TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

 As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 2

1Implementation of Permit Parking on Feltham Avenue between Avon Avenue and Leigh Street Ward 27, York Humber

215 Robina Avenue Zoning By-law Amendment Application G. Bettencourt Designs Ltd. Ward 28, York Eglinton 2.1392

32 Florence Crescent Zoning By-law Amendment Application Ravi and Kamla Singh Ward 27, York Humber

4Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - 2426-2438 Weston Road OPA 127 (Weston Secondary Plan) and Zoning By-law No. 3623-97 (Housing By-law Amendment)Ward 27, York Humber

52150 Eglinton Avenue West - Consent Agreement Arising from a Committee of Adjustment Decision Ward 28, York Eglinton

6Development Charges in the Former City of York Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

7Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on February 17, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Bill Saundercook, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

1

Implementation of Permit Parking on Feltham Avenue

between Avon Avenue and Leigh Street

Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)on-street permit parking be implemented on the north side of Feltham Avenue between Avon Avenue and Leigh Street; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The York Community Council submits the following communication (January 28, 1999) from Councillor Frances Nunziata:

The York Community Council at its meeting held on January 20, 1999, considered a report dated December 15, 1998 from the City Clerk, advising of the poll results undertaken on a block by block basis on Feltham Avenue between Spears Street and Avon Avenue.

You will note in the report, that the conclusions indicate that the majority of residents polled, as a hole, were not in favour of the proposal. However, in reviewing the report, the poll results received from the residents on Feltham Avenue (north side) between Avon Avenue and Leigh Street, revealed that the respondents were 100 percent in favour of on-street permit parking.

In view of the above, I would like to request that the York Community Council approve the introduction of on-street permit parking on Feltham Avenue between Avon Avenue and Leigh Street, based on the results of the block by block poll.

The relevant information is attached for your assistance.

The York Community Council also submits the following report (December 15, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To show results of a poll conducted of residents on Feltham Avenue, regarding a proposal to implement on-street permit parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendations:

For consideration and direction of York Community Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Clause No. 9(a) embodied in Report No. 12 of York Community Council.

York Community Council, at its meeting held on October 14, 1998, directed that the City Clerk conduct a poll of residents on Feltham Avenue to determine interest in the implementation of on-street permit parking.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The following is a breakdown of the poll results, based on the number of replies returned.

Total No. Polled:33

No. of Replies Received:23 (70%)

No. of Replies In Favour:7 (30%)

No. of Replies Not In Favour:16 (70%)

No. of Replies Not Counted:2

The two responses that were not counted were photocopies of poll forms received from tenants who has not been polled. The following is an overall breakdown of responses, on a block-by-block basis, according to resident owners, non-resident owners and tenants.

Feltham Avenue (north side) from Avon Avenue to Leigh Street

(includes corner property on Leigh Street)

 Feltham Avenue (north side) from Leigh Street to Spears Street

(includes corner property on Spears Street)

 Feltham Avenue (south side) from Leigh Street to Spears Street

(includes corner property on Spears Street)

Comments from residents are attached hereto as Appendix 1.

Conclusions:

As noted above, the majority of residents, based on the responses received, are not in favour of the proposal to implement on-street permit parking on Feltham Avenue, between Spears Street and Avon Avenue.

Contact Name:

Steve Brown

Operations Services-Traffic Division

York Civic Centre

Tel: 394-2655Fax: 394-2758

  2

15 Robina Avenue

Zoning By-law Amendment Application

G. Bettencourt Designs Ltd.

Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the Supplementary Report dated February 9, 1999 from the Director, Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the Zoning Amendment Application submitted by G. Bettencourt Designs Ltd. be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report.

The York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director, Community Planning, West District, to consult with the applicant and the deputant, in an effort to resolve the issue of fencing on the property at 15 Robina Avenue, through the Site Plan approval process; and to provide the applicant and the deputant with proper notice when arranging future meetings.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a statutory public meeting on December 9, 1998 which was continued on February 17, 1999, in accordance with Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The York Community Council submits the following Supplementary Report (February 9, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To report on revisions to the proposal following consultation with the applicant, as directed by Community Council, to address an increased front yard setback and less height and density for the units closest to the existing community.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)the recommendations contained in the staff report dated October 26, 1998, be approved;

(2)further refinements be made to the revised proposal to address urban design issues noted in this report as part of the Site Plan Approval process while reflecting a development that is substantially in accordance with the revised plans; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to give effect thereto.

Background:

At a Planning Act Public Meeting on December 16, 1998, York Community Council considered our planning report recommending approval of an application to amend Zoning By-law 1-83 to permit the development of four semi-detached dwellings at 15 Robina Avenue, and heard deputations on the proposal. The Community Council adopted a motion to:

1.Defer consideration of the matter to its January 20, 1999 meeting;

2.Direct the Director of Community Planning, West District, to consult with the applicant in the interim and to report back on a graduated proposal from a design perspective, with the units closer to the community having less height and density; and that this report be forwarded to the community and the applicant, when available;

3.Receive the deputations.

Comment:

Deputations received by Community Council at the Public Meeting expressed objections to the proposal based on concerns regarding:

-height, as it creates shadow impact and loss of view from the south facing windows on the existing two storey dwelling house abutting on the north;

-shallow front yard setback as it contributes to loss of view and light for the abutting property to the north;

-narrow side yard width as it can impede access to the rear yard of the property abutting to the north;

-size and design of the semi-detached dwellings with built-in garages, small elevated porches with a prominent front stair feature and a minimal green front yard area as this is not in keeping with the style and character of existing older dwellings in the neighbourhood.

Consultation with the Applicant:

As directed, Community Planning staff consulted with the applicant. In response to the concerns raised at the public meeting, the applicant has submitted revised plans which lower the height of the north pair of semi-detached units by providing sloped driveways to slightly depressed garages. The slope does not exceed the maximum 6 percent gradient as required by the Zoning By-law. The northerly two pairs of semi-detached houses have also been set back a further 1.52 metres (5 feet) from the 4.5 metre (15 feet) setback from the front lot line originally proposed.

The additional setback allows more sunlight to penetrate the adjacent side yard and south facing windows at 19 Robina Avenue. Revisions have not been made to reduce density or increase side yard setback as the applicant and staff view the proposed built form and side yard setbacks compatible to the existing built form in the neighbourhood. A revised Site Plan and a revised Elevation Plan is attached as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, respectively.

Urban Design staff within the Community Planning Division have commented that the original plans reflected a scale of development that was generally sympathetic to the neighbourhood. They have indicated that new trees of significant caliper should replace the large tree proposed to be removed, further detailing of the front brick elevation, detailing driveways with interlocking pavers, and maximizing the planting opportunities along the streetscape should be considered at the Site Plan Approval stage. Subject to these considerations the revised plans are acceptable to Urban Design staff.

It is recommended that further refinements to the proposal to improve urban design issues while reflecting a development that is substantially in accordance with the revised proposal be addressed through Site Plan Approval. The revised proposal does not necessitate changes to the proposed By-law.

Conclusion:

The applicant has set back the proposed semi-detached houses further from the front lot line to allow more light to penetrate the side yard between 15 and 19 Robina. The height of the proposed semi-detached houses has also been reduced to reflect the height of the adjacent house. Planning staff have no objections to the proposed changes and recommend approval of the application and draft zoning by-law, as set out in the report dated October 26, 1998.

It is also recommended that further refinements to the proposal to address urban design issues noted in this report while reflecting the development substantially as set out in the revised plans attached to this report, be addressed through Site Plan Approval.

Contact Name:

Wendy Johncox, Senior Planner

York Civic Centre

Tel:394-2868

Fax:394-2782

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1: Revised Site Plan for 15 Robina Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix 2: Revised Elevation for 15 Robina Avenue

The following persons appeared before the Community Council on February 17, 1999 in connection with the foregoing:

-Ms. Coreen Morrison, who expressed concerns regarding the height of the semis, that the land to the south slopes down and those units are higher than her property, and are in fact on a much larger scale, requested that they be lowered to be more in keeping with the scale of the existing buildings, her property is a duplex with tenants whose view and sunlight would be obstructed by looking at a brick wall, the space between the properties is also very restrictive and is concerned for safety in view of the limited access for emergency vehicles, requested that the townhouses be pushed back or lowered , the steps at the front should be more in keeping with the neighbourhood, there are also the issues of privacy and noise as her bedrooms are at the rear and the windows are opened during the summer months; and has been trying to work with the applicant and the City to reach an agreement.

-Mr. Greg Bettencourt, Applicant, advised that application has been revised in an effort of compromise, the development in terms of its use and size are desirable with the existing uses and will improve the neighbourhood, revisions have been made in that two pairs of semis have been set back a further 5 feet.

The York Community Council also submits the following report (October 26, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a proposed amendment to Zoning By-Law No. 1-83 for the property at 15 Robina Avenue to change the zoning from LC-Local Commercial Residential to R.-Residential Zone to permit the development of semi-detached dwellings.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application be approved, subject to the holding of a Planning Act Public Meeting to obtain the views of the community;

(2)the York Zoning By-Law No. 1-83 be amended in accordance with the draft Zoning By-Law Amendment attached as Schedule 1 to this report.

Background:

Proposal:

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct 8 (4 pairs) semi-detached houses, each on their own lot with a height of 3 storeys and a built in single car garage at grade. Four of the lots and 2.3 metres of the fifth lot, will be in the former City of York, and the remainder will be in the former City of Toronto. (See Appendix 2: Site Plan and Appendix 3: Elevations).

Project Details:

Total Site Area1.6 ha3.95 ac

York Site Area0.97 ha2.4 ac

Total Gross Floor Area1,520 ^me16,361 ^ft

York Gross Floor Area922 ^me9,924 ^ft

Dwelling Unit Gross Floor Area203.9 ^me2,195 ^ft

Density 0.95 FBI

Units 4+portion

Parking

Required1 per unit = 4

Provided1 per unit = 4

Green Landscaped Open Space14 percent

percentage of Front Yard

Site and Surrounding Area:

The application site is located north of St. Clair Avenue West on the east side of Robina Avenue and is part of a larger site that extends into the former Cities of York and Toronto. The entire site has a frontage of 47.9 metres (157 feet) and an area 1.6 hectares. The York portion has a frontage of 24.4 metres (80 feet) and an area of 0.97 hectares. A two storey vacant building, previously used by the YMCA for social and recreational programmes, currently is located on the site. (See Appendix 1 - Site Location Map)

Uses surrounding the site are as follows:

North:Single detached dwellings

East:Food Store and associated surface parking lot

South:Commercial building on St. Clair West

West:18 storey apartment building

Comments:

Official Plan and Zoning By-Law:

The site is designated Mixed Use Commercial and Residential in the Official Plan which permits residential uses in single use or mixed use buildings. The site is zoned LC - Local Commercial Residential in York and MAR. - Mixed Commercial Residential in Toronto. Both former municipalities allow commercial uses and a variety of residential uses in these zones. However, York zoning does not allow semi-detached houses in LC zones, therefore a rezoning is required to permit the development. The Toronto portion does not require rezoning but will require approval of variances to zoning regulations by the Committee of Adjustment. The application has not yet been made.

Departmental Comments:

Works and Emergency Services requires the owner to bear the cost of extending the existing municipal sewer and waterman to service this site, and to submit a grading plan to show all storm run-off draining to the street. These matters will be addressed through the Site Plan approval processes.

A provision has been included in the draft zoning by-law (See Schedule 1) to require that no building shall be erected on the lands unless a municipal sewer and waterman, located within the Robina Avenue road allowance, are available to directly service the lands.

The Community Services Department and Fire Services have no comments.

The Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Boards, the Buildings Section and Health Department have not responded and therefore have no comment on the matter.

Evaluation:

(a)Compatibility with the Neighbourhood

Location to the north of the site is a well established stable low density residential area comprised of detached houses. Directly west of the site is an 18 storey apartment building and to the east is a supermarket. Mixed commercial and residential uses line both sides of St. Clair Avenue West to the south. This site serves as a transition area between the mixed use zone and the low density residential area to the north.

The traffic impact resulting from the development will be minimal. Existing services in the area are sufficient to meet the needs of the new residents. There appears to be little or no impact from this small residential infill project which is compatible with surrounding uses.

(b)Former Zoning By-Law No. 1-83 and City of Toronto requirements

Both former municipalities require a lot frontage to be a minimum of 6.0 metres for a semi-detached dwelling. The proposed internal proposed lots for are each 5.486 metres (18 feet), and the ends lots are: York 5.663 metres (18.6 feet) and Toronto 5.692 metres (18.75 feet). The alternative of slightly smaller lot widths to permit this infill development is acceptable.

That portion of the proposed project located in the former City of Toronto will require the Committee of Adjustment approval to permit a minor variance to lot width and to permit the proposed built-in garages which are not permitted by the City of Toronto MAR. zoning.

The draft by-law permitting the proposed development in the former City of York is structured in such a way as to allow for some flexibility so that if the Committee refused, or required alterations to the plans, the York by-law would not require further amendment.

Appropriate development standards regarding floor space index, building setbacks, and landscaped areas to permit this development are included in the draft by-law attached as Schedule 1.

Conclusions:

The proposed semi-detached houses are in keeping with the character of the area. The application is compatible and appropriate for the site and is recommended for approval. Site Plan Approval is required for the portion of this project in the former City of York. Future Committee of Adjustment consent approval will be required to enable conveyance of each semi-detached dwelling and lot.

Contact Name:

Wendy Johncox, Senior Planner

York Civic Centre

Tel: 394-2869 Fax: 394-2782

SCHEDULE 1 - DRAFT ZONING BY-LAW

BY-LAW No._________

To Amend former City of York By-law No. 1-83

Re: 15 Robina Avenue

WHEREAS authority is given to Council by Section 34 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and

WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with The Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto, HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

SECTION 6 - AMENDED

1.THAT Section 6 of the former City of York Zoning By-law No. 1-83, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following new Subsection (56):

"(56)MAP 15

By changing the area shown on District Map 15, comprising the lands described in Schedule "A" hereto, from an LC District to an R. District and by amending District Map 15 accordingly."

SECTION 16 - AMEN DED

2.THAT Section 16 of the former City of York Zoning By-law No. 1-83, as amended, is further amended by adding the following new Subsection (379):

"(379)15 ROBINA AVENUE

Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsections 3(a), 3(c) and 3(d) of Section 8 of this By-law, the lands municipally known as 15 Robina Avenue, which lands more particularly described in Schedule "A" hereto, may be used for semi-detached houses permitted under Section 8 of this By-law, subject to the following conditions:

(a)The minimum lot frontage shall be 5.4 metres;

(b)The minimum side yard width shall be 0.6 metres;

(c)The maximum floor space index shall be 0.95;

(d)The maximum height of the building shall be 11.0 metres with not more than 3 storeys;

(e)A minimum of 14 percent of the area of the front yard, excluding the area covered by any porch, verandah, deck or balcony shall be green landscaped open space. No portion of the required green landscaped open space may be used for the parking of motor vehicles;

(f)The portion of the residential building containing a private garage shall not be constructed more than 0.6 metres closer to the front lot line than that portion of the residential building that does not contain the private garage;

(g)No building shall be erected on the lands described in Schedule "S" hereto unless a municipal sewer and waterman, located within the Robina Avenue road allowance, are available to directly service the said lands; and

(h)All other provisions of this By-law shall continue to apply except in cases when those provisions are in conflict with the provisions and Schedule of this Subsection, in which case the provisions and Schedule of this Subsection shall prevail."

3.SUBJECT to the provisions of Section 34 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, this By-law shall come into force and effect on the date of its passing.

ENACTED and PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

SCHEDULE 'A'

to City of Toronto By-law No.________

and to Subsection (56) of Section 6 and Subsection (379)

of Section 16, of Zoning By-law No. 1-83.

Lot on Registered Plan 2317, save and except for the northerly four feet six inches throughout from front to rear of the said Lot 17, in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of York), registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Registry Division of Toronto (No. 64).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map for 15 Robina Avenue - Appendix 1

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Site Plan for 15 Robina Avenue - Appendix 2

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Front Elevation - Appendix 3

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Side an Rear Elevations - Appendix 3

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Front Elevations - All Units - Appendix 3

The York Community Council on December 9, 1998, also had before it the following communications:

(I)(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Coreen Morrison, Toronto, expressing objections to the proposal based on the following:

-the height - as shown on the front elevation the semis will be substantially higher than her property and any others on the street; the houses in particular semis 1 and 2 at the north end of the proposal, will completely block all view from her southern windows and further block all direct sunlight from the south exposure of her property; and requesting that the applicant revise the proposal to reduce the height; suggesting that they be lowered by placing the garages below grade and pushing the buildings back easterly from the lot line to maintain source of light and view; requesting that the City require the applicant conduct a shadow study of the effects of this proposal on her property, prior to approval;

-side yard width and access to rear yard - the proposed side yard setbacks appear to be much less than presently allowed; if the semis are located as indicated, there will no longer be access to her rear yard from the front of the house; if a fence is erected as proposed, this will leave only two feet and one inch of space between her property and the fence, severely impeding ability to travel over the southern portion of her property; and suggesting the relocation of the semis to the east;

-compatibility of the garages - no other homes on this portion of Robina Avenue have garages protruding from the front, all garages are at the rear and accessed by driveway; the proposed garages at grade are of a very prominent design and suggested that they be lowered;

-compatibility of the front steps - the steps are a prominent feature, they are elevated and could become catch basins for blowing debris; other houses on the street have front porches with steps at street level; suggested that the steps be lowered along with a small porch or awning/railing to improve the appearance and maintain compatibility with the other homes;

-privacy/noise concerns - if semis #1 and #2 are building according to the proposal, her bedrooms will overlook their backyards; concerns regarding noise levels; suggested that the semis be built further east of the lot;

-compatibility of semis with the existing neighbourhood - there are no semi-detached dwellings on this block of Robina Avenue; all the existing properties are detached homes; any development should strive to preserve the style and character of the existing neighbourhood.

(ii)(December 9, 1998) from Ms. Susan Howieson, Toronto, advising of support for the proposal in principle, and stating that:

-the removal of a large, established tree on the property would not only significantly alter the aesthetics of the street, but it would also affect property values;

-the size of the buildings is inconsistent with other houses on the street in terms of its closeness to the sidewalk and its height;

-the current design is very different from the other houses;

-the buildings should be the same height and setback from the sidewalk, the same distance as the other established houses on the street; and there should also be a front yard area.

  3

2 Florence Crescent

Zoning By-law Amendment Application

Ravi and Kamla Singh

Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause, to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The York Community Council, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report dated January 27, 1999 from the Director, Community Planning, West District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the Zoning By-law Amendment Application submitted by Ravi and Kamla Singh be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a statutory public meeting on February 17, 1999, in accordance with Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The York Community Council submits the following report (January 27, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the continued use of an existing 48m² garage as a retail store. The garage is attached to a detached dwelling house.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application be approved;

(2)Zoning By-law No. 1-83 of the former City of York be amended in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, worded to the satisfaction of the Legal Division, attached as Schedule 1 to this report;

(3)the introduction of the Bill to pass the Zoning By-law be conditional upon the following:

(a)the owner executing a Development Agreement with the City to secure fencing and parking layout improvements; and

(b)Toronto Hydro advising that any necessary arrangements have been made to satisfy their requirements; and

(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to give effect thereto.

Background:

Site and Surrounding Area:

The 0.03 ha. (0.08 acre) subject property is located on the north-west corner of Florence Avenue and Jane Street (see Appendix 1). It has a frontage of 8.0 metres (26 ft.) on Florence Crescent and a flankage depth of 33.5 metres (110 ft.) on Jane Street. The site is occupied by a modest one and one-half storey detached house with a one-storey, 48 ^me (517 ^ft) attached rear yard garage which has been converted into a retail store without a building permit.

The existing uses surrounding the site are as follows:

North:an access driveway leading to an industrial use on the former Belt Line rail lands, and beyond the driveway, a single detached house;

South:across Florence Crescent, a two-storey mixed use commercial/residential building (first floor restaurant, second floor apartment)

East:across Jane Street, a two-storey mixed use commercial/residential building (two retail stores on the first floor, second floor apartment)

West:a single detached house

Proposal:

The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property in order to recognize and retain an existing 48 ^me retail store located in the converted attached rear garage. The site plan and building elevation drawings are attached to this report as Appendices 2 and 3, respectively. The rear yard has been asphalt paved to provide three parking spaces accessible directly from Jane Street. A one and one-half metre high wrought iron fence, including a lockable gate to control vehicular access to the parking area, is located along the Jane Street flankage property line.

Official Plan:

The Official Plan designates the site Low Density Residential which permits primarily single detached, semi-detached and duplex houses. However, this designation also permits "restricted minor commercial uses, providing a convenience to the local resident population and limited accordingly in size and orientation."

Zoning By-law:

The subject property is zoned R. - Residential which permits single detached, semi-detached and duplex homes. The R. zone does not permit retail stores.

Comments:

Agency Comments:

The Municipal Standards Division of the Urban Planning & Development Services Department has commented that they have an active file on the subject property pertaining to the existing illegal retail store use.

The Fire Department and the Works and Emergency Services Department have no objections to the proposed rezoning. Toronto Hydro also offers no objections, but advises the applicant to contact their office regarding the proposed change in use and possible service upgrade.

The Building Division has commented that, in accordance with Zoning By-law No. 1-83, one parking space is required on the subject property for the existing house. In addition, one parking space for every 47m² of gross floor area is required for the retail store. Therefore, a total of 2 parking spaces are required to be provided on the subject property to accommodate the existing house and retail store.

Neighbourhood Comments:

A letter regarding the proposed rezoning, attached as Appendix 4, has been received from Mr. M. Adamowich, owner of 740 Jane Street, an irregular-shaped property currently used for both a detached house and a legal non-conforming industrial use. The driveway of Mr. Adamowich's property abuts the rear lot line of 2 Florence Crescent. Mr. Adamowich opposes the application because the grocery business draws vehicular traffic to the property and the area cannot support additional traffic congestion. Mr. Adamowich also claims that customers and delivery trucks accessing the retail store park in his abutting driveway.

Evaluation:

The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the policies of the Official Plan which permit limited commercial uses within Low Density Residential areas. The small size of the proposed retail store and the property's location on Jane Street, which in this area is not a prominent shopping district, will dictate a clientele of primarily local residents.

With respect to local neighbourhood impact, there are several existing small commercial uses scattered along Jane Street south of Black Creek. Therefore, the proposed retail store will not conflict with the existing character of Jane Street. Furthermore, since access to the parking spaces for the retail store is from Jane Street, commercial traffic will not adversely impact Florence Avenue and the residential community.

In order to mitigate the impact of the retail store on the surrounding properties, a number of improvements to the subject property are necessary. To limit the visual impact on the abutting residential property to the west, a 1.8 metre wood screen fence will be required along the west lot line, from the front wall of the store to the rear property line. To address the concerns raised by Mr. Adamowich, a fence will be required along the north property line, abutting Mr. Adamowich's access driveway. The fence will clearly delineate the property line between the two sites and discourage illegal parking on Mr. Adamowich's lot.

With respect to parking, the 3 parking spaces proposed in the rear yard are adequate to meet the parking requirements of Zoning By-law No. 1-83. However, the parking spaces as proposed by the applicant are inappropriately positioned. Due to their angle and location along the west property line, they fail to provide adequate space for on-site turning movements, thereby requiring customers to reverse onto Jane Street. To improve access, the spaces must be located adjacent to the front wall of the proposed store and parallel to the west property line, thereby providing a 6.2 metre (20.3 ft) driveway behind the spaces in which vehicles may turn. A revised site plan identifying the appropriate parking configuration is attached as Appendix 5.

These improvements would normally be secured by agreement under a Site Plan Approval process. However, since the conversion of the garage has already occurred, there is no opportunity to apply Site Plan Approval. As an alternative means of securing the fencing and parking configuration improvements, staff recommend that the owner be required to execute a development agreement, which can include a provision for posting a financial security, prior to the introduction of the recommended Zoning By-law to City Council for enactment.

Conclusion:

The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to allow the continuance of an existing 48 ^me retail store on 2 Florence Crescent represents an acceptable and compatible use of the subject property. It conforms with the policies of the Official Plan and is in keeping with the general character of Jane Street, which is a mix of houses and minor, local retail uses. Staff, therefore, recommend approval of the application.

Staff also recommend approval of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, attached as Schedule 1 to this report, which restricts the use of the former garage on the subject property to a retail store or office with a maximum gross floor area of 50m². It requires that 3 parking spaces be provided in the rear yard of the subject property. Further, it does not permit other commercial uses, such as restaurants, public garages or recreational facilities, which may have a greater impact on the surrounding community in terms of noise or hours of operation.

Adequate fencing and a revised parking configuration, to mitigate impacts on surrounding properties, will be secured through a development agreement which the owner will be required to execute prior to passage of the By-law by City Council.

Contact Name:

Henry Byres, Senior PlannerTel: (416) 394-2618

York Civic Service CentreFax: (416) 394-2782

SCHEDULE 1 - DRAFT ZONING BY-LAW

CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW NO.__________

To amend former City of York By-law No. 1-83

Re: 2 Florence Crescent

WHEREAS authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

SECTION 16 - AMENDED

1.That Section 16 of By-law 1-83, as amended, of the former City of York, be further amended by adding a new Subsection (383) as follows:

(383)2 FLORENCE CRESCENT

Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 2 of Section 8 of this By-law, the lands municipally known as 2 Florence Crescent, which lands are more particularly described in Schedule "A" hereto, may be used for either a retail store or an office use provided the following conditions are complied with:

(a)the maximum gross floor area of the retail store or office shall not exceed 48 ^me;

(b)the retail store or office shall be located on the ground floor of the northerly-most end of the building existing at the time of enactment of the By-law to introduce this Subsection;

(c)a minimum of 3 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in the rear yard of the subject lands; and

(d)all other provisions of this By-law shall continue to apply except in the case where provisions of this Subsection are in conflict, in which case the provisions of this Subsection shall prevail."

2.Subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, this By-law shall come into force and effect on the date of its passing.

 ENACTED and PASSED this day of A.D. 1999.

SCHEDULE "A"

to City of Toronto By-law No.________

and to Subsection (383) of Section 16 of Zoning By-law No. 1-83.

All and singular that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situate, lying and being in the City of Toronto, and being composed of all of Lot 1 according to a Plan registered in the Registry Office for the Registry Division of Toronto (No. 64) as No. 1665.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1: Location Map for 2 Florence Crescent

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix 2: Site Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix 3: Building Elevations

The York Community Council submits as APPENDIX 4, the following communication (November 23, 1998) from Mr. M. Adamowich to Planning staff:

Further to our conversation on Thursday, November 5, 1998, I am forwarding this letter outlining our concerns regarding the subject property and its uses.

We oppose the application for a grocery store and the change of the zoning for the following reasons:

(a)The grocery business draws vehicular traffic which the property and the location of the property just south of the Woolner Avenue traffic lights, cannot support additional congestion.

(b)The problem is also with surplus vehicles parking in our driveway and delivery trucks off loading from our drive.

We now have a complaint from our tenant about cars parking in our driveway and turning around on our property using the area behind the house to turn around.

Any cars parking in the driveway invite others to do the same, this is particularly noticeable and a problem in the spring and summer months when people are planting in the community garden plots in the Hydro corridor.

We do not believe that a grocery store is a suitable business for this location.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following communications during consideration of the foregoing matter:

(i)(February 3, 1999) from Ms. Judy Rowe, advising that the tenants at 740A Jane Street are strongly opposed to the proposal; that the owner/landlord of both rental properties at 740 and 740A Jane Street and a forklift business adjacent to the retail store, is also opposed to the proposal; and stating that the reasons are parking problems, the use of private driveways to access the store, garbage blowing on to adjacent properties, and health and odour concerns related to the fruits and vegetables; and

(ii)(February 2, 1999) from Ms. Charlotte Bruce, indicating objection to the proposal and concerns with respect to the present illegal operation, garbage and parking problems.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 5 - Recommended Parking Configuration

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

-Mr. Morris Adamovich, expressed objection to the proposal due to problems related to customers to the store and gardeners using the plots in the Hydro corridor parking in his driveway; enquiried as to whether there will be regular or special garbage pickup and concerned regarding debris from the store blowing around the neighbourhood.

-Mr. Greg Adamowich, stated objection to the proposal; that reference was made to the erection of a chain link fence on the north side which would not resolve the problem with customers parking in their driveway; also concerned with garbage and debris; their tenant is also experiencing problems with the parking situation; and is concerned that the first recommendation in the staff report is to approve the application of an illegal business which was allowed to operate.

-Mr. Ravi Singh, Owner/Applicant, advised that he was unaware that an application had to be submitted, has complied with all the requirements; that the disposal of garbage will be looked after; that the issue of debris blowing around is out of his control; is prepared to install a fence; and that there is a need for his specialty store in that area.

  4

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - 2426-2438 Weston Road

OPA 127 (Weston Secondary Plan) and Zoning By-law

No. 3623-97 (Housing By-law Amendment)

Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, to provide that the amount of funds to retain an external Planner be approved at $20,000.00, plus taxes, plus disbursements, and charged to an account being set up within the Urban Planning and Development Services Department for the use of outside Planning Consultants.)

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the report dated January 29, 1999 from the Director, Community Planning, West District, not be adopted; and

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to retain an external Planner to represent the City's position on this matter, at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for March 22, 1999.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a public consultation meeting on February 17, 1999.

The York Community Council submits the following report (January 29, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider the applicant's proposal for a 16-storey apartment building and to give direction to staff regarding the City's position for an upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing respecting the above-noted appeal and proposal.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Community Council endorse the applicant's proposal as modified by this report and staff be directed to support the modified proposal respecting the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of Weston Secondary Plan policies and Zoning By-law 3623-97 (Housing By-law Amendment);

(2)the concerns raised by CN Rail and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be incorporated and addressed to their satisfaction, as part of the Site Plan Approval process, among any other site plan matters.

Background:

Proposal:

The owners of 2426-2438 Weston Road, who have appealed portions of the Weston Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law 3623-97, are proposing a 16-storey apartment building, generally intended for senior citizen accommodation, at a floor space index density of 3.35.

Site and Surrounding Area:

The subject lands are located on the west side of Weston Road immediately north of the CN Rail line, south of Highway 401. The property has an area of 0.47 hectares (1.16 acres) and a frontage on Weston Road of 59 metres (193 ft.). A location map is attached as Appendix 1 to this report. The lands are currently occupied by four detached houses.

The existing uses surrounding the site are as follows:

North:two, 27-storey apartment buildings;

South:CN Rail line and an isolated area of detached homes (Humberview Crescent) south of the rail line;

East:a series of small industrial/commercial businesses across Weston Road;

West:Humber River and ravine.

Official Plan:

The Housing Official Plan Amendment Number 122, adopted in 1995, designated the subject lands High Density Residential, which permits a density within a range of 125 to 300 units per hectare and a maximum floor space index "generally not exceeding 3.0 f.s.i.."

In 1997, the former City of York Council adopted Official Plan Amendment Number 127, the Weston Secondary Plan, which established a maximum floor space index (f.s.i.) of 2.5 and maximum height of eight storeys for the Weston Road High Density Residential Corridor, within which 2426-2438 Weston Road is included in proximity to its northern limit. The Weston Secondary Plan also set out the following site-specific policies regarding 2426-2438 Weston Road:

5.8.1Notwithstanding the aforementioned clauses, it is recognized that the lands at 2426 to 2438 Weston Road have some particular constraints with respect to access to and from Weston Road, and to setbacks from the Humber River Valley and the CN railway right-of-way. These constraints may limit the density that can be appropriately achieved on these lands. Development proposals for this site shall be accommodated by detailed plans and site-specific studies as part of the implementing Zoning By-law application to determine whether the maximum density of 2.5 f.s.i. can be achieved to address access to and from Weston Road.

5.8.2Notwithstanding the general policy of having an 8 storey height limit along the Weston Corridor, some minor adjustment to this limit may be considered for this site subject to urban design review and the ability of the site to accommodate a redevelopment project.

Zoning By-law:

On October 1, 1997, the former City of York Council passed Zoning By-law 3623-97 (Housing Zoning By-law Amendment) which, as per Council's direction and against the recommendation of planning staff, rezoned the subject lands from R.-Residential (a low density zone permitting detached, semi-detached and duplex houses) to RM2-Residential Multiple which permits higher-density house forms including apartments. In keeping with the policies of the Weston Secondary Plan, the RM2 zone permits a maximum density of 2.5 f.s.i. and maximum height of eight storeys. A units per hectare density is not stipulated by the Secondary Plan.

Zoning By-law 3623-97 also establishes a 45 degree angular plane provision, a minimum front yard setback of 1.0 metres and a maximum front yard setback of 6.0 metres. Taken together, these regulations encourage buildings to be constructed close to the street, but, through the angular plane provision, limit the visual impact of higher profile buildings by requiring the upper floors to be "stepped back" a greater distance from the street or adjacent low density residential areas.

Ontario Municipal Board Appeals:

The owners of the subject lands have appealed the maximum floor space index and maximum height as established by the Weston Secondary Plan, as well as site specific policies 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 of the Secondary Plan as noted above. They have also appealed those sections of Zoning By-law 3623-97 pertaining to maximum floor space index, maximum height, minimum/maximum front yard setback and angular plane provisions.

The owners contend that the Secondary Plan policies, maximum height and density provisions, and the other development regulations noted above are unreasonably restrictive and will inappropriately limit the redevelopment potential of the subject lands.

A series of Ontario Municipal Board Pre-Hearing Conferences have been held respecting the above-noted appeals. As a result of the conferences, the appellants were required by the Board, under a Procedural Order issued on October 14, 1998, to submit for the City's review and comment, plans for the proposed redevelopment of the site. The plans were to address the issues before the Board as described above, as well as site access and egress, which was identified as an issue by planning staff, given the site's location abutting the CN Rail over pass on Weston Road and it's impacts on motorist's sight lines and visibility.

Originally, under the Board's Procedural Order, planning staff were to have provided our comments to the appellants 15 days prior to the full OMB Hearing, which was scheduled for January 4, 1999. However, once the plans and drawings were received from the appellant, staff considered that a negotiated settlement could be achieved, and requested that the Hearing be adjourned until Community Council had an opportunity to consider, and if acceptable, endorse, planning staff's position on the redevelopment plans for the subject lands. The Ontario Municipal Board approved the adjournment and rescheduled the Hearing for the week of March 22, 1999.

Comment:

Development Plans:

Redevelopment plans were submitted by the appellants to the City on November 20, 1998. The plans were accompanied by a preliminary traffic assessment from the appellant's traffic consultant. Reduced copies of the site plan and building elevations are attached as Appendices 2 and 3 to this report. The Preliminary Traffic Report is attached as Appendix 4. A summary of the project statistics is provided below.

Site Area:0.47 ha (1.16 acres)

Units:216

Density:460 uph./186 upa

Gross Floor Area:15,691.8 ^me/168,910.6 ^ft

Floor Space Index:3.35

Unit Size:ranging from 60 ^me (650 ^ft) to 88 ^me (950 ^ft)

Parking Provided:0.55 space/unit - 120 spaces (including 8 visitor)

Parking Required:

senior citizen non-profit

or publicly subsidized0.4 space/unit - 86 spaces

apartment

apartment house0.85 space/unit for bachelor and 1 bedroom;

0.95 space/unit for 2 bedroom and greater; and

0.25 space/unit visitor parking

condominium apartment1.0 space/unit for bachelor and 1 bedroom;

house1.2 spaces/unit for 2 bedroom and greater; and

0.25 space/unit visitor parking

The Weston Road elevation of the building is stepped back at the 9th and 13th storeys, and the rear wall of the building facing the Humber ravine is stepped back at the 13th and 16th storeys. The main entrance to the building is recessed beneath the upper floors.

Vehicular access to the property is proposed by means of a "right-in" entrance at the north extent of the property and a "right-out" access at the south end of the property. A three level parking garage (underground level, grade level and roof level) is proposed along the south property line, acting as a buffer between the CN Rail corridor and the building. A loading and garbage removal bay is proposed between the apartment building and the entrance to the parking garage.

A total of 120 parking spaces are proposed, 112 within the garage and eight visitor spaces located off the access driveway. The parking spaces proposed comply with the requirements of Zoning By-law 1-83 for a non-profit or publicly subsidized seniors' apartment building, but do not meet the minimum By-law requirements for a market rental apartment or a condominium development.

According to the project architect, an increase in parking supply could be achieved through the provision of an additional underground parking area, should the proposed development be subject to higher parking standards under Zoning By-law 1-83.

Department and Agency Comments:

Planning staff circulated the plans and preliminary traffic report to the appropriate departments and agencies for review and comment. The plans were also sent for comment to the consultant who undertook the Weston Secondary Plan Study, Mr. Joe Berridge of Urban Strategies Inc.. The comments received, as well as planning staff's comments, have been organized below based upon the issues before the Ontario Municipal Board.

i)Building Design and Site Considerations

Maximum Height and Density (Floor Space Index)

Mr. Berridge reviewed the proposed development based upon the policies and urban design guidelines of the Weston Secondary Plan. Mr. Berridge raised concerns with the height and scale of the proposal in that it doesn't quite maintain and enhance the "main street" qualities of the Weston Road Corridor. Notwithstanding the consultant's concerns, given the constraints of the site, staff believe that a height of 14 storeys, stepped back as per the plans submitted by the appellants, and an increase in density from 2.5 f.s.i., the maximum allowed by the Weston Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law 3623-97, to 3.0 f.s.i., is acceptable based primarily upon the following considerations:

-the unique and somewhat isolated location of the subject lands on the fringe of the Weston Road Corridor, beyond the CN Rail overpass, which functions as a physical, visual and psychological barrier between the "main street" area of Weston Road to the south, and the area north of the overpass which exhibits less of a "main street" character;

-a reasonable increase in height and density will allow for a more gradual visual transition between the existing 27-storey apartment towers immediately north of the subject lands and the core of the Weston Road "main street" area located south of the CN Rail overpass, for which 8 storeys is the maximum permitted height; and

-notwithstanding the maximum densities allowed under the Weston Secondary Plan, the Official Plan's general housing policies respecting high density residential areas allows a maximum floor space index "up to, but not generally exceeding 3.0;"

-by "stepping" the building back above the 8th and 12th floors, the visual impact of additional height on Weston Road can be minimized and the architectural interest of the building can be enhanced.

Setback from CN Rail Line

CN Rail has commented that they object to the proposed development since it does not comply with their Principal Main Line Requirements, which include a required 30 metre (98 ft.) setback of the building from the railway right-of-way. The proposed development provides a 21 metre setback to the apartment building. CN's requirements also address issues such as noise attenuation barriers and ground vibration transmissions. CN has requested that they be advised of the City's position with respect to the proposed development and that they receive notice of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

It is noted that notice of the passing of By-law 3623-97 was given directly to CN Rail. The notice clearly identified the site and indicated that the RM2 zoning of the site permitted apartment buildings at a height of eight storeys and with a maximum floor space index of 2.5. CN Rail did not appeal Zoning By-law 3623-97.

The reduced setback from the rail right-of-way as proposed by the appellant is critical to the redevelopment potential of the lands as proposed. It is the responsibility of the property owners to approach CN Rail to determine whether the required 30 metre setback can be reduced in favour of other or enhanced impact mitigation measures. On the basis of discussions with the appellant, staff believe that a resolution of this issue can be addressed at the site plan approval stage with enhanced mitigation measure details and design drawings provided to and approved by CN Rail for incorporation as part of site plan approval. CN Rail agrees with this position, provided they receive assurance from Council that these concerns will be addressed to CN's satisfaction. Recommendation number two of this report requires that CN Rail's concerns be incorporated and addressed to their satisfaction, as part of the site plan approval process.

Planning staff will forward a copy of this report to CN Rail, along with minutes of Community Council and Council to confirm the City's position with respect to this matter.

Rear Yard Setback

The subject property is located in close proximity to the Humber River ravine. The proposed parking garage and apartment building are setback a minimum of 17 metres (56 ft.) and 25 metres (82 ft.), respectively, from the rear lot line. From the drawings submitted, it appears the top-of-bank is located off-site, seven metres west of the rear lot line of the property.

With respect to the location of the proposed development relative to the Humber ravine, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has commented that it has no objection, provided that a geotechnical investigation be conducted to determine the overall stability of the slope and the location of the long term stable slope line, and that a detailed grading plan be submitted for their review. The Authority also requires that all lands below the long term stable slope line be placed into public ownership.

Like those offered by CN Rail, the requirements of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority can be satisfied through the Site Plan Approval process.

Vehicular Access and Egress

The City's Transportation Department has reviewed the plans and preliminary traffic report and has commented that, ultimately, the most appropriate access to the subject lands would be gained via a right-of-way over the abutting lands to the north containing the two 27-storey apartment buildings. Such a right-of-way would permit access to the subject lands to be controlled by the traffic lights at the Weston Road - Oak Street intersection.

If a right-of-way cannot be negotiated with the owners of the abutting lands, the Transportation Department will permit a "right-in" access at the north end of the property, and a "right-out" egress at the south end. A "left-in" access may be permitted at the north end of the property pending the submission, by the owner, of a southbound Weston Road traffic gap study. This matter may be resolved at the site plan control stage.

Front Yard Setback and Pedestrian Amenities

Zoning By-law 3623-97 establishes a minimum front yard setback of 1.0 metre and maximum front yard setback of 6.0 metres. The objective is to encourage buildings to locate close to the street, thereby maintaining a "main street" environment.

The proposed apartment building provides a maximum front yard setback of 7.5 metres, due primarily to the location of the driveway between the front building wall and the front property line. The proposed setback is established from the proposed westerly limit of Weston Road as widened to meet the 27 metre desired road allowance width established by the Metropolitan Official Plan. Since there appear to be no other appropriate options for the design and location of the driveway, the proposed 7.5 metre maximum front yard setback is acceptable and in keeping with the intent of the regulation contained within Zoning By-law 3623-97.

However, the proposed treatment of the front yard area is an issue for planning staff. The site plan for the development identifies eight parking spaces in the front yard off the access driveway, and makes no provision for pedestrian or handicapped access to the Weston Road sidewalk. Although these matters will be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process, it is appropriate to note at this stage that eight visitor parking spaces in the front yard may be excessive in terms of their impact on available landscaping area, and that appropriate pedestrian and handicapped connections to the Weston Road sidewalk will be required.

Height and Angular Plane

As mentioned above, Zoning By-law 3623-97 establishes a 45 degree angular plane for the purpose of regulating building height. In the case of the proposed redevelopment, the angular plane is to be drawn from the opposite limit of the existing Weston Road right-of-way instead of the limit of the possible future road right-of-way at it's prescribed 27 metre width as shown in the Schematic Section drawing attached as Appendix 3.

Upon review of this matter, the stepped-back design of the building height would fall well within the 45 degree angular plane regulation as correctly applied from the opposite existing Weston Road street line when the 15th and 16th floors are removed and the mechanical penthouse is lowered accordingly. Staff view that maintaining the proposed stepping of the building away from Weston Road is important in order to minimize the visual impact of the additional height proposed and to enhance the design and appearance of the building. However, given the proposed 7.5 metre front yard setback, regulating the stepping of the building as proposed cannot be appropriately ensured only by the use of the 45 degree angular plane provision. Therefore, staff propose to set out additional setback regulations in the By-law for the 9th through 12th and 13th through 14th storeys of the building, rather than relying solely on the 45 degree angular plane provision.

It should also be noted that the Schematic Section drawing submitted incorrectly depicts the height of the existing 27 storey apartment buildings located immediately north of the subject lands in relation to the height of the proposed development.

ii)Other Planning Considerations

Parkland

The subject lands are in close proximity to Mallaby Park, located at the north-west corner of Weston Road and St. Phillips Road, and to the North Parkette, located on the east side of Weston Road, immediately south of the CN Rail Corridor. Parks and Recreation staff have advised that a northward extension to Cruikshank Park, located along Humber River to the south of the subject lands, with access in close proximity to the subject lands is being considered. Such an extension would improve the subject land's location relative to the Humber River parks system.

Services and Accessibility

With respect to local services and shopping opportunities, the Crossroads Plaza is located on the east side of Weston Road, just north of the subject lands. The Plaza contains several large anchor stores including a food store.

The subject lands are serviced by three bus routes which travel this section of Weston Road, and are within four kilometres of the Weston Station of GO Transit's Toronto to Georgetown Line. The TTC has been in contact with the project architect and is confident that access to the site can be designed to accommodate Wheel Trans vehicles.

Schools

Both the Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District School Boards have based their comments upon the possibility that the proposed apartment may be a market rental or condominium development, and not a seniors residence.

The Toronto District School Board advises that junior and middle school students emanating from the proposed development can be accommodated at the H.J. Alexander and C.R. Marchant schools, but only upon the scheduled September, 1999 completion of the new Portage Trail Junior and Middle Community Schools. High school students can be accommodated at Weston Collegiate Institute.

The Toronto Catholic District School Board has commented that a preliminary review of the proposal indicates that the elementary and secondary schools serving the subject area could not accommodate students emanating from this development.

It should be noted that notice of the passing of By-law 3623-97 was given directly to both the Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards. The notice clearly identified the site and indicated that the RM2 zoning of the site permitted apartment buildings at a height of eight storeys and with a maximum floor space index of 2.5. Neither Board appealed Zoning By-law 3623-97. By way of this report, the Ontario Municipal Board will be advised of the School Boards' comments.

Public Consultation:

As there has been no public awareness and consultation regarding the proposal, public notification has been provided to advise of Community Council's consideration of the matter in an information meeting forum at the February 17 Community Council Meeting. The protocol for Planning Act Public Meeting notification has been used to assist Community Council in making an informed decision on the direction staff is to follow for the upcoming O.M.B. hearing on the matter.

Conclusion:

Based upon the comments noted above, and subject to the endorsement of Community Council, planning staff are prepared to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on March 22, 1999 and present the following position in support of a modified proposal.

Official Plan Appeal (Weston Secondary Plan):

The plans submitted by the appellant have demonstrated the extent to which subject lands may be reasonably redeveloped. Therefore, the planning staff opinion with respect to the appeal of the Weston Secondary Plan Amendment to the former City of York Official Plan, is that the subject lands continue to be designated High Density Residential as per the Weston Secondary Plan; however, site specific policies 5.8.1 and 5.8.2, as noted above, which refer to the subject lands, be replaced with the following site specific policy:

5.8.1Notwithstanding the aforementioned clauses, the lands at 2426 to 2438 Weston Road may be redeveloped to a maximum density of 3.0 F.S.I. and maximum height of 14 storeys, provided the visual impact of the additional building height beyond the eighth storey be minimized by stepping the building back from Weston Road above the eighth storey.

Zoning By-law No. 3623-97:

It is recommended that the regulations of Zoning By-law No. 3623-97 apply to the subject property along with the following provisions:

-the maximum floor space index shall be 3.0 f.s.i.;

-the maximum building height shall be 14 storeys, and in addition to the 45 degree angular plane requirement, a 5.0 metre step back at the 9th and a 4.0 metre step back at the 13th storey, from Weston Road shall be required; and

-the minimum front yard setback shall remain at 1.0 metre and the maximum front yard setback shall be 7.5 metres.

The staff position noted above reflecting a modified proposal was presented and discussed with the appellant's agent. The agent has orally advised that, with Council's approval, the appellant is prepared to support the modified proposal implementing the Official Plan policy and zoning regulations as set out in this report and will further address the matter at Community Council on February 17, 1999.

It is felt that the staff position represents an acceptable compromise between the maximum height and densities proposed by the Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law No. 3623-97 and the owners' proposal for a 16 storey apartment building with a floor space index of 3.35. Staff's position is acceptable to the appellant and, with Council's approval, would establish a settlement agreement which can be presented to the Ontario Municipal Board. Staff also recommend that CN Rail's concerns be satisfactorily addressed at the site plan approval stage.

The amended policies and zoning regulations proposed by staff will result in a development which will be in character with the surrounding area, and will not jeopardize the "main street" objectives of the policies and zoning for the remainder of the Weston Road high density residential corridor.

Staff therefore recommend that Council endorse the applicant's proposal, with modifications noted herein, as the basis for the City's position at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The amended policy and regulations noted above will be prepared in Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment format for consideration by the Ontario Municipal Board at the March 22, 1999 hearing.

Contact Name:

Henry Byres, Senior Planner

York Civic Service Centre

Tel: (416) 394-2618Fax: (416) 394-2782

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1 - Location Map

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix 2 - Site Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix 3 - Building Elevations & Section

Insert Table/Map No. 4

West Elevation

Insert Table/Map No. 5

North Elevation

Insert Table/Map No. 6

South Elevation

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Schematic east-west section (building envelope)

The York Community Council submits as APPENDIX 4, PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC REPORT, the following communication (November 20, 1998) from Mr. Michael Tedesco, Principal, Tedesco Engineering, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding 2420-2436 Weston Road, Review of Site Plan/Proposed Access (Transportation District 1):

In response to your memorandum of November 2, 1998 to Henry Byres concerning for the subject site, I report to you as follows:

I concur with your assessment that:

"Access is a major issue concerning this site as it relates to existing site distance constraints on Weston Road and the proximity of the proposed driveway to the (signal-controlled) Oak Street and Weston Road intersection."

As per your suggestion, my client is currently seeking to negotiate a right of way over the neighbouring 2450-2460 Weston Road property to provide egress (only) at the Oak Street signal, rather than access shown on the preliminary site plan you reviewed. While the owner of the neighbouring property has been contacted, my client wishes to concurrently seek an access solution that is independent of the acquisition of such a right of way.

My client has therefore requested his architect to modify the site plan to show:

(i)A right-in/right-out access at the north limit of the property; and

(ii)A second access point at the south limit of the property for "outbound movements only".

It is this modified site plan that is the subject of my review.

Traffic Generation:

There are 212 residential units proposed.

Based upon the trip-generation rates I have previously used for an earlier development proposal immediately south of the subject property (and south of the tracks), I have estimated that the proposed development could potentially generate:

AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour

Inbound12vph70 vph

Outbound80 vph40 vph

In round numbers the peak direction volumes represent approximately 1 to 1.5 vehicles per minute, which can typically be readily accommodated with modest/acceptable impacts.

The applicant is currently seeking permission for a seniors-only building, hence, forecast traffic volumes would be considerably lower.

Proposed Access:

I have under two site visits for the purpose of assessment site lines for both the north and south proposed access driveways.

Based upon my field inspection, I have reached the following conclusions:

(I)South Access:

Permission of outbound left turns at the south proposed access would not be safe. Although outbound traffic is afforded a view to south (under the rail bridge) to the Weston-St. Phillips signal, the view is partially obscured by the center median column support. Furthermore, the site lines only extend between 4 and 6 seconds to the south, depending open the speed of approaching traffic, i.e. when an exiting motorist first sees an oncoming (northbound Weston Road vehicle), that vehicle would reach the proposed driveway in only 4 to 6 seconds. Such a short period of time is not sufficient to safely negotiate a left turn movement into the northbound traffic stream, particularly in wet conditions. A sight "distance" of at least 7 or 8 seconds should be provided.

The proposed south driveway, therefore, should be limited to outbound right turn movements only.

Considering the location of the garage ramping system proposed for the site plan, it is logical to provide an egress driveway at the south limit of the property. In order to enforce prohibition of outbound left turns at this location, a raised concrete median should be constructed opposite the driveway in the "shadow" of the railway bridge support columns.

(ii)North Limit:

At this juncture, my client is only seeking permission for right in/right out at this location until such time as his negotiations for a right-of-way are concluded.

With respect to this north proposed access driveway, the site lines at this location are improved. In fact, an approximately 8 second view to the south is available, Hence, from the standpoint of sight lines only, permission of outbound left turns could be accommodated. (I recognize that other factors would also need to be considered, particularly operational impacts.) This option will only be further investigated if the negotiations are unsuccessful.

With respect to enforcing the right in/right, the applicant proposes construction of a modest channelization island. While this will have some effect, it should be reinforced with a turn prohibition sign and, if physically feasible, a raised centre concrete median.

An alternative that I have suggested to my client is simply to permit inbound movements only at this location. Again, such an arrangement would be consistent with the "logic" of the internal site circulation. As well, it would relieve any congestion that might otherwise occur in the vicinity of the front door as a result of drop-off activity.

Finally, consideration could also be given to permitting inbound left turns at this location given the existence of a left turn lane and the creation of gaps afforded by the signal. Such a permission would work best if the north driveway were limited to inbound movements only.

Site Plan

There are a few relatively minor modifications that I propose for the site plan, including:

-Providing an inside turning radius of 9.0 metres for on-site truck circulation. (This may result in the loss of parking stall number "9" near the front door.)

-modifying the driveways as per my comments relating to access.

I trust this preliminary assessment adequately responds to your request for further review of the proposed access arrangement. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please feel free to call me directly.

--------

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

-Mr. Sid Tenenbaum, owner of 2450-2460 Weston Road advised that the applicant's proposal would require road widening which would reach over the building's underground parking garage; that there is an opportunity to push the building closer to the street line; and that the Weston Secondary Plan sets out a maximum density of 2.5 f.s.i. but that the Planning report indicated a preference for 3 f.s.i.

-Mr. Rob Draper stated that the Weston Secondary Plan was formulated by resident groups; that a considerable amount of time and money was spent on the development of this plan; that the project is in an already congested area, that the recommended 3 f.s.i. is in contravention of the Secondary Plan; concerned regarding vehicular access to and exit from the site; that there was no response to the traffic study; that the report indicated the building is "generally" intended for seniors, in which case the parking requirements would be different.

-Mr. Sandy Ross commented that the residents spent considerable time on the Weston Secondary Plan and would like support for their efforts.

-Albert Pietersma advised of his involvement in the preparation of the Secondary Plan; is not in agreement with the recommendation; the report is lacking in documentation; and the recommendations should be rejected.

-Kevin O'Brien, owner of the largest portion of the property advised that they were forced to appeal to the OMB; had requested that the property not be included in the secondary plan; and requested that the proposal be approved.

-John Gribben requested that the community be asked to indicate whether they are in favour.

-Elaine Heaton stated objection to the project.

-Tuffy Zidner, Chair of Weston BIA, advised of objection to the proposal.

-Marjorie Sutton expressed concern that if there are contravention to the height restrictions in the Weston Secondary Plan, the same can be expected for the Mt. Dennis Secondary Plan.

  5

2150 Eglinton Avenue West - Consent Agreement

Arising from a Committee of Adjustment Decision

Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 5, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To obtain the authority for the Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer and Clerk, on behalf of the City, to enter into a Consent Agreement with respect to the subject property.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operation costs.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer and the City Clerk be authorized, on behalf of the City, to execute a Consent Agreement with respect to 2150 Eglinton Avenue West, in the former City of York, such Consent Agreement to be in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

This matter arises from a Committee of Adjustment decision dated February 2, 1999 regarding application B-4/99YK to grant consent to the severance of the 2150 Eglinton Avenue West into two parcels as follows: Retained lot - Part 1; with a frontage of 31.09m (102 feet) and an area of 1.089.7m² (11,730 ^ft) area and Severed lot - Part 2; with a frontage of 17.07m (56 feet) and an area of 598.28m² (6,440 ^ft). (see Appendix 1)

The lands are currently vacant but were formerly occupied by a gasoline service station. The owner wishes to convey the easterly portion of the lands Part 2 to the owner of the abutting commercial property at 2120 Eglinton Avenue West. The retained lot - Part 1 is currently the subject of a site plan approval application for construction of eight townhouses each fronting onto Eglinton Avenue West and with a rear year parking space accessed from the abutting public lane connecting Montcalm Avenue and Little Boulevard.

By its decision dated February 2, 1999 the Committee of Adjustment granted provisional consent subject to the following conditions:

For consent approval:

(1)The applicant shall enter into a consent agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and to be registered on the title of the retained and conveyed lands as follows:

(i)the applicant shall dedicate to the City for municipal services and utilities a 1.5 m wide strip of land, extending across the rear of the retained lot and to be designated as Part 3 on the Registered Reference Plan of survey;

(ii)Prior to the issuance of any building permit, other than a foundation permit, the applicant shall submit to the Chief Building Official or his designate for the City, the following documentation:

(a)a completed Record of Site Condition pursuant to the Ministry of the Environment "Guideline", indicating that the lands are suitable for the intended use for which a building permit application has been made and which shall be acknowledged as a having been received by the Ministry of Environment; and

(b)written confirmation from the Ministry of the Environment that an audit of the Record of Site Condition is not required or, if an audit is required, that the Record of Site Condition passed the audit.

(iii)any other matters deemed appropriate by the City Solicitor.

(2)The applicant shall pay a levy for parks or other public recreational purposes equivalent to five percent of the total value of the severed land. For this purpose the value of the land is to be determined by a qualified appraiser acceptable to the City; and

(3)The owner must apply for and obtain a certificate of consent from the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment within one year from the date of notification of this decision.

For application for a building permit:

(1)Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact the Parks and Recreation Department, York Civic Centre, to obtain specific requirements for the tree or trees located within the Eglinton Avenue and/or Montcalm Avenue municipal road allowances.

A copy of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is attached as Appendix 2.

Comment:

The condition to enter into a Consent agreement as imposed by the Committee of Adjustment reflects the recommendations made by the Community Planning Division to the Committee of Adjustment. The entering into the Consent Agreement is necessary in order for the owner of the subject property to finalize the land severance. The agreement is currently being prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Conclusion:

The entering into and registration of the Consent Agreement against title to the subject property will satisfy one of the conditions imposed by the Committee of Adjustment for severance of the subject property.

Contact Name:

Lou Moretto

Manager, Community Planning, West District

Tel:394-2610Fax:394-2782

(A copy of Appendix 2 the Committee of Adjustment Consent Decision referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the York Community Council meeting of February 17, 1999 and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Division, York Civic Centre.)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1: Location Map for 2150 Eglinton Avenue West

6

Development Charges in the Former City of York

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 9, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To advise on the implementation of York Community Council's motion requesting that a by-law be prepared to amend York Development Charge By-Law No. 2334-91, as amended, (applying to the area of the former City of York) to provide that no development charge be charged or collected up to December 31, 1999 and that a public consultation meeting be arranged on the matter.

Financial Implications:

Revenue from the Development Charges By-Law applying to the York Community will continue not to be collected.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council pass a resolution directing the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, West District not to levy or collect development charges under By-Law No. 2334-91, as amended, in the former City of York, until such time as a new City of Toronto Development Charges By-Law is in force and effect and;

(2)in the event that the preceding recommendation is not adopted by City Council, that staff be directed to resume collection of development charges as they apply only to new building permit applications received after the third week following City Council's decision, and to notify the public as set out in this report that the collection of development charges will resume on a specific date at the end of the notification period.

Background

Development Charges, under By-Law No. 2334-91, in the former City of York have not been charged or collected since amending By-Law No. 3500-97 was passed on June 25, 1997. By-Law No. 3500-97 suspended the charging or collecting of development charges for one year period ending June 25, 1998.

Prior to the expiration of the one year suspension period, staff were developing a draft report proposing that development charges continue not to be collected following the end of the suspension period. Senior City management subsequently recommended that collection of the charges resume and on this basis, a report was prepared dated November 18 1998, to York Community Council which recommended that development charges be collected in accordance with York By-Law No. 2334-91, as amended, after January 1, 1999.

At its meeting on December 9, 1998, York Community Council received the report and did not adopt its recommendations. Instead Community Council adopted a motion to:

(1)request the City Solicitor to prepare an amendment to Subsection (3a) of the York Development Charges By-Law No. 2334-91, as amended, to provide that no development charges shall be charged or collected, commencing with the enactment of this Subsection, up to December 31, 1999;

(2)request the Director, Community Planning, West District, to arrange for a public consultation meeting on this matter, and

(3)authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Comments:

Staff of the Community Planning Division and of the Legal Division have determined that the provisions of the Development Charges Act and the City Council's Procedural By-Law No. 23-1998 creates administrative complications in carrying out the direction of York Community Council to bring forward a by-law amendment to suspend the levying and collection of development charges, in the former City of York.

Under the Development Charges Act, before passing a by-law to amend the existing Development Charges By-Law No. 2334-91 for the former City of York, City Council must hold a public meeting; give notice of the meeting as prescribed and provide sufficient information to enable the public to under the proposed amendment.

Presently, City Council's Procedural By-Law does not make provision for City Council to hold public meetings. All public meetings are held by Community Councils or Standing Committees of Council. It is therefore not administratively feasible at this time to arrange a public meeting before City Council.

As an alternative and a simpler means of implementing Community Council's direction, staff

propose that City Council adopt a resolution directing the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, West District not to levy or collect development charges under By-Law No 2334-91, in the former City of York.

A recommendation providing such a direction to the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, West District, which arises through the adoption of this report and the approval by City Council would serve as the adopted resolution. Staff are reporting this alternative approach as a means of implementing York Community Council's previous direction.

Staff understand that York Community Council members support continuing the suspension of development charges to remain competitive in attracting and encouraging development relative to the other former municipalities, many of which do not collect the charge. However, should City Council not support York Community Council and require that the development charges be collected, staff suggest that reinstatement of the charge start three weeks after Council's decision, and apply only to new building permit applications received after the three week period. The three week period will permit a reasonable period of time for notice to be posted at the Building Division and Planning Division counters in the York Civic Centre to advise the public of the development charge reinstatement date and the application of the charge to new building permit applications filed after the reinstatement date.

Conclusion:

York Community Council's intent to continue the suspension of development charges in the York Community by way of a Development Charges By-Law amendment to be passed by City Council creates procedural complications. A simpler alternative that will provide the desired outcome is for City Council to adopt a report from Community Council recommending that the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, West District be directed not to levy or collect development charges in the area of the former City of York until such time as a new Development Charges By-Law is in force and effect.

In the event, however, that City Council does not support this position, the resumption of development charges should apply only to new building permit applications filed after the third week following Council's decision to resume collection of the charge. Notice should be posted at the Building Division and Planning Division counters at the York Civic Centre, in the intervening three week period, advising the public that collection of the charges will be reinstated at a specified date.

This report has been reviewed by staff from the City Legal Division and they concur with the approach and recommendations of this report.

Contact Name:

Lou Moretto

Manager of Community Planning

York Office, West District

York Civic Centre

The York Community Council also had before it the following communication during consideration of the foregoing matter:

(i)(October 26, 1998) from Ms. Ella Jackson, Chair, Black Creek Business Area Association, advising that the Black Creek Business Area Association is dedicated to promoting and accommodating the economic development of the area bounded between Eglinton Avenue West, Lawrence Avenue West, Black Creek Drive and the CN/CP rail line, running parallel to Weston Road in the former municipalities of North York and York; and requesting that the moratorium on development charges for industrial properties be extended.

  7

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)52 Hyde Avenue, Zoning By-law Amendment Application,

Temporary Use - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)not approved the following report from the Director, Community Planning, West District; and

(2)directed the Manager, Community Planning, West District, to schedule a public meeting regarding the subject application.

(December 22, 2998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District, providing information on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the continued use of the existing building on the subject property for mixed industrial - residential purposes on a temporary basis; and advising that the Official Plan requires that any residential development of the Valley Crescent-Hyde Avenue industrial area involve comprehensive assembly; that the existing industrial area is not an appropriate location for individual residential uses; that existing industrial uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property will create adverse noise and dust impacts on any proposed residential use; that the area is isolated from surrounding neighbourhoods and would likely be unsafe at night, especially for pedestrians; that the Municipal Standards Division of the Urban Planning and Development Services department has commented that they have an active zoning violation file in relation to the existing residential apartments on the subject property; that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority does not object to the temporary by-law amendment since the proposed residential uses can be accommodated within the existing building on the property, but that the property is located within the Regional Storm Floodplain and Fill Regulation Line and is designated as part of the Special Policy Area regarding flood plain management; that approval of this application, even on a temporary basis, would establish an undesirable precedent; and recommending that the York Community Council refuse this application.

-Mr. Danny Nardelli, owner of 52 Hyde Avenue, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Library Materials Budget for Libraries in

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the City Librarian to:

(a)provide copies of the formula and comparative analysis used between districts, i.e. per capital spending;

(b)submit a breakdown of materials acquisition for the 1999 fiscal year detailing printed material, periodicals, electronics and videos;

(c)report on proposals to increase the circulation of reading material and reduce the video circulation; and

(2)received the deputation and following communication:

(January 11, 1999) from the City Librarian responding to the Community Council's request for a report on changes to the Materials Budget of the former York Library system; and advising that the consolidated library materials budget for the amalgamated Toronto Public Library is $13 million and must be distributed to 98 branches and other services; that each of the former systems had a different approach to allocating their budgets so that it was necessary to develop a standard formula which would:

-ensure equitable development of the Library's collection in response to the community's needs and the state of current collections;

-apportion the Library materials budget fairly and effectively by using an objective and quantifiable approach; and

that a new library materials budget allocation formula was approved by the Toronto Public Library Board; the formula uses standardized performance measures and initiates a flow of funding to areas of the City which historically have reported per capita expenditure below the municipal average ($5.44) such as the former City of York ($1.26); that the application of the formula to each branch's performance measures results in a total point score which is then translated into library materials budget dollars.

--------

-Ms. Susan Caron, Manager, Collection Department, Toronto Public Library, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(c)Request for Additional Parking Meters

in the Cedarvale Area - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to investigate and report to the York Community Council on the feasibility of adjusting the transit stops along Eglinton Avenue West in the Cedarvale area, to increase the number of on-street metered parking spaces;

(2)requested the Toronto Parking Authority to circulate the proposed fee structure for harmonizing the parking rates to the members of the York Community Council; and

(3)received the deputation and following information:

Extract from Clause No. 4 of Report No. 1 of the York Community Council, which was adopted by Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999:

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:

(a)requested the President, Toronto Parking Authority, to:

(i)install additional parking meters in the Cedarvale area, where feasible;

(ii)meet with the local business and residential community and the local Councillors, to discuss ways and means to increase the number of parking spaces in the area; and

(iii)attend the next meeting of the Community Council on February 17, 1999.

--------

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

-Messrs. Ian Maher and Gwyn Thomas, Toronto Parking Authority.

(d)Draft Report of the Task Force on

Community Access and Equity.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)endorsed in principle, the following Draft Report of the Task Force on Community Access and Equity;

(2)advised the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee of the action taken; and

(3)received the deputations:

Councillor J. Mihevc, Chair,

Task Force on Community Access and Equity

(January 27, 1999)

Forwarding a copy of the communication (January 22, 1999) to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of The Toronto Transition Team and the Community Councils, regarding the Draft Report of the Task Force on Community Access and Equity; and requesting deputation time to present the report.

--------

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

-Charles Ng, member of the Task Force;

-Sonja Greckol, member of the Task Force;

-Al Reeves, member of the Task Force; and

-Rose Lee, Access and Equity Centre

(e)Weston Business Community Street Audit,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)endorsed the following Weston Business Community Street Audit;

(2)referred the document to the appropriate Commissioners for action; and

(3)received the deputation:

(February 9, 1999) from the Chair, Weston Business Community

Advising that on July 9, 1998, a Street Audit was conducted in the Weston Business Community, in response to concerns expressed by local businesses and residents, which discourage shoppers and visitors to the area; and requesting that the Community Council endorse the Street Audit Report and further requesting that the City provide ongoing support and assistance to implement the recommendations contained in the report.

--------

-Mr. John Kiru, Coordinator, Weston Business Improvement Area, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(Copies of the abovementioned Street Audit was forwarded to all members of Council with the agenda for the meeting of February 17, 1999; and copies are on file in the Clerk's Division, York Civic Centre.)

(f)York Museum (York); and Implementation of Council

Decisions on Heritage Governance

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)endorsed the following report (February 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to the Economic Development Committee on the Implementation of Council Decisions on Heritage Governance to be considered by that Committee on March 26, 1999;

(2)advised the Economic Development Committee of the action taken;

(3)reaffirmed the decision of the former Council of the City of York that the York Museum be staffed by a full-time curator; and

(4)received the following communications:

(i)(February 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to the Economic Development Committee, providing a framework for the implementation of Council's decisions of December 16 and 17, 1998 regarding the governance of heritage services;

(ii)(Undated) from Mr. Bernie Thompson, Chair, Historical Committee, advising of matters to be discussed, such as the Community Council's position on the museum and heritage in general; the selection of members to Community Museum Management Boards; conservation; exhibits; collection; research; interviewing and hiring of staff; communication; marketing; duties related to the curator and the museum; collection management; data base consolidation; new larger location; budget preparation and control; signing authority; staff assistance; the Board's responsibilities under the new structure; membership and evaluation; and stating the objectives established by the museum (York) in 1998.

--------

-Mr. Bernie Thompson, Chair, Historical Committee (York), appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(g)Landscaping of Traffic Calming Locations in

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having approved the recommendations in the following report:

(January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism

responding to the request by the York Community Council:

"to conduct a review of the City's locations with landscaped traffic calming measures, and to report on the feasibility of the City initially undertaking the planting of shrubbery and flowers at these sites, and subsequently transferring co-ownership to each of the abutting property owners for continued maintenance"; and

advising of possible locations for landscaping traffic calming areas and providing cost estimates to implement such proposals; and recommending that:

(1)this report be received for information by the York Community Council;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism consider the inclusion of $100,000 in the 2000-2004 Capital Works Program; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(h)Request for Removal of Tree at 17 Grandville Avenue,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having approved the recommendation in the following report:

(January 27, 1999)from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism

responding to a request by the York Community Council:

"to report on an alternative solution after a further review of the circumstances related to the tree at 17 Grandville Avenue"; and

advising that a staff report of October 14, 1998 recommended that the tree be pruned and not removed as it does not qualify for removal according to the tree by-law; that the owner during her deputation claimed that roots were breaking through the foundation of her floor and entering her basement; that staff did not investigate the basement of the property at 17 Grandville, but however found this irregular as young roots generally do not break through basement foundations, but redirect themselves as they abut concrete; that the removal of this tree would not be a permanent solution since improper drainage or leaking drains will attract roots from any new trees or shrubs; removal of trees for this reason would also set an undesirable precedent resulting in the removal of thousand of trees city-wide; and recommending that the request for the removal of the tree at 17 Grandville Avenue be refused.

(i)450 Gilbert Avenue - Preliminary Evaluation Report,

Zoning By-law Amendment - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having approved the recommendations in the following report:

(February 17, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on an application by 1289643 Ontario Ltd., to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-83 from PE-Prestige Employment Zone to R2-Residential Zone to permit the development of five pairs of semi-detached dwellings, oriented towards Gilbert Avenue, all of which would be freehold and two and one-half storeys in height; that mutual easements are proposed between each pair of semi-detached dwellings for maintenance and access purposes; parking would be provided in attached, single car garages with direct access from Gilbert Avenue; that a similar application, located to the south of the site consisting of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings, is currently under review; that the application is in circulation and a staff report is expected to be available in the spring of 1999; this proposal should also be the subject of a Community Information Meeting to present this proposal to the local community; that in accordance with the direction given by Community Council on the application to the south (File No. R98-01 consisting of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings) to hold a Community Information Meeting prior to the staff report being prepared, staff suggest that given the proximity and similarity of the abutting application, the Community Information Meeting could deal with both applications that are currently being reviewed by staff; and recommending that:

(1)this application be presented in conjunction with the Community Information Meeting to be held on the application (File No. R98-01 consisting of three pairs of semi-detached dwellings) abutting the proposal; and,

(2)the application continue to be circulated and following completion of the staff report, a Public Meeting be scheduled by Community Council.

(j)2015 Lawrence Avenue West - Preliminary Evaluation Report,

Zoning By-law Amendment Application,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having approved the recommendations in the following report:

(January 29, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by Templeton-Lepek Limited, to rezone the subject lands from "PE - Prestige Employment" to "CE - Commercial Employment."; the applicant is proposing to rezone the site from "PE - Prestige Employment" to "CE - Commercial Employment" and has not submitted development plans at this time and is agreeable to being bound by the zoning regulations applicable to the CE zone and by requirements arising from the Site Plan Approval process; that he main issue respecting rezoning the property from PE to CE is the elimination of the minimum retail store size provision, the intent of the provision is to encourage larger retail uses that cannot be accommodated within the former City of York's retail main streets; by eliminating the minimum gross floor area provision, the lands then become eligible for a traditional "strip plaza" development that does not include an "anchor" store with a gross floor area greater than 1500 m²; this may be an issue with businesses in local area; that the proposal would benefit from a Community Information Meeting to present the proposed Zoning By-law amendment to the local community; and recommending that:

(1)a Community Information Meeting be held to present the proposal to the local community; and

(2)the application continue to be circulated and, following completion of the staff report, a Public Meeting be scheduled by Community Council.

(k)New Development Applications Received for York District,

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(January 6, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District, advising that the following new applications have been received since the last report to the Community Council:

(1)Application by Tony Cornacchia for a Zoning By-law Amendment, for a proposed four unit multiple dwelling house at 164 Vaughan Road in an RM2 zone.

(2)Application by Rutledge Development Corporation for a Zoning By-law Amendment, to permit at the south-west corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek Drive, a phased development consisting of retail (food) space, 150 residential units in an apartment building, a possible future office development and a future transportation facility which is currently permitted can also be accommodated; and

(3)Application by The TDL Group Ltd. for Site Plan Approval to convert a former gasoline service station building into a restaurant with a drive through window at 895 Jane Street.

(l)Saturday Night Garbage Collection in Wards 27 and 28; and

Sunday Morning Litter Service on Eglinton Avenue West

from Keele Street to the Allen Road,

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on whether the Sunday morning litter service on Eglinton Avenue West from Keele Street to the Allen Road has been continuing until a City-wide policy is in place; and

(2)received the following communication:

(January 20, 1999) from the Manager, Installation and Rehabilitation Projects, providing the information requested by the York Community Council that the Saturday night garbage collection from commercial establishments in Wards 27 and 28, is carried out by Miller Waste Systems.

(m)Request for Bicycle Lanes on Vaughan Road from

St. Clair Avenue West to Oakwood Avenue,

Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the proposal in the following communication:

(January 25, 1999) from Councillor J. Mihevc advising that enquiries have been received from residents as to the possibility of designating Vaughan Road from St. Clair Avenue West to Oakwood Avenue as a bicycle route, with the installation of separate bicycle lanes; and requesting that appropriate staff investigate this proposal.

(n)Request for Playground Facilities at Rawlinson Public School

and James Culnan Catholic School,

Ward 27, York Eglinton and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District, to discuss with the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic School Board, a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement for the installation of new playground equipment at Rawlinson Public School and at James Culnan Catholic School, and to report back to the Community Council; and

(2)received the following communication:

(January 13, 1999) from Councillor J. Mihevc advising that the playground facilities at Rawlinson Public School have been dismantled as it did not pass a safety audit; the parents would like the City's support in having a new playground built as this is the only play area for several blocks; and requesting the Community Council support the redevelopment of a playground with a commitment in principle to a 50/50% cost sharing with the Toronto District School Board for the year 2000, and that appropriate staff negotiate with school officials on this matter.

(o)Request for Alternate Side Parking on St. John's Road

from Humbercrest Boulevard to Runnymede Road;

and Additional Stop Signs on St. John's Road, West of

Runnymede Road - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the implementation of alternate side parking on St. John's Road from Humbercrest Boulevard to Runnymede Road; and on the installation of stop signs on St. John's Road, west of Runnymede Road;

(2)requested the City Clerk to subsequently poll the residents; and

(3)received the following communication:

(February 5, 1999) from Councillor B. Saundercook advising that a resident of St. John's Road is requesting alternate side parking on St. John's Road and the installation of additional stop signs west of Runnymede Road; and requesting that appropriate staff investigate and report and that the residents be polled.

(p)Request for All-Way Stop Controls at Bala Avenue

and Bartonville Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on installing all-way stop controls at Bala Avenue and Bartonville Avenue; and

(2)received the following resolution:

(January 22, 1999) from Councillor B. Saundercook:

Whereas the safety of our children in the area of schools a top priority; and

Whereas at the January 21, 1999 meeting of the 12 Division CPLC, a representative of the School Advisory Council for Bala Avenue Junior Public School advised that the parents of children attending this school have expressed concerns regarding the safety of the intersection at Bala Avenue;

Therefore be it resolved that the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, be requested to report to the York Community Council on turning Bala Avenue at Bartonville Avenue into an all-way stop control intersection.

(q)Request for Disabled Parking at 720 Willard Avenue,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the designation of a disabled parking space at 720 Willard Avenue; and on whether there is a fee charged for disabled parking in the former City of Toronto; and

(2)received the following communication:

(February 1, 1999) from Councillor B. Saundercook advising that the resident at 720 Willard is requesting a disabled parking space; and requesting that staff investigate and report, such report to include whether an annual permit fee is required in the former City of Toronto.

(r)Request to Rename Winona Avenue from Vaughan Road

to Belvedere Avenue, Joe Foti Avenue,

Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(February 1, 1999) Councillor B. Saundercook, advising that Mr. Joe Foti, President of a local ratepayers association, and active in the community, will be celebrating his 80th birthday this month; and requesting that Winona Avenue from Vaughan Road to Belvedere Avenue be renamed Joe Foti Avenue to mark this special occasion.

(s)Application for a Liquor Licence for an Outoor Patio,

Crystal Seafood Restaurant, 632 Vaughan Road,

Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)directed the City Clerk to forward the following report with the departmental comments to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario; and

(2)received the confidential report submitted by the Toronto Police Services:

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having met in camera to discuss the abovementioned confidential police report.

(January 18, 1999) from the City Clerk providing departmental comments and requesting authorization to forward this information to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

(t)Request for Disabled Parking Space at 2 Watford Avenue,

Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the designation of a disabled parking space at 2 Watford Avenue; and

(2)received the following communication:

(February 5, 1999) from Councillor J. Mihevc forwarding copy of a letter from the resident at 2 Watford Avenue requesting a disabled parking space in close proximity to his home.

(u)Request for 'Local Traffic Only' Signs at both ends

of Lacey Avenue; and on Dunraven Drive at Keele Street,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the installation of 'Local Traffic Only' signs at both ends of Lacey Avenue; and on Dunraven Drive at Keele Street; and

(2)received the following communication:

(February 11, 1999) from Councillor B. Saundercook advising that the Silverthorn Ratepayers' Association has identified issues relating to community safety, and requesting that staff report on the installation of "Local Traffic Only" signs at both ends of Lacey Avenue and on Dunraven Drive at Keele Street.

(v)Request for an Amendment to the 3-Hour Limit

Parking By-law - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on an amendment to the 3-hour limit parking by-law; and

(2)received the following communication:

(February 11, 1999)Councillor B. Saundercook forwarding a communication from the Silverthorn Ratepayers' Association requesting a review of the 3-hour parking limit by-law.

(w)Request for Replacement Barriers at Eglinton Avenue West

and Oakwood Avenue - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to replace the existing barriers at Eglinton Avenue West and Oakwood Avenue, with more attractive barriers similar to those at Avenue Road and St. Clair Avenue West.

(x)Cash Payment in Lieu of Parking.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the policies of other area municipalities compared with the policy of the former City of York regarding cash payment in lieu of parking; and on what action can be taken on an interim basis to provide relief for new business owners in Wards 27 and 28, with the exception of licensed establishments.

(y)Recognition of Residents and Firefighters.

The York Community Council reports having approved the following resolution from Councillor Frances Nunziata:

Whereas a tragic fire has taken the life of a five-year old child after attempts by area neighbours to rescue all residents of the Vaughan Road apartment building; and

Whereas the York Community Council recognizes the heroic efforts of Mr. Fred Mahood and another area resident known as Michael, who risked their own personal safety in an effort to rescue all persons trapped in the second floor apartment on Vaughan Road when fire broke out on Tuesday, February 16, 1999.

Therefore be it resolved that the York Community Council acknowledge and commend the residents and firefighters involved in this fire, at its next meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 30, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

BILL SAUNDERCOOK

Chair

Toronto, February 17, 1999

(Report No. 2 of The York Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)