Planning & Urban Design Rationale

RATIONALE DESIGN & URBAN PLANNING O T N O R O T F O Y T I C 248 &260HIGH PARK AVENUE

ARED FOR: R O F D E R PA E R P D OPMENTS N E M P LO E V E February 2016 TRAC I C N . 16 Job Number - 15199 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 3 2.1 SITE 3 2.2 SURROUNDING AREA 5 2.3 TRANSIT NETWORK & ROAD CLASSIFICATION 11 3.0 THE PROPOSAL 13 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 13 Site Organization 14 Main Sanctuary 14 New Addition 14 Amenity Space 15 Access, Parking & Loading 15 Site Statistics Summary 15 3.2 REQUIRED APPROVALS 18 4.0 POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT 19 4.1 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 19 4.2 GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE 20 4.3 CITY OF TORONTO OFFICIAL PLAN 22 Growth Management Policies 22 Land Use Designation Policies 23 Heritage Policies 25 Built Form Policies 25 Housing Policies 27 Implementation Policies 27 4.4 ZONING 28 Zoning By-law 438-86 28 City-Wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 29 Site Specific Bylaw No. 23-75 29 5.0 PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS 31 5.1 INTENSIFICATION 31 5.2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 31 5.3 LAND USE 32 5.4 HEIGHT, MASSING AND DENSITY 33 5.5 BUILT FORM IMPACTS 34 5.6 URBAN DESIGN 35 5.7 TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS 36 5.8 FUNCTIONAL SERVICING 36 5.9 COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES STUDY 36 6.0 CONCLUSION 37

APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES STUDY A1

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue i SUBJECT SITE

M L

A AVER

W T

S REE T T

E S TY S R T

ET M E N

N E E A

D T TR L A A EET Z N I D E

P L S S A T S T R I R E F E E I T C E A T A V H E I N G H U P E P A R Q K U A E A B V E E C N U C A L V E E E N N D U O E N S

T R E E T NUE AVE INGS JENN NUE AVE SIDE BER HUM

Figure 1 - Aerial Photo

ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Planning and Urban Design Rationale report has been prepared in support of an application made by TRAC Developments Inc. to amend City of Toronto By-law 438-86, as amended, and City-wide Zoning By-law 569- 2013, as amended, in order to permit the redevelopment of a 0.487-hectare (1.2 acre) site known municipally as Nos. 248 and 260 High Park Avenue in the City of Toronto. (the “subject site”).

The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Annette Street and High Park Avenue (see Figure 1, Aerial Photo), which is a major intersection in the Junction/High Park North neighbourhood. It is an area that is characterized by a range of building typologies including other repurposed institutional buildings, apartment buildings, detached, semi-detached and other multi- occupancy buildings.

The proposal involves the adaptive reuse of the existing church building in a manner that retains and repurposes those elements that are of historical value, and introduces a new addition that is massed sensitively around the main sanctuary. The development is designed to accommodate 77 residential units, with a gross floor area of approximately 9,850 square metres (106,027square feet) resulting in a density of approximately 2.02 FSI. Two below grade parking levels would provide for 107 vehicular parking spaces and 78 bicycle parking spaces.

In our opinion, the height, massing and density of the proposed development conform with the Neighbourhoods designation, and are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding context. The proposed residential use conforms with the Official Plan and is permitted by the applicable Neighbourhoods designation, which permits all forms of low-rise residential uses, including apartment buildings up to 4 storeys in height.

The proposal is supportive of numerous policy directions expressed in the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Toronto Official Plan, all of which promote the intensification of underutilized sites within built-up areas, particularly in locations which are well served by existing municipal infrastructure, including public transit. The proposal will contribute to the provision of a wider range of housing choices within the neighbourhood, including housing suitable for families, in accordance with the housing policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Toronto Official Plan.

Accordingly, it is our opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and accompanying Site Plan Approval applications are appropriate and desirable and should be approved.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 1 Aerial Photo

2 2.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

2.1 Site The subject site is situated at the southwest corner of Annette Street and High Park Avenue on the border between the High Park and Junction neighbourhoods. It has an area of 0.487 Hectares (1.2 acres) with a frontage of 60.93 metres (199.9 feet) along Annette Street and 75.93 metres (279 feet) along High Park Avenue (The subject site is irregular in shape, with a 16.52 by 15.39 metre parcel that extends in the southwest corner, and is located to the rear of No. 246 High Park Avenue. The subject site generally has a flat topography with landscaped areas along both street frontages and a limited number of trees located along or adjacent to the eastern, northern and southern property boundaries.

The subject site contains the High Park Alhambra United Church a building that has been listed on the City of Toronto’s Inventory of Heritage Properties since 1990. The church is currently vacant. Having faced decreasing membership as well as rising operations and maintenance costs, the congregation closed in 1996. The original portion of the church was constructed in Looking south at subject site from Annette Street 1907 (the Main Sanctuary) and an addition known as the ‘Sunday School Building’, to the west of the original structure, was constructed later in 1924. In terms or architectural style, the church represents Gothic Revival-Collegiate style and contains military features such as arrow slot windows surrounding the towers and crenellations atop the towers.

Looking north from rear of 246 High Park Avenue

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 3 The Main Sanctuary, generally consists of two towers (A & B) as well as three symmetrical gables on the northern, eastern and southern facades that contain arched stained glass windows original to church. As referenced in the architectural set, Bell Tower B measures approximately 19.21 metres in height from established grade and is located at the northeast corner of the Main Sanctuary. Bell Tower A, measures 14.21 metres from established grade and is located at the southeast corner of the Main Sanctuary.

The Sunday School addition was built to accommodate a gymnasium, the Sunday School operations and lodging rooms. This portion of the church building offers less ornamentation than the original building and stands 3-storeys in height with a flat roof.

On the south side of the building is an extensive surface parking lot that was previously used by the church congregation. The surface parking lot is accessed via Looking southwest at bell tower and the main sanctuary an existing driveway on High Park Avenue. No. 248 High Park Avenue has been included in the proposal at the suggestion of planning staff. It contains a 2-storety brick dwelling.

Looking southeast at Sunday School addition

4 2.2 Surrounding Area The subject site is located between the boundaries of ‘The Junction’ and ‘High Park North’ neighbourhoods. High Park North is mainly residential in nature, containing largely detached and semi-detached homes constructed in the early 20th century. However, with the construction of the Bloor-Danforth subway in the late 1960’s the neighbourhood saw the construction of a number of apartment buildings (low to high rise). The neighbourhood borrows its name from the large 200-acre city park to south, known as High Park.

The Junction, originally the Village of West Toronto Junction (1888), gained its name from the intersection of several railway lines within the area, and was a manufacturing community that boomed during the late 1800’s. Around this time Annette Street became an institutional corridor that offered 3 churches, a library and a masonic temple within two city blocks. Today Annette Street contains a variety of building forms and land uses, including small scale commercial uses, some of the original institutional uses, and others that have been repurposed.

The subject site is located at the southwest corner of the local neighbourhood’s two primary streets; Annette Street which runs east- west and High Park Avenue which runs north-south. The block on which the subject site it is located is bounded by High Park Avenue to the east, Quebec Avenue to the west, Humberside Avenue to the south and Annette Street to the north. The block is characterized by deep lots (fronting High Park Avenue and Quebec Avenue) with no rear laneway system. The residential lots fronting High Park Avenue are as much as 60.9 metres (200 feet) deep with rear yard setbacks in excess of 35 metres. The lots fronting onto Quebec Avenue are approximately 48 metres (157.5 feet) deep with rear yards setbacks of approximately 30 metres These setbacks represent roughly 3 to 4 times the minimum rear yard setback typically required within a residential zone.

Looking west from the subject site towards Quebec Avenue properties

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 5 Immediately to the south of the subject site is 246 High Park Avenue, which is occupied by a 2 ½ storey brick dwelling, converted to accommodate a multi-family use. The dwelling is setback roughly 10 metres from its front property line, and has a shallower backyard as compared to neighbouring properties, to accommodate the former church’s additional parking area. Continuing south, 2 ½ - 3 storey brick dwellings represent the prevailing built form, of which a number have been converted over time to accommodate multi-family uses. Interspersed between the house-form dwellings are semi-detached triplexes, such as 233-235 and 229-231 High Park Avenue Approximately 1-kilometer south (10-minute walk) of the subject site is the High Park Subway Station as well as the northern boundary of High Park.

Directly east of the site, on the eastside of High Park Avenue is a TTC bus stop and a large 3-storey dwelling Looking southeast at 233-235 and 229-231 High Park Avenue (265 High Park Avenue) which has been converted to accommodate multiple dwellings. On either side of the 265 High Park Avenue are 2-storey walk-up apartment blocks (261- 251 High Park Avenue and 195-189 Annette Street) The built form along Annette Street continuing east consists mainly of single and semi-detached 2½ to 3- storey residential dwellings, many of which have been divided to accommodate multi-family use, interspersed between institutional or formerly institutional buildings. These include St. Cecilia’s Catholic Church (161-163 Annette Street), the former Victoria Royce Church (152 Annette Street – Designated Heritage), Victoria Lodge Masonic Temple (151 Annette Street -), Annette Street Public Library Branch (145 Annette Street - Heritage Listed) and the former Annette Street Baptist Church (200 Annette Street – Designated Heritage) all of which, occupy parcels larger their general surrounding context and possess heritage attributes. Looking southeast on Annette Street at 195-189 Annette Street

St. Cecialias Catholic Church Annette Street public library (145 Annette Street) and Victoria Lodge Masonic Temple ( 151 Annette Street)

6 As the area to the east possesses comparable examples of residential church conversions, these properties are discussed in further detail below:

200 Annette Street, formerly known as Czechoslovak Baptist Church (originally Annette Street Baptist Church) is located at the northeast corner of Annette Street and High Park Avenue. The original structure was built in 1888 and in 2010 the building underwent construction to accommodate 8 residential condominium units. Extensive alterations were made to the north elevation to accommodate windows, dormer windows, small decks, and covered parking constructed within the existing brick buttresses. In addition the east elevation was altered to provide an additional floor and window area. The separation distance between the windows along the northern elevation and the neighbouring dwelling to the north is approximately 6 metres.

152 Annette Street, formerly known as Victoria Royce Church, is located at the northwest corner of Annette and Medland Streets. The church was originally constructed in 1890 with a 3-storey flat roofed brick Sunday school structure constructed to the northeast in 1924. The church and Sunday school were adaptively 200 Annette Street reused to accommodate 34 residential units with 22 below grade parking spaces, with the addition of a 270 square metres one-storey rooftop penthouse atop the school structure.

152 Annette Street

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 7 Immediately to the north of the subject site, on the north side of Annette Street, are four 2-storey row houses (218-224 Annette Street) and a large 2-storey single detached dwelling and associated parking garage (268 High Park Avenue). Further to the north, the neighbourhood contains single detached dwellings, 2 ½ - 3 storeys in height, many of which have been converted to accommodate a multi-family use, occupy the blocks. Also, several 3-storey walk-up apartment buildings (316-322 High Park Avenue) are located mid-block. Northeast of the site at 372 Pacific Avenue is a large No Frills grocery store and associated surface parking.

218-224 Annette Street

Looking north from 268 High Park Avenue

8 Directly west of the subject site on Annette Street is a 2½-storey detached dwelling (223 Annette Street) with an approximate sidewall separation distance of 7.5 metres to the western elevation of the existing church. The rear yard setback for this lot is approximately 15.5 metres. The western boundary of the subject site is also shared with the rear property boundary of five properties that front Quebec Avenue (349, 345, 341, 339, 335), with an approximate average rear yard setback of 28 – 30 metres. Continuing east along Annette the street consists of 2-3 storey detached and semi detached residential dwellings, several of which are mixed-use. Examples of such mixed-use properties, with restaurants/retail at grade and residential above, include the Annette Foodmart, an upscale pizzeria and a convenience store (238, 240 and 242 Annette Street). To the southwest of the subject site 223 Annette Street, looking south is the Humberside Collegiate Institute and the associated sport fields, Ravina Gardens Park, Annette Junior and Senior Public School, the Annette Community Recreation Centre and Saint Cecilia Catholic Elementary School.

238, 240 and 242 Annette Street

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 9 10 2.3 Transit Network & Road Classification The High Park and Junction neighbourhoods have excellent rapid and surface public transit services. The intersection on which the subject site is situated, conveniently offers a bus shelter on each corner. In addition, the site is located approximately 1-kilometre north (a 10-minute walk) from the High Park Subway Station, which is on the Bloor- Danforth subway line (see Figure 2, TTC Transit Network). In terms of surface transit, the 26 Dupont generally operates in an east-west direction between St. George Station (Yonge-University Line) and Jane Station (Bloor-Danforth Line). Whereas the 30 Lambton bus generally operates in a north-south direction between Kipling Station and High Park Station. As a result of these connections, this is a transit accessible site.

As for roadway classification, Annette Street is classified by the City of Toronto as a ‘Minor Arterial Road’, where traffic movement is considered a primary function. Whereas High Park Avenue is classified as a ‘Collector Road’ intended to provide access to property and traffic movement.

SUBJECT SITE

Figure 2 - Transit Map

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 11 12 3.0 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Description of Proposal The proposal involves the adaptive reuse of a vacant church building in a manner that retains and repurposes those elements that are of historical value, and introduces a new addition that is massed sensitively around the main sanctuary and integrates this prominent infill site into the remainder of the block (see Figure 3, Site Plan).

The proposal will repurpose 260 High Park Avenue for residential uses, while retaining the original portion of the 1907 church building. The Sunday school addition will be demolished as will the two-storey detached dwelling at 248 High Park Avenue.

Overall the development is designed to accommodate 77 residential units, with a gross floor area of approximately 9,850 square metres (106,027square

feet) resulting in a density of approximately 2.02 FSI. Two below grade P

parking levels would provide for 107 vehicular parking.I.N spaces and 78 bicycle

. 2

5 G

parking spaces. -

(

) 4

R 116. 0 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all A B C E 63 F G H I J K M

dimensions and conditions on site and must notify Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. of E 116. any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The

architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical,

LO D 116. 2.73 m 12.48 m 70.13 m 6.06 m 32 electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's

116. 26 drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable

12 B 12

12 (T codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from

P (MEAS)

N17°04'55"W 99 3 ( )

2 drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility

3 B

6.15 m 2.50 m 10.20 m 7.14 m 6.73 m 6.73 m 6.73 m 6.73 m 6.73 m 0 7.13 m 4.43 m

9 1 )

LO and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work.

T 116. 116. S

N16°20'34"W (P)

E 2

R 38

70 C 19

N16°22'00"W (D1) &

D K

1 1 / 2

GA 116. 12

116.

S 116.

2 U

74 K

R N 116.

RZ 30 RZ 29 3 2

L 53 I

OR 33

Y A

3 K

O 117. 6

D G

L 22

OR 116. . ( I

E 0

E T 116. N 86 0 ) ENTRY LEGEND

Y ( 116.

G B 70 m ) 116. 116. 82 73 116. 116. 38 57 117. P.I.N. 21365-0007(LT) 116. 23 ( 116. 51 116. T PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL

L EGRESS PATH )

05 2 VISITOR 43 6.00 m 5

2 . 116. 6 1

73 116. 74 1 ENTRY

15 116. R MIN. 3m SEPARATION C

80 APPROX I

PARKING STALLS 89 116. B M NW17° 04' 54" 116.44

FROM ALL UNPROTECTED = N 62 . 116.62 APPROX. AT U/G LEVEL 1 44 116. 1 299.87' 1 SECONDARY

OPENINGS 116. 6

553 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 38 116.97 . 27 2 RESIDENTIAL ENTRY (T 3

m m 116. ( )

B ) 116. 116.

0 116. 5 32 ENTRY FOR EMERGENCY 5 44 32 0

60 . m

m m SERVICES .

(

3 R M 3 )

I H

0 0 2.59 m M

4 =

0 0

T T

R R

. N APPROX. . 1

1 1

N GRAVEL 1

T T

APPROX. 7 7

H H

6 6 6

O RAMP DN TO U/G 1 116.78 3

3 .

A A

R 3

° °

G G 115.14

2 GARDEN

O O

15.40 m 8.50 m 10.20 m 3 0

. I . I

9 9 4.0m @ 7.5% 9.2m @ 11.25% SLOPE 4.0m @ 7.5%

O 2

1 1

L L

' E EXTENT OF U/G

R R

0 4 EXTENT OF U/G SLOPE SLOPE

F F

O 116. 0 116.

E Y Y E

E 116. E

N LEVEL 1 BELOW "

1 L 1 L I 116. E LEVEL 1 BELOW 48

K K

T 33 T

T T

(

( 43

F F L

P D 27

S S

A A ) 1 (T ( 116.

)

M ) H

116. Y LANDSCAPED E TERRACE AT

E 46

R 45

)

R OUTDOOR FLOOR 4 0 ? O

A P

C R TERRACE AT FLOOR 4

O AMENITY L

O F

R E 116. 212.40 m² 116.

A FIRE ROUTE FIRE

. T 116. R 54

P 48

A 9 2286.28 SF

m 116.

W E 39

4 3 (T 116.

T 116. ' ) 50 T (

K 5 B 2 APPROX.

2 . ) 40 ( A

R 42 L

4 T )

. (

° 5 FFE = 118.14 B

A ) 3

1 7 PRIVATE O

L 1 ROOFTOP ROOFTOP ROOFTOP ROOFTOP 116. ROOFTOP . G 117. 2.61 m F

3 2 97

ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS N

16 T

T 2a

TERRACES I N

T 7 A

3.00 m N

STAIR STAIR STAIR STAIR

A 7

TYPE'G' °

O 4

" E E

S 17° 17' 45 I

1 °

0 6

O 0

50.51' C '

5 '

116. (MEAS) E 0 N17°17'45"W 4 13m x 4m x 6.1m x 4m x 13m

E LOADING SPACE

0 0 APPROX. A

T 116. "

(P) 1 N GA O 74 N16°39'46"W "

2 E

A E V

7 R

116.64 0 N16°20'35"W (D1) GREEN ROOF GREEN ROOF GREEN ROOF GREEN ROOF 41 I

R N

8 (

116. A Y

( (MEAS) P

PAT. L M

L ,

D E E

4 61 E

15.32 (P) F

0 1 A

E " )

T S

E 15.29 (D1)

) (

116. A

m T B

( M 70 116. 0 m Y

4 .0 N ) 5 116. 1

3 4 68 R

T N

69 E

OUTDOOR .

E I

3 116.

. 1 . 6 5 A 1

R 116. N

116. G

1 6.00 m 1 E

MECHANICAL 62 1 . AMENITY 116. 116.

6 . 5

O I

60 9 9 .

72 S

2 R 50 T DIMENSION TO BUILDING 49 ( PAT. P 8 ( T

O PENTHOUSE ROOF T 174.29 m² T 1 116. ) . ROOF ) 3a ( E ( B

3 B

T 3

L E )

O ) 5 51

T 6

P 1876.01 SF R F (GREEN ROOF)

3 E

116. 1

. E

I m -

P .

58 0

S N D

2 5

P 4 1

2 6

LO 1 P

TR 9

1 5

1 L 1 6 BALC. AT

4 .

4 F (

. °

I 66 3

6 7 T

T FLOOR 4

) T N

4 E

A LO 1

- 4a 2

13 1

E 0

6 3

R 3

3 )

6 T

C 116.

6 2

E BALC. AT FLOOR 3 BALC. AT FLOOR 3

T 1 ?

5 ( R 1 4 PAT. A 54

6 L -

O N

. E 116. G 0

76 I

14 E T

L 116. 0

L N 62

N )

I 1 F

I 1 R 53 (T

7 0 RZ 2018 L Y T ( ) E

RZ 19231721 B N ( )

F F

L 21

SKYLIGHTS T 7

Y R

I T

1 3

O O

1 O )

O X

6 ° AT FLOOR 1 S

. E

O 79 O

E 1

L 6

? T

R ROOFTOP R ROOFTOP

L 5a '

C 5

. I

e H r

F 116.

t 116.

5 l 1 0

N N

, H

ACCESS ACCESS i

1 o " s

67 T E 70

1 1 2

1 T

)

E E ( 6 E

A V

R . P

STAIR STAIR A

E E

(

bage RZ 27 . RZ 27

M L

E C

R R

A B

PAT. I

O ar M

11 10 L S ROOF OF

G M

) P

4 1

+/- 9.78 m G H

1 9 7 3

S 116.

0 1

EXISTING 10

9 6 116. 1 STOREY 5 116.

68 . 116.

R 1 7

0 6 2 55 72 BRICK 0 116. . SANCTUARY (

O T 69

11 11 2 ( )

8 1 1 B 60

) (

H 5 5 T

O 1

0 ) 1 ( E B

RZ 28 RZ 28 )

L 1

5 C

10 1.39S 10

1 STAIR B A

SKYLIGHTS 10 3 4 E

6 T

6 8 R AT FLOOR 1 A

R EXISTING BUS

E m 6a

SHELTER

8 3

3 2 2016-02-04 ISSUED FOR REZONING AND SPA RM

4 0 10

1 O

. 10

6 6 EXTENT OF U/G 1 2015-10-16 SUBMITTED FOR PPR RM 9

. R 1 F 4 62

2 LEVEL 1 BELOW No. Date: Issued/Revision: By

TERRACE AT FLOOR 2 O

E 10 BALC. AT FLOOR 3 BALC. AT FLOOR 3

7 PRIVATE ROOFTOP TERRACES O

T 1 1

10 10

1 0

FIRE ROUTE FIRE

0 9

1.36S 1 m TOP OF TOP OF

m 6

. TERRACE AT FLOOR 4 0

63 BELL BELL

4 10 10

10 5 10

6 .

7 10 2

0 0

1 6 1

0 8

. 7

610 2

10 10

10 TOWER TOWER 6.00 m 6

6 5

1 0 2

1 RZ 26 RZ 26

8 6 1 9 m

10 1 'A' 'B' 116. 116.

1 116.

6 TERRACE AT FLOOR 3 0 6 4 67

. 75 2 10 60 57 116.

5 ( 2

10 10 10 T

1 . 116.

10 1 2 ( )

1 1 B 72 9 3 2 6 7a

6 2 )

6 10 8

4 9

3 1 64 . 10 .

8 9 58 59 1 5.74 (T 9 m

6 )

6 (

0 . B E 2 85 m )

3 TERRACE AT TERRACE AT '

TERRACE AT FLOOR 1 9

m 1 6

FLOOR 1 FLOOR 1 9

1 1

6 9

. 3 Client : 54 10 3 1

5 EXTENT OF U/G

9 EXTENT OF U/G APPROX. LEVEL 1 BELOW

2 5 7 . 6 1 6 1

. TRAC DEVELOPMENTS INC.

E 1 7

. 1 . LEVEL 1 BELOW 116.64 - EXTENT OF U/G

6 .

U . / 65 6 4 SHORT TERM LEVEL 1 BELOW

N APPROX. Project :

E 10

m 10 1 BICYCLE 116.

8 116.74

8 6

8 . 9 78 68 PARKING No. 260 HIGH PARK CONCOURSE A

(T PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE ) CHURCH LOFTS AND RESIDENCES S 16° 53' 50" E E

116. T 6.20 m 199.17' MOUNTED H

T 260 HIGH PARK AVENUE 4 SHORT TERM 72

CURB E

DIMENSION TO BUILDING LANDSCAPED GREEN SPACE T TORONTO, ONTARIO 1 LANDSCAPED GREEN 1 APPROX. BICYCLE 116. N 6 116. . L

35 116. 10 Drawing Name : 116.55 SPACE 85 N 79

PARKING L 70 116. 6

A (

P 1 T

116. ) 10 10 73 1 1

1 1

S 5 6 66

6 6 8

. 0 . EXISTING WALKWAY 34 33 EXISTING WALKWAY EXISTING EXISTING 2 PROPOSED 116. SITE PLAN 12 ROLLED STOREY 68 CURB 116.

1 10 1 STRUCTURE TO BE RZ 1924251722 T

6 63 5 . Proj no. : Date : 2015-10-16 33

3 DEMOLISHED 15.281

H L

H 116. Drawn by : Scale :

H 116. 116.

10 AA As indicated 10

10 116.

10 116. 116. 116.

R R

1 116. CB 61

2 R 116. M

3 116. 116. 64

2 116. 116. 116. 116.

3 1 116. 116. 65

I 116.

2 I

1 116. R 116. 64 C

0 84

M= Checked by : M= 9

1 I

6 60 S

35 H 1 7 116. 116. 63 116. 116. 116. M

. 116. I 47 116. RM B

6 24( 28 116. 19 32 26 29 M= 36 54 44 49 48 =

25 30 ( L

. P

116. L ( T ( 11( P

1 G 23 1 1 36 1 T 16 27 ( ( 42 50 ) WV

( 48 1 1 T ( ) T T ( ) T ( G ( 1 Drawing No : 21 1 T B G 1

5 ) ) B 16 ) ( ) ) ) 6 ( 1 G ( ) B ) ( 116. 6

. G (

B .

) 6 RZ 30 RZ 29 G

C 9

) ) 4

( ) ) P

P .

G ) 8

7 I

2 B

) 62 M

M =

1 H 1 1

2.50 m 19.29 m 14.94 m 22.89 m 6 1

.5 SCALE 1:150 6

HIGH PARK A . RZ 10 VENUE 7 6.28 m 24.29 m 12.44 m (BY REGIS 22.89 m 10.03 m 3 116. TERED PLAN 553) 73 116. P.I.N. 21365-0046(LT)

C 33 C1 E1 G1 H1 I1 J1 K1 HIGH PARK AVENUE 0 5 10 m

10 10 116. 116. 1 1 1 116. 116. 116. 116. E:\15.281 - 260 High Park_asema.rvt

1 1 1 116. 116. 3 3

6 6 3 6 43 5

4 59 . . 6 . 53 71 23 30 33 36 66 76 92 Figure 3 - Site Plan

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 13 Site Organization The proposed building will be discussed as the ‘main sanctuary’ and the ‘new addition’. The ‘main sanctuary’ represents the original portion of the existing church building that was constructed in 1907 and is generally situated on the northeast corner of the site. The new addition replaces the Sunday school addition and extends generally in an L-shape on the west and south side on the main sanctuary where the church’s parking lot and the dwelling at 248 High Park Avenue are located today.

The new addition is setback approximately 11 metres from the south face of the main sanctuary creating an internal landscaped courtyard, that frames the main residential entrance for the building. The main vehicular driveway will be located at the northwest corner of the subject site with access from Annette Street, leading to a ramp accessing the underground parking levels.

Main Sanctuary As discussed, the main sanctuary represents the 1907 portion of the original church building that will be repurposed to accommodate new residential uses. The central portion of the main sanctuary accommodates 4 levels of living space, the 4th of which provides loft space within the original sanctuary roof that will be retrofitted with skylights.

A 1-storey greenhouse element will line the north side of the main sanctuary and is setback 5.75 metres from the Annette Street property line. The east face of the building maintains the existing setback of 8.25 metres and incorporates outdoor terraces for the ground floor units.

New Addition The new addition will contain residential units and accommodate the indoor amenity areas for the building. The new four-storey addition has an overall building height of 12.55 metres to the top of the main roof and 16.55 metres to the top of the mechanical penthouse.

Along Annette Street the new addition will be setback approximately 6 metres from the property line. There is an additional step back of 3.3 metres above the 3rd floor creating an outdoor terrace for the 4th level units. Along the western edge of the subject site, the new addition will have a predominant setback of 7.4 metres from the western property line. At the southwest corner, a portion of the building is setback 6.0 from the property line. Above the 3rd floor an additional setback of 2.5 metres is provided, creating outdoor terraces/solariums facing west.

On the south edge of the subject site, the new addition is setback approximately 6.0 – 6.23 metres from south property line. The third and fourth floors are setback a further 2.50, providing an outdoor terrace for the 3rd floor units. Along High Park Avenue, the new addition is setback 7.67 metres from the eastern property line and aligns with the setback of the main sanctuary building to the north.

14 Amenity Space A variety of amenity spaces are provided on the ground level and rooftop of the development. Specifically, 211.5 square metres (2,276 square feet) of outdoor amenity space is provided at the southwest corner of the subject site that can be accessed via the ground floor lounge (101.4 square metres) and fitness (65 square metres) areas. In addition, 136.5 square metres (1,469 square feet) of indoor amenity space will also be provided within the ground level. A 174.3 square metres (1, 876. square feet) rooftop patio will be provided atop the new addition

Access, Parking & Loading Vehicular access to the two levels of underground parking is provided by way of a two-way ramp from Annette Street located on the northwest corner of the site. Access to the loading space is also provided from Annette Street. A total of 107 parking spaces are proposed between the two levels, of which 17 will be tandem style spaces. A total of 37 resident and 15 visitor spaces will be provided within Underground Level 1 and 38 resident spaces will be provided within Underground Level 2.

In terms of bicycle parking, 10 short-term spaces will be provided between the eastern property line and the entrance to the landscaped arcade area. The remaining 68 long-term bicycle spaces will be located in bicycle locker located in the northwest corner of underground level 1.

Site Statistics Summary A summary of the proposed development is set out in Table 1:

Table 1 - Statistics Lot Area 4,873 sq.m (52,452.54 sq.f) GFA 9,850 sq.m (106,027 sq.f) Density 2.02 FSI Total Units Max. 77 Units 1 Bedroom + Den Units 41 2 Bedroom + Den Units 26 3 Bedroom + Den Units 10 Total Parking Spaces 107 Spaces Visitor Parking Spaces 15 Resident Parking Spaces 92 Total Bicycle Parking Spaces 78 Bicycle Parking Short-Term Bicycle Spaces 10 Long-Term Bicycle Spaces 68 (34 of which are vertical) Indoor Amenity 304 sq.m (3,267 sq. f) Outdoor Amenity 387 sq.m (4,161 sq. f) Green Roof 243 sq.m (2,614 sq. f)

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 15 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work.

ROOF 134.99 5.5m MAX. 4.00 m 4.00 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all

MECH PH PERMITTED dimensions and conditions on site and must notify Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's 130.99 drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. 3.70 m 3.70 FLOOR 4 127.29

FLOOR 3 m 2.95

124.34 m 12.55

FLOOR 2 m 2.95 121.39

FLOOR 1 m 2.95 118.44

UG 1 m 3.30 ANNETTE STREET 115.14

UG 2 m 2.80

E E ROOF 112.34

N N

I I 134.99

L L

5.5m MAX. 4.00 m 4.00

Y Y PERMITTED

T T MECH PH

R R 130.99

E E

P PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION P 3.70 m 3.70

O O FLOOR 4

R R 127.29

P P

FLOOR 3 m 2.95

124.34 m 12.55

FLOOR 2 m 2.95 Figure 4a - Proposed North Elevation 121.39

FLOOR 1 m 2.95 118.44

UG 1 m 3.30 ANNETTE STREET 115.14

UG 2 m 2.80

E E 112.34 ROOF

N N

I I

L L 134.99

Y Y

T T 5.5m MAX. 4.00 m 4.00

R R

MECH PH PERMITTED

E E 2 2016-02-04 ISSUED FOR REZONING AND SPA RM

P PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION P 130.99 1 2015-10-16 SUBMITTED FOR PPR RM

O O

R R No. Date: Issued/Revision: By

P P 3.70 m 3.70 FLOOR 4 127.29

FLOOR 3 m 2.95

124.34 m 12.55

FLOOR 2 m 2.95 121.39

FLOOR 1 m 2.95 ROOF 118.44

134.99 3300 UG 1 Client : 5.5m MAX. 4.00 m 4.00 115.14 MECH PH PERMITTED 2 2016-02-04 ISSUED FOR REZONING AND SPA RM HIGH PARK AVENUE 2800 TRAC DEVELOPMENTS INC. 130.99 UG 2 1 2015-10-16 SUBMITTED FOR PPR RM No. Date: Issued/Revision: By

3.70 m 3.70 112.34

E E Project : FLOOR 4

N N

I I

L L 127.29 No. 260 HIGH PARK

2.95 m 2.95 CHURCH LOFTS AND RESIDENCES

Y Y FLOOR 3

T T 12.55 m 12.55

R R 124.34 260 HIGH PARK AVENUE

E E TORONTO, ONTARIO 2.95 m 2.95

P P FLOOR 2

O O 121.39 Drawing Name :

R R 2.95 m 2.95

P PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION P FLOOR 1 PRESENTATION 118.44

3300 ELEVATIONS UG 1 Client : 115.14 Proj no. : Date : 2015-10-16 15.281

HIGH PARK AVENUE 2800 TRAC DEVELOPMENTS INC. UG 2 Drawn by : Scale : SCALE 1:00 AA 1 : 200 112.34

E E Project : Checked by : RM

N N

I I Drawing No :

L L No. 260 HIGH PARK

CHURCH LOFTS AND RESIDENCES

Y Y 0m 5m 10m

T T

R R 260 HIGH PARK AVENUE

E E TORONTO, ONTARIO RZ 17

P P

O O Drawing Name :

R R

P PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION P PRESENTATION ELEVATIONS E:\15.281 - 260 High Park_asema.rvt

Proj no. : Date : 2015-10-16 15.281 Drawn by : Scale : SCALE 1:00 AA 1 : 200 Checked by : Figure 4b - Proposed East Elevation RM Drawing No : 0m 5m 10m RZ 17 E:\15.281 - 260 High Park_asema.rvt

16 This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work.

ROOF 134.99

This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify Turner Fleischer Architects Inc. of 5.5m MAX. 4.00 m 4.00 any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical,

MECH PH PERMITTED electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility 130.99 and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. 3.70 m 3.70 FLOOR 4 127.29

FLOOR 3 m 2.95

124.34 m 12.55

FLOOR 2 m 2.95 121.39

FLOOR 1 m 2.95 118.44

UG 1 m 3.30 115.14

UG 2 m 2.80 ROOF112.34

E E 134.99

N N

I I

L L

5.5m MAX. 4.00 m 4.00

Y Y

MECH PH PERMITTED

T PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION T R R 130.99

E E 3.70 m 3.70

P P FLOOR 4

O O

R R 127.29

P P FLOOR 3 m 2.95

124.34 m 12.55

FLOOR 2 m 2.95 121.39

Figure 4c - Proposed South Elevation FLOOR 1 m 2.95 118.44

UG 1 m 3.30 115.14

UG 2 m 2.80 112.34

E E ROOF

N N

I I

L L 134.99

Y Y

T T 5.5m PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION MAX. 2 2016-02-04 ISSUED FOR REZONING AND SPA RM R R

PERMITTED 1 2015-10-16 SUBMITTED FOR PPR RM

E E MECH PH

P P No. Date: Issued/Revision: By

O O 130.99

R R

P P FLOOR 4 127.29 FLOOR 3

124.34 m 12.55 FLOOR 2 121.39 FLOOR 1 ROOF 118.44 Client : 134.99 UG 1 5.5m MAX. 2 2016-02-04 ISSUED FOR REZONINGTRAC AND SPADEVELOPMENTS RM INC.

MECH PH 115.14PERMITTED 1 2015-10-16 SUBMITTED FOR PPR RM No. Date: Issued/Revision: By 130.99 UG 2 m2.80 m 3.30 m 2.95 m 2.95 m 2.95 m 3.70 m 4.00 Project : 112.34

E E FLOOR 4 No. 260 HIGH PARK

N N

I I CHURCH LOFTS AND RESIDENCES 127.29

L L

Y Y FLOOR 3 260 HIGH PARK AVENUE

T T

12.55 m 12.55 TORONTO, ONTARIO

R R 124.34

E E Drawing Name : FLOOR 2

P P

O O 121.39 PRESENTATION

R R

P P FLOOR 1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 118.44 ELEVATIONS Client : UG 1 Proj no. : Date : 2015-10-16 TRAC DEVELOPMENTS 15.281INC. 115.14 Drawn by : Scale : SCALE 1:00 AA 1 : 200 2.80 m2.80 m 3.30 m 2.95 m 2.95 m 2.95 m 3.70 m 4.00 Checked by : UG 2 Project : RM 112.34 Drawing No :

E E No. 260 HIGH PARK

N N

I I CHURCH LOFTS AND RESIDENCES

L L 0m 5m 10m

Y Y 260 HIGH PARK AVENUE

T T TORONTO, ONTARIO RZ 18

R R

E E Drawing Name :

P P

O O PRESENTATION

R R E:\15.281 - 260 High Park_asema.rvt

P PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION P ELEVATIONS

Proj no. : Date : 2015-10-16 15.281 Drawn by : Scale : AA 1 : 200 SCALE 1:00 Checked by : RM Drawing No : Figure 4d - Proposed West Elevation 0m 5m 10m RZ 18 E:\15.281 - 260 High Park_asema.rvt

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 17 3.2 Required Approvals In our opinion, the proposed 4-storey development conforms with the policies detailed by the City of Toronto Official Plan and in particular, is permitted by the applicable Neighbourhoods designation. Accordingly, no Official Plan Amendment is required.

The proposal requires an amendment to the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, and Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended in order revise the development standards necessary to accommodate the proposal.

18 4.0 POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT

4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The current Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) came into effect on April 30, 2014. The PPS provides policy direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. In accordance with Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, all land use planning decisions are required to be consistent with the PPS. Policy 4.4 provides that the PPS “shall be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation”.

One of the key policy directions expressed in the PPS is to build strong healthy communities by promoting efficient development and land use patterns, accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential uses and other uses to meet long-term needs, and promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To that end, the PPS contains a number of policies that promote intensification, redevelopment and compact built form, particularly in areas well served by public transit.

In particular, Policy 1.1.3.2 of the PPS promotes densities and a mix of land uses that efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities and are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed. Policy 1.1.3.3 requires planning authorities to identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities. In addition, Policy 1.1.3.4 promotes appropriate development standards, which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety.

With respect to housing, Policy 1.4.3 requires provision to be made for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents by, among other matters, facilitating all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment and promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities and support the use of active transportation and transit.

The efficient use of infrastructure (particularly transit) is a key element of provincial policy (Sections 1.6.3, 1.6.5 and 1.6.7). With respect to transportation systems, Policy 1.6.7.4 promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support the current and future use of transit and active transportation.

Policy 1.7.1 of the PPS states that long-term prosperity will be supported by optimizing the use of land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets, and encouraging a sense of place by promoting well- designed built form and cultural planning.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 19 With respect to energy conservation, air quality and climate change, Policy 1.8.1 directs planning authorities to support energy conservation and efficiency, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and climate change adaptation through land use and development patterns which: promote compact form and a structure of nodes and corridors; promote the use of active transportation and transit in and between residential, employment and other areas; and improve the mix of employment and housing uses to shorten commute journeys and decrease transportation congestion.

Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS states that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Under the PPS, built heritage resources means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/ or federal registers. In this case, the existing church structure on the subject site is listed on the City of Toronto’s Inventory of Heritage Properties.

For the reasons set out in Sections 5.1 of this report, it is our opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and, in particular, the policies relating to residential intensification, the efficient use of land and infrastructure and the provision of a range and mix of housing types.

4.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the “Growth Plan”) came into effect June 16, 2006. Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that all decisions that affect a planning matter shall conform with the Growth Plan. Policy 5.4.1(1) provides that the Growth Plan, including context sections, policies, definitions and schedules, should be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation.

Similar to the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan supports intensification within built-up urban areas, particularly in proximity to transit. As noted in Section 2.1 of the Plan: “... Better use of land and infrastructure can be made by directing growth to existing urban areas. This Plan envisages increasing intensification of the existing built-up area, with a focus on urban growth centres, intensification corridors, major transit station areas, brownfield sites and greyfields. Concentrating new development in these areas also provides a focus for transit and infrastructure investments to support future growth.” The introduction in Section 2.1 goes on to say: “... It is important to optimize the use of the existing land supply to avoid over-designating new land for future urban development. This Plan’s emphasis on intensification and optimizing the use of the existing land supply represents a new approach to city- building in the GGH, one which concentrates more on making better use of our existing infrastructure, and less on continuously expanding the urban area.”

20 Policy 2.2.2(1) of the Growth Plan seeks to accommodate population and employment growth by, among other measures, directing a significant portion of new growth to the built-up areas of the community through intensification, reducing dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed-use, transit-supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments, and encouraging cities and towns to develop as complete communities with a diverse mix of land uses and a range and mix of employment and housing types.

Policy 2.2.3(6) requires municipalities to develop an intensification strategy, to be implemented through their official plans and other supporting documents, which will, among other things, encourage intensification generally throughout the built-up area, facilitate and promote intensification, and plan for a range and mix of housing.

Finally, Policy 3.2.3(2)(a) provides that all decisions on transit planning and investment will consider using transit infrastructure to shape growth, and planning for high residential and employment densities that ensure the efficiency and viability of existing and planned transit service levels.

For the reasons set out in Section 5.1 of this report, it is our opinion that the proposal conforms with the Growth Plan and, in particular, the policies encouraging intensification and optimizing the use of the existing land supply throughout the built-up area and the development of complete communities.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 21 4.3 City of Toronto Official Plan The Official Plan for the amalgamated City of Toronto (“the Plan”) was adopted on November 26, 2002 and was substantially approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on July 6, 2006, with the exception of certain policies and land use designations, none of which are applicable to the subject application. The City is currently undertaking an Official Plan review.

Growth Management Policies Chapter 2 of the Plan (Shaping the City) outlines the growth management strategy. It recognizes that: “Toronto’s future is one of growth, of rebuilding, of reurbanizing and of regenerating the City within an existing urban structure that is not easy to change. Population growth is needed to support economic growth and social development within the City and to contribute to a better future for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). A healthier Toronto will grow from a successful strategy to attract more residents and more jobs to the City.” To that end, Policy 2.1(3) provides that Toronto should accommodate a minimum of 3 million residents and 1.835 million jobs by the year 2031.

The Healthy Neighbourhoods policies in Section 2.3.1 provide that, by focusing most new residential development in the Centres, along the Avenues, and in other strategic locations, the shape and feel of neighbourhoods can be preserved. However, the explanatory text states these neighbourhoods will not stay frozen in time and that some physical change will occur over time as “enhancements, additions and infill housing occurs on individual sites” which “respects the existing physical character of the area”.

Policy 2.3.1(1) states that Neighbourhoods are considered to be physically stable areas and developments within Neighbourhoods will be consistent with this objective and will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes and open space patterns.

The introductory text in Section 2.4 (“Bringing the City Together: A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change”) notes that: “This Plan integrates transportation and land use planning at both the local and regional scales . . . In addition to policies regarding the physical infrastructure of the City’s transportation system, we need complementary policies to make more efficient use of this infrastructure and to support the goal of reducing car dependency throughout the City . . . Achieving a more intense, mixed use pattern of development will increase both the opportunity and the need to plan for better pedestrian and cycling conditions. It will also minimize the long term need for costly infrastructure, in the form of additional transit and road capacity, to meet the City’s growing transportation demands . . .” Policy 2.4(4) provides that, for sites in areas well serviced by transit including locations near rapid transit stations, consideration will be given to establishing minimum density requirements (in addition to maximum density limits) and establishing minimum and maximum parking requirements.

22 Land Use Designation Policies The subject site is designated as Neighbourhoods on Map 17 Land Use Plan (See Figure 5) as are abutting lands in all directions. Policy 4.1(1) states that Neighbourhoods are considered physically stable areas made up of residential uses in lower scale buildings such as detached houses, semi-detached houses, duplexes, triplexes and townhouses, as well as interspersed walk-up apartments that are no higher than four storeys, as well as parks, schools, local institutions and small-scale stores and shops serving the needs of area residents.

With respect to development criteria for Neighbourhoods, Section 4.1 provides that physical changes to established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and generally “fit” the existing physical character. The objective is for new development to respect and reinforce the general physical patterns in the Neighbourhood.

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Neighbourhoods Apartment Neighbourhoods Mixed Use Areas Parks and Open Space Areas Natural Areas SUBJECT SITE Parks Other Open Space Areas (Including Golf Courses, Cemeteries, Public Utilities) Institutional Areas Regeneration Areas Employment Areas Utility Corridors

Major Streets and Highways Local Streets Railway Lines Hydro Corridors

Not to Scale

Figure 5 - Land Use Plan - Map 17

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 23 Policy 4.1(5) states that development within established Neighbourhoods respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, including the following elements: • patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites; • size and configuration of lots; • heights, massing, scale and dwelling type of nearby residential properties; • prevailing building type(s); • setbacks of buildings from the street or streets; • prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space; • continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of a neighbourhood; and • conservation of heritage buildings, structures and landscapes. Within the context of these general policies, the Neighbourhoods designation also includes specific policies for infill development. In this respect, the introductory text notes the following: “Scattered throughout many Neighbourhoods are properties that differ from the prevailing patterns of lot size, configuration and orientation. Typically, these lots are sites of former non-residential uses such as an industry, institution, retail stores, a utility corridor, or are lots that were passed over in the first wave of urbanization. In converting these sites to residential uses, there is a genuine opportunity to add to the quality of Neighbourhood life by filling in the “gaps” and extending streets and paths. Due to the site configuration and orientation, it is often not possible or desirable to provide the same site standards and pattern of development in these infill projects as in the surrounding Neighbourhood. Special infill criteria are provided for dealing with the integration of new development for these sites …” Policy 4.1(9) provides that infill development on properties that vary from the local pattern in terms of lot size, configuration and/or orientation in established Neighbourhoods will: • have heights, massing and scale appropriate for the site and compatible with that permitted by the zoning for adjacent and nearby residential properties; • provide adequate privacy, sunlight and sky view for residents of new and existing buildings by ensuring adequate distance and separation between buildings walls using landscaping, planting and fencing to enhance privacy where needed; and • front onto existing or newly created public streets wherever possible, with no gates limiting public access; and • locate and screen service areas and garbage storage to minimize the impact on existing and new streets and residences.

24 Heritage Policies The existing church building on the subject site is listed of the City Toronto’s registry of Heritage Properties. The church was listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties on November 13th, 1990, however, it is not designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The listing provides the following brief history of the building.

High Park Alhambra Church (formerly known as High Park Avenue Methodist Church); 1907-08; Sunday School Building; 1924, Burke, Horwood and White, architects -adopted by City Council on November 12 & 13, 1990

Policy 3.1.5(4) states that properties on the Heritage Register will be conserved and maintained consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, as revised from time to time and as adopted by Council.

Policy 3.1.5(5) outlines that proposed alterations, development, and/or public works on or adjacent to, a property on the Heritage Register will ensure that the integrity of the heritage property’s cultural heritage value and attributes will be retained, prior to work commencing on the property and to the satisfaction of the City. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment is required in Schedule 3 of the Official Plan, it will describe and assess the potential impacts and mitigation strategies for the proposed alteration, development or public work.

3.1.5(6) states that the adaptive re-use of properties on the Heritage Register is encouraged for new uses permitted in the applicable Official Plan land use designation, consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.

3.1.5(26) provides that new construction on, or adjacent to, a property on the Heritage Register will be designed to conserve the cultural heritage values, attributes and character of that property and to mitigate visual and physical impact on it.

Built Form Policies Section 3.1.2 of the Official Plan recognizes the importance of good urban design, not just as an aesthetic overlay, but also as an essential ingredient of city-building. It demands high quality architecture, landscape architecture and urban design, both within the public realm and within the privately- developed built form. In putting forward policies to guide built form, the Plan notes that developments must be conceived not only in terms of the individual building site and program, but also in terms of how that building and site fit within the context of the neighbourhood and the City.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 25 Policy 3.1.2(1) provides that new development will be located and organized to fit with its existing and/or planned context. Relevant criteria include: • generally locating buildings parallel to the street with a consistent front yard setback; • locating main building entrances so that they are clearly visible and directly accessible from the public sidewalk; • providing ground floor uses that have views into, and access to, adjacent streets; and • preserving existing mature trees wherever possible and incorporating them into landscaping designs. Policy 3.1.2(2) requires that new development locate and organize vehicle parking access, service areas and utilities in order to minimize their impact on the property and surrounding area and improve safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks and open spaces by, among other things: • using shared service areas where possible within development block(s) including public and private lands, driveways and service courts; • consolidating and minimizing the width of driveways and cuts across the public sidewalk; • integrating services and utility functions within buildings where possible; • providing underground parking where appropriate; • limiting surface parking between the front face of a building and the public street or sidewalk; and • integrating above-ground parking structures, where permitted or appropriate, with building design, and have usable building space at grade facing adjacent streets, parks and open spaces. Policy 3.1.2(3) sets out policies to ensure that new development will be massed and its exterior façade will be designed to fit harmoniously into its existing and/or planned context, and will limit its impact on neighbouring streets, parks, open spaces and properties by: • massing new buildings to frame adjacent streets and open spaces in a way that respects the existing and/or planned street proportion; • incorporating exterior design elements, their form, scale, proportion, pattern and materials, and their sustainable design, to influence the character, scale and appearance of the development; • creating appropriate transitions in scale to neighbouring existing and/ or planned buildings for the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Plan; • providing for adequate light and privacy; • adequately limiting any resulting shadowing of, and uncomfortable wind conditions on, neighbouring streets, properties and open spaces, having regard for the varied nature of such areas; and • minimizing any additional shadowing and uncomfortable wind conditions on neighbouring parks as necessary to preserve their utility.

26 Policy 3.1.2(4) provides that new development will be massed to define the edges of streets, parks and open spaces at good proportion.

Policy 3.1.2(5) requires that new development will provide amenity for adjacent streets and open spaces to make the areas attractive, interesting, comfortable and functional for pedestrians by providing: • improvements to adjacent boulevards and sidewalks respecting sustainable design elements, including trees, shrubs, hedges, plantings or other ground cover, permeable paving materials, street furniture, curb ramps, waste and recycling containers, lighting and bicycle parking facilities; • co-ordinated landscape improvements in setbacks to create attractive transitions from the private to public realms; and • landscaped open space within the development site.

Housing Policies The Plan’s housing policies support a full range of housing in terms of form, tenure and affordability, across the City and within neighbourhoods, to meet the current and future needs of residents (Policy 3.2.1(1)). Policy 3.2.1(2) provides that new housing supply will be encouraged through intensification and infill that is consistent with the Plan.

Implementation Policies Policy 5.3.2(1) provides that implementation plans, strategies and guidelines, while they express Council policy, are not part of the Plan unless the Plan has been specifically amended to include them and do not have the status of the policies of the Official Plan adopted under the Planning Act.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 27 4.4 Zoning The in-force Zoning By-law applying to the subject site is Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, of the former City of Toronto. The new City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 was enacted by City Council on May 9, 2013; however, it is subject to numerous appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board and therefore is not yet in force.

Zoning By-law 438-86 SUBJECT SITE Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, zones the subject site R2 Z0.6 with a maximum height of 10.0 metres (see Figures 6 and 7) and maximum density of 0.6 times the lot area. This zone and height limit also applies to the remainder of the block. There is no limit to the number of storeys permitted.

The underlying R2 zone permits a range of residential uses, including apartment buildings, detached houses, semi-detached houses, duplexes, semi-detached duplexes, row houses, triplexes and semi-detached triplexes. Several uses are permitted as accessory to residential uses, some of which include: parking areas, parking garages, private home day cares and private Figure 6 - By-law 438-86 - Zoning garages. In addition, some public uses are permitted including a limited range of community facilities and institutions and a full range of parks.

The maximum height excludes rooftop mechanical elements up to 5 metres in height, and rooftop structures up to 3 metres in height used for open air recreation, safety or wind protection purposes.

SUBJECT SITE

Figure 7 - By-law 438-86 - Heights

28 396 396 D UN D DA UN S S DA T W S S T W

E E

A E L

E E

A E

W V T

S A S

A S A S

S N R (d1.0) K K Y S N

T A

K K Y

C C R T

T A

I N C C

(x258) R T E

I N A

F E

I V

F E

D I V

H H A

H H N C

M N

E G

A I

V L

P H

C C Former General Zonin g C C

E B E OD BO B W D By-law 438-86B (Toronto) IN W

E IN E A VE Former General Zoning AV

U E

U Q Q By-law 438-86 (Toronto) ANNET ANNNNEETTTT E ESSTT EST T EST T ANNETT V V S R R

L L G G E

R (d0.6) I N N

Z A R (d0.6) R R (d0.6) IA I

A D D N N I (x737) (d0.6) R (d0.6) I

R (d1.0)

E (x258)

K K

N N

N N A

A ANNETTE ST A

P ANNETTE ST

H H E

JENNING SAVE D

T I

JENNING SAVE N

D D

L L

I M

M A

ROWLAND ST ROWLAND ST Former General Zoning SUBJECT Former General Zoning SUBJECT By-law 438-86 (Toronto) By-law 438-86 (Toronto) SITE SITE HUMB ERSID EAVE HUMBERSIDE AVE HUMB ERSID EAVE HUMBERSIDE AVE D EAVE D SI OO E S D EAVE W V E I E D S R O E S L O C

W V Y E

E N D R

L N A C Y A V

N D L E

N D A

A E V

N L E EVELY CR ES M

D T E N S

EVELY CR ES M

Y Y

T T

Y Y

A E

E A

V D

C C E A

R I

V F

M E I A N YN D W C

C C N

I O

R EN D A P E F GL

N I YN H ILLSVIEW AVE W C ON EN D A GL P

H ILLSVIEW AVE

G N N

O V

A R

A I G

K D

M N

I N N

O A

U I E

R (d0.6) (x737) N D V

T N

I A R

D C

E E

O B

V R (d0.6) E A A

K U

C C M Q E O

B U E

U HT 10.0 Q

R D

R E

T Former General Zoning V

E A D By-law 438-86 (Toronto) R

C K E

E R V

S I A E

A OR

C K

H H

E R E

N G

I A E

P H

GLE NLAK EAVE K

H H

G I Figure 8 - By-law 569-2013GLE NLA K- E AZoningVE H IDYLLWOOD CRE S Figure 9 - By-law 569-2013 - Heights GLENLAKE AVE

V IDYLLWOOD CRE S A

City-Wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 T

GLENLAK EAVE E

As shown on Figures 8 and 9, City-wide Zoning By-law E

K EAVE GLENLAK 569-2013 zones the subject site R (d0.6) (x737), subject Former General Zonin g By-law 438-86 (Toronto) E

to a maximum permitted height of 10.0 metres. TheN R

ELORA RD N

R (d2.0) E

A zone permits a wide range of residential uses, includingD

N N R (d0.35) V

(x334) E R A

R (d2.0) L G ELORA RD N (x343)

C R (d0.6) N

E A

apartment buildings and townhouses, with a maximum I D

(x782) D

N V

(x737) I

R D L O G A R C total density of 0.6 times the lot area. The subject site is N

K V T IEW AVE A

I GLE N GORDON RD N

D U

N O

V I

A M

also subject to Exception 737, which references By-law K

O B I A IR A

K C I V O IEW AVE HV E GLE N GORDON RD C IE V

W A

E CR P

V No.23-75 as a prevailing bylaw for 260 HighE Park Avenue W S PARK

A VI EW E G GD I O C TH R (d0.3 5) V I N IC A S T V F E

(x 343 ) N

B C IR U only. A C

H O V HTP 10.0

IE M W Former General Zoning CRE S D R By-law 438-86 (Toronto) Former General Zoning

R (d0.6) K T R (d0.6) E N N By-law 438-86 (Toronto) N (x737) U E

O Former General Zonin g O HT D

M K

By-law 438-86 (Toronto) P HT 23.0

UT A A SNDG WEIVKRAP SNDG

R HTO 23.0 23.0 R (d0.6) K R (d0.6) R BLOOR ST W D R S TW R (f12.0; d2.0) (x7) BFoLOrmOer General Zonin g R (f12.0; Site Specific Bylaw No. 23-75 R (f12.0; d2.0) (x7) By-law 438-86 (Toronto) d2.0) (x7)

Former General Zoning HT 10.0 R

W R By-law 438-86 (Toronto) BLOOR ST D

R S TW D BLOO E

G E

No. 260 High Park Avenue is subject to a prevailing Site D

D O I R L 358 K S

Y E R K

A N

R A R P R R

S O A

Specific Bylaw No. 23-75, which permits an 18.9 metre D

E I

L P

G L

G L I Former General Zonin g E E O

D D

O C

D N I

R By-law 438-86 (Toronto) E

K S D

Y (approximately 6-storey) additionE on the south side of

W R R K A N T A S

P R R W E 153 I S O NDI

A W AN

O TRL I

B 373

L 371 P

G L 370 374 L 375 I the existing church building (see Figure 10 – approved 372

E O D

C N

E D

W R T Zoning schedule). The bylawS permits a total of 88 one- E I W NDIAN TRL bedroom suites for elderly persons and an increase in 165 382 383 384 385 387 388 density to a maximum of 1.0 times the area of the lot. 386 Height Areas 382 383 384 385 386 176 177 Property Boundary 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 Zoning Height Overlay Map Railway Hydro Line 188 Property Boundary Figure 10394 - Site395 Specific396 By-law397 23-75398 189 River Ü 411 City Wide Zoning By-law Railway 406 407 409 410 November 8, 2012 0 50 100 Met ers Map Sheet Boundary Hydro Line Planning & Growth Management Committee 199 200 Pages with River Maps must b e readÜ together with Zoning By-law text 408 409 Current Page 406 407 410 Height Areas 0 50 100 Met ers 423 November 8, 2012 418 419 421 422 Planning & Growth Management Committee Map Sheet Boundary PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260396 High Park Avenue 29 Maps must be read together with Zoning By-law text Current Page Pages with Zoning 431 396 432 30 5.0 PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS

5.1 Intensification The proposed development represents a sensitive and modest form of residential intensification that is appropriate and desirable for the subject site and its context. Intensification on the subject site is supportive of policy directions set out in the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Toronto Official Plan, all of which promote intensification on sites well served by municipal infrastructure, including transit.

The subject site is an ideal candidate for intensification given its size, its frontage on a major street, its location relative to transit service, the surrounding land use, built form context and proximity to community services and facilities. Residential intensification on the subject site can also take advantage of the wide array of community services and amenities in the area, which in turn can provide additional population-based support to these businesses and services.

The optimization of density on the subject site is consistent with both good planning practice and overarching Provincial and City policy direction, subject to achieving appropriate built form relationships.

In the sidebar within Section 2.1 of the Official Plan, it is noted that by making better use of existing urban infrastructure and services before introducing new ones on the urban fringe, reurbanization helps to reduce demands on nature and improves the livability of the urban region by: reducing the pace at which the countryside is urbanized; preserving high quality agricultural lands; reducing reliance on the private automobile; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and reducing consumption of non-renewable resources.

5.2 Heritage Impact Assessment A Heritage Impact Assessment was completed by ERA Architects Inc. in February of 2016 to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the identified heritage resource known as High Park Alhambra Church (260 High Park Avenue). The report evaluates the details of the development proposal in relation to the characteristics of this cultural heritage resources and recommends an overall approach to the conservation of these resources.

The overall findings were that the proposed development maintains the historical and visual relationships provided by Annette Street’s churches, while respecting the institutional character of the street by retaining the northern and eastern heritage facades of the original church building. In ERA’s opinion, the replacement of the existing addition along Annette Street represents new construction that maintains the general existing urban design concepts of setbacks and forms, especially with regard to the flat roof.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 31 The new addition’s materials will be subtle and compatible, as well as distinguishable from the existing heritage fabric. ERA highlighted that the proposed development signifies a natural evolution and trend within the neighbourhood whereby former institutional buildings are being converted to residential uses, as demonstrated by Annette Street Baptist Church and Victoria-Royce Presbyterian Church, while respecting the heritage fabric and activating and underutilized site with a compatible use.

5.3 Land Use The proposed residential use conforms with the Official Plan and is permitted by the applicable Neighbourhoods designation, which permits all forms of low-rise residential uses, including apartment buildings up to 4 storeys in height. In our opinion, the proposed residential use will fit harmoniously within the existing character of the area.

The underlying R2 zoning permits a broad range of residential uses including the proposed apartment use. The subject site is located in an area that is characterized by a range of building typologies including other repurposed institutional buildings, apartment buildings, detached, semi-detached and other multi-occupancy buildings.

There are examples of earlier institutional conversion projects in the area surrounding the subject site and in particular along Annette Street such as the former Victoria Royce Church (152 Annette Street) and the former Annette Street Baptist Church (200 Annette Street). This proposal continues the evolution of land use and investment along Annette Street.

With respect to the conversion of institutional uses to residential, the Plan states that it is not always possible or desirable to provide the same site standards and pattern of development as the surrounding neighbourhood, and as such, special criteria are provided for dealing with new development for these sites. The subject site differs from the prevailing pattern of lot size and configuration and is occupied by a former non-residential use that exhibits building envelope standards (such as building depth and height) that do not currently meet with the underlying zoning.

The Plan provides, Scattered throughout many Neighbourhoods are properties that differ from the prevailing patterns of lot size, configuration and orientation … In converting these sites to residential uses, there is a genuine opportunity to add to the quality of Neighbourhood life by filling in the ‘gaps’ and extending streets and paths. Due to the site configuration and orientation, it is often not possible or desirable to provide the same site standards and pattern of development in these infill projects as in the surrounding Neighbourhood. To that end, the Plan provides infill criteria for dealing with the integration of new development for these sites and as set out in the following section, the proposal respects and reinforces the existing surrounding physical character of the Neighbourhood.

32 5.4 Height, Massing and Density In our opinion, the height, massing and density of the proposed development conform with the Neighbourhoods designation, and our appropriate and compatible with the surrounding context. The proposed height and massing are based on a number of contextual and urban design considerations including: • the subject site’s location at the intersection of two main streets; • size and configuration of site; • the height and massing of the main sanctuary building to be retained; • configuration of the block and the depth of adjoining residential lots; • the surrounding built form complex; and • the height and massing of comparable conversion projects. With respect to height, the new four-storey addition has an overall building height of 12.55 metres to the top of the main roof and 16.55 metres to the top of the mechanical penthouse. In our opinion, the proposed increase in height from the as-of-right height limits in the Zoning By-law (10.0 metres to the main roof and 15.0 metres to the top of rooftop elements) is appropriate and acceptable given the built form context, the height of existing building and overall low-rise character of the proposal.

We note that the site is subject to a prevailing Site Specific Bylaw No. 23-75 which permits a 62 feet (18.9 metres) tall addition on the south side of the existing church building. This represents an approximate building height of 6 storeys. The site-specific bylaw states that the maximum height of 62 feet excludes the height of a mechanical penthouse.

From a massing perspective, the development has been designed and sited to fit sensitively within its surroundings and to respect the existing and planned physical character of the neighbourhood, while allowing for a modest level of intensification. Along Annette Street, the new additional presents a 3-storey street wall that mimics the massing of the existing Sunday School addition with the fourth floor setback an additional 3.3 metres.

Along the western edge of the subject site, the new addition will have a predominant setback of 7.4 metres from the western property line. Above the 3rd floor an additional setback of 2.5 metres is provided, creating outdoor terraces facing west. The proposed massing and scale of the building along this edge provides an appropriate relationship to the adjacent residential dwelling along Annette Street and Quebec Avenue the west.

On the south edge of the subject site, the new addition is setback approximately 6.0 – 6.23 metres from south property line. The third and fourth floors are setback a further 2.50, providing an outdoor terrace for the 3rd floor units. The massing in this location provide a stepping down height and transition to the 2-storey dwelling located at No. 246 High Park Avenue. Along High Park Avenue, the new addition is setback 7.67 metres which aligns and reinforces the setback and streetwall of the main sanctuary building.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 33 From a density perspective, it is our opinion that the proposed density of 2.02 FSI is appropriate and desirable. Firstly, the density reflects a low-rise form of residential intensification that is appropriate for the site. Secondly, it is noted that the Official Plan does not generally include density limitations and specifically does not do so in the case of the subject site. The Official Plan provides that land use designations are generalized, leaving it to the Zoning By-law to “prescribe the precise numerical figures and land use permissions that will reflect the tremendous variety of communities across the City”.

Accordingly, it is reasonable to establish an appropriate density for the subject site based on specific design, context and urban structure considerations, rather than on the basis of density numbers. While the underlying density provisions of the Zoning By-law would permit a maximum density of only 0.6 FSI on the subject site, the development proposes a low-rise residential use, having a 4-storey height that is in keeping with the various types of residential uses, built forms, heights and densities within the surrounding area. As such, the proposed density responds appropriately to the direction in the Provincial Policy Statement to promote development standards that facilitate intensification.

5.5 Built Form Impacts In our opinion, the proposed development will have no unacceptable built form impacts on the surrounding streets or properties. In this regard, the site is located on the south side of a minor arterial road and is well separated from the existing residential dwellings on the north side of Annette Street. To the west, the subject site abuts a 2 ½ storey detached dwelling with a generous side yard setback of 7.4 metres. To the east, on the east side of High Park Avenue are a range of residential dwelling types where there would be a minimum facing condition of 45 metres.

Further to the west, the properties along Quebec Avenue have very deep ear yards with setbacks approaching 30 metres. When combined with the 6.0 metre west side setbacks this is a significant separation distance between windows.

To the south, the new addition will be set back a minimum of 6.0 metres and will present a rear yard to side yard condition with the neighbouring property at 246 High Park Avenue.

Based on the foregoing setbacks and mitigation measures in combination with the low-rise building height, it is our opinion that the proposed development will have an appropriate and compatible built form relationship with adjacent properties, and that there will be no unacceptable impacts in terms of shadowing, overview or loss of sky view.

34 With respect to the internal courtyard dimension, as a matter of good urban design practice, a minimum distance of 11.0 metres is generally used as an appropriate separation distance between main windows of residential buildings. This standard is incorporated in By-law 438-86 in respect of the CR and MCR zones and is typically applied to facing distances for mid- rise residential buildings. On this basis, it is our opinion that the internal courtyard dimension would provide adequate separation distance between the facing main windows in the church and the new addition.

5.6 Urban Design The adaptive reuse of the church and proposed new addition will be a high quality addition to the neighbourhood and will reinforce the contribution of institutional buildings along Annette Street. The project has been designed to showcase the historical and architectural attributes of the main sanctuary while introducing a modern addition that is distinctive in terms of materials and articulation, and compatible with the main sanctuary and adjacent properties.

The proposal has been designed to be consistent with the built form policies of the Official Plan. The proposed design will comply with the development criteria set out in Policies 3.1.2(1), 3.1.2(2), 3.1.2(3), 3.1.2(4), 3.1.2(5) and 4.1(9) of the Official Plan. In particular, the proposal will: • locate the new addition parallel to Annette Street and High Park Avenue; • have residential entrances that are clearly visible and directly accessible from the existing public sidewalks; • locate and screen garbage storage area and ramps • provide underground parking; • incorporate a range of landscape improvements and communal outdoor spaces. • mass the building to fit into their surrounding context and frame the street with good proportion; • incorporating exterior design elements, to influence the character, scale and appearance of the development; • creating appropriate transitions in scale to neighbouring buildings for the purpose of achieving the objectives of this Plan; • provide adequate privacy, sunlight and sky view for residents of the proposed and existing buildings by ensuring adequate distance and separation between buildings walls using landscaping, planting and fencing to enhance privacy where needed; and • provide indoor and outdoor amenity space for residents.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 35 5.7 Transportation Considerations LEA Consulting Ltd. was retained to undertake a traffic impact, parking and loading study to examine the transportation considerations of the proposed residential development. Based on their review of the development’s traffic estimates, the traffic volume generated is anticipated to be minimal. Given the low level of estimated traffic, the site related traffic interactions with the surrounding street network are expected to be acceptable.

The proposed automobile parking figures exceed the minimum requirements prescribed by City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, on-street parking is permitted and there is direct access to cycling and transit infrastructure. Also, as the proposed provision of long and short-term bicycle parking exceeds the by-laws requirements, the level of bicycle parking is acceptable as is a Type ‘G’ loading space for a building with 77 units.

5.8 Functional Servicing Odan Detech Consulting Engineers was retained to evaluate the serviceability of the site with the respect to sanitary, water and storm services. In addition, Odan Detech evaluated the storm water management strategy using the City of Toronto’s SWM requirements and Wet Weather Flow Management Guidelines (WWFMG). The report found that the site is serviceable utilizing existing sanitary, storm and watermain infrastructure within and adjacent to the site. Also, as the report describes in detail, the anticipated on-site storage provisions can accommodate the necessary storm water management.

5.9 Community Services & Facilities Study A Community Services and Facilities Inventory of The Junction neighbourhood was completed and is provided in Appendix A of this report. The inventory demonstrates that the subject site’s neighbourhood is well served by a wide number of community services and facilities that can accommodate the increased population resulting from the proposed development.

36 6.0 CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out in this report, we are of the opinion that the proposed development is both appropriate and desirable for the site and surrounding area. Residential intensification on the subject site is supported by the applicable policy framework at both the Provincial and Municipal levels. The proposed development will result in a modest and appropriate intensification of an underutilized site, in a form that is in keeping with the ongoing investment in the neighbourhood and the adaptive reuse of former institutional buildings along Annette Street

From a land use perspective, the proposal is consistent with numerous policy directions expressed in the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Toronto Official Plan, all of which promote intensification of underutilized sites within built-up areas, particularly in locations which are well served by existing municipal infrastructure, including public transit.

The development is appropriate and desirable in urban design terms. It will modestly intensify the subject site with a low-rise residential development form that is sensitive to the historical main sanctuary of the church and is compatible with buildings on adjacent properties. The proposed development conforms to the relevant urban design policies in the City of Toronto Official Plan.

Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that the proposed development is appropriate and desirable, and we recommend approval of the rezoning application.

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN RATIONALE | 248 and 260 High Park Avenue 37

APPENDIX COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES A

TABLE OF CONTENT Job No. 15199 COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES I INTRODUCTION A1 1.1 Overview A1 1.2 Purpose A1 1.3 Study Area A1 1.4 Methodology A1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE A3 2.1 Junction Area A3 2.2 Population A3 2.3 Family Composition A4 2.4 Housing A6 2.5 Income A7 2.6 Immigration & Diversity A8 2.8 Summary A9 COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES A10 3.1 Schools A10 3.1.1 Pupil Yield A11 3.2 Child Care Services A13 3.2.1 Projected Child Care Yield A16 3.3 Public Libraries A16 3.4 Recreation A17 3.5 Parks A18 3.6 Hospitals A19 3.8 Places of Worship A20 3.9 Emergency Services A21 CONCLUSIONS A22

i CPR SUBJECT SITE

JANE STREET CNR

500 M

BLOOR STREET WEST

Figure A1 - Study Area

ii INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview 1 This Community Services and Facilities Inventory was prepared by Bousfields Inc. to provide a review of community services and facilities that are available to residents in the vicinity of 260 High Park Avenue (the “subject site”). Key services include publicly funded schools, child care facilities, libraries, parks and community centres.

1.2 Purpose The proposed residential development is a 4-storey church conversion and infill residential development, comprised of 77 units. The purpose of this inventory is to identify the range of existing community resources that are available, and to identify any priorities that should be considered in connection with the proposed development.

1.3 Study Area The boundaries for this Community Services and Facilities inventory are: CP Rail corridor to the north, CN Rail corridor to the east, Bloor Street West to the south and Jane Street to the west, as shown on Figure A1.

1.4 Methodology This report includes an inventory of key publicly funded services and facilities, including schools, child care facilities, community centres, parks and libraries, using data such as enrollment, capacity, service boundaries and types of programming. Neighbourhood census data was gathered from the 2006 and partially released 2011 Junction Area neighbourhood profile found on the City’s website (www. toronto.ca) to develop a short demographic profile of the area. When considering the provided 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) statistics, it should be noted that as the NHS was a voluntary survey, it had high non-response rates (Toronto 25%) and many who did not participate, fell within lower income brackets. Also, given the methodological differences in collection for Census and NHS data, these data sets are not ideal for comparison, which should be considered when analyzing the data.

A1 SUBJECT SITE

Figure A2 - Junction Area Neighbourhood

A2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 2 2.1 Junction Area

The subject site is located within the Junction Area Neighbourhood as per Figure A2. The following demographic profile is based on the City of Toronto’s 2006, and partially released 2011, Junction Area Neighbourhood Profile census data.

2.2 Population The table below presents the population data for the Junction Area Neighbourhood. Overall, the Neighbourhood population has increased steadily from 2001 to 2011. From 2001 to 2006, the population grew from 12,135 to 13,165 persons (an increase of 1,030 persons). From 2006 to 2011, the population increased from 13,165 to 14,010 persons (an increase of 845 persons). Overall, the Junction Area Neighbourhood has experienced a 15.5 percent increase in population between 2001 and 2011 (or 1,875 persons).

As for the population by age groups, the greatest increase was in the “Working Age” group. From 2001 to 2006, the population grew by 805 persons, and from 2006 to 2011, the population increased again by 695 persons. The “Working Age group” comprises the largest proportion of the Neighbourhood population (64.1 percent in 2011), which is higher than the City average (57.5 percent). The “Seniors” and “Youth” age groups also experienced an increase in population. From 2001 to 2011, the “Seniors” population increased from 1,020 to 1,320 persons (300 person increase), and the “Youth” population increased from 1,595 to 1,680 persons (85 person increase). However, the “Senior” age group comprises only 9.4 percent of the population in the Neighbourhood, while the city- wide average is 14.4 percent. The “Youth” age group constitutes 12.0 percent of the Neighbourhood population, and the City-wide average is 12.8 percent. Finally, the “Children” age group fluctuated in population, however overall resulting in a slight decrease in population. From 2001 to 2006, the population increased from 2,035 to 2,120 persons (85 persons), however dropped to 2,025 in 2011 (95 persons), resulting in an overall decrease of 10 persons since 2001. The portion of Children in the Junction Area Neighbourhood was 14.5 percent in 2011, lower than the City-wide average of 15.3 percent.

Table A1 – Population by Age Group

Junction Area Junction Area Junction Area City of Toronto City of Toronto Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood (2006) (2011) Age Group (2001) (2006) (2011)

#%#%#%# %#% Children (0-14) 2,035 16.8 2,120 16.1 2,025 14.5 409,620 16.4 400,860 15.3 Youth (15-24) 1,595 13.1 1,600 12.1 1,680 12.0 318,655 12.7 333,515 12.8 Working Age (25- 7,485 61.7 8,290 63.0 8,985 64.1 1,421,545 56.8 1,503,230 57.5 64)

Seniors (65+) 1,020 8.4 1,155 8.8 1,320 9.4 353,455 14.1 377,440 14.4

Total 12,135 100 13,165 100 14,010 100 2,503,281 100 2,615,045 100

A3 2.3 Family Composition

Tables A2 and A3 below provide a breakdown of the family composition for the Junction Area neighbourhood, including family characteristics, the number of children in each family and the number of people in each private household.

Table A2 indicates that between 2006 and 2011 the total number of census families in private households increased by 190 families overall in the Junction neighbourhood. Over the same period, the percentage of married couple families increased by 1.7 percent (175 families overall). In 2011, the majority of married couple families had children at home (63.1 percent). The greatest number of married couple families with children at home had 2 children at home. In 2011, the number of married couple families with 2 children at home increased by 120 families overall. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of common-law couples increased by 50 overall (0.3 percent). During the same span, the number of lone- parent families decreased by 40 (2.3 percent).

In 2011, compared to the City as a whole, there are proportionally more common- law couples, and proportionally less married couples and lone-parent families.

Table A2 – Families by Number of Children Junction Junction City of Area Area Toronto (2011) Category (2006) (2011) #%#%#% Total # of census families in private 3,395 100 3,585 100 690,340 100% households Married couples 2,075 61.1 2,250 62.8 473,440 68.6% Without children at home 660 19.4 830 23.2 182,355 26.4% With children at home 1,415 41.7 1,420 39.6 291,085 42.2% 1 Child 640 18.9 575 16.0 118,975 17.2%

2 Children 520 15.3 645 18.0 122,440 17.7%

3+ Children 245 7.2 205 5.7 49,670 7.2%

Common-law couples 545 16.1 595 16.6 69,910 10.1%

Without children at home 400 11.8 435 12.1 49,235 7.1% With children at home 145 4.3 155 4.3 20,675 3.0% 1 Child 80 2.4 90 2.5 10,875 1.6% 2 Children 40 1.2 50 1.4 7,005 1.0% 3+ Children 0 0 15 0.4 2,795 0.4% Total lone-parent families 775 22.8 735 20.5 146,985 21.3%

A4 Table A3 indicates that between 2006 and 2011, the number of private households increased by 455 households overall. In both 2006 and 2011, the majority of private households in the neighbourhood consisted of 1 to 2 persons (59.9 percent and 63.2 percent respectively). Between 2006 and 2011, the number of 1 person, 2 person, and 6 or more person households increased while the number of 3 person and 4 person households decreased. Over the same period the average person per household figure decreased from 2.49 in 2006 to 2.44 in 2011. The person per household figure in 2011 (2.44) is slightly lower than the City-wide average (2.5).

Table A3 – Private Households by Size Junction Area Junction Area Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Category (2006) (2011) #%#% 1 Person 1,630 30.8 1,865 32.5 2 Persons 1,535 29.1 1,760 30.7 3 Persons 950 18.0 915 15.9 4-5 Persons 1,000 18.9 760 13.2 6 or more Persons 170 3.2 440 7.7

Total number of private households 5,285 100 5,740 100

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A5 2.4 Housing The 2011 census data indicates that there were 5,745 private dwellings within the Junction Area neighbourhood. Between 2006 and 2011, the total number of private dwellings increased by 490.

In 2011, the majority of the neighbourhood’s housing stock consisted of dwellings in apartment buildings with less than 5 storeys (43.1 percent), followed by semi- detached housing (16.5 percent). Between 2006 and 2011 the greatest increase in dwellings occurred in apartment buildings with more than 5 storeys (485 dwellings). (see Table A4 below).

Table A4 - Dwellings by Structure Type Junction Area Junction Area Category (2006) (2011) #%#% Single-detached house 750 14.3 750 13.1 Semi-detached house 965 18.4 945 16.5 Row house 540 10.3 570 9.9 Apartment, detached duplex 600 11.4 505 8.8 Apartment building, 5+ storeys 85 1.6 490 8.5 Apartment building, less than 5 storeys 2,310 44.0 2,475 43.1 Other 5 0 10 0

Total number of dwellings 5,255 100 5,745 100

As of 2006, 77 percent of the housing stock was constructed between 1961 and 1980, and no new housing was constructed between 2001 and 2006, as shown in Table A5. Table A5 – Buildings by Period of Construction (2006)

Period of Construction # of dwellings % of total Before 1946 255 3.6 1946-1960 620 8.6 1961-1970 2,795 39.4 1971-1980 2,660 37.6 1981-1990 665 9.4 1991-2000 85 1.2 2001-2006 0 0

Total 7,080 100

A6 Between 2001 and 2006 there was a 5% increase in housing ownership in the Junction Area Neighbourhood (see Table A6 below). It should be noted that this information was not available in the 2011 neighbourhood profile data.

Table A6 - Housing Stock (Tenure) 2001 2006 Rent 50% 45% Own 50% 55 %

2.5 Income

Table A7 below shows the number of private households in each income level within the Junction Area neighbourhood. “Household” refers to a person, or group of persons, who occupy the same dwelling. It may consist of a family with or without other non-family members.

Table A7 and A8 relate to neighbourhood income as reported in the 2006 Census. Table A7 shows that in 2006 the greatest number of private households in the Junction Area neighbourhood reported an income of $100,000 and over. Table A8 shows that the median income in the Junction Area is $1,878 below the City-wide figure and the average household income is $13,040 below the City-wide figure.

Table A7 - Private Household Income

Junction Area Neighbourhood

# of Private Income Level % of Total Households Under $10,000 385 7.3% $10,000 - $19,999 530 10.0% $20,000 - $29,999 530 10.0% $30,000 - $39,999 525 9.9% $40,000 - $49,999 445 8.4%

$50,000 - $59,999 500 9.5% $60,000 - $69,999 335 6.3% $70,000 - $79,999 340 6.4% $80,000 - $89,999 280 5.3% $90,000 - $99,999 245 4.6% $100,000 and over 1,165 22.1%

Total Number of Private Households 5,280 100%

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A7 Table A8 - Private Household Income

Junction Area City of Toronto Median Household Income $53,543 $55,421 Average Household Income $67,303 $80,343

Table A9 below shows that in the 2011 NHS, the greatest number of Junction Area residents had an after-tax income between $20,000 and $49,999. The median income was $10,336 below the City-wide figure, and the average after-tax income was $17,573 below the City-wide figure.

After-Tax Household Income Junction Area City of Toronto Under $20,000 25% 16% $20,000 - $49,999 35% 32% $50,000 - $79,999 21% 23% $80,000 - $124,999 12% 17% $125,000 and over 7% 12%

Median After-Tax Household Income $41,813 $52,149 Average After-Tax Household Income $53,372 $70,945

2.6 Immigration & Diversity

Table A8 indicates that in 2011, the majority of the residents of the Junction Area neighbourhood were born in Canada (61 percent). The percentage of visible minority residents in the Junction Area neighbourhood (29 percent) is lower than the City of Toronto figure (49 percent).

Table A8 – Period of Immigration (NHS 2011)

Junction Area Toronto

Visible Minority Residents 29% 49% Born in Canada 61% 49% Before 2001 29% 33% 2001-2005 4% 8% 2006-2011 5% 8% Non-Permanent Residents 1% 3%

A8 2.8 Summary The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the Junction Area neighbourhood’s demographic information :

• The Junction Area neighbourhood experienced a steady growth in population between 2001 and 2011 and grew by 1,875 persons overall, which represents a growth rate of 15.0 percent; • As of 2011, the Junction Area neighbourhood consisted primarily of people in the “Working Age” group (approximately 64.1 percent), followed by “Children” (approximately 14.5 percent); • Compared to the City of Toronto as a whole, as of 2011, the proportion of the ‘Children’, ‘youth’, and ‘Seniors’ groups were slightly lower in the Junction Area (0.8, 0.8, and 5 percent respectively), while the proportion of “Working Age” individuals was 6.6 percent higher in the neighbourhood than City-wide; • The Junction Area experienced a slight increase in the number of ‘total census families in private households’ between 2006 and 2011 (by 190) as well as the number of married couples ( by 175), however the number of common law couples decreased (by 50); • In 2011, there were more married couples with children at home, than without children home, however the opposite was true for common-law couples; • In both 2006 and 2011, the majority of private households in the neighbourhood consisted of 1 to 2 persons (59.9 percent and 63.2 percent respectively). Between 2006 and 2011, the number of 1 person, 2 person, and 6 or more person households increased while the number of 3 person and 4 person households decreased. • In 2011 there was an average of 2.44 persons per private household in the Junction Area neighbourhood; • In 2011, the majority of the neighbourhood’s housing stock consisted of dwellings in apartment buildings with less than 5 storeys (43.1 percent), followed by single detached housing (16.5 percent). Between 2006 and 2011 the greatest increase in dwellings occurred in apartment buildings with more than 5 storeys (485 dwellings). • As of 2006, 77 percent of dwellings within the neighbourhood were constructed between 1961 and 1980. From this time period forward, there was a decline in construction reaching a low between 2001 and 2006 when no new dwellings were constructed. However, between 2006 and 2011, there was an increase of 490 dwellings which likely suggests new construction has occurred after 2006; • Although between 2001 and 2006 the Junction Area neighbourhood experienced a moderate increase in housing ownership (by 5 percent) the majority of the housing stock in the neighbourhood is owned (55 percent); • In 2006 the greatest number of private households in the Junction Area reported an income of $100,000 and over (22.1 percent). In the same census period the median income for the Junction Area was $1,878 below the City-wide figure, and the average income was $13,040 below the City-wide figure; • In the 2011 NHS, the greatest number of Junction Area residents had an after-tax income between $20,000 and $49,999. The median income was $10,336 below the City-wide figure, and the average after-tax income was $17,573 below the City-wide figure. • In 2011, 29 percent of residents indicated that they were members of a visible minority group, which is lower than the City-wide figure of 49 percent. A higher proportion of residents in the Junction Area were born in Canada (61 percent), than the City overall (49 percent).

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A9 COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES

3 The following is an inventory of service agencies serving the subject site and surrounding area, with descriptions of the primary type of service offered by the organization (several other types of programs may be provided from that location as well). The Study Area is defined by CP Rail corridor to the north, CN Rail corridor to the east, Bloor Street West to the south, and Jane Street to the west (See Figure A3 on A24).

3.1 Schools Table A11 outlines the capacities, enrolments and utilization rates (as of the 2015/16 school year) for the schools in the attendance area boundary for both the TDSB and TCDSB.

Table A11 - TDSB and TCDSB Capacity and Enrolment Full-Time Utilization Capacity Portables Enrolment Rate

Public Elementary Annette Street Junior and Senior Public School (JK-08) 568 476 83.80% 0 265 Annette St

TOTAL 568 476 83.60% 0 Public Secondary Humberside Collegiate Institute (09-12) 1,020 1,168.3 114.54% 0 280 Quebec Ave Western Technical- Commercial School (09-12) 1,515 1,038.1 68.52% 0 125 Evelyn Crescent

TOTAL 2,535 2,206.4 87.04% 0 Catholic Elementary St. Cecilia (JK-8) 628 653 104.0% 0 355 Annette St James Culnan (JK-8) 619 471 76.1% 0 605 Willard Ave St. Luigi (JK-8) 424 170 40.1 0 2 Ruskin Ave/ 14 Ruskin Ave

TOTAL 1,671 1,294 77.4% 0

A10 Full-Time Utilization Capacity Portables Enrolment Rate Catholic Secondary Bishop Allen (9-12) 717 1,529.6 213,3% 20 721 Royal York Rd Michael Power/ St. Joseph (9-12) 1,644 1,997.23 121.5% 6 105 Eringate Dr Bishop Marrocco/ Thomas Merton 1,158 886.02 76.5% 0 1515 Bloor St W

3,519 4,413 125.4% 26

In terms of public elementary schools, Annette Street Junior and Senior Public School (Gr.JK-8) is operating slightly below capacity (83.80 percent) and can accommodate additional students. As for public secondary schools, Humberside Collegiate Institute is currently operating above capacity (114.54 percent utilization rate) and may not be able to accommodate additional students. Western Technical-Commercial School is currently below capacity by 477 students and has a utilization rate of 68.52 percent. As for Catholic elementary schools, the catchment area school St. Cecilia is slightly over subscribed with a utilization rate of 104.0 percent. Nearby schools, James Culnan and St. Luigi are both under subscribed with utilization rates of 76.1 percent and 40.1 percent respectively. Overall there are 377 vacancies across all three schools, thus additional students could likely be accommodated. In terms of Catholic secondary schools, Bishop Allen and Michael Power/ St. Joseph are currently operating well above capacity, with utilization rates of 213.3 percent and 121.5 percent respectively. However, Bishop Marrocco/ Thomas Merton is under subscribed with a utilization rate of 76.5 percent and a total 272 vacancies.

3.1.1 Pupil Yield

Pupil Yield of Proposed Development - TDSB Elementary: 5 pupils (based on a pupil yield of 0.06)

Secondary: 2 (based of a pupil yield of 0.03)

The 5 projected public elementary students generated from the proposed development may be accommodated at Annette Street Junior and Senior Public School. The 2 projected public secondary students could easily be accommodated by Western Technical Commercial School, as they currently have 477 vacancies (approximately). However, Humberside Collegiate Institute is over capacity and may not be able to accommodate additional students.

A11 Pupil Yield of Proposed Development - TCDSB Elementary: 7 pupils (figure provided by TCDSB)

Secondary: 0 pupils (figure provided by TCDSB)

The 7 projected Catholic elementary students generated from the proposed development may not be accommodated at the catchment area school, St. Cecilia as the school is currently operating over capacity. However, the nearby by schools, James Culnan, and St. Luigi are under subscribed and may be able to accommodate additional students. As for Catholic secondary schools, the TCDSB does not project any secondary students for this development. However, Bishop Allen and Michael Power/ St. Joseph are over capacity and may not be able to accommodate additional students. Bishop Marrocco/ Thomas Merton is under capacity and could likely accommodate additional students.Thus potential students could be accomodated at Bishop Marrocco/ Thomas Merton.

It is important to note that it has not yet been determined if potential students from this development will attend the schools listed in Table A11. This level of detail will occur later in the application review process, when the TDSB and TCDSB determine where prospective students will attend school. As such, the TDSB and TCDSB may accommodate students outside of the area, if need be, until adequate funding or space becomes available.

A12 3.2 Child Care Services

Table A12 provides a listing of City of Toronto child care services within the Study Area, including enrolment and reported vacancy. There are a total of 24 child care facilities within the Study Area, 12 of which provide subsidized spaces if available. As of December 2015, service providers reported a total of 53 vacancies across all age groups.

Table A12 – Enrolment/Reported Vacancies within Study Area Facility Enrolment / Reported Vacant

Total Infant Toddler Toddler Pre-school Pre-school School Age (6 to 10 years) (2.5 to 5 years) (0 to 18 months) Fee Subsidy Available (18 months to 2.5 years)

A Place To Play Nursery School Of Bloor West Capacity - - 16 - 16 Village N

680 Annette St Vacancy - - 0 - 0

Capacity - - 14 60 74 Angelgate Daycare Inc. N 432 Runnymede Rd* Vacancy - - - - -

Bloor West Nursery Capacity - - 16 - 16 School N

432 Runnymede Rd Vacancy - - 1 - 1

Children’s Creative Corner Co-Op Nursery Capacity - - 26 - 26 School N 125 Evelyn Cres, Rm. 234 Vacancy - - 6 - 6

Early Enrichment Day Capacity 10 20 24 - 54 Care (St. John’s West Toronto) Y Vacancy - - - - - 288 Humberside Ave*

High Park Early Learning Capacity 10 25 32 - 67 Centre Y 17 High Park Ave Vacancy 0 0 0 - 0

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A13 Facility Enrolment / Reported Vacant

Total Infant Toddler Toddler Pre-school Pre-school School Age (6 to 10 years) (2.5 to 5 years) (0 to 18 months) Fee Subsidy Available (18 months to 2.5 years)

High Park Jr YMCA Capacity - 10 32 30 72 Y 2665 Dundas St W Vacancy - 0 0 0 0

Holland-Bloorview Kids Capacity - - 24 - 24 Rehab. - High Park Y 285 Indian Road Cres Vacancy - - 4 - 4

Humbercrest Co- Capacity - - 14 - 14 Operative Nursery School N 569 Jane St* Vacancy - - - - -

Humberside Montessori Capacity 10 30 76 - 116 N 411 Clendenan Ave Vacancy 0 0 24 - 24

Indian Road Crescent Capacity - - - 112 112 School Age YMCA Y

285 Indian Road Cres Vacancy - - - 5 5

Junction Day Care Centre Capacity - - 32 105 137 Y 265 Annette St* Vacancy - - - - - Keelmount Daycare Capacity - 10 16 112 128 Centre Y 99 Mountview Ave Vacancy - 0 0 0 0

King George B & A Capacity - - - 50 50 School Program Y 25 Rexford Rd Vacancy - - - 2 2

Little Footsteps Childcare Capacity - 10 16 50 76 Inc. N 404 Willard Ave* Vacancy - - - - -

A14 Facility Enrolment / Reported Vacant

Total Infant Toddler Toddler Pre-school Pre-school School Age (6 to 10 years) (2.5 to 5 years) (0 to 18 months) Fee Subsidy Available (18 months to 2.5 years)

One Step At A Time Child Capacity - 15 19 - 34 Care Ltd. N

21 Quebec Ave Vacancy - 0 0 - 0

Plasp - James Culnan Capacity - - - 67 67 Y 605 Willard Ave Vacancy - - - 4 4 Plasp - St. Cecilia Capacity - - - 70 70 Y 255 Annette St Vacancy - - - 3 3 Plasp - St. Pius X Capacity - - - 179 179 Y 71 Jane St Vacancy - - - 0 0

Runnymede Adventure Capacity - - - 135 135 Club Y 357 Runnymede Rd Vacancy - - - 0 0

Stepping Stones Day Capacity - 15 24 - 39 Nursery N 342 Runnymede Rd Vacancy - 0 0 - 0

Sunnyside - Keele Capacity 10 15 8 - 33 N 236 Keele St Vacancy 0 0 0 - 0

Teddy Bear Academy Capacity 10 25 24 - 59 N 167 High Park Ave Vacancy 0 0 0 - 0

Time For Play Nursery Capacity - - 32 - 32 School N 125 Evelyn Cres, 315 Vacancy - - 4 - 4

Total *Child care facility could not be reached 1,583 Capacity Total 53 Vacancy

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A15 3.2.1 Projected Child Care Yield It is estimated that the proposed 77 units will generate the demand for approximately 9 child care spaces. This is based on a residential population increase of 188 people (77 units multiplied by 2.44, the average household size in this area), of which 14.5 percent1 (or 27) would be ‘Children’ as shown in the 2011 Junction Area Neighbourhood Profile. (“Children” are aged 0-14).

The projected number of children is then multiplied by the women’s labour force participation rate in the Toronto CMA - 63.1 percent. A further multiplier of 50 percent is used to approximate the number of children needing care at a child care centre. This is the level of service standard set out by the City’s Children’s Services Division and is consistently applied to development applications.

As compared with Table A12 above, the projected number of children generated from the proposed development who will require child care (9 children) can be accommodated by the existing facilities serving the area. However, it should be noted that this analysis is based on limited contact with child care facilities, who experience fluctuating enrollment, within the Study Area, as not all couldbe reached. As such, additional vacancies may be available.

3.3 Public Libraries There are two public library branches located within the Study Area. The services provided by this branch are listed below. Annette Street Branch This neighbourhood branch, located at 145 Annette Street, offers services such as internet access, computer terminal workstations. The Annette Street Branch has the capacity to seat up to 29 persons and offers equipment for persons with disabilities. The Annette Street Branch is open six days a week, and offers a moderate collection of materials including: • Audiobooks on CD • Medium collection in French (children)

• Small collection in French (adult)

A16 Runnymede Branch The Runnymede branch, located at 2178 Bloor Street West, offers services such as internet access, computer terminal workstations. The Annette Street Branch has the capacity to seat up to 29 persons and offers equipment for persons with disabilities. The Annette Street Branch is open six days a week, and offers a moderate collection of materials including: • Audiobooks on CD • Medium collection in French (children)

• Small collection in French (adult)

3.4 Recreation There are two Community Recreation Centres located within the Study Area. A description of the locations and types of services provided at each centre is listed in Table A13 below.

Table A13 – Community Recreation Centres within Study Area Location Facilities Services/Programs Annette Community Craft Room Arts Recreation Centre Fitness/ Weight Room Dance

333 Annette St Gymnasium Music Indoor Pool Camps Kitchen Cardio/Yoga/Pilates Multipurpose Room Sports Swimming Keele Community Centre Gymnasium Arts Kitchen Dance 181 Glenlake Ave Multipurpose Room Music Cardio/ Pilaties Sports Instruction and Drop-in

As the table above demonstrates, the study area is well served by community recreation centres which offer a wide variety of programming, from dance to group fitness classes.

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A17 3.5 Parks Table A14 below lists the parks and available amenities within the Study Area.

Table A14 - Parks and Amenities within the Study Area (City of Toronto) Pool Area Area (ha) Area Playground Splash Pad Sports Field Tennis Court Tennis Indoor Arena Indoor/Wading Indoor/Wading Dogs Off-leash Baseball Diamond

Baird Park X X X 0.98 Beresford Park X X X 0.59 Chelsea Avenue Playground X X 0.15 Dundas-Watkinson Parkette X 0.09 Dundas-Dupont Traffic Island 0.15 George Chater Park 0.23 Kennedy Margdon Parkette X 0.25 Lithuania Park X X X X 2.23 Maher Circle 0.07 Malta Park X 0.18 Maria Street Parkette X 0.06 Neil Mcllellan Park X 0.30 Parkview Gardens Parkette 0.07 Ravina Gardens Park XX X 3.04 Vine Avenue Playground X X X 0.60

Total 8.99 X – Denotes the recreational facility and/or amenity.

There are a total of 15 parks which offer 8.99 hectares (22.21 acres) of parkland within the Study Area. According to the City’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation website, these parks offer additional facilities, including baseball diamonds, playgrounds and splash pads. While the total area of the parkland within the study area is relatively low, High Park is located just south of Bloor Street West which is the southern boundary of the Study Area. High Park is 142.42 hectares in size. Thus, the study area has good access to City park space.

A18 3.6 Hospitals There are 2 hospital facilities that fall within the subject site and provide services ranging from emergency care to specialization in a variety of health conditions. The locations and a description of services provided are described below.

Runnymede Healthcare Centre, located at 625 Runnymede Rd, the 200-bed hospital focuses on patents medical, mobility, social and spiritual needs. Opening in 1945, the center specializes in two streams of clinical care, medically complex patients and Low Tolerance Long Duration Rehabilitation (LTLD Rehab). The hospital assists those with chronic conditions and functional disabilities as a result of neurological diseases, injury or other illnesses and patents requiring long-term rehabilitation therapy after surgery or injury.

St. Joseph’s Health Centre, located at 30 The Queensway, has been serving Toronto’s west end since the 1920s as a Catholic community teaching hospital in addition to functioning as a health care centre. It specializes acute community care including disease management, emergency care, mental health & addition programs, senior care, oncology, and other surgical and diagnostic services. St. Joseph’s teaching program extends to employees, physicians, students, medical professionals and its team of volunteers with focus on interprofessional collaboration in order to generate new ideas and best practices within the health care field.

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A19 3.8 Places of Worship There are a total of 24 Places of Worship within the Study Area, the majority of which are of the Christian faith. It is worth noting that places of worship often also offer community recreation space and programming.

Table A15 - Places of Worship in the Study Area (City of Toronto) Place of Worship Faith Address Annette Street Baptist Church Christian 200 Annette St Celestial Church Of Christ Christian 3339 Dundas St W Full Gospel Young Sung Church Christian 152 Annette St Hallelujah Filipino Baptist Christian 425 Pacific Ave Holy Cross Priory Christian 204 High Park Ave Kneseth Israel Congregation Jewish 56 Maria St Linh-Son Buddhist Association Buddhist 3325 Dundas St W Mariast Fellowship Mission Christian 186 Maria St Ontario Zen Centre Buddhist 22 Oakmount Rd Primera Iglesia Pentecostal Christian 3346 Dundas St W Runnymede Baptist Church Christian 60 Colbeck St Runnymede Presbyterian Church Christian 680 Annette St Runnymede United Church Christian 429 Runnymede Rd Shalom Korean Church Christian 3049 Dundas St W St Cecilia's Catholic Church Catholic 163 Annette St St James Church Christian 740 Annette St St John's Anglican Church Christian 288 Humberside Ave St Paul The Apostle Christian 3230 Dundas St W St Paul's Church Christian 404 Willard Ave The Church Of God Prophecy Christian 3200 Dundas St W The Mount Refuge Church Of Christian 515 Annette St Toronto The Shiloh Pentecostal Church Christian 3001 Dundas St W Third Church Of Christ Christian 70 High Park Ave West Toronto Masonic Temple Christian 151 Annette St

A20 3.9 Emergency Services The subject site is well served by Emergency Medical, Fire and Police services. The following is a list of emergency services located both within, and in proximity to the Study Area.

Emergency Medical Services

EMS Station #32 located at 1 Clendenan Avenue is within the Study Area. Fire Services

Fire Station #423 located at 358 Keele St, Fire Station #424 located at 462 Runnymede Road, can both be found within the Study Area. Police Services

Toronto Police Service 11 Division is located at 209 Mavety Street is within the Study Area.

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A21 CONCLUSIONS

4 The Junction Area neighbourhood experienced a population fluctuation between 2001 and 2011 and grew by 1,875 persons overall, which represents a growth rate of 15.0 percent. As of 2011, the Junction Area neighbourhood consisted primarily of people in the “Working Age” group (approximately 64.1 percent), followed by “Children” (approximately 14.5 percent). Compared to the City of Toronto as a whole, as of 2011, the proportion of the ‘Children’ (0.8 percent lower), ‘youth’ (0.8 percent lower), and ‘Seniors’ (5 percent lower) groups were slightly lower in the Junction Area, while the proportion of “Working Age” individuals was 6.6 percent higher in the neighbourhood than City-wide. Between 2006 and 2011 there was an increase of 455 households overall in the Junction Area neighbourhood. In 2011, the majority of private households in the neighbourhood consisted of 1 or 2 persons in size (63.2 percent). In the 2006 Census the average household income was approximately $13,040 below the City-wide average. In the 2011 NHS, the average household after-tax income was $17,573 lower than the City-wide average.

This neighbourhood consists of primarily apartment dwellings, with the greatest percentage of dwellings are in apartment buildings with less than 5 storeys (43.1 percent). 77 percent of the housing stock was built between 1961 and 1980. The majority of the residents of neighbourhood rent (55 percent).

The proportion of visible minority residents (29 percent) is lower in the Junction Area neighbourhood than the City overall (49 percent).

In terms of school accommodation, the TDSB elementary and secondary schools serving the subject site are able to accommodate the 5 projected elementary school students and 2 projected secondary school students. The TCDSB elementary schools serving the subject site may be able to accommodate the 7 projected elementary school students. There are 0 secondary school students projected, however, Bishop Marrocco/ Thomas Merton could accommodate additional students.

There are a total of 24 child care facilities within the Study Area, 12 of which provide subsidized spaces if available. The projected demand for 9 child care spaces anticipated from this development could be accommodated by the facilities within the Study Area as there are currently a combined total of 53 vacancies reported across all age groups.

There are two Toronto Public Library branches located within the Study Area which offer moderate collections. There are also two community recreation centres within the study area which offer a variety of programs and services. There are a number of parks (15) located within the Study Area, totalling 8.99 hectares of parkland. Located just south of the Study Area is High Park which is 141.42 hectares in size, thus the subject site has very good access to City parks.

Within the vicinity of the Study Area there are two hospitals, Runnymede Healthcare Centre and St. Joseph’s Health Centre, both of which offer a variety of medical and emergency services.There are also EMS, Fire Services, and Toronto Police Service stations within the Study Area. In addition, there are 24 places of worship located within the Study Area.

A22 SCHOOLS PLACES OF WORSHIP 1. Annette Street Junior and Senior Public 1. Annette Street Baptist Church School (JK-08) 2. Celestial Church Of Christ 2. Humberside Collegiate Institute (09-12) 3. Full Gospel Young Sung Church 3. Western Technical-Commercial School 4. Hallelujah Filipino Baptist (09-12) 5. Holy Cross Priory 4. Elementary St. Cecilia (JK-8) 6. Kneseth Israel Congregation 5. James Culnan (JK-8) 7. Linh-Son Buddhist Association 6. St. Luigi (JK-8) 8. Mariast Fellowship Mission 7. Bishop Allen (9-12) 9. Ontario Zen Centre 8. Michael Power/ St. Joseph (9-12) 10. Primera Iglesia Pentecostal 9. Bishop Marrocco/ Thomas Merton 11. Runnymede Baptist Church 12. Runnymede Presbyterian Church 13. Runnymede United Church CHILD CARE SERVICES 14. Shalom Korean Church 1. A Place To Play Nursery School Of Bloor 15. St Cecilia’s Catholic Church West Village 16. St James Church 2. Angelgate Daycare Inc. 17. St John’s Anglican Church 3. Bloor West Nursery School 18. St Paul The Apostle 4. Children’s Creative Corner Co-Op Nursery 19. St Paul’s Church School 20. The Church Of God Prophecy 5. Early Enrichment Day Care (St. John’s 21. The Mount Refuge Church Of Toronto West Toronto) 22. The Shiloh Pentecostal Church 6. High Park Early Learning Centre 23. Third Church Of Christ 7. High Park Jr YMCA 24. West Toronto Masonic Temple 15. 8. Holland-Bloorview Kids Rehab. - High 11. 8. 6. Park 9. Humbercrest Co-Operative Nursery 10. PARKS 18. 20. 4. School 1. Baird Park 10. Humberside Montessori 4. 2. Beresford Park 2. 7. 10. 11. Indian Road Crescent School Age YMCA 22. 14. 3. Chelsea Avenue Playground 2. 12. Junction Day Care Centre 4. Dundas-Watkinson Parkette 4. 7. 13. Keelmount Daycare Centre 5. Dundas-Dupont Trafﬁ c Island 1. 5. 14. King George B & A School Program 6. George Chater Park 3. 15. Little Footsteps Childcare Inc. 9. 7. Kennedy Margdon Parkette 16. One Step At A Time Child Care Ltd. 14. 10. 1. 6. 8. Lithuania Park 15. 1. 17. Plasp - James Culnan 24. 9. Maher Circle 18. Plasp - St. Cecilia 9. 8. 10. Malta Park 21. 19. Plasp - St. Pius X 1. 11. Maria Street Parkette 18. 20. Runnymede Adventure Club 12. * 12. Neil Mcllellan Park 21. Stepping Stones Day Nursery 1. 13. Parkview Gardens Parkette 5. 1. 22. Sunnyside - Keele 14. Ravina Gardens Park 17. 4. 17. 23. Teddy Bear Academy 5. 5. 22. 15. Vine Avenue Playground 8. 24. Time For Play Nursery School 2. 23. LIBRARIES 1. 12. 1. Annette Street Branch 16. 14. 2. Runnymede Branch 8. 3. 2. RECREATION 1. Annette Community Recreation Centre 2. Keele Community Centre 13. 4. 13. 3. 3. 11. 24. HOSPITALS 2. 1. Runnymede Healthcare Centre 2. 3. 2. St. Joseph’s Health Centre 20. 23. 9. 15. 11. 9. EMERGENCY SERVICES 19. 1. EMS Station #32 21. 6. 2. Fire Station #423 16. 3. Fire Station #424 13. 4. Toronto Police Service 11 Division

7. 2. 1. 12. 19. 6.

7. 2.

Figure A3 - Community Services Facilities

COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES | 260 High Park Avenue A23