergerg's reasons for his selection are set out in Appendix "A".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The proposed name has been circulated to Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fotinos, Toronto Planning, Heritage Toronto, the West Toronto Junction Historical Society and Fire Services for comment. The name has the support of Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fotinos and Toronto Planning. Fire Services and the West Toronto Junction Historical Society do not support the proposed name. Heritage Toronto has no comment on the proposal. The correspondence respecting this matter is set out in Appendix "A".

Conclusions:

The proposed name is not duplicated in the City of Toronto and is arguably consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by the former Toronto City Council on July 11, 1988

(Clause 4, Executive Committee Report No. 22).

Contact Name:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831

Fax: (416)392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Symington Avenue

Appendix "A"

Letter from Jerald Silverberg of NEXXT Development Incorporation

Please accept this letter as an application to name the private drive at the above location Pear Tree Mews. The location of this drive is as shown on the enclosed site plan. Units 8-24 front on Rankin Crescent. Units 25-41 front on the proposed "Pear Tree Mews".

The pear tree originally came from Europe, East Asia and North Africa and likely made its way to the Toronto area around the late 1700's. The tree was originally cultivated for its fruit and then developed into an ornamental tree as new varieties were introduced.

The above noted project will have an extensive number of ornamental pear trees as part of the landscaping proposal for this site.

Memorandum from Richard Stromberg, Heritage Toronto

We are in receipt of your memorandum dated March 23, 1999 requesting Heritage Toronto to comment on a proposal to name a new private lane at 1 Rankin Crescent "Pear Tree Mews."

The proposed name does not appear to comply with the City's policy on street and lane naming to commemorate persons, places, and events with a demonstrated relevance to the City and the neighbourhood. However, we appreciate the fact that the name relates to the proposed landscaping features of the proposed townhouse development serviced by the lane. Heritage Toronto has no comment on the proposal.

Memorandum from Sandra Hoeflich, Fire Services

Further to you memorandum of March 8, 1999 requesting comments on the proposed naming of the lane at the rear of 1 Rankin Crescent.

Fire Services opposes the proposed name Pear Tree Mews, as it matches too closely with Pear Tree Road, Mississauga.

Letter from Diana Fancher, West Toronto Junction Historical Society

Re: Naming of the private lane at 1 Rankin Crescent - Pear Tree Mews (Ward 21)

I sent the developer a list of numerous historically appropriate street names at his request. And, while we wouldn't want to force him to choose an historical name, he could a least choose something in keeping with the area.

Pear Tree Mews is not only inappropriate it is a sort of tacky parody on suburban street names. A mews is originally a falcon stable which would have been part of a wealthy house hold in England and presumably these sites in urban settings were eventually developed as housing.

There are no mews in North America. A mews would most certainly not have contained pear trees either. Additionally, there are no streets in the western part of the City of Toronto named after trees alone (although tree names are combined with other landscape terms hillier areas, (eg. Oakmount, Birchview, Pinecrest). Tree names are characteristic of the east side of the city and probably in suburban subdivisions somewhere.

The appropriate ending for the street name would be "Place", "Terrace", "Court" or "Lane". Streets in the immediate area of his development, as I explained to Mr. Silverberg, are named mainly after people, including famous authors. There are a variety of appropriate names to choose from. Rankin Crescent is an historical name.

I would also like to point out to Mr. Silverberg that there is a local compaign to plant trees which are native to the Carolinian forest and would therefore contribute to the local ecosystem and compliment nearby High Park. The parks department could supply him with a list as no doubt could any reputable nursery. Having personal experience with pear trees myself, I would urge him to try something else. If the pears survive the bugs (or the residents survive the bug sprays) they make an awful mess on the lawn and/or sidewalk, since the pears tend to drop all together. Fruit trees require a lot of care and pruning to flourish, something that urban residents are not always willing to do. All it takes is for one person to neglect his/her fruit tree to aggravate the whole block. Native forest trees on the other have are much more likely to thrive without effort.

So, finally, I would like to urge the city and Mr. Silverberg to choose a name more in keeping with the area and also to plant native trees.

Attached is the material I sent to Mr. Silverberg on appropriate names. It was originally compiles for naming a park in the area.

Yours sincerely,

Diana Fancher

--------

Background

Most of the Junction Triangle was subdivided in 1887 by plans M-13 and M-22, filed by Simeon Heaman Janes who was, according to the Toronto World, "the richest man in Toronto" by 1897. An earlier plan, M-1, filed by real estate a agent J.P. Clark, had established Royce and Cooper avenues and dedicated Carlton Park.

Toronto subdividers generally named their streets for family, friends, ancestral homes and creditors. Janes named his streets for English, French and American authors with one for British statesman Randolph Churchill put in for good measure. However Janes did make an exception, Campbell Ave. was named for mortgage holder and previous landowner Mrs. Elizabeth Prudence Campbell. Janes' other creditors Mary Cooper, Sarah and Allan Royce, were already commemorated.

Many of Janes' original street names have disappeared. Some like Longfellow and Tennyson were closed. Others were changed when the area became part of Toronto or when other streets were extended. These included Shakespeare, Milton, Irving and Churchill.

Street names that survive today are Addison, Hugo, Macaulay, Ruskin and possibly Wallace. I would like to think that Wallace was named for my own favourite Victorian author, Alfred Russell Wallace, the best and most readable of the British explorer-biologists, but it could also be named for American novelist Lewis Wallace, another contemporary. Wallace may also have been a street extension from the east.

By way of background, members of the Janes family had been in the wholesale millinery and fancy goods business in 1875, although by the time Janes began subdividing this area he had his own real estate company. An 1888 advertisement for the company reads, "Business Properties and city or adjoining vacant land in large blocks are Specialities".

Around 1892 Janes built a magnificent chateau on the crest of Avenue Road overlooking the city. By 1895 he had commissioned the Janes Building at 75 Yonge Street where he located his real estate business, S.H. Janes & co.

Janes was known to be an advocate of the commission form of municipal government in the 1890's. On May 23, 1897, he was among the first to ride the Toronto's newly inaugurated Sunday streetcars, reported by the World to do so in order to save the Sunday labour of his coachman, footman and two horses.

Possible Park Names

Why not give the literate real estate speculator and streetcar rider his due by naming one of the parks "Janes Park"?

Or give Mrs. Elizabeth Prudence Campbell who lived on the family farm in the area another claim to fame by naming the eastern part Elizabeth or Prudence. There's something about "Prudence Park" that seems to go with the location.

The immediate area of the western park was subdivided by plan M-23, also in 1887, by the ill-fated Toronto Land & Investment Corporation west broke soon after. The streets were named Harold, Maude, Ernest and Elsie. Of these only Ernest survives. Harold and Elsie were closed and Maude renamed Randolph. It would be nice to see a woman's name on a park and "Maude Park" would be appropriate. "Harold & Maude Park" would add a cozy touch of humour.

Another possibility would be to name the western park "Belles Lettres" which is French for "literature regarded as fine art", according to my unabridged dictionary. There may also be an equivalent expression in Italian or Portuguese.

39

Naming of Street after Police Constable William Hancox

(East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the City Surveyor, Technical Services Division:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the name "William Hancox Avenue" be authorized for use on the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the redevelopment of the lands east of Main Street and north of Gerrard Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

(1) That the name "William Hancox Avenue" be approved for Street D on the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the East of Main area, illustrated on Map A attached.

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Councillor Tom Jakobek received a request from Police Constable Steve Kelly and his fellow officers of the Toronto Police Services 55 Division Community Response Unit, to name a street in the proposed East of Main Subdivision in memory of Police Constable William Hancox. Constable Hancox was slain in August 1998 while on duty.

Constable Steve Kelly in his request to Councillor Tom Jakobek, an excerpt of which is outlined in Appendix "A", indicated that Constable Hancox's widow has been advised of and concurs with the proposal. Julius De Ruyter of PMG Planning Consultants, agent for the owners of the proposed subdivision, also supports the name.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The proposed name has been circulated to Councillor Sandra Bussin, Heritage Toronto, and Fire Services for comment. The name has the support of Councillor Bussin and Heritage Toronto. Fire Services does not support the name because it is a combination of streets named "William" and "Hancock" in Toronto.

Conclusions:

The proposed name "William Hancox Avenue" is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by the former Toronto City Council on July 11, 1988 (Clause 4, Executive Committee Report No. 22).

Contact Name:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831

Fax: (416)392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

William Hancox

Appendix "A"

Letter from Police Constable Steve Kelly to Councillor Tom Jakobek

Tom:

Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, this letter is to follow up on the naming of a street in the Main/Gerrard area.

As you know, last August Police Constable William Hancox was slain while on duty. The tragedy galvanized the citizens of Toronto to a never before seen outpouring of emotion and support for Bill's family.

Bill was an exemplary police officer, who served the majority of his career here in 55 Division. As a matter of fact, prior to his last assignment, Bill was a member of the 55 Division Community Response Unit. In that capacity, Bill had outstanding rapport with the citizen's in the Main and Gerrard area and was a fixture at all community events. Many citizens of the 55 Division community continue to comment on the positive impact this officer had on them, and often inquire about some lasting testament to his ultimate sacrifice.

We felt it would be fitting to name one of the streets in the new development, after Bill, as a lasting memorial to a fine Police Officer, husband and loving father, and it would be especially apropos to have it in his old "Beat."

I have spoken to Kim, Bill's widow, and she is 100% behind the idea. To that end, I will obtain her written permission to pursue the street naming, and any and all assistance you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Memorandum from Richard Stromberg, Heritage Toronto

Re: Naming of new street for William Hancox

This request complies with the City's policy on street naming; thus, Heritage Toronto has no objection.

Memorandum from Sandra Hoeflich, Fire Services

The proposed street name of William Hancox is not acceptable to Fire Services as it conflicts with other street names in Toronto. Also there has been a park in former Scarborough dedicated in his honour. All these may hamper the dispatch of vehicles to an incident.

40

Installation /Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons

Parking Spaces (Davenport, Don River,

East Toronto, Midtown and North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $2,100.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

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

All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street

parking space. Locations where on-street disabled persons parking spaces are to be removed result from applicants moving, holding expired permits or no longer requiring these on-street parking privileges.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

S. Burk, Co-ordinator, Transportation Services, 392-8750

--------

(Revised)

Table "A"

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces:

Ward Location

19 Quebec Avenue, east side, from a point 163 metres north of Annette Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. Mary Abbott, a resident of Premises No. 418 Quebec Avenue, requested that the existing space be relocated 3.4 metres south of its present location).

25 Seaton Street, west side, from a point 158 metres south of Gerrard Street East to a point 6 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. Kate Koffmann of Councillor P. McConnell's office has advised that this space should be removed.

26 Bowmore Road, east side, from a point 51 metres south of Eastwood Road to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. L. Miller, a resident of Premises No. 7 Bowmore Road, has advised that she no longer requires a disabled space at this location.)

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces:

Ward Location

19 Quebec Avenue, east side, from a point 159.6 metres north of Annette Street to a point 5.5 metres further north thereof.

(Source: Ms. Mary Abbott, a resident of Premises No. 418 Quebec Avenue, has requested that the existing space be relocated 3.4 metres south)

21 Gladstone Avenue, east side, from a point 117.0 metres south of Dupont Street to a point 5.5 metres further south thereof.

(Source: Mr. Clayton Waito, a resident of Premises No. 819 Gladstone Avenue).

22 Cheritan Avenue, north side, from a point 25 metres west of Yonge Street to a point 5.5 metres further west thereof.

(Source: Ms. Jacqueline Kennedy, a resident of Premises No. 1 Cheritan Avenue).

23 Palmerston Avenue, east side, from a point 10 metres north of Barton Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north thereof.

(Source: Mr. Patrick Wan, a resident of Premises No. 723 Palmerston Avenue).

25 Carlaw Avenue, east side, from a point 55.0 metres south of Queen Street East to a point 5.5 metres further south thereof.

(Source: Mr. Lien Thanh Van, a resident of Premises No. 177 Carlaw Avenue).

25 Pape Avenue, west side, from a point 93.0 metres north of Eastern Avenue to a point 6.0 metres further north thereof.

(Source: Mr. Charles Edward, a resident of Premises No. 26 Pape Avenue).

26 Larchmount Avenue, west side, from a point 87.5 metres north of Eastern Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north thereof.

(Source: Mr. Joseph Graziano, a resident of Premises No. 36 Larchmount Avenue).

26 Oakcrest Avenue, north side, from a point 56.5 metres east of Morton Road to a point 5.5 metres further east thereof.

(Source: Mr. Tom McLuckie, a resident of Premises No. 184 Oakcrest Avenue).

41

Proposed Installation/Cancellation of

Speed Bumps in Public Lanes (Davenport)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the proposed installation and cancellation of speed bumps in various public lanes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The implementation cost of the proposed installation and cancellation of speed bumps is approximately $600.00, funds for which are contained in the 1999 Capital Programme for Public Laneway Improvements.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) The installation of a speed bump in the public lane first west of Uxbridge Avenue, extending north from Pelham Avenue, of the type and design noted and at the location shown on Drawing No. 421F-5409 be approved;

(2) The installation of speed bumps in the public lane system bounded by Davenport Road, Laughton Avenue, Uxbridge Avenue and Pelham Avenue, of the type and design noted and at the locations shown on Drawing Nos. 421F-5251 and 421F-5252 dated September, 1998, be cancelled; and

(3) The appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services staff have received a request regarding the feasibility of installing a speed bump in the public lane first west of Uxbridge Avenue, north from Pelham Avenue. This location meets the criteria for the installation of speed bumps. The type and design of the speed bump to be installed is shown on attached Drawing No. 421F-5409.

Also, Councillor Betty Disero has requested that the installation of speed bumps in the public lane system bounded by Davenport Road, Laughton Avenue, Uxbridge Avenue and Pelham Avenue, approved as per Clause No. 42 of Report No. 14 of the Toronto Community Council and adopted by City of Toronto Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, be cancelled. Although signage has been erected, the speed bumps have not as yet been installed. Accordingly, Drawing Nos. 421F-5251 and 421F-5252 should be deleted from the Municipal Code.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Sandra Burk, Co-ordinator, Transportation Services, 392-8750.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Speed Bump and Sign Layout

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Speed Bump and Sign Layout

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Speed Bump and Sign Layout

42

Appointments to Board of Management - Balmy Beach Park

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 10, 1999) from Mayor Lastman:

Upon the request of the Board of Management of the Balmy Beach Park, and in accordance with past practices and pursuant to Section 5 of an Act respecting the Town of East Toronto and Balmy Beach Park, 3 Edward VII, Chapter 50 assented to in 1903, I am making the following recommendations:

(1) That the following persons be appointed to the Board until June 30, 2000, or until their successors are appointed:

Jack Baird, Dorothy DeClute, Ziba Reiner

(2) That the following persons be appointed to the Board until June 30, 2001, or until their successors are appointed:

Bruce Cavanagh, Chris Commins, Bob Fullerton

On this basis, the Board would be comprised of the following members:

Member Since

Jack Baird (Chair) June 30, 1994

Bruce Cavanagh June 30, 1992

Chris Commins June 30, 1990

Dorothy DeClute June 30, 1991

Robert Fullerton June 30, 1990

Ziba Reiner Sept. 25, 1995

43

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing -

207-217 Roslin Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and appropriate staff be directed to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in opposition to the proposed development at 207-217 Roslin Avenue and oppose the severance, minor variance, Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications, as well as any other consolidated appeals for the subject property; and that the City Solicitor be authorized to retain outside consultants should the need arise, funds having been previously allocated from the Legal Services Operating Budget for this purpose.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (August 27, 1999) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor and appropriate staff be directed to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in opposition to the proposed development at 207 û 217 Roslin Avenue and oppose the severance, minor variance, Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications, as well as any other consolidated appeals for the subject property; and that the City Solicitor be authorized to retain outside consultants should the need arise.

Background:

As predicted in the Committee of AdjustmentÆs May 4th, 1999 decision, L & A Management has made an appeal to the OMB from a decision which dismissed their application for minor variances and severance of these lands. At its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, Toronto City Council passed a motion that the City Solicitor to appear before the OMB to defend the May 4th 1999 Committee of Adjustment decision to refuse an application for a proposed development at the above address.

At the first OMB hearing held on July 26 1999, L & A Management requested that their appeal of the Committee of Adjustment applications be consolidated with an appeal arising from their Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications. The developer has appealed because of the failure of the City to process their application within the time limits set out in the Planning Act. However, the developer has failed to provide to the City, adequate information for city staff to fully evaluate the proposal.

This proposal has been a moving target, with revisions being made to the proposal ôon the flyö. While revisions have been demanded by the Urban Planning Department, revised landscape plans; arboristsÆ reports; etc, have either not been submitted or have not been submitted in a timely fashion. Consequently, it has been difficult for the Urban Planning and Development Services Department to circulate these reports and plans to appropriate departments for comment.

Specifically, this application did not have an arboristsÆ report, which was subsequently submitted on August 16th 1999. Also it did not include the required geotechnical study, an important study since the proposed development abuts the edge of the Riverview Ravine. There is no answer as to how storm water and snow are to be handled û especially important because of this sitesÆ location in and on top of the ravine. Other studies and plans which were not submitted at the time of the initial application include a traffic study, a rental housing replacement plan, a garbage removal plan and a sun-shade analysis. Further to this, as of August 27, 1999 Urban Planning and Development Services was still not in receipt of a landscape plan.

The developer has not acted in good faith in this process. The developer attempted to circumvent the proper processes required for a development of this scale. In their May 4, 1999 decision the Committee of Adjustment wrote ôthat the Committee of Adjustment, South District for the City of Toronto considers these applications to comprise an attempt to misuse the Committee of Adjustment and circumvent the appropriate planning approvals.ö The developer has attempted to abuse the Official Plan Amendment and Re-zoning process by appealing to the OMB before the designated time has elapsed and before the Urban Planning and Development Services Department has had a chance to circulate reports and receive comments from the appropriate departments on which to prepare its final report.

At the OMB pre-hearing on July 26 1999, the Chair, P.L. Wyger ordered that the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision from May 4, 1999 be adjourned to be consolidated with their appeals arising from the Official Plan Amendment, Re-zoning and Tree By-law relief applications. In light of the above information, and since Toronto Community Council and Toronto City Council have not had a chance to rule on any of these applications it is of utmost importance to the integrity of the planning process that the City Solicitor be directed to appear at the OMB on all the matters pertaining to 207-217 Roslin Avenue.

--------

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

- (July 12, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause 7 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 9, titled, Ontario Municipal Appeal - 207-217 Roslin Avenue (North Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999; and

- (September 13, 1999) from City Surveyor, Technical Services Division.

44

Requests for Endorsement of Events for

Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, declare the Screemers Haunted House to be held at Exhibition Place on October 15, 16 and 21 to 31, 1999, and the Harris Institute for the Arts 10th Birthday Party to be held at the Institute (118 Sherbourne Street, Toronto, Ontario) on October 2, 1999, to be events of municipal significance, and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario be advised that City Council has no objection to these events taking place.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, endorse the action of the Toronto Community Council, since the events take place prior to Council's meeting:

(1) in declaring the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and in advising the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a) Danforth Celebrity Street Festival, to be held on Saturday, September 25, 1999, on Danforth Avenue, between Broadview and Chester Avenues, from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

(b) Global Roots Festival to be held on September 23, 24 and 25, 1999

(c) Annual Fall Fair, to be held on Sunday, September 26, 1999, in Margaret Fairley Park, at the corner of Brunswick Avenue and Ulster Street, from 12:00 noon to 7:00 p.m.

(2) in advising the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the following events and has no objection to their taking place:

(a) Fund Raising Event, to be held on Thursday, September 23, 1999, in a marquee tent alongside H.M.C.S. Haida, from 6:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.

(b) Event in conjunction with the Toronto International Film Festival Event, hosted by the Toronto Film Festival Group, Saturday, September 18, 1999, the ROM Main building and the Bloor Street Terrace Garden Area.

(c) Anniversary Party, at the David B. Archer Co-operative Inc., Saturday, September 18, 1999.

(d) Gala for Bring Back the Don Day - September 18, 1999 at Don Valley Brick Works, from 6:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

(e) MuchMusic Video Awards event at 299 Queen Street West on September 23, 1999

45

Installation of Fencing along CN Rail Tracks

Between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road

(East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated September 27, 1999, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the work contemplated in the report, along with the financial cost to the City, be considered in the 2000 Capital Budget process; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back on this project, including the costs, for consideration as part of the year 2000 Capital Budget process.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City commit to financing one-third of the cost of installing fencing along the south side of the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to Council on the cost of the fencing.

--------

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 28, 1999) from Councillor Jakobek:

Over 10 years ago Metro Housing (at that time) built housing on Coatsworth Crescent. Part of their agreement with the residents was that Housing would install a sound/security barrier along the CN rail tracks. The project was completed and the barrier was installed on the north side of the tracks.

Since that time, the residents along Gainsborough Road have encountered many difficulties due to the lack of a barrier on the south side of the tracks. This barrier is necessary not just for privacy, but for safety as well. There is a high school in close proximity, as well as the housing development and trespassing has become an issue. We are all aware of the dangers involved in pedestrians crossing railway tracks.

I am writing to inquire as to whether the City would be prepared to commit to financing one-third of the cost of installing a cement barrier along the south side of the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road.

Thank you for your consideration.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To report on the preliminary cost estimate of installing a cement barrier along the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road.

Financial Implications:

The financial implications of this report are to be determined as part of the year 2000 Capital Budget process.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

1. The work contemplated in the report, along with the financial cost to the City be considered in the 2000 Capital Budget process; and

2. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back on this project, including the costs for consideration as part of the year 2000 Capital Budget process.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 14, 1999 recommended that the City commit to financing one-third of the cost of installing fencing along the south side of the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer was requested to report directly to Council on the cost of the fencing.

Discussion:

The cost of installing a cement barrier for sound/security purposes is contingent on a number of factors including the required height of noise wall and specific site conditions that may impact on design to be utilized. Initial discussions with the Executive Director of Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services, indicate that based on a standard three (3) metre high wall that mirrors the length of barrier that exists on the north side of the tracks from Coxwell Avenue to a point approximately 430 metres east, a preliminary cost of $722,400, at a minimum, would be involved. If a four (4) metre high wall were to be installed the preliminary cost would be $774,000. Based on these preliminary estimates, the City's one third commitment would be $240,800 or $258,000, respectively for a three metre or four metre high barrier.

Conclusion:

Based on a standard noise wall installation, a preliminary cost of between $722,400 and $774,000 would be involved in installing a barrier along the south side of the CN rail tracks between Coxwell Avenue and Gainsborough Road. If the City was to fund one-third of the overall cost, then it would require a commitment of $240,800 or $258,000 depending on whether a three metre high or four metre high barrier were installed.

Contact Name:

Carmine Bruno, Senior Budget Analyst, 397-4218

Glenn Vollebregt, Director, Budget Services, 392-8095)

46

Prohibition of Standing - Front Street East

Between Cherry Street and Trinity Street (Don River)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To improve turning radius for large delivery vehicles entering/leaving the loading bay at Premises No. 360 Front Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That standing be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily on the south side of Front Street East from a point 60 metres east of Trinity Street to a point 26 metres further east; and

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

Comments

In consultation with Councillor Pam McConnell and at the request of the business proprietor at Premises No. 360 Front Street East, we are recommending that standing be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily on the south side of Front Street East from a point 60 metres east of Trinity Street to a point 26 metres further east.

Front Street East between Cherry Street and Trinity Street operates two-way and has a pavement width of 9.45 metres. Parking is allowed (for a maximum period of three hours) on both sides except within 30.5 metres of Cherry Street and Trinity Street. Permit parking is not in effect on the subject section of this street.

The owner of Premises No.360 Front Street East had advised us that large delivery vehicles (semi-trailers and large single unit trucks) have extreme difficulty turning into the loading bay at Premises No.360 Front Street East.

A recent site inspection by our staff has confirmed that vehicles parked/stopped on the south side of Front Street East across from Premises No.360, make manoeuverability difficult for large delivery vehicles. Trucks occasionally obstruct traffic flow for several minutes as they try to negotiate their turn. Vehicles parked on the south side of the street also are in danger of being damaged by turning trucks.

We feel that the only way to improve the turning radius for trucks entering/exiting the loading bay at Premises No. 360 Front Street East is to implement a standing prohibition as recommended above. This would eliminate 3 parking spaces during the hours of operation but is a fair compromise to address the business requirements of all proprietors on the street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

47

Construction of Layby - Front of Premises

No. 60 Harbour Street (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 3, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of a layby on the north side of Harbour Street, in front of Premises No. 60 (Toronto Harbour Commission Building) in connection with a proposed renovation project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

All costs associated with this proposal are to be borne by the applicant (1306470 Ontario Limited - Harbour 60 Restaurant).

Recommendations:

(1) That subject to the applicant paying all costs associated with the proposal, approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on the north side of Harbour Street, from a point approximately 50 m west of Bay Street to a point approximately 36 m further west, for the construction of a layby as described below:

"The construction of a layby on the north side of Harbour Street from a point approximately 50 m west of Bay Street to a point approximately 36 m further west, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5447, dated August, 1999.";

(2) That subject to City Council approval of the proposed layby, the existing stopping at anytime prohibition on the north side of Harbour Street be amended to permit standing in the layby on the north side of Harbour Street, from a point 50 m west of Bay Street to a point 36 m further west;

(3) That as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to convey to the City a 2 m by 36 m right-of-way to be added to the remaining sidewalk on the north side of Harbour Street to compensate for the sidewalk space to be lost by the construction of the layby, to ensure that the sidewalk runs continuous around the layby and further, that the sidewalk have a minimum width of 2 m; and

(4) 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:

The Toronto Port Authority (formerly the Toronto Harbour Commissioners) has entered into a commercial lease agreement with 1306470 Ontario Limited (Harbour 60 - Restaurant) to renovate the ground floor of the Toronto Harbour Commission Building, Premises No. 60 Harbour Street, for the purpose of operating a restaurant. As it is anticipated that much of the clientele of the restaurant will arrive during times that events are ongoing at the nearby Air Canada Centre, and in consideration of the fact that parking in the immediate vicinity is at a premium, the restaurant has requested that consideration be given to providing a layby on the north side of Harbour Street, from a point 50 m west of Bay Street to a point 36 m further west to accommodate a valet parking operation. The Toronto Port Authority, by letter dated July 13, 1999, has advised that it has no objection to the proposal, subject to the lessor obtaining all required approvals connected therewith and to bear any and all costs associated with the proposal.

Harbour Street, in the vicinity of Premises No. 60, is a 3 lane arterial roadway which operates one-way eastbound. On the north side, in front of the subject Premises, stopping is prohibited at anytime.

The proposed layby is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5447 and commences at a point approximately 50 m west of Bay Street to a point approximately 36 m further west. This layby will accommodate 3 to 4 passenger vehicles. In light of the proposed valet parking operation, the existing stopping at anytime prohibition on the north side of Harbour Street should be adjusted to prohibit standing at anytime within the limits of the proposed layby. Alternative loading/parking facilities are incorporated into the site, with parking available at the rear of the Toronto Harbour Commission Building via two driveways immediately to the west and east of the proposed layby.

The applicant should also be required to convey to the City a 2 m by 36 m right-of-way to be added to the remaining sidewalk on the north side of Harbour Street to compensate for the sidewalk space to be lost by the construction of the layby, to ensure that the sidewalk runs continuous around the layby and that the sidewalk has a minimum width of 2 m. It is noted that all costs associated with the construction of the layby and the sidewalk reconstruction/widening are to be borne by the lessor of the ground floor of Premises No. 60 Harbour Street.

The construction of the proposed layby as described above would constitute as an alteration to the 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 be subject to a public hearing.

This project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin

Manager of Traffic Operations

District 1 (Central Area)

(416) 392-7771.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Harbour Street

48

Establishment of "Student Pick-Up and Drop-off Area"

Brock Avenue, West Side, North of College Street

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To provide short term parking for parents picking-up and dropping-off students at Brock Avenue Public School (Premises No. 388 Brock Avenue).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $450.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing parking prohibition from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the west side of Brock Avenue, from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 99.2 metres further north thereof, be adjusted to operate on the west side of Brock Avenue, from a point 171.2 metres north of College Street to a point 66.7 metres further north;

(2) That parking be permitted for a maximum of 10 minutes, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Brock Avenue from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 32.5 metres further north;

(3) That parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Brock Avenue, from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 32.5 metres further north; and

(4) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone and in consultation with School Trustee Christine Ferreira and Brock Avenue Public School Principal, Ms. Sandy Spyropoulous, Transportation Services' staff have investigated rescinding, in part, the parking prohibition on the west side of Brock Avenue, adjacent to the School, to provide short term parking for parents picking-up and dropping-off students at Brock Avenue Public School (Premises No. 388 Brock Avenue).

Brock Avenue from Lindsey Avenue to Chesley Avenue (in front of Brock Avenue Public School) operates two-way and has a pavement width of 8.5 metres. The following parking regulations are in effect:

West side

a) Parking is prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 99.2 metres further north;

b) Parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum of three hours: and

c) Permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

East side

d) Parking is prohibited at anytime.

The existing parking regulations on the west side of Brock Avenue, adjacent to Brock Avenue Public School could be adjusted to allow short-term parking for parents picking up and dropping off children attending the School.

Specifically, establishing a "Student Pick-up and Drop-off Area" on the west side of Brock Avenue, from a point 138.7 metres north of College Street to a point 32.5 metres further north, and in conjunction therewith, allowing parking for a maximum period of 10 minutes, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, would in my opinion, facilitate parents picking up/dropping off children, ensure equitable use of the pick-up/drop-off area and encourage parking turnover while providing sufficient time for parents and/or guardians to accompany their children directly to and from the school.

Inasmuch as parking is currently prohibited on the west side of Brock Avenue, adjacent to Brock Avenue Public School, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and parking is currently prohibited on the east side of Brock Avenue opposite the above noted School, the implementation of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area" would not adversely affect operational safety on the street for the short periods of operation or affect permit parking on Brock Avenue, between Lindsey Avenue and Chesley Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

49

Installation of Flagpole Fronting

438 University Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 13, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a request from the Portuguese Consulate to install a flagpole on the sidewalk, within the public right of way fronting 438 University Avenue. As there is no specific provision for this type of installation in Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, I am required to report to your Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the installation of a flagpole on the sidewalk, within the public right of way fronting 438 University Avenue, subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

On September 8, 1999, Mr. Bernard Soares of BGS Designs Inc. submitted an application on behalf of Mr. C. Ferreira, Vice-Consul de Portugal of the Portuguese Consulate, for permission to install a 10.6 metre (35 feet) high flagpole, on the sidewalk at curbside, in line with the existing street furnishing.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that the flagpole will not negatively impact the public right of way. Approval will be subject to the applicant obtaining clearances from the various utility companies and a letter of consent from the abutting owner of 438 University Avenue. The applicant has requested to install the flagpole prior to the Consul General's visit to Toronto on September 21, 1999.

Details of the flagpole are on file with my Department.

Conclusions:

As the flagpole will not negatively impact the public right of way, it should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7894

50

Designation Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -

395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue

(William Thompson House, William Smith House

and Robert Smith House) (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the properties at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House), 397 Brunswick Avenue (William Smith House) and 399 Brunswick Avenue (Robert Smith House) be designated for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and that permission be granted to enter into Heritage Easement Agreements with the property owners.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House) for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(2) That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 397 Brunswick Avenue (William Smith House) for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(3) That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 399 Brunswick Avenue (Robert Smith House) for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(4) That authority be granted for the execution of Heritage Easement Agreements under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owners of 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue using substantially the form of easement agreement prepared by the City Solicitor, subject to such amendments as may be deemed necessary by the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board).

(5) That the owners be requested to provide Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board) with two (2) copies of the required photographs of 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue for inclusion in the easement agreements.

(6) That a detailed restoration plan be prepared for each building by a restoration architect to the satisfaction of the Managing Director of Heritage Toronto prior to making application for any building permit.

(7) That the owner agree to post a letter of credit in an amount and form satisfactory to the Managing Director, in consultation with the City Solicitor, prior to making application for any building permit.

(8) That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

At its meeting of June 28, 1999, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the properties at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House), 397 Brunswick Avenue (William Smith House) and 399 Brunswick Avenue (Robert Smith House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The owners have agreed to the designation of the properties and have agreed to enter into Heritage Easement Agreements.

--------

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

William Thompson House

395 Brunswick Avenue

The property at 395 Brunswick Avenue is designated for architectural reasons. The house was constructed in 1900 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of Bond and Smith for William R. Thompson, manager of the Toronto Brewing and Malting Company.

The William Thompson House is designed in the Period Revival style based on English medieval architecture. Constructed of brick with brick, stone and wood detailing, the house rises 2―-stories beneath a jerkin-head roof with a firebreak wall, chimney, dormers and Classically trimmed window openings. On the narrow rectangular plan, the principal (west) façade has a first-floor bay window and second-storey tripartite window opening, a recessed entrance porch with Tudor-arch openings, corner buttress and wood door, and a single-storey open porch with a hip roof and wood detailing. The south wall displays a three-part lancet window containing stained glass, a single-storey bay window, and flat-headed window openings. The north wall is blank. The 2-storey rear addition is not included in the Reasons for Designation.

On the interior, the ceiling mouldings and fireplace in the first-floor parlour (west), and the fireplace in the second-floor bedroom (southwest) are important features. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

The William Thompson House is located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. The house is a good example of Period Revival design executed by an important Toronto architectural firm. With its setback on a landscaped lot, the property is an important feature of Brunswick Avenue in the West Annex neighbourhood.

--------

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

William and Robert Smith Houses

397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue are designated for architectural reasons. The identical houses were constructed in 1902 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of G. M. Miller and Company for brothers and lumber merchants William and Robert Smith.

Designed in the Queen Anne style, William and Robert Smith Houses are identical buildings. Constructed of red brick and trimmed with brick, stone and wood, each structure features an irregularly-shaped plan covered by a cross-gable roof with a brick chimney and, in each gable, shingled cladding. A wall dormer with a gable roof, shingle cladding and brackets extends from the south slope. On the principal (west) facade, the two-storey bay window with a gable roof and brackets, the wood door with a glass insert and stained glass transom, the oval window and flat-headed window openings are important features. The Robert Smith House retains its Classically-designed verandah. On both houses, the long south wall has a two-storey bay window incorporating a stained glass window, projecting centre wall and flat-headed window openings. On the north wall, there are flat-headed window openings, one of which contains stained glass, as well as a monumental segmental-headed stained glass window with a transom. The 2-storey south and 3-storey rear (east) additions on #397, the bridge connecting #397 with a neighbouring building, and the 2-storey rear (east) addition on #399 are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

The Robert Smith House retains important interior features. On the first floor, the entrance hall has an elaborate wood staircase, and the front (west) and rear (east) parlours display a plaster ceiling with mouldings (west room), panelled wood wainscotting, wood door and window surrounds, and a double fireplace with wood detailing. On the second floor, the fireplace in the front (west) bedroom is identified. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. With their setback and landscaped setting, the William and Robert Smith Houses are important features on Brunswick Avenue in the West Annex neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the properties at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House), 397 Brunswick Avenue (William Smith House), and 399 Brunswick Avenue (Robert Smith House) for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer

Historical Preservation Division

Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

--------

(June 20, 1999) from Managing Director, Heritage Toronto

395-403 Brunswick Avenue - Site Plan Approval

Application # 398109 and Rezoning Application 199007)

Recommendations:

That the Board approve this Site Plan application and Rezoning subject to the following conditions:

1. That the owner agree to the designation of the properties at 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value.

2. That the owner agree to enter into Heritage Easement Agreements with the City of Toronto to preserve these historic buildings in perpetuity.

3. That a detailed restoration plan be prepared for each building by a restoration architect to the satisfaction of the Managing Director of Heritage Toronto prior to making application for any building permit.

4. That the owner agree to post a letter of credit in an amount and form satisfactory to the Managing Director, in consultation with the City Solicitor, prior to making application for any building permit.

5. That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Comments

1. Background:

A report describing the history of each property, their status as listed properties, and recommended designation (consistent with Recommendation 1) will be included separately on a future Board meeting's agenda.

The owner of the properties as it appears on Deed is Brunswick Court Inc., c/o Gabor + Popper Architects Inc. George Popper of the firm is the architect for this project.

2. Discussion:

The proposal site of approximately one acre contains four house-form buildings. Two of the buildings, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue, are listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties, (July 2, 1974). The building located at 395 Brunswick Avenue will be recommended for inclusion. The building at 401 Brunswick Avenue is not recommended for inclusion. The property had been owned for approximately 60 years by the Church Army of Canada. The Church made several alterations and additions to the buildings.

The proposed development calls for the retention and restoration of the 395, 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue. An appropriate townhouse residential infill project is proposed at the rear of the property, separate from the retained buildings. A two storey aluminium clad addition attached to 397 Brunswick Avenue is to be demolished. A road from Brunswick Avenue into the rear of the property will provide access to the new townhouses.

Many of the large and mature trees will be preserved on the site with additional trees planted as part of the landscaping design. An elm tree located at 399 Brunswick Avenue will be removed. The applicant's arborist has identified this tree to be in poor condition. Furthermore, the tree's root system is embedded into the foundation of porch and would make restoration of the porch impossible without its removal.

Staff has met with the applicant and is satisfied that the development will benefit the historic buildings on the site. Once restored, these buildings may contain either single family or multi-family residential. The building at 403 Brunswick Avenue will be demolished and replaced with a house-form, 6 unit townhouse building with massing that complements the existing streetscape.

Staff support this proposal subject to the conditions contained in the recommendations.

--------

HERITAGE TORONTO

Heritage Property Report

William Thompson House

395 Brunswick Avenue

August 1999

Attachments:

I Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

II Location Map

III Photographs

--------

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address: 395 Brunswick Avenue (east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue)

Ward: 23 (Midtown)

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: William Thompson House

Construction Date: 1900

Architect: Bond and Smith

Contractor/Builder: John E. Webb

Additions/Alterations: dates unknown, 2-storey rear (east) addition; enclosed bridge between #395 and 397 Brunswick

Original Owner: William Thompson, brewery manager

Original Use: residential (single family dwelling)

Current Use*: not applicable

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: August 1999

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

Historical Background:

1. Neighbourhood:

When the Town of York was established in 1793, the land north of present-day Bloor Street and west of the Don River was divided into a series of Park Lots that Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe awarded to government officials. Lot 25, located east of Bathurst Street, was granted to John McGill who established a country estate named "Davenport" on the acreage. In 1821, the property was acquired by Joseph Wells (1773-1853), a retired British officer who divided the site into three allotments that were distributed among his heirs. Beginning in 1862, the Wells lands were further subdivided. Building lots were laid out around three north-south streets originally named for members of the Wells family but later renamed Albany, Howland and Brunswick. The annexation of the area by the City of Toronto in 1888 coincided with the extension of streetcar service along Bloor Street West. The neighbourhood is now identified as the West Annex.

2. 395 Brunswick Avenue:

With its proximity to the central core of the city, the West Annex neighbourhood attracted prominent residents, including Robert Y. Eaton, president of the T. Eaton Company, who lived at 383 Brunswick Avenue. Landowners commissioned the pre-eminent Toronto architects of the period to design their residences.

William R. Thompson, the owner of the property at 395 Brunswick Avenue, engaged the Toronto architectural firm of Bond and Smith to prepare plans for the site. This commission was among the earliest accepted by Sanford Fleming Smith (1873-1943) and Charles Herbert Acton Bond (1869-1924) following the formation of their partnership in 1899. Smith apprenticed with Toronto architects Strickland and Symon before receiving additional training in New York City. English architect Acton Bond immigrated to Canada in 1888 where he was associated with the Toronto firms of Langley and Burke and Darling and Pearson. Relocating to New York City, Bond spent six years working and studying at Columbia University. Bond and Smith designed numerous houses and commercial buildings and, as consulting architects for the Niagara Power Company, supervised the construction of a powerhouse and office complex in Niagara Falls. The Consumers' Gas Company's Station A at 296 Front Street East (1898) is among the firm's Toronto projects identified on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The partnership was dissolved in 1919.

In July 1900, the architects received a building permit to construct the house at 395 Brunswick Avenue. Thompson, manager of the Toronto Brewing and Malting Company on Simcoe Street, resided on-site until 1915. In the mid-1940s, the property was acquired by the Church Army in Canada who operated a training centre in the adjoining house at #397 Brunswick. The organization retained the property until 1998.

Architectural Description:

The William Thompson House is designed with features inspired by the Period Revival style that gained popularity in North America at the turn of the 20th century. Drawing on elements from English medieval architecture, the style is "marked by a striking combination of Medieval forms with Classical elements reflecting the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods when Renaissance features began to "modernize" the Gothic" (Blumenson, 156). While based on historical precedents, the overall composition offered a new simplicity in architecture after the excesses of late-19th century design.

The William Thompson House is constructed of brick and trimmed with brick voussoirs, stone sills and wood detailing. The long narrow rectangular plan rises 2― stories and is covered by a steeply-pitched jerkin-head roof with extended eaves. On the north side, a firebreak wall is topped by a brick chimney. Segmental-headed dormers with Classical detailing are positioned on the west and rear (east) slopes, and a flat-headed tripartite window opening with an entablature is found on the south side.

The principal (west) façade is organized into two bays in the first floor, with a tripartite window opening in the second storey. A single-storey bay window with brackets is positioned beside a recessed entrance porch with Tudor-arched openings on the south face and a corner buttress. A single-leaf wood door marks the entry. An open single-storey porch with a hip roof, Tudor arches and wood detailing protects the southwest corner of the building. On the south wall of the house, a single-storey bay window is placed next to three narrow lancet windows with stained glass and a continuous sill. Single and double flat-headed window openings mark the second storey. The north wall is blank. The 2-storey rear (east) addition with a pedestrian bridge connecting #395 and 397 Brunswick are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

Significant interior elements are the Classically-inspired ceiling mouldings and fireplace in the front (west) parlour on the main floor, and a similarly-detailed fireplace with a metal grate in the south-west bedroom on the second floor. No other interior elements are identified in the Reasons for Designation.

Context:

The property at 395 Brunswick Avenue is located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue, in a predominantly residential streetscape. The adjoining houses to the north at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue date to 1902 and are included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. On the south, the large property at 385 Brunswick Avenue contains the Loretto Abbey private school. The south portion of the school was completed in 1915, while the north wing replaced a former house at 393 Brunswick Avenue. The William Thompson House shares its setback on a tree-lined street with the neighbouring properties along both sides of Brunswick Avenue.

Summary:

The property at 395 Brunswick Avenue is identified for architectural reasons. The William Thompson House is an early example of the work of the important Toronto architects Bond and Smith. The Period Revival design draws on English medieval precedents and has surviving interior features.

Located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue, the William Thompson House shares its setback and landscaped setting with the adjoining properties. It forms part of the Brunswick Avenue streetscape in the West Annex neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Arthur, Eric. Toronto. No Mean City. 3rd ed. Rev. by Stephen A. Otto. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986.

Assessment Rolls, City of Toronto, 1900-1910.

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.

Building Permit #64, 5 July 1900.

City of Toronto Directories, 1900 ff.

Lundell, Liz. The Estates of Old Toronto. Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1997.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2nd ed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

--------

Appendix I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

William Thompson House

395 Brunswick Avenue

The property at 395 Brunswick Avenue is designated for architectural reasons. The house was constructed in 1900 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of Bond and Smith for William R. Thompson, manager of the Toronto Brewing and Malting Company.

The William Thompson House is designed in the Period Revival style based on English medieval architecture. Constructed of brick with brick, stone and wood detailing, the house rises 2―-stories beneath a jerkin-head roof with a firebreak wall, chimney, dormers and Classically trimmed window openings. On the narrow rectangular plan, the principal (west) façade has a first-floor bay window and second-storey tripartite window opening, a recessed entrance porch with Tudor-arch openings, corner buttress and wood door, and a single-storey open porch with a hip roof and wood detailing. The south wall displays a three-part lancet window containing stained glass, a single-storey bay window, and flat-headed window openings. The north wall is blank. The 2-storey rear addition is not included in the Reasons for Designation.

On the interior, the ceiling mouldings and fireplace in the first-floor parlour (west), and the fireplace in the second-floor bedroom (southwest) are important features. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

The William Thompson House is located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. The house is a good example of Period Revival design executed by an important Toronto architectural firm. With its setback on a landscaped lot, the property is an important feature of Brunswick Avenue in the West Annex neighbourhood.

--------

Heritage Property Report

William and Robert Smith Houses

397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue

Basic Building Data:

Address: 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue (east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue)

Ward: 23 (Midtown)

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: #397: William Smith House

#399: Robert Smith House

Construction Date: 1902

Architect: G. M. Miller and Company

Contractor/Builder: Thompson Brothers

Additions/Alterations: #397: dates unknown, window sash replaced in 2-storey bay window; verandah removed and replaced by canopy; window opening altered on south wall; 2-storey enclosed addition on south wall; entry added on north wall; 3-storey rear (east) addition; enclosed bridge between #395 and 397 Brunswick

#399: dates unknown, verandah partially enclosed and balcony replaced; 2-storey rear (east) addition

Original Owner: #397: William Smith, lumber merchant

#399: Robert Smith, lumber merchant

Original Use: residential (single family dwellings)

Current Use*: not applicable

Heritage Category: Notable Heritage Properties (Category B)

Recording Date: August 1999

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

Historical Background:

Neighbourhood:

When the Town of York was established in 1793, the land north of present-day Bloor Street and west of the Don River was divided into a series of Park Lots that Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe awarded to government officials. Lot 25, located east of Bathurst Street, was granted to John McGill who established a country estate named "Davenport" on the acreage. In 1821, the property was acquired by Joseph Wells (1773-1853), a retired British officer who divided the site into three allotments that were distributed among his heirs. Beginning in 1862, the Wells lands were further subdivided. Building lots were laid out around three north-south streets originally named for members of the Wells family but later renamed Albany, Howland and Brunswick. The annexation of the area by the City of Toronto in 1888 coincided with the extension of streetcar service along Bloor Street West. The neighbourhood is now identified as the West Annex.

2. 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue:

With its proximity to the central core of the city, the West Annex neighbourhood attracted prominent residents, including Robert Y. Eaton, president of the T. Eaton Company, who lived at 383 Brunswick Avenue. Landowners commissioned the pre-eminent Toronto architects of the period to design their residences.

William and Robert Smith, the owners of the adjoining properties at #397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue, engaged the Toronto architectural firm of G. M. Miller and Company to prepare plans for the lots.

In solo practice since 1886, George M. Miller (1854-1933) was a noted Toronto architect whose commissions included the Gladstone Hotel (1889-1890) at 1204 Queen Street West, Havergal Ladies College (1898) at 354 Jarvis Street, City Dairy (1900) and Stables (1909) at 563 Spadina Crescent, and Wycliffe College Chapel (1911) at 5 Hoskin Avenue. His work for the prominent Massey family included modifications to the Hart Massey House at 515 Jarvis Street (1900), plans for the Lillian Massey Household Sciences Building at the University of Toronto (1908-1912), and consultant for Massey Hall at 15 Shuter Street (1894). All of the above-noted properties are listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

In 1902, identical houses were completed at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue for William and Robert Smith, brothers and partners in the family's lumber business. William Smith resided at #397 until his death in 1924; his widow, Charlotte, retained the site until 1931. The following year, the property was occupied by the Sun Diet Sanatorium, renamed the Health Service Sanatorium in 1933. The house stood vacant until 1937 when the Church Army in Canada began an occupancy that lasted until 1998. Robert Smith remained at 399 Brunswick Avenue until 1939 when the property was acquired by the Church Army. The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue were included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties in 1974.

Architectural Description:

1. Exteriors: 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue

The William and Robert Smith Houses display features of the Queen Anne style of the late 19th century. Inspired by 16th and 17th century prototypes, the style was created in Britain by architect Richard Norman Shaw (1831-1923) and his associates. Medieval features, especially asymmetrical plans, projecting wings, varied window types and complicated rooflines, were mixed with Classical motifs using a variety of cladding materials.

The William and Robert Smith Houses are identical in plan, construction and design features. Constructed of red brick and trimmed with brick voussoirs, stone sills and wood surrounds, each building is covered by a cross-gable roof with a brick chimney and, in each gable, shingled cladding. A wall dormer with a gable roof, shingle cladding and brackets extends from the south slope.

The principal (west) facade is organized into two bays. On the right, a two-storey bay window has flat-headed window openings with brick voussoirs and stone sills. The bay window is surmounted by a bracketed gable containing a Classically-detailed two-part window opening and shingled cladding. Left of the bay window, the principal entrance is elevated in the first floor. It contains a wood door with a glass insert and a stained glass transom and is placed beside an oval window with brick voussoirs. A single flat-headed window opening is positioned above the entry. The Robert Smith House retains its wood verandah with Classical columns, architrave and wood detailing which extends across the principal (west) facade and along part of the south wall (where it is currently enclosed). On the William Smith House, a canopy with brackets protects the entrance.

The long south wall has a two-storey bay window incorporating a stained glass window, a projecting centre wall and flat-headed window openings. The pattern of fenestration continues on the north wall with the addition of a small stained-glass window lighting the interior hall and a monumental segmental-headed opening with a large stained glass window and transom. The 2-storey south and 3-storey rear (east) additions on #397, an enclosed bridge connecting #397 with a neighbouring building (#395) at the second-storey level, and the 2-storey rear (east) south addition on #399 are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

2. Interiors: 399 Brunswick Avenue

The Robert Smith House retains important interior elements. On the first floor, the long entrance hall features an elaborate staircase with wood panelling, stairs, turned balusters, moulded handrails and carved newel posts. The entrance hall leads into a double parlour divided by a wall with two archways and a double fireplace with carved wood surrounds, dentilled mantles, and mirrors. The fireplace in the front (south) parlour is more intricately detailed and features a marble surround and tiled floor. Its counterpart in the rear (north) parlour has a metal insert and grate. In the south parlour, the plaster ceiling and mouldings are important features. Both rooms have panelled wood wainscotting and wood door and window surrounds. Another fireplace is found in the front (south) bedroom on the second floor. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

Context:

The William and Robert Smith Houses are located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. The houses share their setback and landscaped setting with the adjoining property at 395 Brunswick Avenue (William Thompson House). In the predominantly residential streetscape between Bloor Street West and Wells Street, the semi-detached houses at 324-326 and 416-418 Brunswick Avenue are listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Summary:

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue are identified for architectural reasons. The William and Robert Smith Houses are identical residences designed for two brothers by the important Toronto architectural firm of G. M. Miller and Company. The buildings display features identified with the Queen Anne style popularized at the end of the 19th century. The Robert Smith House at 399 Brunswick Avenue has significant surviving interior elements. With their setback on landscaped lots, the properties make an important contribution to the Brunswick Avenue streetscape in the West Annex neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Arthur, Eric. Toronto. No Mean City. 3rd ed. Rev. by Stephen A. Otto. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986.

Assessment Rolls, City of Toronto, 1900-1910.

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.

Building Permits #140 and #141, 16 December 1901.

City of Toronto Directories, 1900 ff.

Lundell, Liz. The Estates of Old Toronto. Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1997.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2nd ed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

--------

Appendix I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

William and Robert Smith Houses

397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue are designated for architectural reasons. The identical houses were constructed in 1902 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of G. M. Miller and Company for brothers and lumber merchants William and Robert Smith.

Designed in the Queen Anne style, William and Robert Smith Houses are identical buildings. Constructed of red brick and trimmed with brick, stone and wood, each structure features an irregularly-shaped plan covered by a cross-gable roof with a brick chimney and, in each gable, shingled cladding. A wall dormer with a gable roof, shingle cladding and brackets extends from the south slope. On the principal (west) facade, the two-storey bay window with a gable roof and brackets, the wood door with a glass insert and stained glass transom, the oval window and flat-headed window openings are important features. The Robert Smith House retains its Classically-designed verandah. On both houses, the long south wall has a two-storey bay window incorporating a stained glass window, projecting centre wall and flat-headed window openings. On the north wall, there are flat-headed window openings, one of which contains stained glass, as well as a monumental segmental-headed stained glass window with a transom. The 2-storey south and 3-storey rear (east) additions on #397, the bridge connecting #397 with a neighbouring building, and the 2-storey rear (east) addition on #399 are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

The Robert Smith House retains important interior features. On the first floor, the entrance hall has an elaborate wood staircase, and the front (west) and rear (east) parlours display a plaster ceiling with mouldings (west room), panelled wood wainscotting, wood door and window surrounds, and a double fireplace with wood detailing. On the second floor, the fireplace in the front (west) bedroom is identified. No other interior elements are included in the Reasons for Designation.

The properties at 397 and 399 Brunswick Avenue located on the east side of Brunswick Avenue, north of Lowther Avenue. With their setback and landscaped setting, the William and Robert Smith Houses are important features on Brunswick Avenue in the West Annex neighbourhood.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

designation

Insert Table/Map No. 2

designation

Insert Table/Map No. 3

designation

Insert Table/Map No. 4

designation

51

Designation Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -

832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom)

(Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) be designated for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

(2) That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

At its meeting of August 4, 1999, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) has agreed to sell the property to Addison Motors, the car dealership that currently occupies the site. A condition of the sale is the designation of the property under the Ontario Heritage Act. The purchaser consents to designation.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom

832 Bay Street

The property at 832 Bay Street is designated for architectural and historical reasons. The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom was completed in 1925 according to the designs of architects Hutton and Souter of Hamilton, Ontario. The building housed the Toronto automobile dealership of R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors of Canada. The Addison on Bay dealership has occupied the property since 1955.

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is a good example of a specialized commercial building highlighted with Neo-Gothic design elements. The significant exterior features are found on the facades along Bay and Grenville Streets flanking the main entrance. Constructed of steel with buff brick cladding and cut limestone trim, the building has a two-storey plan which is angled to follow the jog in Bay Street. The main entrance is set in a stone arch containing double wood glazed doors. The entrance is flanked by bronze light fixtures and surmounted by a commercial sign area and a parapet. The elements of interest on the east and south walls are the large copper-trimmed showroom windows, and segmental-headed window openings with metal glazing. (The north and west walls are not included in the designation). Significant interior details are the plaster columns and ceiling beams and mouldings in the first-floor new car showroom. (No other interior elements are included in the designation.)

The property at 832 Bay Street fills the short block from Grenville to Grosvenor Streets on the west side of Bay Street. A rare surviving example of an early 20th century automobile showroom in Toronto, it has been occupied continuously by a car dealership since 1925. With its location on Bay Street where it jogs north of College Street, the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is an important neighbourhood feature.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239 Fax: 392-6834

--------

(July 29, 1999) from Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board

Recommendations:

1. That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 832 Bay Street (McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value.

2. That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Comments

1. Background:

The property at 832 Bay Street was included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties on June 15 and 16, 1989. In 1997, the Ontario Realty Corporation advised Heritage Toronto of its intention to sell the site. The property was assessed by the Ministry of Government Services (forerunner to ORC) in 1991 and determined to have heritage significance. The ORC has agreed to sell the property to Addison Motors, the car dealership that is currently leasing the site. A condition of the sale is the designation of the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. At this time, the ORC is overseeing the restoration of portions of the building, including masonry repairs and parapet rebuilding.

A Short Statement of Reasons for Designation, intended for publication, follows. A Heritage Property Report (Long Statement of Reasons for Designation), including visuals, is attached. Both documents constitute the Reasons for Designation.

2. Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

The property at 832 Bay Street is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom was completed in 1925 according to the designs of architects Hutton and Souter of Hamilton, Ontario. The building housed the Toronto automobile dealership of R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors of Canada. The Addison on Bay dealership has occupied the property since 1955.

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is a good example of a specialized commercial building highlighted with Neo-Gothic design elements. The significant exterior features are found on the facades along Bay and Grenville Streets flanking the main entrance. Constructed of steel with buff brick cladding and cut limestone trim, the building has a two-storey plan which is angled to follow the jog in Bay Street. The main entrance is set in a stone arch containing double wood glazed doors. The entrance is flanked by bronze light fixtures and surmounted by a commercial sign area and a parapet. The elements of interest on the east and south walls are the large copper-trimmed showroom windows, and segmental-headed window openings with metal glazing. (The north and west walls are not included in the designation.) Significant interior details are the plaster columns and ceiling beams and mouldings in the first-floor new car showroom. (No other interior elements are included in the designation.)

The property at 832 Bay Street fills the short block from Grenville to Grosvenor Streets on the west side of Bay Street. A rare surviving example of an early 20th century automobile showroom in Toronto, it has been occupied continuously by a car dealership since 1925. With its location on Bay Street where it jogs north of College Street, the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is an important neighbourhood feature.

--------

HERITAGE TORONTO

Heritage Property Report

McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom

832 Bay Street

--------

Attachments:

I Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

II Location Map

III Photographs

--------

Basic Building Data:

Address: 832 Bay Street (northwest corner of Bay and Grenville Streets)

Ward: 24 (Downtown)

Current Name: Addison on Bay

Historical Name: McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom

Construction Date: 1925

Architect: Hutter and Souter

Contractor/Builder: Anglin-Norcross Limited, contractors

Additions/Alterations: dates unknown, exterior and interior alterations; 1999, brick and stone restoration on south and east facades

Original Owner: R. S. McLaughlin, General Motors of Canada

Original Use: commercial (automobile dealership)

Current Use*: commercial (automobile dealership)

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: July 1999

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

--------

Historical Background:

1. Bay and Grenville Neighbourhood:

The area northwest of Yonge and College Streets was opened for residential development after 1860. The first street running north of and parallel to College was named Grenville Street, purportedly in honour of Robert Temple Grenville, the first Duke of Buckingham. In 1922, houses along College and Grenville Streets were demolished to provide a right-of-way connecting two north-south streets, Terauley and St. Vincent. Upon completion, the route was renamed Bay Street, a continuation of the principal corridor that begins in the Financial District to the south.

According to the City of Toronto Directories, the first building constructed on Bay Street north of College Street was the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom, located on the northwest corner of Bay and Grenville Streets.

2. 832 Bay Street:

In 1892, Robert Samuel McLaughlin (1871-1972) opened the McLaughlin Carriage Works in Oshawa, Ontario in partnership with his father and brother. The company began building car bodies for the Buick Motor Company of Flint, Michigan in 1908, adding Chevrolets to the production line in 1915. When General Motors purchased the company in 1918, R. S. McLaughlin was appointed president of General Motors of Canada and vice-president of the American parent. By the 1920s, the company's Oshawa plant had a workforce of 3000 which "produced more cars for the Canadian and Commonwealth market than the rest of Canada combined" (McCallum, 1275). Retiring in 1942, McLaughlin remained chairman of the Board of Directors of the company until 1967. McLaughlin was a noted philanthropist who supported the McLaughlin Planetarium in Toronto and started the country's most famous breeding farm for thoroughbred horses, "Windfield Farms", which he later sold to entrepreneur E. P. Taylor.

In 1909, R. S. McLaughlin opened a Toronto car showroom at 126-128 Church Street. A new location was found on the recently opened extension of Bay Street in 1924. Construction magazine noted that "the importance which it (Bay Street) is assuming as a traffic artery and as an avenue of motor travel between the downtown and north end sections is perhaps in nowise more fully recognized than it is in the facilities which have been provided in catering to the motorist's needs, of which the new building of the McLaughlin Motor Car Company is an outstanding example". Hutton and Souter, an architectural firm based in Hamilton, Ontario, prepared the plans. The building accommodated separate showrooms for new and used cars, as well as service and storage areas.

After 1931, the name "McLaughlin" was no longer associated with the property, although it continued to house consecutive General Motors dealerships. During World War II, when J. Redmond Beattie operated the Beattie Cadillac Chevrolet Oldsmobile dealership, the site also housed the Women's Employment Services of the National Selective Service Commission.

Addison on Bay has occupied the property since 1955. The property at 832 Bay Street was included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties in 1989.

Architectural Description:

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom displays features of the Neo-Gothic style, which was especially popular for educational and commercial buildings in the early decades of the 20th century. The style derived its decorative motifs from the medieval period, but differs from the late 19th century Gothic Revival in its size and the absence of polychromatic detailing.

The significant exterior features are found on the facades along Bay and Grenville Streets flanking the main entrance. The building is constructed of steel with buff brick cladding and cut limestone trim. Rising two stories, the plan has a truncated southeast corner to follow the jog in Bay Street. The principal entrance is placed on this wall where double wood doors with multipaned windows are set in a stone Tudor arch with multiple mouldings. The opening is flanked by bronze light fixtures and name plates, and surmounted by a large sign (the sign is not original) and a brick parapet with stone coping. Two-storey incised stone piers with decorative caps flank the entrance bay and divide the east (Bay Street) elevation into 9 bays and the south (Grenville Street) wall into 3 bays. On both elevations, the first floor has large showroom windows with copper detailing. There are two service entrances and two pedestrian entries along the east wall. Above a stone cornice in the second storey, segmental-headed window openings with brick spandrels are set in stone surrounds and separated by thin buttresses with decorative caplets. In the single bays on either side of the entrance bay, the window openings are flanked by sidelights. The openings contain multi-paned windows with steel sash. There are no significant features on the north and west (rear) walls.

On the interior, significant features in the first-floor new car showroom are the plaster-clad columns and ceiling beams and mouldings. (No other interior features are included in the designation.)

Context:

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is located on the west side of Bay Street and fills the short block from Grenville to Grosvenor Streets. There is a parking area at the north end of the site and, on the west, a laneway separates it from the neighbouring properties. The adjoining property at 51 Grosvenor Street contains the Kenson Apartments, dating to 1924 and listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Summary:

The property at 832 Bay Street is identified for architectural and historical reasons. The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom has been used continuously as an automobile dealership since 1925. While originally associated with R. S. McLaughlin and General Motors, the property has been occupied by the Addison on Bay dealership for over 40 years. It is one of the few historical properties remaining in the former City of Toronto associated with the early years of the automobile. The former Pierce Arrow Showroom (1930) remains at 1140 Yonge Street, and the last surviving Joy Oil Gas Station (1937) is located at 1978 Lake Shore Boulevard West. The latter properties are also included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Sources Consulted:

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.

City of Toronto Directories. 1921 ff.

Filey, Mike, and Victor Russell. From Horse Power to Horsepower. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1993.

"Gordon Johnson Hutton". Entry in Middleton and Landon. The Province of Ontario. Vol. 4. 1929.

Litvak, Marilyn. "A Tour Through "Parkwood", Oshawa". City and Country Home (Fall 1982) 60-76.

McCallum, Margaret. "Robert Samuel McLaughlin". Entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Vol. II. Edmonton: Hurtig Publishers, 1982.

"McLaughlin Motor Car Company Limited". Construction (June 1925) 184-188.

"William Russell Souter". Entry in Middleton and Landon. The Province of Ontario. Vol. 3. 1929.

--------

Appendix I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom

832 Bay Street

The property at 832 Bay Street is designated for architectural and historical reasons. The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom was completed in 1925 according to the designs of architects Hutton and Souter of Hamilton, Ontario. The building housed the Toronto automobile dealership of R. S. McLaughlin, president of General Motors of Canada. The Addison on Bay dealership has occupied the property since 1955.

The McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is a good example of a specialized commercial building highlighted with Neo-Gothic design elements. The significant exterior features are found on the facades along Bay and Grenville Streets flanking the main entrance. Constructed of steel with buff brick cladding and cut limestone trim, the building has a two-storey plan which is angled to follow the jog in Bay Street. The main entrance is set in a stone arch containing double wood glazed doors. The entrance is flanked by bronze light fixtures and surmounted by a commercial sign area and a parapet. The elements of interest on the east and south walls are the large copper-trimmed showroom windows, and segmental-headed window openings with metal glazing. (The north and west walls are not included in the designation). Significant interior details are the plaster columns and ceiling beams and mouldings in the first-floor new car showroom. (No other interior elements are included in the designation.)

The property at 832 Bay Street fills the short block from Grenville to Grosvenor Streets on the west side of Bay Street. A rare surviving example of an early 20th century automobile showroom in Toronto, it has been occupied continuously by a car dealership since 1925. With its location on Bay Street where it jogs north of College Street, the McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom is an important neighbourhood feature.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

832 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

832 Bay Street

52

Removal of Holding Symbol (H Zoning) -

401 Front Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend Zoning By-law 1994-0806 to remove the holding symbol from the eastern half of the Front Street General Use Area B (401 Front Street West) and allow the proposed residential development of the site.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends Council approval to remove the "h" holding symbol from the property at 401 Front Street West to permit residential uses. This approval will allow the construction of two residential buildings on the site as envisioned by the Part II Official Plan. The applicant has shown that the prerequisite environmental conditions as outlined in the Railway Lands Part II Official Plan, have been met.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend Zoning By-law 1994-0806 to remove the holding symbol from the eastern half of the Front Street General Use Area B (401 Front Street West) and allow the proposed residential development of the site.

Comments:

Location

The property is located on the south side of Front Street West to the immediate west of Blue Jays Way and east of Spadina Avenue as shown on the attached Key Map.

Proposal

The applicant proposes to construct two, 28 storey, residential towers with an overall height of 77.1 metres.

Background

The Railway Lands Central Part II Official Plan permits residential uses in the Front Street General Use Areas, subject to environmental issues such as noise, air quality and vibration being addressed. These conditions were the result of the settlement of an appeal by GO Transit respecting the proposed residential use. The GO Transit appeal was based on concerns related to the potential environmental effects arising from the proximity of the development of these blocks to the Rail Corridor and GO Transit's Bathurst North Yard.

Section 11.8 of the Part II Official Plan outlines the environmental requirements:

- a detailed prediction of noise, vibration and air quality effects, including odour within the proposed buildings and in surrounding outdoor areas at current levels of rail activity and based on future levels of rail activity;

- a prediction of changes in snow drifting patterns and icing of rails and switches on adjacent sections of the Rail Corridor and the Bathurst North Yard;

- a detailed outline of proposed measures to reduce the environmental effects and to meet satisfactory standards and minimize nuisance impacts;

- analyses of the suitability of exterior open balconies and outdoor amenity space; and

- the phasing of construction and assurance that the interim development as well as final phases achieve acceptable environmental conditions.

The application to remove the "h" holding symbol is required to be circulated for comment and the City is required to consult with and have regard for the comments of GO Transit. The Part II Plan further states that Council shall enact a by-law to remove the "h" holding symbol from all or part of the Front Street General Use Areas A and B provided that:

"i) the supplemental Environmental Report required pursuant to Section 11.8 (a) confirms the feasibility of the proposed residential development on the lands, including methods of mitigation;

ii) appropriate methods of mitigation have been secured; and

iii) site plan approval has been granted."

It should also be noted that Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of this Part II Plan generally state that Council will use its available powers to ensure that the development provides:

- environmental conditions satisfactory to the City of Toronto for people working and living within and adjacent, to the Railway Lands Central;

- an Environmental Report which among other conditions requires the provision of buffers (including acoustical walls, buildings and structures); and

- satisfactory indoor and outdoor air quality and climatic conditions at grade and in other outdoor amenity areas.

In addition, the Part II Plan for the Railway Lands Central requires notice and appropriate warning clauses regarding possible noise, vibration and/or air quality impacts associated with the existing and future freight and passenger rail and regional rail and public transit uses in the Rail Corridor, Future Development Area and the Bathurst North Yard to be provided to any purchasers, landowners or lessees within such developments.

In the comments received on this application City Departments have concurred that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed all conditions related to removal of the "h". However, GO Transit has continued to voice its concerns respecting the air quality, noise and vibration impact of its potentially expanded future operations on the proposed development and in particular has concerns with: projected numbers of trains and passengers and the assumed improvements in emission controls.

The applicant's consultants (IBI and RWDI) in responding to these concerns, have indicated that Go's projected increase of train movements by 250% is not achievable without exceptional capital investment in infrastructure. In addition, the consultants have noted that the expected passenger growth does not require a 250% increase. The consultants have also concluded that the numbers of idling trains affecting this particular site would not change appreciably and that as new locomotives are purchased to meet the increased demand and some existing engines are retired, the overall acceptable standards for air quality and noise would be maintained.

City staff have reviewed this analysis and agree that the applicant has met the conditions outlined in the Part II Plan and that the proposed development will experience satisfactory environmental conditions.

GO Transit has stated in its letter of August 20, 1999, that it is generally opposed to the development of the Front Street General Use Areas A and B for residential use, in spite of its Ontario Municipal Board settlement. GO Transit's primary concern is the potential for objections from future residents of the proposed development. GO Transit thinks that it would be prudent for the City to safeguard itself and its interests in GO Transit by refusing the development of these lands for residential uses. City staff have reviewed the proposal, the associated studies and the correspondence between GO Transit and the applicant's consultants and have concluded that the applicant has addressed all issues to meet City standards.

In reviewing the detailed application for Site Plan Approval, it should be noted that the applicant's proposal will also require several relatively minor Zoning By-law variances. These would include a minor height variance, due to the sloping nature of the site, approval of some undersized parking spaces and detailed exceptions to the "build to" zone and the dimensions of the proposed canopies. In addition, the Undertaking associated with the Site Plan Approval with this application will require a variety of relatively standard conditions which would be imposed as a result of comments from the Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

City staff have reviewed the information by the applicant and support this application subject to conditions which are attached to my report on the Site Plan Approval. I am therefore recommending removal of the holding symbol from the Zoning By-law as it applies to 401 Front Street West (the eastern half of the Front Street General Use Area B).

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1. GO Transit (August 25, 1999)

This letter is a follow up to our letter of 20 August 1999 regarding the abovementioned application. We have received a response from RWDI regarding a preliminary set of comments/ questions re: the air quality study, attached. It is therefore necessary to update our comments as provided in our 20 August 1999 letter to the City and also to respond to RWDI's letter.

Regarding future rail traffic levels, our comments in the 20 August letter do not change. As noted in our letter, GO is particularly concerned that adequate future service plans are considered, in order to ensure that our stakeholders, which includes the City of Toronto, are not exposed to unanticipated risk limiting service expansions and/or the associated incremental increased costs for mitigation. Also, we were not advised of this change in rail traffic levels. By deviating unilaterally in using the reduced future scenario the Environmental Agreement has not been satisfied.

Regarding the simulation of Bathurst North Yard exhaust emissions, RWDI's letter has clarified how the yard source was simulated. The 21 June report described the yard operation, but did not specifically state what was used in the simulation. We therefore no longer require further clarification on this matter.

RWDI's letter also answers our question regarding 24 hr NO2 and TSP results.

Regarding the number of trains idling in the rail corridor, our question with respect to sensitivity to the number of trains idling in the corridor remains. The simulation only deals with ― to 1 train idling immediately south of the site. The point that we were trying to make in our 20 August letter is that the effects of idling and moving trains impact areas as far away as Front Street as indicated in Table 8 (unfortunately Table 8 does not have data with no trains idling). We are therefore concerned that the incremental effects of 2 to 6 trains idling in the rail corridor between Spadina and just east of Blue Jays Way (a relatively short distance in the context of the results listed in Table 8), depending on wind conditions, have not been considered.

The question regarding emission control equipment was part of an earlier set of questions. The 20 August letter does not identify any further questions in this area.

However, the following observation in RWDI's letter requires a response, "It is not clear if GO Transit would be required to undertake an environmental impact assessment at the time of any significant growth in the fleet, but such an assessment would clearly show the need for the retrofit of air pollution control equipment". Several related points need to be made. The assumption of 50% of the existing fleet being equipped with emission controls by the year 2020 may be reasonable considering a typical retirement/ replacement rate of existing locomotives over this time frame. However, if there is significant growth in the fleet in advance of this time frame, the retrofitting of existing equipment with emission control equipment is not a practical solution as it is a major undertaking requiring a significant re-design of the engine. In fact, it is our understanding that it is more economical to purchase a new locomotive than to retrofit an existing unit with the emission control equipment. The premature removal of equipment prior to the end its useful life will require significant incremental funding requirements from our municipal stakeholders, including the City of Toronto. Secondly, in the event of complaints from adjacent land owners/ residents, retrofitting locomotives with emission control equipment should not be considered a realistic alternative for the reasons noted above. Further, any growth in the fleet of locomotives/coaches would typically be associated with a service expansion. Therefore, any environmental assessment work, if required, would be in the context of the service expansion which may or may not drive the need for additional rolling stock. The final point that should be made is that this statement reinforces the importance of the need to build compatible land uses adjacent to heavily utilized rail corridors.

If you have any further questions, please call.

2. (August 20, 1999)

This letter is in response to the 4 March 1999 circulation of the above-mentioned application and subsequent circulations dated 29 June 1999 and 20 July 1999.

Prior to outlining our comments regarding this application, it would be useful to review GO Transit's position with respect to residential land uses on Blocks 21 and 28 and the background associated with the settlement of our objection at the OMB hearing.

GO Transit does not endorse residential land use on Blocks 21 and 28. We have been consistent in this position from the beginning of this process. Our concern is not so much about questioning whether a "technical" solution is possible to mitigate air quality and noise considerations to meet a given set of criteria. Fundamentally, we do not believe it is prudent to build what is typically a non-compatible use adjacent to a heavily utilized rail corridor and yard.

Notwithstanding these concerns, GO Transit agreed with the developer to settle our objections to the land use changes that were appealed to the OMB. This settlement was based on i) the approval of particular amendments to the Official Plan, Zoning By-laws and Environmental Agreement, and ii) certain assurances provided by the developer. The Official Plan and Environmental Agreement amendments designate a thorough development application review by the City with input from GO. More specifically, the City is to "consult with and have regard for the comments of GO Transit" when considering an application to remove the holding symbol.

GO's expectation, therefore, is that the City will consider the adequacy and sufficiency of all studies and the mitigation measures proposed to enable residential uses adjacent to existing and future rail uses. GO's review and comments are restricted to dealing with GO related assumptions in the studies, seeking clarification of reported results and similar issues.

We look to the City for considering the comments that are attached in the decision regarding this application. In brief, our comments relate to compliance with the Environmental Agreement in consulting with GO Transit re: future rail traffic and ensuring adequate future scenarios are considered for the air quality study; clarification of assumptions in the air quality study regarding trains idling in Bathurst North Yard; sensitivity considerations of noise and air quality results with respect to the number of trains idling in the rail corridor; exposure to excessive noise levels if windows are open during non-air conditioning seasons; and consideration of incremental noise mitigation to accommodate future night time exposures.

GO is concerned that should the City's review not take such matters into account, then the cost of mitigation in the future may be imposed on GO and, in turn, on the City which shares in the funding of GO. In GO's view, this result could be avoided now by proper review, with the appropriate conditions being imposed on the developer. For example, the studies have focussed on current users of the rail corridor but have not included considerations of the Federal proposal for an airport service whereby incremental costs for mitigation would have to be funded by proponent agencies.

Furthermore, the City is currently negotiating with the railways for the purchase of Union Station and the associated rail infrastructure. It is therefore in the interest of the City to ensure that rail traffic into the station is not restricted as a result of this development. Hence, we have taken the liberty of copying this letter to Mr. M. Garrett.

Our comments regarding the air quality study, noise and vibration impact study and general application comments are attached as attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

In conclusion, we look to the City for considering these comments in their decision regarding this application with respect to the areas noted above and in the attachments. If you have any further questions, please call.

Attachment 1

Comments - Air Quality Study, Block 21 - Towers A and B, Railway Lands Central, dated 21 June 1999, RWDI

GO Transit did not provide a prediction of traffic for 2020. Based on meetings with Concord Adex and their consultants, it was our understanding that the study would use future traffic levels identified in the previous air quality analysis. RWDI provided traffic data for 2010 from a study for the CN Tower redevelopment in 1997. GO subsequently suggested changes to the hourly distribution of train moves. The overall number of passenger train moves did not increase. The increase in train moves resulted from revisions to equipment (non-revenue) moves. It appears that the train move tabulations in earlier studies were based on an east storage facility which significantly reduces the number of equipment moves through the west ladder. At this time, with the redevelopment of the Danforth Yard, opportunities for an east storage facility are limited, therefore, equipment moves for the future scenario were prorated upwards accordingly to reflect this situation.

The scenario used in the air quality study derived from the Year 2021 Plan would likely preclude opportunities for service expansions beyond peak period service enhancements on virtually all corridors. The 2021 plan entails a base minimum of enhancements to peak period services and does not include any provision for all day services on the existing limited service corridors or proposed airport services. In that regard, we are mindful of recent decisions of the Canadian Transportation Agency which concluded that, while municipalities are responsible for the risk relating to the approval of residential development near operating rail corridors, that assumption of risk does not extend to increased rail services which were not contemplated or addressed at the time the development was approved. For that reason, GO is particularly concerned to ensure that adequate future service plans are considered, in order to ensure that our stakeholders, which includes the City of Toronto, are not exposed to unanticipated risk limiting service expansions or incrementally increased costs associated with mitigation.

Appendix L does provide an analysis of the higher future traffic scenario, but it does not indicate whether the results are acceptable.

Up until the time of receiving the final report, GO Transit was not advised of this change in future traffic levels used by the consultant. We were consulted in the early stages of the study and an agreed upon approach for future traffic levels was established. By deviating unilaterally in using the reduced future scenario the Environmental Agreement has not been satisfied, and future service enhancements beyond the minimum may be precluded.

The current daily practice is that 3 to 7 locomotives idle simultaneously during the peak 2 hours of the pm yard operation. The analysis should reasonably incorporate this operation.

The assumption in the study is specific to ―-1 train idling in the corridor immediately south of the site.

The study indicates that air quality considerations will be impacted negatively with an increasing number of trains idling in close proximity to the site. The study also indicates that under existing conditions the effects of idling and moving trains negatively affect areas as far away as Front Street. With this information, it is not clear why the assumption restricts idling trains to one area immediately south of the site.

By only considering ― -1 train idling immediately south of the site, incremental affects of up to 6 idling trains in the vicinity of the site are not considered.

We have a concern in this regard for both current and future operations. Complaints may result in constraints on train queueing location in the near term. Secondly, any reconfiguration or relocation of switches in the future in this area may be constrained as a result of restrictions on train queueing locations. Therefore, the study should offer an opinion on the sensitivity of the results regarding the number of trains queueing in the corridor to enable an assessment of the potential impact on current and future train operations.

Attachment 2

Comments - Revised Noise and Vibration Impact Study, Block 21 - East Development, May 27, 1999, J.E. Coulter Associates Limited

The number of GO trains passing the site at night increases from 11 to 93, an increase much greater than 3 times referred to in the report. Our understanding is that the proposed mitigation measures will result in interior sound levels at or just below acceptable levels. Considering this incremental increase in noise levels for the night time period, higher levels of mitigation may be required.

The statement that the abovementioned assumption accounts for all but dire conditions that currently occur only 1 or 2 days per year is not accurate. Our previous correspondence to the consultants stated that queues can arise from weather and non-weather related causes (signal/switch problems, platform constraints, equipment problems, late trains, patron illness). For estimating purposes, it was suggested to the consultants that weather related queueing could occur 2-4 times per month during Jan-Feb and 1-3 times per month during Dec-March, otherwise, non-weather related queues occur throughout the year.

Whereas the analysis aims to consider typical conditions, there should be an understanding of the number of times that deviations (which are also typical and somewhat frequent) occur from the conditions used in the analysis.

The locomotives are restarted at approximately 1400 hours which is probably better described as mid-afternoon. Also, the locomotives idle for 2 hours to perform safety checks and enable pressure to build for operation of the train.

The idling of 7 locomotives simultaneously is typical of daily operations. The air conditioner condenser noise should therefore be additive to this sound level.

This section is dealing with the possible condition of overnight storage. Similar to the p.m. operation, locomotives would idle for 2 hours and given the peaked nature of our service, yard departures would likely not be staggered. Therefore, an assumption of all 7 trains idling simultaneously should be used.

An opinion, as required in the Official Plan and Environmental Agreement, with respect to suitability of balconies for use as amenity space was to be provided in the report. Our concern is that if balconies are provided then some purchasers will have an expectation of being able to use it as an amenity space. Reference to a MOE guideline stating that since the area of the balconies is small then the balconies are not considered amenity space does not satisfy the Official Plan requirements in our opinion.

Attachment 3

General Application Comments

3. Urban Planning and Development Services (August 18, 1999)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description: Build 28 storeys with two towers and three levels of basement parking (602 dwelling units )
Zoning Designation: (H)CR Map: 50G-322
Applicable By-law(s): 1994-0806, as amended
Plans prepared by: Page& Steele Architects Plans dated: August 18, 1999.
Gross Floor Area (GFA): 46084.0 m2
Residential GFA: 44206.0 m2
Non-Residential GFA: 1878.0 m2

Zoning Review

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

1. a) The proposed mechanical penthouse will have the aggregate horizontal area of 98% of the area of the roof such building instead of the by-law allows only 30 % of the roof of such building;

and

b) The proposed width of the mechanical penthouse within the 6 metres of a lot line that is a street line will have 95% instead of the by-law allows only 20%

(Section 4(3)(a)(i) B. &C.)

2. The by-law requires 1228.0 square metres of indoor residential amenity space. The proposed indoor residential amenity space is 853.0 square metres and the proposed indoor residential spaces will not be located within a contiguous multipurpose rooms.

(Section 4(7) of by-law 1994-0806)

Note: the proposed Business Centre and Guest Suites are not considered as residential amenity spaces.

3. The proposed canopies will not comply with the requirements of Section 7 PART II 6. of by-law 1994-0806. - See detail plan provided by the architect dated August 10, 1999.

(Section 7 PART II 6.(ii) of by-law 1994-0806)

4. The maximum permitted height is 76.0 metres. The proposed building height is 77.1 metres, the mech. penthouse is 6.5 metres and the proposed height of the flag pole is 16.0 metres above the proposed building ( 77.1 metres).

(Section 4(3)(a) of by-law 1994-0806)

Note: The average grade of the site is 85.1 metres. - average grade is along front Street West and Blue Jay Way.

5. Twenty-one proposed parking spaces will have dimensions of 4.5 metres by 2.6 metres instead of the required 5.9 metres by 2.6 metres.

(Section 2(1) def. "Parking space")

6. The proposed residential use is not permitted in this (h)CR District.

(Section 10(260 of by-law 1994-0806)

7. The by-law requires a set back of a building or structure on Blue Jay Way is 2.0 metres and Front Street West is 4.0 metres. The proposed canopies on Blue Jay Way is 0.0 metre and the proposed entrance canopy is 0.0 metres and the canopies is 2.0 metres.

(Section 7 PART II 3. (B))

8. a) Front Street West - The by-law requires build to zone area is 938.08 square metres ( 90% ). The proposed build to zone area is 806.0 square metres ( 77% ).

b) Blue Jay Way - The by-law requires build to zone area is 706.32 square metres (90%). The proposed build to zone area is 542.00 square metres ( 69 %).

( Section 7 PART II 4(a)E.)

Note: This review is only based on the site statistics provided on Plan 2 dated August 18, 1999. The actual calculation of the site statistics must be provided at the time of the building permit application.

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.
5. The proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.

4. (July 15, 1999)

I have reviewed the Noise Impact Statement dated May 27, 1999 prepared by J.E. Coulter Associates Limited, for the above noted Rezoning Application, and find it satisfactory.

As you are aware, the Noise Impact Statement is one of a number of reports required to process your application. At the time of preparation, final construction designs may not be completed. Therefore, on approval of the application and when construction plans are finalized, I require a letter from your architect or acoustical consultant which certifies that the building plans accompanying your building permit application are in conformity with the Noise Impact Statement, with particular reference to the impact of any H.V.A.C. equipment on neighbouring properties.

Please direct any inquiries to Mr. J. Prashad of the Noise Section.

5. Medical Officer of Health (August 27, 1999)

Further to our letter dated July 7, 1999 our office has received an Air Quality Study (June 21, 1999) prepared by Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc (RWDI). Staff at Healthy Environments have reviewed this document and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The consultant states that this study examined predicted air quality impacts based on wind tunnel simulations and evaluated against provincial criteria, specifically Regulation 337 and Regulation 346. Although the MOE has not published criteria relating to odour, they have identified a 50% detection limit (the level at which 50% of the population is able to detect an odour). In addition, exhaust sources were considered in the assessment (locomotives). Due to the location of the subject site near a rail corridor, it was necessary to verify the number of idling locomotives that wait near Blue Jay Way so a one week monitoring program was conducted in June. While as many as 6 may be present during the morning and afternoon periods, locomotives are not typically aligned in front of the development, and as a result their effect will not be cumulative. It should also be noted that background pollutant concentrations were also accounted for in this study.

Results from NO2 analysis at the existing site show that there are currently air quality impacts at both the perimeter of the proposed site and at the park on the south side of the rail corridor. When existing traffic volumes were considered, the NO2 concentrations at all sensitive receptors were below the 1 hour criterion of 400 micrograms/cubic metre. When traffic volumes are increased to levels predicted for the year 2020, the NO2 concentrations remain below 400. Results of the NO2 for the full building configuration indicate that air quality is likely to decrease slightly with the presence of future developments. Predicted traffic volumes in 2020 with all locomotives equipped with emission controls, the maximum number of exceedances increased from no occurrences to one per year (390 micrograms/cubic metre to 492 micrograms per cubic metre). However, the consultant does not consider this significant.

Analysis of the existing site indicates that there are odour impacts from locomotive diesel exhaust, even if the proposed development were not constructed. Therefore, potential odour complaints were also considered by taking a conservative approach that would lead to an over estimate of the impacts. Peak odour concentrations generally occur at the podium level in the amenity space and at the southern facades of Towers A and B, in particular, receptors at and below the 7th floor were most impacted by locomotive odours. Analysis revealed that odour impacts are not expected inside the buildings resulting from fresh air drawn into the building by the mechanical system. As precaution, the consultant has recommended that air intakes systems for frequently occupied spaces be designed to accommodate filter media to remove odours. In addition, when locomotives are equipped with emission controls, the peak 10-minute dour concentration is reduced with 7 exceedances per year, which the consultant feels is satisfactory for people living in the development. As an estimate, the odour concentrations were predicted when 50% of the locomotives were retrofitted with 90-100 occurrences per year, however, when all the locomotives are retrofitted, the number of occurrences is reduced to 17.

Particulate matter from locomotive exhausts were addressed, also in combination with background pollutant levels. Results have indicated that an improvement over the existing impacts at the site due to changes in the aerodynamics of the site and that levels are similar to other areas of the city which is considered satisfactory by the consultant. The same can also be said total suspended particulate. The SO2 and CO predicted evaluations were also in compliance with all relevant Ambient Air Quality Criteria for both the existing and future traffic patterns.

Based on their analysis, RWDI has provided a series of recommendations for the propose Block 21 site. They include the following:

1. The design of the mechanical system to allow future installation of carbon filtration at fresh air intakes at frequently occupied spaces in the event the at odour removal is required;

2. Design of the mechanical system to place suites under positive pressure to minimize potential infiltration of odours through open windows;

3. Rail operators should be approached to provide data on the emission of odours and ambient air quality monitoring of existing conditions should be undertaken.

Conclusions:

Based on the submitted information, I would indicate to you that the Air Quality Study has addressed the concerns of this office and that the recommendations provided in the report, specifically 1 and 2 should be certified on the building plans. We realize that GO Transit has raised some issues regarding the proposed development, however, we can not overlook the expertise of RWDI who have conducted numerous studies regarding development in the railway lands. We have received the response RWDI has provided to GO Transit, and feel that they have been adequately addressed their concerns, however, there are internal administrative questions that GO may need to resolve regarding emission control equipment. Finally, the report states that a "warning clause is in place" relating to nuisance odours for open balconies. It may we prudent for the developer to secure this in purchase agreements with potential buyers.

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.

--------

Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird & Berlis, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with this matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Key Map

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Site Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Elevations

53

Natural Garden Exemption Request - Toronto Municipal

Code, Chapter 202 - 19 Beaty Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code, Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 19 Beaty Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide information to Toronto Community Council regarding a request for a natural garden exemption for 19 Beaty Avenue in Ward 19, received in response to a notice served requiring that long grass and weeds be cut.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code, Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 19 Beaty Avenue;

OR

(2) That Council confirm the served notice and direct that a second notice be given under Municipal Code , Chapter 202, Section 202-D requiring the cutting of grass and weeds, as prescribed in the regulations.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Municipal Code , Chapter 202 regulates "tall grass and weeds", requiring same to be cut upon receipt of a served notice. This regulation also provides for an exemption which may be requested on receipt of such a notice, on the basis that the lands form a natural garden. This exemption is required under the regulation to be reported on for decision by City Council. Background information is set out in this report to assist Council.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On July 16th, 1999 a notice was served in reference to the property known as 19 Beaty Avenue in Ward 19 to require that grass and weeds be cut, in accordance with Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 202. A letter was received, dated July 22nd, 1999, from the occupant of the subject property requesting an exemption from grass and weed cutting requirements on the basis that the property contains a natural garden.

On August 25th, 1999, Parks staff reported that at the rear of the property there is an assortment of plants: Golden Rod, New Guinea Balsam and Raspberry, all of which are in keeping with a natural area. No noxious weeds were observed. This information is included to assist Council in rendering their decision.

Conclusions:

This report is submitted for information to Council in deciding whether or not to exempt the subject lands as a natural garden.

Contact Name:

Curtis Sealock

Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards

Urban Planning and Development

Toronto City Hall, 16th Floor, East

392-7616 (tel.)

392-0677 (fax)

54

Boulevard Cafe - 3-5 Isabella Street

(Convenience Address for 625 Yonge Street) (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the applicant's request to operate a boulevard cafe fronting 3-5 Isabella Street, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Manager, 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 3-5 Isabella Street, because of a negative public poll. In addition, the applicant is requesting to operate the boulevard cafe 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the applicant's request to operate a boulevard cafe fronting 3-5 Isabella Street, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;

OR

(2) (a) City Council approve the boulevard cafe application fronting 3-5 Isabella Street, 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) should City Council approve the boulevard cafe application, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Service be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

Mr. Roger Reynolds, owner of Cafe Isabella, in his letter of February 9, 1999, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a boulevard cafe at 3-5 Isabella Street.

Comments:

Mr. Roger Reynolds, 1234091 Ontario Inc., o/a Cafe Isabella, 3-5 Isabella Street, Toronto, Ontario M6E 2S1, submitted an application on April 24, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 3-5 Isabella Street for an area of approximately 35.6 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 7 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 30 people. In addition, Mr. Reynolds requested to operate the boulevard cafe 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

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.

The Ward Councillors are routinely notified of any applications for boulevard cafes in their ward, should they wish to comment or have the matter reported on. The Councillor(s) may also wish to bring the matter before the Toronto Community Council for further discussion.

Councillor Kyle Rae, in his communication of June 17, 1998 (Appendix 'B'), has expressed his opposition to the issuing of a boulevard cafe licence fronting 3-5 Isabella Street, given that the business operation has been problematic for the neighbourhood for some time.

In addition, a representative of Toronto Police Service, Division No. 52 advised that there have been a number of complaints from the community regarding the conduct of the management of the cafe and the patrons who frequent the location. Accordingly, a number of officers from No. 52 Division have responded to a large number of calls for service at 3-5 Isabella Street. Some concerns include noise and disorderly behaviour from patrons, drug dealing, assaults and intimidation of community members. The representative of the Toronto Police Service recommended that we do not give the applicant a permit to use the boulevard (Appendix 'C').

Furthermore, 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 July 13, 1998 to August 12, 1998, was conducted on the north side of Isabella Street from 10 to 34, including 639 Yonge Street and on the south side of Isabella Street from 9 to 33, including 625 Yonge Street to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast

opposed 9

in favour 3

12
No response 368
Returned by post office 113
Total ballots issued 493

Mr. Reynolds was advised in writing on August 26, 1998, that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued. Furthermore, Mr. Reynolds was advised that a further application for a boulevard cafe at 3-5 Isabella Street could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the public poll which was August 12, 1998.

To assist the Committee with the evaluation of the points raised by Mr. Reynolds in his letter of February 9, 1999, they are summarized below, along with staff's response.

Concern #1 This cafe has been opened for more than 12 years under a different ownership and on May 1, 1997, I took over the cafe under 1234091 Ontario Inc.

Staff response Our records show that City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meetings of July 14 and 16, 1986 and September 8, 1987, respectively, granted permission to a former business operator, Mr. Mangano to operate boulevard cafes fronting 1, 3 and 5 Isabella Street. Since Mr. Mangano did not pay the annual street allowance rental fee for 1995-1996, his cafe privileges were cancelled.

In May 1996, Mr. Mangano submitted a further application to reinstate his cafe privileges fronting 3-5 Isabella Street and a licence was issued on July 2, 1996. Mr. Mangano's licence was cancelled in April 1998, as he had vacated the property.

Of note, during the 1996 and 1997 cafe season, we received several complaints indicating that the boulevard cafe had been in operation beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction and that music was emanating from within the main premises. Following notification to the cafe operator, subsequent inspections showed that the cafe operator complied with the appropriate closing time.

Concern # 2 This is a cafe on a street with more then just my patio in fact there are 3 other patio's and 2 back yard patio's within 100 feet of my location it is also unfair that I cannot have a patio and the other 5 patio's are ok to operate.

Staff Response According to our records, 10-12 Isabella Street is licensed for a boulevard cafe and we have an application pending for 16 Isabella Street. On note, these 2 locations have also rear yard patios on private property. On Appendix 'D', we have shown the proposed cafe, together with the licensed cafe and pending cafe.

Concern # 3 It is unfair that out of 493 people polled 12 useable returns determined the fate of a businesses right to operate.

Staff response While I can appreciate that the response to the poll was low in comparison to the total ballots issued, as Mr. Reynolds indicates, the Municipal Code stipulates that if the majority of the ballots cast are not in favour of the application, the application must be denied. Although the proposed cafe meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes (i.e. setbacks, physical design, location), this criteria cannot address all public concerns which relate to additional noise, garbage, conduct of patrons, pedestrian and car traffic.

Concern # 4 I understand the reason for the polling was because I requested the patio to operate for 24 hrs. I also understand no polling would have been done if I requested the patio licence under the same conditions as the previous owner and would have received the right to use the patio. I would be willing to restrict to a patio operation time under the previous owner (6 a.m. to 11 p.m.). We would do our best to satisfy the concerns of our neighbours as we did in the past.

Staff Response Applications to transfer existing 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. As indicated, the former cafe operator was approved to operate a cafe subject to closing and clearing the cafe by 11:00 p.m. Mr. Reynolds had requested to operate his cafe, 24 hours a day. Given that Mr. Reynold's request was not consistent with the previous approval, a poll of the neighbourhood was conducted to determine their support.

Boulevard cafes on residential flankages 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, which requires that the owner or occupant shall ensure that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. or, where Council has authorized extended hours of operation, the closing time as authorized by Council.

Concern # 5 This cafe has no charges or convictions against it under any level of government.

Staff response As outlined in the body of our report, both the Ward Councillor and Toronto Police Service, Division No. 52 have identified a number of concerns relating to the business operation.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Reynolds a licence for a boulevard cafe at 3-5 Isabella Street because the poll result was negative.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

(A copy of Appendices B and C, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendices A and D - Isabella

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendices A and D - Isabella

55

Discharge of Historical Designation and Heritage Easement

Agreement - 333 Bloor Street East (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council not support the repeal of the designation By-law 107-89 nor the discharge of the heritage easement agreement CA32714 for the property at 333 Bloor Street East (formerly known as 321 Bloor Street East, the Confederation Life Insurance Company Building).

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report responds to the property owner's request to repeal the historical designation and discharge the heritage easement agreement.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council not support the repeal of the designation By-law 107-89 nor the discharge of the heritage easement agreement CA32714 for the property at 333 Bloor Street East (formerly known as 321 Bloor Street East, the Confederation Life Insurance Company Building).

Background:

The property at 333 Bloor Street East (formerly 321 Bloor Street East, the Confederation Life Insurance Company Building) was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, by City Council By-law 107-89 on January 26, 1989. It is also subject to a heritage easement agreement, CT32714, registered on title on June 15, 1989. The property is owned by Rogers Cantel.

Heritage Toronto received a communication dated June 18, 1999 from the City Clerk regarding a letter from Mr. Stephen LeDrew, acting for the owner, requesting the discharge of the historical designation and heritage easement agreement.

Heritage Toronto dealt with this matter at its May 5, 1999, meeting, in response to a letter dated February 12, 1999, from Mr. Robert Cook of Oriolco Developments Inc. requesting the same. Heritage Toronto adopted a motion not to support the request.

Comments:

The property at 333 Bloor Street East has undergone extensive renovations over the last several years to accommodate the new Rogers Cantel campus. Several alterations affecting the heritage attributes of the building came before Heritage Toronto for consideration. The alterations were permitted as they could be reversed by the current or future owner.

At its May 5, 1999, meeting, Heritage Toronto heard from Mr. Cook and Mr. LeDrew with respect to the request to discharge the historical designation and heritage easement agreement. The Board was advised that the owner wishes to be given freedom to make changes to the property without having to come to the Board. The deputants were asked whether Heritage Toronto had been unreasonable to deal with during the recent renovations; they indicated the Board had been very reasonable to deal with.

The former City of Toronto has entered into over 200 heritage easement agreements for the preservation of heritage properties in perpetuity. Permitting the repeal of the designation by-law and the discharge of the heritage easement agreement so that the owner can easily make changes to the property without review by Heritage Toronto would be precedent setting and would negate the purpose of Council's express intent to protect this property.

Conclusion:

This request should not be granted.

Contact Name:

Marisa Williams, Preservation Officer

Architecture, Historical Preservation

Toronto Historical Board

205 Yonge Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1N2

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 240

Fax: 392-6834

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (September 24, 1999) from Mr. Stephen LeDrew, Morris/Rose/Ledgett, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Rogers Cantel, requesting that consideration of the foregoing Clause be deferred for approximately two months to accommodate the negotiations being undertaken with the Toronto Historical Board, and advising that Rogers Cantel agrees not to exercise its right under s.32(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (September 27, 1999) from Mr. Richard L. Stromberg, Manager, Historic Preservation, Heritage Toronto, supporting Mr. Stephen LeDrew's request that the Clause be deferred to permit further discussions.)

56

Retention of Existing Paving - 62 Stibbard Avenue

(North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the existing paving to remain in front of 62 Stibbard Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To comment on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the existing brick paving to remain in connection with the front yard parking application as the existing paving does not meet the paving specifications as required by the Code. As this is an appeal, 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 require the existing paving fronting 62 Stibbard Avenue to be replaced with a permeable material such as ecostone or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(2) City Council approve the existing paving to remain in front of 62 Stibbard Avenue.

Background:

Councillor Michael Walker, in his letter dated August 5, 1999, together with a letter dated July 29, 1999 from Ms. Janet Bryson, owner of 62 Stibbard Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C2, requested an exemption from the Municipal Code to permit the existing paving to remain.

Comments:

Ms. Janet Bryson, applied for disabled front yard parking fronting her residence in August 1994, and has been licensed for disabled front yard parking since November 1995.

Applications for disabled front yard parking are governed by Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, formerly By-law No 636-81. The current criteria of the Code and the by-law at the time of approval:

(a) does not require the property to meet landscaping requirements as stipulated for regular front yard parking applications;

(b) does not require a formal polling process to be conducted to determine neighbourhood support of the application; and

(c) does not permit the disabled front yard parking licence to be transferred to a new owner, and is only valid as long as the disabled person resides permanently at the property.

On February 12, 1999, Ms. Bryson submitted an application to change the disabled front yard parking licence to regular front yard parking. The application was processed and the formal polling was conducted to determine neighbourhood support of the application. The application was approved and subsequently a Construction and Paving Permit No. 57606 was issued on May 19, 1999 to Ms. Bryson.

Front Yard Parking is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which requires:

(a) that the proposed parking area be paved with semi-permeable material in accordance with the alternative paving treatment specifications set out in § 400-88, Schedule XXXV, Part II, or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(b) that a minimum of 50% of the front yard on private property be maintained as landscape open space, and that 30% of that area be maintained as soft landscaping.

The parking area has been paved in interlocking brick since the approval was granted for disabled front yard parking in 1994.

The existing conditions of the front yard at this location do not meet the requirements of the Code, as follows:

(a) the existing paving is not an acceptable paving treatment; and

(b) the soft landscape requirement in the front yard is not met.

In order to meet the requirements of the Code, the applicant must change the existing paving to meet City specifications, and remove some of the paving in order to increase the planting area fronting the front wall to meet the landscaping requirements, as outlined in the Construction and Paving Permit issued to Ms. Bryson, and as per the attached sketch (Appendix "A").

Conclusions:

As the existing paving does not meet the City's specifications for semi-permeable paving material, and as the amount of soft landscaping does not meet the requirement of the Code, it is recommended that this request be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7768

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Stibbard Avenue

57

Tree Removal - 378 Russell Hill Road (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 378 Russell Hill Road conditional on:

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

(ii) the applicant planting a replacement tree in the proximity to the side lot line of the subject property; and

(iii) the applicant contributing $500.00 for the planting of a tree in the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood.

Councillor Miller requested that he be recorded in the negative.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for construction of a driveway has been filed by Mr. Egils J. Didrichsons, Curr Didrichsons Designs Limited, 44 Banff Road, Toronto, M4S 2V5, agent for the owner of 378 Russell Hill Road, Ms. Karen Applebaum, 1 Graywood Avenue, Thornhill, Ontario, L4S 7W4.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

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

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

(ii) the applicant planting replacement trees to the satisfaction of the community and approved by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism; or

(2) refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to redesign plans for the driveway construction.

Comments:

At its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration to Clause No. 12 contained in report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council. Council adopted the Clause without amendment, and by so doing, refused to issue a permit for tree removal at 378 Russell Hill Road, requiring the applicant to redesign plans for the driveway and garage construction. The applicant has submitted a new application requesting permission to remove one tree instead of the three trees that made up the previous application.

The tree in question is an eighty-six centimetre diameter Manitoba maple in fair condition. The Manitoba maple is located on the south property line and its removal is required to facilitate the construction of the proposed new driveway. Five written objections were received in response to the first application, that involved the Manitoba maple and two poplar trees. The new application includes letters from three of the five objectors and one from an additional neighbour. These letters state that they are not opposed to the removal of the Manitoba maple and that their main concern was that the poplar trees not be removed. A letter opposing the removal of the Manitoba maple has also been received. The applicant has redesigned the location of the garage so that the poplar trees will not be impacted by the construction.

The property owner has retained the agent mentioned above to prepare and implement a landscape plan. The landscape plan on file with Forestry Services, dated June 24, 1999, shows the planting of several indigenous trees, shrubs and ground covers. The removal of the Manitoba maple conditional on the implementation of the landscape plan is an acceptable option in the opinion of Urban Forestry staff.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

--------

Mr. Egils Dedrichsons, Landscape Architect, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the letters referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

58

Tree Removal - 306 Beresford Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 306 Beresford Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by the owner, Mr. Thomas Kapantrias, 306 Beresford Avenue, Toronto, M6S 3B3. The applicant is concerned that the tree may fall onto the house.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

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

(2) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comment:

The tree in question is a sixty centimetre diameter Eastern white pine in fair condition. The applicant is concerned that if the tree were to fall it would land on the house. The white pine has been pruned heavily in the past to elevate the crown and there are a few dead limbs at this time that require pruning. The tree is healthy and viable with no structural problems and no evidence to indicate that the tree will uproot or fail and fall towards the house. The white pine is a significant native species that should be protected in the City's urban forest. The applicant should have a qualified tree expert monitor the tree regularly to ensure there are no concerns with respect to safety.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

59

Tree Removal - 308 Beresford Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 308 Beresford Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by the owner, Ms. Anna Jankowski, 308 Beresford Avenue, Toronto, M6S 3B3. The applicant is concerned that the tree may fall onto the house and garage.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

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

(2) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a sixty centimetre diameter Eastern white pine in fair condition. The tree is located near the garage at the rear of the property and the applicant is concerned that it may fall and damage the house and garage. The white pine is healthy at this time and there is no evidence to suggest that the tree poses a danger to the buildings on the property. The white pine is a significant native species that should be protected in the City's urban forest. The applicant should have a qualified tree expert monitor the tree regularly to ensure there are no concerns with respect to safety.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

60

Appeal - Commercial Boulevard Parking -

Arlington Avenue Flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West

(Davenport)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that, as recommended in Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated August 26, 1999, from the Manager, Right-of-Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services, City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West, notwithstanding the negative results of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in subsection 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West, because of a negative public poll. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West;

OR

(2) City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West, 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:

Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of Mr. Rayner Diaz, in her letter dated August 4, 1999 (Appendix  'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his application for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West.

Comments:

Mr. Rayner Diaz, owner of Pet Way Shop, 775 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario M6C 1B7, submitted an application on December 16, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West, for the parking of one motor vehicle positioned parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

We have examined this application and have determined that it meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in § 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

As the proposed boulevard parking flanks a residential district, the 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, the application is refused and 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 5, 1999 was conducted on the west side from 66 to 92 Arlington Avenue, including 775 St. Clair Avenue West, and on the east side from 67 to 95 Arlington Avenue, including 771 St. Clair Avenue West, to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast

opposed 6

in favour 1

7
No response 78
Returned by post office 6
Total ballots issued 91

Mr. Rayner Diaz was advised in writing on April 19, 1999 that given the response to the public poll did not indicate neighbourhood support of his application, a licence could not be issued.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Diaz a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flankage of 775 St. Clair Avenue West because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied that the public poll was conducted properly.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7564

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

Purpose:

To provide additional information on the commercial boulevard parking at Arlington Avenue flank of 775 St. Clair Avenue West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

Your Committee, at it's meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, will have before it my report dated August 26, 1999 regarding an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Arlington Avenue flank of 775 St. Clair Avenue West.

Comments:

For the Committee's information, the boulevard abutting this property was previously licensed to the previous tenant, for 2 vehicles in 1993. The premises was vacated in December 1997, and the file was closed at the time. The boulevard parking signs were removed in February 1998.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7564

--------

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix B

61

Tree Removal - 1309 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of the tree located at 1309 Queen Street East, conditional on the developer making a cash contribution of $1,500 to the Maple Cottage Rejuvenation Project.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been filed under the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, for a permit to remove one tree situated on private property in connection with a development proposal for 1307 and 1309 Queen Street East. The permit application has been filed by the owner of 1307 and 1309 Queen Street East, Ms. Nancy R. Hawley, East End Developments Ltd., 80 Richmond Street West, Suite 601, Toronto, Ontario, M5M 2A4.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the issuance of a permit to remove the subject tree be denied.

Background:

This request for tree removal has been received in connection with Site Plan Approval Application No. 399027 which is a proposal to construct ten row houses on 1307 and 1309 Queen Street East. The proposed development precludes the retention of the tree in question given the size and scale of the development.

On June 4, 1999 the Committee of Adjustment granted conditional approval for an application for severance and variances which was before the Committee in connection with the development proposal in question. In reviewing the Committee's decision, it appears that the Committee of Adjustment was not aware of the issue of the tree which is the subject of this report. The Committee of Adjustment's decision for conditional approval was appealed to Ontario Municipal Board by a neighbouring property owner and a hearing date for the Board has been set for September 14, 1999.

Comments:

We are in receipt of a request from Ms. Nancy R. Hawley, East End Developments Ltd., 80 Richmond Street West, Suite 601, Toronto, Ontario, M5M 2A4, the owner of 1307 and 1309 Queen Street East, that the City consider the removal of one tree situated on the private property of 1309 Queen Street East. The subject tree is situated at the rear of the detached house at 1309 Queen Street East, in close proximity to the property line of 1307 Queen Street East

The tree in question is a sixty-two (62) centimetre diameter Horse Chestnut in good condition. This tree has been open grown for numerous years and in turn has a well developed crown and would have an extensive root system given that the tree is surrounded by turf. The tree has a very large, healthy crown which is visible from various vantage points in the local neighbourhood including the adjacent 'Maple Leaf Forever' City park and the historically significant 'Maple Cottage'. The immediate surrounding area of this neighbourhood in which this tree is situated is not very well treed and as such, this tree is a significant and valuable resource to the community.

Historically and culturally, the Horse Chestnut tree is an important tree to Toronto neighbourhoods given that it was commonly planted throughout the City in the mid to late 1800's and early 1900's. Those Horse Chestnut trees which are removed are rarely replaced with the same tree species.

The development proposal to construct ten row houses on the subject properties indicates that the majority of the lot area would be occupied by the built form of the houses and the limited greenspace proposed does not permit the planting of large growing shade tree species.

As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was posted on the subject property for the required minimum 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection in the form of a petition with twenty-seven (27) signatures 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 Secretary for review by Toronto Community Council.

Contact Name:

Gary R. Le Blanc, 392-0494

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication from Ms. Nancy R. Hawley, Eastend Developments Ltd., and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(A copy the petition referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

62

Driveway Widening - 115 Elmer Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for driveway widening for one vehicle, within the limits of the driveway, and one vehicle perpendicular to the driveway at 115 Elmer Avenue, subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code, Chapter 248, Parking Licenses, of the former City of Toronto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 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 Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit driveway widening which does not meet the requirements of the Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening for two vehicles at 115 Elmer Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(2) City Council approve the request for driveway widening for one vehicle, within the limits of the driveway, and one vehicle perpendicular to the driveway, subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code, Chapter 248, Parking Licenses, of the former City of Toronto.

Background:

Councillor Tom Jakobek, in his communication dated April 15, 1999, together with a communication dated April 12, 1999 from Ms. Holly Lipsett and Mr. Red Lipsett, owners of 115 Elmer Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4L 3R6, requested me to report on the feasibility of the applicant's parking proposal for this location.

Comments:

The property has a 2.4 m wide private driveway, which leads to a single car garage at the rear of the property. The driveway is approximately 22 metres long from the back edge of the sidewalk to the front porch and can accommodate parking for 4 vehicles within the limits of the driveway fronting the house, as well as an additional vehicle in the garage. I note, however, that the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86, does not permit parking in front of houses other than for casual use, i.e. loading/unloading or as authorized by the Driveway Widening and Front Yard Parking By-laws.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code:

(a) permits the widening of the private driveway to a maximum width of 2.6 metres, as measured from the property line;

(b) limits the number of licensed parking space in the front yard to one; and

(c) requires that the parking space be perpendicular to the sidewalk.

As the driveway is less than 2.6 metres in width, the property qualifies to widen the private driveway to a maximum width of 2.6 metres and can be licensed to park one vehicle within the confines of the private driveway.

The owners are requesting a parking space situated perpendicular to and adjacent to the private driveway, in order to avoid jockeying of the vehicles. In effect they are requesting parking for 2 vehicles fronting the property.

The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code, as follows:

(a) the proposed parking space would be perpendicular to the driveway; and

(b) there would be two parking spaces rather than the one space permitted at the front.

I note that there has been no application submitted to this department for the licensing of the parking space.

Notwithstanding that the criteria of the Code does not permit the licensing of two parking spaces, the property does meet the other physical requirements of the Municipal Code, (i.e. landscaping requirements).

Conclusions:

The proposal meets the criteria of the Code for the widening of the driveway to 2.6 m and the parking of one vehicle within the limits of the driveway. The Code, however, does not permit the parking of two vehicles and therefore, this request should be denied.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7768

63

Tree Removal - 256 MacDonell Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

(1) Council issue a permit for tree injury to the owner of 256 MacDonell Avenue; and

(2) the applicant be directed to retain a private certified arborist to develop a tree retention and protection plan that is satisfactory to the City Forester."

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 256 Macdonell Avenue, requiring the applicant to redesign the addition to incorporate the tree.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by the property owner, Mr. Pravin Patel, 256 MacDonell Avenue, Toronto, M6R 2B1. The applicant is proposing to build an addition at the front of the house, and the tree is in the footprint of the proposed addition.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

1. refuse to issue a permit for tree removal, requiring the applicant to redesign the addition to incorporate the tree; or

2. issue a permit for tree removal conditional on: i) the tree in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the tree, and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-two centimetre diameter multiple-stem red oak in fair condition. The oak tree is located at the front of the property. The Committee of Adjustment has granted the variances required for the construction of a two-storey addition at the front of the house. The red oak is a significant shade tree, indigenous to Toronto. In the opinion of forestry staff the applicant should work with an architect and a qualified tree expert to design an addition that will allow for the protection of this significant tree.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. 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 Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (September 13, 1999) from Pravin Patel, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(A copy of the letter referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

64

Driveway Widening - 543 Windermere Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve driveway widening at 543 Windermere Avenue subject to the driveway widening not exceeding 1.9 m in width; and

(2) the parking area being paved with semi-permeable paving materials, i.e. ecostone pavers or approved and equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for driveway widening which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening at 543 Windermere Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(2) (a) City Council approve driveway widening at 543 Windermere Avenue subject to the driveway widening not exceeding 1.9 m in width; and

(b) the parking area being paved with semi-permeable paving materials, i.e. ecostone pavers or approved and equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

Councillor David Miller, in his communication dated June 22, 1999, together with a communication dated May 10, 1999 from Mr. Bjug Borgundvaag, owner of 543 Windermere Avenue, requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for driveway widening at this location.

Comments:

Mr. Bjug Borgundvaag, owner of 543 Windermere Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6S 3L5, submitted an application on May 13, 1998 to park a vehicle adjacent to the mutual driveway in front of the property.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code:

(a) prohibits driveway widening where the mutual driveway exceeds a maximum width of 2.6 metres;

(b) requires that the new requirements of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, are complied with.

Inspection has shown that the property has an existing single car garage accessed by means of a 3.8 metres wide mutual driveway. Based on the width of the mutual driveway, Mr. Borgundvaag was informed that his application was refused.

Notwithstanding that this location is not eligible for driveway widening because of the width of the driveway, the application was also reviewed to determine if the property would meet the other physical criteria of the Municipal Code, (i.e. landscaping requirements and clearances from trees).

There is a large 90 cm diameter City-owned tree fronting the property, which is situated 4.3 metres from the mutual driveway. The specifications for trees over 50 cm in diameter require that no paving be installed within 2.4 metres from the base of the tree. Taking into account the required clearance from the tree, a 1.9 metre wide parking space could be constructed adjacent to the mutual driveway.

I also note that all other landscaping requirements of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248 could also be met.

Conclusions:

As the property has a mutual driveway which exceeds the maximum width to permit licensing and a City-owned tree fronting the property, this location is not eligible for driveway widening. This request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7768

65

Tree Removal - 478 Roncesvalles Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to meet with the applicant to examine alternatives which would permit the retention of the tree, and report thereon directly to Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property in order to construct a replacement addition at the rear of the property has been filed by the owner of 478 Roncesvalles Avenue, Mr. Ghazi Salti, 2749 Hammond Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5K 2M3.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) issue a permit for tree removal; or

(2) refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to redesign the rear addition to accommodate the tree.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-five centimetre diameter Tree of Heaven in fair condition. The tree is located adjacent to the rear of the building and in the opinion of staff, is causing or is likely to cause structural damage to a load bearing structure. The applicant was advised by staff, on April 13, 1999, that the Tree of Heaven met the criteria for an exemption under the private tree by-law, and that a permit to remove the tree was not required. The Department has since received fourteen letters opposing the removal of the tree. At the request of Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, this report was prepared and the applicant was advised not to remove the tree until the issue could be discussed at Toronto Community Council.

The applicant was served with an "Order to Comply", from the Urban Planning and Development Services Department. The order indicated that at the rear of the property, the structural wood members of the existing three storey enclosed porch have deteriorated and do not provide adequate support. The applicant was required to obtain the services of a professional engineer to review the site conditions and recommend the necessary remedial action required to eliminate all unsafe conditions. The applicant was also required to submit plans and obtain a permit to repair, demolish or rebuild this structure. Staff from our Department are concerned that the construction required to rebuild the addition will significantly impact the health of the tree and may destabilize it. The Tree of Heaven is a fast growing weak wooded species. This particular specimen is located in a poor growing environment adjacent to the building, and has the potential to cause damage to the property.

The fourteen letters opposed to the removal of the Tree of Heaven have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

--------

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

- (September 13, 1999) from Peter and Rosemary Meier; and

- (March, 1999) from Mr. Daniel J. Pavlon, Daniel Design Services Inc.

--------

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

- Mr. Alex Poch-Goldin, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Stephen McCammon, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Ghazi Salti, Toronto, Ontario.

(A copy of the letters referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 23, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 14, 1999, requested that I, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, meet with the applicant report to consider ways to retain the private tree at the rear of the subject premises, and report directly to your Council on this matter.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The owner of the subject premises applied for permission to remove a forty-five centimetre diameter Tree of Heaven which is currently in fair condition and is located approximately 0.3 metres away from the rear wall of the building at 478 Roncesvalles Avenue, in order to undertake remedial repairs ordered by my Chief Building Official.

At the time the Toronto Community Council considered this matter a number of area residents appeared in opposition to the owner's proposal, indicating that the tree was an important amenity for this immediate neighbourhood.

In response, Toronto Community Council requested that staff from the Buildings Division and Forestry Office meet with the owner to explore the feasibility of preserving the tree in question, without preventing the necessary repairs ordered by the Chief Building Official.

Comments:

The area of the building, which the owner has been required to repair, is in very poor condition at the present time and repairs should be made as quickly as possible.

The rear of the existing building appears to be frame construction addition to the main building, with a further shed-roof addition. Steps from the second storey lead from rear of the building addition, over the second and western-most addition, and to grade. The tree is located approximately 0.3 metres west of the wall of the shed-roof addition, and directly adjacent the steps which lead from the second storey.

The owner has engaged an engineer to prepare Building Permit application drawings detailing his proposal to remove and reconstruct an addition to the rear of the building, including a set of exterior steps.

The proposed addition, as detailed in the building permit application, would extend beyond the existing addition. It could not be constructed as proposed unless permission is given to remove this tree. It should be noted, however, that the Ontario Building Code Order could be remedied by re-constructing the rear addition in it's existing location. What is unclear at the present time is the condition of the foundation of the rear addition. The building permit application indicates that the existing foundations are to remain undisturbed, suggesting that they would support the construction of a new addition. If the rear addition were reconstructed in it's current location, and could be built on the existing foundation there would be minimal impact on the root system of the subject tree, and the tree could be preserved. The proposed addition will encroach into the crown of the tree and substantial pruning will be required to provide clearance. The pruning should be carried out by a qualified tree expert using standard arboricultural practice to minimize the injury resulting from the removal of a significant portion of the tree crown.

On Monday, September 20, Buildings and Forestry staff met with the owner on-site to discuss his proposal. Notwithstanding a discussion of the situation, as noted above, the owner remains of the view that he would prefer to re-construct the rear addition in the manner set out in his building permit application, which would require the removal of the tree.

It was noted at the time of the inspection that, although this is the only tree at the rear of this property, there are a number of other trees in relatively close proximity, and photographs of the area in question which identify the location of other nearby trees have been shared with the local Councillors.

Contact Names:

Buildings Division:

Pam Coburn

Director and Deputy Chief Building Official

Tel. No.: 392-7961

Parks and Recreation Division:

Andrew Pickett

Forestry

Tel. No. 392-6644

66

Tree Removal - 460 Balliol Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 460 Balliol Street.

The following motions were lost on the following division of votes:

By Councillor Walker:

"That City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 460 Balliol Street."

By Councillor Johnston:

"That the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the Toronto Community Council on opportunities for tree planting in the area."

Yeas: Councillors Adams, Johnston and Walker - 3

Nays: Councillors McConnell, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Jakobek, Pantalone and Rae - 7

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by the property owner, Ms. Shirley Budavari, 460 Balliol Street, Toronto, M4S 1E2. The applicant would like to replace the tree with fruit trees and a vegetable garden.

Financial Implication:

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 thirty centimetre diameter balsam fir in good condition. The tree is located near the north end of the property adjacent to a garage accessed from a public laneway. There are only a few significant trees near this portion of the laneway, and the fir tree provides aesthetic benefits to the community throughout the year. In the opinion of staff, the fir tree is an asset that should be incorporated into any new landscape plans.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

--------

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

- (September 9, 1999) from Ms. Jean Sanguin; and

- (September 10, 1999) from Mr. Phillip and Ms. Irma Ganon.

Ms. Shirley Budavari, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

67

Tree Removal - 126-128 Kilbarry Road (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1) City Council issue a permit for tree removal, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant five replacement trees on the property, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(2) the applicant be required to make a contribution of $1,500.00 to the City Urban Forestry Program for the planting of three trees on the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood.")

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove three trees on private property in order to build three new homes has been filed by the property owner, Mr. Joseph Messina, Messina Designs Ltd. 275 Macpherson Avenue, Toronto, M4V 1A4.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant five replacement trees on the property, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism;

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

Comments:

The trees in question are 31 and 40 centimetre diameter spruce trees, and a 44 centimetre diameter crabapple. The three trees are in fair condition, and the applicant has applied for removal because they are located in the footprint of the proposed new homes. The applicant appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board on this matter after the Committee of Adjustment dismissed his application. The Board is satisfied that the proposed variances are acceptable and approved the development. The Board was aware of the trees, and that they would require removal if the development were to proceed. Forestry staff were not provided with adequate notice to participate in the Board hearing.

There are three additional significant private trees on the property that are to be protected during construction. The two trees located on City property at this address will be protected according to our Specifications for Construction Near Trees.

The applicant is proposing to plant two 100 millimetre caliper replacement trees on the property. The species proposed by the applicant include a red oak and a Bradford pear. An earlier plan submitted with the application indicated the planting of five replacement trees. If permission is granted for the removal of the three trees, staff recommend that five large growing native shade trees be planted as replacement as opposed to the two currently proposed.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

68

Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing -

281 Augusta Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council rescind the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 281 Augusta Avenue subject to:

(a) the licence holder being notified and being given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council;

(b) a 30 day written notice of cancellation being provided to the licence holder; and

(c) the licence holder being refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 281 Augusta Avenue because of ongoing unsafe display practices and excessive marketing. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council rescind the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 281 Augusta Avenue subject to:

(a) the licence holder be notified and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council;

(b) a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder; and

(c) the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee;

OR

(2) City Council allow the licensed boulevard marketing to continue fronting 281 Augusta Avenue.

Background:

Mr. John Rasmussen, o/a Kensington Trading Post, 281 Augusta Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5T 2M1, was issued a licence to occupy 12.9 square metres of the City's right of way fronting 281 Augusta Avenue to display merchandise on June 29, 1998 (Appendix 'A'). Because of on-going complaints of excessive marketing displays and the safety concerns, we are reporting on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing privileges.

Comments:

Boulevard marketing is governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. In accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, a licence may be issued to shopkeepers wishing to display their 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 within the licensed area and displayed upon properly constructed display stands.

Mr. Rasmussen operates a second hand shop and for the most part his display mainly consists of large bulky items such as appliances, desks, couches, etc., which are haphazardly piled on top of each other, resulting in an unsafe display. Appendices 'B' and 'C' includes photographs of the store front showing the display of merchandise.

Arising from complaints pertaining to the unsafe display of merchandise and overmarketing, staff contacted Mr. Rasmussen on September 11 and November 8, 1998 and Notices of Advice were issued to Mr. Rasmussen about the manner in which he displayed his merchandise.

These concerns were also conveyed to Mr. Rasmussen in the Department's letters of November 12, and December 17, 1998, respectively. Furthermore, Mr. Rasmussen was advised that if these practices continued, we would review the matter further with a view to cancelling his marketing privileges.

Despite the Department's requests, follow up inspections on December 30, 1998 and January 7, April 22, April 23, May 5, May 19 and June 3, 1999, showed that Mr. Rasmussen continued to store his merchandise within the boulevard in an unsafe manner and extending his marketing beyond the approved area.

Conclusions:

Because of the on-going problems associated with excessive marketing and the unsafe manner as to how the merchandise is being displayed, it is recommended that the boulevard marketing licence fronting 281 Augusta Avenue be cancelled.

Should the Toronto Community Council decide to cancel the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 281 Augusta Avenue, in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements, a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder and the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

The City of Toronto Act requires that licence holders be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee of Council prior to the revocation of a licence.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to cancel the boulevard marketing fronting 281 Augusta Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7564

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Augusta Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Augusta Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Augusta Avenue

69

Removal of Trees - 10 Shorncliffe Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council:

(a) refuse to issue a permit for the removal of the Norway Maple at 10 Shorncliffe Avenue;

(b) issue a permit for the removal of the Horse Chestnut Street, conditional on the applicant planting a Black Locust tree as a replacement;

(c) issue a permit for the removal of the Crab Apple tree;

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

(2) the applicant contribute $1,000 for the maintenance and/or planting of trees on the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood.

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

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove three trees on private property, to allow for the construction of a new home including new landscaping has been filed by the owners of 10 Shornecliffe Avenue, David and Rose Mongeau, 64 Oatland Crescent, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4C 9P2.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

(ii) the applicant agreeing to plant replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; OR

(2) refuse to issue a permit for tree removal, requiring the applicant to incorporate the trees into the plans for the new house and landscape.

Comments:

The trees in question include a ninety centimetre diameter Norway maple, an eighty centimetre diameter horse chestnut and a forty centimetre diameter apple tree. The arborist report, prepared by Wood-Gaines Tree Service, that accompanies the application, states that the Norway maple is past maturity and exhibits signs of verticillium wilt, (a fungus affecting maple trees), and recommends removal. The report states that the horse chestnut is exhibiting branch dieback and appears to be in a state of decline, but it could be retained if necessary. The apple tree has been previously topped and is a high maintenance species, in terms of spraying, pruning and cleanup of fruit, according to the Wood-Gaines report, and it recommends removal as the tree is in conflict with the proposed new house.

The applicant is proposing to replace the Norway maple with three Serbian spruce trees. The replacement proposed for the horse chestnut will be an ornamental pear tree or an ivory silk lilac, seven metres in height when planted. A large deciduous tree will be planted to replace the apple; the species will be finalized at a later date.

In the opinion of staff, the removal of the three trees conditional on replacement planting is an acceptable option. The Norway maple has reached maturity, has poor form and is in declining health. The horse chestnut has decay in the main union and since it is surrounded by asphalt and close to the nearby homes, its' removal is a valid consideration. The apple tree has never been maintained properly and the tree canopy in the neighborhood would benefit if a large growing shade tree were planted as replacement.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighborhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application for removal and injury of the private trees. Four written objections were received in response to the application to remove the trees in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

--------

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

- (June 21, 1999) from Mr. David Mongeau;

- (Undated) from Ms. Audrey Loeb;

- (July 14, 1999) from Mr. David C. Mongeau;

- (August 25, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Polk Milstein;

- (August 5, 1999) from Mr. David C. Mongeau;

- (September 10, 1999) from Ms. Jill Denham;

- (September 13, 1999) from Ms. Rose Baum; and

- (September 14, 1999) from Mr. Lorne Vineberg.

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

- Mr. David Ross, Partner, Deloitte & Touche; and

- Mr. Robert Howe, Goodman, Phillips & Vineberg.

(A copy of the objections referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

70

Installation of Speed Humps - Albany Avenue

from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 27 of Report 4 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Examination of Feasibility of Installing Speed Humps - Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue (Midtown)", 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 the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

On May 26, 1999:

- Mr. Sid Adilman; and

- Ms. Jane Jacobs.

On September 14, 1999:

- Mr. Niels Petersen.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 4 , Clause No. 27, as adopted by Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Albany Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue.

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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Albany Avenue

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps Bloor Street West Barton Avenue 421F-5274 dated October 1998

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 27 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 4, titled "Examination of Feasibility of Installing Speed Humps - Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue (Midtown)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999:

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on ALBANY AVENUE, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5274, dated October 1998";

(2) the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

(3) 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.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request to consider the installation of speed humps on Albany Avenue between Bloor Street West and Barton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Should Council decide to pursue the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Albany Avenue, the estimated cost would be $6,600.00. Funds in this amount are accommodated in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Capital Budget request.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

At the request of Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, on behalf of area residents, staff undertook an investigation on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, to determine if the implementation of speed humps would be an appropriate traffic calming measure on this section or roadway.

Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue operates one-way northbound with a pavement width of 6.7 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Staff recently conducted twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys over a six day period from November 27 to December 2, 1998 inclusive.

The subject section of Albany Avenue carries an average daily volume of approximately 1,050 vehicles (volumes ranged from 973 to 1,182 vehicles). These volumes marginally satisfy the minimum requirement of 1,000 vehicles per day necessary for further consideration to implement speed humps.

In terms of vehicular speed, the above studies have revealed that the average daily speed on this section of Albany Avenue was 31.6 kilometres per hour and the average operating speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the traffic volume operates at or below) was 43 kilometres per hour. Incidents of excessive speeding (vehicles travelling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour) represented less than two percent of the average daily traffic volume. It should also be noted that the above data is consistent, if not somewhat lower than previous data that was obtained on the same section of Albany Avenue in April/May of 1997, following the reversal of the one-way traffic operation on the section between Barton Avenue and Wells Street.

As requested by the Councillors and interested residents, staff prepared a plan consisting of three speed humps with spacings that range from 70 to 90 metres, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5274, dated October 1998. It is not anticipated that this plan would impact on existing on-street parking spaces, garbage collection, street cleaning or winter operations.

Implementation of this proposal, in conjunction with other speed hump installations and current investigations on sections of Barton Avenue, Howland Avenue and Brunswick Avenue, could result in increased response times for emergency vehicles into the local residential community. Accordingly, copies of the above plan, if approved, will be circulated to emergency services agencies for comment.

In the event that Council wishes to proceed with the installation of speed humps on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, then the following recommendations would have to be approved:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5274, dated October 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

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

The terms of the Speed Hump Policy require that a formal poll be conducted of all 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 humps, of which 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposed implementation.

Further, the changes to Albany Avenue as described above would constitute an alteration to the 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. The project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Conclusions:

In evaluating the section of Albany Avenue from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue for the installation of speed humps, it has been determined that although such a course of action is technically feasible, the guidelines for installation are only marginally met. In addition, as the incidence of excessive speeding represents less than 2 percent (approximately 13 vehicles per day) of the daily traffic volume, the overall impact that speed humps would have on this street would be minor, compared to a number of other locations where excessive speeding constitutes a much greater percentage of the total daily traffic volume.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Albany Ave. Barton Ave - Bloor st. W.

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

- February 11, 1999) from Mr. Niels Petersen;

- (July 15, 1998) addressed to Councillors Adams and Bosson from Mr. Niels Petersen and Ms. Wendy Martin; and

- (February 14, 1999) from Mr. Niels Petersen.

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 13, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a re-poll of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted Clause 27 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 4, and in doing so, approved the alterations of the pavement on the section of Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation.

This section of Albany Avenue was advertised in a local newspaper on four consecutive weeks in May 1999, and the draft by-law was scheduled to be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting of May 26, 1999.

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 26, 1999, in considering my report (May 25, 1999) entitled "Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, Speed hump poll results (Midtown)" and having heard deputations from area residents, adjourned the public meeting held pursuant to the Municipal Act to be reconvened on September 14, 1999 and further, requested that the area be repolled and that more information respecting the proposal be contained in the ballot.

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% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal. As noted in my May 25, 1999 report, the results of the poll undertaken during April/May, 1999, on the subject section of Albany Avenue, indicated that 36 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of those, 87 percent supported the installation of speed humps.

In preparation for the distribution of the second poll and to ensure that the information contained therein was satisfactory, a copy of the revised sample Ballot Form, Drawing No. 421F-5274 and the Speed Hump Information Sheet were forwarded to Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons and their requested revisions to the polling package were made. Transportation Services' staff hand-delivered the ballots (a total of 294) to affected Albany Avenue residents during the first week in August. The closing date of the poll (September 10, 1999) was clearly noted on the ballots.

The results of the second poll undertaken on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, showed that 38.8 percent (114 ballots) of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 90 (84.1 percent) supported speed humps, 16 (15.9 percent) opposed the plan. A total of 8 of the returned ballots were invalid. As can be seen, the results of the second poll are quite similar to the results of the first poll.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy has been satisfied on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth, Senior Traffic Investigator, (416) 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 25, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a poll of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted Clause 27 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 4, and in doing so, approved the alterations of the pavement on the section of Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation.

This section of Albany Avenue was advertised in a local newspaper on four consecutive weeks in May 1999 and the draft by-law is scheduled to be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on May 26 and 27, 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% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue showed that 36% of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 89 (87%) supported speed humps, 13 (13%) opposed the plan. A total of 8 (7%) ballots were invalid.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy has been satisfied on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7711

--------

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

- Petition with 16 signature in opposition from Albany Avenue Residents; and

- (June 3, 1999) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, forwarding the actions of the Toronto Community Council at its meeting held on May 26 and 27, 1999.

71

Installation of Speed Humps - Hillsdale Avenue East,

Soudan Avenue and Manor Road East

from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 37 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road and Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East", which was adopted without amendment by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 7 , Clause No. 37, as adopted by Council on May 11 and 12, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Hillsdale Avenue East, Soudan Avenue and Manor Road East by the installation of speed humps from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on August 23, 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on September 14, 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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Hillsdale Avenue

East

Soudan Avenue

Manor Road East

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps

"

"

Yonge Street

"

"

Mount Pleasant Road

"

"

421F-5294/ 5295/5296/

5297 dated Nov. 1998

"

"

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 37 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road and Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East (North Toronto)" which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999:

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road, and on Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $40,000.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget, Fund Code 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road, and on Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps, on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road, and on Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, generally as shown on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 421F-5294, 95, 96 and 97, dated November 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road and on Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Background:

City Council at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, in adopting Clause No. 61, Item (q) in Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, entitled "Traffic Management Study in the South Eglinton West Area (Bounded by Yonge Street, Eglinton Avenue East, Mount Pleasant Road and Manor Road East)", formalized the South Eglinton West Area for a traffic management study and authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to assist the South Eglinton Residents and Ratepayers Association (SERRA) traffic committee in seeking solutions to reduce the speed and volume of traffic on residential streets in this area.

Comments:

In consultation with North Toronto Ward Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road, and on Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.

Soudan Avenue is a collector street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow varying from about 7,000 vehicles in the vicinity of Yonge Street to 5,300 vehicles in the vicinity of Mt. Pleasant Road with a speed limit of 40 km/h and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side from Yonge Street to Holly Street and on the entire south side. Parking is also prohibited on the north side between Holly Street and Mt. Pleasant Road from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Parking, where permitted is generally restricted to a maximum period of one hour during the daytime hours and to 3 hours after 6:00 p.m. A typical speed study on Soudan Avenue revealed an average speed of 44 km/h, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or below) of 52 km/h and 436 or 7 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Hillsdale Avenue is a local street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow of about 1,500 vehicles with a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Standing is generally prohibited on the north side of the street and parking is permitted to a maximum period of one hour on the south side during the daytime hours and up to 3 hours after 6:00 p.m. Permit parking is in effect on the south side of the street between Yonge Street and Redpath Avenue from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. daily. A typical speed study on Hillsdale Avenue East revealed an average speed of 42 kilometres per hour, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or below) of 52 kilometres per hour and 163 or 10 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Manor Road East is a local street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow varying between 3,200 and 3,900 vehicles, a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is generally prohibited on the north side of the street and standing is prohibited from Yonge Street to Tullis Drive on the south side. Parking is generally permitted to a maximum period of one hour on the south side of the street from Tullis Drive to Mt. Pleasant Road during the daytime hours and up to 3 hours after 6:00 p.m. Permit parking is in effect on the south side of the street between Tullis Drive and Mt. Pleasant Road from 12:01 a.m.to 10:00 a.m.daily. A typical speed study on Manor Road East revealed an average speed of 38 kilometres per hour, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or below) of 48 kilometres per hour and 106 or 3 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, is a local street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow of about 1,450 vehicles with a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is prohibited anytime on the west side of the street and on the east side, from Eglinton Avenue East to Soudan Avenue during the weekday rush periods. Parking is generally permitted to a maximum period of one hour, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., on the east side of the street from Soudan Avenue to Manor Road East during the weekdays and up to 3 hours at other times. A typical speed study on Redpath Avenue revealed an average speed of 36 kilometres per hour, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or below) of 48 kilometres per hour and 177 or 4 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

The proposed locations for these speed humps are shown on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 421F-5294 to 97 inclusive dated November 1998. The following table summarizes key characteristics of the proposals:

Street Section Length (m) No. of 'Stop' Signs within Section No. of Proposed Speed Humps Average Distance (m) between Humps

&"Stops"

Manor Road E. Yonge - Mount Pleasant 726 1 8 73
Hillsdale Av. Yonge - Mount Pleasant 717 2 7 80
Soudan Av. Yonge - Mount Pleasant 702 4 5 70
Redpath Av. Manor - Eglinton 447 2 5 56

The implementation of the proposed speed humps on the above -noted streets should have no impact on the availability of on-street parking and will not unduly hamper snow removal, street cleaning or garbage pick-up operations.

In light of the above and the apparent support for the proposal evident at a public meeting held on March 25, 1999, hosted by North Toronto Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine the level of community support for the speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected portions of the street. At least 60 percent of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East, Hillsdale Avenue East and Redpath 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 is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that it does not significantly impede 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:

Michael J. Harris

Supervisor Traffic Engineering

(416) 392-7711

--------

Mr. John Lightfoot appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

hillsdale ave, manor rd. East, soudan ave, redpath ave

Insert Table/Map No. 2

hillsdale ave, manor rd. East, soudan ave, redpath ave

Insert Table/Map No. 3

hillsdale ave, manor rd. East, soudan ave, redpath ave

Insert Table/Map No. 4

hillsdale ave, manor rd. East, soudan ave, redpath ave

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of polls of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Hillsdale Avenue East, Manor Road East and Soudan Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road and Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted Clause No. 37 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, and in doing so, approved the alterations of the pavement on the sections of Hillsdale Avenue East, Manor Road East, Soudan Avenue and Redpath Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation.

Accordingly, Transportation Services undertook polls on the above noted sections of Hillsdale Avenue East, Manor Road East, Soudan Avenue and Redpath Avenue in August of this year to determine the degree of community support for the installation of speed humps on this street.

The speed hump proposals for these sections of Hillsdale Avenue East, Manor Road East, Soudan Avenue and Redpath Avenue were advertised in a local newspaper for four consecutive weeks in August and September 1999 and the draft by-law is scheduled to be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on September 14 and 15, 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 endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the polls undertaken were:

(1) On Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road 50 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 119 (71 percent) supported speed humps, 45 (27 percent) opposed the plan and 3 (2 percent) ballots were invalid;.

(2) On Manor Road East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road 79 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 135 (75 percent) supported speed humps, 39 (22 percent) opposed the plan and 6 (3 percent) ballots were invalid.

(3) On Soudan Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road 50 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 114 (70 percent) supported speed humps, 35 (21 percent) opposed the plan and 15 (9 percent) ballots were invalid.

(4) On Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East 27 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 53 (61 percent) supported speed humps, 33 (38 percent) opposed the plan and 1 (1 percent) ballots were invalid.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy has been satisfied on Hillsdale Avenue East, Manor Road East and Soudan Avenue, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road and Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mike Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, District 1 (Central)

72

Installation of Speed Humps - Shaw Street

from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, be requested to submit a report to the October meeting of the Toronto Community Council on the results of the poll conducted of the residents on Marchmount Road between Shaw Street and Ossington Avenue.")

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 38 of Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychrest Avenue" which was adopted without amendment by City Council 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 August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 4, Clause No. 38, as adopted by Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Shaw Street by the installation of speed humps from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on August 23, 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on September 14, 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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Shaw Street

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps March-mount Road Wychcrest

Avenue

421F-5313

dated

Jan. 1999

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 38 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 4, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue (Davenport)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999:

(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 5, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1 be adopted; and

(2) a poll also be conducted of the residents of Marchmount Road, between Shaw Street and Ossington Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following (February 5, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $2,700.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of 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 Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5313, dated January 1999";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero and area residents, Works staff conducted an investigation to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue to reduce vehicle speeds.

Shaw Street from Wychcrest Avenue to a point 58.0 metres south of Marchmount Road has a pavement width of 9.8 metres, and 7.4 metres for the remaining portion closest to Marchmount Road. This portion of Shaw Street has a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour, and operates two-way. The following parking regulations are in effect on this block:

East Side:

(i) Parking is prohibited at all times.

West Side:

(i) Parking is prohibited from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

(ii) 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.

A 24-hour speed and volume survey revealed that of the approximately 2600 vehicles travelling on the street during a typical weekday, about 36 percent exceeded the speed limit and about nine percent were travelling in excess of 10 kilometres per hour over the speed limit.

A suitable speed hump plan for this block would consist of two speed humps as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5313 dated January 1999. 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 required by the Speed Hump Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adult residents (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 favor 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 Shaw Street 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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

shaw street - marchmount road - wychrest ave

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a poll of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Shaw Street, from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, in adopting Clause No. 38 of Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, endorsed the installation of speed humps on Shaw Street, from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue subject to a favourable poll of residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation.

Accordingly, Transportation Services undertook a poll on the above-noted section of Shaw Street in August of this year to determine the degree of community support for the installation of speed humps on this street.

The speed hump proposal for this section of Shaw Street was advertised in a local newspaper for four consecutive weeks in August and September 1999, and the draft by-law is scheduled to be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on September 14, 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 endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Shaw Street, from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue showed that 20 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 11 (69 percent) supported speed humps, 2 (13 percent) opposed the plan. A total of 3 (19 percent) ballots were invalid.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy has been satisfied on Shaw Street, from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Joe Gallippi, Senior Traffic Investigator, District 1 (West)

73

Installation of Speed Humps - Roselawn Avenue

from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 33 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council headed "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Roselawn Avenue from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue" which was adopted without amendment by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, Clause No. 33, as adopted by Council on May 11 and 12, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize
the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Roselawn Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on August 23, 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on September 14, 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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Roselawn Avenue

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps Latimer Avenue Rosewell Avenue 421F-5308

dated

Nov. 1998

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 33 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Roselawn Avenue from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue (North Toronto), which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999:

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Roselawn Avenue from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $15,000.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget, Fund Code 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Roselawn Avenue from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Roselawn Avenue, from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5308, dated January 1999";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Roselawn Avenue from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Background:

City Council at its meeting of April 16, 1998 adopted Clause 93 in Report No. 3 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Authorization of the Development of a Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan - Avenue Road Eglinton Community", and in doing so, directed Works and Emergency Services staff to assist the Avenue Road Eglinton Community Association (A.R.E.C.A.) in the development of neighbourhood traffic management plan in the area bounded by Latimer Avenue, Roselawn Avenue, Edith Drive and Eglinton Avenue West.

Comments:

At the request of the A.R.E.C.A. traffic committee, Transportation Services investigated the feasibility of installing speed humps on Roselawn Avenue between Latimer Avenue and Rosewell Avenue to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.

Roselawn Avenue is a residential collector street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow of about 4,000 vehicles west of Avenue Road and about 5,000 vehicles east of Avenue Road, a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of the street and between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the north side from a point 11 metres west of Oriole Parkway to a point 17.5 metres further west. Permit parking is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on the north side of Roselawn Avenue from Edith Drive to Avenue Road and from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. from Heddington Avenue to Castlewood Road. Otherwise, parking is permitted on the north side to a maximum period of 3 hours.

Roselawn Avenue east of Castle Knock Road consists of long blocks (200-250 metres) where an average speed of 54 kilometres per hour and an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the traffic travels at or below) of 62 kilometres per hour was recorded. West of Castle Knock Road, Roselawn Avenue consists of shorter blocks (80-95 metres). Each intersection is controlled by an all-way "Stop" sign control. In spite of the lower speed profile on the short blocks, the resident's traffic committee wanted speed humps installed because of their perception that many motorists were disobeying the all-way "Stop" sign controls, and were travelling at excessive rates of speed.

To be consistent with the former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy, one speed hump per block could be installed on the short blocks, two speed humps on the block between Castle Knock Road and Avenue Road, only one speed hump on the block from Avenue Road to Oriole Parkway (a portion of this section has a grade in excess of 5 percent precluding additional speed humps) and three on the block from Oriole Parkway to Rosewell Avenue. The proposed locations for speed humps are shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5308, dated January 1999.

The implementation of the proposed speed humps on the above-noted street should have no impact on the availability of on-street parking and will not unduly hamper snow removal, street cleaning or garbage pick-up operations.

In light of the above and the apparent support for the proposal by the A.R.E.C.A. Traffic Committee and North Toronto Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine the level of community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected portions of the street. At least 60 percent of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Roselawn 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 is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that it does not significantly impede 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:

Michael J. Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Roselawn Ave - speed hump

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a poll of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Roselawn Avenue, from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted Clause No. 33 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, and in doing so, approved the alterations of the pavement on the section of Roselawn Avenue, from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation.

Accordingly, Transportation Services undertook a poll on the above noted section of Roselawn Avenue in August of this year to determine the degree of community support for the installation of speed humps on this street.

The speed hump proposal for this section of Roselawn Avenue was advertised in a local newspaper for four consecutive weeks in August and September 1999, and the draft by-law is scheduled to be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on September 14 and 15, 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 endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Roselawn Avenue, from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue showed that 54 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 148 (75 percent) supported speed humps, 41 (21 percent) opposed the plan. A total of 9 (5 percent) ballots were invalid.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy has been satisfied on Roselawn Avenue, from Latimer Avenue to Rosewell Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mike Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, District 1 (Central)

74

Installation of Speed Humps - Castlefield Avenue

from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that, in view of the negative poll results, Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 29 of Report 8 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Castlefield Avenue from Chaplin Crescent to Caldow Road" which was adopted without amendment by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Director, 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 Castlefield Avenue have not been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the draft by-law to alter the section of Castlefield Avenue between Chaplin Crescent and Caldow Road, by means of the installation of speed humps, not be enacted in light of the negative poll results noted below.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, in adopting Clause 29 in Report No. 8 of the Toronto Community Council, approved the alterations of the pavement on the above-noted section of Castlefield Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the policy governing speed hump installation.

Comments:

The speed hump policy requires that a poll of adults 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 endorse the speed hump proposal.

A total of 91 ballots were mailed out to eligible voters on Castlefield Avenue, between Caldow Road and Chaplin Crescent. The results of this poll, undertaken in July and August 1999, demonstrated that a total of 52 (57 percent) of the eligible voters responded to the poll, and of these, 23 (44 percent) supported the plan and 29 (56 percent) opposed the installation of speed humps.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps requires that 60 percent of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal. As only 44 percent of the respondents were in favour of the speed hump proposal, in accordance with Council policy, no further action should be taken in this regard.

I note for your Council's information that the policy further stipulates that a two-year moratorium on further polling be imposed following an unsuccessful poll.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Senior Traffic Investigator, (416) 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, Clause No. 29, as adopted by Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize
the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Castlefield Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent.

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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Castlefield Avenue

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps Caldow Road Chaplin Crescent 421F-5368 dated

April 1999

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 29 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Castlefield Avenue from Chaplin Crescent to Caldow Road (North Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999:

(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 6, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidences of speeding vehicles on Castlefield Avenue between Chaplin Crescent and Caldow Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $6,600.00, funds for which are available in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Castlefield Avenue, from Chaplin Crescent to Caldow 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 Castlefield Avenue from Chaplin Crescent to Caldow Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5368, April 1999,"

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Castlefield Avenue from Chaplin Crescent to Caldow 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 North Toronto Ward Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker on behalf of area residents, Transportation Services staff investigated concerns regarding excessive speeding and the feasibility of installing speed humps on Castlefield Avenue from Chaplin Crescent to Caldow Road.

The subject section of Castlefield Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of the street. Parking on the north side is permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Transportation Services staff recently conducted a 24 hour speed and volume survey on the subject section of Castlefield Avenue which showed a daily traffic volume as high as 1,000 vehicles. A high average operating speed of 61 kilometres per hour was recorded, with about 30 percent exceeding 55 kilometres per hour, which is greater than experienced on most residential streets in the Toronto community.

In this regard, the traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5368, dated April 1999, consists of three speed humps. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour as permitted by the City of Toronto Act, 1996, would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal 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 results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to Castlefield 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 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 the Municipal Roads Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

castlefield avenue - caldow rd - chaplin rd - speed humps

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (May 10, 1999) from Councillor Johnston:

Recommendation:

That the appropriate City staff review the feasibility of installing speed humps on Castlefield Avenue, Caldow Road to Castlewood Road, and report back to the Toronto Community Council.

Background:

Request from Castlefield Avenue resident.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (April 23, 1999) from Councillor Walker:

I refer to a March 31, 1999, letter from Mr. Andrew Koropeski regarding the above.

I would appreciate if you could prepare a sketch and report directly to Toronto Community Council for authority to undertake a poll to determine support of area residents with respect to the installation of speed humps.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

--------

(Communication dated March 31, 1999, addressed to Councillor Walker

from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1,

Works and Emergency Services)

I refer to your letter of December 10, 1998, acknowledging my letter of October 26, 1998, regarding the above.

Castlefield Avenue from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent exhibits a high operating speed profile (61 kilometres per hour average) which is greater than experienced on most residential streets in the Toronto community. Given the evident speeding and that daily traffic volumes are 1,000 vehicles have been recorded, it would not be unreasonable to continue to process for considering speed humps on this section of Castlefield Avenue.

In this regard, upon your concurrence or that of Councillor Anne Johnston, we will be pleased to prepare a sketch and report to the Toronto Community Council requesting authority to undertake a poll to determine the consensus of the area residents with respect to the installation of speed humps.

As you are aware, this formal poll would include all adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also those households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installation. A favourable poll of 60 percent of all responses is required before speed hum installation can proceed.

If the results of the poll are negative, another poll cannot be conducted for a two year period. At the same time that authorization to conduct the poll is requested, consultations with the emergency services agencies are undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

--------

(Communication dated December 10, 1998, addressed to the

Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services,

from Councillor Walker)

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 26, 1998, regarding the traffic study carried out on Castlefield Avenue between Caldow Road and Chaplin Crescent.

According to your study an average 966 cars were reported using this section of Castlefield Avenue each day. While I appreciate that the one of the primary criteria for a street to qualify for the installation of speed humps is a 24 hour volume of over 1000 cars, a volume of 966 cars is right on the cusp of meeting that criterion.

In addition, given the fact that over 75 percent of all traffic recorded in the study was travelling above the posted speed limit, I believe this case deserves special consideration. While I appreciate your request of Toronto Police Services to consider enhanced enforcement on this section of Castlefield Avenue, a more permanent solution is needed. Speed humps will force drivers to slow down.

Under the circumstances, I would like to vary the suggested guidelines and move forward towards a process of public consultation and polling despite being 34 cars shy of the 1000 car prerequisite.

I would appreciate your feedback on this matter.

75

Installation of Speed Humps - Redpath Avenue

from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 37 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road and Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East", which was adopted without amendment by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 7 , Clause No. 37, as adopted by Council on May 11 and 12, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Redpath Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on August 23, 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on September 14, 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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Redpath Avenue

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps Eglinton Avenue East Manor Road East 421F-5294/ 5295/5296/

5297 dated Nov. 1998

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 37 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East from Yonge Street to Mount Pleasant Road and Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East (North Toronto)" which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999:

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road, and on Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $40,000.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget, Fund Code 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road, and on Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps, on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road, and on Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, generally as shown on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 421F-5294, 95, 96 and 97, dated November 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road and on Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Background:

City Council at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, in adopting Clause No. 61, Item (q) in Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, entitled "Traffic Management Study in the South Eglinton West Area (Bounded by Yonge Street, Eglinton Avenue East, Mount Pleasant Road and Manor Road East)", formalized the South Eglinton West Area for a traffic management study and authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to assist the South Eglinton Residents and Ratepayers Association (SERRA) traffic committee in seeking solutions to reduce the speed and volume of traffic on residential streets in this area.

Comments:

In consultation with North Toronto Ward Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East, from Yonge Street to Mt. Pleasant Road, and on Redpath Avenue, from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.

Soudan Avenue is a collector street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow varying from about 7,000 vehicles in the vicinity of Yonge Street to 5,300 vehicles in the vicinity of Mt. Pleasant Road with a speed limit of 40 km/h and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side from Yonge Street to Holly Street and on the entire south side. Parking is also prohibited on the north side between Holly Street and Mt. Pleasant Road from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Parking, where permitted is generally restricted to a maximum period of one hour during the daytime hours and to 3 hours after 6:00 p.m. A typical speed study on Soudan Avenue revealed an average speed of 44 km/h, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or below) of 52 km/h and 436 or 7 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Hillsdale Avenue is a local street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow of about 1,500 vehicles with a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Standing is generally prohibited on the north side of the street and parking is permitted to a maximum period of one hour on the south side during the daytime hours and up to 3 hours after 6:00 p.m. Permit parking is in effect on the south side of the street between Yonge Street and Redpath Avenue from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. daily. A typical speed study on Hillsdale Avenue East revealed an average speed of 42 kilometres per hour, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or below) of 52 kilometres per hour and 163 or 10 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Manor Road East is a local street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow varying between 3,200 and 3,900 vehicles, a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is generally prohibited on the north side of the street and standing is prohibited from Yonge Street to Tullis Drive on the south side. Parking is generally permitted to a maximum period of one hour on the south side of the street from Tullis Drive to Mt. Pleasant Road during the daytime hours and up to 3 hours after 6:00 p.m. Permit parking is in effect on the south side of the street between Tullis Drive and Mt. Pleasant Road from 12:01 a.m.to 10:00 a.m.daily. A typical speed study on Manor Road East revealed an average speed of 38 kilometres per hour, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or below) of 48 kilometres per hour and 106 or 3 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Redpath Avenue from Eglinton Avenue East to Manor Road East, is a local street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow of about 1,450 vehicles with a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is prohibited anytime on the west side of the street and on the east side, from Eglinton Avenue East to Soudan Avenue during the weekday rush periods. Parking is generally permitted to a maximum period of one hour, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., on the east side of the street from Soudan Avenue to Manor Road East during the weekdays and up to 3 hours at other times. A typical speed study on Redpath Avenue revealed an average speed of 36 kilometres per hour, an operating speed (speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles travel at or below) of 48 kilometres per hour and 177 or 4 percent of the vehicles travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

The proposed locations for these speed humps are shown on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 421F-5294 to 97 inclusive dated November 1998. The following table summarizes key characteristics of the proposals:

Street Section Length (m) No. of 'Stop' Signs within Section No. of Proposed Speed Humps Average Distance (m) between Humps

&"Stops"

Manor Road E. Yonge - Mount Pleasant 726 1 8 73
Hillsdale Av. Yonge - Mount Pleasant 717 2 7 80
Soudan Av. Yonge - Mount Pleasant 702 4 5 70
Redpath Av. Manor - Eglinton 447 2 5 56

The implementation of the proposed speed humps on the above -noted streets should have no impact on the availability of on-street parking and will not unduly hamper snow removal, street cleaning or garbage pick-up operations.

In light of the above and the apparent support for the proposal evident at a public meeting held on March 25, 1999, hosted by North Toronto Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine the level of community support for the speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected portions of the street. At least 60 percent of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Soudan Avenue, Manor Road East, Hillsdale Avenue East and Redpath 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 is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that it does not significantly impede 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:

Michael J. Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, 392-7711

--------

Mr. John Lightfoot appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

hillsdale ave, manor rd. East, soudan ave, redpath ave

Insert Table/Map No. 2

hillsdale ave, manor rd. East, soudan ave, redpath ave

Insert Table/Map No. 3

hillsdale ave, manor rd. East, soudan ave, redpath ave

Insert Table/Map No. 4

hillsdale ave, manor rd. East, soudan ave, redpath ave

76

Installation of Speed Humps - Prescott Avenue

from Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 39 of Report No. 4 of Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Prescott Avenue from Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue", which was adopted without amendment by City Council 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 August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 4, Clause No. 39, as adopted by Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize
the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Prescott Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on August 23, 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on September 14, 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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Prescott Avenue

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps Rockwell Avenue Rowntree

Avenue

T555-2

dated

June 1998

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 39 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 4, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Prescott Avenue from Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue (Davenport)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999:

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Prescott Avenue, from Rowntree Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation being subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto

"The construction of speed humps on Prescott Avenue, from Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue;"

(2) the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Prescott Avenue, from Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue, coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

(3) 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 may be required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 12, 1999) from Councillor Disero:

Please find attached a report from staff to permit speed humps on Prescott Avenue.

Some time ago, Toronto Community Council approved a recommendation to poll Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, on the installation of the speed humps.

Could Toronto Community Council, please request that Prescott Avenue, from Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue also be polled.

--------

(Communication dated December 10, 1998, addressed to Councillor Disero

from Director, Transportation Services,

District 1, Works and Emergency Services)

I refer to your December 3, 1998 letter regarding the above.

Please refer to my letter of July 13, 1998 (copy attached) which addresses this matter.

--------

(Communication dated July 13, 1998, addressed to Councillor Disero

from Director, Transportation Services,

District 1, Works and Emergency Services)

Further to my May 4, 1998 letter acknowledging your April 17, 1998 letter (with a petition attached) regarding the above, I comment as follows.

Prescott Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rowntree Avenue has a pavement width of 7.3 metres, a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates two-way. A 24-hour speed and volume survey on June 6, 1997 (Prescott Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West Rockwell Avenue) recorded approximately 2200 vehicles during a typical weekday, and of these about 28 percent exceeded the speed limit, with about 1 percent in excess of 10 km/h over the limit. Further, a 24-hour speed and volume survey on February 11, 1997 (Prescott Avenue from Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue) recorded approximately 900 vehicles during a typical weekday, and of these about 38 percent exceeded the speed limit with about 1 percent in excess of 10 km/h over the limit.

The parking regulations are as follows:

West Side:

(i) Parking is prohibited anytime.

East Side:

(i) Parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from St. Clair Avenue West to East Avenue;

(ii) Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours; and

(iii) Permit parking is not in effect on Prescott Avenue.

Prescott Avenue satisfies the City's primary criteria for speed humps south of Rockwell Avenue. North of Rockwell Avenue, Prescott Avenue satisfies all of the primary criteria except volumes, which is close, as measured in February which is typically a lower traffic volume month. A suitable speed hump plan for this street would consist of nine speed humps, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. T555-2 dated June, 1998, entitled "Prescott Avenue - St. Clair Avenue West to Rowntree Avenue".

However, due to the high number of driveways that exist on Prescott Avenue in the Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue block, it is very difficult to find locations for speed humps while also trying to maintain optimum spacings (60-90 metres apart). As a result, two of the five speed humps on this block will be situated directly in front of driveways (Premises Nos. 133A/138 and 163).

It is recommended that the proposed speed humps on Prescott Avenue be 7.5 cm in height as opposed to 10 cm as in the Earlscourt Area. This height reduction will help access and egress for those residents where speed humps are situated directly in front of their driveways, and should result in more even speeds on the street with less braking and accelerating at each hump.

I will be pleased to receive your comments on the above before proceeding, and will be pleased to arrange for staff to meet with you or residents to discuss this proposal further if necessary.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a poll of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Prescott Avenue between Rowntree Avenue and Rockwell Avenue

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, in adopting Clause No. 39 of Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, endorsed the installation of speed humps on Prescott Avenue between Rowntree Avenue and Rockwell Avenue subject to a favourable poll of residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation.

Accordingly, Transportation Services undertook a poll on the above-noted section of Prescott Avenue in August of this year to determine the degree of community support for the installation of speed humps on this street.

The speed hump proposal for this section of Prescott Avenue was advertised in a local newspaper for four consecutive weeks in August and September 1999, and the draft by-law is scheduled to be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on September 14, 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 endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Prescott Avenue, from Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue showed that 33 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 91 (81percent) supported speed humps, 11 (10 percent) opposed the plan. A total of 10 (9 percent) ballots were invalid.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy has been satisfied on Prescott Avenue, from Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Joe Gallippi, Senior Traffic Investigator, District 1 (West)

77

Installation of Speed Humps - Merton Street

from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 35 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue", which was adopted without amendment by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, Clause No. 35, as adopted by Council on May 11 and 12, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Merton Street by the installation of speed humps from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on August 23, 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on September 14, 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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Merton Street Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps Mount Pleasant Road Bayview Avenue 421F-5302

dated

Dec. 1998

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 35 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, titled "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue (North Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999:

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Merton Street, from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue, by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $21,000.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget, Account No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Merton Street, from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Merton Street, from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5302, dated December, 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h on Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Background:

City Council at its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 in adopting Clause 60, Item W in Toronto Community Council Report No. 14, requested City staff to review the feasibility of installing speed humps on Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue and to report back to Community Council with the results of the feasibility study.

Comments:

Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue is a collector street with two-way operation, a daily traffic flow of about 6,400 to 6,600 vehicles with a speed limit of 40 km/h and a pavement width varying from 8.5 metres to 10.9 metres. Parking is prohibited anytime on the north side of Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue; on the south side of Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to a point 82 metres east thereof; in front of Pottery Playground; and from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., Monday to Friday from about a point 82 metres east of Mount Pleasant Road to a point 309 metres further east thereof. Otherwise, parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Merton Street was included in the South Eglinton Area (East) Traffic Calming Project (Phase I) comprised of 85 modular traffic islands to narrow selected intersections and midblock locations. As a result of polling, the majority of respondents (72 percent) in the community opted to have the road narrowing devices removed, however, a majority (59 percent) also indicated their support for the development of additional or other forms of traffic management. On Merton Street this majority was 74 percent.

This section of Merton Street consists of two blocks: Mount Pleasant Road to Cleveland Street (approximately 800 metres in length); and Cleveland Street to Bayview Avenue (approximately 300 metres in length). A typical speed study on Merton Street revealed that the average speed traveled by vehicles is 49 km/h, the operating speed (the speed traveled by 85 percent of traffic) is 58 km/h and 24 percent of all vehicles traveled in excess of 55 km/h.

The proposed locations for the speed humps are shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-dated December 1998. Ten humps are proposed on Merton Street from Mount Pleasant Road to Cleveland Street and four humps are proposed from Cleveland Street to Bayview Avenue.

Implementation of the proposed speed humps on the above-noted street should have no impact on the availability of on-street parking and will not unduly hamper snow removal, street cleaning or garbage pick-up operations.

In light of the above and the apparent local support for the proposal which was evident at a public meeting held on April 8, 1999, hosted by the Merton Street Traffic Committee and attended by both North Toronto Councillors Ann Johnston and Michael Walker as well as Transportation Services staff, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine the level of community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected portions of the streets. At least 60 percent of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Merton Street as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that the proposal does not significantly impede 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:

Michael J. Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

merton street - mt. Pleasant road - bayview ave.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a poll of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Merton Street, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted Clause No. 35 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, and in doing so, approved the alterations of the pavement on the section of Merton Street, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation.

Accordingly, Transportation Services undertook a poll on the above noted section of Merton Street in August of this year to determine the degree of community support for the installation of speed humps on this street.

The speed hump proposal for this section of Merton Street was advertised in a local newspaper for four consecutive weeks in August and September 1999, and the draft by-law is scheduled to be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on September 14 and 15, 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 endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Merton Street, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue showed that 52 percent of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 241 (69 percent) supported speed humps, 103 (29 percent) opposed the plan. A total of 7 (2 percent) ballots were invalid.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy has been satisfied on Merton Street, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Bayview Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mike Harris

Supervisor

Traffic Engineering

District 1 (Central)

Tel No. 392-7711

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (April 13, 1999) from Councillor Walker, addressed to the Manager, Transportation Services, District 1:

On Thursday, April 8, 1999, I and Mike Harris of your staff attended a meeting held by the ad hoc traffic committee of Merton Street to discuss the proposal of installing speed humps on their street between Mount Pleasant Road and Bayview Avenue. Clearly there is a speeding problem on this street and the residents who attended this meeting, in my opinion, seemed quite favourable with this option. Therefore I would like to see the formal polling of this stretch on Merton Street take place as soon as possible.

The residents brought up two additional concerns at this meeting that I would like to have addressed by your staff. The first being that between now and the date that the speed humps are actually installed, the residents have requested police enforcement to ensure that traffic slows down. It may take four months before the humps are actually installed and the safety of pedestrians of all ages, particularly children and seniors as well as for motorists in this area is of paramount importance!

Secondly, residents also raised the issue of the flashing green light on Bayview Avenue for cars travelling northbound that allows cars to make a left (travel westward) onto Merton Street. This invites additional cars onto a residential street that already has nearly 8,000 cars travelling on it each day. Would you please have your staff report on the repercussions, if any of removing this flashing light.

Your attention to these issues is greatly appreciated.

--------

Mr. John Lightfoot appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

78

Installation of Speed Humps - McRoberts Avenue

from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road

(Davenport and York-Eglinton)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 24 of Report No. 8 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Realignment of Northeast and Southwest Corners of the Intersection - Massey Street at Adelaide Street West (Trinity-Niagara)" which was adopted by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 24, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, Clause No. 58, as adopted by Council on May 11 and 12, 1999 and York Community Council Report No. 5, Clause 7, as adopted by Council on May 11 and 12, 1999.

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of McRoberts Avenue by the installation of speed humps from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on August 23, 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on September 14, 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:

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
McRoberts Avenue Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps St. Clair Avenue West Rogers Road 421F-5354

dated

Mar. 1999

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 58 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road (Davenport and York-Eglinton), which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999:

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 22, 1999) from Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on McRoberts Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and Rogers Road by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work and associated signage in the estimated amount of $18,000. are available in Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on McRoberts Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as described in the text of this report:

"The construction of speed humps on McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5354, dated March, 1999";

(2) That Works staff be authorized to conduct the required poll on both portions of McRoberts Avenue, that being the portion in the Toronto Community Council area and the portion in the York Community Council area;

(3) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

(4) 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 are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero and residents of McRoberts Avenue, Works staff investigated the feasibility of installing speed humps on McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to the north limit of Davenport Ward. Upon investigating this request Works staff determined that the remaining portion of McRoberts Avenue between the north limit of Davenport Ward and Rogers Road (approximately 80 metres), which is part of the York Community Council area (York-Eglinton Ward), should be included in the speed hump evaluation.

Mc Roberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road, operates two-way with a pavement width which varies from 7.3 to 7.9 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. The following parking regulations are in effect on Mc Roberts Avenue.

East side

- Parking is prohibited at anytime.

West side

- Parking is prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, from Innes Avenue to a point 106.7 metres south.

- Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours except during the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily between St. Clair Avenue West and the north limit of Davenport Ward.

- Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours except during the hours of permit parking operation from 12:00 midnight to 6:00 a.m., daily between the north limit of Davenport Ward and Rogers Road.

Works staff conducted 24-hour speed and volume counts on Mc Roberts Avenue and found that on average the street carried 1800 vehicles per day. On a daily basis, approximately 26% of vehicular traffic travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Mc Roberts Avenue has been evaluated against the primary criteria for speed hump installation contained in the Speed Hump Policy adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting on August 21, 1997 (Clause 28 in City Services Committee Report No. 10) and it has been determined that the installation of speed humps is warranted.

Under the Policy there are five primary criteria that must be met when a street is being evaluated for speed hump installation.

BR2">

Primary Criteria:

1. The posted speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour or less.

2. The number of travel lanes (excluding bicycle lanes) is less than or equal to two.

3. There are no public transit routes operating on the street or that the street is not a primary emergency response route, unless a design acceptable to the respective emergency service is developed.

4. The number of vehicles per day on the street is between 1,000 and 8,000; and

5. The gradient on a particular section of a street being considered for speed hump installation does not exceed 5%.

In accordance with the Policy, once the primary criteria has been satisfied, a formal poll must be conducted of residents, 18 years of age and older, of households directly abutting Mc Roberts Avenue and also residents on side streets whose sole access is from Mc Roberts Avenue. Further, at least 60% of returned ballots must be in favour of the installation of speed humps in order to proceed with the proposal. Works staff will conduct this poll and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project.

It should be noted that the City Clerk for the York Community Council area has been requested, subject to support from York Community Council, to permit Works staff to conduct the required poll for all of McRoberts Avenue to maintain consistency in polling procedures.

The speed hump proposal, as illustrated on the attached copy of Drawing No. 421F-5354 dated March, 1999, consists of 12 speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres apart. A speed limit reduction from the present 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Mc Roberts Avenue concurrent with the installation of the speed humps would be appropriate. No alterations to the parking regulations are required nor will the number of on-street parking spaces be affected.

One of these speed humps will be located in the York Community Council area and until a uniform speed hump policy is developed for the City of Toronto it is recommended that the speed hump design and height recommended in the above noted Speed Hump Policy be utilized on the entire section of McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road.

The recommended speed hump design is 7.5 to 10 centimetres in height and approximately four metres in length in the direction of travel. This design encourages vehicular crossing speeds of 20 to 30 kilometres per hour and there are no negative impacts to the number of parking spaces.

The intent of Council to enact a by-law to install speed humps on Mc Roberts Avenue constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Consequently, the proposed changes to the roadway must be advertised and be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with emergency service agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the design and layout of speed humps does not adversely affect their operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, 392-7771

Co-ordinator, Traffic Operations

Insert Table/Map No. 1

McRoberts Avenue - Speed Humps

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of a speed hump poll of McRoberts Avenue residents and to advise that conditions for the installation of speed humps on the subject section of McRoberts 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 May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, in adopting Clause No. 58 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council and Clause No. 7 of Report No. 5 of the York Community Council, approved the installation of speed humps on the subject section of McRoberts Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of affected residents. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above was advertised in a daily newspaper on four consecutive weeks in August and September 1999, and will be considered by Toronto Community Council and York Community Council at their meetings on September 14, 1999.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy 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 endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on McRoberts Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road in August 1999, showed that 265 of the 659 eligible voters responded to the poll (40 percent). Of these, 214 (81 percent) supported the installation of speed humps and 51 (19 percent) did not.

Accordingly, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, have been satisfied on the subject section of McRoberts Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

79

Narrowing of Pavement - Merton Street

near Yonge Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 38 of Report No. 9 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Road Narrowing at Pedestrian Crossover - Merton Street in the vicinity of Premises No. 71, which was adopted without amendment by City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 9, Clause No. 38

as adopted by Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Merton Street near Yonge Street by narrowing 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:

(Column 1

Side or Street)

(Column 2

Location)

(Column 3

Width)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Merton

Street

(near premises

No. 71 Merton Street)

from: 11.3m to: 9.5m - 11.3m 140m East of Yonge Street 20m further East 421F-5375 dated

May, 1999,

revised

June, 1999

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 38 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 9, titled "Installation of Road Narrowing at Pedestrian Crossover - Merton Street in the vicinity of Premises No. 71 (North Toronto", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999:

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 9, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To channelize through traffic movements and provide a measure of protection for elderly pedestrians crossing at the pedestrian crossover opposite Premises No. 71 Merton Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost of this work is in the order of $6,000.00, which can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavement width on Merton Street, from approximately 140 m east of Yonge Street to a point 20 m further east thereof, in the vicinity of Premises No. 71 Merton Street on either side of the existing pedestrian crossover, for the purpose of channelizing through traffic movements and providing a measure of pedestrian protection, described as follows:

"The narrowing of the pavement from a width of 11.3 metres to a width varying from 9.5 metres to 11.3 metres on both sides of the pedestrian crossover in the vicinity of Premises No. 71 MERTON STREET, from a point approximately 140 m east of Yonge Street to a point 20 m further east thereof, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5375 dated May 1999, Revised June 1999";

(2) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Merton Street from a point 160 metres east of Yonge Street to a point 40 metres further east and that the three parking meter spaces within this area be removed; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Michael Walker, Transportation Services' staff investigated the feasibility of narrowing the pavement in front of Premises No. 71 Merton Street (the Janet Magee Manor senior citizens' facility) at the existing pedestrian crossover in order to enhance pedestrian safety, especially for seniors residing at this address. Following a public meeting held on Friday, May 28, 1999, at Premises No. 71 Merton Street, the residents in attendance indicated their support with the proposed roadway narrowing.

Merton Street is a collector/residential roadway with two-way traffic operation, a pavement width of 11.3 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Metered parking is available on the north side of the street for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours. Parking on the south side of the street is prohibited at anytime.

A review of available speed and volume data has revealed that the average daily speed on the section of Merton Street between Mount Pleasant Road and Yonge Street was approximately 43 kilometres per hour and the operating speed or 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the traffic volume operates at or below) was 52 kilometres per hour. Incidents of excessive speeding (vehicles traveling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour) represented roughly 11 percent of the combined average daily traffic volume (6,388 vehicles).

A check of Departmental collision data from January 1996 to December 1998, revealed that there were 2 collisions in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossover (PXO) near Premises No. 71 Merton Street. Both collisions were rear-end collisions involving vehicles that were stopped or in the process of stopping at the crossover. Neither of these collisions involved pedestrians.

A site inspection recently conducted by Transportation Services staff confirmed that the overhead illuminated sign is clearly visible by motorists approaching the crosswalk from either Yonge Street or Mt. Pleasant Road. If motorists do not stop, it is not due to lack of visibility, but because they choose not to stop, or alternatively, the pedestrians may not have actuated the overhead flashing beacon. It was also noted that the pavement markings at the crosswalk are visible, however, they are somewhat faded. Staff will arrange to have these pavement markings repainted as soon as practicable. Also, to further enhance the visibility of the PXO, staff will consider installing an additional overhead electrical fixture to augment the existing fixture currently in place. This will result in increased lighting levels at the PXO and increased visibility of the PXO to approaching motorists.

Prior to assessing the feasibility of narrowing the pavement at the subject PXO on Merton Street, Transportation Services staff observed the operating conditions at the PXO on Davisville Avenue between Yonge Street and Mt. Pleasant Road, where the pavement was narrowed by the placement of precast concrete islands in 1997. During the course of this assessment, it was noted that a number of motorists failed to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the street, however, with less distance to cross the roadway, pedestrians, and in particular seniors, are exposed to traffic for a shorter period of time.

While narrowing the roadway at the subject PXO on Merton Street is technically feasible, it would require the removal of three parking meter stalls to accommodate the requisite pavement marking taper on the north side of Merton Street, immediately east of the crossover. The proximity of the crossover to existing driveway ramps precludes the possibility of narrowing the roadway at the west side of the crossover on the north side of Merton Street and at the east side of the crossover on the south side of Merton Street.

The narrowing of Merton Street as described above would constitute an alteration to the public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised in a local newspaper and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. The project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael

Senior Traffic Investigator

392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Merton Street

80

Narrowing of Pavement - Dufferin Street north of

Canadian National Exhibition Grounds (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 49 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Narrowing of the Pavement on Dufferin Street north of CNE Grounds" which was adopted without amendment by City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause No. 49

as adopted by Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Dufferin Street north of the Canadian National Exhibition grounds by narrowing 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:

(Column 1

Side or Street)

(Column 2

Location)

(Column 3

Width)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Dufferin

Street

from: 14.4m to: 11.0m 28.5m South of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway

Bridge

75m further North SK-2226 dated

June, 1999

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 49 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, titled "Narrowing of the Pavement on Dufferin Street north of CNE Grounds (Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999:

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 7, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Dufferin Street through the creation of widened sidewalks to improve pedestrian amenities and facilitate the planting of trees.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the work, in the estimated amount of $200,000.00 are available in the Urban Planning and Development Services and the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Accounts.

Recommendations:

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

"The realignment and narrowing of the pavement on DUFFERIN STREET from a width of 14.4 m to a width of 11.0 m from a point 28.5 m south of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway Bridge to a point 75 m further north thereof ."; and

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

Comments:

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, in connection with ongoing infrastructure improvement work within the CNE grounds, have developed a plan of streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the Dufferin Gates, including a minor narrowing of the pavement and landscaping improvements on the Dufferin Street Bridge over the F. G. Gardiner Expressway.

The work within the Dufferin Street right-of-way includes a minor narrowing of the pavement and corresponding creation of inner boulevards, the installation of planters back of curb, and the removal of the existing barriers along the centre line of the street for the full extent of the structure.

Dufferin Street from a point 28.5 m south of the F. G. Expressway Bridge to a point 75m further north functions as a arterial road and carries two-way north and southbound traffic, with a pavement width of 14.4 m. No parking is allowed on this section of the Street.

The work, as shown on the Attached print of Drawing No. SK-2226 June 1999, and described in Recommendation No. 1 above, will not adversely affect the functioning of traffic on the street.

The narrowing of the pavement on Dufferin Street constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, Manager

Infrastructure Asset Management and Programming

Transportation Services Division

392-5348

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Dufferin Street - CNE Grounds

81

Narrowing and Realigning of Pavement - Argyle Street

from Ossington Avenue to Givens Street and Markham Street

from Queen Street West to Robinson Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 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 49 of Report No. 8 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Narrowing of Pavements on Argyle Street and Markham Street - Garrison Creek Initiatives ", which was adopted without amendment by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, August 30, September 7 and September 13, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, Clause No. 49

as adopted by Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Argyle Street from Ossington Avenue to Givens Street and Markham Street from Queen Street West to Robinson 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:

(Column 1

Side or Street)

(Column 2

Location)

(Column 3

Width)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)
Argyle

Street

Markham Street

from: 7.32m to: 6.10m

from: 7.32m to: 6.10m

Ossington Avenue

Queen Street West

Givens Street

Robinson Street

SK-2223 dated

May, 1999

SK-2222 dated

May, 1999

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 49 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, titled "Narrowing of Pavements on Argyle Street and Markham Street - Garrison Creek Initiatives (Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999:

(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 20, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of pavements on various streets within the Garrison Creek Planning Area to improve pedestrian amenities through the creation of widened sidewalks and grass boulevards to facilitate the planting of in-ground trees.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the pavement narrowings have been accommodated within the Transportation Services 1999 Capital Works Programme.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavements on Argyle Street and Markham Street as follows:

(a) "The realignment and narrowing of the pavement on Argyle Street from Ossington Avenue to Givens Street from a width of 7.32 m to a width of 6.10 m, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2223, dated May, 1999";

(b) "The realignment and narrowing of the pavement on Markham Street from Queen Street West to Robinson Street from a width of 7.32 m to a width of 6.10 m, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2222, dated May, 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.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, in considering Clause No. 92 contained in Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Garrison Creek Open Space Linkage Plan (Trinity Niagara, Davenport, Downtown)", approved, among other things, a conceptual plan of civic improvements along parks, public streets, lanes and other forms of open spaces to connect park and streetscape amenities into a system that identifies the former Garrison Creek alignment.

Comments:

The Garrison Creek Working Committee comprised of members of the Garrison Creek Community Project, Urban Development Services, Works and Emergency Services and Community Services has been meeting regularly over the last year or so to develop priorities and establish a comprehensive plan of civic improvements to be implemented in the area in the short and medium term.

Transportation Services staff have reviewed the 1999 Capital Works Programme with a view to identifying planned work within the Garrison Creek Planning Area and in consultation with members of the working group and other civic staff have developed plans for enhancements to the pedestrian amenities on a number of streets by providing for widened sidewalks and/or boulevards and corresponding narrowing of the pavements to facilitate the planting of street trees. The locations set out below are scheduled for implementation this year:

Argyle Street:

Argyle Street from Ossington Avenue to Givins Street is scheduled for reconstruction under the 1999 Capital Works Programme. It functions as a local street and carries one-way eastbound traffic with a pavement width of 7.32 m. One hour parking is allowed on the north side of the street.

The proposed pavement narrowing/realignment involves the widening of the sidewalk on the north side of the street. The work, as described in Recommendation No. 1(a), above, will not adversely affect the functioning of traffic on the street nor will it affect parking or access.

Funds to cover the cost of the work, in the estimated amount of $70,000.00 have been accommodated in the Transportation Services 1999 Capital Budget authorization request for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs. The incremental costs of additional adjustments to transportation facilities arising from the planned pavement narrowing have been accommodated within the authorization for Traffic Calming and Bicycle Lanes.

Markham Street:

Markham Street from Queen Street West to Robinson Street is scheduled for reconstruction under the 1999 Capital Works Programme. It functions as a local street and carries one-way southbound traffic. One hour parking is allowed on the east side of the street.

The proposed pavement narrowing/realignment involves the widening of the sidewalk on the east side of the street. The work, as described in Recommendation No. 1(b), above, will not adversely affect the functioning of traffic on the street nor will it affect parking or access.

Funds to cover the cost of the work, in the estimated amount of $80,000.00 have been accommodated in the Transportation Services 1999 Capital Budget authorization request for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs. The incremental costs of additional adjustments to transportation facilities arising from the planned pavement narrowing have been accommodated within the authorization for Traffic Calming and Bicycle Lanes.

The narrowing of the pavements on Argyle Street and Markham Street constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, Manager

Infrastructure Asset Management and Programming

Transportation Services Division

392-7835

Insert Table/Map No. 1

argyle street and markham street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

argyle street and markham street

82

Appeal - Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit -

Bathurst Street, East Side, 9.5 Metres South of

Queens Quay West (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Bathurst Street, east side, 9.5 metres south of Queens Quay West.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard vending application, which was denied because a written objection was received. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Bathurst Street, east side, 9.5 metres south of Queens Quay West;

OR

(2) City Council approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Bathurst Street, east side, 9.5 metres south of Queens Quay West, notwithstanding the objections received by the adjoining property owners, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Georgios Tsirongas has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Bathurst Street, east side, 9.5 metres south of Queens Quay West (Appendix 'A').

Comments:

Mr. Georgios Tsirongas, 64 Cedarvale Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4C 4J4, applied on April 28, 1999 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Bathurst Street, east side, 9.5 metres south of Queens Quay West, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). Mr. Georgios Tsirongas proposes to vend hot dogs, sausages and cold drinks.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owners for their comments, if any. Ms. Leona Rodall, Executive Director, Harbourfront Community Centre, 627 Queens Quay West, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3G3, has submitted a letter of objection dated May 12, 1999 (Appendix 'C') and Ms. Susan Seidman, Acting Principal, The Waterfront School, 635 Queens Quay West, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3G3, has also submitted a letter of objection dated May 12, 1999 (Appendix 'D') regarding this location.

Under the procedural rules of the Municipal Code, where a written objection to the issuance of a vending permit has been received, we are required to refuse the application. The applicant then has 30 days from receipt of our notice to request an appeal to the Toronto Community Council.

Staff have met with Mr. Georgios Tsirongas and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, because we have received a letter of objection.

In order to assist Toronto Community Council with the evaluation of Ms. Rodall's and Ms. Seidman's concerns, they are summarized below along with the staff's response:

Concern # 1: The main entrance and exit to the Harbourfront Community Centre and Waterfront School playground would be impeded by the vendor's cart and equipment

Staff Response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires that vendors cannot obstruct any entrance. The proposed location is situated at the open entrance to the playground and provides 3 metres and 5.3 metres on either side of the cart.

Concern # 2: The proposed vending and customers would block the sidewalk which could result in pedestrians using private property to pass

Staff Response: The Code requires that the vending location must provide a total of 3.66 metres of paved and passable space for pedestrians, including private property. The proposed vending location provides 2.1 metres on the City's right-of-way and in excess of 11 metres on private property.

In the future, should Harbourfront Community Centre or Waterfront School extend their existing fence or building facilities further north, there will be insufficient space on the right-of-way to accommodate a designated vending location and maintain safe pedestrian passage in a busy area (2.1 metres).

Concern # 3: The proximity of the vending location to the playground/basketball courts and other activities of the Community Centre and School are not compatible. Problems include children bringing money to school, which is discouraged, and leaving the school yard to purchase food or drinks

Staff Response: The proposed vending location is 11 metres from the basketball courts.

The Code prohibits the sale of ice cream, ice cream cones, frozen confections, frozen desserts and any non-edible items only, within 30 metres of an entrance to any school ground or public park. The Code does not restrict the sale of hot dogs, sausages or cold drinks within 30 metres of a public park or a school entrance.

Concern # 4: There are health concerns regarding the close proximity of the proposed vending location to the numerous construction sites within the immediate area

Staff Response: Should Toronto Community Council recommend that this location be approved for vending, Public Health could report directly to City Council on any related health concerns.

Concern # 5: There will be safety problems at school dismissal time when cars stop to pick up students and others stop for food at the vending location

Staff Response: The parking restrictions on the east side of Bathurst Street, south of Queens Quay West are "No Parking - Monday to Friday from 8:00 am. to 6:00 pm".

The suggestion for an alternative vending site on the south side of the bike trail, west of Stadium Road, is not feasible. The 4 metre right-of-way (1.5 metres paved only) cannot accommodate a vending location and maintain a minimum of 3.66 metres of paved passable pedestrian space as required by the Code.

Conclusions:

The criteria set out in Chapter 315 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code require that the vending location provide a total of 3.66 metres of paved passable space for pedestrians including private property. The proposed vending location provides only 2.1 metres on City's right of way and the rest on the Community Centre's and School's private property.

Should Harbourfront Community Centre or Waterfront School extend their existing fence, there will be insufficient space on the City's right of way to accommodate a designated vending location and maintain a safe pedestrian passage in a busy area (2.1 metres).

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal to permit a vending location on Bathurst Street, east side, 9.5 metres south of Queens Quay West.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Barrie Chavel, 392-0839

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (September 13, 1999) from Ms. Susan Seidman, The Waterfront School, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

--------

Mr. George Tsirongas, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of Appendices A, C and D referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix B

83

Tree Removal - 317 Rhodes Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 317 Rhodes Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property has been filed by Mr. Fook Kueng Chan, owner of 317 Rhodes Avenue, Toronto, M4L 3A4.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

1. refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; or

2. issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The trees in question are thirty-seven and thirty-nine centimetre diameter ash both in fair condition, with no visible signs of disease or structural problems. The applicant and neighbour at 321 Rhodes Avenue are tired of cleaning up the flowers and leaves that fall from the tree and accumulate in their eaves troughs. The applicant does not speak English, and through a City of Toronto translator, has stated that a private tree company advised him that the ash trees were unhealthy. The translator advised the applicant that the trees were healthy according to Forestry staff, and explained that a permit from City Council would be required prior to tree removal. The ash trees provide a green privacy screen between the rear yards on Rhodes and an apartment complex on Coxwell Avenue, and it would be unfortunate if this tree canopy were lost 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 Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (September 10, 1999) submitted by Ms. Lynne Lim obo Fook Kung Chan, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(A copy of the letter referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

84

Appeal - Sidewalk-Boulevard Vending Permit -

Gould Street, 5.9 Metres East of O'Keefe Lane (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Gould Street, 5.9 metres east of O'Keefe Lane.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard vending application, which was denied because a written objection was received. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Gould Street, 5.9 metres east of O'Keefe Lane;

OR

(2) City Council approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Gould Street, 5.9 metres east of O'Keefe Lane, notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Steve W. Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum McKay Glady, Barristers and Solicitors, Riverdale Law Centre, 257 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 1N2, acting on behalf of Mr. Ghorban-Ali Parvazi, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Gould Street, 5.9 metres east of O'Keefe Lane (Appendix 'A').

Comments:

Mr. Ghorban-Ali Parvazi, 45 Pembrooke Street, Suite #204, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 2N6, applied on May 11, 1999 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Gould Street, 5.9 metres east of O'Keefe Lane, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B' ). Mr. Ghorban-Ali Parvazi proposes to vend hot dogs, sausages and cold drinks.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their comments, if any. Mr. Manual Ravinsky, Coordinator, Department of Campus Planning and Construction, Ryerson Polytechnic University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, has submitted a letter of objection dated May 25, 1999 (Appendix 'C' ) regarding this location.

Under the procedural rules of the Municipal Code, where a written objection to the issuance of a vending permit has been received, we are required to refuse the application. The applicant then has 30 days from receipt of our notice to request an appeal to the Toronto Community Council.

Staff have met with Mr. Ghorban-Ali Parvazi and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, because we have received a letter of objection.

In order to assist your Committee with the evaluation of Mr. Ravinsky's concerns, they are summarized below along with the staff's response:

Concern # 1: The proposed vending location is the fourth vendor within a 70 metre section of Gould Street

Staff Response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a minimum 25 metre separation between vendors.

There are three licensed food vendors in the vicinity of the proposed vending location on Gould and Victoria Streets. The proposed location is 34 metres east of the only licenced food vendor on Gould Street, 43 metres west of a food vendor on Victoria Street at Gould Street. The third food vendor is located on Victoria Street, 44 metres north of Gould Street.

Concern # 2: The proposed vending location is immediately adjacent to Ryerson property beside a fence which is used by cyclists for securing their vehicles

Staff Response: The proposed vending location and passable pedestrian space are within the City of Toronto right-of-way only. The length of the proposed vending location may affect the securing of 1 bicycle to the fence on Ryerson's property but all the bikes attached to that fence are parked within the right-of-way. Should Ryerson require additional bicycle parking facilities on the City sidewalk/boulevard, arrangements can be made for the installation of City bike rings, in appropriate locations.

Concern # 3: The proposed vending location would be directly in front of the windows to our Registration area in the south end of our Library

Staff Response: The Code requires that a vending location must not be in front of a display window. The windows at grade and on the first floor behind the proposed location are not display windows nor do they open.

Concern # 4: The Ryerson Polytechnic University feels that there already exists an adequate, if not excessive, supply of hot-dog vendors in the University area

Staff Response: The Code specifies distancing between vendors/businesses selling similar products, physical clearances and requirements. It does not limit the number of vendors in an area. Currently. there are four licensed food vendors within the area bounded by the north side of Dundas Street East, east side of Yonge Street, south side of Gerrard Street East and west side of Church Street.

Conclusions:

This application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal Code. Staff cannot issue Mr. Ghorban-Ali Parvazi a permit because of the written objection to this application.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Barrie Chavel, 392-0839

--------

(A copy of Appendices A and C referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix B

85

Tree Removal - 2 May Square (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 2 May Square.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that is growing at the rear of the property has been filed by Al Miley & Associates, 3266 Yonge Street, Suite 1416, Toronto, M4N 3P6, agent for the owner's of 2 May Square, John Cameron Dalsto and David Howard Ballett, 2 May Square, Toronto, M4W 1S8.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendation:

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 and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is an eighty-eight centimetre diameter red oak in fair condition. The red oak tree is native to Toronto's urban forest and this particular specimen is located adjacent to the designated Park Drive ravine and therefore is an important seed source. The tree is a viable specimen and if monitored regularly by a qualified tree expert it should remain as a significant asset to the community for many years to come. If approval is granted for the removal of the oak tree, it should be conditional on the planting of a large growing native shade tree or trees as replacement.

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 Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

--------

Mr. Frank J. Sperduti, Borden & Elliott, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the letter referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

86

Appeal - Driveway Widening - 15 Fulton Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening at 15 Fulton Avenue, subject to:

(1) the driveway not exceeding 1.7 metres in width and 4.4 metres in length; and

(2) the parking area being paved with semi-permeable materials, ie. ecostone pavers or approved equivalent paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for driveway widening which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening at 15 Fulton Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Councillor Jack Layton, in his communication, together with a communication dated February 28, 1999 and March 8, 1998 from Ms. Karen Whitehorn and Mr. David Taylor, owners of 15 Fulton Avenue, requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for driveway widening at this location.

Comments:

Mr. David Taylor, owner of 15 Fulton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 1X6, submitted an application on August 30, 1994 to park a vehicle adjacent to the mutual driveway in front of the property.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code:

(a) prohibits driveway widening where the property has access to a parking facility on the lot, or where there is adequate space for parking on the lot accessible by means of a public street or lane;

(b) requires that the proposed parking area be paved with semi-permeable material or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(c) requires that the new requirements of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, are complied with.

Inspection has shown that the property has access to a single garage accessed by means of a 4.3 m wide public laneway. The public laneway was reconstructed in concrete in 1975 and it is in good condition.

The back yard is enclosed by a board fence. There is an area adjacent to the garage that is approximately 6.0 metres wide, which is more than sufficient to provide an additional parking space.

There are 2 small trees in the rear yard, which are less than the 15 cm in diameter. Sections of Chapter 331, Trees, provide protection of private trees over 30 cm in diameter, however there is no protection for trees less than 30 cm in diameter.

There is a large 55 cm diameter City-owned tree fronting the property. The specifications for trees over 50 cm in diameter require that no paving be installed within 2.4 metres from the base of the tree.

The area of the front yard adjacent to the mutual driveway is presently paved in brick pavers. The paving has been installed without obtaining prior approval from this department. The existing paving does not meet the current paving specifications. Inspection shows that the distance from the tree to the concrete walkway is 60 cm and to the brick paving is 1.4 metres.

Based on the lane access to the single garage at the rear of the property, Mr. Taylor was informed that his application was refused in November 1994, in accordance with the requirements at the time of the application.

Notwithstanding the laneway access to a single garage at the rear, and the clearances from the City tree to the proposed parking space at the front, the property would meet the soft landscaping and landscape open space requirements of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248.

Conclusions:

As the property has access to a single car garage at the rear of the property by means of an improved public laneway and that there is sufficient space adjacent to the garage to accommodate a second vehicle, this location is not eligible for driveway widening. In addition, the parking pad fronting this location does not meet the specification in paving near trees. This request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (September 14, 1999) from Councillor Layton:

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council recommend that City Council approve driveway widening subject to:

(a) the driveway widening not exceeding 1.7 metres in width and 4.4 metres in length; and

(b) the parking area being paved with semi-permeable materials, i.e. ecostone pavers or approved equivalent paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

87

Tree Removal - 34 Rhyl Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 34 Rhyl Avenue conditional on the applicant:

(1) agreeing to plant two replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and;

(2) making a contribution of $500.00 to the Maple Cottage Rejuvenation Project.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by Mrs. M. Peck, 34 Rhyl Avenue, Toronto, M4L 1R7, agent for the owner, Ms. J. Peck, 34 Rhyl Avenue, Toronto, M4L 1R7. The applicant claims the tree is causing damage to the house and parked cars.

Financial Implication:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

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

(2) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-four centimetre diameter Eastern white pine in fair condition. The applicant has indicated that the branches of the white pine overhang the rear portion of the house, the entire yard, the parking area of 34 Rhyl and the parking area for two other properties. The applicant states that the needles and sap from the tree damage the paint on the cars, and clog the eavestrough of the home resulting in problems with water runoff. The applicant is also concerned that because of the tree, the replacement of the roof shingles will not be guaranteed. The Eastern white pine is the provincial tree of Ontario, and the species is becoming increasingly rare in the City. In the opinion of forestry staff, this significant tree should remain and be pruned to provide clearance from the house.

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 Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

--------

(A copy of the letter referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

88

Draft By-law - Zoning By-law Amendment -

40 Colgate Avenue, 64 Colgate Avenue,

309 and 355 Logan Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to undertake further discussion with the Aragon (Logan) Development (Ontario) Corporation to clarify the integration of the proposed public lane between the two sites and the proposed fence; and

(2) the approval of the Zoning By-law not constitute an approval of the fence or the laneway arrangements on the eastern perimeter of the development property.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-law attached to the report (August 19, 1999 ) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council, substantially in the form of the Draft By-law, to give effect thereto, subject to receipt of an executed undertaking pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act in respect of the proposed 78 semi-detached houses and 28 townhouses on 40 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue; and

(2) the report (June 18, 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 Planning Act. The public meeting was held on September 14, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 19, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments: (1) to rezone 64 Colgate Avenue from I2 D3 to R2 Z2.0, thereby permitting residential uses on that part of the site, (2) to designate a component of the site as G (for park purposes), and (3) to permit 78 semi-detached houses and 28 townhouses on the part of the site known as 40 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

(2) the Draft By-law attached to the report (August 19, 1999 ) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council, substantially in the form of the Draft By-law, to give effect thereto, subject to receipt of an executed undertaking pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act in respect of the proposed 78 semi-detached houses and 28 townhouses on 40 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 15, 1999 adopted the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Commissioner Urban Planning and Development Services (June 18, 1999) concerning the above-noted subject. This report recommends a Zoning By-law Amendment which will: (1) rezone 64 Colgate Avenue from I2 D3 to R2 Z2.0, thereby permitting residential uses on that part of the site, (2) designate a component of the site as G (for park purposes), and (3) permit 78 semi-detached houses and 28 townhouses on the part of the site known as 40 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Conclusions:

N/A

Contact Name:

Stephen M. Bradley, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7790

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: sbradley@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

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

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto with respect to the lands known as 40 Colgate Avenue, 64 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue

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

1. District Map No. 52H-312 contained in Appendix "A" of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by,

(1) redesignating to R2 Z2.0 the lands shown as R2 Z2.0 and outlined by heavy lines on Map (insert no.) attached to and forming part of this by-law, and

(2) redesignating to G the lands shown as G and outlined by heavy lines on Map (insert no.) attached to and forming part of this by-law.

2. None of the following provisions of the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended: the definition of parking space as found in Section 2(1), Sections 4(4)(b), 6(3) Part I 1, 6(3) Part II 2, 6(3) Part II 3, 6(3) Part II 4, 6(3) Part II 5,6(3) Part II 7(ii) A, 6(3) Part II 7(iii), 6(3) Part III 1(a), and 6(3) Part VII 1(ii), shall apply to prevent the erection and use of 75 semi-detached houses and uses accessory thereto on Block A provided:

(1) not more than 75 semi-detached houses are erected or used on the lots within Block A and the said lots are used for no purpose other than semi-detached houses and uses accessory thereto;

(2) each lot upon which a semi-detached house is erected or used has a minimum width of 5.2 metres;

(3) the depth of each semi-detached house, measured between the closet point thereof to the front lot line and the closet point thereof to the rear lot line, is not more than 17.5 metres;

(4) the residential gross floor area of each semi-detached house does not exceed 210 square metres and the maximum aggregate residential gross floor area of all semi-detached houses and row houses within Block A, Block B and Block C does not exceed 16,540 square metres;

(5) no part of any semi-detached house, above grade, is located within 1.0 metre of the front lot line;

(6) no part of any semi-detached house, above grade, is located within 0.45 metres of the side lot line;

(7) no part of any semi-detached house, above grade, is located within 1.2 metres of the rear lot line provided that this section shall not apply to any projection permitted within set backs from rear lot lines by Section 6(3) PART II 8 of By-law No. 438-86, as amended;

(8) no part of any semi-detached house, above grade, within a corner lot is located within 0.7 metres of the flank of the lot;

(9) not less than one parking space is provided and maintained, for each semi-detached house, at the rear of the lot containing the semi-detached house with vehicular access to, and only to, the lane at the rear of the said lot;

(10) no part of any garage provided as an accessory use to a semi-detached house is located within 3.9 metres of that semi-detached house or within 3.9 metres of any other residential building;

(11) a minimum of 26 square metres of landscaped open space is provided and maintained on each lot containing a semi-detached house;

(12) the maximum number of storeys within a semi-detached house is three; and

(13) for the purposes of this Section, parking space has the same meaning ascribed to it in By-law No. 438-86, as amended, except that the minimum length of the parking space shall be 5.79 metres.

3. None of the following provisions of the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended: Sections 4(4)(b), 6(3) Part I 1, 6(3) Part II 2, 6(3) Part II 3, 6(3) Part II 4, 6(3) Part II 5, 6(3) Part II 6, 6(3) Part II 7(ii) A, 6(3) Part II 7(iii), 6(3) Part III 1(a), and 6(3) Part VII 1(ii), shall apply to prevent the erection and use of 28 row houses and uses accessory thereto on Block B provided:

(1) not more than 28 row houses are erected or used on the lots within Block B and the said lots are used for no purpose other than row houses and uses accessory thereto;

(2) each lot upon which a row house is erected or used has a minimum width of 4.195 metres;

(3) the depth of each row house, measured between the closet point thereof to the front lot line and the closet point thereof to the rear lot line, is not more than 17.0 metres;

(4) the residential gross floor area of each row house does not exceed 162 square metres and the maximum aggregate residential gross floor area of all semi-detached houses and row houses within Block A, Block B and Block C does not exceed 16,540 square metres;

(5) no part of any row house, above grade, is located within 1.0 metre of the front lot line;

(6) no part of any row house, above grade, is located within 0.45 metres of the side lot line;

(7) no part of any row house, above grade, is located within 1.0 metre of the rear lot line provided that this section shall not apply to any projection permitted within set backs from rear lot lines by Section 6(3) PART II 8 of By-law No. 438-86, as amended;

(8) not less than one parking space is provided and maintained, for each row house, at the rear of the lot containing the row house with vehicular access to, and only to, the lane at the rear of the said lot;

(9) a minimum of 7.0 square metres of landscaped open space is provided and maintained on each lot containing a row house;

(10) no part of any row house, above grade, is located within 0.9 metres of a side wall of a building on an adjacent lot;

(11) the maximum number of storeys within a row house is three; and

(12) each row house has a single entrance fronting on the street shown on Map No. (insert no.) attached hereto.

4. None of the following provisions of the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended: Sections 4(4)(b), 6(3) Part II 2, 6(3) Part II 4, 6(3) Part II 5, 6(3) Part II 6, 6(3) Part II 7(ii) A, 6(3) Part II 7(iii), and 6(3) Part VII 1(ii), shall apply to prevent the erection and use of 3 semi-detached houses and uses accessory thereto on Block C provided:

(1) not more than 3 semi-detached houses are erected or used on the lots within Block C and the said lots are used for no purpose other than semi-detached houses and uses accessory thereto;

(2) each lot upon which a semi-detached house is erected or used has a minimum width of 3.5 metres;

(3) no part of any semi-detached house, above grade, is located within 1.0 metre of the front lot line;

(4) no part of any semi-detached house, above grade, is located within 4.5 metres of the rear lot line provided that this section shall not apply to any projection permitted within set backs from rear lot lines by Section 6(3) PART II 8 of By-law No. 438-86, as amended;

(5) not less than one parking space is provided and maintained, for each semi-detached house, at the rear of the lot containing the semi-detached house with vehicular access to, and only to, the lane at the rear of the said lot;

(6) no part of any garage provided as an accessory use to a semi-detached house is located within 0.0 metres of that semi-detached house or within 3.9 metres of any other residential building;

(7) the maximum number of storeys within a semi-detached house is three; and

(8) the residential gross floor area of each row house does not exceed 162 square metres and the maximum aggregate residential gross floor area of all semi-detached houses and row houses within Block A, Block B and Block C does not exceed 16,540 square metres.

5. For the purpose of this by-law:

(1) "Block A", "Block B" and "Block C" mean those lands respectively delineated and identified as Block A, Block B and Block C on Map (insert no.) attached to and forming part of this by-law;

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

(Maps to be inserted)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To permit the construction of 106 semi-detached houses and townhouses with rear yard parking.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. The former City of Toronto Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86 as amended, be amended as it applies to 309 and 355 Logan Avenue and 40 Colgate Avenue, so as to:

(a) exempt the site from sections 2(1) respecting the definition of "parking space" and "row house", Sections 4 (4) (b), 6(3) Part I 1. residential gross floor area, 6(3) Part II 2. front lot line setback, 3. flanking lot line, 4. rear lot line setback, 5. building depth, 6, 7 A (ii) and (iii), 6(3) Part III 1 (a) landscape open space, 6(3) Part VII 1 (ii) minimum lot frontage, of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86;

(b) permit the erection and use of 78 semi-detached houses and 28 row houses provided that:

(i) no part of the building above grade extends beyond the area shown on Map No. 1 attached to this report;

(ii) no more than 78 semi-detached houses are erected;

(iii) no more than 28 row houses are erected;

(iv) the height of the houses does not exceed three storeys;

(v) the density does not exceed 16,540 square metres; and

(vi) one parking space is provided for each unit;

(c) permit the conveyance of 1272 m2 of land to the City of Toronto for park purposes; and such land shall be remediated and improved by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(d) permit the conveyance of a .7 hectare portion of the site to the City of Toronto for public highway purposes.

2. The former City of Toronto Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86 as amended, be amended as it applies to 64 Colgate Avenue to rezone the land from I2 D3 to R2 Z2.0 to facilitate the conveyance of the parkland to the City.

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

4. The City Solicitor give statutory notice of the attached two draft by-laws for the next meeting of Toronto Community Council.

5. The owner be advised:

(a) of the need to convey the new street and lanes to the City, free and clear of all encumbrances, including rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

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

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

(d) to submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for approval information verifying that soil conditions within the proposed road allowances are acceptable for use for public highway purposes; and

(e) of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances.

Background:

On April 28, 1999, Toronto Community Council endorsed the Plan of Subdivision Application No. 498031 for the division of land to permit a public park approximately 1300 square metres in size, a new public street and two public lanes to provide access to 78 semi-detached houses and 28 townhouses with rear yard parking, as well as one mid-rise residential building.

This proposal replaces an existing vacant parcel of land that previously held the Colgate-Palmolive Company plant. The project will contribute to the creation of a new neighbourhood within the existing community and knits the new and old communities together with a compatible built form.

Comments:

1. Location

The property known as 60 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue, is located on the east side of Logan Avenue and the north side of Colgate Avenue.

2. Site and the Surrounding Context

To the west of the site is a traditional stable Low Density Residence Area. To the east and north of the site is the former South Riverdale industrial area that now contains a mix of residential and live/work units and some quasi-industrial type uses. With renewed interest and reinvestment occurring in the area, the neighbourhood has been undergoing a successful transformation from a former industrial area to a lively and popular residential community. A mix of uses, including residential, exists south of the site.

4. Proposed Development

The project involves 78 new semi-detached houses and 28 townhouses with a variety of parking options. These parking options include parking pads, integral garages and stand alone garages all with access from two proposed rear lanes. The combination of parking options permits houses to be offered for sale at more affordable prices. Parking for visitors to the site will be provided on the new street.

5. Public Review

A public meeting was held in the community on January 5, 1999, with approximately 65 residents in attendance. A number of planning issues were raised at that time including parking and traffic on Logan Avenue. These issues are discussed in section 7 of the report. The main concerns expressed by the residents involved the height, density and overlook of the proposed live/work building proposed on the east portion of the site at 64 Colgate Avenue. A separate application for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning is being processed for 64 Colgate Avenue and will be the subject of a future report.

6. Civic Comments

This application has been circulated to the various departments and agencies. Copies of the comments received in writing to date are attached as Appendix A. Verbal comments have been reflected in the report.

7. Planning Issues

7.1. Current Planning Controls

The site has recently been redesignated to a Low Density Residence Area under the Part I Official Plan which permits residential development up to l times the lot area. The density for the entire west parcel does not exceed 1 times the area of the lot.

The site is zoned R3 Z1.0, which permits a wide range of residential uses to a maximum density of 1.0 times the lot area. The height limit is 12.0 metres. The proposal does not comply with many of the Zoning By-law provisions with respect to setbacks, landscaped open space, minimum lot frontage, and building depth, but does meet the intent of the overall Zoning By-law. A site-specific Zoning By-law amendment is required to implement this proposal.

7.2 Height, Built Form and Density

The design of the western portion of this new subdivision includes three storey houses that reflect both the height and built form of the surrounding area. The proposal has been designed to fit with the existing neighbourhood and to respond to comments from planning staff and the community. The height of the new houses, although 3 storeys, will be in keeping with the neighbourhood and does not exceed the existing height limit.

The mix of housing types, semi-detached and row houses, in a tight compact pattern is an efficient use of the land. It is an appropriate location for housing. Shopping on Queen Street is close by and sufficient school capacity, community facilities and transportation are readily available. This project will help in the revitalization of the area already underway in the surrounding community.

7.3 Parking, Traffic and Vehicular Access

The development will provide 1 parking space for each unit in either a parking garage, integral garage or parking pad. All parking spaces are accessed off the new rear lanes with access to the lanes from Logan Avenue. This is acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Area residents requested at the public meeting that consideration be given to the replacement of the existing parallel parking spaces on the north side of Colgate Avenue. These spaces could be replaced with angled parking spaces to increase parking capacity in the area. This matter is still under investigation by Traffic Operations of Works and Emergency Services and will be reported on separately.

7.4 Parkland

As part of the Plan of Subdivision approximately 1300 m2 of land will be coming to the City with the approval of this site. The applicant has requested that the live/work building proposed for 64 Colgate Avenue be processed at a later date. In order to move the application for the low rise houses to the building permit stage, I have attached a by-law in Appendix B to change the industrial zoning on 64 Colgate Avenue to residential in order to be able to secure the parkland contribution now and allow the applicant some certainty of the future use of this land. The final built form details of the live/work building will come forward in the fall once revisions are complete.

The contribution of parkland to the City under the Plan of Subdivision will mean that the applicant has met the Parks Levy requirement. It is the intention of the applicant to finish the park with plant material and playground equipment. The final details of the park design will be discussed in the final report on 64 Colgate Avenue and secured with a Section 37 agreement.

7.5 Application No. 298008 - 64 Colgate Avenue

The proposal for 64 Colgate Avenue is for 230 units in a six storey live/work building with 230 underground parking spaces. Residents are concerned with the details of the project and issues of overlook, density and height of the proposed live/work building.

Following the Plan of Subdivision application that was dealt with by City Council on May 11 and 12,1999, a further public meeting will be held in September, 1999 to discuss possible changes to the plans and the Official Plan Amendment needed. However, in order to secure the total park at one time, a draft by-law is attached to this report to rezone the parcel of 64 Colgate Avenue from I2 D3 to R2 Z2.0. The height limit of 18.0 metres remains unchanged. This zoning would be in keeping with the Official Plan designation of Mixed Industrial-Residential Area that permits R2 through an application. Further details of the live/work building, such as the at grade treatment of the entrances and relationship of the building to grade will be reviewed further. All of these issues will be addressed in my final report following the public meeting in September on the matter.

7.6 School Capacity

The Toronto District School Board staff have indicated that there is sufficient enrolment capacity for the new students that will be generated from the new houses in this development. Although there is a current enrolment problem at the secondary school level, there will be enough lead time to ensure spaces for students entering the public school system in the lower grades to have space secured by the time the students reach the high school level.

7.7 Affordable Housing

The affordable housing consideration for this site will be addressed on the 64 Colgate Avenue portion of the site.

8. Other Issues

The Buildings division has indicated that Site Plan Approval is required for this application. The applicant has now submitted plans and I will be preparing the Undertaking once all the civic comments are available.

Conclusions:

A Draft Plan of Subdivision was approved by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999. The first half of the development proposal is for 78 semi-detached houses and 28 townhouses to be located on the west portion of the site. A Zoning By-law amendment is required to facilitate this half of the proposal and it is attached to this report for Council's consideration.

As part of the Plan of Subdivision for this site, a park approximately 1300m2 in size, will be conveyed to the City. The second half of the development on the eastern portion of the site will come forward as a separate planning report to deal with the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application. Until then, I am recommending that the eastern portion of the site be rezoned from industrial to residential to secure the entire parkland parcel up front and in one piece. The low rise development is appropriate for the site and the overall redevelopment scheme represents good planning for the area and should be approved in principle.

Contact Name:

Denise Graham

City Planning, East Section

Telephone: 392-0871

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: dgraham1@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval: Y Application Number: 199003
Rezoning: Y Application Date: February 9, 1999
O. P. A.: N Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address: 40 and 64 Colgate Avenue; 309 and 355 Logan Avenue.

Nearest Intersection: Northeast corner of Logan Avenue and Colgate Avenue.
Project Description: To construct 78 semi-detached and 28 town homes containing 106 residential units.
Applicant:

David Page

67 Mowat Av. #544

531-6361

Agent:

David Page

67 Mowat Av. #544

531-6361

Architect:

Blandford Gates

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: Low Density Residence Area Site Specific Provision: No
Zoning District: R3 Z1.0 Historical Status: No
Height Limit (m): 12.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area: 17433.0 m2 Height: Storeys: 3
Frontage: Metres: 12.00
Depth:
Indoor Outdoor
Ground Floor: 5747.0 m2 Parking Spaces: 106
Residential GFA: 16542.0 m2 Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA: (number, type)
Total GFA: 16542.0 m2
Dwelling Units Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure: Private Land Use Above Grade Below Grade
Total Units: 106 Residential 16542.0 m2
Proposed Density
Residential Density: 0.95 Non-Residential Density: Total Density: 0.95
Comments
Status: Application recieved.
Data valid: February 09, 1999 Section: CP South District Phone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1. Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 27, 1999

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Subdivide property into 106 lots.

Zoning Designation: R3 Z1.0 AND I2 D3 Map: 52H 312

Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended by 239-1998, as amended

Plans prepared by: Fliess Gates McGowan Easton Architects Plans dated: April 16, 1999

Zoning Review

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

1. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is3.5 metres, 4.195 metres, 4.4 metres, 4.75 metres, 5.2 metres and 5.9 metres.. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

2. The by-law requires the proposed lot(s) to be capable of being conveyed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. The proposed lots require severance consent from the Committee of Adjustment prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Section 6(3) PART IX 1(a))

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.

April 7, 1999

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Construct 78 Semi-Detached Houses and 28 Row Houses

Zoning Designation: R3 Z1.0 Map: 52H 312

Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended by 239-1998, as amended

Plans prepared by: Fliess Gates McGowan Easton Architects

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.

Lots 33 & 64 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the lot area (125.96 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 201.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 2.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required setback of 6.0 metres from the flanking lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 0.7 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 3A)

4. The minimum required rear lot line setback of 7.5 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.2 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

5. The maximum permitted building depth of 17.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.45 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

6. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (37.77 sq metres) has not been provided. Proposed is 25.4% (32.0 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

7. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.9 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 1 and 32 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the lot area (136.76 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 201.5 sq metres. (S. 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 4.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required setback of 6.0 metres from the flanking lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 0.7 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 3A)

4. The minimum required setback of 7.5 metres from the rear lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 1.2 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

5. The maximum permitted building depth of 17.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.45 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

6. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.9 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lot 106 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the lot area (130.39 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 201.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 2.75 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required 6.0 metre setback from the flanking lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 0.7 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 3 A)

4. The minimum required setback of 7.5 metres from the rear lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 1.2 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

5. The maximum permitted depth of 17.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.45 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

6. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (39.11 sq metres) has not been provided. Proposed is 27.6% (36.0 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

7. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.9 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 2,7,8,13,14,19,20,25,26,31 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (121.4 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 210.0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 4.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required 7.5 metre rear lot line setback has not been provided. Proposed is 1.2 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 34,39,40,45,46,51,52,57,58,63 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (111.0 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 210.0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 2.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required 7.5 metre rear lot line setback has not been provided. Proposed is 1.2 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (33.3 sq metres) has not been provided. Proposed is 24.8% (27.6 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

5. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

6. The minimum required length of 5.9 metres for a parking space has not been provided. Proposed is 5.79 metres. (Section 2 - "parking space")

Lots 97,98,105 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (114.9 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 210.0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 2.7 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required 7.5 metre rear lot line setback has not been provided. Proposed is 1.2 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (34.47 sq metres) has not been provided. Proposed is 26.9% (31.0 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

5. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 3,6,9,10,11,12,15,18,21,22,23,24,27,30 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (121.4 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 145.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 3.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 35,36,37,38,41,42,43,44,47,48,49,50,53,54,55,56,59,60,61,62 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (111.0 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 145.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.2 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 96,99,100,103,104 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (114.9 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 145.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 101,102 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (114.9 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 145.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The proposed garage will not be a minimum of 4.5 metres to another residential building, as required. Proposed is 3.9 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 7(ii)A)

4. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 4,5,6,16,17,28,29 (Semi-Detached)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (121.4 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 145.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.6 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The distance from the proposed garage to the next residential building has not been clearly shown, as required. (Section 6(3) Part II 7(ii))

4. The distance from the proposed garage to the main building has not been clearly shown, as required. (Section 6(3) Part II 7(iii))

5. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

6. Elevation drawings are required clearly showing the height of the proposed garage from grade. (Section 4(2)(d))

Lot 93 (Semi-Detached)

1. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 3.8 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

2. The minimum required setback of 7.5 metres from the rear lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 4.5 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

3. The proposed garage will not be a minimum of 4.5 metres to another residential building, as required. Proposed is 3.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 7(ii)A)

4. The minimum required distance of 1.2 metres from the detached garage to the main building has not been provided. Proposed is 0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 7(iii))

5. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 3.5 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lot 94 (Semi-Detached)

1. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 3.2 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

2. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 3.5 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lot 95 (Semi-Detached)

1. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

2. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 4.4 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lot 65 (Row House)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (120.0 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 162.0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required setback of 7.5 metres from the rear lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 2.7 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The maximum permitted depth of 14.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

5. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (36.0 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 26.6% (32.0 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

6. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 5.2 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 66,69,72,73,74,77,80,81,82,83,86,87,88,89,90 (Row House)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (81.17 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 162.0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required setback of 7.5 metres from the rear lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The maximum permitted depth of 14.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

5. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (24.35 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 8.6% (7.0 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

6. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 4.195 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 70,71,78,79,84,85 (Row House)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (91.9 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 159.0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required setback of 7.5 metres from the rear lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The maximum permitted depth of 14.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

5. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (27.57 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 16.6% (15.3 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

6. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 4.75 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lots 67,68,75,76,91 (Row House)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (81.17 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 126.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 3.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required setback of 7.5 metres from the rear lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The maximum permitted depth of 14.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

5. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (24.51sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.8% (14.5 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

6. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 4.195 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Lot 92 (Row House)

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (91.9 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 130.0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required front lot line setback of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 3.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

3. The minimum required 0.9 metres side lot line setback has not been provided. Proposed is 0.45 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 3 C)

4. The minimum required setback of 7.5 metres from the rear lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 1.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

5. The maximum permitted depth of 14.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 17.0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

6. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (27.57sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 25.8% (23.8 sq metres). (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

7. The by-law requires the lot to have a minimum lot frontage of 6 metres. The proposed lot frontage is 4.75 metres. (Section 6(3) PART VII 1(ii))

Requirements/Comments Applying to all Lots

1. The by-law requires the proposed lots to be capable of being conveyed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. The proposed lots require severance consent from the Committee of Adjustment prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Section 6(3) PART IX 1(a))

2. All eaves, chimney breasts and safety railings shall comply with Section 6(3) Part II 8

3. The height of all dwelling buildings shall be measured between the "average elevation of the natural or finished level of the ground, whichever is lower, along the side lot lines or flank opposite the building".

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. Urban Planning and Development Services, Municipal Licensing and Standards, dated March 23, 1999

I have reviewed the Noise Impact Statement dated March 16, 1999 prepared by J. E. Coulter Associates Ltd., for the above noted Rezoning Application, and find it satisfactory.

As you are aware, the Noise Impact Statement is one of a number of reports required to process your application. At the time of preparation, final construction designs may not be completed. Therefore, on approval of the application and when construction plans are finalized, I require a letter from your architect or acoustical consultant which certifies that the building plans accompanying your building permit application are in conformity with the Noise Impact Statement, with particular reference to the impact of any H.V.A.C. equipment on neighbouring properties.

Please direct any inquiries to Mr. J. Prashad of the Noise Section.

3. Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, dated March 26, 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) Comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law;

(c) Provide minimum road allowance widths as follows:

(i) Street A: 15 m; and

(ii) Public lanes: 5 m;

(d) In connection with the new public streets/lanes and the municipal services and facilities:

(i) Engage the services of a qualified Municipal Consulting Engineer satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the design and field supervision of all underground and surface public works services and facilities;

(ii) Prepare and submit for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's design policies and specifications for all underground and surface public works services and facilities including a site grading plan, and construct all such services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

(iii) Provide, upon completion of the work, "as constructed" drawings of all underground and surface public works services and facilities, certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer that such services and facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

(iv) Provide letters of credit in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for all municipal infrastructure for the development (sewers, waterworks, streets including intersections with existing City streets/lanes, sidewalks, lanes, street lighting, street furniture, etc.) or such lesser amount as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may approve, as determined by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the earlier of issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the development until completion of the work;

(v) Provide letters of credit in an amount equal to 25% of the value of completed municipal infrastructure as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and acceptance by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(vi) Construct all utilities underground;

(e) Submit suggestions for a suitable name for the new streets in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No. 22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of July 11, 1988;

(f) Remonument the street limits and proposed lot/block corners after completion of construction, if necessary;

(g) Submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services information verifying that soil conditions within the proposed road allowances are acceptable for use for public highway purposes;

(h) Agree to defer the installation of the final coat of asphalt on the new street until the substantial completion of construction of buildings on the street, or at such earlier timing as may be required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, acting reasonably;

(i) Deposit the final plan of subdivision, in the appropriate Land Registry Office, such plan to be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, such plan to provide for the strata conveyance of the southerly portion of "Lane C" to a minimum depth of 0.8 m below existing grade;

(j) In the event that after construction of the southerly portion of "Lane C" the depth of the land to be assumed as "Lane C" in conjunction with the Plan of Subdivision is less than 0.8 m below the finished grade of the lane, convey to the City, at nominal cost, for public lane purposes, the residual land located between the lands already defined as part of the subdivision as "Lane C" and a plane lying 0.8 m below the finished surface of the lane, such lands to be conveyed to the City free and clear of all encumbrances;

(k) In the event that additional lands are to be conveyed, pursuant to Recommendation No. 1(k) above, provide a strata Reference Plan of Survey, indicating as a separate PART, the additional lands to be conveyed for public lane purposes;

(l) Provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City;

(m) Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

2. That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances;

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

4. That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to ensure that Parks staff maintain the continuation of the "Street A" sidewalk through the park, including winter maintenance;

5. That in connection with the proposed strata conveyance of the southerly portion of "Lane C", the owner be required to convey to the City an easement of support rights in the lands located below the proposed lane;

6. That the owner be advised that, in the event that the owner elects to construct the subject parking garage beneath a portion of "Lane C", on lands to be retained by the owner for this purpose, it will be necessary for the owner to:

(i) execute an indemnity agreement with the City, terms for which will be set out as conditions of approval of the apartment building to be constructed on the east side of the lane; and

(ii) design and construct the structure to the requirements of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, (latest edition);

7. That the owner be advised of the need to convey the new street and lanes to the City, free and clear of all encumbrances, including rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

Comments:

Proposal

Creation of a new subdivision comprised of a new public street and two new public lanes and 107 building lots for 78 semi-detached units 28 townhouse units and 1 apartment building with 230 live-work units. Comments on Rezoning Application No. 199003 for the park, semi-detached and townhouse units are embodied in this report. The apartment building is the subject of Rezoning Application No. 298008, which will be the subject of a separate report by this Department.

Street System

The proposed road allowances are acceptable. It will be necessary for the detailed design to provide for 4 m curb radii at intersections, while maintaining continuous sidewalks within the road allowances. This is feasible within the proposed road allowances.

The owner has requested that the Street A sidewalk meander through the park on the east side of the park. A "No Kill Strip" is proposed along the east street line to protect adjacent sodded area within the park. This is acceptable in principle, subject to the "sidewalk" through the park being maintained by Parks staff, including winter maintenance. The exact width of the "No Kill Strip" will be determined as part of the review of the detailed design drawings for Street A.

Two 5 m wide public lanes are proposed to serve this subdivision. This is acceptable for residential use. Given the proposal to use the southern segment of the public lane on the east side of the park for access for City garbage trucks serving the proposed apartment building on the east side of the lane, it will be necessary to maintain a paved area/setbacks on the east side of this segment of the lane in order to enable trucks, to pass oncoming or stopped vehicles. This will be secured in connection with the Rezoning Application submitted for the proposed apartment building.

Proposed Encroachment of Parking Garage Beneath Public Lane

Under the current proposal, the garage for the apartment building will encroach under a portion of one of the proposed public lanes. This will require the construction of the lane drain through the public park. The applicant has already undertaken discussions with engineering staff to establish the feasibility of this approach. Specific engineering requirements will be worked out as part of the review of the detailed design drawings.

It will be necessary for the top of the roof of the underground garage to be located at least 0.5 m below the underside of the concrete lane pavement, and be designed to Ontario Highway Bridge Code (latest edition).

Recommendation No. 1(j) above provides for the strata conveyance of this public lane, so that the owner can retain ownership of the garage, if constructed as currently proposed. In order to provide for sufficient depth of the proposed garage structure, this recommendation requires that the depth of the conveyance to be at least 0.8 m beneath existing grade. Given that detailed lane designs have not been completed to date, it is not possible to determine the finished grade of the lane at this time. Accordingly, Recommendation Nos. 1(k) and 1(l) provide a mechanism whereby the owner will be required to convey additional lands to the City, for public highway (lane) purposes in the event that after construction the depth of the conveyance for public lane purposes is less than 0.8 m from finished grade.

Recommendation No. 5 above requires the owner to provide the City with an easement of support rights through the lands located beneath the proposed lane. The owner will also be required to enter into an indemnity agreement with respect to the garage. The requirements for the indemnity agreement will be set out as conditions of approval of the Rezoning application for the apartment building.

Given that the current phasing proposal is to obtain draft approval for the entire subdivision and the Rezoning Application for the semi-detached houses and townhouses component of the subdivision, and then proceed with the Rezoning Application for the apartment building, it is possible that the lane will be constructed prior to the apartment building garage. If the owner does proceed with the construction of the garage after the conveyance of the public lane to the City (by registration of the plan of subdivision), it will be necessary for the owner to obtain appropriate approvals from this Department for the construction of the garage beneath the public highway. In this regard, the owner may want to consider design options, such as the pre-building of the roof slab of the garage beneath the lane in order to avoid the necessity of temporarily closing the public lane during garage construction.

Parking

The parking for the semi detached and townhouse units should comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law, which requires the provision of a minimum of 1 parking space per residential unit. Parking requirements for the apartment building will be established in connection with the Rezoning application submitted for that site.

Area residents have requested that consideration be given to the replacement of the existing parallel parking spaces on the north side of Colgate Avenue with angled parking spaces. This matter is under investigation by the Traffic Operations, East Area Section of this Department, and will be the subject of a separate letter to your Department.

Refuse Handling, Storage and Disposal

The City will provide the project with the semi detached and townhouse units with regular curbside refuse and recyclable collection service in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste.

Refuse collection requirements for the apartment building will be established in connection with the Rezoning application submitted for that site.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sewer systems located within the existing public road allowances are adequate to accommodate the 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. In this regard the owner will be required to design the buildings without down spout connections, as no storm drain connections will be permitted for the buildings. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787).

Soil Conditions

On the basis of correspondence on file from the Medical Officer of Health, it would appear that the site has been remediated to residential standards. Accordingly, one could assume that the soil conditions in the proposed road allowances would be acceptable for public highway purposes. However, given City policy that it not accept contaminated lands for public highway purposes, the owner should be required to submit documentation to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services verifying that the soil has been remediated to City standards for public highway purposes, as set out in Recommendation No. 1(g) above.

Plan of Subdivision

The final plan of subdivision, which must be deposited in the appropriate Land Registry Office, should be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System. The owner should be required to provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City.

Rights of Way

The surveys submitted with the application suggest that there are still rights-of-way over portions of proposed "Lane C." It will be necessary for the new streets and lanes to be conveyed to the City to be free and clear of all encumbrance, therefore, it will necessary to the owner to arrange to have these rights of way removed from title, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

4. Public Health, dated January 6, 1999

Thank you for your request of November 30, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

The applicant proposes to construct 1 apartment building and 106 semis and townhouses on this site. EHS has previously commented on this site for a demolition application (Permit No.366900). Furthermore, EHS responded to a request from Mr. Gary Wilson of McClymont & Rak Engineers Inc. to comment on the Site Remediation Program prepared by Agra Earth & Environmental Limited (March 1996) and the subsurface investigation prepared by dames & Moore Canada (1992). For your information, I am enclosing a copy of these comments.

Recommendations:

1. (i) That the owner prepare an Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan for the approval of the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit;

(ii) That the owner implement the measures in the Dust control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

By copy of this letter I will inform the applicant in respect to this matter . If you have any questions contact me at 392-7685.

July 13, 1998

In response to your request of June 8, 1998 regarding the above referenced site, I provide you with the following comments on the Site Remediation Program (March 1996) prepared by Agra Earth & Environmental Limited.

Comments:

A subsurface investigation was conducted in 1992 by Dames & Moore Canada (DMC) in order to identify potential sources of environmental impact on soil and groundwater. Potential sources included underground storage tanks, areas of above ground tanks, rail tank car receiving bay, and areas below the main building. A total of 43 boreholes were advanced onto the site along with the installation of 22 monitoring wells. Representative fill and native soil and groundwater samples were collected and analysed for various organic/inorganic parameters. To assist in developing a decommissioning plan, a limited investigation was conducted by Agra in 1994. The Department of Public health previously commented on the demolition of the facility on November 7, 1994 at which time the issues of asbestos, PCBs, residual chemicals, building materials, underground storage tanks and dust control measures. This Department subsequently had no objection to the issuance of a demolition permit at that time. We also required that redevelopment of the site would not be permitted until all soil and groundwater contamination was removed. It should be noted that the decommissioning plan prepared by Agra did not address soil and groundwater issues. Results of the fieldwork conducted by DMC indicated that the site contained a fill layer of an average depth of 0.5m-1.5m which consisted of sand, gravel, cinders, brick fragments and soil. Black staining, hydrocarbon and tallow related odours were detected in localized areas within the fill material. The fill was also underlain by a layer of native sandy silt, generally 1.0m thick. A grey dense silt was also observed below the sandy silt. Groundwater was encountered in every borehole drilled at the site at depths of 0.1m-2.1m below grade. Based on DMC results, few soil samples exceeded the decommissioning guideline criteria. One sample collected at the south property boundary exceeded the criteria for oil and grease, while additional exceedances were observed for PAHs and xylene in the vicinity of the railway line along with an exceedance for lead in the fill located southwest of the warehouse area. Groundwater samples were obtained from 20 locations and analysed for the parameters identified in the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives (ODWO), the Metro Sewer Use By-Law and for volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

The majority of the samples exceeded the ODWO for several parameters including iron, manganese and chloride. The report states that with the exceptions of elevated concentrations of chloride detected in 2 wells and oil and grease detected in 1 well, most of the sample tested were found to meet the Sewer Use By-Law criteria. Volatile Organic Compounds were detected in one well located at the northeast corner of the warehouse and at the un gradient boundary of the site with respect to the groundwater flow. Agra assessed soil conditions following removal of the foundations of the tank farm, the boiler house and parts of the main building. Soil samples were collected and compared to the 1989 MOEE Decommissioning Guideline. Results indicated no elevated concentrations for oil and grease and metals, except in the southwest corner of the boiler house. This soil was excavated and disposed of at the Keele Valley Landfill. The report goes on to state that the fuel impacted soil was also removed and disposed of with subsequent confirmatory samples being collected and analysed for the parameters in the Interim Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Petroleum Contaminated Sites in Ontario (1993). Results indicated that the area had been remediated to Level 1 (high sensitivity).

Analytical results for the water sampling by Greenspoon Bros Ltd indicated elevated levels of oil and grease, biological oxygen demand, phenols, total nitrogen, chloride and phosphorus. Similar results were also obtained by Agra, including aluminum, iron and copper. Analytical results conducted by Greenspoon on rubble confirmed that the material was clean and that it would be classified as non-registerable and non-hazardous with respect to Ontario Regulation 347. The 10 boreholes advanced by DMC in 1992 indicated that parameter concentrations were well below the soil quality criteria outlined in the Decommissioning Guideline for residential and industrial land uses. Based on these results, it appears that soil under the basement slab were not impaired, however, this did not include the area south of the detergent tower. Agra subsequently took one backfill sample (FIL-BASMT-1A) and one native fill sample (SOL-BASMT-1B) from the area south of the detergent tower and compared the results to the Decommissioning Guideline. The only exceedances were pH, electrical conductivity and sodium absorption ratio. However, these parameters are only significant if the site will be used for agricultural purposes. Te DMC report also recorded elevated levels of oil and grease in the soil beneath the railway receiving bay. This area was eventually excavated to a depth of 3.0m with no observed or noticeable odours. Samples were subjected to Ontario Regulation 347 analysis results of which have classified the soil as n on-registerable and non-hazardous. This area was further investigated after the removal of all the rails. Laboratory analysis did not indicate any exceedance of the oil and grease criteria. Upon removal of the floor slab and foundation of the boilers, 4 soil samples were collected and analysed for oil and grease, results of which indicated no exceedances. An additional 2 samples were collected for oil and grease outside the southwest corner of the boiler house due to the presence of tallow. Elevated levels of oil and grease (3%) were observed in the soil and tallow mixture which will classify it as non-registerable and non-hazardous. A total of 121 tonnes was excavated and disposed of at the Keele Valley Landfill. Due to the high water table, confirmatory samples could not be collected, however, the second sample from the native soil did not exhibit elevated oil and grease levels.

The report goes on to state that 4 samples were collected from the above ground storage tank area. One sample was analysed for the Decommissioning Guideline parameters, a second granular sample and two native silty clay samples for oil and grease. An elevated residential copper (150ppm) level was detected in the granular material sample. This sample was re-analysed with results indicating a concentration of 145ppm. Oil and grease was also detected at a level of 1.4% which is below the Decommissioning Guideline level of 2%. Agra was also informed that there were 2 USTs located on the site, a 22800L alcohol tank at the west end of the main building and a reported oil storage tank located at the southwest side of the silos which could not be located. Soil with fuel odour was detected in the area and samples were collected and analysed for BTEX/TPH. Results have indicated a TPH level of 7463ppm which is above the Interim Petroleum Guideline. This soil was removed and disposed of at the Keele Valley Landfill. Subsequent confirmatory samples were collected from the sidewalls and bottom, with results indicating a Level 1 clean-up.

Conclusions:

Based on the information provided, I would indicate to you that the soil and groundwater analysis conducted by DMC and Agra appear to be satisfactory in terms of their scope, findings and compliance with the appropriate regulations. It should be noted that this Department has compared many of the results to the current MOE Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites (revised February 1997) residential/parkland land use for a non-potable groundwater condition. This comparison has indicated no exceedances. It is our understanding through conversations with Mr. Gary Wilson of McClymont & Rak Engineers, Inc. that the site will be redeveloped for residential land use and that our comments and concurrence with the submitted report will form part of the purchase agreement for the property. The owner/purchaser should be informed that in providing these comments, the City of Toronto, the Board of Health for the City of Toronto assume no liability for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided in the report with respect to concerns such as the likelihood of residual contamination in the soil and groundwater at a particular location. I would further add that the owner/purchaser should also contact the MOE for any comments.

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

5. Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, dated March 2, 1999

This will acknowledge the 'Arborist Report for Development Applications' form pertaining to the above noted development applications which was submitted directly to Forestry Services by the applicant under cover of a letter dated December 21, 1998. I have reviewed the report and the previously circulated plan and advise that:

- There are twenty-five (25) City owned trees involved with this project which are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These trees must be protected at all times in accordance with the 'Specifications for Construction Near Trees' contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

- If sufficient space exists, the applicant should provide large growing shade trees to be planted within the City road allowance as part of this application. A detailed landscape plan must be provided which indicates the exact location of all existing City owned trees and any proposed trees to be planted within the City road allowance including details with respect to proposed tree species, caliper and quantity. A planting plan should provide the best possible, natural, planting environment for trees. It is preferred that trees be planted in turf when possible. If no room exists for turf boulevards with trees, raised planting beds or continuous tree pits should be considered. Trees indicated for planting on the City road allowance must be planted in accordance with the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to the City.

Street Trees in Turf: In accordance with Planting Detail No. 101 for Balled and Burlapped Trees in Turf Areas, dated March, 1997.

Street Trees in Raised Planters: In accordance with Planting Detail No. 102 for Raised Tree Planter - Concept, dated March, 1997.

Street Trees in Tree Pits: In accordance with Planting Detail No.'s 103, 103-1, 103-2, & 103-3 for 1.2 m x 2.4 m Tree Pit, dated March, 1997. Tree pits must be constructed in accordance with the Continuous Tree Pit details outlined in the Construction Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as Drawing No.'s RE-1833M-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -6, 1 of 2 & 2 of 2.

- I advise that the plan prepared by Fliess Gates McGowan Easton Architects, date stamped as received by Urban Planning & Development Services on November 5, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services is acceptable provided that the above noted conditions are fulfilled.

6. Fire Prevention, dated April 28, 1999

Please be advised that when the pertinent requirements of the Ontario Building Code have been applied relative to this project, our Department may be deemed as satisfied. NOTE: Specifically fire fighting access.

7. CN, dated November 9, 1998

We have reviewed your letter dated 22 October 1998 regarding the above noted application to request that the following comment to be included in the Draft Conditions, to be cleared by CN.

1. The following warning clause shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement and inserted in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit. Provisions must be included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release of the Owner's obligations under the Subdivision Agreement and remain on title.

"Warning :Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way."

2. The owner is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration and to recommend abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National Railway to the satisfaction of the Municipality, Canadian National Railway and the Ministry of Environment.

We would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft conditions prior to approval, and ultimately, we request receiving a copy of the Approved Draft Conditions.

Should the application be approved without incorporating the above requirements, we have no alternative but to request that this application be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.13.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (416)217-6961.

8. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, dated March 26, 1999

The following comments are provided with respect to the proposed residential development at the above-noted location. The applicant is requesting approval for a Plan of Subdivision which will include construction of a six storey live/work building containing 230 units and a mix of 106 freehold semi-detached and townhouses dwellings. The addition of these new residents will generate an increased demand on the existing parks in the area such as Jimmie Simpson Park and Community Centre and Hideaway Park.

In order to address this additional demand the applicant has agreed to provide the land for and construct a Public Park of approximately 1300 square metres (0.3 acres). The parkland will abut the north edge of Colgate Avenue and will be bordered by the new street serving the residential development on the west side and a public lane on the east, giving the park three frontages on public thoroughfares. A Preliminary Design has been agreed on through discussions with this Department, this plan will serve as the plan upon which the Final Design Plan and construction drawings are to be based. The necessary drawings for the park and the construction will be undertaken by the applicant. The City will secure rights of approval over the final drawings and supervision of construction through the Subdivision Agreement to be executed as between the City and the applicant.

Economic Development, Culture & Tourism has discussed the matters relating to the timing, conveyance, park elements, use of the site for construction staging and project supervision with the applicant and have reached general agreement on these matters. It is intended that the final terms and conditions be set out in the Subdivision Agreement. The following principles have been agreed to as an approach to ensuring the establishment of the parkland on this site and as such should be endorsed at this time, the final details to be set out in the Subdivision Agreement:

a) the Preliminary Design Plan will be as shown on Colgate Park Landscape Plan denoted as P-1, prepared by Insite Landscape Architects, dated January 12, 1999 and date-stamped received March 17, 1999 by the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services and such final area of the Parklands will be a minimum of 1272 square metres;

b) the conveyance of the Parkland will occur prior to issuance of the first above-grade building permit for any portion the project subject to the Subdivision Agreement, the site will be available to the applicant for use as a construction staging area, the Park Improvements must be installed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism , the owner will post a Letter of Credit equal to 120% of the value of the Park Improvements as agreed to by the Owner and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism as security for the installation of the Park Improvements;

c) the Owner has agreed to submit funds in the amount of $20,000 for the City to install a playground apparatus in the park;

d) in view of the conveyance of parkland, contributions to improvements and other payments, that City Council will authorize an amendment to exempt the Owner's Lands from Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Lands for Parks Purposes enacted pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act to exempt therefrom such development as is permitted and only to the extent permitted by the Zoning By-law Amendment. Should the owner apply for and receive permission to develop residential or commercial densities in excess of those presently permitted in the Zoning By-law Amendment, then the Owner may, respecting those increased densities and as a condition of receiving such increased densities, be required to transfer further lands for parks purposes or pay monies in lieu thereof in accordance with the City's aforementioned Municipal Code provisions enacted pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act which are then applicable.

Attached are draft provisions dealing with Parkland matters. These provisions are largely taken from existing precedent park arrangements.

Please feel free to contact Rob Watson of my staff (2-0582) should you have any questions or require any further clarification.

--------

Appendix B

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. ,

Clause No. ,

As adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council on ________________

CITY OF TORONTO

By-Law No. 1999-

To amend General Zoning By-law No. 438-86

respecting the lands known as 64 Colgate Avenue.

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

1. District Map No. 52H-312 contained in Appendix "A" annexed to and forming part of By-law 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by redesignation R2 Z2.0 the lands shown on the Plan attached hereto and forming part of this By-law.

MEL LASTMAN NOVINA WONG

Mayor. City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Draft - Carlaw and Colgate

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. ,

Clause No. ,

As adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council on ________________

CITY OF TORONTO

By-Law No. 1999-

To amend General Zoning By-law No. 438-86

respecting the lands known as 309, 355 Logan Avenue and 60 Colgate Avenue.

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

1. District Map No. 52H-312 contained in Appendix "A" annexed to and forming part of By-law 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by redesignating to G the lands shown hatched on the Plan attached hereto and forming part of this By-law.

2. None of the provisions of the definition of "row house " in Section 2, "parking space" in Section 2 and of Sections 4 (4) (b), 6(3) Part I1, 6(3) Part II 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (ii) A and (iii), 6(3) Part III 1(a), 6(3) Part VII 1 (ii),of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86 shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the lands identified as Blocks "A", "B" and "C" on the Plan, attached hereto and forming part of this By-law, of the following:

BLOCK "A"

semi-detached house and uses accessory thereto provided that:

(1) not more than 38 pairs of semi-detached houses are erected or used within Block "A";

(2) the lot on which each semi-detached house is located has a width of not less than 5.2 metres;

(3) the lot on which each semi-detached house is located has a depth of not more than 17.5 metres;

(4) the residential gross floor area of each semi-detached house does not exceed 210 square metres;

(5) no part of any semi-detached house above grade is erected or used closer to the front lot line than 1 metre;

(6) no part of any semi-detached house above grade is erected or used closer to the side lot line than 0.45 metres;

(7) no part of any semi-detached house above grade is erected or used closer to the rear lot line than 1.2 metres with the exception of those projections contained in 6(3) Part II 8 of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86;

(8) the owner of each semi-detached house provides and maintains not less than one parking space for each dwelling at the rear of each lot;

(9) the length of each parking space shall not be less than 5.79 metres;

(10) no part of any semi-detached house above grade is erected closer to the flanking lot line than 0.7 metres;

(11) no part of any garage is located closer to the main building than 3.9 metres;

(12) no part of any garage is located closer to the next residential building than 3.9 metres, and

(13) the lot on which each semi-detached house is located provides no less than 26 square metres of landscaped open space.

BLOCK "B"

row house and uses accessory thereto provided that:

(1) not more than 28 row houses are erected or used within Block "B";

(2) not more than 8 row houses are attached in a series;

(3) the lot on which each row house is located has a width of not less than 4.2 metres;

(4) the lot on which each row house is located has a depth of not more than 17 metres;

(5) in the case of a row house, the residential gross floor area shall not exceed 162 square metres;

(6) no part of a row house above grade is erected or used closer to the side lot line than 0.45 metres;

(7) no part of a row house above grade is erected or used closer to the rear lot line than 1.0 metres with the exception of those projections contained in 6(3) Part II 8 of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86;

(8) no part of a row house above grade is erected or used closer to the front lot line than 1.0 metre;

(9) the lot on which each row house is located provides no less than 8.6 square metres of landscaped open space;

(10) the owner of each row house provides and maintains not less than one parking space for each row house at the rear of each lot; and

(11) no part of a row house above grade is erected or used closer to any sidewall than 0.9 metres.

BLOCK "C"

semi-detached house and uses accessory thereto provided that:

(1) not more than 2 pairs of semi-detached houses are erected or used within Block "C";

(2) the lot on which each semi-detached house is located has a width of not less than 3.5 metres;

(3) no part of any semi-detached house above grade is erected or used closer to the front lot line than 1 metre;

(4) no part of any semi-detached house above grade is erected or used closer to the rear lot line than 4.5 metres with the exception of those projections contained in 6(3) Part II 8 of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86;

(5) the owner of each semi-detached house provides and maintains not less than one parking space for each dwelling at the rear of each lot;

(6) no part of any garage is located closer to the main building than 0 metres; and

(7) no part of any garage is located closer to the next residential building than 3 metres.

3. For the purposes of this By-law:

(1) "row house" shall mean one of a series of attached buildings:

(i) each building containing not more than 1 dwelling unit,

(ii) each building divided vertically from another by a party wall,

(iii) each building located on a lot, and

(iv) each building having a single entrance fronting on the new street; and

(2) the terms "accessory", "dwelling unit", "flank", "front lot line", "grade", "landscaped open space", "lot", "parking space", "private garage", "rear lot line", "residential gross floor area", "semi-detached house", or "side lot line" shall have the same meaning as those terms have for the purposes of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", By-law No. 425-93, as amended.

MEL LASTMAN NOVINA WONG

Mayor. City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Colgate/Logan

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Colgate/Logan

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Colgate/Logan

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Colgate/Logan

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Colgate/Logan

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Colgate/Logan

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 have been submitted to Members of Council under separate cover:

- (August 24, 1999) from Mr. Peter C. Crawford; and

- (September 13, 1999) from Mr. Robert Pattillo.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (September 21, 1999) from the City Clerk:

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

- (August 24, 1999) from Peter C. Crawford; and

- (September 13, 1999) from Mr. Robert Pattillo.)

(A copy of the submissions referred to in the foregoing communication is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (September 27, 1999) from Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Barristers and Solicitors, regarding the Draft Zoning By-law - 40 Colgate Avenue, 64 Colgate Avenue, 309 and 355 Logan Avenue (Don River).)

89

Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning -

460 Yonge Street (Downtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (September 9, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form of the by-laws attached to the report, which introduction is subject to receipt of:

(a) an Agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act securing the matters described in the report (September 9, 1999) of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with the Acting Commissioner;

(b) postponements of all encumbrances on title to ensure the S. 37 Agreement constitutes a first charge against title;

(c) a letter or letters of credit to secure the contribution of $200,000;

(d) submission to and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services the following:

(i) a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(ii) a noise impact statement;

(iii) at least three weeks before introduction of bills, 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 appurtenant rights of way and the remainder of the site, as well as dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site-specific exemption by-laws; and

(2) the Recommendations contained in the report (September 9, 1999) of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on September 14, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 9, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a residential addition containing 93 dwelling units over an existing two-storey building at 460 Yonge Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Enacting the Draft By-laws does not require any expenditure by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the Planning 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 (September 9, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form of the by-laws attached to the report, which introduction is subject to receipt of:

(a) an Agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act securing the matters described in the report (September 9, 1999) of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with the Acting Commissioner;

(b) postponements of all encumbrances on title to ensure the S. 37 Agreement constitutes a first charge against title;

(c) a letter or letters of credit to secure the contribution of $200,000;

(d) submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services the following:

(i) a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(ii) a noise impact statement;

(iii) at least three weeks before introduction of bills, 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 appurtenant rights of way and the remainder of the site, as well as dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site-specific exemption by-laws;

(3) the Recommendations contained in the report (September 9, 1999) of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 15, 1999 (Clause No. 12 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11), having before it the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (June 28, 1999), recommended that:

(1) Application No. 197032 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street be approved in principle on the basis of a public benefits financial contribution of $200,000, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund; and

(2) the City Solicitor be requested to give notice for a public meeting to consider draft by-laws necessary to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit this proposal and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to bring forward appropriate recommendations for approval in accordance with the comments from Civic Officials contained in Appendix A of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the final report of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (September 9, 1999) at its meeting on September 14, 1999 recommending an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law respecting a proposed development at 460 Yonge Street consisting of a residential addition containing 93 dwelling units to an existing two-storey building.

The latest planning report also recommends an agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act calling for a contribution totalling $200,000 which include payments to the City of $150,000 for affordable rental housing and $50,000 for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The draft by-law report of the City Solicitor implements the previous actions of the Toronto Community Council and latest report of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The S. 37 Agreement is being prepared and the owner is required to satisfy various conditions prior to the introduction of the Bills, should Council approve the Draft By-laws.

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-7237; Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: whawryli@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

BY-LAW NO. -1999

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

respecting lands known as 460 Yonge Street.

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

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

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. .

SCHEDULE "A"

1. Section 18 of the Official Plan, for the former City of Toronto is hereby amended by adding the following Section 18.___ and the attached Map 18.___;

"18.___ Lands known as 460 Yonge Street

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 18.___, to permit the erection of a residential addition to a building existing in the year 1998, provided that:

(1) the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 9 051 square metres;

(2) the maximum non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 3 165 square metres;

(3) the owner of the lands is required by by-law to:

(a) contribute $200,000 to the City which shall be expended as follows:

(i) $150,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of affordable rental housing; and

(ii) $50,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(b) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement and Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(c) provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development; and

(4) the owner of the lands enters into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required to be provided by subsection (3) and such agreement or agreements have been appropriately registered against the title to the lands.

(Map to be attached)

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, as amended,

respecting 460 Yonge Street.

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of a municipality may in a By-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in the height or density of development beyond those otherwise permitted by the by-law in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matters as are set out in the by-law;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that, where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in height and density of development, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facilities, services or matters;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increases in the density or height permitted hereunder, beyond those otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by By-law No. 438-86, as amended, are to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law and are to be secured by one or more agreements between the owner of such lands and the City of Toronto;

AND WHEREAS Council has required the owner of the aforesaid lands to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increases in height and density in connection with the aforesaid lands as permitted in this By-law.

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. None of the provisions of sections 4(2)(a), 4(5)(b), 8(3) Part I 1, 8(3) Part I 3(a), 8(3) Part II 1(a) and 12(2)260(ii) of By-law No. 436-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other mattes relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection of a residential addition to a building existing in the year 1998, provided:

(1) the lot on which the existing building and addition are located comprises at least those lands delineated by heavy lines on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this By-law;

(2) no portion of any existing building and addition located above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the areas delineated by heavy lines on Plan 2 attached to and forming part of this By-law;

(3) the maximum height of the building, as shown on Plan 2, does not exceed 44.9 metres, which height shall be inclusive of:

(a) a mechanical penthouse to a maximum of 5.4 metres, and

(b) structural elements referred to in section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended;

(4) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 9 051 square metres;

(5) the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 3 165 square metres;

(6) there are not more than 93 dwelling units within the building;

(7) at least 52 parking spaces are provided and maintained within a parking facility on a lot within 300 metres of the lot referred to in section 1(1) for the exclusive use of the residents;

(8) the owner of the lot, at its expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in section 1(8)(d) of this By-law:

(a) contributes $200,000 to the City which shall be expended as follows:

(i) $150,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of affordable rental housing; and

(ii) $50,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(b) provides, maintains and operates the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement and Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) provides space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development; and

(d) enters into one or more agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure all the facilities, services and matters referred to in subsection 1(8) of this By-law, and such agreement or agreements are appropriately registered against the title to the lands.

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

(Plans to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 9, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide recommendations for approval respecting Application No. 197032 - 460 Yonge Street - to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto to permit a 10-storey addition to an existing 2-storey building for 93 units of rental housing.

Financial Implications:

With the approval of this application, the City will secure financial contributions of $150,000 for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and $50,000 for the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18.___ Lands known as 460 Yonge Street

See Map 18.__ at the end of this Section

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 18.__, to permit the erection of a residential addition to a mixed-use building existing in the year 1998, provided that:

(1) the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 9,051 square metres;

(2) the maximum non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 3,165 square metres;

(3) the owner of the lands is required by by-law to:

(a) contribute $200,000 to the City which shall be expended as follows:

(i) $150,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of affordable rental housing; and

(ii) $50,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(b) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement and Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development; and

(4) the owner of the lands enters into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required to be provided by subsection (3) and such agreement or agreements have been appropriately registered against the title to the lands.";

(2) the Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto, By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

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

4(2)(a) Height

4(5)(b) Parking

8(3) PART I 1 and 3(a) Maximum residential and combined residential and non-residential gross floor area

8(3) PART II 1 (a) Setbacks - Window Separation

12(2) 260 (ii) Angular Plane

(b) permit the erection and use of a mixed-use building containing non-residential and residential uses provided:

(i) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 9,051 square metres;

(ii) the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 3,165 square metres;

(iii) there are no more than 93 residential units in the building;

(iv) the height of the building does not exceed 44.9 metres including a 5.4 metre allowance exclusively for the use as a mechanical penthouse structure;

(v) 52 parking spaces are provided and maintained within a parking facility on a lot within 300 metres of the subject site for the exclusive use of the residents;

(vi) the owner of the lot, at its expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to below:

(a) contribute $200,000 to the City which shall be expended as follows:

(i) $150,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of affordable rental housing; and

(ii) $50,000 shall be provided to the City by way of a cash contribution for the provision of parkland in the vicinity of the site;

(b) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement and Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development; and

(d) the owner of the lands enters into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required to be provided by subsection (vi) and such agreement or agreements have been registered against the title to the lands;

(3) the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(a) a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto and the remainder of the site; and

(b) dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws;

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

(4) (a) the owner be advised of the need to provide information pertaining to the location and configuration of the off-site parking to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the introduction of the bills in Council; and

(b) the owner be advised of the need to resolve the issues pertaining to loading identified by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services as set out in Appendix A of the June 28, 1999 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Background:

At its meeting of July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, City Council adopted Clause No. 12 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council and by so doing:

a) approved in principle Application No. 197032 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street on the basis of a public benefits financial contribution of $200,000, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund; and

b) directed the City Solicitor to give notice for a public meeting to consider draft by-laws necessary to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit this proposal and directed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to bring forward appropriate recommendations for approval in accordance with the comments from Civic Officials contained in Appendix A of the June 28, 1999 report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

This report provides the recommendations for approval as requested.

Comments:

In my report dated June 28, 1999, a review of the application, the nature of the amendments requested, the planning considerations and the comments from the civic officials were provided. Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law requested to accommodate this proposal are set out in the recommendations of this report.

In granting approval in principle, City Council has directed that a financial contribution of $200,000 be made by the owner for public benefits pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. I provided a discussion of the intent of the Official Plan with respect to affordable housing and parks deficiency in my June 28, 1999 report. Based on these policies, I am recommending that $150,000 of the cash contribution be allocated to the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing for the development of affordable rental housing and $50,000 be allocated to the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund for the development of parkland in this area of the downtown core.

Other Matters:

With respect to the off-site parking requirement for 52 spaces for the residents, information is required from the applicant regarding the location and configuration of these off-site spaces. This information should be provided to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for approval prior to the introduction of the bills in Council.

As noted in my June 28, 1999 report, Site Plan Approval will be issued under separate cover upon a final determination of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has identified a number of outstanding issues relating to loading and access to loading which will have to be resolved prior to Site Plan Approval. These issues are set out in the Appendix of my June 28, 1999 report.

Staff Contact:

Gregg Lintern

Senior Planner, South District, East Section

Community Planning Division

Telephone: (416) 392-7363

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-mail: glintern@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (August 4, 1999) from the City Clerk:

At its meeting held on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration to Clause No. 12 contained in Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Directions Report - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 460 Yonge Street (Downtown)".

Council adopted the Clause without amendment, and by so doing:

(1) Approved in principle Application No. 197032 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street on the basis of a public benefits financial contribution of $200,000.00, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund; and

(2) Directed the City Solicitor to give notice for a public meeting to consider draft by-laws necessary to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit this proposal and directed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to bring forward appropriate recommendations for approval in accordance with the comments from Civic Officials contained in Appendix A of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, contained in the Clause.

A copy of the Clause can be picked up from the Secretariat Division, City Clerk's Department, 4th Floor, West Tower, City Hall, 100 Queen Street West, for a nominal charge.

--------

(Clause 12 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that

(1) Application No. 197032 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street be approved in principle on the basis of a public benefits financial contribution of $200,000, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund; and

(2) the City Solicitor be requested to give notice for a public meeting to consider draft by-laws necessary to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit this proposal and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to bring forward appropriate recommendations for approval in accordance with the comments from Civic Officials contained in Appendix A of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

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

Purpose:

To seek City Council's direction on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street. In considering this proposal for an increase above the permitted height and density, the applicant has been requested to provide a public benefits contribution which is consistent with the intent of the former City of Toronto Official Plan pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The Official Plan seeks to achieve public benefits such as affordable housing, parks and community facilities in exchange for an increase in height and density.

Staff are requesting that City Council consider either approving the application based on the public benefit contribution offered by the applicant or refusing the application based on the unacceptability of the public benefit contribution offered by the applicant.

Financial Implications:

Based on the direction provided by City Council, this application should enable the City to secure a public benefit contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund. The amount of the contribution is to be determined.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council provide direction to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services regarding Application No. 197032 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for 460 Yonge Street with respect to the following options in order to secure a public benefits contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, for the Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund:

(a) application No. 197032 be approved in principle on the basis of a public benefits financial contribution of $150,000; OR

(b) application No. 197032 be refused on the basis that a public benefits financial contribution of $500,000 is an appropriate payment to be made in consideration of the increase of height and density requested in this application; and

(2) in the event that City Council directs that the application be approved in principle on the basis of (1) (a) above, the City Solicitor be requested to give notice for a public meeting to consider draft by-laws necessary to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit this proposal and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to bring forward appropriate recommendations for approval in accordance with the comments from Civic Officials contained in Appendix A of this report.

Background:

(a) Applicant and Owners

Adam Brown of Brown, Dryer, Karol, Barristers and Solicitors, 5075 Yonge Street, Suite 900, North York, Ontario, M2N 6C6 on behalf of Anbor Corporation, 22 College Street, Suite 103, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Y6

(b) Location and Context

The 1760.1 square metre site is located at the southwest corner of Yonge and Grenville Streets. The site currently contains a two-storey commercial building housing 6 retail tenants, a bank and second floor offices.

The site is located in a transitional area between higher buildings in the vicinity of Yonge and College Streets and the predominantly low rise character to the north. There are mid and high-rise apartment and office buildings to the east and west of the site. The neighbourhood is mixed-use with street-related retail and service uses on Yonge Street, some government-related and commercial office buildings, a hotel under reconstruction and residential rental and condominium apartments. The College Park building is to the south of the site.

(c) Proposed Development

The proposed development is a 10-storey addition above the existing 2-storey building, including one transfer floor containing amenity, bike parking and storage space and 9 residential floors containing a total of 93 rental dwelling units. The residential addition is setback from the Yonge Street streetline 15.5 metres.

The total proposed density (existing and new) would be 6.94 times the area of the lot. The existing building density is 1.86 times the area of the lot. The proposed total height, measured from Grenville Street average grade and including the mechanical penthouse would be 43.9 metres or 38.5 metres to the top of the main roof. Measured from average grade on Yonge Street, the height is 44.9 metres including mechanical penthouse.

The proposed rental residential units in the building include one, two and two-bedroom+den, ranging in size between 570 square feet and 1480 square feet (53 to 137 square metres).

This final proposal has been modified from the original proposal. The density is the same but the massing of the building has been scaled back to more closely conform to the angular plane requirement. Notwithstanding this adjustment, the floor to ceiling heights have been reduced which has facilitated an increase in the number of floors from 9 to 10 and increase in the unit count from 88 to 93. The total height of the building, which was incorrectly identified in the Preliminary Report based on information provided by the applicant, has decreased approximately 2 metres.

(d) Public Comments

A community meeting held on July 7, 1998 was attended by approximately 15 people. The issues raised at the meeting included impact on the property to the south, access and use of the public lane, parking, physical impact on the residential building northwest of the site, height of the proposal and the functionality of the proposal. These issues are addressed in this report.

Comments:

1. Planning Controls

(a) Current Official Plan and Zoning By-law

The site is designated Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area in the Official Plan and is zoned CR T3.0 C2.0 R3.0 with an 18-metre height limit. The maximum density permitted by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is 3.0 times the area of the lot. The Zoning By-law designates this area of Yonge Street as a priority retail street and stipulates angular plane provisions for buildings over 16 metres in height. The use mix on this portion of Yonge Street encourages residential uses which distinguishes it from the area to the south where more intensive retailing activity is encouraged.

The lands to the north of the site are designated Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area while the lands to the south, east and west are designated High Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area "B". The zoning reflects the Official Plan with higher density and height permission to the south, east and west.

(b) Requested Amendments to the Planning Controls

(i) Official Plan

Amendments are required to the Official Plan to permit the increase in density from 3.0 to 6.94 times the area of the lot and provide for the entering into of an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure various facilities, services and matters outlined in this report.

(ii) Zoning By-law

The proposed development does not comply with the Zoning By-law in the following ways:

- the proposed density of 6.94 times the lot area exceeds the permitted total density of 3.0 times the area of the lot while the proposed residential density of 5.14 exceeds the permitted residential total of 3.0 times the area of the lot;

- the by-law requires a minimum of 63 parking spaces; no on-site parking is proposed;

- the proposed building penetrates the angular plane of 44 degrees measured from an elevation of 16 metres at the street line;

- the permitted height of 18 metres is exceeded; proposed height is 44.9 metres;

- minimum setbacks of 5.5 metres from the south lot line are not provided; proposed are 4.36 and 5.16 metres.

(c) Site Plan Approval

Site Plan Approval will be issued under separate cover upon a final determination of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

2. Planning Considerations

In determining the appropriateness of the proposal, it is relevant to consider the increase in density and height requested in terms of consistency with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan. The comments of the public have also been taken into account.

(a) Density and Height

The density of the proposal is more than double the permitted density on the lot which is a substantial increase. It is, however, within the range of densities found in residential, office and hotel buildings in the immediate vicinity.

The proposed increase above the permitted height limit is also substantial. Nevertheless the overall height of the proposed building is similar to the height of the recently completed residential building to the northwest of the site on Grenville Street and slightly less than the height of the reconstructed hotel building to the northeast of the site on Yonge Street.

(b) Contextual fit

The site is located between the predominantly low scale retail strip to the north and the higher density built-up area to the south, east and west. This context supports consideration of an increase in height on this site provided the building is transitional in character to mitigate the difference in development intensity and scale between these areas.

The surrounding context has been built out over a number of years during which regulatory controls and planning policy have been modified to achieve more predictable built form with a greater emphasis on the impact of development on the public realm. The most recently constructed building in the area at 10 - 18 Grenville Street which has a density of 9.3 times the area of the lot, was carefully massed to mitigate impact and create a transition to the lower scale of development along Yonge Street. The height of the proposed building and the setback of the building addition from Yonge Street help to achieve similar urban design objectives.

The intensification of this site is generally in keeping with the City's efforts to encourage the revitalization of Yonge Street in the downtown. The site is within the existing Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area and the lands to the north are situated within an extension to the Project Area currently being considered for a Community Improvement Plan amendment. In this area of extension, for example, the City will be pursuing the facade improvement of retail storefronts along Yonge Street.

The maintenance of street related retail and service uses along Yonge Street is consistent with retail policies of the Official Plan. The use of Grenville Street as the residential "address" also contributes to the contextual fit of the building.

(c) Evaluation of Physical Impact

(i) Shadow

The angular plane provisions of the Zoning By-law require a five hour window of sun penetration on Yonge Street at this location. The evaluation of an as-of-right scheme which complies with the angular plane requirements compared to the proposed scheme revealed that approximately 4 hours of sunlight can be achieved, primarily due to existing conditions in this area which is comprised of some taller buildings built to the street line. The shadow impact has been addressed satisfactorily given these conditions.

(ii) Wind

A wind study was not requested of the applicant due to the proposed massing of the building which creates a desirable podium condition which mitigates the wind impact on the public realm.

(iii) Massing

The proposed massing responds to the lower scale of development to the north by setting back the building addition above the 2-storey podium 15.5 metres from the street line. This podium will improve the amenity of Yonge Street and of the proposed residential units. With respect to Grenville Street, the proposal includes a small setback above the third floor creating a cornice treatment which responds to other cornice and setback treatment along Grenville Street.

(iv) Light, View, Privacy and Amenity Space

The proposal generally meets the City's standards with respect to light, view and privacy. While the building setback from the south lot line is less than the Zoning By-law requirement, the windows on the south elevation are secondary, with principal windows facing east and west.

The proposal includes the required amount of indoor amenity space, located on the transfer or third floor and double the amount of the required outdoor amenity space, largely located on the podium roof along Yonge Street.

(c) Parks

This site borders large areas of the Central Core which are deficient in parks to serve the population of workers and residents as set out on Map 6 of the former City of Toronto's Official Plan. In considering the proposed increase in height and density, it is appropriate to consider how the application may serve to mitigate these park deficiencies. This opportunity is discussed in the context of Section 37 Public Benefits below.

(d) Parking, Loading and Traffic

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has advised that 57 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents must be provided, which can be leased off-site within 300 metres of the site and must be surplus to the Zoning By-law requirements of the donor site. This is less than the anticipated demand of 118 spaces. Given the constraints imposed by the retention of the building, the fact that no parking is required for the non-residential components of the building and the proximity to public transit, the off-site parking arrangement is acceptable.

While the Zoning By-law requires 1 Type G loading space as proposed, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services foresees additional demand and requires further documentation outlining how the proposed loading space will accommodate expected demand. Further details are also required with respect to refuse collection.

These issues should be resolved to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the introduction of any bill in Council.

(e) Housing Intensification and Affordability

Policies of the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Metroplan support housing intensification in the Central Core. The addition of 93 rental units proposed in this application achieves intensification in accordance with this planning policy.

There are also policies in the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Metroplan which encourage the provision of affordable housing. While it is recognized that this proposal is for private market rental housing, it does involve a substantial increase in height and density. The market rents of the proposed units will exceed what is considered affordable rents. As the provision of market rental housing is not in itself a consideration which justifies the increase in height and density which is requested, options have been discussed with the applicant which may assist in achieving the housing objectives pursuant to Official Plan policies. These options are discussed below.

(f) Section 37 Public Benefits and Agreement

(i) Background

The former City of Toronto Official Plan contains policies which seek to secure public benefits as part of an application which includes a request for an increase in height and density. These benefits include but are not limited to social housing, non-profit community, cultural and institutional facilities, heritage preservation and parks. Ideally, these benefits are provided and secured as part of the proposed development on the site (e.g. a social housing development, the dedication of a piece of the site for a park, an on-site daycare). If these public benefits cannot be included on site, a financial contribution in-lieu is provided. The means by which these benefits are commonly secured is through an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The Official Plan sets out a principle that there should be a relationship between the value of the increase in height and density and the cost of providing the public benefit.

The approval of Official Plan and Zoning amendments is a mechanism which can be used to achieve public benefits and other objectives of the Official Plan. It is based in part on the acknowledgement that development which includes an increase in height and density is a substantial private benefit. This kind of development should in some form contribute to both local and city-wide planning objectives expressed throughout the Plan (e.g. the shortage of affordable housing, the need to preserve heritage buildings, the need to address parks deficient areas and meet other community facility needs).

For example, the aforementioned development northwest of the subject site at 10 - 18 Grenville Street, built in 1995, exceeded both the height and density limits on the site. While the proposal was consistent with urban design and built form objectives for the area, it also provided a substantial on-site public benefit in the form of social housing which is consistent with achieving on-site public benefits when height and density increases are considered. The social housing benefit was secured through a legal agreement with the City.

It should be noted that public benefits secured through Section 37 are in addition to and separate from payments to the City for parkland contribution levies pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act and any development charges which may be applicable. Contributions made pursuant to Section 37 are made specifically as a result of and in exchange for an increase in height and density in recognition of the need to achieve planning objectives set out in the Official Plan.

(ii) Application

As discussed above with respect to affordable housing policy, the provision of market rental housing is not in itself a fact which justifies the increase in height and density which are requested. The market rents of the proposed units will exceed what is considered affordable rents. In lieu of on-site public benefits, staff have requested a financial contribution from the applicant which could be considered appropriate considering the value of the increase in height and density being requested and the cost of providing public benefits.

Public benefits being considered in association with this application are financial contributions to the City's Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing and the East of Bay and Vicinity Reserve Fund for parks. Contributions to these funds would be a net benefit to the community, consistent with the intent of the Official Plan.

The applicant has argued that the provision of rental housing is, in itself, a public benefit. In addition, the applicant has offered two alternatives with attributable value:

(a) an offer to enter into an agreement with the City that 10 of the proposed 93 units will be rented for $200 less than the market rent for a period of 10 years; or

(b) a financial contribution of $150,000.

It is staff's view that the provision of market rental housing is not in itself a fact which justifies the increase in height and density which are requested. Furthermore, the applicant and staff have been unable to agree on the value relationship between the increase in height and density and the cost of providing a more reasonable and fair measure of public benefits. After consulting with the Director of Real Estate, staff have concluded that the values of the two alternatives offered by the applicant are not fair and reasonable, taking into account the existing Official Plan Section 37 provisions and other development approvals in the downtown.

Staff have considered the rent reduction alternative and are of the view that the rent reduction being offered on the 10 units would still not achieve affordable rent levels. As an alternative, the applicant has offered $150,000. Staff have requested a contribution of $500,000, which would be more representative of the value of the increase and the cost of providing some reasonable and fair measure of public benefits.

As there is a considerable gap between the positions of staff and the applicant, it is appropriate to present the option of accepting the applicant's offer to Council or refusing the application based on the inadequate nature of the Section 37 contribution.

Conclusion

This application has been evaluated on the basis of its consistency with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan. While the built form is acceptable and impacts of the proposed development have been mitigated, the increase in the height and density of the proposed development is substantial. In order for the increase in height and density to be acceptable, it must meet all the tests of good planning including the provision of a net community benefit. It is appropriate that Council only approve this application in concert with the provision of certain public benefits, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The value of the increase in height and density and the cost of providing public benefits must have some fair and reasonable relationship.

The applicant has offered $150,000 in lieu of on-site public benefits. After consulting with the Director of Real Estate, planning staff have indicated that a value of $500,000 is more in keeping with the value of the increase in height and density and the cost of providing public benefits.

City Council is being asked to provide direction to staff on how to proceed with this application. Council can accept the applicant's offer or refuse the application on the basis that the public benefits package is insufficient.

Contact

Gregg Lintern

Senior Planner, South District, East Section

Community Planning Division

Telephone: (416) 392-7363

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-mail: glintern@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval: Y Application Number: 197032
Rezoning: Y Application Date: December 31, 1997
O. P. A.: Y Date of Revision: February 5, 1999

Confirmed Municipal Address: 460 Yonge Street.

Nearest Intersection: West side of Yonge Street; north of College Street.
Project Description: To construct a residential addition to an existing commercial building.
Applicant:

Adam J. Brown

5075 Yonge St #900

222-0344

Agent:

Adam J. Brown

5075 Yonge St #900

222-0344

Architect:

Climans Green Liang

160 Pears Ave., #212

925-8100

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: LDMCRA Site Specific Provision: No
Zoning District: CR T3.0 C2.0 R3.0 Historical Status: No
Height Limit (m): 18.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area: 1760.1 m2 Height: Storeys: 12
Frontage: 45.9 m Metres: 44.9
Depth: 38.4 m
Indoor Outdoor
Ground Floor: Parking Spaces:
Residential GFA: 9050.7 m2 Loading Docks: 1 G
Non-Residential GFA: 3164.6 m2 (number, type)
Total GFA: 12215.3 m2
Dwelling Units Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure: Rental Land Use Above Grade Below Grade
1 Bedroom: 50 Residential 9050.7 m2
2 Bedroom: 25 Retail 3164.6 m2
3 Bedroom: 18
Total Units: 93
Proposed Density
Residential Density: 5.14 Non-Residential Density: 1.80 Total Density: 6.94
Comments
Status: Preliminary Report dated April 20, 1998 adopted by TCC on May 7, 1998. Application revised February 05, 1999
Data valid: February 05, 1999 Section: CP South District Phone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1. Works and Emergency Services, dated June 24, 1999

Comments:

The proposal for the above-noted site, located at the south-west corner of Yonge Street and Grenville Street, was dealt with in a Departmental report to you dated July 22, 1998.

The project has been revised to, among other things:

- Increase the number of residential units from 88 units to 93 units;

- Indicate on the Site Plan Statistics that a 53.2 m2 garbage room and a 10 m2 recycling room will be provided;

- Provide double doors measuring 2.1 m in width, leading to the loading facility from each storage room;

- Provide a Type G loading space;

- Provide a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2 per cent adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 3 compactor containers on collection day.

Parking

As a result of the increase in the total number of residential units, the estimated parking demand generated by this project has increased to 118 spaces, including 57 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and 61 spaces for the shared use of the residential visitors and the non-residential components of the project. As far as can be ascertained the Zoning By-law requires the provision of 57 parking spaces for the residential component, whereas, no spaces are required for the non-residential component of the project.

As set out in the previous Departmental report, given the constraints imposed by the retention of the existing building, that the Zoning By-law does not require parking for the existing non-residential components of the project and recognizing the proximity of the site to public transit, the non-provision of parking for the non-residential components is acceptable. However, the 57 parking spaces required for the residents, must be provided, which can be leased off-site, within 300 m of the site and be surplus to the Zoning By-law requirements of the donor site. The location, layout, access arrangements and lease arrangements for the off-site parking spaces have not yet been provided and shown on a plan as previously requested.

Loading

The plans have been revised to show the provision of 1 Type G loading space, which is less than the estimated loading demand generated by the development for 1 Type G, 1 Type B and 1 Type C loading spaces, based on the shared use of the loading spaces by the residential and non-residential components of the project, whereas, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requires the provision of 1 Type G loading space to serve the residential component of the project. This Department has not yet received documentation outlining how the expected loading demands generated by this development will be accommodated utilizing the proposed loading area, as set out in the July 22, 1998 Departmental report.

Refuse Collection

A garbage storage room (undimensioned) and a separate recyclable materials storage room of

10 m2, designed with double doors leading to the loading facility have been shown on the plans and are acceptable. However, the plans should be revised to indicate the size of the garbage storage room.

The facilities required to facilitate City refuse collection, including a Type G loading space designed to permit trucks to enter and exit the site in a forward motion, as set out in the July 22, 1998 Departmental report has been provided and are acceptable. It is noted that trucks accessing the Type G loading space will be required to drive over a portion of the grating over the transformer vault, which is located at the rear of the loading space. This grating should be constructed to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, to withstand the loads imposed by City bulk-lift loading collection vehicles and the owner must accept all liability for any damage that may be caused, through the regular use of the area by these vehicles.

As a result of the foregoing, Recommendation Nos. 1(e), 1(l) and 1(p) of the July 22, 1998 Departmental report should be revised as follows:

1(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 57 parking spaces for the residents, which may be provided off-site, within 300 m of the subject site;

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

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

and Recommendation No. 1(q) should be added as follows:

1(q) Construct the grating over the Toronto Hydro Transformer Vault, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and accept all liability for any damages that may be caused to the grating through the regular use of the area by City garbage trucks, if applicable.

2. Works and Emergency Services, dated July 22, 1998.

Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

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

(b) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council:

(i) a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development; and

(ii) a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

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

(d) Provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction and noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the respective plans approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 52 parking spaces for the residents, which may be provided off-site, within 300 m of the subject site;

(f) Submit plans showing the location and configuration of the off-site parking spaces required in Recommendation No. 1(e) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g) Submit documentation identifying the loading demands generated by this project and how they will be accommodated, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(h) Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 20 square metres in size in the residential component of the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit, to City specifications, in the garbage room;

(i) Provide and maintain a room at least 10 square metres in size to drop-off and store recyclable material, separate from the garbage room;

(j) Provide and maintain a double door or an overhead door, totalling at least 2.1 m in width, leading to the loading facility from each storage room;

(k) Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

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

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

(n) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 3 compactor containers on collection day;

(o) Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the building envelope plans, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(p) Submit revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (n) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2. That the owner be advised:

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

(b) Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for the proposed canopy within the Grenville Street road allowance; and

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

Comments:

Location

South-west corner of Yonge Street and Grenville Street.

Proposal

Construction of a 9 storey, 88-unit residential addition to an existing 2-storey commercial building which comprises 172.58 mē of retail space, 426.55 mē of bank space, 800.3 mē of restaurant space and 1,897.58 mē of office space. The commercial uses would be retained and the residential units would be rental housing.

Parking and Access

No parking is currently provided on-site and none are proposed in conjunction with this project. The estimated parking demand generated by this project, is 109 spaces, including 52 spaces for the residents and 57 spaces for the shared use of the residential visitors and the non-residential components of the project. The preliminary Zoning By-law Review Notice indicates that 57 spaces are required under the provisions of the Zoning By-law for the residential component, whereas, none are required for the non-residential components of the project. While the parking demand generated by the existing commercial uses would appear to be accommodated in the public parking facilities in the area, it is not clear how the parking demand generated by the residents of this project will be accommodated.

Given the constraints imposed by the retention of the existing building, that the Zoning By-law does not require parking for the existing non-residential components of the project, and recognizing the proximity of the site to public transit, the non-provision of parking for the non-residential components is acceptable. Also, the provision of residential visitor parking off-site would not be practicable, although a variance to the visitor parking requirements of the Zoning By-law would be required. However, the 52 parking spaces required for the residents must be provided, which can be leased off-site, within 300 m of the site and be surplus to the Zoning By-law requirements of the donor site. The location, layout, access arrangements and lease arrangements for the off-site parking spaces should be provided and shown on a plan.

Lane Widening

The abutting 5.49 m wide north-south lane is a substandard commercial public lane, which ultimately should be widened to a minimum of 6 m in accordance with City Council standards. Given that the existing building to be retained extends to the east limit of the lane, it is not practicable to require a lane widening in this instance.

Loading

The plans show the provision of one Type B loading space at the west limit of the site, with direct access from the abutting public lane. This is less than the estimated loading demand generated by the development for one Type G, one Type B and one Type C loading spaces, based on the shared use of the loading spaces by the residential and non-residential components of the project, whereas, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requires the provision of 1 Type G loading space to serve the residential component of the project. Negative impacts on the abutting street could result if the loading demand generated by this project is not satisfied on site. In this regard, the owner must submit documentation outlining how the expected loading demands generated by this development will be accommodated utilizing the proposed loading area. As discussed below, a Type G loading space is required to qualify for City bulk lift refuse collection.

Refuse Collection

Residential developments of this size are typically serviced by the bulk lift method of refuse handling and disposal, in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This 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 in a forward motion, and the provision of the following facilities:

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

- a recyclable materials storage room with a minimum size of 10 mē;

- a service corridor linking the retail component with the garbage and recyclable storage rooms;

- a Type G loading space located on site and designed such that garbage trucks using the loading space are able to enter and exit the site in a forward motion; and

- a concrete pad adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of 3 container bins on collection day.

The existing Type B loading space must be enlarged to the dimensions of a Type G loading space. This will require the existing building to be retrofitted. The plans show the provision of a 26.08 mē garbage storage room and a separate 8.35 mē recyclable materials storage room. The size of the recyclable materials storage room is insufficient to accommodate the amount of recyclable materials generated by the residential component of this project. The compactor required in the garbage storage room must be compatible with the charger door on the City's bulk lift containers. The dimensions of the charger door are 91.44 cm horizontally and 72.39 cm vertically and the compaction level of the unit should not exceed 800 p.s.i.

The refuse generated by the non-residential components of this project will exceed the volume limits set out in the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste, and therefore, must continue to be collected by a private refuse collection firm. Furthermore, it is necessary for the owner to submit a material recovery and waste reduction plan to this Department for review and approval, the details of which are set out below.

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.

Material Recovery and Waste Reduction

The owner is required to submit a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan with respect to the commercial component of this development which will include:

(a) A description of the waste composition which is generated by the commercial component of this development and the quantity of each category of waste material;

(b) A description of the policies, programmes, processes and equipment which are in place to carry out material recovery and waste reduction;

(c) The amount of space provided to store and/or process recovered materials; and

(d) Separate accommodation for the recovery, safe storage and disposal of hazardous waste, if any.

The owner is advised that staff of the Operations and Sanitation Division (telephone no. 392-1040) will assist in the format and content requirements in the preparation of the plan.

Municipal Services

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

Encroachments

The existing encroachments on Grenville Street are covered by an agreement registered on April 2, 1990, as Instrument No. CA83623. The project includes the installation of a canopy which will encroach onto the Grenville Street road allowance and, as a result, will require the submission of a separate application to your Department.

Work within the Road Allowances

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowances must be received by this Department.

3. Urban Planning and Development Services (Buildings), dated March 10, 1999.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Construct 10 storey addition

Zoning Designation: CR T3.0 C2.0 R3.0 Map: 50H 323

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

Plans prepared by: Climans Green Liang Architects Inc. Plans dated: February 5, 1999

Zoning Review

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

1. The by-law requires a minimum of 63 parking spaces be provided. The number of proposed parking spaces is 0. (Section 4(5)(b))

2. Bicycle parking spaces have not been provided in the following proportion: 56 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 14 bicycle parking spaces for the visitors of the building. (Section 4(13)(c))

3. The by-law limits the maximum combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area to not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot: (5,280.27) square metres. The proposed building has 12,215.27 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

4. The by-law limits the maximum residential gross floor area to not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot: (5,280.27) square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 9,050.71 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

5. The by-law requires the building to be within the 44 degree angular plane projected over the lot from an elevation of 16 metres over the street line. The proposed building penetrates the angular plane. (Section 12(2) 260(ii))

6. The maximum permitted height of 18.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 44.88 metres. (Section 4(2)(a))

7. The minimum required 5.5 metre setback from the south lot line has not been provided. Proposed is 4.36 metres and 5.16 metres.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

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

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

3. The proposal DOES NOT require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

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

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

4. Toronto Transit Commission, dated March 17, 1998.

It is noted that the Yonge subway line is adjacent to the subject site. It will, therefore, be necessary for the developer to obtain approval of site and foundation plans (5 sets) from the TTC (Attention: Domenic Garisto - Property management Department) prior to receiving a building permit. The following supporting documentation is also requested:

- shoring drawings

- plot plan/sections/elevations showing relation to the subway structure

- structural calculations showing loads

- geotechnical report

- excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans

- monitoring program to measure any subway structure movement

Subsequent approval of the foregoing development is subject to any conditions that may be specified to the applicant by Mr. Garisto.

Please inform the applicant that the Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants. Since noise and vibration may be transmitted from street traffic and from our transit operations, the developer should apply attenuation measures so that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest level technically feasible. The developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, through a clause in the purchase or rental agreements, of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such affects.

5. Toronto Catholic School Board, dated April 28, 1998.

Please be advised that students emanating from the above-noted development could be accommodated in permanent facilities at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School (JK-8) and the proposed Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 15, 1999) from Mr. Dave Irwin, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

--------

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

- Mr. Dave Irwin, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Adam Brown, Brown Dryer Karol.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 2

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 3

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 4

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 5

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 6

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 7

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 8

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 9

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 10

460 Yonge St

Insert Table/Map No. 11

460 Yonge St

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the applicant is representing him in another matter.)

90

Draft Zoning By-law - 350 Russell Hill Road

(304 Lonsdale Road) (Midtown)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the draft by-law attached to the report (September 10, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council, substantially in the form of the Draft By-law to give effect thereto; and

(2) the report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on September 14, 1999, and Mr. John Chipman, Columbarium Committee, addressed the Toronto Community Council.

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

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit the establishment of a Columbarium on the lands municipally known as 350 Russell Hill and 304 Lonsdale Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

(2) the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 10, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council, substantially in the form of the Draft By-law to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of September 14, 1999 will have before it the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Commissioner Urban Planning and Development Services (June 3, 1999) concerning the above-noted subject. This report recommends a Zoning By-law Amendment which will permit the establishment of a Columbarium within Grace Church-on-the-Hill on the lands municipally known as 350 Russell Hill and 304 Lonsdale Road.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Conclusions:

N/A

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer

Solicitor, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-1228

Fax: (416) 397-4420

--------

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

as adopted by Council on , 1999

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86, as amended, of the former City of Toronto,

with respect to the lands municipally known in 1998 as

350 Russell Hill Road and 304 Lonsdale Road

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

1. By-law 438-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended as follows:

(1) Section 12(1) is amended by adding the following exception:

"___" to prevent the erection and use of a columbarium as defined by the Cemeteries Act (Revised) wholly within the place of worship existing in 1998 on the lands outlined by heavy lines on the following map, provided:

(i) no major exterior alteration of the front elevation of the building is made; and

(ii) the non-residential gross floor area used for the purposes of the columbarium does not exceed 12.5 square metres.

(Map to be inserted)

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



MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To permit the establishment of a columbarium under the Cemeteries Act (Revised) and construction of approximately 300 niches within the existing church building located at 350 Russell Hill Road.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. Council approve the establishment of a columbarium at 350 Russell Hill Road (304 Lonsdale Road) for the following reasons:

- no impact on the adjacent residential neighbourhood has been identified;

- there is no increase in the gross floor area or exterior alterations to the church building; and

- the proposal will not generate any additional traffic.

2. The City Solicitor be requested to prepare a Notice of Decision indicating Council's decision on this matter and submit it to the City Clerk for publication in the current local paper.

3. The City Solicitor be requested to bring forward a site specific zoning by-law amendment to permit a columbarium within the existing church building at 350 Russell Hill Road.

4. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report further on permitting a columbarium as an accessory use within places of worship as-of-right in the former City of Toronto and across the new city.

Background:

Grace Anglican Church on-the-Hill has applied to the City to establish a columbarium containing approximately 300 niches within the existing church building at 350 Russell Hill Road. City Council approval is required under the Cemeteries Act, and a zoning by-law amendment is required to permit this use at this location.

Comments:

Project:

To permit the construction and establishment of a columbarium with approximately 300 niches. The project involves the conversion of a small nave area approximately 12.5 m2 in size within the church sanctuary.

Location:

The property is located on the northwest corner of Russell Hill Road and Lonsdale Road.

Site:

The site contains a church and the administration offices of Grace-on-the-Hill Anglican Church. It falls within the Old Forest Hill neighbourhood and is surrounded by a stable residential area.

Public Meeting:

A public meeting was held in the community to discuss this application on May 17, 1999, with approximately 15 residents in attendance. No concerns were raised at the time.

Planning Considerations:

The Cemeteries Act requires an applicant to obtain Council's approval and the consent of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in order to establish a new columbarium. The decision of Council on this matter is required to be advertised in the local paper. In addition, a Zoning By-law amendment is required to permit this use within the church building.

In an R district a place of worship and associated accessary uses are permitted as-of-right. Traditionally, columbarium uses have been included in churches and may also be part of cemetery uses. The Zoning By-law, however, identifies a columbarium as a permitted use only in the existing ten cemeteries in the former City of Toronto. It is my opinion that a Zoning By-law amendment is required to permit a columbarium in a place of worship in an R zone, where the Zoning By-law is silent on the use.

This application has been reviewed by City staff and reviewed by the neighbourhood at the public meeting on May 17, 1999. One letter of objection was received and is attached in Appendix A of this report. The issue raised concerns traffic generation in the immediate area. It is important to note that funerals are currently conducted on site and occur during the week or on the weekend. This activity will not change. The introduction of a columbarium within the church building will not change the existing situation or increase the number of funerals presently held there. A memorial service is also a periodic activity that may be held with the placing of the urn into the niche. No increase in traffic generation is anticipated from the introduction of the 300 niche columbarium proposed for this location. No other issues or concerns have been identified.

Other Matters

Section 12(1)313 in the Zoning By-law only permits columbarium as defined by the Cemeteries Act in the 10 cemeteries in the former City of Toronto. However, church and cemetery uses co-exist in many situations throughout the new City. I intend to bring forward a report dealing with this issue for the former City of Toronto area in the summer. I will be reporting back on the city-wide zoning by-law issues and an appropriate approach to take in the future.

Conclusions:

Grace Church on-the-Hill has submitted an application for a rezoning and consent to construct a columbarium within the existing church building located at 350 Russell Hill Road. No impact has been identified or issues raised with respect to this application that would cause any concern. I am, therefore, recommending that Council approve this proposal and permit a columbarium at 350 Lonsdale Road. I am recommending that the City Solicitor bring forward a by-law to permit this use at this location. I will be reporting further on the issue of columbaria as a permitted use in places of worship in the former City of Toronto and city-wide in the future.

Contact Name:

Denise Graham

Community Planning, East Section

Telephone: 392-0871

E-Mail: dgraham1@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval: N Application Number: 199010
Rezoning: Y Application Date: March 19, 1999
O. P. A.: N Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address: 350 Russell Hill Road

Nearest Intersection: North side of Lonsdale Road; west of Russell Road.
Project Description: To construct a columbarium within the church building.
Applicant:

Helen W. Bradfield

300 Lonsdale Rd.

488-7884

Agent:

Helen W. Bradfield

300 Lonsdale Rd.

488-7884

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: LDRA Site Specific Provision: No
Zoning District: R1 Z0.35 Historical Status: No
Height Limit (m): 11.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area: 3651.6 m2 Height: Storeys:
Frontage: Metres:
Depth:
Indoor Outdoor
Ground Floor: Parking Spaces:
Residential GFA: Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA: (number, type)
Total GFA:
Density
Residential Density: Non-Residential Density: Total Density:
Comments
Status: Application received.
Data valid: March 19, 1999 Section: CP South District Phone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Letter from Barbara Hennick, 164 Warren Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4V2S5, dated May 6, 1999.

This letter is to express that I am vehemently opposed to the construction of a columbarium within Grace Church on-the-Hill. Our residential area is already overcome by the volume of traffic and parking congestion that the nearby schools (Bishop Strachan & UCC) and churches (Grace Church and Timothy Eaton) already impose both during the week and on weekends. I will therefore not support any bylaw amendments which will create further activity in the area.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Russell Hill Road

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Russell Hill Road

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Russell Hill Road

91

Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning -

866 Avenue Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Recommendation No. 1(c)(ii) of the report (August 25, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended to read:

"(1)(c)(ii) provide fuel deliveries only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday;"

and that the report, as so amended, be adopted; and

(2) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (September 7, 1999) of the City Solicitor, as amended by Recommendation No. 1 above, be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form of the by-laws attached to the report, which introduction is subject to:

(a) receipt of an Agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act securing the matters described in the report (August 25, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with the Commissioner;

(b) receipt of postponements of all encumbrances on title to ensure the S. 37 Agreement constitutes a first charge against title;

(c) submission of the following documents approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) a noise impact statement;

(ii) at least three weeks before introduction of bills, 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 appurtenant rights of way and the remainder of the site, as well as final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building and the canopy structure over the gasoline pumps to enable the preparation of building envelope plans; and

(iii) a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on September 14, 1999, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

- Ms. Judy Price, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. John Newell, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Elizabeth Jane Kuzyk, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Ann Lovering, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Susan Ainley, Northhill District Home Owner's Association;

- Mr. Arv Sestokas, Imperial Oil; and

- Ms. Shelley Ortved, Oriole Park Association.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 7, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to allow the construction and use of a self-service gas bar and retail store at 866 Avenue Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Enacting the Draft By-laws does not require any expenditure by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the Planning 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 (September 7, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form of the by-laws attached to the report, which introduction is subject to:

(a) receipt of an Agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act securing the matters described in the report (August 25, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with the Commissioner;

(b) receipt of postponements of all encumbrances on title to ensure the S. 37 Agreement constitutes a first charge against title;

(c) submission of the following documents approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) a noise impact statement;

(ii) at least three weeks before introduction of bills, 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 appurtenant rights of way and the remainder of the site, as well as final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building and the canopy structure over the gasoline pumps to enable the preparation of building envelope plans; and

(iii) a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development.

(3) the Recommendations contained in the Report (August 25, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it a report (August 25, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law respecting a proposed development at 866 Avenue Road consisting of a self-service gas bar and retail store. The planning report recommends an agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act setting out requirements such as building materials, hours of operation, accessibility to an air compressor and hose as well as the provision of certain studies.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The S. 37 Agreement is being prepared and the owner is working toward satisfying the other conditions that would have to be fulfilled before introduction of the Bills, should Council approve the Draft By-laws.

The Draft By-laws attached to this report will, if enacted, give effect to the Planning Report.

Contact Name:

Raymond Feig, Solicitor, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-7224

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: rfeig@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

BY-LAW NO. -1999

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

respecting lands known as 866 Avenue Road.

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

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

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. 150.

--------

SCHEDULE "A"

1. Section 18 of the Official Plan, for the former City of Toronto is hereby amended by adding the following Section 18.497 and the attached Map 18.497;

"18.497 Lands known as 866 Avenue Road

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 18.497, to permit the erection and use of a combined gas bar and retail store, provided that:

(1) the maximum non-residential gross floor area of the combined gas bar and retail store does not exceed 145 square metres;

(2) the building does not include a restaurant or take-out restaurant;

(3) the owner of the lands is required by by-law to:

(a) close and to keep closed the gas bar and retail store between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. every day of the year;

(b) provide fuel deliveries only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.;

(c) turn-off and to keep turned-off the lights on the underside of the canopy between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. every day of the year and to achieve this by means of an automatic device;

(d) provide and maintain an air compressor and hose on the premises, suitable for use by cyclists, to be available without charge everyday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.;

(e) construct the gas bar and retail store using materials specified on the plans approved pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(f) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services;

(h) conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could have resulted in negative environmental effects for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any permit;

(i) conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on the site and in existing buildings for submission to the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services and review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any permit;

(j) conduct a soil and groundwater testing program, produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan for submission to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any permit, and implement the Plan as required;

(k) prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan for submission to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any permit, and implement the Plan as required; and

(l) 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; and

(4) the owner of the lands enters into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required to be provided by subsection (3) and such agreement or agreements have been appropriately registered against the title to the lands."

(Map to be attached)

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, as amended,

respecting 866 Avenue Road.

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of a municipality may in a By-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in the height or density of development beyond those otherwise permitted by the by-law in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matters as are set out in the by-law;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that, where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in height and density of development, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facilities, services or matters;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increases in the density or height permitted hereunder, beyond those otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by By-law No. 438-86, as amended, are to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law and are to be secured by one or more agreements between the owner of such lands and the City of Toronto;

AND WHEREAS Council has required the owner of the aforesaid lands to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increases in height and density in connection with the aforesaid lands as permitted in this By-law.

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. Section 12(1) of By-law No. 436-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other mattes relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by adding the following exception:

"443. to prevent the erection and use of a combined gas bar and retail store on the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on the map following this exception, provided that:

(i) the lot on which the building and canopy structure is located comprises at least those lands delineated by heavy lines on the map following this exception;

(ii) no portion of any building or canopy structure above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the "BUILDING ENVELOPE" as shown on the map following this exception;

(iii) no portion of the building or canopy structure erected or used on the lot is located above the height limits above grade shown on the map following this exception;

(iv) the non-residential gross floor area of the combined gas bar and retail store does not exceed 145 square metres;

(v) 6 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot;

(vi) the owner of the lot shall, at its expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in clause (m) below:

(a) close and keep closed the gas bar and retail store between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. every day of the year;

(b) provide fuel deliveries only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.;

(c) turn-off and keep turned-off the lights on the underside of the canopy between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. every day of the year and to achieve this by means of an automatic device;

(d) provide and maintain an air compressor and hose on the premises, suitable for use by cyclists, to be available without charge everyday between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.;

(e) construct the gas bar and retail store using materials specified on the plans approved pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(f) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g) provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services;

(h) conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could have resulted in negative environmental effects for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any permit;

(i) conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on the site and in existing buildings for submission to the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services and review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any permit;

(j) conduct a soil and groundwater testing program, produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan for submission to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any permit, and implement the Plan as required;

(k) prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan for submission to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any permit, and implement the Plan as required;

(l) 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; and

(m) enter into one or more agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure all the facilities, services and matters referred to in paragraph (vi) herein, and such agreement or agreements are appropriately registered against the title to the lands; and

(vii) with the exception of section 6(3) Part II 4 and section 6(3) Part II 3G, all other provisions of this by-law are complied with.

For the purposes of this exception:

(1) "grade" shall mean 154.875 metres Canadian Geodetic Datum; and

(2) for the avoidance of doubt, "restaurant" or "take-out restaurant" uses shall not be permitted on the lot."

(Plans to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (August 25, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations for the approval of Application 198006 to permit the redevelopment of an automobile service station to a combined gas bar and retail store.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to amend the former City of Toronto's Official Plan to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18.__ Lands known as 866 Avenue Road

See Map 18.__ at the end of this Section

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws respecting the "lot" shown on Map ____ and known in the year 1999 as 866 Avenue Road to permit a combined "gas bar" and "retail store" provided that:

(a) the "non-residential gross floor area" of the combined "gas bar" and "retail store" does not exceed 145 m2;

(b) the building does not include a "restaurant" or "take-out restaurant";

(c) the owner is required by by-law, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to:

(i) close and to keep closed the "gas bar" and "retail store" between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. every day of the year;

(ii) provide fuel deliveries only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.;

(iii) turn-off and to keep turned-off the lights on the underside of the canopy between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. every day of the year and that this be achieved by means of an automatic device;

(iv) provide, and maintain an air compressor and hose on the premises, suitable for use by cyclists, to be available without charge during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. every day;

(v) construct the "gas bar" and "retail store" using the materials specified on the plans approved pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(vi) provide and undertake those matters set out in Recommendations 3 F and 3 G of this report.

(d) the owner enters into one or more agreements to secure the facilities, services and matters required under subsection (c) above, and the agreement is registered on title to the lands shown on Map ___.

2. the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft By-law to amend the Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) as it affects the site at 866 Avenue Road shown on Map 1 attached to this report, so as to:

(a) add a provision to Section 12(1) (Permissive Exceptions) so as to permit the erection and use of a combined "gas bar" and "retail store" provided that;

(i) the "lot" on which such building is to be erected comprises at least the lands shown delineated by heavy lines on Map 1, attached to this report;

(ii) no part of the building or canopy structure above "grade" extends beyond the limit to be defined in the by-law substantially in accordance with Map 1, attached to this report;

(iii) the "height" of the building and canopy structure does not exceed the heights above "grade" of 4.40 metres and 5.50 metres respectively;

(iv) the "non-residential gross floor area" of the combined "retail store" and "gas bar" does not exceed 145 m2;

(v) a minimum and maximum of six (6) "parking spaces" are maintained on-site; and

(vi) with the exception of Section 6(3) PART II 4 and Section 6(3) PART II 3 G, all other provisions of this by-law are complied with.

For the purpose of this exemption:

(i) "grade" shall mean 154.875 metres Canadian Geodetic Datum

(ii) for the avoidance of doubt, "restaurant" or "take out restaurant" uses shall not be permitted.

3. City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely Plans A1.0, A2.0, A3.0, A3.1, date stamped as received on June 25, 1999, prepared by Sterling Finlayson Architects, as redlined on August 26, 1999 and September 14, 1999, and Plan A2.1, date stamped as received on June 25, 1999, prepared by Sterling Finlayson Architects and "Proposed Landscape Plan" and "Proposed Landscape Construction Details", date stamped as received on June 25, 1999 prepared by DWK Douglas W. Kerr and Associates Ltd., as redlined on August 26, 1999, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

4. As a condition of City Council approval, the owner enter an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act requiring that:

A. Develop and Maintain Substantially in Accordance with Plans

(i) the proposed development, including all landscaping related thereto, shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the plans referred to above;

B. Garbage

(i) the owner shall provide and maintain private refuse collection services for this project;

C. Parking and Access

(i) the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 6 parking spaces on site;

(ii) the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum access driveway width of 9.0 metres for two-way traffic operations to accommodate the inbound and outbound tanker trucks;

(iii) the owner shall eliminate the existing Avenue Road curb cuts and restore the street allowance to City of Toronto standards, at no cost to the City;

D. Landscaping

(i) the owner shall submit on application for improvement to the public sidewalk/boulevard generally as shown on above referenced "Proposed Landscape Plan" to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and carry out the improvements within a reasonable period of time or at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services make a cash contribution to the City equal to the value of the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part of a comprehensive program;

(ii) the owner shall, prior to the issuance of any at or above grade building permit for the lands at 866 Avenue Road, pay to the City, by certified cheque $14,182.67 to cover the cost of removal of City-owned trees;

E. Reference Plan of Survey and Dimensioned Plans

(i) the owner shall submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(a) A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate system, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto;

(b) Final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building and the canopy structure over the gasoline pumps to enable the preparation of building envelope plans;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

F. Transformer Vaults

(i) the owner shall 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;

G. Studies Required by Civic Officials

(i) the owner shall submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(ii) the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(iii) the owner shall submit to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with Council's requirements prior to the introduction of a bill in Council;

(iv) the owner shall have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Noise Impact Statement;

(v) the owner shall 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 Planning and Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit;

(vi) the owner shall 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 Planning and Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit;

(vii) 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 Planning and Development Services, for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit;

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

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

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

5. That the owner be advised:

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

(b) that the Avenue Road and Chaplin Crescent boulevards must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) of the need to obtain building location access and streetscape permits from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to construction of this project;

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

(e) that 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; and

(f) that the above approval of plans does not include the approval of the signage shown on these plans. Signage is regulated under Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto. The owner is advised to make application for a Preliminary Zoning Review and, if required, a Sign Variance application.

Comments:

1. The Site and Proposal

This site, at the south-west corner of Avenue Road and Chaplin Crescent, borders the Belt Line Park and Forest Hill Road Park on the south, and is adjacent to detached dwelling houses to the west, north and north-east. A 'Petro Canada' gas bar to the east at 861 Avenue Road also exists as a legal non-conforming use within this residential area (Map No. 1). Avenue Road is a major arterial road with high traffic volumes and Chaplin Crescent functions as a collector, although both roads are almost entirely residential in character south of Eglinton Avenue West.

An auto service station has been established at this location for many years, and the present building, which is distinguished by fieldstone facing, was constructed about 1962 and expanded pursuant to a favourable Committee of Adjustment decision in 1989.

The proposal is to demolish the existing service station building and construct a self-serve gas bar and convenience store/station attendant building. New pump islands, fuel storage tanks and a canopy structure will be constructed. Access driveways would be modified to use only the existing southern driveway on Avenue Road and the existing driveway on Chaplin Crescent. Six parking spaces are proposed, one of which will be for handicapped persons. The plan includes new landscaping, fencing and a walkway connection to the adjacent Belt Line Park.

New signage, both freestanding and attached to the store and canopy, is proposed and will be considered through a separate application process.

2. Applicable Planning Controls

The site is designated as a Low Density Residence Area in both the Official Plan and the Yonge-Eglinton Part II Plan. It is located within an R2 (residential) zone district. The service station exists as a legal non-conforming use. The Planning Act recognizes legal non-conforming uses and permits their continued operation indefinitely, but sets close limits and conditions on changes or expansion. City planning policy on legal non-conforming uses is discussed in Section 6 below.

The Zoning By-law (of the former City of Toronto 438-86) as it deals with 'automobile service stations' and 'gas bars' has been reviewed (Proposals Report - Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars, November 2, 1998) and amended so that these two classifications are combined and generally permitted within mixed-use and industrial districts conditional upon new site planning and sign control measures.

3. Reasons for the Application

The development of a gas bar / convenience store is a change of greater magnitude than what may be considered routine extensions to a legal non-conforming use as typically come before the Committee of Adjustment. The application requests that the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw be amended to permanently recognize a gas bar / convenience store use.

4. The Application Context

The form and pattern of gasoline retailing in Toronto, or elsewhere, has changed considerably from the traditional 'automobile service station' over the past couple of decades. This period has seen the advent of self serve gas bars, the addition of alternate fuels such as propane and compressed natural gas, and within the area of the former City of Toronto, a large net reduction in the number of gasoline retailing facilities, many of which have now been redeveloped for other purposes. More recently, gas retailing has been integrated with convenience store or fast-food retailing, and automotive repair and servicing functions have been abandoned by the gasoline distributors or become the business of specialist facilities elsewhere. The major oil companies are now modernizing many of the remaining outlets, and several similar applications for this purpose are currently before the City.

Approval of this application would mean a change to the land use elements of the Official Plan as the proposed use is not permitted within Residence Areas, and Section 16.23 states that in the long run, non-conforming uses should cease to exist, so that the land affected may revert to a use conforming to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Here, that would be low density residential buildings or other 'R2' district uses such as community facilities.

The Plan also has policies on process in those circumstances where amendments to recognize the legal non-conforming use are considered. Before Council concurs with any extension or enlargement, the Plan provides that it must first consider the feasibility of acquiring the site for permitted redevelopment, and then evaluate the proposal against the various requirements set out in Section 16.26. Discussions with the applicant indicate that it is not their intention to sell the site or to redevelop it for residential purposes and this application expresses their intention to update the facilities so as to continue gasoline retailing at this location.

5. Land Use Issues

This application raises two basic questions of land use policy. One is whether any commercial use should continue, or whether the site should now revert to residential uses. Reversions of legal non-conforming uses, as contemplated by the Official Plan, have frequently occurred over the years, but in most cases do so at the initiative of the owner, sometimes with City support in the form of planning approvals to facilitate redevelopment. The processes for the City to accomplish this without the cooperation of the owner is expropriation, which is expensive and time-consuming, and which has been only very rarely employed, mainly for cases of noxious industrial uses within residential areas.

The second land use question is whether the addition of a convenience store is appropriate in the circumstances.

Recent amendment (By-law 218-99) to the Zoning By-law eliminates one original zoning issue, which is the conversion of an automobile service station to a gas bar. The By-law no longer distinguishes between the two types of facilities.

The approach to this application has accepted the historic pattern of land use and investigated how planning concerns for a gas retailing facility in these somewhat unique circumstances might be addressed in terms of site planning techniques or restrictions, and to carry out the process directed by the Official Plan where a legal non-conformity is to be extended or enlarged. To this end the applicant has withdrawn the initial proposal and resubmitted one which endeavours an improved response to the character of the surrounding residential and parks area. This latter proposal has been further refined as a result of technical review and comment from the community.

It is not possible to precisely predict the impact of the retail store, but I expect it to be a relatively minor element of the operation because the small size of the store / service building, which assigns about 65m2 to actual retail sales operations, would seem self-limiting. Recommendations 1 and 2 above would restrict the store building to this size, and specify that restaurant or take-out restaurant uses, which by definition include the cooking, preparation and sale of meals, are not permitted

6. Synopsis of Official Plan Policy on Legal Non-conforming Uses

Section 16.23 'Future of Non-Conforming Uses' states that in general, legal non-conforming uses should, in the long run, cease to exist but recognizes exceptions will be made.

Section 16.24 'By-laws to Permit Expansion of Non-Conforming Use' is a provision to allow, by way of rezoning, expansion of legal non-conforming uses (without amendment to the Official Plan) providing various performance requirements of Section 16.26 are met. While I believe the current application could reasonably be described as meeting those performance requirements, the introduction of a retail store is not, in my opinion, an 'extension or enlargement' of the auto service station, and this application has been made and considered as one to amend the Official Plan, as well as the Zoning By-law.

Section 16.25 requires that Council consider the feasibility of acquiring the application site, and redeveloping it in accordance with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, or reselling it for that purpose. (As-of-right development at this location is most types of residential buildings, or community service uses such as parks.) This rarely used authority is, I believe, directed to noxious industrial non-conforming situations. Most City initiated property acquisition occurs in the context of a comprehensive Community Improvement Plan. The applicant states the property is not for sale, cites their long ownership of it, and has expressed their intentions to continue gasoline retailing at this location on whatever basis may be available for the foreseeable future. It should be noted that the auto service station, as a legal non-conformity, could legally continue operation indefinitely. I conclude that City acquisition of 866 Avenue Road does not appear to be feasible and the special merits of this case, which are the long established history of gasoline retailing here, and the potential improvements to the site plan available in a redevelopment scenario, make a permission to continue the operation a reasonable compromise with the general residential land use policy of the Official Plan which applies to the larger district.

Section 16.26 "Requirements to Protect Public Interest" lists various matters which would be considered in any site plan appraisal where land use compatibility is of concern, and these factors have guided my assessment of the proposal as reviewed below.

7. Site Planning Issues, Objectives and Outcomes

This application now represents many specific improvements in site planning standards, compared to the existing automobile service station: These are:

Massing and Built Form:

The replacement building is smaller, lower and sited on the least obtrusive portion of the site. The elevation facing the park is more attractive. It no longer houses mechanical service activities.

Canopy:

The gas bar canopy has been custom designed to this installation to minimize its visual impact with minimum height, indirect area lighting and minimal signage and perimeter lighting. Lights on the underside of the canopy will be required to be turned off when the gas bar is closed.

Building Materials:

A significant element of the proposal as revised is the re use of flagstone facings on the new building and this is secured with a specific condition in the recommended Section 37 agreement.

Signage and Lighting:

Signage has been reduced and consolidated and, as previously noted, will be the subject of a Minor Variance application respecting the Sign By-law. Lighting design will conform to recently developed Guidelines for Gas Bars as adopted by City Council.

Traffic and Parking:

Traffic circulation on-site is better focussed with reduced access drives, and sufficient parking facilities are supplied.

Pedestrian Facilities:

Reduced curb cuts and the creation of internal walkways clarify circulation and improve pedestrian safety.

Soil and Groundwater:

As a gas station, this site has the potential for soil or groundwater contamination. Soil and ground water management plans have been submitted for civic review and approval.

Boundary Issues:

The site relationship with the adjacent house at 145 Chaplin Crescent is improved with new landscaped buffer strip and fencing. Site relationship with the Belt Line and Forest Hill Road Parks is improved with all elements of the site plan but specifically direct pedestrian connection, and tree replacements.

Landscaping:

This proposal is supported by a detailed landscaping plan which provides a high standard of new landscaping on-site where there has been none.

There are also 'off-site' landscaping improvements which are recommended for Council approval, and payment by the applicant for removal and replacement of twenty City owned trees adjacent to the development site. The Belt Line Park area would be used for replacement of City trees now on the southern property boundary. An application to remove City trees has been filed by the applicant and the Ward Councillor's notified, in accordance with City Council's streamlined review process.

Hours of Operation:

One of the most frequently raised concerns of area residents had to do with the hours of operation of the proposed development. Specifically, residents are opposed to late night and early morning operations which, in any event, are prohibited by Chapter 199, Article I of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto. While the hours of operation being recommended for the proposed establishment (6 a.m. to 11 p.m.) are less restrictive than those set out in the Municipal Code they are considered appropriate because (a) they generally address the concerns of area residents, (b) they also apply to the proposed retail store whereas retail hours are not otherwise regulated, (c) they recognize that Subsection 199-4 of the Code permits site specific exemptions, and (d) the existing regulations, which apply only to the former City of Toronto, may be amended or deleted as part of the process of harmonization associated with amalgamation.

The applicant has been advised that the recommended hours of operation are to pertain to this site and this circumstance only and should not prejudice the hours of operation for gas bars anywhere else in the City.

Compressed Air Service:

The applicant has volunteered free access to an air compressor as part of the service facilities on site. I think this is a meaningful amenity to the numerous cyclists using the Belt Line trail and will be secured by agreement.

Conformity with new Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Bars and Auto Service Stations:

During the course of this application, Council adopted design guidelines for gas bars, and amendments to the Municipal Code 220-99 which now require Site Plan Approval for all new gas bars and auto service stations. This proposal is consistent with these guidelines.

8. Community Discussion

This application has been the subject of interest in the community and staff have received considerable comment and correspondence from individuals, and local associations. Many viewpoints have been expressed, which include opposition to the continuation of commercial uses, or which question the need for a retail store, or the loss of automobile repair facilities. The majority of comments made, however, were in respect to the design and operation of the proposed facility. A public meeting was held in the community on February 26, 1999, notice having been provided in the customary matter to residents and landowners within 300 m of the site.

Many of the specific recommended conditions of approval respecting the design of the station, the prohibition of restaurant and take-out uses, and the controlled hours of operation were imposed in response to concerns raised.

Conclusions:

An auto service station has been established at 866 Avenue Road for many years as a legal non-conforming use. The owners of the property have no desire to sell the property or to redevelop it in accordance with the existing residential zoning and the continued use of the existing facility could go on indefinitely. City acquisition of the property does not appear to be warranted as the existing use is neither dangerous nor noxious.

Given the status of the existing development and the potential improvements to the site plan inherent in the proposed redevelopment I am recommending approval of the proposed gas bar and retail store. The approval would constitute a specific exception to the general residential designation with controls on the design and operation of the gas bar and retail store.

Contact Name:

Raymond David

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone 392-7188

Fax 392-1330

E-mail rdavid@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval: N Application Number: 198006
Rezoning: Y Application Date: April 29, 1998
O. P. A.: Y Date of Revision: November 18, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address: 866 Avenue Road

Nearest Intersection: South-west corner of Avenue Road and Chaplin Cr.
Project Description: Build a retail store and gas bar.
Applicant:

Imperial Oil

6 - 2400 Dundas St. W., Mississauga

Agent:

The Butler Group (Consultants) Inc.

300 - 11 Hazelton Ave.

926-8796

Architect:

Sterling Finlayson Architects

1491 Dupont Street

532-3377

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: LDRA Site Specific Provision: No
Zoning District: R2 Z0.6 Historical Status: No
Height Limit (m): 9.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area: 1416.6 m2 Height: Storeys: 1
Frontage: 48.7 m Metres: 4.00
Depth: Irregular m
Indoor Outdoor
Ground Floor: 147.2 m2 Parking Spaces: 4
Residential GFA: Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA: 147.2 m2 (number, type)
Total GFA: 147.2 m2
Floor Area Breakdown
Land Use Above Grade Below Grade
Retail 147.2 m2
Proposed Density
Residential Density: Non-Residential Density: 0.10 Total Density: 0.10
Comments
Status: Application received.
Data valid: November 23, 1998 Section: CP South District Phone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1. Urban Planning and Development Services (Buildings), dated August 26, 1999.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Build retail store and gas bar.

Zoning Designation: R2 Z0.6 Map: 50K-322

Applicable By-law(s): , as amended

Plans prepared by: Sterling Finlayson Architects Plans dated: June 25, 1999

Gross Floor Area (GFA):

Non-Residential GFA:

Zoning Review

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

1. The proposed use, (retail store and gas bar), is not permitted in a district zoned (R2). (Section 6(1)(a))

2. The by-law requires the building to have a minimum side lot line setback of 7.5 metres. The proposed side lot line setback is (3.0) metres on the (west) side.(Section 6(3) PART II G)

3. The by-law requires a building to have a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The proposed rear yard setback is (0) metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 4)

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

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

2. The proposal DOES NOT require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3. The 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, dated May 13, 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 Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(c) Provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(d) If registered agreements are to be entered into, the owner be required to submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate system, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto;

(ii) Final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building and the canopy structure over the gasoline pumps to enable the preparation of building envelope plans;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 6 parking spaces on site;

(f) Provide and maintain a minimum access driveway width of 9.0 metres for two-way traffic operations to accommodate the inbound and outbound tanker trucks;

(g) Eliminate the existing Avenue Road curb cuts and restore the street allowance to City of Toronto standards, at no cost to the City;

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

2. That the owner be advised:

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

(b) That the Avenue Road and Chaplin Crescent boulevards must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of Works and Emergency Services;

(c) Of the need to obtain building location access and streetscape permits from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to construction of this project; and

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

Comments:

Location

South-west corner of Avenue Road and Chaplin Crescent.

Proposal

Removal of the existing service station on the site and construction of a gas bar and a 134 square metre convenience retail store.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated February 22, 1999. The above recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report including the recommendation requiring the submission of a fuel delivery plan, which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The provision of 6 parking spaces, in addition to the parking areas located adjacent to the gasoline pumps, satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the project for 2 spaces, whereas, the Zoning By-law, as far as can be ascertained, does not specify a parking requirement for the proposed uses. The proposed number, dimensions and configuration of the parking spaces are acceptable.

Access to the site is proposed via two 9.0 metre wide driveways: one off of Chaplin Crescent and one off of Avenue Road. The access off of Chaplin Crescent is located in close proximity to the Chaplin Crescent/Avenue Road intersection which is controlled by traffic signals. It was indicated in the previous report that this access could result in operational problems and that consideration would be given to restricting this driveway to right-in/right-out movements only. In this regard, Mr. Arv Sestokas, Manager, Real Estate Development of Imperial Oil Limited has submitted a letter dated March 4, 1999 to this Department, outlining both the current and proposed fuel delivery plan in accordance with Recommendation No. 1(g) of the Departmental report dated February 22, 1999. Imperial Oil advises that tanker trucks have delivered fuel to this site for the past 40 years by traveling southbound on Avenue Road, entering the site via the existing Chaplin Crescent access and upon completion of the delivery, exiting the site via an existing access on Avenue Road, then proceeding northbound. Fuel deliveries are made once or twice a week, Monday to Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

The restriction to turns at the Chaplin Crescent access to right-in/right-out movements only would require fuel delivery trucks to back out onto Avenue road to exit the site, or alternatively, approach the site from the west through the residential neighbourhood. In either case, this is problematic. Given the frequency of fuel deliveries and that access at this location has operated for 40 years with no apparent operational problems, the proposed access configuration is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

This project is not eligible for City refuse collection and, as a result the owner must secure the services of a private refuse collection firm.

Material Recovery and Waste Reduction

The owner is required to submit a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan which will include:

(a) A description of the waste composition which shall be generated by the development and the expected quantity of each category of waste material;

(b) A description of the policies, programmes, processes and equipment which will be put in place to carry out material recovery and waste reduction;

(c) The provision of space required to store and/or process recovered materials; and

(d) Separate accommodation for the recovery, safe storage and disposal of hazardous waste, if any.

The owner is advised that staff of the Operations and Sanitation Division (telephone no. 392-1040) will assist in the format and content requirements in the preparation of the plan.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

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

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

Work Within the Road Allowance

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received from this Department. Please note that curb returns are not permitted at driveway entrances; concrete sidewalks are to be extended across driveways.

Permits

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

3. Public Health, dated August 26, 1998.

Thank you for your request of May 14, 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 of a gas bar and convenience store at the above referenced site which is currently occupied by an automobile service station that will be demolished in order to accommodate the new development. A review of the files available to us indicate that site was occupied by Forest Hill Esso (gasoline service station, SIC CODE 6331, 1992). 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. Economic Development Services (Parks and Recreation), dated August 25, 1999.

The applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a convenience store and a gas bar. As part of the redevelopment, the applicant proposes to provide a pedestrian connection from the site to the Beltline Park through the installation of a wood access ramp and gate feature. From an operational perspective, the establishment of a pedestrian connection to the Beltline Park at this location is not desirable given that access to the beltline is currently being provided from Avenue Road. I am also concerned about the potential interference of the proposed access ramp on cyclists and pedestrians using the trail and the long-term maintenance issues.

Accordingly, my approval of Landscape Plan No.55A0252-06P date-stamped received June 25, 1999 is contingent upon the deletion of the proposed wood access ramp and the continuation of planting treatment along the Beltline Park across this location.

July 22, 1999

This will acknowledge the revised Landscape plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on July 8, 1999. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advised that:

- A written request to remove twenty City-owned tree(s) was filed by the applicant and received by Urban Forestry Services on May 17, 1999. If City Council approves the request to remove the tree(s) in question, the applicant will be responsible for covering the monetary value of the tree(s), removal costs and replacement costs which comes to a total of $14,182.67.

- I advise that the Proposed Landscape Plan, Drawing No. 55A00252-06P, prepared by Dougals W. Kerr & Associates, Ltd., date stamped as received on June 25, 1999 by Urban Planning and Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services is acceptable at this time conditional upon the above requirements being fulfilled.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof has been submitted to Council under separate cover:

- (August 24, 1999) from Dr. Peter K. Lewin;

- (August 29, 1999) from Mrs. Thelma Strasser;

- (September 3, 1999) from Tania H. Watts;

- (September 9, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert G. Small; and

- (Undated) from Mrs. Andrée Vogel

Insert Table/Map No. 1

866 Avenue Road

Insert Table/Map No. 2

866 Avenue Road

Insert Table/Map No. 3

866 Avenue Road

Insert Table/Map No. 4

866 Avenue Road

Insert Table/Map No. 5

866 Avenue Road

Insert Table/Map No. 6

866 Avenue Road

Insert Table/Map No. 7

866 Avenue Road

Insert Table/Map No. 8

866 Avenue Road

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (September 21, 1999) from the City Clerk:

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

- (August 24, 1999) from Dr. Peter K. Lewin;

- (August 29, 1999) from Mrs. Thelma Strasser;

- (September 3, 1999) from Tania H. Watts;

- (September 9, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert G. Small; and

- (Undated) from Mrs. Andrée Vogel.)

(A copy of the submissions referred to in the foregoing communication is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

92

Draft Zoning By-law -

103 West Lodge Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council not approve the draft by-law appended to the report (April 13, 1999) from the City Solicitor;

(2) the Director, Municipal Standards and Licensing be requested to withhold approval of any remaining outstanding orders until the meeting with Parkdale Community Legal Services and representatives of the West Lodge Tenants' Association occurs, and issues resolved (as requested by the Toronto Community Council), provided that such meeting is held on an expedited basis; and

(3) the Director, Municipal Standards and Licensing and the Deputy Chief Building Official ensure that work orders are in 100% compliance before they are cleared.

Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2) were carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas - Councillors McConnell, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Fotinos, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller, Silva and Walker - 10

Recommendation No. (3) was carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas - Councillors McConnell, Chow, Fotinos, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller, Rae and Walker - 8

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

(1) invited the Director of Parkdale Community Legal Services and representatives of the West Lodge Tenants' Association to meet with the Deputy Chief Building Official and the Director, Municipal Standards and Licensing to review all building standard and building code issues that are of concern to the tenants and their representatives;

(2) advised the Planning and Transportation Committee that it:

(a) endorses the recommendations for a Tenant Defense Fund presented to the Planning and Transportation Committee, at its meeting held on September 13, 1999;

(b) supports the recommendations of the Sub-Committee to Restore Rent Control, including its request for a meeting with the Honourable Steven Gilchrist, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and

(3) referred the following communications to the Deputy Chief Building Official, the Director, Municipal Standards and Licensing and the City Solicitor:

- (September 14, 1999) from Mr. Marko Lavrisa;

- (September 12, 1999) from Mr. Vilko Zbogar; and

- (September 14, 1999) from Dr. Harpreet Singh Chaggar

The motion to advise the Planning and Transportation Committee was carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas - Councillors McConnell, Chow, Fotinos, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller, Rae and Walker - 8

The motions to request the meeting with the Director of Parkdale Community Legal Services and representatives of the West Lodge Tenants' Association, and to refer the communications were carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas - Councillors McConnell, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Fotinos, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller, Silva and Walker - 10

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on May 26, 1999 and September 14, 1999, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

On May 26, 1999:

- Mr. Vilko Zbogar, Parkdale Community Legal Services;

- Mr. Bart Poesiat, Common Front in Defense of Poor Neighbourhoods;

- Mr. Bob Levitt, Parkdale Tenants' Association;

- Dr. Harpreet Chaggar;

- Mr. Suk Tumsee;

- Mr. A. Lynch;

- Ms. Anna Thaker, Westlodge Tenant Association;

- Mr. David Drake, EMC Group Ltd.;

- Ms. Daramdeo Sukdeo; and

- Mr. Paul Wynn.

On September 14, 1999:

- Mr. Paul Wynn, Trustee;

- Mr. Jeff Wynn, Property Manager;

- Mr. Bart Poesiat, Parkdale Community Legal Services;

- Mr. Vilko Zbogar, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Shirley Woods, West Lodge Tenants' Association;

- Ms. Marian MacGregor, Parkdale Community Legal Services;

- Ms. Anna C. Thaker, Parkdale Tenants' Association;

- Ms. Sookranie Lucknaut, Toronto, Ontario;

- Dr. Harpreet Chaggar, Audiologist;

- Mr. Chris Wilsack, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. John Connor, West Lodge Tenants' Association;

- Ms. Desiree Rose, Jameson Tenant Association;

- Mr. Jeff Phillips, Phillips Consultant;

- Ms. Kham Nguyen, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Marko Lavrisa, Levitt-Goodman Architect Association;

- Ms. Thu Nguyen, Statistics Canada;

- Ms. Evelyn Simpson, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Ngoc Le, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Peter Romanov, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Karuna Karan, Toronto, Ontario.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 13, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Zoning By-law amendment to allow for a reduction in required parking for the apartment complex located at 103 West Lodge Avenue to a minimum of 401 spaces, 31 of which may be located offsite at 105 Lansdowne Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

(2) subject to receipt of a signed Undertaking as set out in Recommendation 3 of the report (May 7, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, that the Draft By-law attached to the report (April 13, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council will have before it the Final Report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (May 7, 1999) at its meeting to be held on May 26, 1999 concerning the above noted subject. The Commissioner's report recommends, inter alia, that a Draft By-law be prepared by the City Solicitor to allow for a reduction in required parking for the apartment complex. The owner of the site is required to enter into an Undertaking together with appropriate security dealing with those matters set out in Recommendation 3 of the report (May 7, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services prior to the by-law being passed by Council.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7225

Fax: (416) 392-0024

E-mail: rbalfour@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

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

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend Zoning By-law Nos. 22037 and 438-86 for the former City of Toronto

with respect to lands known as 103 West Lodge Avenue.

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

1. None of the provisions of Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of By-law No. 22037, being "A By-law To amend By-law No. 20623 respecting certain lands abutting West Lodge and O'Hara Avenues, Cunningham Street and the Right-of-Way of the Canadian Pacific Railway" or of Sections 2(1) - definition of "parking station" as it pertains to accessory use, 4(4)(b), 6(2), 21(i) as it pertains to landscaping, (iv), (v) and (vi), and 6(3) Part III 1(b) of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the use of the building existing in the year 1998 located at 103 West Lodge Avenue provided:

(1) the lot municipally known in the year 1998 as 103 West Lodge Avenue consists of at least those lands shown within the heavy lines on Plan 1 attached hereto;

(2) landscaped open space is provided and maintained to the extent of at least 58 per cent of the lot area;

(3) a minimum of 401 parking spaces are provided and maintained for the exclusive use of residents of and visitors to the residential building of which:

(i) not less than 365 parking spaces are located within the existing parking garage on the lot;

(ii) 36 parking spaces are designated for visitors to the residential building, of which 31 parking spaces may be provided in a parking station located on the lands municipally known in the year 1998 as 105 Lansdowne Avenue;

(iii) 3 parking spaces designated for the handicapped are located within 30 metres of an accessible entrance and 1 parking space designated for the handicapped is located within 45 metres of an accessible entrance; and

(4) 2 loading spaces - type G are provided and maintained to serve the residential building on the lot each with generally level surfaces and a concrete base pad with capacity to store not less than 12 compactor containers and with access designed to permit vehicles to enter and exit the lot in a forward motion.

2. For the purpose of this by-law, each italicized word or expression, unless otherwise provided herein, shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression as defined in By-law 438-86, as amended.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of a reduction in the parking requirement for an apartment complex at 103-105 West Lodge Avenue (near the intersection of Queen and Dufferin Streets) to a minimum of 401 spaces, of which 365 will be located in the existing parking garage, 5 in surface courtyard spaces and 31 spaces off-site at 105 Lansdowne Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. Zoning By-law 438-86 as amended, and Site Specific By-law 22037 be amended as necessary so as to:

a) exempt 103-105 West Lodge Avenue from Zoning By-law 438-86 Section 4(4)(b) (number of required parking spaces) and Site Specific By-law 22037, Section 1(4) (amount of rooftop landscaping required), Section 1(5) (location of parking within the garage structure) provided that:

(i) a minimum of 401 parking spaces are provided and maintained and of these, at least 365 parking spaces are located within the garage;

(ii) 36 parking spaces are designated for visitors only, of which 31 spaces can be provided off-site at 105 Lansdowne Avenue;

(iii) 3 handicapped parking spaces are located within 30m of an accessible entrance and 1 handicapped parking space is located within 45m of an accessible entrance;

(iv) 1 Type G loading space is provided and maintained at 103-105 West Lodge Avenue to serve each building on the site, with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion; and

(v) a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of each Type G loading space for the storage of at least 12 compactor containers on collection day is provided and maintained.

2. To permit the use of 105 Lansdowne Avenue for a parking station by exempting it from the definition of parking station from Zoning By-law 438-86, Section 2(1) (parking station).

3. That prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council, the owner undertakes to:

Provide, maintain and operate the safety plan measures and facilities as stipulated in the letter dated January 7, 1999, and plans dated December 1, 1998, with redlined revisions dated February 1, 1999, all prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan, all such matters to be secured by a Letter of Credit.

4. That the owner be advised that:

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

Comments:

1. The Site

The site is located north of Queen Street and west of Dufferin Street, at the end of West Lodge Avenue. It abuts the CN rail corridor. It contains a 717 unit, 2 tower apartment complex with a 4-storey parking garage. To the west of the site are low density residential dwellings.

2. The Proposal

The applicant originally proposed to demolish the existing parking garage and relocate the parking at-grade in the same area. The existing landscaped open space was also proposed to be used for parking which would have resulted in a significant reduction in landscaped open space.

This application proposes that the parking requirement be reduced to 423 spaces from the required 698 parking spaces. These spaces will be accommodated within the 4 storey parking garage which will be repaired. The unused portion of the third floor, the entire fourth, basement and sub-basement levels will be blocked off using barricades.

The landscaped open space would remain the same, with additional landscaping material provided. Additional parking spaces would consist of 5 surface courtyard spaces and 31 spaces off-site at 105 Lansdowne Avenue.

2. Current Official Plan and Zoning Designations

The site is designated Low Density Residence Area in the Part I Official Plan. An Official Plan Amendment is not necessary to permit the proposed changes.

By-law 438-86, as amended, zones this site R2 Z2.0. In addition, there is a Site Specific By-law 22037 passed in 1964 that gives permission for the existing building. This by-law requires 698 parking spaces to be contained in the multi-level parking structure attached to the apartment building next to the adjacent rail corridor. The by-law also requires that 58 percent of the lot be landscaped open space.

3. Consultation Process

There were two public meetings held on this application on March 12, 1998, and May 20, 1998. Approximately 20 residents attended both meetings. At the request of the residents, the minutes from these meetings have been included in Appendix 'C'.

4. Planning Issues

The following issues were raised at the public meetings and/or in the Preliminary Report:

i) Number of Parking Spaces

This application seeks to reduce the number of parking spaces to be provided to reflect the actual parking demand generated by this project. Currently, there are 79 on-street permit parking spaces allocated to residents of this project. A Parking Assessment report, based on statistical information and comparisons to similar buildings in different parts of the City, was provided by the applicant, and reviewed by Department of Works and Emergency Services staff. This report and additional documentation indicates that a minimum of 401 parking spaces will meet the current needs. This figure factors in the permit parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 423 spaces which is more than required to meet the minimum requirement, but less than the current by-law standard. This is acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

ii) Location of Parking

The parking garage is currently being repaired and, following completion of this work, it will continue to provide the majority of parking spaces. Wth the exception of the below grade spaces, the entire garage is being renovated. It is intended that the unused portions be barricaded in order to better monitor the use of the facilities. This is acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The remainder of the parking supply consists of 5 parking spaces located at-grade in the courtyard, and 31 parking spaces to be provided off-site at 105 Lansdowne Avenue.

Residents raised the concern that at some future date, this number of parking spaces might be insufficient. Should there be a substantial increase in the number of spaces required, the applicant is able to increase the parking provision by relocating the barriers.

iii) Safety of the Garage

A safety plan for the garage was included in the improvements required in the refurbishing of the parking garage structure. Safety measures that will be incorporated include: cameras, panic buttons, lighting and signage. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has approved the safety plan measures and facilities.

The applicant has agreed to provide a letter of credit prior to the introduction of the Bill in Council in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the safety plan measures.

iv) Permit Parking Spaces

There are currently 79 permit parking spaces for on-street parking issued to tenants of these buildings. These were allocated to the tenants on the basis that the garage was not safe. At the public meeting, staff were asked for assurances that when the garage is completed, existing street parking permits would be revoked and no more would be issued. However, City staff do not have the authority to do this as they must respond to requests for permit parking, particularly if they are based on a safety concern. Any change to this policy would have to be approved by Council.

v) Phasing of the Use of the Garage

The applicant has submitted a report on the phasing of the use of the garage and the outside at-grade spaces as the repairs are completed and the parking levels are made available. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has approved these recommendations.

vi) Cunningham Street Fence

Residents expressed concerns that the fence between the site and Cunningham Street was in disrepair. The applicant has agreed to repair and maintain the fence. It will be left shut except when required for access.

vii) Garbage Enclosure Bins

Concerns were raised that the existing garbage disposal system was poorly maintained. As a result, it is my understanding that the garbage enclosure area has been screened by cedar hedges.

Contact Name:

Helen Coombs

Telephone: (416) 392-7613

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: hcoombs@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval: Y Application Number: 197024
Rezoning: Y Application Date: September 16, 1997
O. P. A.: N Date of Revision: August 10, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address: 103 and 105 West Lodge Ave.

Nearest Intersection: East of Lansdowne Ave., south of Dundas St. W.
Project Description: Replace existing parking structure with at-grade parking.
Applicant:

EC. Group Ltd.

200 - 7577 Keele St., Concord.

738-3939

Agent:

EC. Group Ltd.

200 - 7577 Keele St., Concord.

738-3939

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: LARA Site Specific Provision: 51-79; 22037
Zoning District: R. Z2.0 Historical Status: No
Height Limit (m): 10.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area: 26488.0 m2 Height: Storeys: 19
Frontage: Metres:
Depth:
Indoor Outdoor
Ground Floor: Parking Spaces: 387 36
Residential GFA: Loading Docks:
Non-Residential

GFA:

(number, type)

Total GFA:
Density
Residential Density: 2.80 Non-Residential Density: Total Density: 2.80
Comments
Status: Final report submitted to TCC for May 26, 1999 meeting.
Data valid: April 30, 1999 Section: CP West Phone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1. Medical Officer of Health (October 14, 1998)

Further to our letter dated January 14, 1998 and September 1, 1998 our Department has been contacted by the applicant for the above referenced site. The original application called for the demolition of the old parking structure and replacement with new parking facilities at grade. At that time our Department requested the submission of a Historical Review and site and Building Audit for review by the Medical Officer of Health, and based on these reports it would be decided whether soil and groundwater testing/management would be required. We were subsequently informed by the applicant that the existing parking structures would not be demolished, and that it would instead be updated. In light of this new development, this Department rescinds its' requirements of January 14, 1998 and has no objection to the current proposal.

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.

2. Urban Planning and Development Services (March 16, 1999)

This submission also includes the creation of a parking station (31 parking spaces) at 105 Lansdowne Avenue in a district designated R4 Z1.0

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description: Make alterations to existing garage structure to reduce the total number of parking spaces, create on-site surface parking for 5 parking spaces and an off-site
Zoning Designation: R2 Z2 Map: 48H - 313
Applicable By-law(s): 22037 and 438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by: EMC Group Limited Plans dated: August 10, 1998

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-laws 220037 and 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

1. The by-law requires a minimum of 698 parking spaces (including 180 parking spaces for visitors) to be provided. The number of proposed parking spaces is 423. (Section 4(4)(b) of Bylaw 438-86)

2. The proposed parking station (located at 105 Lansdowne Avenue) does not comply with the Zoning Bylaw definition in that it is not located on the same lot as the principal use. (Section 2(1) - "parking station" of Bylaw 438-86)

3. The portion of the lot on which the parking station is located must be fenced and suitably landscaped. (Section 6(2)21(i) of Bylaw 438-86)

4. The proposed parking station will be located less than 1.8 metres to any proposed fence and less than 6.0 metres to residential buildings located at 113 Lansdowne Avenue and 102 West Lodge Avenue. (Section 6(2)21(iv) of Bylaw 438-86)

5. The landscaped open space provided on the subject lot (103 - 105 West Lodge Avenue) must be at least 58 percent of the lot area. (Section 1(3) of Bylaw 22037)

6. Fifty percent of the area of the roof of the subject garage is required to be landscaped. (Section 1(4) of Bylaw 22037)

7. Thirty six of the proposed parking spaces are provided otherwise than within the garage structure. (Section 1(5) of Bylaw 22037)

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1. The proposal DOES NOT require Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2. The proposal DOES NOT require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

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

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

3. Works and Emergency Services (May 6, 1999)

The previous plans idenitified as "Proposed Safety Plan Layouts" prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan can be replaced by the current submission. Therefore, Recommendation 1(g) can be revised to read:

"1(d) Provide, maintain and operate the safety measures and facilities as stipulated in the letter dated January 7, 199 and plans dated December 21, 1998 with red-line revisions dated May 5, 1999, all prepared by Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan."

The 2 plans prepared by EMC Group Limited identified as "Proposed Parking Layout" dated June 10,1998 with red-line revisions dated May 5, 1999 are also acceptable and do not affect the comments and recommendations in the previous report. no further report is necessary.

4. (February 16, 1999)

Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

(a) Provide and maintain a minimum of 401 parking spaces to serve the project, including at least 365 spaces to serve the residents and 36 spaces for the visitors, of which 31 spaces can be provided off-site;

(b) Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space to serve each building on the site, with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(c) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of each Type G loading space for the storage of at least 12 compactor containers on collection day;

(d) Provide, maintain and operate the safety plan measures and facilities as stipulated in the letter dated January 7, 1999 and plans dated December 1, 1998 with red-line revisions dated February 1, 1999 all prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan; and

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

Comments:

Location

East side of West Lodge Avenue, north of Seaforth Avenue.

Proposal

Retain the existing parking garage in its entirety, renovate it and block off access to the remaining spaces using barricades to prevent vehicles from using the areas not refurbished, while reducing the parking supply serving the existing apartment complex which contains 717 dwelling units.

The proposal was dealt with in Departmental reports dated February 12, 1998 and January 11, 1999. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous reports, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Previous Application

The site is subject to Site Specific By-law No. 22037.

Parking

The provision of 423 parking spaces, consisting of 165 spaces within level 1 of the above-grade garage, 177 spaces within level 2, 45 spaces within level 3, 5 surface courtyard spaces and 31 spaces off-site at Premises No. 105 Lansdowne Avenue, satisfies the estimated parking demand identified in the Parking Assessment report dated July 29, 1996, together with additional supplementary information dated December 23, 1997 submitted by Marshall Macklin Monaghan on behalf of the owner, for 401 parking spaces, including 365 tenant spaces and 36 visitor spaces. The consultant's report and additional documentation have been completed essentially in accordance with Departmental requirements provided to the consultant prior to the study being initiated. The provision of 401 spaces for this site, which translates to a parking demand ratio of 0.56 spaces/unit, appears to be reasonable and an appropriate minimum level of parking for this project. The proposed parking supply is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will continue to provide bulk-lift and materials collection services to this site. The plans include a Type G loading space designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion and a 3-sided garbage enclosure for the storage of 12 compactor containers on collection day and a concrete pad adjacent to the enclosure for each building. This is satisfactory.

Safety Plan and Restoration Phasing

The October 22, 1998 letter from Marshall Macklin Monaghan outlines the proposed improvements to the refurbished parking garage structure. The submission has been reviewed, specifically to ensure the proposal complies with appropriate By-laws respecting garage safety and building code issues, and provides an adequate measure of surveillance and security. As well, the applicant has indicated that the phasing of garage restoration can accommodate site-generated parking demand and that the restoration will be completed in early 1999. Documentation confirming this information has been submitted in a letter dated January 7, 1999 prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan outlining, among other things, safety measures with respect to cameras and panic buttons, lighting and signage which are satisfactory.

The restoration phasing has been provided by Mr. Paul Winn of The Wynn Group in a letter dated January 29, 1999 outlining the schedule of work and anticipated completion date and is satisfactory.

Grading and Drainage

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water runoff into the ground whenever possible. In this regard, the use of porous paving, soak-away pits and/or infiltration trenches should be considered. 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 Services Section, Districts 1 & 2 (telephone no. 392-6787).

--------

Appendix B

Public Meeting

103-105 West Lodge Avenue

May 20, 1998

In Attendance:

Councillor David Miller

Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski

Jim Gough, MMM Consulting

David Drake, EMC Consulting

Paul Wynn, Applicant

Jeff Wynn, Applicant

Matt Severino, Works and Emergency Services

Rino Spezza, Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings

Helen Coombs, Urban Planning and Development Services, Planning

and approximately 20 residents.

Comments

Councillor Miller chaired the meeting.

Helen Coombs explained that the proposal is to reduce the required parking from 910 in the site specific by-law to 401 or .6 parking spaces per unit. This figure was arrived at after a traffic and parking analysis was done. The original application was to demolish the garage and have at-grade parking. The new proposal is to retain the garage, renovate it and block off access to the remaining parking spaces using a gate. These spaces will be accommodated at the ground and second level. The gates can be relocated to accommodate any additional parking when required.

The 27 parking spaces across the street in a private lane are also part of this application.

David Drake indicated that the garage will be painted and brought up to City standards. There may be panic buttons in the garage. The landscaping will be enhanced in the areas identified with City staff. The garbage enclosure area including the bins will be screened by cedar hedges.

The following concerns were raised:

Q. What is the by-law requirement for parking including visitor ?

A. The site specific by-law required 910 spaces. Changes to the zoning by-law would require 601 spaces. 36 visitor parking spaces are required. The parking garage should eliminate the need for on-street parking.

Q. The parking garages are derelict. There are safety and traffic issues. The vacant space that is enclosed is a problem. It is of great concern to women. How will the areas not used be closed off to ensure no access to the vacant space? The fence and gate on O'Hara Avenue is always open and cars park there. This needs to be corrected.

A. The subterranean levels are blocked off now and all levels will be renovated regardless of whether they are used.

Q. If the building were built today, how many parking spaces would it need?

A. 698. There was a city wide change to the parking requirements that reduced the number of spaces required for similar buildings.

Q. Why weren't they informed?

A. City-wide zoning changes are advertised in the newspaper.

Q. How many street permits are there attached to this building?

A. 79.

Q. If the garage is renovated, will on-street permits be given out to residents of the buildings?

A. The issuance of permits will depend on whether there is a perceived safety issue. With rehabilitating the structure, there are solutions that should relieve the need for on-street parking permits.

Q. Even with the improvements to the garage, the area has parking problem and the City is not going to stop people from getting permits?

A. The City could be assured that the safety concerns are met and then maybe no permits would be given out.

Q. But if they insist, they will still get an on-street parking permit?

A. After the renovations are complete, the management will send a flyer around describing the changes, giving notice of a tour. If necessary, the private lane can be used for those who have street permits.

A. It's a security issue. Right now there are 120-160 paid parking spaces. The owners would like to have those parking on the street to park in the garage so they have the rent.

C. Would like a pedestrian gate through the project.

A. That could be put up. Don't want to close the vehicular gate because maintenance vehicles, moving vans use it. Maintenance vehicles are only there during the day.

C. Many people use that for making illegal turns.

Q. What is the cost of parking and how does a visitor get a permit?

A. Cost is $22/month. Visitors have to go through security to get a permit.

Q. How do you ensure that the people asking for street permits really need them for safety reasons.

A. The City looks at each application on an individual basis. Applicants have to produce ownership, licences, etc.

Q. Is 401 going to be enough?

A. At peak time, 297 are used now. The proposal is for 104 more than currently required.

Q. How many parking permit applications does the City receive from this building?

A. No record is kept of the applications but there are currently 79 parking permits for this building issued.

Q. The area behind 105 was to be used for handicapped parking spots. But people will be locked in if they park there.

A. The parking will not be put there.

C. The gate was there to be locked. A lot of traffic is trying to get to Bloor Street. Cars using the area belonging to the building are trespassing. This justifies the gate being locked. There have been three muggings on O'Hara and the muggers have run through the open gate onto West Lodge.

A. The gate can't be locked during the day because garbage trucks are coming, etc.

C. Mainly needs to be closed at night.

Q. It is cheaper to park on the street than in the garage as long as the City continues to give out parking spots. Doesn't make sense that a parking garage is being fixed and parking permits are still being given out. The street permits should be cancelled. As well, there is nothing that says the parking demand of the future will be met.

A. The consultant and the City staff looked at other similar buildings and applied the standards taking the future into the account.

A. If done properly and legally, they should be able to park all the cars in the garages. City needs to check if the existing permits can be revoked.

C. The pedestrian walkway should be angled to slow down people who use it.

C. O'Hara gets a lot of speeders. Would the City put in speed bumps?

A. Unless there is consensus in the community, Council won't approve it.

C. There needs to be a 'No Exit' sign.

A. Staff are looking into that at the request of the councillor.

Q. Could there be 80 at grade parking spaces provided to replace the permit parking. There is a huge demand for parking in the area.

A. 401 parking spaces is easy to accommodate in the garage. On the west side of West Lodge there are 27 parking spaces already. Five other outdoor spaces are available for a total of 32. The provision of parking should not reduce the amount of landscaped open space. An additional 50 parking spaces at grade may take a lot of landscaped open space.

C. Need to have safe, reserved spots.

Q. How many spaces are on one level, two levels?

A. On one level there are 170 spaces and on two there are 340.

Q. How many spaces are reserved?

A. 27 spaces are reserved.

Q. How many apartment units are there?

A. 720.

C. Wants to stop the cars from plugging up the street. Wants to eliminate the apartment tenants from parking on the street. The pedestrian gate is not the problem.

Q. The difference between the cost of the indoor parking spaces and the on-street permit parking is significant. $240 compared to $64. So people are going to park on the street. People on the street don't have any more right to park on the street than the apartment tenants.

Q. Was told that there was no parking available. Who are the reserved spots for?

A. These spaces are reserved for tenants and all of them are allocated. There is a waiting list for the reserved spots. Tenants can put their names on the waiting list.

Q. What is the ratio of the landscaped open space?

A. 58 % is required by the site specific by-law.

C. The gate should be closed. Otherwise security isn't very good.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Councillor Miller summarized the following concerns of the residents:

1. The gate on O'Hara should be closed. A buzzer or intercom would alert the security people when there is a delivery truck.

2. The gate on West Lodge Avenue.

3. Pedestrian gate on O'Hara, some like it, some don't.

4. The trees on O'Hara need to be trimmed so that people can read the signs.

5. Need appropriate signage at O'Hara and West Lodge.

6. Safety/security measures need to be strengthened.

7. Issues related to the construction of the barriers in the parking structure.

8. Noise factor if any part of the building is demolished.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES

103-105 WEST LODGE AVENUE

MARCH 12, 1998

In Attendance:

Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski

Councillor David Miller

Jim Gough, MMM consultant

David Drake, EMC consultant

Paul Wynn, Applicant

Tim Laspa, Works and Emergency Services

Dave Deonarine, Urban Planning and Development Services

Helen Coombs, Urban Planning and Development Services

and approximately 20 residents.

Comments

Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski chaired the meeting. Jim Gough, David Drake and Tim Laspa gave short presentations on what the application was about. Helen Coombs outlined the process the application has to go through.

It was explained that originally this was an application to amend the site specific by-law to reduce the number of required parking spaces, demolish the garage and relocate the parking at grade, using much of the area currently required by that by-law for landscaped open space. The applicant had revised this application by letter proposing that the existing garage be restored and the reduced number of parking spaces be housed in it.

A parking study has been done to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services which indicates that a minimum of 401 parking spaces including visitor parking is sufficient.

Because of the change in the proposal and the fact that not many of the tenants were in attendance, it was agreed that a second meeting would be held. The Chair opened for questions.

Q. Why is the parking being reduced?

A. The parking demand today is less than it was when the original by-law was approved. The number required is no longer necessary. Subterranean parking levels will be closed permanently.

Q. What is going to happen to Cunningham Street side of the project? Right now there is dirt left on it.

A. They had planned to put up a berm with landscaping or in combination with a fence. The area will be illuminated. Trucks will come off West Lodge Avenue.

Q. Will the fence be left on Cunningham and O'Hara?

A. There will be no access from Cunningham and O'Hara and the fence will be left except for when moving trucks need access for 103 West Lodge.

Q. Does the 401 figure include the permit parking on West Lodge?

A. Yes - the 401 spaces include provision for vehicles currently owned by tenants and parking on the streets, including those with permit parking.

Q. Will there be landscaping around the garbage area?

A. The garbage bins will still be visible but trees will be planted around it.

Q. What happens when there is an overlap - when there are too many cars to park in the opened part of the garage?

A. The owners will monitor the situation and if necessary, free up more spaces inside the closed part of the garage.

Q. The Cunningham fence is broken down and needs to be fixed.

A. A new fence/berm combination will be built on that part of the site.

C. People partying on the sidewalk are a problem. Fences should be left on the side lot line to discourage them.

C. Need to take into consideration the speeding on West Lodge, need to have speed bumps, need to have less access to the surrounding streets, need the safety standards to be upheld by the police.

Q. Right now permits are given on the basis that the parking garage is not safe. How will this change?

A. The inside of the garage will be painted, 2 banks of fluorescent lights, T.V. monitors on each end of the garage, panic alarms on the side walls that will sound alarms in the office will be added.

Q. Why is the amendment for the parking when they may need the total amount in the future? Why not leave the number so that it will be there should it be needed?

A. 401 is the proposed new minimum number required for the building. We can look into registering on title that number of parking spaces have to be provided.

Q. Can the zoning by-law prohibit permit parking?

A. We will look into it.

Q. Where are the cars going to be located while the renovation occurs?

A. There is room within the building to allow them to park there while other portions of the building are being renovated.

Q. Can the garbage at 105 be contained in bins?

A. The area will be re-asphalted so trucks can get in and bins located there.

Q. What will happen to the rents if the garage is fixed? How much will it cost?

A. Don't know yet.

Q. On the weekends we have no hot water. What do we do?

A. Call Buildings and they will look into it.

Q. Will the landscaping remain as planned?

A. Landscaping will be continued.

Q. Will a new plan be brought to the meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. Can the garage accommodate vans and 5 cube vans?

A. No.

Q. Are vans allowed to park on the street with a permit?

A. No.

Q. How many visitor parking spaces are there and do visitors have to apply to use them?

A. There are 36 spaces and visitors just need to register with security since they patrol it.

Q. Can there be a dead-end sign put at the entrance to West Lodge Avenue?

A. Yes.

Q. Will there be a by-law required to set in stone these issues?

A. We are looking into whether a by-law amendment is required.

Q. How many security guards are there on site?

A. 1 or 2 are on site. A representative of the company will attend the next meeting.

Q. What will the rents for parking spaces be?

A. That will be addressed at the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 13, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The Toronto Community Council meeting of May 26 and 27, 1999 had before it the City Solicitor's report (April 13, 1999) submitting a Draft Zoning By-law which would reduce the number of parking spaces required at 103-105 West Lodge Avenue (High Park).

In considering this matter, and on hearing numerous deputations regarding other issues involving the subject properties, the Toronto Community Council:

1. adjourned the Public Meeting held pursuant to Sections 34(12) and 34(15) of the Planning Act, to be reconvened on September 14, 1999, to enable the Ward Councillors to hold a public meeting in the community.

2. At that time the Toronto Community Council also requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate officials to report on:

(a) the relevant provisions of the Order of Judge Epstein, and any other relevant court orders, and the implications for the parking garage;

(b) the issue of parking permits and the possibility of prohibiting residents of 103-105 West Lodge Avenue from obtaining permits;

(c) the issue of access from O'Hara Avenue;

(d) the progress and details of the implementation of the safety measures as recommended in Recommendation No. (3) of the report (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(e) the work completed on the garage to date, and whether a permit was issued for the work;

(f) whether by-law amendments are still required, in view of the landlord's statement that 660 spaces have been, or are being renovated, out of the 698 required by the By-law; and,

(g) the issue of the safety and structural integrity of the basement levels; and,

(h) requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council on a process by which a mechanism can be put in place, so that parking demands are reviewed periodically and resolved at 103-105 West Lodge Avenue.

This report will address the requests numbered 2(a), 2(d), 2(e) and 2(g).

Requests 2(b) and 2(c) deal with parking and transportation issues and will be reported under separate cover by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

I am currently consulting with the City Solicitor with regard to request 2(f), and either he or I will report further on this matter.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council receive this report for information.

Comments:

For ease of reference, I will provide my comments to correspond to the lettered requests for information, as follows:

Request 2(a) the relevant provisions of the Order of Judge Epstein, and any other relevant court orders, and the implications for the parking garage;

Response: The only court order currently affecting these buildings, being enforced and/or inspected by my Department is Judge EpsteinÆs order, which has been complied with fully, with the exception of engineering completion reports which are required to certify that the mechanical and electrical repairs required have been satisfactorily completed.

In discussions with the property owners, I understand that these reports should be available and provided to me shortly.

Request 2(d) the progress and details of the implementation of the safety measures as recommended in Recommendation (3) of the report (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Response: In my report of May 7, 1999 I indicated that a safety plan for the garage was included in the improvements required in the refurbishing of the garage, and as a condition of the approval of the reduced parking requirements.

The applicant agreed to provide a letter of credit prior to the introduction of the Bill in Council to cover the cost of implementing these safety measures. If and/or when the reduced parking requirements are approved, the owner will move forward to make the necessary improvements, as set out in the safety plan. The letter of credit has not been received, to date.

Request 2(e) the work completed on the garage to date, and whether a permit was issued for the work;

Response: The repair and renovation of the parking garage was completed on or about May 5, 1999. The condition survey of the parking garage which was provided pursuant to Judge Epstein's order could not determine the extent of repair work necessary to rehabilitate the parking garage. Under the circumstances, we required that all necessary repairs were overseen by an engineer and that field review reports be submitted to the Department regularly. In the event structural work was necessary, permits would have been required, however, no structural work was required.

A final field review report was received on May 6, 1999, reporting that the repairs were substantially complete, and the garage was returned to full operation at that time.

Request 2(g) the issue of the safety and structural integrity of the basement levels (of the parking garage).

Response: As noted in 2(e), the structural integrity of the entire garage was confirmed in an engineer's field review report dated May 6, 1999.

Contact Names:

Pam Coburn Curtis Sealock

Telephone: (416) 392-7961 Telephone: (416) 392-7616

Fax: (416) 392-0677 Fax: (416) 392-0677

E-Mail: HYPERLINK mailto:pcoburn@toronto.ca pcoburn@toronto.ca

E-Mail: HYPERLINK mailto:csealock@toronto.ca csealock@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (June 3, 1999) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council, on May 26 and 27, 1999, had before it a report (April 13, 1999) from the City Solicitor submitting Draft Zoning By-law respecting No. 103 West Lodge Avenue (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council had before it the following reports/communications:

- (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Final Report on Application No. 197024 To Amend Site Specific By-law 22037 To Permit A Reduction In The Number of Parking Spaces Required For 103-105 West Lodge Avenue;

- (May 13, 1999) from Ms. Anna Tacker;

- (May 21, 1999) from Ms. Marian Y. MacGregor, Parkdale Community Legal Services Inc.;

- (Undated) from Ms. Ann-Marie Racer;

- (May 25, 1999) from A. Lynch;

- (May 24, 1999) Petition - 31 signatures in opposition;

- (April 26, 1999) from Mr. Robert B. Levit ob. the Parkdale Tenants' Association;

- (Undated) from Ms. Shirley Woods;

- (Undated) from Ms. Anna C. Taker; and

- (Undated) - Form Letter with 139 signatures in opposition .

Notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on May 26, 1999, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

- Mr. Vilko Zbogar, Parkdale Community Legal Services;

- Mr. Bart Poesiat, Common Front in Defense of Poor Neighbourhoods;

- Mr. Bob Levit, Parkdale Tenants' Association;

- Dr. Harpreet Chaggar;

- Mr. Suk Tumsee;

- Mr. A. Lynch;

- Ms. Anna Taker, Westlodge Tenant Association;

- Mr. David Drake, EMC Group Ltd.;

- Ms. Daramdeo Sukdeo; and

- Mr. Paul Wynn.

The Toronto Community Council:

(1) adjourned the Public Meeting held pursuant to Sections 34(12) and 34(15) of the Planning Act, to be reconvened on September 14, 1999, to enable the Ward Councillors to hold a public meeting in the community, with the assistance of Planning, Legal and Inspections staff;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate officials, prior to the meeting in the community, to report on:

(a) the relevant provisions of the Order of Judge Epstein, and any other relevant court orders, and the implications for the parking garage;

(b) the issue of parking permits and the possibility of prohibiting residents of 103-105 West Lodge Avenue from obtaining permits;

(c) the issue of access from O'Hara Avenue;

(d) the progress and details of the implementation of the safety measures as recommended in Recommendation No. (3) of the report (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(e) the work completed on the garage to date, and whether a permit was issues for the work;

(f) whether by-law amendments are still required, in view of the landlord's statement that 660 spaces have been, or are being renovated, out of the 698 required by the By-law; and

(g) the issue of the safety and structural integrity of the basement levels; and

(3) requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council on a process by which a mechanism can be put in place, so that parking demands are reviewed periodically and resolved at 103-105 West Lodge Avenue.

--------

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

- (May 13, 1999) from Ms. Anna Thacker;

- (May 21, 1999) from Ms. Marian Y. MacGregor, Parkdale Community Legal Services Inc.;

- (Undated) from Ms. Ann-Marie Rechier;

- (May 25, 1999) from A. Lynch;

- (May 24, 1999) Petition with 31 signatures in opposition;

- (April 26, 1999) from Mr. Robert B. Levitt obo the Parkdale Tenants' Association;

- (Undated) from Ms. Shirley Woods;

- (Undated) from Ms. Anna C. Thaker;

- (Undated) - 139 Identical Letters in opposition;

- (September 10, 1999) from Mr. Anthony Lynch;

- (September 12, 1999) from Mr. John Dorion;

- (September 13, 1999) from Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

- (September 14, 1999) from Mr. Marko Lavrisa;

- (September 13, 1999) Petition signed by 72 persons in opposition;

- (September 13, 1999) Petition signed by 75 persons in opposition;

- (September 14, 1999) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and Councillor David Miller;

- (September 12, 1999) from Mr. Vilko Zbogar;

- (September 14, 1999) from Ms. Anna C. Thaker;

- (September 14, 1999) from Dr. Harpreet Singh Chaggar; and

- (July 30, 1999) from Ms. Sookranie Lucknauth.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

103-105 West Lodge Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Site Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Second and Third Floor Parking Layout

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (September 21, 1999) from the City Clerk:

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

- (May 13, 1999) from Ms. Anna Thacker;

- (May 21, 1999) from Ms. Marian Y. MacGregor, Parkdale Community Legal Services Inc.;

- (Undated) from Ms. Ann-Marie Rechier;

- (May 25, 1999) from A. Lynch;

- (May 24, 1999) Petition with 31 signatures in opposition;

- (April 26, 1999) from Mr. Robert B. Levitt obo the Parkdale Tenants' Association;

- (Undated) from Ms. Shirley Woods;

- (Undated) from Ms. Anna C. Thaker;

- (Undated) - 139 Identical Letters in opposition;

- (September 10, 1999) from Mr. Anthony Lynch;

- (September 12, 1999) from Mr. John Dorion;

- (September 14, 1999) from Mr. Marko Lavrisa;

- (September 13, 1999) Petition signed by 72 persons in opposition;

- (September 13, 1999) Petition signed by 75 persons in opposition;

- (September 14, 1999) from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and Councillor David Miller;

- (September 12, 1999) from Mr. Vilko Zbogar;

- (September 14, 1999) from Ms. Anna C. Thaker;

- (September 14, 1999) from Dr. Harpreet Singh Chaggar; and

- (July 30, 1999) from Ms. Sookranie Lucknauth.)

(A copy of the submissions attached to the foregoing communication is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

93

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, received this Clause, as information, subject to striking out and referring Item (h), entitled "Yorkville Triangle - Official Plan Amendment No. 143 and Zoning By-law No. 138-99 (Midtown)", embodied therein, back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.)

(a) New Practices for the Review of Development Applications.

The Toronto Community Council reports having recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee the adoption of Recommendation Nos. 2-10 of the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(i) (July 27, 1999) from the Administrator, Planning and Transportation Committee New Practices for the Review of Development Applications, referring the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to the Community Councils for review and comment back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting to be held on October 4, 1999;

(ii) (August 25, 1999) from the Administrator, Planning and Transportation Committee forwarding comments from Councillor Filion;

(iii) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. Jim Murphy, Greater Toronto Home Builders Association;

(iv) (September 10, 1999) from Ms. Janice Merson and Mr. Matthias Schlaepfer, Summerhill residents' Association;

(v) (September 13, 1999) from Mr. Rashmi M. Nathwani, Namara Associates Limited;

(vi) (September 13, 1999) from Ms. Lisa McGee, Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A.; and

(vii) (September 13, 1999) from Mr. David Vallance.

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

(b) Proposed Road Classification System.

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following matter until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999 and having requested:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999 on:

(a) granting community councils authority over the following:

(i) sidewalks, both new and existing, that deviate from City policy but do not alter the road;

(ii) traffic signals and pedestrian crossings on collector roads and minor arterial roads;

(iii) heavy truck prohibitions on minor arterial roads; and

(iv) HOV lanes on collector roads;

(b) classifying Windermere Avenue, north of Bloor Street West to the Toronto Community Council boundary, as a local road, not a collector road;

(c) the prioritization of Gerrard Street East and Queen Street East from Victoria Park Avenue to Coxwell Avenue, as a result of east-west commuter traffic; and

(d) forwarding reports on traffic calming on collector roads to both the appropriate community council and also to the Works Committee;

(2) the General Manager of the T.T.C. to comment to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999, on the proposed road classification system and its effect on transit; and

(3) the Chief Planner:

(a) in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999, on the planning issues raised by the deputants, and to also report on these issues to the Toronto Pedestrian Committee prior to the Toronto Community Council meeting;

(b) to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999, on the relationships between road classification and

(i) signal spacing;

(ii) parking needs; and

(iii) business access.

Recommendation 1(d) was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Bossons Bussin, Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller and Pantalone - 8

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

(i) (July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, Works Committee City Clerk, Works Committee respecting Proposed Road Classification System, and referring the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Community Councils for consideration and comment back to the Works Committee for its meeting to be held on November 3, 1999; and

(ii) (September 13, 1999) from Ms. Join Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Committee

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

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Ms. Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

(c) Construction of Stone Pillars and A Wrought Iron Fence - 40 Burton Road (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999 and having requested the applicant to submit to the Community Council, prior to that time, a letter advising that the applicant has consulted with their immediate neighbours and that those neighbours have no objection to the proposal:

(August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Construction of Stone Pillars and A Wrought Iron Fence - 40 Burton Road (Midtown), and Recommending that City Council approve the construction and maintenance of the pillars, decorative ornamental wall and fence within the public right of way fronting 40 Burton Road provided that the owner enters into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

(d) 24 Hawarden Crescent, Removal of Private Tree (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999:

(August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting 24 Hawarden Crescent, Removal of Private Tree (Midtown), and recommending that City Council:

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

(2) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the planting of replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Mrs. Sandra Walfish, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(e) Appeal of Denial of Application for A Curb Lane Vending Permit - University Avenue, East Side, 81 Metres South of Dundas Street West, and Extending A Further 5.5 Metres South (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999:

(August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for A Curb Lane Vending Permit - University Avenue, East Side, 81 Metres South of Dundas Street West, and Extending A Further 5.5 Metres South (Downtown), and recommending that:

(1) City Council deny the application for curb lane vending on University Avenue, east side, 81 metres south of Dundas Street West and extending a further 5.5 metres south;

OR

(2) City Council approve the application for curb lane vending on University Avenue, east side, 81 metres south of Dundas Street West and extending a further 5.5 metres south, notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in By-law No. 98-97 of the former Metropolitan Toronto; and

(3) Should City Council approve the application for curb lane vending on University Avenue, east side, 81 metres south of Dundas Street West and extending a further 5.5 metres south, the applicant pay the costs of the loss of annual parking permit revenue as determined by the Toronto Parking Authority.

(f) Future Bakery and Café - Extension of Hours of Operation for the Boulevard Café - Kennedy Avenue Flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999 and having directed that the same terms and conditions approved by Council at its meeting held on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999 with respect to an extension of hours of operation for the Boulevard Café on the Kennedy Avenue Flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West still apply until that time:

(i) (August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, respecting Future Bakery and Café - Extension of Hours of Operation for the Boulevard Café - Kennedy Avenue Flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West (High Park), and recommending that:

(1) City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Kennedy Avenue flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, i.e. 2:00 a.m. closing time, 7 days a week, since there were no complaints received from the neighbourhood; and

(2) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council at the end of the 2000 cafe season on the operation of the cafe; and

(ii) (September 10, 1999) from T. Kurehn

(g) Exodus of Small Independently Owned and Operated Businesses From Bloor West Village (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) forwarded the petition submitted by World 19 to City Council;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to undertake a public consultation process, including a community meeting to be held in Bloor West Village, to discuss the local concerns and measures that could possibly help maintain the character of this small business/retail strip; and

(3) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to review the adequacy of the current citywide protection policies for small business retail strips, as part of the Official Plan Part I update.

(August 26, 1999) from Councillor David Miller, requesting that the petition submitted by World 19 be forwarded to City Council and that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to work together with their local Councillors, interested citizens and the Bloor West Village BIA to set up a process of ongoing consultation in order to develop possible responses to the type of changes occurring in the Village.

(h) Yorkville Triangle - Official Plan Amendment No. 143 and Zoning By-law No. 138-99 (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Yorkville Triangle - Official Plan Amendment No. 143 and Zoning By-law No. 138-99 (Midtown), and recommending that this report be received for information

BR WP="BR1">

(i) Preliminary Report on 401 Logan Avenue - Application No. 299007 for Rezoning and Site Plan Approval to Permit A Mixed-use Building 4 Storeys in Height (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 401 Logan Avenue - Application No. 299007 for Rezoning and Site Plan Approval to Permit A Mixed-use Building 4 Storeys in Height (Don River), and recommending that:

(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(2) The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(j) Preliminary Report on Application No. 199005 for An Official Plan Amendment and A Rezoning, to Permit A Travel Agency/parcel Service Within An Existing Detached House At 121 Runnymede Road (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(August 24, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Application No. 199005 for an Official Plan Amendment and a Rezoning, to Permit a Travel Agency/Parcel Service Within an Existing Detached House at 121 Runnymede Road (High Park), and recommending that I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and residents within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(k) 416 Spadina Road, Application No. 999049: Request for Approval of A Variance From Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999, and having directed that the BIAs and resident and ratepayers groups in the area be so advised:

(August 12, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 416 Spadina Road, Application No. 999049: Request for Approval of A Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Midtown), and recommending:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 999049 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to erect two encroaching illuminated awning signs for identification purposes at 416 Spadina Road.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999049, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(l) Proposals and Options for Change: Three Sites (80 and 81 Turnberry Avenue and 101 Union Street) Within the Old Stockyards District Part II Plan (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(August 23, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Proposals and Options for Change: Three Sites (80 and 81 Turnberry Avenue and 101 Union Street) Within the Old Stockyards District Part II Plan (Davenport), and recommending:

(1) That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in consultation with Economic Development staff, be requested to undertake a study, as outlined in Section 3 of this report, in order to fulfill the requirements of Official Plan Policy 9.18.

(2) That this report be circulated to the appropriate departments and agencies for their review and comment.

(3) That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report back to Toronto Community Council with a Final Recommendations report.

(m) Melrose Avenue, From Jedburgh Road to Greer Road - Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(August 25, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, respecting Melrose Avenue, from Jedburgh Road to Greer Road - Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n) Glencairn Avenue, From Duplex Avenue to Rosewell Avenue - Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(August 25, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, respecting Glencairn Avenue, From Duplex Avenue to Rosewell Avenue - Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(o) Old Orchard Grove, From Ridley Boulevard to Yonge Boulevard - Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999:

(August 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Old Orchard Grove, from Ridley Boulevard to Yonge Boulevard - Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(p) Harmonized Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program.

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report and having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the feasibility of obtaining cost estimates for the private property portion, which would enable that portion of the cost to be charged back to the residents:

(June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting Harmonized Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(q) Adjustments to the Parking Regulations - Cumberland Street and Avenue Road to Bellair Street (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of this matter sine die:

(August 13, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 20, Contained in Report No. 11, of the Toronto Community Council, Headed "Adjustments to the Parking Regulations - Cumberland Street and Avenue Road to Bellair Street (Midtown)", which was referred back to Toronto Community Council by the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

(r) Adjustments to the Parking Regulations - Bellair Street Between Cumberland Street and Bloor Street West and Yorkville Avenue North Side Opposite Bellair Street (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of this matter sine die:

(i) (August 13, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 34, Contained in Report No. 11, of the Toronto Community Council, Headed "Adjustments to the Parking Regulations - Bellair Street Between Cumberland Street and Bloor Street West and Yorkville Avenue North Side Opposite Bellair Street (Midtown)", which was referred back to Toronto Community Council, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999; and

(ii) (September 13, 1999) from Ms. Lisa McGee, Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A.

(s) Belsize Drive Between Mt. Pleasant Road and Harwood Road - Proposed Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 5, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, respecting Belsize Drive Between Mt. Pleasant Road and Harwood Road - Proposed Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto) and recommending that this report be received for information.

(t) Lane, First North of College Street Between Dufferin Street and Sheridan Avenue - Proposed One-way Operation (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on November 9, 1999:

(June 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Lane, First North of College Street Between Dufferin Street and Sheridan Avenue - Proposed One-way Operation (Trinity-Niagara) and recommending:

(1) That the lane first north of College Street between Dufferin Street and Sheridan Avenue be designated to operate one-way westbound; and

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

(u) Preliminary Report on 219 Broadview Avenue - Rezoning Application No. 299008 and Site Plan Approval Application No. 399038 to Permit A 3 Storey Building with 23 Live/work Units (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(August 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 219 Broadview Avenue - Rezoning Application No. 299008 and Site Plan Approval Application No. 399038 to Permit A 3 Storey Building with 23 Live/work Units (Don River), and recommending that:

(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(2) The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(v) Parking on Shaftesbury Avenue (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following matter until its meeting to be held on October 12, 1999, for deputations:

(i) (September 9, 1999) from Director, Transportation Services District 1, respecting Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to a point 77.4 metres east of Yonge Street - Transference of parking from the north side to the south side of the roadway (Midtown), and recommending that:

(1) the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the south side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to Yonge Street, be adjusted to operate on the north side of the street;

(2) the 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. permit parking hours of operation on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to a point 77.4 metres east of Yonge Street be adjusted to operate on the south side of the street;

(3) the "disabled persons parking space" located on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from a point 15 metres west of Ottawa Street to a point 5.5 metres further west, be relocated to the south side of the street; and

(4) 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; and

(ii) (August 24, 1999) from Councillor Bossons

(w) 184 Sherbourne Street - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Refusal (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(September 2, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting 184 Sherbourne Street - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Refusal (Downtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(x) 15 Edith Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Approval (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(September 2, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting 15 Edith Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Approval (Davenport), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(y) 373 Clinton Street - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Refusal (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(September 2, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting 373 Clinton Street - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Refusal (Midtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

Respectfully submitted,

PAM McCONNELL

Chair

Toronto, September 14, 1999.

(Report No. 12 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted as amended, by City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999.)