Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local

ISSUE DATE: February 07, 2019 CASE NO(S).: PL170348

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Lifetime Wellington Street West Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438- 86 - Refusal or neglect of City of to make a decision Existing Zoning: Reinvestment Area (RA) zone Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit the development of a 16-storey mixed-use building with retail uses at grade, 136 residential units, and 34 parking spaces in two below grade levels Property Address/Description: 485-489 Wellington St W Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 16 114472 STE 20 OZ OMB Case No.: PL170348 OMB File No.: PL170348 OMB Case Name: Lifetime Wellington Street West Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: January 21, 2019 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel*/Representative

Lifetime Wellington Street West Inc. David Bronskill*

2 PL170348

City of Toronto Alexander Suriano,* Sarah O’Connor*

Portland Property Wellington Inc. Meaghan Barrett*

Grange Community Association Inc. Max Allen

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED BY GERALD S. SWINKIN ON JANUARY 21, 2019

INTRODUCTION

[1] This appeal came before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) as a settlement.

[2] Represented at the hearing were Lifetime Wellington Street West Inc. (the “Appellant”), the City of Toronto (the “City”), Portland Property Wellington Inc. (“PPWI”) and Grange Community Association Inc. (the “Association”).

[3] The Appellant is the owner of 485-489 Wellington Street West (the “Property”), which is a rectangular site located at the southwest corner of Wellington Street West and Draper Street. The Property has approximately 25.4 metres (“m”) frontage on Wellington Street West and approximately 41.2 m of flankage on Draper Street, for a lot area of 1,153 square metres (“sq m”).

[4] The Property is currently improved with a single storey office/warehouse building accommodating a printing establishment with surface parking at the front and rear.

[5] Application was made in February, 2016 for a zoning amendment to permit construction and use on the Property of a 16-storey mixed-use building with a metric height of 51.3 m, exclusive of mechanical penthouse. There was a community consultation meeting on October 24, 2016.

[6] As a result of Tribunal-led mediation in September, 2018, a revised development 3 PL170348

proposal was settled upon, with the support of the City, PPWI, the Association and the Draper Street Residents Association. That settlement was endorsed by City Council at its meeting convened on December 4, 5 and 13, 2018 on conditions which were set out in the Council Resolution relating to Item CC1.15, which Resolution was taken in as Exhibit 7. The Appellant’s counsel, David Bronskill, advised that his client accepts the conditions established by City Council and assents to the imposition of those conditions on the approval which he seeks from the Tribunal.

[7] PPIW is the owner of property immediately abutting the Property to the west, which is municipally known as 495-517 Wellington Street West and 510-532 . The immediately abutting portion of that property accommodates two buildings of 3.5 and 4.5 storeys respectively, both of which are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. PPIW and the Appellant have entered into Minutes of Settlement, which were taken in as Exhibit 5. These Minutes of Settlement incorporate a set of plans and largely relate to building setbacks and balcony control (dimensionally and locational- wise) with stipulations for privacy screens. There are also provisions with respect to a Construction Management Plan, which Plan also figures into the proposed City conditions as it relates to the Draper Street Residents Association concerns.

[8] On the strength of the Minutes of Settlement, PPIW also supports the settlement before the Tribunal.

[9] The Association supports the settlement outcome.

[10] On consent of the Parties, evidence to support the settlement was called through the land use planning consultant retained by the Appellant, Tyler Grinyer. Mr. Grinyer is a Registered Professional Planner and was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the proceeding.

Summary Opinion of Tyler Grinyer

[11] Mr. Grinyer provided the Tribunal with a summary opinion and then detailed that 4 PL170348

opinion. As it reflects the matters which he considered relevant and casts in general the underpinning for his recommendation of approval, that summary is recapitulated here.

[12] In his opinion, the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, as revised and presented in this hearing, is appropriate and desirable in land use planning and urban design terms and should be approved.

[13] The proposed development is compatible with the existing and planned built form context, specifically along Wellington Street West, and will enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site with an attractive mixed-use development that includes residential and retail uses, contributing to the vibrancy of the King-Spadina neighbourhood.

[14] The proposal will support the achievement of numerous policy directions promoting intensification within built-up urban areas, particularly in locations that are well served by municipal infrastructure, including public transit.

[15] In this regard, the site is an ideal location for mixed-use intensification given its location in the Downtown, which has been identified as an Urban Growth Centre in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2017 (the “Growth Plan”), and its location on the Spadina streetcar (LRT) line.

[16] In addition, the planned Spadina-Front GO-RER (Regional Express Rail) Station is to be located within an approximately 400 m walking distance from the Property, with its main entrance at the southwest corner of Front Street West and .

[17] Furthermore, the Property is also close to major employment, shopping and cultural opportunities in the Financial District and throughout the King-Spadina precinct.

[18] From an urban design perspective, the proposal will create a distinctive and high- quality addition to the King-Spadina neighbourhood and will contribute to the revitalization of the Wellington Street streetscape by eliminating existing surface parking 5 PL170348

along Wellington Street and replacement with a landscaped pedestrian realm, adjacent new retail space within the ground floor and second level of the building. These improvements will animate the pedestrian environment along Wellington Street.

[19] Along Draper Street, the building is set back to align with the Draper Street houses to the south, and will enhance the public realm by widening the existing sidewalk, and provide animation through the location of the main residential entrance.

[20] The proposed development conforms with the built form and massing policies of the Official Plan and Secondary Plan, and is generally in keeping with the relevant urban design guidelines.

[21] In his opinion, the proposed mid-rise building will fit harmoniously within the existing and planned context, which includes mid-rise forms fronting the south side of Wellington Street to the east, as part of “The Well” project.

[22] The building height at 14 storeys contributes to a stepping down of height from Spadina Avenue, provides a 1:1 relationship with the Wellington Street right-of-way, provides a podium height that is respectful of the heritage building to the immediate west, and will respond to the Draper Street low-rise context through the use of setbacks and step backs along the rear façade.

The King-Spadina Area

[23] The Property is located in the "West Precinct" of the King-Spadina area (bounded by , Bathurst Street, Front Street and Spadina Avenue).

[24] The area generally consists of a mix of rowhouses from the late 1800’s and low- rise and mid-rise industrial and warehouse style buildings from the early 1900’s, (most of which have been converted to commercial office and retail uses), interspersed with newly constructed and under-construction residential buildings and purpose-built office buildings (generally ranging between 8-20 storeys). 6 PL170348

[25] Newer buildings have typically been built on vacant or underutilized lots, using a variety of materials and architectural styles.

[26] The area is seen as a desirable location for new infill development given its proximity to the Entertainment and Financial Districts, as well as access to transit.

[27] The evolution of the area is continuing with new, larger development proposals and approvals, including Minto Westside (large residential development at Bathurst Street and Front Street) and "The Well", a large-scale master planned mixed-use development at Spadina Avenue and Front Street.

[28] Wellington St. West between Spadina Avenue and Portland Street has a wide right-of-way of 45 m and is one of the oldest planned parts of the city. Mid-19th century plans identify the street as a prominent civic space linking Victoria Memorial Square and Clarence Square, the landscaped street intended to extend and connect the green space between the two squares.

[29] The north side of Wellington Street West generally includes an attractive landscape treatment within the wide City boulevard. However, the south side is largely occupied by surface parking lots, including one presently on the Property.

[30] In addition to the general descriptions of the properties to the east and west, and the developments thereon, to the immediate south is the Draper Street Heritage Conservation District.

[31] Draper Street is flanked by a series of 1.5 to 2.5-storey brick homes, which date back to the late 19th century and developed in four distinct phases from 1881 to 1889.

[32] Draper Street has a narrow right-of-way, approximately 10 m in width. This narrow street width, together with the distinct architecture of the homes, contributes to the character of the street. It was described by Mr. Grinyer as being a unique enclave and the building on the Property has specifically been located and designed to match 7 PL170348

the front yard setback and create a contained view corridor to frame the street.

The Settlement Proposal

[33] The settlement incorporates a number of changes to the initial February 2016 proposal, primarily with respect to the overall height and streetwall heights, building massing, and public realm improvements.

[34] The settlement involves the demolition of the existing one-storey building and the construction of a new 14-storey mixed-use building that is 45 m in height (to the top of the roof).

[35] At 45 m, the building will have a 1:1 ratio with the Wellington Street right-of-way, which is a recommendation within the City's Mid-Rise Guidelines. Above the fourteenth storey is a 6 m mechanical penthouse level, which also contains the upper floors of the two storey units on floor 14 (which are 3.0 m in height). This height was a key point of importance for the City as it reflects the desired height sought by the City as the datum line for development on Wellington Street. This represents a reduction from the originally proposed 51 m height.

[36] The Appellant and the City have resolved to continue looking at ways to reduce the overall size, height and location of the mechanical penthouse as detailed design occurs with the mechanical consultant.

[37] A total of 117 units are to be provided, with a mix of one, two and three bedroom units, including 13% of the units being three-bedroom units.

[38] Total GFA is to be 8,807.2 sq m., of which 438.3 sq m is to be retail floor space on the ground and second floors. The revised proposal will yield a Floor Space Index of 7.6. 8 PL170348

Setbacks

Wellington Street Frontage

[39] At-grade, the building is generally built to the north property line and will contain retail uses framing Wellington Street and wrapping around the corner of Draper Street.

[40] The ground floor contains driveway access at the northwest corner of the site, providing access to the internal loading area and ramp to the underground parking garage which contains two levels of parking.

[41] Between the building and Wellington Street West, the existing surface parking lot will be replaced with a landscaped public realm including soft landscaping, tree plantings, new decorative paving, and opportunity for future retail space to spill out into this space in the form of a possible patio.

[42] The building frames Wellington Street with three distinct height elements.

[43] The first includes a four-storey base podium, 14.5 m in height, with a 1.5 m step back above. At four storeys, the podium will respect and reinforce the height of the adjacent heritage building to the west, which contains a 3.5 storey height.

[44] The second includes a 4.5 m step-back at the tenth storey, creating a distinctive streetwall at a height of 29.2 m. At 29.2 m, the streetwall responds directly to the emerging streetwall context to the east, along the south side of Wellington Street which contains three under construction mid-rise buildings as part of “The Well” development, which will establish a consistent streetwall height between 27.4 m – 30.7 m.

[45] The third element extends between the tenth and fourteenth storeys, which is set back a total of 6 m from the north property line.

[46] The mechanical penthouse extends above the fourteenth storey, as well as the 9 PL170348

upper level of two two-storey units extending from the fourteenth floor.

[47] The upper floors of the unit are setback 3 m from the north façade, beyond which the mechanical penthouse is setback 6 m from the north façade of the fourteenth storey and 12 m from the north property line.

Draper Street frontage

[48] Along Draper Street, the northeast corner of the building is generally built to the property line, however the portion of the building immediately south of the retail unit has been setback 3.0-3.2 m from the eastern property line to align with the east face of the heritage homes to the south, and to provide views south from Wellington Street to the Draper Street residences.

[49] Vertical articulation of the east façade is provided to reflect the vertical elements of the adjacent row houses along Draper Street, at a similar scale, providing a continuation of the rhythm of the street.

[50] The residential lobby entrance will also be located along Draper Street.

[51] A continuation of the landscaping treatment proposed along Wellington Street will extend along the entire Draper Street frontage including new tree plantings and decorative paving.

[52] The widening of the pedestrian realm at grade will allow for significant improvements to the existing sidewalk condition, which currently consists of a narrow sidewalk zone impeded by three hydro poles within the middle of the sidewalk.

[53] In accordance with Council's decision, the Appellant will work with the City to explore the feasibility of removing the three existing hydro poles and installing below grade hydro lines, and appropriate lighting on the building at the Owner's expense, up to a maximum of $150,000 ($50,000 per post and secured through the proposed Section 10 PL170348

37 Agreement)

[54] Above the ground floor, Floor 2 cantilevers eastward above the residential lobby entrance, providing protection from the elements, while maintaining a view corridor south along Draper Street at grade.

[55] The building steps back at the third floor, and includes east facing terraces, before stepping back out at the fourth floor.

[56] The building is setback between 1.5 m to 2.3 m from the east lot line between floors 4-14.

[57] Inset balconies are provided for most units on these floors.

South Façade

[58] Floors 1-3 are generally built to south lot line, enclosing what is currently a rear surface parking lot containing garbage storage and a loading area.

[59] The height at three storeys is compatible with the adjacent 2.5-storey rowhouse and helps to provide transition between the two built forms (low-rise and mid-rise).

[60] The adjacent rowhouse to the south contains a blank side wall condition facing north.

[61] The proposal provides a blank south wall condition facing the rowhouse on floors one and two.

[62] On the third floor, two south facing windows are provided, however these windows are located at the roofline of the adjacent rowhouse.

[63] Above the third storey, the building steps back between 5.58 m and 5.96 m from the south property line. 11 PL170348

[64] Terraces are provided for south facing units on the fourth floor, which are located well above the height of the adjacent rowhouse and will be provided with a landscape edge to prevent overlook into the rear yards. There are no balconies or terraces facing south on floors 5-11.

[65] At the twelfth-storey, the building steps back again by an additional 3 m resulting in an overall setback of 8.58 m from the south property line.

[66] Units on the twelfth floor will have south facing terraces while units on the thirteenth and fourteenth floors will have south facing projecting balconies.

West façade

[67] At-grade, the proposed building is setback 0.55 m from the westerly property line.

[68] On Level two, the 0.55 m setback is maintained at the northwest corner of the building, generally to the same depth as the adjacent building to the west, beyond which, the building is set back by a minimum of 5.5 m from the west lot line.

[69] The 5.5 m setback is also a result of discussions with the neighbouring property owner to ensure appropriate separation distance to east facing office windows on the adjacent building as well as to provide for appropriate light access and sky view to/from those windows.

[70] On floor two, the settlement provides the outdoor amenity space for the building, which is contiguous with an indoor amenity space area.

[71] The outdoor amenity space will be screened along the west edge to ensure privacy between the two buildings.

[72] The building maintains the minimum 5.5 m setback between floors two-five. 12 PL170348

[73] At the sixth storey, the building cantilevers back to the west, with a setback of approximately 3-3.5 m on floors 6-14.

Miscellaneous

[74] Outdoor and indoor amenity space, as referenced above, will be provided in accordance with Zoning by-law standards.

[75] Vehicle parking will be supplied in the amount of 33 spaces, 24 of which are for resident purposes, eight for visitors and one for the retail use.

[76] Bicycle parking will be supplied in accordance with Tier 1 of the Toronto Green Standard in the amount of a total of 123 spaces, 106 of which are long term spaces and 17 short term.

The Policy Context

[77] Mr. Grinyer took the Tribunal through the relevant Provincial and City planning policy instruments, the results of which are summarized below in general form without reference to the specific policies which he fully outlined in his outline of evidence.

[78] In his opinion, the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (“PPS”), in that the proposal will promote the efficient use of land and infrastructure, support the use of active transportation and transit, facilitate a compact built form, conserve cultural heritage, and provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.

[79] In his opinion, the settlement proposal conforms with the Growth Plan in that it implements the policies encouraging intensification and optimizing the use of the existing land supply throughout the built-up area and infrastructure, particularly in proximity to existing and planned transit. The settlement proposal will also support the achievement of complete communities through a more compact built form and 13 PL170348

contribute to providing for a range of housing options.

[80] Under the City’s Official Plan (“OP”), the Property is within the land use designation of Regeneration Area, which designation was created to provide for a broad mix of uses in an urban form in order to revitalize areas that are largely vacant or underused. The proposed uses to be authorized by the zoning amendment conform with the permitted uses within this designation.

[81] A heritage impact assessment was undertaken by a qualified heritage architectural consultant, and based upon the design choices made in the revised proposal to achieve appropriate transition, it was the conclusion of the heritage impact assessment, not disputed, that there would be conservation of cultural heritage values in the adjacent properties and appropriate mitigation of any visual and physical impacts.

[82] The most direct planning instrument bearing on the proposal is the King-Spadina Secondary Plan.

[83] In Mr. Grinyer’s opinion, the settlement conforms with the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. The settlement is consistent with the objectives of the Secondary Plan, and implements the policy directions that relate to the compatibility of land uses, built form and heritage.

[84] Wellington Street West and Draper Street are identified in the Secondary Plan as "Significant Street and Open Space" and identify building and landscaped edges along Wellington and Draper Streets.

[85] Wellington and Draper Streets are identified as "Areas of Special Identity" – the area extends generally east from Victoria Square to Clarence Square and south down Draper Street to Front Street.

[86] The settlement proposal will conform with the policy direction through the enhancement of the Wellington and Draper Street streetscapes, including maintaining 14 PL170348

building edges generally at the property lines with large landscaped setbacks along Wellington Street.

[87] The settlement will generally be built to the north property line and will replace existing surface parking with landscaping.

[88] Along Draper Street, the proposal provides for an enhanced pedestrian realm with a wider sidewalk zone, and a setback consistent with the adjacent Draper Street dwellings.

[89] Associated with the King-Spadina Secondary Plan are the King-Spadina Urban Design Guidelines (2004). These guidelines generally reflect the policies identified above in the Secondary Plan itself and it was the opinion of Mr. Grinyer that the proposal reflects adherence to these guidelines.

Concluding Planning Opinion

[90] Based upon the foregoing analysis, as further documented in the chapter and verse outline filed with the Tribunal, Mr. Grinyer concluded that the zoning amendment proposal before the Tribunal, as revised from the original in accordance with the settlement achieved through the Tribunal-led mediation, represented good planning, which is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan and with the City OP.

[91] He grouped the key issues under the headings of intensification, land use, height and massing, urban design, built form impacts and density, and he was of the view that each of these issues has been sensitively and appropriately dealt with in the final proposal.

[92] There was no contrary evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal will thus accept the opinions of Mr. Grinyer as above referenced.

Disposition 15 PL170348

[93] On the strength of the uncontroverted evidence, the Tribunal will allow the Appellant’s appeal, in part, and authorize amendments to City Zoning By-law No. 438- 86, as amended, and No. 569-2013, as amended, in keeping with the permissions, standards and restrictions which were presented in the evidence before the Tribunal.

[94] As the amending by-laws remain a work in progress as part of the site plan review process, the Parties have requested that they advise the Tribunal once the final form of those amending by-laws has been settled between the Appellant and the City, after careful zoning examination review. This has become a common practice and the Tribunal will accommodate it.

[95] As noted earlier on in the Decision, City Council supported the settlement proposal on the basis of acceptance by the Appellant, and imposition by the Tribunal, of certain conditions. Those conditions were put before the Tribunal in a document styled “Proposed Conditions of Final Order”, which was taken in as Exhibit 6.

[96] The request, as set out in the exhibit, is as follows:

[97] The Tribunal shall withhold its final order on the Zoning By-law Amendment application until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that:

1. the Applicant has withdrawn its appeal and/or withdrawn its party status to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal appeals of the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District Plan (LPAT Case No.: MM170097) and Official Plan Amendment 352 (with respect to the property at 485-489 Wellington Street West (LPAT Case No.: PL161316), and any other City-initiated official plan amendments under appeal;

2. the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments are in a form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor;

3. the Applicant has submitted an updated Functional Servicing Report, an 16 PL170348

updated Hydrogeological Report, and an updated Parking Study, addressing the comments outlined in the memorandum from Engineering and Construction Services dated April 12, 2018, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

4. the Applicant has submitted all additional information to address the outstanding comments outlined in the memorandum from Engineering and Construction Services dated April 12, 2018, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and

5. the City and the Applicant have entered into an executed Section 37 Agreement to be registered on title to the subject property securing the following matters as a legal convenience:

a. the applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan prior to the commencement of construction on the site to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and

b. a contribution of $150,000 to be allocated to the removal of three existing street posts along Draper Street and the installation of below grade hydro lines and appropriate lighting on the proposed building.

[98] Consequently, the final Order of the Tribunal respecting the zoning amendment by-laws will be withheld pending receipt of the confirmations from the City Solicitor as enumerated above.

[99] In the event that any issue develops with respect to clearance of these conditions, the Tribunal can be spoken to at the instance of the Appellant by way of contact with the Case Coordinator at the Tribunal, and such further communications with this Member or further hearing events by way of telephone conference call or in- person session can be canvassed and arranged as is necessary and appropriate. 17 PL170348

“Gerald S. Swinkin”

GERALD S. SWINKIN MEMBER

If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248