decision and order - toronto › wp-content › uploads › 2018 › 10 › 8f9f... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Toronto Local Appeal Body 40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Telephone: 416-392-4697 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9 Fax: 416-696-4307 Email: [email protected]
Website: www.toronto.ca/tlab
1 of 11
DECISION AND ORDER
Decision Issue Date Tuesday, October 30, 2018
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): ALI MASERRAT
Applicant: BANANARCH DESIGN AND BUILD
Property Address/Description: 367 DOUGLAS AVE
Committee of Adjustment Case File Number: 18 122192 NNY 16 MV
TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
Hearing date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018
DECISION DELIVERED BY Ian James LORD
APPEARANCES
Name Role Representative
Bananarch Design & Build Applicant
Ali Maserrat Appellant/Owner Amber Stewart
David McKay Expert Witness
Nathan Morrow Participant
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from a refusal by the North York Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) for variances to 367 Douglas Avenue (subject property) sought in order to construct a new two storey detached dwelling with integral garage.
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
2 of 11
There were no changes to the Application post the COA decision; however, in response to concerns expressed by planning staff, the Applicant switched the proposed driveway location westerly to afford greater separation from the intersection of Douglas Avenue and Grey Road, to the east. The subject property is located at the south west corner of that intersection, north of Lawrence Avenue and west of Avenue Road.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant provided professional land use planning evidence through David McKay, a Registered Professional Planner whom the TLAB qualified to give expert opinion evidence. The only other person to speak to the matter was Mr. David Herzstein, son-in-law to Participant N. Morrow, adjacent owner at 369 Douglas Avenue, located to the immediate west of the subject property.
I advised that I had attended the subject property, reviewed the filed material but
expected matters of relevance to be addressed in evidence.
MATTERS IN ISSUE
As with every variance appeal, compliance with the statutory tests applicable to each variance sought is required. These tests are recited, below, under ‘Jurisdiction’.
In addition, Mr. Herzstein identified five aspects of impact consideration
applicable to the property at 369 Douglas Drive which he requested be considered in the event relief in the form of the variances requested, is contemplated to be granted. These five aspects centred, generally, on: tree preservation; fence preservation; consequential effects on light, view and air from redevelopment; impacts of height, scale and massing of the proposed site redevelopment.
JURISDICTION
In addressing an appeal of requested variances, the following statutory directions provide the framework for consideration:
Provincial Policy – S. 3
A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and conform to the Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (Growth Plan). Minor Variance – S. 45(1)
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
3 of 11
In considering the applications for variances form the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
EVIDENCE
At the outset, Ms. Stewart on behalf of the Applicant identified three ‘new’ documents she sought to have filed:
a) List of variances, later modified with the request of an additional variance; b) Coloured rendering, available but not previously produced; c) Title document applicable to 369 Douglas Drive, Inst. TR083143 or otherwise
described. In the absence of any objection, I admitted these materials for discussion as
Exhibit 3 a, b, c. respectively, supplementary to the Witness Statement and Appendices of David McKay (Exhibit 1) and a combined electronic document disclosure book prepared by the Applicant (Exhibit 2). Exhibit 2 includes a comprehensive digest of pictures, research materials on area variances and a complete record of associated related decisions of the COA.
Through the use of these materials, Mr. McKay described the character of the
Bedford Park North neighborhood in two mapped scales of Study Area wherein he had evaluated some 200 instances of variance applications and approvals. While noting a consistency throughout both geographic areas (and 455 lots), he found the more immediate area depicted on air photography referenced in his Witness Statement, to be of relevance to normal daily resident exposure and built form.
I am satisfied that his extensive use of GIS data and own observation supported
his uncontested evidence that the neighbourhood is active in renewal and redevelopment and that there are multiple examples supportive of his advice that:
a) The neighbourhood is diverse in: architectural styles; roof designs; elevated
entrances with 5-10 steps; and integral garages, often with reverse slopes (not proposed) ;
b) Variances exceeding those sought for in lot coverage, main wall height, building height, side yard setbacks, deck inclusions in side yard setback reductions and elevated finished first floor heights, were relatively common.
c) A photographic study supported the Application reflective of maintaining existing conditions of front streetscape and rear wall alignments;
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
4 of 11
d) Corner lots, as with the subject property, demonstrated higher lot coverages dependent on lot size.
He described the subject property as having a frontage of 7.32 m (24 feet)
despite a zoning standard of 12 m. However, undersized lots are recognized under zoning as existing lots of record.
He described the proposal as an intended demolition of all existing improvements
and a rebuild with a different positioning on the lot. Namely, side yards would be slightly enhanced, the proposed home would be two storey, longer and higher consistent with contemporary building standards and include an integral garage. A pitched roof with flat roof top is proposed. The existing garage and shed are to be demolished.
With regard to the subject property survey dated February 28, 2018, he noted
that the existing wood fence identified to be on the common property line with 369 Douglas Avenue, would remain undisturbed, contrary to earlier representations and concerns. He advised that four identified trees adjacent the subject property had been identified for possible protection measures although Urban Forestry of the City had presented no objection to the project.
City planning staff had been satisfied with the reorientation of the integral garage
driveway and took no exception to the redevelopment beyond stating a preference that lot coverage not exceed 38%. The proposal requests authorization of 39.5% tied to the architect’s design for the proposed building and the undersized lot area arising, in part, from the reduced frontage of this corner lot.
Mr. McKay, in the course of his presentation, identified an additional variance not
previously considered by the Plans Examiner. He recommended that ‘out of an abundance of caution’, relief be sought from a requirement that driveway access for a corner lot be from the flanking street (Grey Road). While this is the present state condition, access to the proposed integral garage, characteristically common to new builds throughout the area, is intended from Douglas Avenue.
As the driveway access point from Douglas Avenue had been common to the
Application from the outset, I find that adding the additional variance for consideration is minor and an element for which no further notice is required pursuant to section 45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act. This request was not raised as an issue, is minor and is considered a preferable addition to the list of variances over the alternative of a possible re-application at the late stage of building permit consideration.
The complete list of variances sought on the appeal is reproduced as
Attachment 1 hereto. The Site Plan and elevations addressed by the witness McKay are attached as Attachment 2 hereto.
Mr. McKay reviewed each of the variances requested and identified in
Attachment 1 generally and specifically in relation to each Jurisdiction aspect, above.
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
5 of 11
His Witness Statement, Exhibit 1 further supplements his oral consideration and application of the tests.
I recite here some of the considerations raised in the evidence. There was no
contrary qualified evidence so it is not necessary to review the oral evidence in minute detail.
He noted: 1. Despite variances under both the new City By-law 569-2013 and North York
By-law 7625, the variances sought reflect considerable overlap and stem from differing measurement points respecting height and ground floor height (established grade and centerline of the street, respectively by by-law). The proposed building plans, Attachment 2, are a constant.
2. The staff concern for lot coverage is not further explained, however, he stated that the Study Area examination of actual built form shows coverages at 43 to 44%. He suggested the 30% cap is not relevant, especially in the circumstance of a corner lot with exempted frontage.
3. With respect to the concern for massing, several important indicia of overbuilding are simply not present in the Application as no variances are sought for: parking; driveway width; front or rear yard setback reductions; reductions to landscaped open space; building length and building depth; deck size or location; and side yards are both proposed to be increased from those existing.
4. With respect to the title document, Exhibit 3 c, it was his interpretation that the language ‘subject to a right to light and air’ shown applicable to the space between 367 and 369 Douglas Avenue was to the benefit of 367 Douglas Avenue, and not a constraint or encumbrance on its building scheme.
5. His planning opinion was to the effect (Witness Statement, Exhibit 1, paragraph 8.4) that the Application for variances was consistent with Provincial Policy and conformed to the Growth Plan. He applied the language of the Built Form, Neighbourhoods and Urban Design components of the Official Plan to the variances and concluded they presented a project that would fit harmoniously into the neighbourhood and that would respect and reinforce the streetscape. Further, that while there would be some shadow impact, it is proportionate to expectations in an urban setting and similar in kind and degree to as-of-right construction.
6. He noted the separation distance between adjacent buildings would maintain the standard of 2.4 m set by the new zoning by-law, albeit largely the derivative of space on the abutting lot and the protection afforded by the title provision for ‘light and air’ on the survey for 369 Douglas Avenue. He acknowledged some effect on view from the kitchen side wall window of 369 Douglas Avenue, while noting that effect would occur as-of-right with any building extension exercising rights under zoning and that no variance was sought to extend building length or depth beyond that permitted. On zoning standards, and the tests of minor and desirable, he concluded that with some
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
6 of 11
conditions, impacts offsite would be minimal and the height, massing and scale of the proposal was consistent with neighbourhood examples and offered no incompatibility rising to the standard of ‘undue adverse impact’.
7. On the height variances, he expressed commonality with relief in the neighbourhood affording architectural recognition of second floor window fenestration, the unlikelihood of seeing the flat portion of the roof and the repeat replication of steps to the main first floor, slightly elevated.
8. None of the zoning standards to be varied frustrated the purposes of the zoning provisions; he stated they maintained proportionality and a relationship to the street that resulted in a lot and neighbourhood ‘fit’ in keeping with adjacent and multiple redeveloped properties in the neighbourhood. He stated that the Application yielded a reasonable sized house (@2000 sq ft), with space and amenities typical of new builds.
9. A number of recommended conditions: i) Construction in accordance with the plans filed; ii) Compliance with the requirements of Urban Forestry; iii) Preservation and protection of existing fencing on the common
property line with 369 Douglas Avenue.
David Herzstein, speaking on behalf of the owners of 369 Douglas Avenue, raised a number of concerns, listed above. These were elicited and delivered in a concise manner befitting a reasoned approach to the Applicant’s appeal.
He expressed appreciation for the Applicant’s retraction of any attempt to remove existing fencing on the lot line, to be responsible for its maintenance and protection during construction and the undertaking to protect from injury trees that could be impacted, on 369 Douglas Avenue, by subscribing to City Tree Protection By-law measures.
His major expressed concern related to the implications of the coverage and
height variances impacting light and air to 369 Douglas Avenue from new construction, especially in the south east corner of the existing residence.
He suggested a possible conflict existed in the plans of survey depicting the
common property line between the respective properties. The deed notation of ‘subject to light and air’ was advanced only as indicia of elements worthy of consideration in relation to the variances sought.
In questioning, he acknowledged that the measured distances of potential discrepancy were quite small, that the increased west side yard setback from existing was an enhancement and that the two by-laws provided different measurement and descriptive approaches to ‘flat roof’ design and measurement. While he preferred a shorter house and less of a ‘landing’ to the rear yard deck, he understood that ‘as-of-right’ provisions were not markedly different, even potentially of greater impact.
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
7 of 11
He responded, however, by reiterating that the Application proposed increased
coverage and massing and at a height causing many of the concerns raised that he had addressed.
ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, REASONS
The COA declined the variances sought in the Application but in the absence of substantive reasons. While it was speculated that the unease of the staff report and the concerns expressed by the participants might have led to the COA decision, such comments are little more than speculation.
Under section 2.1 of the Planning Act, I am obliged to give consideration to the
COA decision and the materials before it; I have done so. In addition, I have heard the evidence of a qualified professional planner and one neighbour’s representative.
I am satisfied that the public interest is best served in encouraging the
redevelopment of the subject property in the manner proposed based on the entirety of that evidence. Mr. McKay ably demonstrated that the Applications would, if built according to the plans filed in Attachment 2, deliver a project fully compatible with the neighbourhood in a manner that does not overpower the lot or transmit undue adverse impacts on neighbouring properties or the neighbourhood itself.
This is a neighbourhood of two storey detached dwellings, many demonstrating
integral garages and of pitched and flat roof design. I am satisfied that the setbacks proposed are an improvement and common in the area. The property benefits from a corner position and rear yard access is not compromised. The height, also characteristic of variances granted, is ameliorated by a pitched roof portion and by window fenestration pulling the eye to the building, reducing the appearance of mass. The size of the building is modest and is commensurate with the lot upon which it sits.
The lot is proposed to be cleaned up of accessory structures. I am also satisfied that the additional steps to the main floor height replicate
many existing examples on the street and in the neighbourhood. Extending the rear wall platform/deck along the alignment of the building face is not only practical but, through the re-orientation of the rear yard deck easterly, affords minimal opportunity for overlook or privacy derogation to the only adjacent property.
Requiring construction to be in accordance with the design plan assures that
some of the features argued in favour of the variances will be instituted. The coverage requested exceeds the by-law provision of 30% by a substantial
margin: to 39.5%. The resultant massing was ably expressed as a concern to the owners of 369 Douglas Avenue and I have no doubt that that is so. I appreciate that the
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
8 of 11
rear kitchen window of that property will have a view and partial shadow impact by the proposed house extension.
I am satisfied that this infraction to normal daily living activities does not amount
to the type or degree of undue adverse impact to warrant rejection of one, many or all of the variances requested. While it is true that the relatively new construction at 369 Douglas Avenue presents a window above the fence line between the properties, there was no evidence or measure as to the degree of impact resulting from the Application. Indeed, the evidence was that as-of-right construction, in building length, depth and height would have essentially the same effect as the proposed construction. Moreover, although irrelevant now, the construction of 369 Douglas Drive would have had a similar if not greater impact on the then bungalow residence on 367 Douglas Avenue.
These impacts are envisaged in the permitted performance standards under
existing and proposed zoning and are the product of living in modern urban centres where intensification of the use of property is often supported by policy and regulations.
In this case, I am unable to distinguish on the evidence provided a material
difference in impact between as-of-right allowances, and the relief requested. Mr. Herzstein is entirely correct to point out that it is the Applicant that is requesting relief from the provisions of existing zoning on whom the burden of justification rests. I am, however, content that that burden has been met through the evidence of the planner McKay who demonstrated the policy support for rejuvenation via replacement housing, compliance with the policy assessment criteria of section 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, adherence to the spirit of the zoning regulations and the desirability of redevelopment.
I find the impacts on 369 Douglas Avenue to be minor and within the range of
implications normally attendant redevelopment, particularly in light of the conditions agreed to by the Applicant with the input of Mr. Herzstein.
It is regretful that the Applicant did not earlier assuage the Morrows of their
clearly expressed concerns respecting fencing, tree preservation and light and air considerations. Neither the Official Plan nor the zoning by-law expressly address these latter concerns in this particular fact circumstance. Nevertheless, the interpretation and application of the wording on the Morrow’s property survey/deed might well have been earlier discovered, thereby advancing the potential that this appeal might have been averted.
I accept Ms. Stewarts argument that no overall height variance is required under
the new By-law 569-2013. I also have no basis to refute the argument that on coverage, there is no demonstrable basis or impact arising from planning staff’s suggestion as to 38% v. 39.5% coverage nor to doubt that the more recent survey constituted part of the materials before the City Plans Examiner.
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
9 of 11
On all these aspects, I find that the permissions sought are supported by the evidence supplied by Mr. McKay and meet all relevant tests, subject only to appropriate conditions.
I was requested to produce a timely decision. This is similar to or the same request that is explicit or implied in all matters that come before the TLAB.
DECISION AND ORDER
The Applicant’s appeal from the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is allowed. The variances identified as proposed in Attachment 1 hereto are approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction shall be substantially in accordance with the site plan andelevations attached as Attachment 2 , hereto prepared by Bananarch issued April 27, 2018 and being Appendix I, in Exhibit 1 attached to the Witness statement of David McKay.
2. The Applicant/owner shall meet the tree preservation requirements, if any, ofthe City Trees By-law, satisfactory to the Manager, Urban Forestry Division ofthe City respecting trees in proximity to the subject property, 367 DouglasAvenue.
3. Any damage or replacement of fencing on the property line between 367 and369 Douglas Avenue shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant/ownerand shall be completed in a good and workmanlike manner of like or superiorvalue, prior to building occupancy.
4. The existing garage structure shall be demolished and the curb on Grey Roadrestored to a complete and uninterrupted state.
If difficulties arise in the implementation of this decision, the TLAB may be spoken to.
ATTACHMENT 1
REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
1. Chapter 10.5.40.50, By-law No. 569-2013A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The proposed west side yard setback is 0.91 m to the deck.
2. Chapter 10.5.40.50, By-law No. 569-2013
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
10 of 11
A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone. The proposed east side yard setback is 0.62 m to the porch. 3. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(2), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum height of all side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 7.5 m. The proposed height of the side exterior main walls facing a side lot line is 8.54 m. 4. Chapter 10.20.40.10.(6), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum height of the first floor above established grade is 1.2 m. The proposed height of the first floor above established grade is 1.87 m. 5. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 m. The proposed east side yard setback is 0.6 m. 6. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3), By-law No. 569-2013 The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 m. The proposed west side yard setback is 0.9 m. 7. Chapter 10.20.30.40.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum lot coverage is 30% of the lot area. The proposed lot coverage is 39.5% of the lot area. 8. Section 14-A(8), By-law No. 7625 The maximum permitted building height is 8 m. The proposed building height is 10.43 m. 9. Section 6(30)a, By-law No. 7625 The maximum finished first floor height is 1.5 m. The proposed finished first floor height is 2.3 m. The following additional variance shall apply: 10.Chapter 10.5.80.40 (3), By-law No. 569-2013: Despite any provision to the contrary, vehicular access to the lot shall be from Douglas Avenue.
Decision of Toronto Local Appeal Body Panel Member: I. LORD TLAB Case File Number: 18 168086 S45 16 TLAB
11 of 11
X
Ian J. Lord
Chair, Toronto Local Appeal Body
Signed by: Ian Lord
367 DOUGLAS AVE. ISSUED FOR CofA
TORONTO, ON APRIL 27, 2018
Attachment 2
367 DOUGLAS AVE. PROPOSED TWO STOREY
DWELLING175.50 ft2
16.30 m2
DN
DRIVEWAY
547.10 ft2
50.83 m2
183.20 ft2
17.02 m2
82.80 ft2
7.69 m2
306.50 ft2
28.47 m2
142.20 ft2
13.21 m2
97.90 ft2
9.09 m2
UP
UP
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY TO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEY MAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/64" = 1'-0"
A003SITE STATISTICS
PROJECT STATISTICS
PROJECT STATISTICS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ZONE=RD
GROUND FLOOR
METRIC IMPERIAL
SECOND FLOOR
BASEMENT(INCLUDING MECHANICAL & COLDROOM)
BASEMENT(NOT INCLUDING MECHANICAL & COLDROOM)
GARAGE
PROJECT STATISTICS ZONE=RD
SITE AREA
METRIC IMPERIAL
LOT FRONTAGE
LOT DEPTH (EAST)
FRONT YARD
METRIC IMPERIAL
REAR YARD
SIDE YARD (EAST)
SIDE YARD (WEST)
SETBACKS
LENGTH
METRIC IMPERIAL
WIDTH
HEIGHT
LOT COVERAGE
PROPOSED DWELLING
1NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
TOTAL GFA
LANDSCAPING STATISTICS ZONE=RD
FRONT YARD AREA
METRIC IMPERIAL
DRIVEWAY AREA
FRONT YARD
REAR YARD AREA
METRIC IMPERIAL
AREA OF WALKOUT,WALKWAY,DECK
SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA
REAR YARD
SIDE YARD AREA (EAST)
METRIC IMPERIALSIDE YARD
STEP+PORCH+WALK AREA
SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA (EAST)
SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA (WEST)
SIDE YARD AREA (WEST)
SOFT LANDSCAPING AREA
LANDSCAPING AREA
LANDSCAPING AREA
LOT DEPTH (WEST)
12.22 m 40'-1"
16.52 m 54'-2 1/2"
5.80 m 19'-0 1/4"
10.00 m 32'-9 3/4"
93.30 m² (39.5%) 1,004.20 ft² (39.5%)
92.14 m² 991.70 ft2
93.73 m² 1,008.90 ft²
185.87 m² 2,000.60 ft²
51.73 m² 556.90 ft²
34.70 m² 373.60 ft²
LANDSCAPING STATISTICS CALCULATION
0.30 m 1'- 0"
572.60 ft ²
183.30 ft ²
53.19 m²
17.02 m²
722.40 ft ²67.12 m²
175.50 ft ²16.30 m²
547.10 ft ²50.83 m²
97.90 ft ²9.09 m²
82.80 ft ²7.69 m²
306.50 ft ²28.47 m²
236.35 m² 2,544.00 ft²
7.32 m 24' - 0"
32.31 m 106'-0"
389.30 ft ²36.17 m²
32.31 m 106'-0"
97.90 ft ²9.09 m²
142.20 ft ²13.21 m²
142.20 ft ²13.21 m²
722.40 ft ²67.12 m²
6.98 m 22' - 11 1/2"
1.20 m 3' - 11 1/4"
58.10 m² 625.40 ft²
+100
.54
+100.44+1
00.4
9
367 DOUGLAS AVE. PROPOSED TWO STOREY
DWELLING
DECK
LANDING
DN
+100
.24
DRIVEWAY
UP
PORCH
UP
2' -
0"
(0.6
2m
)7' -
7 1
/2"
(2.3
2m
)11' -
5"
(3.4
8m
)2' -
11 1
/2"
(0.9
0m
)
1' -
6 1
/2"
(0.4
7m
)8' -
1 1
/2"
(2.4
8m
)7' -
0"
(2.1
4m
)3' -
3 1
/2"
(1.0
1m
)
1' -
11 1
/2"
(0.6
0m
)
1' - 9" (0.53m)50' - 5 1/2" (15.38m)2' - 0" (0.61m)5' - 3 1/2" (1.61m)9' - 0 1/2" (2.76m)
6' - 10 1/2" (2.10m)4' - 0" (1.22m)
3' - 8 1/2" (1.12m)
3' - 2 1/2" (0.98m)
2' - 3" (0.69m)
3' - 0 1/2" (0.93m)6' - 6" (1.98m)42' - 8" (13.00m)4' - 1" (1.24m)6' - 2" (1.88m)20' - 7 1/2" (6.29m)
5' - 2 1/2" (1.59m) 7' - 0 1/2" (2.15m) 4' - 1" (1.24m)
30' - 10 1/2" (9.42m)
28' - 10 1/2" (8.81m)
2' -
0"
(0.6
0m
)
1' -
8"
(0.5
1m
)9' -
5 1
/2"
(2.8
9m
)7' -
10 1
/2"
(2.4
0m
)3' -
0"
(0.9
1m
)
19' -
0 1
/2"
(5.8
0m
)
19' -
0 1
/2"
(5.8
0m
)1' -
0"
(0.3
0m
)
1' -
11 1
/2"
(0.6
0m
)
3' -
11"
(1.2
0m
)9' -
2 1
/2"
(2.8
0m
)7' -
10 1
/2"
(2.4
0m
)3' -
0"
(0.9
1m
)
DO
UG
LA
S A
VE
NU
E(
BY
RE
GIS
TE
RE
D P
LA
N 1
53
7,
PIN
. 1
01
91
- 02
59 (
LT
) )
( A
S C
ON
FIR
ME
D B
Y P
LA
N B
A-1
881
)
CE
NT
RE
LIN
E O
F R
OA
DCO
NC
RE
TE
CU
RB
+100
.06
CB
CBCONCRETE CURB
OVERHEAD WIRE
OVERHEAD WIRE
HYDRO POLE
CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
HYDRO POLE
GREY ROAD( BY REGISTERED PLAN 1537, PIN. 10191-0259 (LT) )
( AS CONFIRMED BY PLAN BA-265)
TWL: 100.80
PORCH
369 DOUGLAS AVE. 2 STOREY
STUCCO DWELLINGFFE=102.19
GARAGE ELEVATION=99.42
OV
ER
HE
AD
WIR
E
DT 0.80 Ø
CT 0.60 Ø
DT 0.30 Ø
CT 0.15 Ø
CENTRE LINE OF ROAD
+100
.12
52' - 2 1/2" (15.91m)
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY TO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEY MAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/32" = 1'-0"
A101SITE PLAN
0.2
7 W
0.3
3 E
0.3
3 E
17.54
4.71
4.09
4.70
6.981.5
3
1.5
3
0.3
3 E
0.3
6 E
0.7
90.6
5 E
0.6
2 N
0.55 N
99.96
99.92
99.92
100.5
9
100.8
0
99.42
100.3
9 100.22
0.34 N16°17'30"W 32.31
N16°17'30"W 32.31N
73°4
1'4
0"E
7.3
2
N73°4
1'4
0"E
7.3
2
O
T
9
8
4
1 5
3 7
CE
NT
ER
LIN
E O
F R
OA
D
AP
PR
OA
CH
CO
NC
RE
TE
CU
RB
1 S
TY
.
BR
ICK
DW
ELLIN
GN
o. 3
67
FF
E=
CONCRETE PAD
PO
RC
H
BO
AR
D F
EN
CE
SH
ED
OV
ER
HE
AD
WIR
E
VA
LV
EH
YD
RO
NA
ILS
ITE
BE
NC
HM
AR
K
ELE
V=
No. 3
69
ST
UC
CO
DW
ELLIN
G
FF
E= 2 S
TY
.
DR
IVE
WA
Y
INT
ER
LO
CK
DR
IVE
WA
Y
AS
HP
HA
LT
FLO
OR
=G
AR
AG
E
HY
DR
OM
ET
ER
HEDGE
CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
T/W
=
STONE RETAINING WALL
HY
DR
OP
OLE
HY
DR
OP
OLE
PO
RC
H
CENTER LINE OF ROAD
CO
NC
RE
TE
CU
RB
CONCRETE CURBCONCRETE CURB
OVERHEAD WIRE
APPROACH
BO
AR
D F
EN
CE
BOARD FENCE
T/W
=
T/W
=
T/W
=
CT
0.6
0�
DT
0.8
0�
WIR
EA
NC
HO
R
CT
0.1
5�
DT
0.3
0�
10
1.2
9
10
0.0
8
10
0.3
5
100.8
0
100.8
1
10
2.1
9
99
.42
100.6
7 100.7
2
10
0.4
6
100.0
0
VA
LV
ES
ER
VIC
E
FLO
OR
=G
AR
AG
E
OVERHEAD WIRE
BOARD FENCE
D O U G L A S
A V E N U E
G R E Y R O A D
(BY
RE
GIS
TE
RE
D P
LA
N 1
537, P
.I.N. 1
0191
-025
9 (L
T) )
(BY REGISTERED PLAN 1537, P.I.N. 10191-0258 (LT) )
( AS CONFIRMED BY PLAN BA-265)
P.I.N
. 10191-0
110 (L
T)
( AS
CO
NF
IRM
ED
BY
PLA
N B
A-1
88
1)
100.2
2
100.1
2
100.0
1
100.0
610
0.19
100.1
8
100.0
6
100.0
9
100.1
1
100.0
7
100.0
4
100.1
8
100.2
4
100.2
9
100.2
0
100.2
1
100.3
1
100.3
023
99.88
99.93
100.55
100.5
3
100.5
5
100.5
1
100.4
5
100.2
9
100.1
610
0.10
100.2
9
100.4
2
100.61
100.54100.54
100.47
100.47
100.48
100.3
9
100.25
100.1
7
100.1
1100.1
5
100.2
5
100.3
3
100.3
0
100.4
1
100.5
0
100.5
5100.4
4
100.5
5100.4
1
100.5
5
100.5
2
100.4
3
100.4
710
0.48
100.1
110
0.14
100.63
100.6
0
100.6
4
100.6
6 100.6
1
100.60100.65
100.6
6
100.6
1
100.5
9
100.5
9
100.5
5
100.5
4
100.45
99
.41
99.76
100.1
3
100.1
010
0.14
100.1
6
100.6
610
0.85
100.7
4
100.6
3
100.6
7
100.5
1
100.5
3
100.6
7
100.5
0
100.47
100.4
5
10
0.6
5
100.5
8
10
0. 5
7
100.4
7
100.3
2
.48
100.42
100.44
100.2
0
100.1
9
100.2
310
0.41
100.1
1
100.1
7
100.2
4
100.3
0
99.96
CB
CB
MAN HOLE
MAN HOLE
+100.44+1
00.4
9
367 DOUGLAS AVE. PROPOSED TWO STOREY
DWELLING
DECK
LANDING
DN
UP
PORCH
UP
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELYTO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEYMAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEYMAYNOT BE ALTERED IN ANYWAYWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANYOTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/32" = 1'-0"
A101aSITE PLAN W/SURVEY
L
RE
GI
ST
ER
ED
PL
AN
100.
100
UP
UP 13R @ 7.38"
UP
6R
@
6.7
8"
H/T FURNACE
UNEXCAVATED
10' - 3" 31' - 10 1/2" 10' - 9 1/2" 6' - 6" 3' - 0 1/2"
2' - 0" 50' - 5 1/2" 4' - 0" 6' - 10 3/4"
11 3
/4"
11' -
5"
7' -
7 1
/2"
19' -
0 1
/4"
(5.8
0m
)
11' -
5"
1' -
0 1
/2"
10"
4' -
11"
10"
2' - 10 1/4"10"7' - 2 1/2"
10' -
6"
10"
6' -
0 1
/4"
10"
19' - 6"1' - 6"8' - 8 1/2"3 1/2"8' - 7"3 1/2"11' - 0"1' - 6"5' - 0"5' - 3"
16' -
0 1
/4"
8' -
4 3
/4"
3 1
/2"
3' -
11"
4' -
0"
E. PANEL BOX
10 1
/4"
9' -
5 3
/4"
7' -
10 1
/2"
10"
7' -
0 1
/2"
10"
18' -
2 1
/4"
(5.5
5m
)
PLANTER
HIDDEN DOORWITHIN WALLPANELLING
52' - 5 1/2" (15.99m)
52' - 2 1/2" (15.91m)
4' - 5 1/2" 3 1/2" 3' - 10" 3 1/2" 4' - 5" 3 1/2" 4' - 0"
6' -
4 1
/2"
4' -
0"
7' -
10 1
/2"
6' -
5 3
/4"
1' -
8 1
/4"
MECHANICAL
ROOM
GREAT ROOM
3' -
4 1
/2"
3 1
/2"
3' -
8"
3 1
/2"
3' -
10 1
/4"
4' -
6 1
/2"
BATHROOM
LAUNDRY STORAGE
GARAGE
LOW HEADROOM5'-1 1/2"
GARBAGE AREA
WALK OUT
5' - 6"
8' -
4 3
/4"
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY TO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEY MAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/16" = 1'-0"
A102BASEMENT
DN
3R
@ 7
.5"
10' - 9"9' - 3 1/2"3 1/2"
1' - 9"50' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"5' - 3 1/2"
2' -
11 1
/2"
(0.9
0m
)19' -
0 1
/4"
(5.8
0m
)2' -
0 1
/4"
(0.6
2m
)
1' -
11 1
/2"
11 3
/4"
11' -
5"
7' -
7 1
/2"
3' - 0 1/2"6' - 6"42' - 8"4' - 1"
2' -
0"
3' -
0"
3' -
6"
4' -
8 1
/4"
4' -
0"
DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM
PORCH
DN
9R
@ 7
.33"
16' - 10 1/2"13' - 2"
9' -
2 1
/4"
4' -
6 1
/2"
3 1
/2"
3' -
2"
FOYER
POWDER
ROOM
KITCHEN
FAMILY ROOM
HIDDEN DOORWITHIN WALLPANELLING
2' -
11 3
/4"
7' -
10 1
/2"
9' -
5 3
/4"
1' -
8 1
/4"
1' -
11 3
/4"
DECK
DN
FIREPLACE
D.WG
52' - 2 1/2" (15.91m)
6' - 10 3/4" (2.10m)4' - 0" (1.22m)52' - 5 1/2" (15.99m)
7' -
10 1
/2"
7' -
7 3
/4"
1' -
8 1
/4"
2' - 0" 13' - 2 3/4" 17' - 1 1/4" 3 1/2" 8' - 2" 3 1/2"
2' - 3"
3 1/2" 7' - 0"
UP 17R @ 7.75"
DN 13R @ 7.38"
AREA 5.50 m2
17' -
2 1
/4"
CLOSET
19' -
0 1
/4"
(5.8
0m
)
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELYTO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEYMAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEYMAYNOT BE ALTERED IN ANYWAYWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANYOTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/16" = 1'-0"
A103GROUND FLOORPLAN
8' -
5 3
/4"
3 1
/2"
8' -
5 1
/4"
10' - 3"0"3 1/2"7' - 9"3 1/2"3' - 7"3 1/2"12' - 11 1/4"3 1/2"12' - 11 1/4"2' - 0"
6' -
2 3
/4"
3 1
/2"
10' -
8"
1' - 9"50' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"
19' -
0 1
/4"
(5.8
0m
)
7' -
10 1
/2"
9' -
5 3
/4"
1' -
8 1
/4"
19' -
0 1
/4"
(5.8
0m
)
7' -
11 1
/2"
3 1
/2"
3' -
8"
3 1
/2"
5' -
0"
8' - 11" 3 1/2" 2' - 5" 7' - 8" 3 1/2" 10' - 0" 5 1/2" 7' - 10 1/2" 5 1/2" 12' - 0"
8' -
7 1
/4"
3 1
/2"
4' -
0"
1' -
6 1
/2"
8' -
1 1
/2"
9' -
4 1
/2"
4' -
10 3
/4"
3 1
/2"
6' -
8 1
/2"
BEDROOM 1
BEDROOM 2BATHROOM
BATHROOMLAUNDRY
BEDROOM 3
ENSUITE
WIC
MASTER
BEDROOM
1' -
4 1
/4"
7' -
5 3
/4"
1' -
10"
1' - 9"50' - 5 1/2"2' - 0"
52' - 5 1/2" (15.99m)
52' - 2 1/2" (15.91m)
3 1
/2"
5' -
6 3
/4"
8' -
3 3
/4"
DN 17R @ 7.75"
3' - 8"
6' - 1 1/2"3' - 11 1/2" LINE OF SKYLIGHT ABOVE
4' -
0 1
/4"
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY TO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEY MAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/16" = 1'-0"
A104SECOND FLOORPLAN
1' - 9"1' - 8 1/2"11' - 5 1/4"3' - 4"7' - 1 1/4"8' - 4"4' - 11"2' - 10"6' - 3 1/4"2' - 10"2' - 8"
49' - 8 3/4" (15.16m)
21' -
0 1
/4"
(6.4
1m
)
25' - 8 1/4" 17' - 11 1/4" 3' - 5 1/2"
49' - 8 3/4" (15.16m)
11' -
10 3
/4"
8' -
1 3
/4"
1' -
0"
21' -
0 1
/4"
(6.4
1m
)
17" / 12"
17"
/ 12"
17" / 12"
17"
/ 12"
MIN 2% SLOPE
1' -
0"
1' - 0"
1' -
0"
1' - 0"
1' -
0"
2' -
8 1
/2"
9' -
5 3
/4"
1' -
7 1
/2"
4' -
9 3
/4"
2' -
5"
6' - 1 1/2" (1.87m)
1' -
4 1
/4"
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELYTO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEYMAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEYMAYNOT BE ALTERED IN ANYWAYWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANYOTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/16" = 1'-0"
A105ROOF PLAN
PROJECT STATISTICSROOF AREA CALCULATIONS BY-LAW 569-2013
TOTAL ROOF AREA
METRIC IMPERIAL
FLAT ROOF AREA
99.95 m2 1,075.85 ft²
49.71 m² 535.07 ft² (50%)
0' - 0"
ESTABLISHED AVG GRADE
19' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
32' - 9 1/2"
T/O ROOF
SECOND FLOOR CEILING
28' - 0"
24' - 7 1/2"
SIDEWALL HEIGHT
28' - 8 1/2"
MIDPOINT OF ROOF
-4' - 0"
BASEMENT LEVEL
LIVING ROOM CEILING
18' - 0"
8' - 0"
FAMILY ROOM
CENTRE LINE OF ROAD @DOUGLAS
-1' - 5"
32' -
9 3
/4"
(10.0
0m
)
4' -
9 3
/4"
9' -
0"
1' -
0"
10' -
0"
1' -
0"
7' -
0"
4' -
0"
+ 100.06
+ 99.27
30' -
1 1
/4"
(9.1
8m
)
24' -
7 1
/4"
(7.5
0m
)
+ 100.49
C/L OF ROAD @ GREY
-1' - 2 1/2"
11' -
0"
CEILING
5' - 1 1/2"
GROUND FLOOR
6' - 1 1/2"
PR
OP
ER
TY
LIN
E
PR
OP
ER
TY
LIN
E
+ 102.36
+ 102.93
+ 106.28
+ 110.49
12"
12"
17"
1' - 0 1/2" (0.32m)
1' - 0" (0.30m)
1' - 11" (0.59m)
1' - 0" (0.30m)
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY TO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEY MAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/16" = 1'-0"
A200FRONT ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION (NORTH)A
A200 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"
0' - 0"
ESTABLISHED AVG GRADE
19' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
32' - 9 1/2"
T/O ROOF
SECOND FLOOR CEILING
28' - 0"
24' - 7 1/2"
SIDEWALL HEIGHT
28' - 8 1/2"
MIDPOINT OF ROOF
-4' - 0"
BASEMENT LEVEL
LIVING ROOM CEILING
18' - 0"
BASEMENT CEILING
7' - 0"
8' - 0"
FAMILY ROOM
CENTRE LINE OF ROAD @DOUGLAS
-1' - 5"
32' -
9 3
/4"
(10.0
0m
)
4' -
0"
7' -
0"
1' -
0"
10' -
0"
1' -
0"
9' -
0"
4' -
9 3
/4"
11' -
0"
+ 110.49
+ 109.24
+ 106.28
+ 102.93
+ 100.49
+ 100.06
+ 99.27
24' -
7 1
/4"
(7.5
0m
)
C/L OF ROAD @ GREY
-1' - 2 1/2"
PR
OP
ER
TY
LIN
E
PR
OP
ER
TY
LIN
E
29' -
11"
(9.1
2m
)
30' -
1 1
/4"
(9.1
8m
)
28' -
0"
(8.5
4m
)
12"
12"
17"
3' -
3"
(0.9
9m
)
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND RANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELYTO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEPROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEAPPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVEBANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONTHEREOF. THEYMAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEYMAYNOT BE ALTERED IN ANYWAYWITHOUT THEXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCRESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONETITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THDRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCEUSED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANOTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEAREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
3/16" = 1'-0"REAR ELEVATION (SOUTH)A
A201 SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"
H
NO:
EPORT
TOR. FORE
ST
D.
S
E
Y D ESE
D OR Y
SE
W
W
W
A201REAR ELEVATION
0' - 0"
ESTABLISHED AVG GRADE
0' - 0"
ESTABLISHED AVG GRADE
19' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
32' - 9 1/2"
T/O ROOF
32' - 9 1/2"
T/O ROOF
SECOND FLOOR CEILING
28' - 0"
24' - 7 1/2"
SIDEWALL HEIGHT
28' - 8 1/2"
MIDPOINT OF ROOF
-4' - 0"
BASEMENT LEVEL
8' - 0"
FAMILY ROOM
CENTRE LINE OF ROAD @DOUGLAS
-1' - 5"
4' -
9 3
/4"
9' -
0"
1' -
0"
10' -
0"
1' -
0"
11' -
0"
32' -
9 3
/4"
(10.0
0m
)
30' -
1 1
/4"
(9.1
8m
)
+ 99.27
+ 100.06
+ 102.93
+ 106.28
+ 109.24
+ 110.49
GROUND FLOOR
6' - 1 1/2"
6' -
1 1
/2"
11' -
10 1
/2"
1' -
0"
9' -
0"
4' -
9 3
/4"
+ 100.49
+ 110.49
+ 102.36
+ 100.49
24' -
7 1
/2"
(7.5
0m
)
28' -
0"
(8.5
4m
)
12"
12"
17"
24' -
7 1
/4"
(7.5
0m
)
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY TO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEY MAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
1/8" = 1'-0"
A202WEST ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION (WEST)A
A203 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
0' - 0"
ESTABLISHED AVG GRADE
19' - 0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
32' - 9 1/2"
T/O ROOF
SECOND FLOOR CEILING
28' - 0"
24' - 7 1/2"
SIDEWALL HEIGHT
28' - 8 1/2"
MIDPOINT OF ROOF
-4' - 0"
BASEMENT LEVEL
8' - 0"
FAMILY ROOM
CENTRE LINE OF ROAD @DOUGLAS
-1' - 5"
4' -
9 3
/4"
9' -
0"
1' -
0"
10' -
0"
1' -
0"
11' -
0"
29' -
11"
(9.1
2m
)
+ 99.27
+ 100.06
+ 102.93
+ 106.28
+ 109.03
+ 109.24
+ 110.49
+ 100.49
32' -
9 3
/4"
(10.0
0m
)
C/L OF ROAD @ GREY
-1' - 2 1/2"
GROUND FLOOR
6' - 1 1/2"
7' -
0"
30' -
1 1
/4"
(9.1
8m
)
12"
12"
17"
28' -
0"
(8.5
4m
)
PROJECT NORTH
BANANARCHdesign + build
NO.
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO:SCALE:
DRAWING TITLE:
DATE:
DRAWING NO:
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS / ISSUE DATES
DATE
PROJECT:
(416) 414-4900TEL:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT:
367 DOUGLAS AVE.
M.G
N.A
JAN 2018
F-0132
THE BUILDER SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL JOB SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY TO BANANARCH.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CHECKED ON SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE REPORTED TO BANANARCH BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
ONLY THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS ARE TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
IT IS THE BUILDER'S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE LATEST APPROVED DRAWINGS IN HAND.
©COPYRIGHT BANANARCH DESIGN+BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BANANARCH RETAINS ALL THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT IN THE ELECTRONIC FILES AND REPRODUCTIONS THEREOF. THEY MAY BE REPRODUCED ONLY FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF BANANARCH.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF BANANARCH.
IN CONSIDERATION FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES RENDERED, THE USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND ANY SUPPORTING ATTACHMENTS,IS GRANTED TO THE CLIENT/AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOREMENTIONED TITLED PROJECT, AS DESIGNED, DEPICTED AND DETAILED ON THESE DRAWINGS.
THESE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AT ANY OTHER ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BANANARCH.
* FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN PLEASE REFER TO ENGINEERINGDRAWINGS* FOR ACCURATE ROOF PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS PLEASEREFER TO THE TRUSS COMPANY DRAWINGS
TORONTO, ON
1 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.12.18
2 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWJAN.26.18
3 ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEWFEB.13.18
4 ISSUED FOR ZZCFEB.14.18
5 ISSUED FOR CofAAPR.27.18
1/8" = 1'-0"
A203EAST ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION (EAST)A
A202 SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"