JANE FINCH MISSION CENTRE
Feasibility Study & Business Case Report For the University Presbyterian Church unit a architecture inc. / February 05, 2014 PG TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 Tables & Figures 6 0.0 Introduction 0.1 The Need for a Feasibility Study and Business Case 0.2 Objectives 0.3 Vision
10 1.0 Site Description 1.1 Development Characteristics 1.2 Environmental Analysis 1.3 Traffic Analysis 1.4 Regulations and Environmental Issues 1.5 Site Analysis 1.6 Zoning Code Analysis 1.7 Building Code Analysis
20 2.0 Case Studies 2.1 Urban Arts 2.2 Evangel Hall Mission 2.3 Pathways to Education 2.4 Regent Park School of Music
28 3.0 Environment 3.1 Priority Investment Neighbourhood 3.2 Housing 3.3 Conflict
36 4.0 Service Infrastructure 4.1 Access to Service Providers 4.2 Music Services
42 5.0 Investment Options 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Existing Facilities Review 5.3 Existing Church Building Use 5.4 New Investment 5.5 Schematic Design
60 6.0 Business Models 6.1 UPC Designs-Finances-Builds-Operates Facility 6.2 UPC Designs-Finances-Builds New Facility and Operates Church, Third Party Operates Nutritional, Homework and Music Services 6.3 New Jane Finch Mission Board Designs-Finances-Builds and Operates Facility 6.4 Sponsorships 6.5 Conclusion
2 66 7.0 Financial Projections 7.1 LEED Cost-Benefit Analysis 7.2 Capital Costs 7.3 Revenue Centres 7.4 Operating Expenses 7.5 Five-Year Pro-forma Projections 7.6 Project Costs Breakdown
78 8.0 Implementation 8.1 Implementation of the Project
82 9.0 Recommendations 9.1 Alternative 1: Do not proceed with construction of the Jane Finch Mission Centre. 9.2 Alternative 2: Proceed with construction of the Jane Finch Mission Centre using the Preferred Redevelopment Option.
A86 Appx. A Zoning & Code A.1 Zoning chart A.2 Building code chart
B90 Appx. B Concept Studies B.1 Concept B.2 Concept B.3 Concept B.4 Concept B.5 Concept
C96 Appx. C Other Studies C.1 Statistics
FIGURE 0-0.
UNIVERSITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH SIGN
3 Tables & Figures FIGURE 0-0. university presbyterian church sign 3
FIGURE 0-1. sunday worship service at university presbyterian church 7
FIGURE 1-1. bird’s-eye view of site (finch ave. west & driftwood ave.) 11
FIGURE 1-2. bus stop & vegetation at southwest corner of site 13
FIGURE 1-3. existing driveway located north of church 14
FIGURE 1-4. diagram showing usage and development potential 17
FIGURE 1-5. 944 sq m max lot coverage without a minor variance 18
FIGURE 1-6. 757 sq m max building area permitted without sprinklers 19
TABLE 3-1.site boundaries 29
FIGURE 3-2. Priority neighbourhood: jane-finch area 30
FIGURE 3-3. catchment area 31
FIGURE 3-4. housing services: jane-finch area 32
FIGURE 3-5. community housing in toronto 33
FIGURE 3-6. newspaper article on violence in toronto 34
FIGURE 4-1. access to service infrastructure within jane-finch area 39
FIGURE 4-2. service infrastructure grouped by age targets 40
FIGURE 4-3. access to private music education within jane-finch area 41
FIGURE 5-1. east elevation of university Presbyterian church 43
TABLE 5-2. building audit chart 44
FIGURE 5-3. 1 of 4 community rooms in the basement 45
FIGURE 5-4. minister`s office 45
TABLE 5-5. building usage chart 47
4 FIGURE 5-6. bird’s-eye view of site (finch ave w & driftwood ave) 50
FIGURE 5-7. proposed program areas 51
FIGURE 5-8. site plan 53
FIGURE 5-9. massing concept 1 54
FIGURE 5-10. massing concept 2 54
FIGURE 5-11. upper floor plan 55
FIGURE 5-12. lower floor plan 55
FIGURE 5-13. diagrams multifunctional main hall 56-7
FIGURE 5-14. vignette from southwest corner 58
FIGURE 5-15. birds-eye view from southeast corner 58-9
FIGURE 7-1. LEED certification levels 67
FIGURE 7-2. LEED cost benefit 68
FIGURE 7-4. five-year pro-forma projection 74
FIGURE 8-1. reference timeline from municipal approvals to construction 81
FIGURE A-1. 944 sq m max lot coverage without a minor variance A87
FIGURE A-2. 757 sq m max building area permitted without sprinklers A89
5 0.0 INTRODUCTION
6 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 0.0 Introduction
FIGURE 0-1.
SUNDAY WORSHIP SERVICE AT UNIVERSITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Source: www.universitychurch.ca
University Presbyterian Church retained unit a architecture inc. to conduct a feasibility study and prepare a preliminary business case, which the Church requires for the development of a Jane Finch Mission Centre. Project Management for the Church was undertaken by a Steering Committee. The site, located on the north east corner of Driftwood Ave. and Finch Ave. West was pre-selected for development as it is the location of the current University Presbyterian Church.
0.1 The Need for a Feasibility Study and Business Case
University Presbyterian Church is a small church built in 1964 simultaneously with the new Jane Finch community, a mix of individual family houses and high quality apartment towers. In the intervening fifty years much has changed. The church building has reached the end of its lifespan; it is operationally dysfunctional and grossly undersized for its current congregation. As well, the neighbourhood is no longer predominately middle class. Therefore this study is important to determine;
• The full costs to construct and operate a new facility;
• To identify the range of uses within the facility;
• Site constraints;
7 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 0.0 Introduction
• Other potential partners;
• The overall value of such a facility to University Presbyterian Church (UPC).
0.2 Objectives
The following are key objectives and deliverables for the feasibility study and business case as follows:
• Delivery of an Appropriate Consultant Program including at least one Public Presentation to determine Congregational comments on the Preferred Redevelopment Concept;
• Analyze current market trends and best practices in order to drive design and use of the proposed Mission Centre;
• Review and make recommendations on the appropriate uses within the facility (including size and layout) for the congregation and Mission along with other service commercial, retail and public uses, including other possible partners;
• Review the general costs and benefits of different concepts (different size buildings, different amounts of commercial activities etc.) as a business plan considering five-year projections of operating expenses and revenue projections with recommendations on the most economically feasible option including construction budgets and operating budgets for the scenarios;
• Operating Model and Investment Review to determine partnerships and investment opportunities including options on how to operate the Mission Centre;
• Rendering and plans of the Preferred Redevelopment Concept;
• Review of feasibility (cost and potential usage review) of public uses within the Mission (worship, community meeting space, homework club, music school. nutrition program, gallery space etc.); and
• Site constraint analysis including traffic impact assessment and engineering service review to reinforce the appropriateness of the site for a Mission Centre.
8 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 0.0 Introduction
0.3 Vision
University Presbyterian Church (UPC) has been serving the Jane-Finch community since 1964. UPC developed its community programs in response to a 2007 Community Assessment Report by Toronto City Mission. The study identified the feelings of fear or bondage held by members within the community. 82% parents stated that their greatest fear was that they were exposing their children to negative influences because they lived within the Jane-Finch neighbourhood. The after-school program was started in 2008 to help children with their homework and ensure that they would do well in school and not drop out. In 2009 this was followed by a music program, which gave the children an opportunity to discover their musical talents and learn to play an instrument of their choice. Today the Jane-Finch Reaching UP ministry has been well established in the community.
UPC’s “Vision 2015” is to expand its community programs and build a Christian Mission Centre. The goal is to provide out-reach programs to share the love of God in Jesus Christ and be a light in the face of the brokenness in the community. The five-year plan, initiated in 2010, began with building discipleship in the UPC congregation. Together, members and friends of UPC worked on defining the vision for UPC to be a place where people in the community can participate in various programs seven days a week. It is UPC’s vision to be more than a Sunday worship service, but to be a place where the Jane-Finch community’s daily bread can be met.
On January 14, 2013, Rev Thomas Kim presented Vision 2015 to the committee of Vision and Growth of the Presbytery of West Toronto. The Vision and Growth committee recommended that a feasibility study needed to be done for a concrete proposal. As a response to the committee’s suggestion, the Jane-Finch Mission Centre feasibility study has been commissioned since March 2013. The goal of the study was to understand the existing facilities and property to determine the nature of alterations, expansions or construction of new facilities that may be required to meet the programming and broader vision of the Jane-Finch Mission Centre.
9 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
10 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description
FIGURE 1-1.
BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF SITE (FINCH AVE. WEST & DRIFTWOOD AVE.)
The University Presbyterian Church site (figure 1-1) is located on a prominent corner lot on a rise of land looking south over Finch Ave. West at Driftwood Ave. Adjacent land-uses are single-purpose yet diverse. The backyards of single family bungalows form the northern edge of the site. Non-profit townhouses form the eastern edge of the property. To the west and south ubiquitous rental market high-rise apartment towers. Kitty corner to the south west is a large shopping mall with large areas of surface parking fronting both Jane and Finch Street.
1.1 Development Characteristics
The site has development potential for a Church Mission as well as a small residential development. The site (figure 1-1) is just over 1 acre (4240 square metres) in area and has 350 feet (113 metres) of frontage along Finch Ave. and 100 feet (34 metres) of frontage along Driftwood Ave. The existing church structure is prominently located on the street corner however it occupies only 15% of the overall Finch Ave. frontage. Public transit bus routes operate on both Finch Ave. and Driftwood Ave. Both stop in front of the site.
The Etobicoke-Finch West LRT is a proposed light rail line announced in 2007. Construction is to begin in 2015, and the line to be in service from the Toronto- York-Spadina Subway Extension (TYSSE) to Humber College in 2019.
11 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description
1.11 Church Mission
A Place of Worship is a permitted as-of-right use within the existing zoning bylaws.
The congregation requested the existing building be maintained as part of this study. Therefore the additional as-of-right maximum building area footprint permitted within the Zoning By-laws (figure A-1) is 10,162 square feet (944 square metres). As the existing building is un-sprinklered, the maximum building area addition of 8148 square feet (757 square metres) is permitted within the Ontario Building Code (figure A-2) prior to requiring the entire structure (existing + new) to be sprinkled.
1.12 Residential Development
Residential Uses are permitted as-of-right uses with conditions within the existing zoning bylaws. However only a Detached House is permitted. Any intensification from single house would require either Committee of Adjustment or a Rezoning process.
1.2 Environmental Analysis
No preliminary soil sampling was undertaken as part of this study to determine either the geotechnical characteristics or the environmental chemical composition of the sites subsurface condition. However the site’s history is believed to have been farm land prior the Church’s construction. We therefore uncovered nothing that could cause premiums to development costs at this point in time.
1.21 Environmental Chemical Soil Analysis
If the project move forward soils analysis should be undertaken at the same as the geotechnical investigation. The purpose would be to obtain environmental soil quality information for soil to be excavated from the site as this could have significant cost implications.
For the purpose of this study it is assumed that during site development excess soil can be disposed of at the majority of redevelopment sites, those that accepts soil meeting MOE Table 1 Standards.
1.22 Geotechnical Soil Analysis
A geotechnical report will be required to be undertaken prior to contract documents
12 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description
FIGURE 1-2.
BUS STOP & VEGETATION AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE
being developed however for the purpose of this study we have assumed the soil has the following characteristics and impacts.
1. Foundations: Proposed foundation can be supported on conventional spread and strip footings founded on undisturbed native soil.
2. Floor Slabs and permanent drainage: A maintenance free floor slab can be supported on grade with a moisture barrier and 200mm (8 inches) of gravel below. Drainage can be provided through weeping tile at perimeter footing.
3. Excavation and Backfill: Major problems with groundwater are not anticipated for the installation of shallow foundations. It is expected that seepage, which occurs during wet periods, can be removed with pumping from sumps.
4. Earth Quake considerations: Under the new Ontario Building Code the site can be categorized as Class D for seismic considerations.
5. Pavements: Conventional asphalt systems may be used. Recommendations for automobiles traffic areas are 80mm (3 inches) of asphalt on 350mm (14 inches) of granular A + B. Loading, bus lay- by and main driveways are recommended to be slightly thicker with 125mm (5 inches) of asphalt on 350mm (14 inches) of granular A + B. Permeable pavers may be required for any new parking areas.
13 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description
FIGURE 1-3.
EXISTING DRIVEWAY LOCATED NORTH OF CHURCH
1.3 Traffic Analysis
1.31 Site Access
Two way automobile access is off Driftwood Ave. at the north end of the site. This is the best location for traffic flow. A second location off Finch at the east side of the site may be considered by the City for right-in right-out only however the City would be reluctant in order to maintain traffic flow along Finch Ave. Therefore a traffic study by a traffic engineer indicating clear cause would have to be created.
1.32 Site Servicing
The site is fully serviced. New service upgrades as required for redevelopment would tie into existing. Therefore servicing of the redevelopment is not seen as an impediment to development nor is it anticipated that premiums should be added to normal site development costs.
1.33 Water
A 300 mm (12 inch) diameter water line runs west from Fifty Road along the north side of North Service Road. It is capped at southeast corner of the property near
14 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description the drainage ditch. Other 300mm (12 inch) diameter water lines run under the roadbed along Baseline Road and Lockport Way.
1.34 Sanitary
Sanitary lines run along Finch Ave. and Driftwood Ave. It is believed that the current tie in is off Driftwood Ave.
1.35 Storm Water Management
Currently there are no catch basins located on site. Rain water is absorbed into the ground or drained off the property onto Municipal Land. Catch basins are located adjacent to curbs along Finch Ave. and Driftwood Ave. Redevelopment will require permeable paving in the parking lot and storm water management strategies as no storm water is allowed to be drained off private property onto municipal land.
1.36 Hydro, Voice, and Data Lines
Hydro poles run along both Driftwood Ave. and Finch Ave. Services come underground off Driftwood Ave. These services will require upgrade for any building expansion.
1.36 Natural Gas
A natural gas line runs under the sidewalk along Driftwood Ave. The church is serviced from the line.
1.4 Regulations and Environmental Issues
1.41 Official Plan and Zoning
As part of this study the Zoning Department at the City of Toronto was contacted to review site specific zoning by-law requirements. At this time two different zoning by-law documents apply to the site. Appendix A Zoning & Code Studies sections A.1 and A.2 contain the general information. As the more restrictive of the two by-laws apply, items with a line through them are not applicable as they are less restrictive. It should be noted that the site is originally located in Ward 7 but due to boundary adjustments is currently in Ward 8. As the use (Place of Worship) is permitted as-of-right implementation of the project shouldn’t be delayed for.
15 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description
1.41 Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE)
The testing was not undertaken as part of this study to substantiate the preparation of a Record of Site Condition in accordance with MOE Standards. Should a Record of Site Condition be required, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment must be conducted at a minimum, with possible need for additional subsurface investigation.
16 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description
1.5 Site Analysis DRIFTWOOD AVE.
FINCH AVE. WEST
N
FIGURE 1-4. DIAGRAM SHOWING USAGE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
EXIST BUILDINGS
GARDENS
UNDER UTILIZED
INFORMAL SPACE
TRANSIT ROUTE
ENTRANCES
VISIBILITY
17 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description
1.6 Zoning Code Analysis
FIGURE 1-5. 944 SQ M MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED WITHOUT A MINOR VARIANCE
18 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 1.0 Site Description
1.7 Building Code Analysis
FIGURE 1-6. 757 SQ M MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA PERMITTED WITHOUT SPRINKLERS
19 2.0 CASE STUDIES
20 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 2.0 Case Studies
The consultants together with members of the steering committee toured the following facilities to provide background for decision making.
2.1 URBAN ARTS
Source: urbanartstoronto.org
2.2 EVANGEL HALL MISSION
Source: evangelhall.ca
2.3 PATHWAYS TO EDUCATION
Source: pathwaystoeducation.ca
2.4 REGENT PARK SCHOOL OF MUSIC
Source: rpmusic.org
21 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 2.0 Case Studies
2.1 Urban Arts
www.urbanartstoronto.org Contact / Tour Leader Marlene McKintosh Executive Director [email protected] (416) 241-5124
Overview: Urban Arts is a non-profit charitable youth organization that offers arts- based programs in the former City of York with a specific focus on Weston-Mount Dennis. Our multi-arts programs serve to develop youth as artists and leaders. Led by professional artists, our programs effectively improve our neighbourhood through engagement, beautification and capacity building.
Relevant Program Expertise:
Beats.Mind.Movement - intensive urban music program for youth 16-24 years. BMM focuses on beat production, song writing, recording, vocal training & the “Business of Music”. Participants develop their skills as they learn and complete a compilation CD by the end of the program Music recording studio for youth to compose and record music.
Slam Poetry - a spoken word program for youth 13 years and older. Explores spoken word writing, performance, and introduce you to the competitive and exciting world of slam poetry. Led by an experienced National level slam competitor, with compelling guest poets and experienced performance and writing coaches.
Other Programs of Interest: Dance, Visual Arts, Computer Training, Summer Camps, Leadership Programs
Joint Programs: Undertakes joint programing with other agencies both in-house and with-in a larger geographic context.
Funding Sources: Mostly Government and NGO supported programming.
Example: Ex-Mayor Miller provided an old 3,000 sq. ft. City of Toronto Shop with state-of good repair upgrade as a new home for with long term lease of $1. year. Move-in date fall 2013.
Program Costs: Many are free.
Governance: Independent Non-Profit Board
Relevance Moving Forward: Is willing to partner with UPC on specific programs. Has limited program funding without specific application.
22 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 2.0 Case Studies
2.2 Evangel Hall Mission
www.evangelhall.ca Contact / Tour Leader Joe Taylor, Executive Director [email protected] (416) 504-3563 ext 227
Overview: 100-year-old Presbyterian inner city mission helping homeless and socially isolated individuals find a safe haven from the streets. Every day, ehm will feed, clothe, and find shelter for up to 200 men and women. The programs are extensive and the building contains 85 units of non-profit transitional housing.
Joint Programs: Some support programs and many Agency Partners.
Relevant Program Expertise: Youth Programs include:
After School Programs: 5 days a week rotating Homework Club / Boys Club / Just for Girls / Youth Drop-In. Great range of summer camps in-City and out.
Other Programs of Interest: Transit for Teens, School Supplies for Students, Youth Counselling and Advocacy and Community Dinners
Funding Sources: Primarily support by donations from individuals and Presbyterian Churches. The annual Golf Tournament and Compassionate Hearts Gala are extremely successful fundraising events.
Program Costs: Free. Youth camp programs free / pay-what you can or funding from other agencies.
Governance: Independent Non-Profit Board reporting to Presbytery.
Relevance Moving Forward: Willing to supply programming expertise and assistance. May be able to undertake satellite youth programs but has no operation funding sources. The idea of coming under the governance of Evangel Hall Mission was discussed but would require board discussion and approval. Any operational fundraising that UPC undertakes within the relatively small Presbyterian Church community may encroach on Evangel Hall Missions traditional source of revenue.
23 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 2.0 Case Studies
2.3 Pathways to Education
www.pathwaystoeducation.ca Contact / Tour Leader: Shelia Braidek, Executive Director (Regent Park Community Health Centre) [email protected] (416) 364-2261 #2309
Overview: Pathways’ innovative, community-based program has been helping youth in low-income communities stay in school and graduate to post-secondary for more than 10 years. Working in partnership with governments, social welfare agencies, and hundreds of diverse volunteers who share their talent and wisdom, Pathways is helping to break the cycle of poverty and enable strategic, long-term social change.
Joint Programs: Works directly with public school boards, students, parents and rent spaces in Churches and other community centers.
Relevant Program Expertise: Sophisticated “homework club” for high school students. Students and parents sign a contract with Pathways for tutoring program. Mentoring and Advocacy programs higher level.
Other Programs of Interest: Advocacy support, transit cost covering.
Funding Sources: A mix of large corporate donors, provincial and federal governments
Program Costs: No costs to students.
Governance: National Board of Directors with 7 person executive team and 33 staff.
Relevance Moving Forward: It would be beneficial to have Pathways to Education in the Jane-Finch area however a founding member of the program, Shelia’s processor at the Regent Park Community Health Centre, suggested that because Pathways relies on broad grass roots support from the entire community other agencies are better equipped to lead implementation of the program than UPC. This would not stop UPC from providing third party space to the program. In addition, commenting on why the program is not in the Jane-Finch neighbourhood, it was noted that there are many support services with little or no coordination between the institutions providing the services. Moving forward UPC should coordinate and integrate any programs with other providers. Several overview groups meet in the Jane-Finch neighbourhood.
24 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 2.0 Case Studies
2.4 Regent Park School of Music
www.rpmusic.org Contact / Tour Leader: Richard Marsella, Director [email protected] (416) 364-8900
Overview: Founded in 1999, RPSM provides high quality, affordable music education to youth-in-need in Regent Park and other high priority areas in the City of Toronto including Parkdale, Jane & Finch, and Lawrence Heights. We currently have more than 1100 students experiences in both private and group lessons.
With the belief that music could empower children in Regent Park, a motivated group of individuals started the Regent Park School of Music and formed a Board of Directors. A Priest at St. Paul’s Basilica, Father Tom Day, heard of the initiative and was immediately interested. Father Day lived in Regent Park and knew many of the families in the area.
RPSM is currently in the second year of a five-year strategic plan that aims to reach 3000 youth-in-need in Toronto (1100 of which will be from Regent Park) by the end of 2015. We are expanding our satellite programs into other lower income areas of Toronto and working to develop innovative programs which musically stimulate our children and provide healthy opportunities for positive peer influence and encouragement.
Currently a 200 student wait list for programs
Joint Programs: Has access to major venue (400 persons) and a smaller 200 person venue in their new home in the Regent Park Arts & Cultural Centre. Within their own space the school has 6 practice rooms, staff office and “great hall” as a 50 person venue and instrument display area.
Relevant Program Expertise: A wide range of musical experiences cater to the diversity of our students. Regent Park School of Music offers children the opportunity to grow out of their surroundings and become contributors to society. Programs include: -Private Lessons -Music Theory Classes -String Ensemble -Choir -Early Childhood Music -Summer Camp -Jane & Finch -Beyond 3:30
25 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 2.0 Case Studies
Other Programs of Interest: Faculty consists of teachers with either a degree in music performance or their ARCT with experience in group and individual musical instruction. Many of our teachers are members of local orchestras, choirs and ensembles.
Funding Sources: A Foundation was established by the Regent Park School of Music’s Board of Directors in 2003. Its purpose is to provide financial support to the school by holding and managing major assets.
This dual-charity structure is common now in the charitable sector where organizations like Regent Park School of Music are supported by a dedicated foundation, which is also a registered charity for tax purposes, while the primary charity (in this case, RPSM) delivers its programs and services in the community.
The Foundation manages endowed scholarship funds, bursaries, and equipment funds.
Program Costs: Yes however scholarships bursaries and equipment funds available.
Governance: Independent Board with separate Foundation.
Relevance Moving Forward: Currently has programs in three schools in the Jane-Finch neighbourhood and may have operational funds available. They are interested in discussing joint projects with UPC.
26
3.0 ENVIRONMENT
28 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 3.0 Environment
This section focuses on the demographics of the environment surrounding the site and highlights specific information related to creating a Mission. The data supplied varies as the boundaries of the Jane-Finch neighbourhood vary depending on the assessor. Table 3-1 indicates the differences in the boundaries.
Agency Boundaries
North South East West City Of Toronto Sheppard / Humber Steeles Black Creek Priority Neighbourhood Black Creek River
Wards 8 + 9 Steeles Hwy. 401 Dufferin St. Hwy. 400
University Presbyterian Steeles Sheppard Dufferin St. Hwy. 400 TABLE 3-1. Church Catchment Area SITE BOUNDARIES
3.1 Priority Investment Neighbourhood
Of a total 140 neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto 13 have been identified as at-risk neighbourhoods based on their demographic composition. These 13 neighbourhoods are targeted by the City for priority investment. The Jane-Finch neighbourhood (figure 3-2) is the largest of the 13 priority neighbourhoods with a population of 80,000 people spread over an area of 21 square kilometres. The following neighbourhood profile is based on Census 2006 data.
• The largest male age groups are 5-9 year olds and 10-14 year olds (50% higher than city wide %);
• The largest population change 2001-2006 is an 85% increase in 80-84 year olds;
• Six thousand lone parent families (45% higher than city wide %);
• 24% of the population has low income after-tax (25% higher than city wide);
• The origin of 39% of recent immigration is South Asia (India, Pakistan etc.).
29 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 3.0 Environment
FIGURE 3-2.
PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOOD: JANE-FINCH AREA
Source: City of Toronto
30 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 3.0 Environment
Dufferin St
Keele St
Jane St
Hwy 400
UNIVERSITYCHURCH PRESBYTERIAN
WARD 8 Finch Ave
WARD 9
Sheppard Ave
Wilson Ave FIGURE 3-3.
Expy 401 CATCHMENT AREA
The University Presbyterian Church catchment area (figure 3-3) is considered to be Ward 8 and Ward 9. Census data summary by ward indicates the following trends.
• Lone parent families are increasing rapidly (both wards); • Average household incomes are rising rapidly (both wards); • Population age groups with rapid increases are 45-54 year olds and 75+ (both wards); • Population age group with increasing are 20-24 years old and 55-64 (ward 8); • Population with higher education (cert. / diploma / degree) is increasing (both wards); • Income range increases in 30K-40K (ward 9) and 40K-50K (ward 8) and over 100K (both wards).
31 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 3.0 Environment
FIGURE 3-4.
HOUSING SERVICES: JANE-FINCH AREA
Source: City of Toronto
32 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 3.0 Environment
FIGURE 3-5.
COMMUNITY HOUSING IN TORONTO
Source: TCHC & Martin Prosperity Institute
3.2 Housing
The Jane-Finch Neighbourhood has a range of housing types typical to the City. Census 2006 highlights the following general data:
• 47% of the population live in apartments; • 41% of the population live in apartments 5 or more storeys; • 9 % of the population live in detached houses; • 45% own and 55% rent their accommodation.
Social housing in the Jane-Finch neighbourhood is primarily clustered in six locations. All of the social housing clusters are owned and operated by Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC). This design and development approach is currently out of favour with urban planners as witnessed by the current large scale redevelopment of Regent Park and Alexandra Park into vibrant mixed income / use downtown neighbourhoods. The TCHC currently has no plans to re-develop any of the Jane-Finch clusters.
Of the six (6) social housing clusters in the Jane-Finch neighbourhood (figure 3.2). three (3) are along Driftwood Ave. on the transit line while two (2) other clusters are within walking distance of the University Presbyterian Church site.
33 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 3.0 Environment
3.3 Conflict
For many years the Jane-Finch neighbourhood has had more than its share of sensational news stories and media headlines based on the violent behaviour of a relatively small percentage of the population. As eminent urban planner Richard Florida has noted and mapped (figure 3-6) there is a strong correlation between low income / social disadvantage and violence.
FIGURE 3-6. NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON VIOLENCE IN TORONTO
Source: Toronto Star
34
4.0 SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE
36 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 4.0 Service Infrastructure
Based on desk-top research and promotional material provided by University Presbyterian Church, this section of the feasibility study reviews current service providers within the Jane-Finch neighbourhood in close proximity to the Driftwood Ave. / Finch Ave. site.
4.1 Access to Service Providers
Figure 4-1 indicates the location of service providers relative to the site. Additional information on these providers is outlined below. Figure 4-2 graphically illustrates the age focus of these program.
Boys and Girls Club • The Jane and Finch Boys and Girls Club operates from 8 “club house” locations located primarily within school sites;
• Operate after-school programs for children 6-12. Some sites up to grade 8;
• Operate 13+ programs from 4PM-9PM Monday-Friday including dance, recording studio and fitness;
• Opened a new central facility September 2013.
Women’s and Family Services • Women’s Support Services are provided at two locations.
Legal Services • Two sites, both operating through Legal Aid.
City of Toronto Parks and Recreation Services • Operates 3 community recreation centres with a full range of services and programs;
• Programs include homework clubs and some basic nutrition programs from rudimentary facilities.
Health Services • Humber River Regional Hospital, Finch Ave. site is open 24 / 7 and offers a comprehensive range of acute and ambulatory services;
• Black Creek Community Health Centre provides both clinical and educational services from 2 shopping malls locations Monday-Friday.
37 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 4.0 Service Infrastructure
Library Services • York Woods Public Library is a full service library (non-barrier-free) operating 7 days a week;
• 2 meeting rooms 500 sq. ft. and 700 sq. ft.;
• 260-seat theatre with dressing rooms, green room and separate entrance.
4.2 Music Services
There are 5 providers of private music services in the Jane-Finch neighbourhood (figure 4-3) in addition to the 40 plus student program at University Presbyterian Church. In addition Jane and Finch Boys and Girls Club operates recording studio classes and workshops.
• Regent Park School of Music operates 3 satellite locations from public schools within a ½ hour walk of the University Presbyterian Church;
• Refer to Section 2 Case Studies which outlines Regent Park School of Music programs and further goals.
38 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 4.0 Service Infrastructure
24
299 30 13 28 111 23 8 26 272 6 1414 2525 212 4 2020 5 7 12 188 1 2 9 10 1155 191 1616 1717 22
3
FIGURE 4-1. ACCESS TO SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN JANE-FINCH AREA
1 Elspeth Heyworth 9 Access Community Centre 26 Upfront Theatre Centre for Women Capital Fund Foundation 17 Boys & Girls Club 2 Newcommer Services 10 Boys & Girls Club (Oakdale) 27 JVS2 (Firgrove) 3 Weston Soccer Club 18 Topcliff Public School 28 African Mediation & Community Services 4 Norfinch Adult 11 ANC: Action for 19 Boys & Girls Club Neighbourhood Education Centre (Grandravine) 29 Police (domestic Change violence) 5 Police 31st Division 20 York Woods Library Station 12 JVS 21 St. Wilfrid Elementary 30 YMCA Employment & Newcomer Centre 6 Boys & Girls Club 13 Boys & Girls Club (Driftwood) 22 Northwood Community (Gosford) Centre 7 Black Creek 14 Boys & Girls Club 23 Youth Unlimited Community Health; The (Driftwood Public Spot; Working Women School) 24 Community Legal Aid Community 15 Yorkwoods Public Services Program School 8 Driftwood Community 25 Jane Finch Community Centre 16 Oakdale Community Legal Services
39 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 4.0 Service Infrastructure
Business Startup (1) Newcomer Services (2)
Before & After School Programs (9) Adults Recreational Program (1) Conflict Sports Program (1) Counsel (1)
Youth+
Age 6 to 12 Before & Library (1) After School, Legal Aid (2) Homework, Social Work (1) Recreation Health Care (1) Media (1) Programs (3) Law Enforcement (2) Newcomer Recreational Program (1) Services (1) Employment Services (3) Age 10 to 30
Age 8 to 30
All Ages
FIGURE 4-2. SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE GROUPED BY AGE TARGETS
1 Elspeth Heyworth 8 Driftwood Community 15 Yorkwoods Public 24 Community Legal Aid Centre for Women Centre School Services Program 2 Newcommer Services 9 Access Community 16 Oakdale Community 25 Jane Finch Community Centre Legal Services 3 Weston Soccer Club Capital Fund 17 Boys & Girls Club 26 Upfront Theatre 4 Norfinch Adult 10 Boys & Girls Club (Oakdale) Foundation Education Centre (Firgrove) 18 Topcliff Public School 27 JVS2 5 Police 31st Division 11 ANC: Action for Station Neighbourhood Change 19 Boys & Girls Club 28 African Mediation & (Grandravine) Community Services 6 Boys & Girls Club 12 JVS (Gosford) 13 Boys & Girls Club 20 York Woods Library 29 Police (domestic violence) 7 Black Creek Community (Driftwood) 21 St. Wilfrid Elementary 30 YMCA Employment & Health; The Spot; 14 Boys & Girls Club 22 Northwood Community Newcomer Centre Working Women (Driftwood Public Centre Community School) 23 Youth Unlimited
40 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 4.0 Service Infrastructure
1/2/2 hour
4 3 1
2
5 6
FIGURE 4-3. ACCESS TO PRIVATE MUSIC EDUCATION WITHIN JANE-FINCH AREA
1 Regent Park School of Music (Satellite) Firgrove Public School 2 Regent Park School of Music (Satellite) Oakdale Park Middle School 3 Regent Park School of Music (Satellite) Topcliff Public School 4 The Music Lab 5 Ontario Conservatory of Music 6 Ontario Academy of Music
41 5.0 INVESTMENT OPTIONS
42 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
FIGURE 5-1.
EAST ELEVATION OF UNIVERSITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
5.1 Introduction
The goal of this section was to review the existing facilities and develop options for investment in the Community. A review of the existing Church looked at two aspects. The first part of the review was to provide a high level audit of the existing structure and building systems. The second was to review the pattern of use in the facilities to determine if additional programs and people could be housed within the existing Church building.
Based on this review and with input from the congregation and building committee, a Preferred Redevelopment Concept was developed for new investment.
5.2 Existing Facilities Review
University Presbyterian Church was originally constructed in 1964 with the surrounding community. The building is an expediently constructed, relative small 4,972 square foot, two story, concrete block structure. A high level summary of the existing building audit (Table 5-2) indicates the following:
• The exterior building envelop is un-insulated;
• Water damage is evident below grade throughout the lower level;
43 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
• The existing flat roof is original and at the end of its life span;
• Only the upper floor provides a degree of barrier free accessibility;
• The mechanical system is old, the mechanical rooms undersized and inaccessible;
• The electrical service is maximized.
The interior finishes include painted concrete block (figures 5-3 & 5-4) and dry wall with exposed open web steel joist ceilings.
component problem recommendation
walls & roof uninsulated recladding re-roofing air-vapour barrier insulation
barrier free access upper floor only new elevator
mechanical system dysfunctional mechanical upgrades (heating & cooling)
electrical based on mechanical t.b.d.
TABLE 5-2. upgrade needs BUILDING AUDIT CHART
5.2.1 Conclusion
As the building is 50 years old it is generally time to re-invest although the Church has no current long term maintenance plan or budget to undertake. As the upgrades are extensive it is recommended upgrades be undertaken in the following order of priority.
• Waterproof (and insulate) exterior below grade walls and provide a weeping tile system and sump pit to remove groundwater;
• Re-roof and at the same time provide insulation which may require higher parapets and additional drains;
• Upgrade barrier free accessibility (door upgrades / elevator) although
44 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
current washrooms undersized and not practical for upgrades;
• Spray insulate exterior concrete block and re-clad (metal panels);
• Upgrade mechanical systems and electrical systems as required to support above items.
FIGURE 5-3.
1 OF 4 COMMUNITY ROOMS IN THE BASEMENT
FIGURE 5-4.
MINISTER`S OFFICE
45 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
SUNDAY SATURDAY MONDAY TUESDAY ROOMS AM PM EVE AM PM EVE AM PM EVE AM PM EVE 1.COMMUNITYRM. 10Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 10Ͳ12 12Ͳ2 11Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 11Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 HomeworkClub MusicSchool SundaySchool 2.COMMUNITYRM. 10Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 10Ͳ12 12Ͳ2, 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 HomeworkClub 1Ͳ2:30 Evangelism SundaySchool 3.COMMUNITYRM. 6:30Ͳ9 6:30Ͳ9 6:30Ͳ9 6:30Ͳ9 AARoom 4.COMMUNITYRM. 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ1 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ3, 6Ͳ7 11Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 HomeworkClub 3:30Ͳ6 MusicSchool ChurchActivities 5.MINISTERSOFFICE 8:30Ͳ 12Ͳ2 12Ͳ2 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 12 6.STAFFROOM 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ4 10Ͳ12 1Ͳ6 7Ͳ9 (Fridge+Office) 7.SANCTUARY 10Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 10Ͳ12 12Ͳ2 6:30Ͳ8 3Ͳ6 6Ͳ6:30 6:30Ͳ8, 12Ͳ3 MiracleF.T.Church 10:30Ͳ 12 8.LOWERHALLWAY 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ9 9:30Ͳ 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ9 8Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ9 8Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ9 (Tables/multiͲ 12 purpose) 9.UPPERHALLEAST 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 (Entrance+Coats) 10.UPPERHALLWEST 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 10Ͳ12 12Ͳ2 3Ͳ6 6Ͳ6:30 10:30Ͳ 12Ͳ3 (Piano+Storage) 12 11.KITCHEN 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 10Ͳ12 12Ͳ 6Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 6Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 12:30
Notes 1.Abbreviations:AM=morninguse;PM=afternoonuse;EVE=eveninguse. 2.Useofhallwaysisinformalbutmayincludestorage,pianolessons,snackbarinadditiontomovementofpeople. 3.85%occupancyof40hr(32hrperweek)—considerbuildingmorespace.
46 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY TOTAL USAGE AM PM EVE AM PM EVE AM PM EVE HOURS OVER85% 11Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 11Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 1Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 50 X 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 46 X 6:30Ͳ9 6:30Ͳ9 6:30Ͳ9 18 11Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 11Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 11Ͳ12 12Ͳ3, 6Ͳ8 46 X 3Ͳ6 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 9Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 48 X 10Ͳ12 1Ͳ6 10Ͳ12 1Ͳ6 7Ͳ9 32 6:30Ͳ8 6:30Ͳ8 6:30Ͳ8 25 8Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ9 8Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ9 8Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ9 89 X 6:30Ͳ9 6:30Ͳ9 14 4Ͳ6 4Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 26 TABLE 5-5. 6Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 6Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 6Ͳ12 12Ͳ6 6Ͳ7 65 X BUILDING USAGE CHART SHOWS 6 OUT OF 11 ROOMS ARE OCCUPIED MORE THAN 32 HOURS PER WEEK.
47 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
5.3 Existing Church Building Use
A reviewing of the use patterns within the building (figure 5-5) was undertaken on a room by room basis. In facilities planning, as a general rule of thumb, a program space (room) is determined to be at capacity if it is used 80% or more of a normal workday. Information was gathered from University Presbyterian Church representing typical weekly programing (September-June) at the facility. The results of the program review indicate:
• 6 out of 11 program spaces are utilized 85% or more of the time;
• 3 of the 11 program spaces are relatively narrow hallways;
• Two programs, the UPC run music program and the homework club contribute significantly to the high daily use;
• Standing room only in the Sanctuary some Sundays. (split services);
• The parking lot is set up for buffet style on Easter as no interior space can accommodate a congregation lunch.
5.3.1 Conclusion
The emergency exits (halls) were not designed for pianos, general storage or snack areas. The general high use of the building has resulted in use of corridors as program space. This is of concern from a life safety standpoint.
We estimated 3-4 highly flexible program rooms (with storage) should be added to the current facility to properly support the existing programs. In addition an enlargement to the Sanctuary is required to support the current liturgy and congregation.
There is general support in the Congregation to expand the Homework Club and Music School programs which are both popular with the community.
48 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
5.4 New Investment
5.4.1 Program Expansion and Renewal
University Presbyterian Church believes the time is right to develop a “big picture” view of the long term opportunities that currently exist based on:
1. The need to upgrade the existing building;
2. The need to find additional space to house the congregation and current programs;
3. The desire to help the Jane-Finch neighbourhood.
Through an iterative process with the Congregation and Building Committee a building program (figure 5-7) was developed to support and expand the existing programs. The proposed program is centred on a 250-person Main Hall that is flexible, multifunctional and suited to University Presbyterian Church’s liturgy. This space is supported by retractable seating, storage, new washrooms and a commercial grade kitchen. The program spaces are organized along a generous south facing corridor with full length windows to overlook and activate the Finch Ave. streetscape. Additional program space is provided and the existing lower level program rooms are upgraded by providing additional natural daylight through enlarged windows.
5.4.2 Preferred Redevelopment Concept
Based on the program a diagram was developed that provides all program components and maximizes the as-of-right development potential of the site. Two requirements drove the diagrams development.
1. The Congregations desire to maintain the existing structure. This is potentially a less costly and more sustainable approach to redevelopment than demolition and reconstruction.
2. The existing zoning by-law requirements regarding minimum parking requirements for Places of Worship are proposed to be met with cost effective surface parking.
The diagrams were developed to test the programs’ fit to the site and to develop high level costing figures for the study. It is anticipated that if additional work proceeds on the project the schematic design may be developed and revised.
49 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
FIGURE 5-6.
BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF SITE (FINCH AVE W & DRIFTWOOD AVE)
Existing Area Proposed Area Worship space 111m2 267m2 Parking, total 31 65 Parking, accessible 0 2
50 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
Net Area (m2) (%) Total Area Gross Area (m2) A / Major Program 1. Worship 267 19.0 302 2. Fellowship 106 7.5 120 3. Homework Club 42 3.0 48 4. Music Program 42 3.0 48 5. Multipurpose Hall 112 8.0 126 6. Food Preparation 34 2.4 38 7. Café 58 4.1 65 8. Administration Offices 79 5.6 89 9. General Storage 55 3.9 62 795 56.5 898
B / Circulation 10. Corridor 165 11.8 187 11. Lobby (Multipurpose Hall) 37 2.6 42 12. Main Reception 36 2.6 41 238 17.0 270
C / Utility 13. Mechanical & Electrical 37 2.6 42 14. Control Room & Equipment 40 2.8 45 15. Washrooms 26 1.8 29 16. Janitor & Garbage 22 1.6 25 17. Unfinished 248 17.6 280 373 26.5 421
1406 100 1589 FIGURE 5-7.
PROPOSED PROGRAM AREAS
51 6
7 7 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
5.5 Schematic Design
SITE PLAN 1:500 FIGURE 5-8.
5 4
2 2 13
up
N 1 Jane Finch Mission Centre 2 Forecourt / Garden 3 Drop off 4 Parking (63 + 2 Accessible) 5 Loading 6 Driveway 7 Bus Stop
53 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
FIGURE 5-9.
MASSING CONCEPT 1
FIGURE 5-10.
MASSING CONCEPT 2
54 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
UPPER FLOOR 1:300 FIGURE 5-11.
15 up
16 3 12 1 14
6 12 24 13 up
11 11 9 up 11 2 23
LOWER FLOOR 1:300 FIGURE 5-12.
19 19 5 20
17 18
14 11 1111 up 621
4 up 22 10 7 8888 8
up 23 Circulation
Existing Building New Addition
N 1 Main Hall 9 Commercial Kitchen 17 Administration 2 Fellowship Hall 10 Warming Kitchen 18 Staff Room 3 Multipurpose Hall / 11 Washrooms 19 Offices Rooms 12 Upstage & Green 20 Unfinished Space 4 Café Room 21 Mechanical / Electrical 5 Homework Club 13 Closet 22 Reception / Security 6 Storage 14 Janitor’s Room 23 Elevator 7 Prayer Room 15 Garbage / Storage 24 Storage for Telescopic Seating 8 Music Rooms 16 Control Room (above)
55 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
DIAGRAMS (A TO F): MULTIFUNCTIONAL MAIN HALL FIGURE 5-13. Net Area: 2784 ft2 (259 m2)
3
A: Proscenium Stage 4 2a Sunday Service (252 seats) 1a
3
4
2b 1b B: Traverse Stage
Choral Communion (198 seats)
1c
C: Thrust Stage
Music Recital 2c 2c (192 seats)
56 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
1a Full Telescopic 180 seats 3 4 1b Telescopic 90 seats (Choir)
D: Cinema 1c Telescopic 72 seats 1a Movie or Lecture 2a Floor Seating (180 seats) 72 seats
2b Floor Seating 108 seats
2c Floor Seating 60 seats
3 Projection Surface
4 Lectern
E: Wedding Banquet
23 Round Tables (230 seats)
F: Conference
34 Rectangular Tables (322 seats)
57 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
FIGURE 5-14.
VIGNETTE FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER AT FINCH AVE. & DRIFTWOOD AVE.
FIGURE 5-15.
BIRDS-EYE VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER 1. EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF UPC 2. MAIN HALL CLERESTORY 3. NEW EXTERIOR ENVELOPE “WRAP”
58 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 5.0 Investment Options
1
2 3
59 6.0 BUSINESS MODELS
60 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 6.0 Business Models
Moving forward with the proposed Jane Finch Mission Centre is a risk venture that will require a significant commitment of time and resources by University Presbyterian Church. Facility costs will be substantial for an iconic building that would need to meet high planning and design standards. Revenue generation will be dependent on a favourable response from users, government grants, partnerships and donations, and ensuring the operating costs are sustainable will require managerial efficiencies.
The following discussion focuses on alternative business models for developing and operating the proposed Jane Finch Mission Centre. Three options are presented with pros and cons detailed. As well the supplementary concept of sponsorships as a way to off-set some costs is raised.
Options that would involve the provision of services by the private sector are not considered viable at this time in the Jane-Finch catchment area.
6.1 UPC Designs-Finances-Builds-Operates Facility
Using this model, University Presbyterian Church would contract a private sector firm(s) to design and build the facility. A tender call process would enable UPC to select a firm to construct a Mission facility that conforms to the outlined standards and performance requirements. Once built, UPC would take responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the facility. Traditionally, this has been the project delivery methodology for stand-alone facilities like Evangel Hall Mission in downtown Toronto.
This approach offers some important advantages. UPC has:
• Ownership of the land and building maintained as is;
• Full control over facility design and operations;
• Control over the marketing message;
• Control over service levels and fees / prices.
There are also some inherent disadvantages with this business model as it:
• Places construction risk on UPC;
• Requires substantial amounts of up-front financing;
• Increases administrative workload to manage auxiliary services (i.e. coffee bar, practice rooms, multipurpose rooms);
• Requires increased staffing by UPC. 61 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 6.0 Business Models
6.2 UPC Designs-Finances-Builds New Facility and Operates Church, Third Party Operates Nutritional, Homework and Music Services
As with Option 1, UPC would plan and contract a private firm(s) to design and build a gateway facility that conforms to its standards and performance requirements through a tender call process. Once built, UPC would take responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the facility. However, unlike the approach in Option 1, in this model UPC would only assume responsibility for the provision of religious services. It would lease space to a Third Party (Separate Board or RPSM) to operate music services (e.g., cafe, multipurpose rooms, and practice rooms).
Advantages of this model are:
• West Toronto Presbytery maintains ownership of the land and building;
• UPC has full control over facility design;
• UPC is able to focus on the effective delivery of core services;
• Third Party assumes the risk for commercial operations;
• UPC gains access to RPSM and other 3rd party experience, management and innovation.
Disadvantages of this approach include:
• Construction risk is assumed by UPC;
• UPC’s control over facility operations is reduced;
• Third Party determines fees / prices, which may be higher than when under UPC control;
• Potential costs to assume delivery of services if Third Party defaults.
6.3 New Jane Finch Mission Board Designs-Finances-Builds and Operates Facility
In this model, a new Jane Finch Mission Board is created to contract a private firm(s) to develop programs, design and build a gateway facility that conforms to its standards and performance requirements. Once built, the centre would be operated by the same board which would assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the facility. The Board of Directors for the new organization would report to West Toronto Presbytery with members selected with different areas of expertise from:
62 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 6.0 Business Models
• University Presbyterian Church;
• The Reaching-Up Board;
• West Toronto Presbytery;
• Others (local community members).
Advantages of this option include:
• Contributes to the fulfillment of a larger Presbyterian mandate of “marketing and communications of the Christian Mission available in the region;
• West Toronto Presbytery retains ownership of the land and building;
• UPC continues as currently operating;
• Places operating risk on the New Organization.
Disadvantages of this option include:
• The Mission Centre is no longer solely a local Jane-Finch neighbourhood initiative;
• UPC’s control over facility operations is reduced;
• Increased competition for general Presbytery fundraising.
6.4 Sponsorships
In addition to the preceding business models, the cost of constructing and operating the gateway centre could be offset through sponsorships (cash or in- kind contributions) from organizations such as:
• Music companies, e.g., piano + other instrument manufacturers (new music hardware);
• Local businesses or industries.
This approach would require allocating staff resources with a background in, or access to expertise in the development and implementation of sponsorship programs to attract investment. Sponsorship should align with the “Jane Finch UPC story.”
63 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 6.0 Business Models
6.5 Conclusion
Should UPC wish to proceed with development of the proposed option 3: creation of a new entity: Jane Finch Mission, which plans, constructs and operates a new facility - it is the most realistic business model to pursue based on current financial situation and areas of expertise.
64
7.0 FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
66 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
The following financial analysis is based on the Preferred Redevelopment Concept presented to the extent that design costs and operating variables can be reasonably assumed. Capital costs estimates were obtained through comparison of similar recently constructed facilities broken down into industry standard elemental costing divisions by a professional quantity surveyor. Operational assumptions were developed based on engineering analysis with current utility rates and escalation assumptions and UPC’s current operations data. The above notwithstanding, some of the variables and assumptions that underlie this analysis will undoubtedly change once a final design concept and pre-development planning work for the Mission commences. Readers are therefore reminded of the limitations of the analysis.
7.1 LEED Cost-Benefit Analysis
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a voluntary, consensus- based, green building objective measurement system that requires third party verification administered by the Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC) in Canada. The Jane Finch Mission Centre could be certified under the LEED rating system by an accredited professional. The LEED rating system levels for new construction are as follows:
TABLE 7-1: LEED CERTIFICATION LEVELS
CERTIFIED LEVEL LEED NC POINTS range required
Certified 26-32 Silver 33-38 Gold 39-51 Platinum 52-70
Many agencies set general targets for all their construction projects although there is no guarantee of level, over even certification, until all materials are submitted to CaGBC and verified at construction completion. Two types of costs are incurred with project certification:
• Soft Costs—Fees for LEED-accredited professional consultant for energy modeling, etc. and CaGBC processing;
• Hard Costs—Capital construction premium costs.
7.1.1 Soft costs
The general industry rule of thumb regarding fees is that it will cost approximately
67 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
$1,000. for each credit. Therefore having a building certified LEED Silver will cost between $33,000. and $38,000. in consulting costs. To save costs and administration burden, some municipalities, including the City of Toronto, contractually require consultant teams to target a LEED-silver level as part of every construction contract but do not require CaGBC registration or strict administration or tracking throughout the project. There are a two of downsides to this approach:
• No third party review to confirm the project achieved a specific level of sustainability;
• No LEED certification mounted on the entry wall to indicate the building is designed and constructed to international sustainable energy and design criteria.
7.1.2 Capital costs
Public and building owner awareness of the benefits of sustainable design generally and the LEED program specifically has grown rapidly in Canada to the point where research indicates there is no capital cost premium to achieving the base LEED certification for a new building project. A preliminary scan of the potential costs and benefits of the Preferred Redevelopment Concept, construction and operational practices that could meet specific standards to reduce the negative impact of buildings includes the following examples:
TABLE 7-2: LEED COST BENEFIT
Type of LEED Initiative Capital Cost Benefi t + LEED Credit Potential
Material Selection: Site Water Management: 1. Grass pavers in lieu of asphalt $6,000. • Maintenance costs reduced by 40% in parking lot eliminating storm to over 15-20 years water management $12,000. • Capital cost savings • LEED site credit
2. Green roof $80,000. • Lower cooling + heating costs to associated with insulation $120,000. • Reduces load on municipal water treatment plant • LEED green roof credit
68 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
Energy Management: 3. Solar photovoltaic panels $76,000. • Priority for solar would be to take advantage of the microfit program for annual savings of $8,073. and 10 year payback (max 10 kW). Additionally, solar panels are eligible for a reduced rate so the payback would be longer. 4. Geothermal ground source $85,000. • The annual fuel savings is $8,970. heat pump compact horizontal which would result in about a 9-year loops (1,200 m2 of land payback. available) • “Free renewable energy source for heating and cooling” • LEED renewable energy credit
7.1.3 Conclusion
Hard and soft costs associated with LEED project certification are relatively minor at the lowest level of certification and clearly of cost benefit with research indicating a commercially viable two-year pay-back period through operational cost savings on the soft cost investment. If higher LEED certification levels such as LEED Silver / Gold are targeted, LEED credit payback periods for the major systems analyzed begin at eight-to-nine years on a capital outlay of $75,000.- $100,000. These systems have life spans in the range of 20 years.
7.2 Capital Costs
Order of magnitude capital costs of the development option includes the following general categories and assumptions:
• Hard construction costs—Include costs for the general construction contract, as if tendered this month, including a 10 per cent construction phase contingency allowance.
• New Mission Centre venue fit-up costs—Includes hardware and standard software costs as well as start-up programming costs. These costs are in line with current high end conventional music, nutrition and educational centre budgets. Unique programming costs are not included.
• Development soft costs—Include standard professional consulting fees, disbursements and building permit fees.
69 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
7.3 Revenue Centres
The purpose of Jane Finch Mission Centre is to support the surrounding community through the provision of relevant youth programs in nutrition, education and music. There is opportunity to include adult programs as well.
The Mission Centre should not be conceived as a pure commercial venture, where on-site revenues are able to sustain all capital and operating costs as that is not its purpose. However, construction of the new Mission Centre does provide several opportunities to generate small revenue streams to help off-set the costs of operating the centre.
7.3.1 Community space rental
The Preferred Redevelopment Concept includes a 3000-sq.ft. multifunctional Main Hall, which will be available to community organizations for meetings and associations for special events. In addition, other spaces are available for rental such as the Multipurpose Hall / Rooms. To maximize the use of these spaces, low-cost daily rentals will be offered.
Financial projection assumptions:
• Space is rented on average three times per week for four hours;
• Main Hall: Hourly rental fee is $72. ($400. per diem) for non-profit groups and $153. per hour for commercial uses. Banquets will be charged at $8.70 per seat (e.g. $2,001. for 230 seats) which includes the use of the commercial kitchen. These are all market rates in the Jane-Finch area.
• Multipurpose Rooms (3): Hourly rental fee is $21. for non-profit groups and $123. per hour for commercial uses, both are market rates in the Jane-Finch area.
7.3.2 Homework Club Fees
The current homework club has attendance of 45 students daily from the surrounding elementary schools. The program is actively supported by students in the education programs at York University and Seneca College.
• Currently a fee of $10. per month per student is charged to operate the program.
• Some families are in arrears however students are never turned away.
70 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
7.3.3 Music School Fees
The current music school has attendance of 55 students (ranging from children in grade 3 to adults). Lessons are in high demand comprising mainly of instructions in music theory and piano, violin, guitar, clarinet, and voice. Some children are from outside the Jane-Finch catchment area.
• Currently a fee of $20. per month per participant for lessons is charged to operate the program.
• The monthly rate is well below the hourly equivalent standard in the catchment area (by more than 4 times).
7.3.4 Regent Park School of Music (RPSM)
Regent Park School of Music is currently providing music lessons at three separate school locations in the Jane-Finch catchment area. They are interested in talking to UPC about a permanent home and have operational funding to assist. RPSM has a widely varied music program that may complement the current UPC music program.
• Requires further discussion.
7.3.5 Nutrition Program Fees
This program is new to UPC however this study believes at a minimum a small commercial quality kitchen with viewing area for 6-8 people would be appropriate. These programs are sometimes partnered with Public Health and provide free childcare, gift certificates for healthy foods and TCC tokens
• Similar programs through Toronto Public Health are free of charge, however, they are in high demand and waiting lists are common.
71 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
7.4 Operating Expenses
Operating expenses include staff salaries and benefits, cost of utilities, insurance, repairs and maintenance, marketing and taxes. Financial projection assumptions for each follow.
7.4.1 Wages and benefits
Financial projection assumptions:
• Hours of operation
o Five days per week, 10:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
• Staffing
o Management and administrative services provided by current UPC staff.
o Three part-time coordinators (Music / Nutrition / Education) @ $24. per hour plus 9.5% benefits, 1,053 hours per year; all coordinators would report to the board of directors until an executive director is appointed.
o As the Mission grows, board will find the money to appoint a full time Executive Director @ $60,000. per year, who will manage operational needs and program development.
7.4.2 Utilities
Financial projection assumptions:
• Costs are prorated based on $2.50 per sq. ft. per year from existing uses;
• Includes mechanical and electrical operating costs, Gas, Water, and Hydro.
7.4.3 Insurance
Financial projection assumptions:
• UPC’s facilities are covered by the Ecclesiastical Insurance;
• Insurance costs are included to illustrate incremental costs of the new facility;
• Costs are prorated based on total building floor area.
72 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
7.4.4 Repairs and Maintenance
Financial projection assumptions:
• Costs are prorated based on $2.30 per sq. ft. per year from existing uses and is slightly lower than the BOMA directories (Building Owners and Managers Association).
• One part-time custodian position @ $20. per hour plus 9.5% benefits; 1,053 hours per year.
7.4.5 Marketing Maximizing use of the Mission Centre will be contingent on the level of service provided, the uniqueness of the experience offered and the level of awareness of the public. An aggressive marketing campaign will be required to stimulate and sustain increased participation in existing programs and generate attendance at new programs.
Financial projection assumptions:
• Marketing tactics will include website development, creation and updating of social media materials, media tours, and the staging of promotional events.
7.4.6 Taxes
Financial projection assumptions:
• Church facilities do not pay property taxes.
7.5 Five-Year Pro-forma Projections
On the basis of the preceding information and assumptions, a five-year pro forma projection of revenues and expenses for both option 1 and 2 of the Preferred Redevelopment Concept is presented in the following table.
The projected five-year net earnings of all auxiliary revenues and total operating expenses, before other fixed charges (i.e., debt service, depreciation, amortization, capital renewal fund, technology renewal allowance, etc.) is $118,525.
73 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
TABLE 7-4: FIVE-YEAR PRO-FORMA PROJECTION
Preferred Redevelopment Concept five-year pro-forma Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Revenue 1. Homework Club $18,000 $18,360 $18,727 $19,102 $19,484 2. Coffee Shop $5,000 $5,100 $5,202 $5,306 $5,412 3. Music School $27,000 $27,540 $28,091 $28,653 $29,226 4. Space Rental - Non-profit $24,000 $24,480 $24,970 $25,469 $25,978 5. Space Rental - Commercial $30,000 $30,600 $31,212 $31,836 $32,473 6. Visual Arts & Dance $8,000 $8,160 $8,323 $8,490 $8,659 7. Summer Camp $12,000 $12,240 $12,485 $12,734 $12,989 8. UPC Operational Costs $15,000 $16,050 $17,174 $18,376 $19,662 A. Total Revenues $139,000 $142,530 $146,183 $149,965 $153,884
Other Revenue 1. Fundraising (Concerts etc.) $30,000 $30,600 $31,212 $31,836 $32,473 2. Grants $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 3. Donations $35,000 $35,700 $36,414 $37,142 $37,885 B. Total Other Revenues $105,000 $106,300 $107,626 $108,979 $110,358
Cost of Goods Delivered 1. Coffee Shop - 44.3% $2,215 $2,259 $2,304 $2,351 $2,398 2. Nutrition Program Food $12,000 $12,240 $12,485 $12,734 $12,989 C. Tota Cost of Sales $14,215 $14,499 $14,789 $15,085 $15,387 D. Gross Margin (=A+B-C) $229,785 $234,331 $239,020 $243,859 $248,855
Operating Expenses 1. Wages and benefits $83,019 $84,679 $86,373 $88,100 $89,862 2. Utilities $42,450 $43,936 $45,474 $47,065 $48,712 3. Utilities Savings (sustainability) (17,043) (17,640) (18,257) (18,896) (19,557) 4. Telephone / Internet $2,400 $2,448 $2,497 $2,547 $2,598 5. Insurance $20,688 $21,102 $21,524 $21,954 $22,393 6. Repairs and Maintenance $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 7. Marketing $6,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,040 $2,081 8. Program Costs $20,000 $20,400 $20,808 $21,224 $21,649 9. Custodian $23,000 $23,460 $23,929 $24,408 $24,896 Taxes $0$0$0$0$0 E. Total Operating Expenses $220,514 $216,385 $214,348 $213,443 $212,634
Net Earnings (Loss) =D-E $9,271 $17,945 $24,672 $30,416 $36,221 Cumulative Net Earnings (Loss) $9,271 $27,216 $51,889 $82,305 $118,525
74 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
7.6 Project Costs Breakdown
Preferred Redevelopment Concept (Option 1) Cost per sfG.F.A. sf (m2) Total % Hard Cost: Construction 1. Existing Building Renovation $132 4971 (462) $656,188 15% 2. New Addition $225 9114 (847) $2,050,587 45% 3. Unfinished Space (at new addition) $140 3013 (280) $421,792 9% 4. Landscape Allowance $10 22897 (2128) $228,973 5% 5. Sustainability (geothermal & solar PV) $161,000 4%
FF & E 6. General $80,000 2% 7. Kitchens (commercial & warming) $60,000 1% 8. Main Hall Seating (telescopic) $216,000 5% 9. Main Hall Lighting $10,000 0% 10. Performance Equipment & control room $635,000 14%
Hard Cost $4,519,540 100% Contingency (10%) $451,954 Total Hard Cost (2014) $4,971,494
Soft Cost:1 City of Toronto Fees2 1. SPA: Site Plan Approval (initial fee) $8,846 1% 2. Zoning Certificate (25% permit fee) $7,906 3 1% 3. Committee of Adjustment $4,154 4 1% 4. Permit: Renovation & New Addition (minus 25%) $23,718 3 3%
Consultants 5. Base Professional Fees (11% construction cost) $497,149 63% 6. Special Consultant Fees (5% construction cost) $225,977 29%
Temporary Relocation 7. UPC Space Rental (during construction) $24,000 3%
Total Soft Cost (2014) $791,750 100%
Total Project Cost: $5,763,244
1 Legal fees are not included 2 Assumed exemption from all developmental fees (DC, EDC, Parks Levy) 3 Assumed total Permit fee $31,624 4 Allowance for minor variance if required
75 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 7.0 Financial Projections
Preferred Redevelopment Concept (Option 2: Equipment Reduced) Cost per sfG.F.A. sf (m2) Total % Hard Cost: Construction 1. Existing Building Renovation $132 4971 (462) $656,188 18% 2. New Addition $225 9114 (847) $2,050,587 58% 3. Landscape Allowance $10 22897 (2128) $228,973 6% 4. Sustainability (geothermal & solar PV) $161,000 5%
FF & E 6. General $80,000 2% 7. Kitchens (commercial & warming) $60,000 2% 8. Main Hall Seating (telescopic) $216,000 6% 9. Main Hall Lighting $10,000 0% 10. Performance Equipment Basic $100,000 3% (video projection, draperies, and pipe grids only) Hard Cost $3,562,748 100% Contingency (10%) $356,275 Total Hard Cost (2014) $3,919,022
Soft Cost:1 City of Toronto Fees2 1. SPA: Site Plan Approval (initial fee) $8,846 1% 2. Zoning Certificate (25% permit fee) $6,064 3 1% 3. Committee of Adjustment $4,154 4 1% 4. Permit: Renovation & New Addition (minus 25%) $18,193 3 3%
Consultants 5. Base Professional Fees (11% construction cost) $391,902 62% 6. Special Consultant Fees (5% construction cost) $178,137 28%
Temporary Relocation 7. UPC Space Rental (during construction) $24,000 4%
Total Soft Cost (2014) $631,297 100%
Total Project Cost: $4,550,319
1 Legal fees are not included 2 Assumed exemption from all developmental fees (DC, EDC, Parks Levy) 3 Assumed total Permit fee $24,257 4 Allowance for minor variance if required
76
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION
78 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 8.0 Implementation
The following implementation is based on the Preferred Redevelopment Concept presented to the extent that design costs and operating variables can be reasonably assumed. The most optimistic timeline for completion of the project would be 3 years which may be divided into the following 3 phases.
1. The first phase would be dedicated to setting up the business model, hiring the consultant team and developing the design.
2. The second phase will be spent developing construction contract documents and obtaining planning permissions.
3. The final phase will involve finding University Presbyterian Church a temporary home and construction of the project.
8.1 Implementation of the Project
The process of implementation or development of a Jane Finch Mission Centre will be an iterative process rather than a linear one that will require developing each of the major sections of this report simultaneously. The following is a general strategy that should, like the other sections of this report, be reviewed frequently.
8.1.1 Selecting and Setting Up Business Model
Regardless of the selected business model, setting it up is the first task in implementing the project. To recruit the right mix of volunteer board members with legal, accounting, programming, fundraising and construction backgrounds will take time. A mission statement will be required along with non-profit incorporation, insurances, and etc.
8.1.2 Confirming Funding Sources
Developing and confirming sources of project funding will be required throughout the development and operation of the Jane Finch Mission Centre. It is estimated that soft costs of approximately $600,000. will be required prior to tendering the project and entering into a construction contract. Most of the leg work will fall on the Board’s shoulders.
8.1.3 Project Delivery Methodology
There are several forms of project delivery. The recommended method, successfully used to construct Evangel Hall Mission, is known as design-bid-
79 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 8.0 Implementation
build. In this process, the client (Board) hires a consultant team (architect led with consulting engineers, cost consultants, etc.) to first design the building. The consultant team will coordinate with specialists to provide; a property survey, soils condition report, tree report and possibly others requested by the City during the course of the designs development. The design documents are then tendered to a pre-qualified group of general contractors who submit bids. The low bid is usually selected to construct the project.
8.1.4 Municipal Approvals
The municipal approvals process (figure 8-1) is extensive and will take approximately 12 months to complete. The University Presbyterians Church property is under City of Toronto site plan control therefore a site plan agreement is required prior to submission for a building permit. This process begins after the design is complete. The design is circulated to various departments from the City for comment. In addition, relief from some of the zoning by-laws may be required in the form of a minor variance from the committee of adjustment. This takes several months and involves a public hearing. The final submission in the municipal approvals process is a building permit application. This will take approximately 1 month to obtain.
8.1.5 Construction
Once financing is in place and the construction contract is signed, construction begins. It may be possible for the congregation to remain in the Church while the addition is being constructed and prior to the renovation, however a slight premium will be attach to the construction price and the parking lot will not be available for use by the congregation. It is therefore recommended that prior to construction, the University Presbyterian Church congregation finds a temporary home and the contents of the Church are placed in storage. The construction process will require a minimum of 12 months to complete. Loose furniture and equipment may be purchased under separate contracts and installed at the end of construction and the Church contents moved back in.
8.1.6 Programing
Current youth oriented weekday programs at University Presbyterian Church are highly successful (Music School and Homework Club) and provision for continuing these off-site during the construction period should be made. Other programs such as Nutrition have been identified during congregational meetings over the course of this study. Provision for these programs have been made in the Preferred Redevelopment Concept plans (page 55). It is important that
80 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 8.0 Implementation
SITE PLAN CONTROL
6-10 months 12 months
(subject to notice of approval)
ZONING
C OF A (if required) PERMIT
FIGURE 8-1. CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE TIMELINE FROM MUNICIPAL APPROVALS TO CONSTRUCTION
these programs’ qualitative and quantitative requirements be re-confirmed at the beginning of the design process. New neighbourhood based programming may be identified by the Board, developed and incorporated into the design during the early stages. It is recommended that the design create spaces as flexible and multipurpose to avoid costly changes during and after construction, in order to facilitate and support programs as they are identified.
8.1.7 Staffing
Job descriptions must be developed and lead staff hired for the Jane Finch Mission Centre. The key position will be the Executive Director. The Board should consider filling this position as early as funding allows in order to assist in program development, design inputs and management of the project. Assumption of the remainder of the proposed staff is found in 7.4.1 and included in the five- year financial projections (table 7-4 ).
81 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
82 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 9.0 Recommendations
The Jane Finch Mission Feasibility Study and Business Case is premised on the results of an analysis of site attributes, land use options, current trends and best practices, stakeholder input and feedback, business models and investment alternatives, estimates of construction costs and a five-year projection of operating expenses and revenue for a Preferred Redevelopment Concept. Together, the outcomes of these analyses provide University Presbyterian Church with answers to questions concerning the feasibility of proceeding with the construction and operation of the Jane Finch Mission Centre at the corner of Driftwood Ave. and Finch Ave. The contextual information presented, however, does not support a definitive recommendation rather it suggests courses of action that University Presbyterian Church and West Toronto Presbytery should consider in determining the most appropriate path forward.
99.1.1 A Alternativelternative 11:: DDoo nnotot pproceedroceed wwithith cconstructiononstruction ooff tthehe JJaneane FFinchinch MMissionission CCentre.entre.
Moving forward with the proposed Jane Finch Mission Centre is a high risk venture that will require a significant commitment of time and resources by University Presbyterian Church, West Toronto Presbytery and a volunteer board of directors. Facility costs will be substantial for an iconic building that would need to meet high planning and design standards. Revenue generation will be dependent on a favourable response from both potential uses and other church communities. Ensuring the operating costs are sustainable will require managerial efficiencies. While the Jane Finch Mission Centre is not to be conceived as a commercial venture, with on-site revenues able to sustain all capital and operating costs, as that is not its purpose. The operation of the centre will require an ongoing commitment of funding approximately $200,000. to remain open.
If the decision is made not to proceed with the Mission, the following is required to be addressed by University Presbyterian Church alone.
• Upgrading existing facility problems identified in table 5.2 including mold remediation.
• Overuse of existing facilities.
• Helping the Jane-Finch Neighbourhood, the largest geographic at risk neighbourhood in the City.
83 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 9.0 Recommendations
9.2 Alternative 2: Proceed with construction of the Jane Finch Mission Centre using the Preferred Redevelopment Option.
The success of the Jane Finch Mission Centre in supporting the Jane-Finch neighbourhood will require the Mission to not only possess the following three key attributes but excel in their execution:
• The facility is designed as a showcase exceeding the standards established by other community support facilities in the area;
• The operation is professionally managed and staffed to exceed best practices expectations.
• The Mission is programmed as a neighbourhood destination location rather than just another support facility in the neighbourhood
Moving forward with Jane Finch Mission Centre requires that University Presbyterian Church to secure:
• General support from the Presbytery of West Toronto.
• A volunteer Board of Directors with expertise in a range of programming and development areas.
• A realist plan to raise the required Total Project Costs ranging from $4.6 to $5.8 million, depending on the chosen option.
The Board of Directors would then be required to
• Develop a mission statement.
• Confirm and develop assumptions found in this study.
• Retain a consultant team composed of architects and engineers.
• Secure alternative accommodation for University Presbyterian Church for the duration of construction.
• Develop clear program goals, staffing models and requirements.
84
APPX. A ZONING & CODE STUDIES
A86 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report Appx A. Zoning & Code
A.1 Zoning chart
FIGURE A-1.
944 SQ M MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED WITHOUT A MINOR VARIANCE
A87 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report Appx A. Zoning & Code
A.2 Building code chart
Item Ontario’s 2006 Building Code BC Reference Data Matrix Part 3 or 9 References are to Division B unless noted [A] for Division A or [C] for Division C. 1 Project Description: New Part 11 x Part 3 Part 9 X Addition 11.1 to 11.4 1.1.2. [A] 1.1.2. [A] & 9.10.1.3. Change of Use Alteration 2 Major Occupancy(s) Group A, Division 2 [CHURCH] 3.1.2.1.(1) 9.10.2. 3 Building Area (m²) Existing 243 m2 New 540 m2 Total 783 m2 1.4.1.2. [A] 1.4.1.2. [A] 4 Gross Area Existing 462 m2 New 1127 m2 Total 1589 m2 1.4.1.2. [A] 1.4.1.2. [A] 5 Number of Storeys Above grade 1 Below grade 1 1.4.1.2. [A]&3.2.1.1. 1.4.1.2[A] & 9.10.4 6 Number of Streets/Fire Fighter Access 1 3.2.2.10. & 3.2.5. 9.10.20. 7 Building Classification Group A, Division 2, 2 Storeys, Non-sprinklered 3.2.2.25 9.10.2. 8 Sprinkler System Proposed X not required 3.2.2.25 9.10.8.2. 9 Standpipe required Yes X No 3.2.9. N/A 10 Fire Alarm required X Yes No 3.2.4. 9.10.18. 11 Water Service/Supply is Adequate X Yes No 3.2.5.7. N/A 12 High Building Yes X No 3.2.6. N/A 13 Construction Restrictions X Combustible Non-combustible Both 3.2.2.25 9.10.6. permitted required Actual Construction Combustible X Non-combustible Both 14 Mezzanine(s) Area m² N/A N/A 9.10.4.1. 15 Occupant load based on X m²/person design of building 3.1.17.1 9.9.1.3. Upper Floor Occupancy assembly/nonfixed Load 296 persons “ “ “ Occupancy assembly/stage Load 69 persons “ “ “ Occupancy assembly/nonfixed Load 116 persons “ “ “ seats + tables “ “ “ Occupancy other/cleaning Load 5 persons “ “ “ Occupancy other/kitchen Load 2 persons “ “ “ Occupancy other/storage Load 1 persons Upper Floor Subtotal Load 489 persons
Lower Floor Occupancy mercantile/cafeteria Load 59 persons “ “ “ Occupancy assembly/nonfixed “ “ “ seats + tables Load 50 persons “ “ “ Occupancy assembly/classroom Load 26 persons “ “ “ Occupancy assembly/nonfixed Load 13 persons “ “ “ Occupancy business/office Load 9 persons “ “ “ Occupancy other/storage Load 2 persons “ “ “ Occupancy other/kitchen Load 1 persons Lower Floor Subtotal Load 160 persons 16 Barrier-free Design X Yes No (Explain) 3.8. 9.5.2. 17 Hazardous Substances Yes X No 3.3.1.2. & 3.3.1.19. 9.10.1.3.(4)
A88 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report Appx A. Zoning & Code
18 Required Horizontal Assemblies Listed Design No. 3.2.2.25 9.10.8. Fire FRR (Hours) or Description (SG-2) 9.10.9. Resistance Floors 45 min. Hours N/A Rating Roof 45 min. Hours N/A (FRR) Mezzanine 45 min. Hours N/A FRR of Supporting Listed Design No. Or Members Description (SG-2) Floors 45 min. Hours N/A Roof 45 min. Hours N/A Mezzanine 45 min. Hours N/A 19 Spatial Separation – Construction of Exterior Walls 3.2.3.1A 9.10.14. Wall Area of L.D. L/H or Permitted Proposed % FRR Listed Comb Comb. Constr. Non-comb. EBF (m²) (m) H/L Max. % of of Openings (Hours) Design or Const Nonc. Constr. Openings Description Cladding North 337.6 10 4.5 32 South 360.1 6 4.5 14 East 135 63 2.1 100 West 91.7 7.4 2.8 40 20 Plumbing Fixture Requirements BC Reference
X Part 3 Part 9 Male/Female Count @ 50% / 50%, except as Occupant BC Table Fixtures Fixtures noted otherwise Load Number Required Provided Upper Floor: Occupancy assembly/worship 489 3.7.4.3 (16) 2M/2F 3M/4F Lower Floor: Occupancy assembly/worship 160 3.7.4.3 (16) 1M/1F 2M/2F
FIGURE A-2.
757 SQ M MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA PERMITTED WITHOUT SPRINKLERS
A89 APPX. B CONCEPT STUDIES
B90 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report Appx B. Massing Studies
B.1 Concept
- efficient footprint - good visibility at south - maintains upper floor circulation
new main hall
new cafe / informal space
new vegetable garden
exist building
B91 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report Appx B. Massing Studies
B.2 Concept
- courtyard provides good internal sight lines & better cohesion between new & existing
- excess circulation space - courtyard internalizes & building is less open to site
new main hall
new courtyard / informal space
new vegetable garden
exist building
B92 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report Appx B. Massing Studies
B.3 Concept
- separate entrance, drop off by car - flexible / informal uses of atrium - main hall has greater autonomy & more suitable for renting out
- atrium requires more control in terms of noise & public access
new main hall
new atrium / informal space / cafe
new vegetable garden
exist building
B93 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report Appx B. Massing Studies
B.4 Concept
- spine concept good for phasing & activating Finch Ave. - autonomous volumes allow separate mechanical / electrical control
- parking pad will be subject to changes as development progresses
new main hall
new spine / informal space
new gym / playground
exist building
B94 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report Appx B. Massing Studies
B.5 Concept
- severe the under utilized land to spearhead / finance project - vehicular access cross site can be negotiated with new owner
- parking & access will require comprehensive studies to ensure both land properties meet zoning requirements
UPC
Severance / apartment tower
B95 APPX. C OTHER STUDIES
C96 1276 JFMC Feasibility Report 3.0 Environment
C.1 Statistics
WARD 8 WARD 9
Population Population age group trends age group trends 20-24 + 25-34 - - 25-34 - - 35-44 - - 35-44 - - - 45-54 ++ 45-54 ++ 75+ ++ 55-64 + (other groups stable) 75+ ++ (other groups stable)
Families Families couples with children - - couples with children - - lone-parent + lone-parent ++
Income Income range trends range trends under 10K - under 10K - 10K - 19.9K - 30K - 39.9K + 40K - 49.9K + over 100K + over 100K + (other ranges stable) (other ranges stable)
average household income ++ average household income ++ median household income ++ median household income +
Education Education drop out / incomplete - - drop out / incomplete - cert. / diploma / degree + cert. / diploma / degree +
LEGEND:
+ 5-10% Increase - 5-10% Decrease
Source: Statistics Canada; Census 2001, 2006, 2011
C97