Status Report: Revised Application -

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and

Site Plan Approval - 9 Jackes Avenue (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to:

(1)continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal;

(2)report directly to Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives and on the terms of a settlement, if any; and

(3)report directly to Council on the issues raised by the deputants, and in particular, the issue of compensation to be provided by the owner of 9 Jackes Avenue in exchange for increased density, having regard for other precedents in the area.

The Toronto Community Council further reports having taken the following action:

(1)deferred the following motion by Councillor Adams, and requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the Toronto Community Council on the proposed use of funds general from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication in the former City of Toronto, such report to include the amount of monies generated by parks' levies on a ward-by-ward basis:

"That any parks levy funds raised from redevelopment of the site be expended in the Midtown Ward."

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor and the Chief Building Official, to report to the Toronto Community Council, and subsequently to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, on the procedures for ensuring compliance with all site plan planning and other requirements and agreements entered into or imposed during the development process, were met prior to the issuance of building permits in the former City of Toronto, and how these procedures are being continued, or amended, post-amalgamation.

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

-Ms. Karen Redner, Summerhill Tenants Association;

-Mr. John Tyacke, Summerhill Residents Association;

-Ms. Janice Merson, Summerhill Residents Association;

- Mr. Barry De Zwaar, Summerhill Residents Association;

- Ms. Margaret P. Campbell, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Betty Postill, President, Bretton Place Tenants Association; and

-Mr. Tim Crooks, Toronto, Ontario.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend City staff continue to work with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal; and

(2)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to report to the March 2, 1999 City Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives and on the terms of a settlement, if any.

Comments:

1.0Background:

At its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Toronto City Council adopted the recommendations contained in my Final Report on the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application for 9 Jackes Avenue. In doing so, Council refused the application and requested the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Planning and Development Services to oppose the appeal and referral to the Ontario Municipal Board. Council also instructed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal and to report back to Toronto Community Council with the outcome of the discussions.

2.0OMB Appeal/ Referral:

As indicated in my October 26, 1998 report, the applicant has appealed both the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to the Ontario Municipal Board.

A pre-hearing was held on November 25, 1998 which, among other matters, identified the participants, issues to be considered and the starting date for a hearing. A second pre-hearing has been scheduled for March 29, 1999 to finalize the issues list. The hearing is to begin May 10, 1999 and has been scheduled 18 days.

3.0Revised Plans:

The applicant submitted revised plans on November 16, 1998. The revised proposal is for the construction of a 12 storey (38.5 metres) residential building containing 38 dwelling units. The proposed gross floor area for the building would be 4,355 square metres which represents a density 3.42 times the area of the lot. Parking for 43 cars (38 resident and 5 visitor spaces) would be provided in two levels of underground parking. Vehicle access would be via a driveway from Jackes Avenue.

Even though the applicant has made some positive improvements to the proposed development such as increasing the side yard setbacks; increasing the front yard setback; and reducing the density, the proposal continues to have negative impacts in regards to sun/shade, views and overlook. Therefore, I cannot support the revised proposal in its current form.

4.0Discussions on Alternative Development Concepts:

As requested by City Council discussions have continued with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives. The group has met four times to discuss alternative development concepts and to explore the opportunity for settlement. At these meetings various development concepts were discussed, including a townhouse scenario and modified tower proposal. The meetings so far have been productive and have given both sides the opportunity put forward their issues and concerns. At this time no final resolution has been reached, however, the applicant has been encouraged by area residents to continue to detail the modified tower proposal. Planning staff would be able to support, in principle, either the townhouse or modified tower proposals. I am recommending that discussions continue and that I report directly to the March 2, 1999 City Council meeting on the outcome of these meetings.

Conclusion:

The revised proposal is not acceptable in its current form. As the discussions with the applicant and the neighbourhood representatives are continuing and have a positive tone, I am recommending that these discussions continue. However, given the timing of the second pre-hearing date set by the OMB, I am recommending that I report directly to the March 2, 1999 City Council meeting on the outcome of these discussions, including any possible settlement and on the possible use of Section 37 of the Planning Act.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

E-mail: gbyrne@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 54 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Official Plan and Zoning By-law Application - 9 Jackes Avenue (Midtown)":

______

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the report dated October 26, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)City Council refuse Application No. 198003 in its current form;

(2)City Council request the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant, for the reasons outlined in this report;

(3)City Council request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal; and

(4)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to report to the Toronto Community Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives, including possible terms of a settlement, if any.' ")

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report directly to Council on the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for 9 Jackes Avenue.

________

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise City Council on the status of the Official Plan amendment, rezoning application and Ontario Municipal Board appeals for 9 Jackes Avenue and to seek authority to report directly to City Council on this application, if timing requires.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report directly to City Council, if required, on the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for 9 Jackes Avenue.

Background:

Shane Baghai Construction Contracting Inc., 1131A Leslie Street, Suite 220, Toronto, Ontario M3C 2K6 on behalf of Empire Jackes Properties Inc., 9104 Yonge Street, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4C 6Z9 made an application to the City of Toronto for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for 9 Jackes Avenue. The application, for the construction of a new 10 storey residential building containing 19 units was submitted February 25, 1998.

A preliminary planning report, dated March 18, 1998 was submitted to Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 1, 1998. Toronto Community adopted the recommendations contained in the preliminary report and requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to investigate the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure appropriate community benefits related to this development.

A public meeting was held on June 9, 1998 in the community to discuss the application. Approximately 80 people attended the meeting. The major issues raised at the meeting were the size of the proposed development and the potential impact on adjacent properties.

A notice of appeal was received by the City Clerk on July 14, 1998, from Murray H. Chusid, Solicitor for Shane Baghai Construction Contracting Inc. The applicant has appealed both the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. The appeals were made on the basis that the City had not made a decision within the statutory 90 days period set out in the Planning Act.

Comments:

The applicant has expressed a willingness to continue to work with the City on resolving the planning issues raised by both this Department and the local neighbours. Staff have recently met with the applicant's planner and architect to discuss the concerns with the current application. In the meeting the applicant proposed some revised concepts for discussion. These revised concepts are still preliminary and lack details required to undertake a proper analysis.

Staff will continue to work with the applicant and the local community to try and develop a project that is supportable.

Currently no date has been set by the Ontario Municipal Board. However according to discussions with OMB staff a pre-hearing could be scheduled for November or December of this year. To ensure that the City's interests are protected, I am recommending that, if required, I report directly to City Council on the original application or on any revised application that may be submitted. Otherwise, I will be reporting further on this application to the Toronto Community Council.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-0881

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: gbyrne@toronto.ca

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 26, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend refusal of the application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval for 9 Jackes Avenue, in its current form and to authorize City staff to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)refuse Application No. 198003 in its current form;

(2)request the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant, for the reasons outlined in this report;

(3)request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal; and

(4)direct the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to Toronto Community Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives and including possible and terms of a settlement, if any.

Comments:

(1)Site

The site is located on the south side of Jackes Avenue, just east of Yonge Street. The site has an area of approximately 1,272 square metres. The recently demolished three storey building that was located on the site was used as the offices of Boy Scouts Canada. (See Key Map)

The site is located two blocks north of the Summerhill subway station and three blocks south of the St. Clair subway station.

(2)Area

The property is located on the top of the east-west escarpment which marks the ancient shoreline of Lake Iroquois. The site is relatively flat, however, immediately to the south the lands slope down approximately 9 to 13 metres to Woodland Avenue East. (see Map 2)

Jackes Avenue is the boundary line between the High Density Residence Area to the north and the Low Density Residence Area to the south. Immediately to the north of the site are two apartment buildings at 44 Jackes Avenue (23 storeys) and 33 Rosehill Avenue (28 storeys). Abutting the site to the east is 33 Jackes Avenue, a 10 storey residential building and a 3 storey, historic building used as the offices for Frontier College, and to the west is 7 Jackes Avenue, a 28 storey residential building. To the south and on the bottom of the escarpment is a five storey residential building at 22Woodlawn Avenue East. Other uses fronting onto the north side of Woodlawn Avenue East include the undeveloped rear yards of the apartments at 7 and 33 Jackes Avenue, a 4 storey residential building and 3 house-form buildings (immediately adjacent to David A Balfour Park). Properties on the south side of Woodlawn Avenue East primarily accommodate detached houses.

(3)Proposal

This application is for the construction of a 10 storey residential building containing 19 units. The proposed gross floor area for the building would be 5,162 square metres which represents a density 4.06 times the area of the lot. Parking for 50 cars (48 resident and 2 visitor spaces) would be provided in two levels of underground parking. Vehicle access would be via a driveway from Jackes Avenue. It is proposed that 8 bicycles parking spaces would be provided in the below grade lockers.

(4)Applicable Planning Controls

Under the Yonge-St.Clair Part II Official Plan the property is designated as a Low Density Residence Area. This designation permits residential uses at a maximum density of 1.0 times the area of the lot.

The north side of Jackes Avenue is the boundary line between the High Density Residence Area to the north and the Low Density Residence Area to the south. (See Map 1) The High Density Residence Area permits uses at a maximum density of 2.0 times the area of the lot.

Under the Zoning By-law the site is zoned R2 Z1.0. This zoning permits a full range of residential uses, including an apartment building, up to a maximum density of one times the area of the lot. The maximum height permitted on the site is 11.0 metres. (See Key Map)

The north side of Jackes is zoned R2 Z2.0 and has a height limit of 16.0 metres. This zoning would permit residential buildings with a maximum density of two times the area of the lot. The area to the south of the property and south of the Lake Iroquois shoreline is zoned R2 Z0.6 with a height limit of 11.0 metres. This zoning would permit residential uses up to a density of 0.6 times the area of the lot.

(5)OMB Appeal/Referral

A notice of appeal was received by the City Clerk on July 14, 1998, from Murray H. Chusid, Solicitor for Shane Baghai Construction Contracting Inc. The applicant has appealed both the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. The appeals were made on the basis that the City had not made a decision within the statutory 90 day period set out in the Planning Act.

The City was recently notified that the OMB has set aside November 25, 1998 for a Prehearing Conference respecting this application. Among other matters, the Prehearing Conference will deal with the identification of participants and issues and the starting date for a hearing.

(6)Public Meeting

On June 9, 1998, a public meeting was held in the community to discuss the application. Approximately 80 people attended the meeting. The majority of those in attendance were opposed to the development in its present form. The primary concerns were the proposal's height and density; loss of views; shadowing impacts; possible traffic impacts; and the location and amount of visitor parking.

(7)Civic Comments (Appendix A)

The application was circulated to the various Civic Service Areas for comments.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises that the 50 parking spaces proposed will meet the estimated parking demand generated by this building (21 spaces, including 19 for residents and 2 for visitors). However, a physical separation is required between the residents' and the residential visitor component of the parking garage in order to ensure the residents' spaces are available at all times. The Commissioner also advises that a garbage room/recycling room with a minimum size of 15 square metres and the installation of a carousel bagger in the garbage room will be required.

The Commission of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the landscape plan submitted with the application is not acceptable and has requested that the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan for review and approval. The Commissioner has recommended that the applicant be advised of their comments respecting City owned trees and of Chapter 331 of the Municipal Code regarding the preservation of significant trees on private property.

The Zoning Review, dated February 28, 1998, indicated that additional information was required in order to provide a detailed review. The additional information requested from the applicant has yet to be submitted.

(8)Planning Comments

As discussed in the Preliminary Report, the proposed density and height (4.2 times coverage and 32 metres respectively) significantly exceed the maximums permitted by current planning controls and must be assessed in the existing physical context and in terms of the City's planning and built form objectives.

(a)Siting and Landscaping

The building is set back 11.6 metres from the streetline which is consistent with the setback of the historic building to the east. However, the building covers virtually the full width of the lot and would not permit appropriate landscaping/screening. I would also note that the applicant has yet to provide detailed landscape/planting plans.

(b)Height and Density

The gross floor area of the proposed apartment building is 5,162 square metres or 4.06 times the area of the lot which exceeds the maximum permitted density of 1.0 times by 3.06 times the area of the lot. The height of the proposed building is 32 metres which exceeds the permitted height of 11 metres by 21 metres.

Adjacent buildings fronting onto Jackes Avenue range in height and density between 2.5 and 28 storeys and 1.31 and 3.65 times coverage (See Table 1). However, these developments are generally characterized by much larger lots and generous setbacks which help mitigate their potential negative impacts. The proposed development would occupy a comparatively small lot and the proposed density of 4.06 times the lot area would exceed the density of all other buildings in the immediate vicinity. As a result of its density, height and massing, the proposed building would cast undesirable shadows, block primary views and set an undesirable precedent, as discussed below.

Further, because the front wall of the proposed 10 storey building does not step back at any point along its front elevation, it is incompatible with the 3 storey designated historic building to the east.

(c)Sun/ Shade

The proposed massing and height of the building will have a negative impact on the public realm and on the adjacent property at 33 Jackes Avenue. Sunlight testing of the proposal, shows a significant shadow would be cast across the sidewalk on the north side of Jackes Avenue on the equinox (September 21 and March 21) during the midday. The building should be designed so that it would be under a 44 degree angular plane from the north curb of Jackes Avenue as this would ensure a 3 hour sunlight window on the north sidewalk on the equinox.

At the neighbourhood meeting the residents of 33 Jackes Avenue expressed concern that the building will cast a shadow on their building in the late afternoon. The north-west face of the building at 33 Jackes Avenue currently only receives direct sunlight in the late afternoon because of the north-west orientation of the windows and rooms and the shadow cast by the 22 storey building at 7 Jackes Avenue. Sunlight testing of the proposed development shows that the proposed building would cast further shadow on 33 Jackes Avenue in the late afternoon.

(d)Views

A major concern raised by the adjacent residents was loss of views due to the proposed 10 storey building. The building at 33 Jackes Avenue has a unique design in so far as the principal rooms and views are oriented at 45 degrees to the street and property line. Each floor has 4 apartments and one-quarter of the apartments have their primary window views to the north-west, over the subject site. The residents have argued that if the building was built within or in closer conformity to the current height restrictions existing views would not be as negatively impacted.

A computer model has been generated to help in the review of the proposed development. Specifically, the model helps analyse the impact of the proposed building on views from 33 Jackes Avenue. The model examines what a person would see if they were standing in the living room (approximately 1 metre from the window at a 45 degree angle) looking out at the 9 metre ( 3^rd floor) and 21 metre (9^th floor) levels. The results show that the proposed building has a negative relationship to the north-west facing units in 33 Jackes Avenue. Specifically, the analysis demonstrates that a large percentage of the sky views were blocked in each case.

The massing of the proposed building should be redesigned so as to minimize these negative impacts.

(e)Overlook

The proposed building would include balconies on both the east and west sides of the building. These balconies would be located in the middle of the building and project to the side lot lines. The location of these balconies would have a negative impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties.

(9)Development Guidelines

Although properties on the south side of Jackes Avenue are designated as Low Density Residence Area and zoned R2 Z1.0, existing developments do not, for the most part, reflect those designations. For example, 7 and 33 Jackes Avenue significantly exceed the permitted height and density limits (See Table 1). In terms of the physical characteristics of the properties and the buildings which they accommodate, properties on the south side of Jackes Avenue are generally comparable to those on the north side of the street, in the High Density Residence Area.

There is a significant downward slope, of between 9 and 13 metres, between Jackes Avenue and Woodlawn Avenue East. In terms of topography and to a lesser extent built form, the Low Density Residence Area properties on the north side of Woodlawn Avenue are arguably more closely related to the single family area to the south than to the apartments on top of the escarpment, on the south side of Jackes Avenue.

In light of the existing pattern of development and topography, I would be prepared to consider additional height and density on this site provided planning and built form issues discussed above are addressed. Generally stated, a building with a height and density above current permissions should have regard for the existing built form context, views from existing buildings, shadow impacts on the public sidewalk and on adjacent properties, privacy and potential influence on future development/redevelopment in the immediate vicinity.

Staff, in consultation with the applicant's representatives, have developed detailed guidelines for a potential tower development on the site which require some further testing. Staff have also begun work on guidelines to test the potential for a townhouse form of development. Staff are proposing to continue discussions with the applicant and area representatives to explore appropriate alternative development concepts.

(10)Possible Use of a Section 37 Agreement

At its meeting of April 1, 1998, the Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to investigate securing appropriate community benefits related to this development through section 37 of the Planning Act and to ensure that such agreement provides that benefits serve those in the neighbourhood in which the application is located. I will investigate the use of a section 37 Agreement for this application and report on this matter prior to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

Conclusion:

The application in its current form is not acceptable and should be refused. However, I would be prepared to consider a revised application with a density more typical of a development in a High Density Residence Area, provided certain planning and built form objectives are met. I am recommending that City Council refuse the application in its current form and instructed staff to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant.

I am also recommending that staff continue discussions with the applicant and area representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal for the site. I will report back to Council on the outcome of these discussions prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the original application.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-0881

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: Byrne@toronto.ca)

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Site Plan Approval:	Y		Application Number:	98003
Rezoning:	Y		Application Date:	February 25, 1998
O. P. A.:	Y		Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:9 Jackes Avenue.

Nearest Intersection:	South side of Jackes Avenue; east of Yonge Street.
Project Description:	To construct a residential condominium containing 19 units.

Applicant: Shane Baghai Const. Inc. 1131A Leslie St. Unit #220 449-5994

Agent: Shane Baghai Const. Inc. 1131A Leslie St. Unit #220 449-5994

Architect:

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	LDRA	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	R2 Z1.0	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	11.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	1272.8 m2		Height:	Storeys:		10
Frontage:	22.5 m			Metres:		32.28
Depth:	56.3 m
				Indoor		Outdoor
Ground Floor:			Parking Spaces:	50
Residential GFA:	5162.0 m2		Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:	5162.0 m2		(number, type)
Total GFA:

DWELLING UNITS					FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN
Tenure:	Condo				Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
2 Bedroom:	19				Residential	5162.0 m2
Total Units:	19

PROPOSED DENSITY
Residential Density: 4.06	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 4.06

Data valid:

October 16, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

(Appendix A)

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Parks, dated May 20, 1998.

This will acknowledge your Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning Circulation Form which was circulated on March 6, 1998 and contained new plans for the above noted application. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

(i)There is/are one City owned tree(s) involved with this project which is/are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These tree(s) must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

(ii)If sufficient space exists, the applicant should provide large growing shade trees to be planted within the City road allowance as part of this application. A detailed landscape plan must be provided which indicates the exact location of all existing City owned trees and any proposed trees to be planted within the City road allowance including details with respect to proposed tree species, caliper and quantity. A planting plan should provide the best possible, natural, planting environment for trees. It is preferred that trees be planted in turf when possible. If no room exists for turf boulevards with trees, raised planting beds or continuous tree pits should be considered. Trees must be planted in accordance with the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to the City.

Street Trees in Turf:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 101 for Balled and Burlapped Trees in Turf Areas.

Street Trees in Raised Planters:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 102 for Raised Tree Planter -Concept.

Street Trees in Tree Pits:In accordance with Planting Detail No.'s 103, 103-1, 103-2, & 103-3 for 1.2 m x 2.4 m Tree Pit. Tree pits must be constructed in accordance with the Continuous Tree Pit details outlined in the Construction Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as Drawing No.'s RE-1833M-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -6, 1 of 2 & 2 of 2.

(iii)There appear to be trees situated on private property which may be impacted by this development. City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, requires that a permit be obtained for the injury or destruction of trees situated on private property which are generally in good health and have a diameter of 30 cm or more. Trees which may be affected could be located on the subject development site or on lands adjacent to the development site. For all existing trees situated on private property that are to be retained and protected, a detailed report and plan must be provided which indicates the impact of the construction activities in connection with the proposed development on the trees in question and appropriate tree protection measures as determined by a Certified or Registered Consulting Arborist or Registered Professional Forester retained by the applicant.

(iv)Your staff should contact Mr. Gary Le Blanc of my staff at 392-0494 regarding the applicant's need to submit an application for permission to injure or destroy trees should the development continue in its present form. The City also encourages new tree planting on private property and encourages the protection of other existing trees situated on private property and construction which accommodates the preservation of trees.

(v)I advise that the plans prepared by Rafael + Bigauskas Architects, date stamped as received on February 25, 1998 by Urban Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.

2.Buildings, dated July 7, 1998.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct 11 storey apartment building comprising 19 dwelling units and two levels of below grade parking.

Zoning Designation:R2 Z1.0Map:51J 321

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

Plans prepared by:Rafael + BigauskasPlans dated: February 28, 1998

Residential GFA:5162 m²

Zoning Review

The proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, however, additional information is required to provide a detailed review.

(1)Provide a fully dimensioned site plan that shows:

(a)the location of the proposed building in relation to the lot lines; and

(b)the proposed length and width of the subject building

(2)Provide a plan of survey that shows the distance the adjacent buildings are set back from their respective lot lines.

(3).Provide a plan of survey that shows "spot elevations" along the side lot lines.

4.Indicate the amount of residential amenity space that is provided indoors and outdoors.

(5)Indicate if the proposed bicycle parking spaces are provided for both occupants and visitors.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals:

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

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

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

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

3.Works and Emergence Services, dated October 6, 1998.

Recommendations:

(1)That the owner be required to:

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

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

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

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

(e)provide and maintain a minimum of 24 parking spaces to serve the residential component of the project, including at least 19 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and at least 5 parking spaces for visitors;

(f )provide and maintain a physical separation between the residents' and the residential visitor portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the residents' parking;

(g)construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5percent within 6 m of the property line and not exceeding 15 percent along the remaining portions;

(h)provide and maintain a garbage/recycling room at least 15 square metres in size and install and maintain a carousel bagger in the garbage room;

(i)provide and maintain access to the garbage/recycling room to all residents in the building;

(j)designate a common garbage pick-up area adjacent to the sidewalk, within the Jackes Avenue road allowance;

(k)submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(i)a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario Co-ordinate System;

(ii)final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the building envelope plans and such plans should be submitted at least three weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council; and

(iii)a site servicing plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

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

(2)That the owner be advised:

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

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

Comments:

Location

South side of Jackes Avenue, east of Yonge Street.

Proposal

Construction of a residential building containing 19 residential condominium units.

Parking and Access

A two-level underground parking garage containing 50 parking spaces is proposed to serve this project, which satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this building for 21 spaces, including 19 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, based in part on the surveyed parking demand of residential condominium units, and 2 spaces for the residential visitors. As far as can be ascertained the Zoning By-law requirement is for 24 spaces, including 19 spaces for the residents and 5 for residential visitors.

The proposed parking supply and general layout and dimensions of the parking spaces are acceptable. However, a physical separation is required between the residents' (19 spaces) and the residential visitor component (5 spaces) of the parking garage in order to ensure the residents' spaces are available for their use at all times. The physical separation must be shown on the plans.

Access to the underground garage is proposed via a ramp from Jackes Avenue located at the east end of the site. The entrance to the underground garage is indicated on the plans as being level within the first 11.6 m of the streetline, increasing to a ramp slope of 15 percent thereafter. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with regular twice a week curbside refuse collection service on Jackes Avenue in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a garbage/recycling room with a minimum size of 15 mē for the storage of garbage and recyclable materials generated by the residents between collections and the installation and maintenance of a carousel bagger in the garbage room below the garbage chute. In addition, the plans should indicate a designated set out point within the Jackes Avenue road allowance, adjacent to the curb, where garbage bags and recyclable material can be placed on collection days.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development, however, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a site servicing plan to this Department for review and approval.

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

Work Within the Road Allowance

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received by this Department.

Appendix B

Table 1

Heights and Densities for Properties Fronting on Jackes Avenue

Address	Use	Height	Density
7 Jackes Avenue	residential	28.0 storeys	3.01
33 Jackes Avenue	residential	10.0 storeys	2.51
35 Jackes Avenue	non-residential	2.5 storeys	1.31
49 Jackes Avenue	non-residential	3.5 storeys	1.54
44 Jackes Avenue	residential	28.0 storeys	3.65*

Notes:*Density information for 44 Jackes Avenue was taken from a Preliminary Zoning Review notice dated February 13, 1998. All other use, height and density information was taken from the City's Central Property Register - Current Land Use File.)

--------

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

-(February 14, 1999) from Mr. Matthias Schlaepfer;

-(February 15, 1999) from Ms. Karen E. Redner, Summerhill Tenants Association;

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. John Tyacke, Summerhill Residents Association;

-(February 15, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Volk;

-(February 16, 1999) from Mr. Robert Campbell and Ms. Margaret Campbell-Pacsu;

-(February 17, 1999) from Ms. Janice Merson, President, Summerhill Residents' Association; and

-(February 17, 1999) from Mr. John Tyacke, Summerhill Residents' Association.