TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 8

1 Request for Exemption from Noise Control By-law No. 3453-79 - 71 Clouston Avenue
Ward 27, York Humber

2 Encroachment Agreement for 335-337 Oakwood Avenue Ward 28, York Eglinton

3 Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions 866 Weston Road and 20 Victoria Avenue West
Ward 28, York Humber

4 460 Gilbert Avenue - Application for Demolition Approval Ward 28, York Eglinton

5 Traffic Calming Plan on Humbercrest Boulevard from Dundas Street West to St. John's Road
Ward 27, York Humber

6 564-566 Rogers Road, Application for Cash Payment-in-Lieu of Parking; Owner: Grewal General Contractors Ltd. Ward 27, York Humber

7 Request for Amendment to York By-law to Exempt Disabled Persons from Parking Permit Fees
Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

8 By-law to Stop-Up, Close and Sell the Lane between Lots 73 & 74, Plan 1665, York, West of
2620 St. Clair Avenue West Ward 27, York Humber

9 2 Heathdale Road and 1608 Bathurst Street, OMB Hearing on Referral of OPA 128, Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan Owner: Estate of Susan Burton; Agent: A. Paton, Solicitor Ward 28, York Eglinton

10 310 & 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications; Applicant: Walker Nott Dragicevic; Owner: Goldlist Properties Inc. - Ward 28, York Eglinton

11 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on July 15, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Rob Davis, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

Request for Exemption from Noise Control

By-law No. 3453-79 - 71 Clouston Avenue

Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 12, 1999) from the Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards, West District:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from former City of York Noise Control By-law No. 3453-79.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) owner of 71 Clouston Avenue be granted an exemption from the provisions of Noise Control By-law No. 3453-79, for the following dates and times:

Friday, July 30, 1999 from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m.

Saturday, July 31, 1999 from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Sunday, August 1, 1999 from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and

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

Background:

The former City of York Noise Control By-law No. 3453-79 prohibits the emission of amplified sound from electronic devices incorporating one or more loudspeakers if the noise is audible in residential areas on any day after 5:00 p.m. The by-law also provides that Council may grant exemptions from the provisions of the by-law.

Discussion:

On July 2, 1999 a letter dated June 22, 1999, was received from the owner of 71 Clouston Avenue, requesting an exemption to the noise by-law to allow music to be played in the back yard of his property. Mr. and Mrs. Doodram's son is getting married and accordingly, it is proposed to hold a Hindu ceremony in the backyard of 71 Clouston Avenue. The celebration would extend over a three day period.

This celebration is in addition to another ceremony the couple is having on July 31 at St. Bernard Church, located at 1789 Lawrence Avenue West.

The exemption is to cover the following days and times:

July 30,1999 from 12: 00 noon until 10:00 p.m.

July 31,1999 from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. and

August 1,1999 from 10:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.

On July 8, 1999 the applicant submitted a list of neighbours who apparently are not opposed to the noise exemption being granted. Unfortunately the list does not include the addresses of the neighbours. The applicant advises that approximately 30 to 40 people will attend the backyard wedding ceremony on July 31, 1999 and that the neighbours on either side will be in attendance.

On July 30, and August 1, 1999, approximately 20 to 30 people will be in attendance periodically throughout the day.

In residential zones the noise by-law prohibits the making of noise likely to disturb residents after 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. the next day. For Sundays the prohibited period is extended to 9:00 a.m.

Conclusion:

Should Council decide to approve this request, given that the exemption being requested is for a three day period, it may be in the best interest of the area residents to limit the time period of the exemption to 8:00 p.m. on each of the specified days.

Contact Name:

Douglas Jack, Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, West District

Tel: 394-2533; Fax: 394-2904

Encroachment Agreement for 335-337 Oakwood Avenue

Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 12, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To present comments from applicable departments concerning this encroachment application.

Mr. Abel De Carvalho, through his agent Mr. Victor Rosa, has submitted an application for the installation of a proposed kitchen exhaust duct (17" depth X 14" wide) up to the roof area from the exterior wall face, as indicated on Appendix 1.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Encroachment application first made May 18, 1999.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the encroachment be approved subject to the owner enter into an agreement with the City with terms to the satisfaction of the Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor; and

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Bell Canada

"No objection."

Consumers Gas

"We have indicated on the attached print our existing and/or proposed underground plant. We have no objection to the above proposal, provided our standard clearances of 0.3m minimum vertically and 0.6m minimum horizontally are maintained."

Hydro Commission

"The existing encroachment does not conflict with our existing plan. We would expect that this encroachment will be covered by the City of Toronto (York) Standard Encroachment Agreement which makes provision for our future installations. Subject to the above, we have no objection to this encroachment."

Planning Department

"No comment."

Building Department

"This Building Department has no objection regarding the encroachment application for the above noted property."

Operations Department

"The Works & Emergency Department has no objection to the installation of the proposed exhaust duct, provided that a minimum clearance of 2.7m (vertically from bottom edge of duct to the boulevard grade) is provided and 2.1m setback is maintained from the curbside."

Conclusions:

That the encroachment application for 335-337 Oakwood Avenue be approved.

Contact:

Nadia Bartha, Acting Property Co-ordinator

Tel: 394-2511; Fax: 394-2803

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Oakwood Avenue

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

866 Weston Road and 20 Victoria Avenue West

Ward 28, York Humber

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To provide information on appeals of Committee of Adjustment decisions which have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and to recommend whether or not City Legal Staff and Planning staff representation is warranted.

Financial Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There will be no financial costs associated with the appeals.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Legal Staff and Planning staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding application A-46/99YK for 866 Weston Road and application A-48/99YK for 20 Victoria Avenue West.

Comment:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(i) Address: 866 Weston Road (Ward 27: York Humber)

Applicant: Victor Tobar

Appellant: Victor Tobar - 866 Weston Road

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: A-46/99YK. The applicant proposes to legalize and maintain the existing basement apartment-in-house (second suite). (See Appendix A and B attached)

Variances were requested to the provisions of Zoning By-laws 1-83 and 3623-97 relating to parking, alterations to the front facade, required glazed area for light , and required ventilation for the apartment-in-house.

The Committee of Adjustment in 1997 granted minor variances from the Zoning By-law which permitted the applicant to construct a second storey addition above the existing garage, provided that the applicant resolve the deficiencies in relation to the Zoning By-law provisions for the basement apartment. In this most recent related application to remove the deficiencies by seeking By-law variances to permit the apartment-in-house, the Committee of Adjustment refused the requested variances on May 18, 1999.

The Planning Department commented that it was preferred that the applicant correct the By-law deficiencies with respect to the existing apartment-in-house and requested that the application be refused.

Since our comments to the Committee of Adjustment, the City Planning Department has recently reported to the Planning and Transportation Committee in regard to a City Council directive that all Planning documents be amended to permit second suites as-of-right in all single and semi-detached houses. Following from the directive, the Planning report recommends changes to permit second suites as noted, subject only to the provision of a parking space for the second suite. In light of this initiative, Planning Staff note that parking would be the only issue for which a variance would be required. However, since the location of the property is on an arterial road with convenient access to public transportation and since the second suite is of a modest size at 39 m² (420 ft²), parking as the only variance is considered a minor issue. There no longer are substantive issues that would warrant and City legal and planning staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment given the position of the City Planning Department.

(ii) Address: 20 Victoria Avenue West (Ward 27: York Humber)

Applicant: Joe Montesano

Appellant: Joe Montesano - 20 Victoria Avenue West

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: A-48/99YK. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage and to construct a new 4.19 metre (13.75 feet) high detached two-car garage and shed in approximately the same location. (See Appendix C and D attached)

Variances were requested to the maximum gross floor area and maximum height provisions of Zoning By-laws 1-83 and 3623-97 for accessory buildings.

The Committee of Adjustment on May 18, 1999 refused the requested variances. The Planning Department had no objections to the application.

Conclusions:

The subject appeals were reviewed by staff. There are no substantive planning issues relating to these applications. City Legal staff and Planning staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is therefore not warranted for these appeals.

Contact Name:

L. Moretto

Manager, Community Planning - West District

Phone: 394-2607

Fax: 394-2782

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix A - Location Map

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix B - Site Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix C - Location Map

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Appendix D - Site Plan

460 Gilbert Avenue - Application for Demolition Approval

Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1) approval to demolish the building shown on the site plan attached as Appendix 2 be granted pursuant to By-law No. 3102-95, subject to the owner entering into a beautification agreement satisfactory to the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, or their designates;

(2) authorization be given to the appropriate City officials to release the beautification agreement and return the balance of any security thereunder not otherwise used, upon the issuance of a building permit for the subject property; and

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

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

Purpose:

Under the City of York Act 1994 (Bill PR147), Council of the former City of York enacted special demolition control legislation for the purpose of securing beautification measurers on the lands and abutting municipal boulevards as a condition of the issuance of demolition permits. By-law No. 3102-95 was subsequently passed designating the entire area of the former City of York as an area of demolition control pursuant to the City of York Act, 1994.

The owner has applied for a demolition permit to remove the building located on the subject lands. Community Council approval for the release of the permit is being sought.

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 approval to demolish the building shown on the site plan attached as Appendix 2 to this report be granted pursuant to By-law 3102-95 with no conditions of approval related to beautification.

Background:

The property owner, Joseph Kang has applied to the City for a demolition permit. The owner wishes to demolish the one-storey industrial building located at 460 Gilbert Avenue to complete an environmental investigation of the site.

The property is designated Employment in the Official Plan and zoned PE- Prestige Employment District. On June 2, 1999, the owner also filed a rezoning application to permit the lands to be developed for two pairs of three-storey semi-detached dwellings with built-in garages at grade. Other unrelated rezoning applications for similar semi-detached developments at 424 and 450 Gilbert Avenue have recently been conditionally approved by City Council.

Discussion:

Further to circulation of this application, the following are the responses from various departments:

The Works and Emergency Services Department, the Health Unit, Toronto Fire Services, and Building Division of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department have advised of no concerns in regard to the proposed demolition.

The Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department has advised there are no tree - related concerns with this application.

The site has strong potential for immediate redevelopment for residential purposes in light of recent similar residential rezoning activity on abutting properties to the south, and the current rezoning application for the subject lands.

The Development Review Division has advised the applicant that Site Plan Control will apply to the development of the site, subject to the provisions of the City of York Site Plan Control By-law. Landscape improvements for the associated residential rezoning of the site, if approved by City Council, will be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process.

Staff has no objection the approval of the demolition permit application and requires no conditions of approval relating to beautification.

Local Historical Committees have been notified regarding the demolition permit application.

City Wide Issues:

None.

Conclusions:

The owner of the lands wishes to proceed with environmental investigations and, if necessary, the remediation of the property. In order to complete this work and prepare the site for redevelopment it is necessary to obtain a demolition permit for the building.

A rezoning application to permit four semi-detached dwellings on the site has been filed. Subject to City Council approval of the application it is anticipated that the owner will move quickly to redevelop the site. Approval of this application will allow release of the demolition permit and facilitate preparation of the site for redevelopment.

Contact Name:

Lou Moretto,

Manager of Community Planning, West District

Tel: (416) 394-2618

Fax: (416) 394-2782

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1 - Location Map for 460 Gilbert Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix 2 - Site Plan of Building to be Demolished

Traffic Calming Plan on Humbercrest Boulevard

from Dundas Street West to St. John's Road

Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 7, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To provide a traffic calming plan on Humbercrest Boulevard, between Dundas Street West and St. John's Road, for consideration as part of the planned pavement, sidewalk and curb reconstruction contract scheduled for 1999.

Funding Sources:

The Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Programme includes the reconstruction of the pavement, sidewalks and curbs on Humbercrest Boulevard between Dundas Street West and St. John's Road. The incremental cost of incorporating traffic calming elements in the estimated amount of $125,000.00 can be accommodated in the 1999 Capital Programme account for Traffic Calming.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City Solicitor be authorized to submit road alteration by-laws on Humbercrest Boulevard from Dundas Street West to St. John's Road for traffic calming purposes, described as follows:

"A total of three combination road narrowings and speed humps, on Humbercrest Boulevard from Dundas Street West to St. John's Road, and construction of a tabled intersection, with an all-way stop control at Humbercrest Boulevard and St. John's Road.";

(2) the City Clerk provide the necessary public notice to introduce the above-noted traffic calming measures;

(3) the Director of Transportation Services - District 1 report to York Community Council on any changes to traffic regulations and parking required as a result of the implementation of the Humbercrest Boulevard traffic calming plan; and

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

Background:

In conjunction with an application to permit the re-development of the lands on the southwest corner of Humbercrest Boulevard and Dundas Street West for a Loblaws supermarket and concerns expressed by local residents in the area, Council authorized a neighbourhood traffic study to be undertaken. (Clause No. 145 of Report No. 18 of the Land Use Committee, approved as amended by York Council on October 2, 1996.)

The scope of the neighbourhood traffic study included the following:

(i) determine existing traffic volumes and speeds on local roads in the vicinity of the site;

(ii) determine the existing level of traffic infiltration;

(iii) identify traffic calming measures for the neighbourhood;

(iv) monitor traffic volumes, speeds and traffic infiltration on local roads, after store opening and recommend traffic control measures, if warranted; and

(v) implement approved traffic control measures within one year of the store opening.

A contribution of $30,000.00 was made by IPCF Properties Inc. towards the study.

Comments:

As a result of the foregoing Council directive a traffic committee comprising of area residents, representatives of the developer and City Transportation and Economic Services staff was formed. A comprehensive volume and speed study on all of the local streets, within the area bordered by Dundas Street West to the north, Baby Point Road to the south, Gooch Avenue to the west and Jane Street to the east was undertaken.

Upon completion of these studies, staff presented to the traffic committee the results, which concluded speeding was an issue on each of the local streets. Staff were directed to prepare a comprehensive traffic calming plan for the study area. This plan is still subject to further review by the traffic committee and public consultation.

During this process, a new sewer was constructed on Humbercrest Boulevard between Dundas Street West and St. John's Road in 1998, with planned pavement, sidewalk and curb reconstruction work scheduled for this year. This work provides an opportunity to include traffic calming on Humbercrest Boulevard between Dundas Street West and St. John's Road in a cost-effective manner.

To facilitate the introduction of traffic calming on that portion of Humbercrest Boulevard between Dundas Street West and St. John's Road, a fast-track approach to the development of that portion of the plan is necessary. However, as noted further in this report, through the public consultation process this portion of the traffic calming plan can be refined as necessary.

Existing Conditions:

Humbercrest Boulevard traverses in a north/south direction between Dundas Street West and Humberview Road, providing two-way vehicular flow. The street is classified as a collector roadway, with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a legal speed limit of 40 km/h. Daily traffic volumes are 1,733 vehicles, within that particular portion of the street.

An analysis of the speed data taken over a seven-day period revealed an average speed of 41.7 km/h and an operating speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the motorists travelled at or below) of 49.5 km/h, with 6 percent of these vehicles exceeding 55 km/h.

On-street parking is legally permitted on the east side of the street exclusively. A daytime parking prohibition is in effect between Dundas Street West and the southerly property limits of St. James Catholic School, between the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a three hour maximum duration for all other times.

Traffic Calming Opportunities:

The traffic calming proposal on Humbercrest Boulevard includes the following measures:

(a) three combination speed humps with road narrowings uniformly spaced between Dundas Street West and St. John's Road;

(b) an impressed pedestrian crossing area on Humbercrest Boulevard at the intersection of Dundas Street West; and

(c) construction of a "tabled" intersection (raised 100 mm in height with suitably graded ramps approaching and departing the intersection on all road-legs) at Humbercrest Boulevard and St. John's Road, including the introduction of an all-way stop control.

It should be noted that the proposed combination speed humps and road narrowings will result in a loss of on-street parking spaces. It will be necessary to prohibit parking on either side and through each of the locations where these traffic calming measures will be constructed, to accommodate two-way vehicular traffic flow on Humbercrest Boulevard. As well, speed hump installation may result in a slower response time for emergency vehicles.

Due to the need to co-ordinate the implementation of traffic calming measures on Humbercrest Boulevard from Dundas Street West and St. John's Road with the planned reconstruction this year, there is some urgency to initiate the approval process. (As Community Council knows, once this portion of the plan is approved by Council, a four week statutory advertising period must be completed, and deputation hearing held by Community Council before Council can enact the requisite by-laws to enable the roadway alterations). Ideally, a greater level of prior public scrutiny of the plan through the traffic committee and the Councillors would have been helpful. It is important to note, however, that although there have been preliminary discussions between members of the traffic committee and my staff, public consultation including public meetings can continue concurrently, and there are several opportunities through subsequent supplementary reports to York Community Council or Council for refinements to this portion of the plan, if necessary.

The introduction of these proposed traffic calming measures on Humbercrest Boulevard from Dundas Street West and St. John's Road constitute alterations to the public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Conclusions:

The introduction of traffic calming on that portion of Humbercrest Boulevard between Dundas Street West and St. John's Road will reduce overall operating speeds and in turn improve overall public safety for both the students at St. James Catholic School, located at 230 Humbercrest Boulevard and the local residents along the street. The work can be implemented cost-effectively in conjunction with the planned reconstruction scheduled for this year.

Contact Person:

Jacqueline White

Manager, Traffic Operations, District 1

Tel: 397-5021; Fax: 392-8504

564-566 Rogers Road, Application for Cash Payment-in-Lieu

of Parking; Owner: Grewal General Contractors Ltd.

Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To report on a revised application for cash-payment-in-lieu of parking.

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 revised cash payment-in-lieu of parking application for two parking spaces relating to 564-566 Rogers Road be approved;

(2) the co-ordinated approach for dealing with parking deficiencies as recommended by York Community Council be forwarded to staff involved in the development of City-wide cash payment-in-lieu of parking policies and practices for their review and consideration; and

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

Background:

York Community Council on June 22, 1999, considered an application for cash payment-in-lieu of providing four of the eight parking spaces required under the provisions of former City of York Zoning By-law 1-83, for a proposed three-storey mixed use commercial- residential development at 564-566 Rogers Road. The property is currently a vacant lot located in the retail strip east of Keele Street on the north side of Rogers Road (See Appendix 1). The development consists of two ground level retail units requiring at total of four) parking spaces (two spaces per commercial unit) and four residential apartments on the upper levels requiring a minimum of four parking spaces (one space per unit).

Four parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the building with access from an existing municipal lane. Site and elevation plans of the proposed development are attached as Appendix 2 and 3, respectively.

The applicant appeared before York Community Council requesting approval of a revision to his application to provide cash payment-in-lieu of two parking spaces instead of the four spaces originally requested. The applicant advised that by making minor modifications to the floor plans of the ground floor commercial units, a reduction in gross floor area could be achieved to reduce the minimum commercial parking required by the Zoning By-law from four spaces to two spaces.

Community Council received the deputation and requested the Director of Community Planning, West District to report further on the revised application for two parking spaces, and to submit revised plans with the report.

Discussion:

Cash-Payment-in-Lieu of Parking for 564-566 Rogers Road

Site Plan Approval for the proposed development was granted on March 1, 1999. The cash payment-in-lieu of parking application arises from a condition of Site Plan Approval to correct the parking deficiency.

Following the submission of the cash-payment-in-lieu of parking application, the applicant advised staff that the payment for four spaces at $3,900.00 per space would add a considerable amount to the development costs for the project.

Staff discussed different options with the applicant who has opted to reduce the commercial gross floor area by adding an exit vestibule at the rear of each commercial unit. The area of the vestibule, which is exempt from gross floor area calculations, has been introduced on the building permit drawings (Appendix 4 - Revised Floor Plans). The Building Division has confirmed that total of six parking spaces (one for each of the two commercial units, and one for each of the four residential apartment units) are now required four spaces continue to be provided, resulting in a deficiency of two spaces for the development. Staff support the deficiency based on cash payment-in-lieu of parking for 2 spaces.

Policy Consideration for Proposed Developments, Additions, Alterations or Changes in Use that do not Comply with Minimum Zoning By-law Requirements.

Rebuilding York, the Final Report and Recommendations of the York Infrastructure Sub-Committee recognized that the existing cash payment-in-lieu of parking policy applying in the former City of York is negatively impacting main street revitalization. As means of avoiding the cash payment-in-lieu of parking space fees, applicants involved with new developments, alterations or additions, or changes in use often have filed minor variance applications with the Committee of Adjustment for relief from the Zoning By-law parking provisions in order to reduce parking deficiencies.

In these instances, the Committee of Adjustment has raised the issue of whether applications for relief from parking deficiencies should be considered without first attempting to obtain approval for cash-payment-in lieu of parking for some, if not all, of the deficient parking spaces.

This issue was raised by Planning Staff during Community Council's recent consideration of the York Infrastructure Sub-Committee Report on Rebuilding York. Community Council, on March 30, 1999, recommended, in part, that applications to the Committee of Adjustment involving parking deficiencies be first submitted to the York Community Council, and that public deputations be heard together with the staff report on the applications. City Council at it meeting in April requested the Chief Administrative Officer to review the recommendations of the Infrastructure Sub-Committee and to report to the appropriate Committees of Council.

In addition, following from a City Council directive given in October 1999, the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services have been developing consolidated policies for the new City with respect to cash payment-in-lieu of parking related to development applications. A report on a harmonized cash payment-in-lieu of parking policy and administrative practice is expected in the fall of this year.

In the meantime, the issue of the relationship between cash payment in lieu of parking and any necessary variances for parking deficiencies remains outstanding. It is recommended that York Community Council's recommendation be forwarded to staff involved with the City-wide harmonization of the cash payment in-lieu of parking policy for review. This approach would provide a means for co-ordinating the cash payment-in-lieu-of parking approval process and the Committee of Adjustment minor variance approval process involving parking deficiencies.

Conclusions:

The revised cash payment-in-lieu of parking application for two parking spaces for 564-566 Rogers Road is recommended for approval based on the floor plan modifications made by the applicant to his building permit application drawings.

It is further recommended that the co-ordinated approach for dealing with parking deficiencies as recommended by York Community Council be forwarded to staff involved in the development of cash payment-in-lieu of parking policies and practices for their review and consideration

Contact Name:

Lou Moretto,

Manager

Community Planning, West District

Tel: (416) 394-2618

Fax: (416) 394-2782

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1 - Location Map - 564-566 Rogers Road

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix 2 - Site Plan 564-566 Rogers Road

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix 3 - Elevations

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Appendix 3 - Elevations (cont'd)

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Appendix 4 - Revised Floor Plans

Request for Amendment to York By-law to Exempt

Disabled Persons from Parking Permit Fees

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1) the York By-law No. 3491-80, To Provide for Night-Time Parking of Motor Vehicles, be amended to allow for holders of disabled parking permits, to park overnight on the street without requiring an overnight parking permit, in order to be consistent with the parking by-law of the former City of Toronto; and

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

The York Community Council submits the following communication (June 14, 1999) from Councillor Mihevc:

It has come to my attention that in the Toronto district, parking by-law permit vehicles with handicapped parking stickers to park overnight without an on-street parking permit.

In York, by contrast, owners of vehicles with handicapped parking permits have to obtain on-street parking permits to park on their streets. Without such permits, they are subject to receiving tickets, and indeed, a number of tickers have been issued recently.

I am aware that the new City of Toronto is in the process of reviewing its parking by-law. However, in the interim, and for the purpose of equity, and given the proximity of former York and Toronto civic areas, I would ask that the York by-law be amended to bring it into conformity with that of the former City of Toronto.

By-law to Stop-Up, Close and Sell the Lane between

Lots 73 & 74, Plan 1665, York, West of

2620 St. Clair Avenue West Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends that as the requirements of the Municipal Act have been fulfilled and no evidence has been presented to the York Community Council to persuade it that the proposed by-law to Stop-Up, Close and Sell the public lane between Lots 73 and 74, Plan 1665, York, west of 2620 St. Clair Avenue West, and to authorize the sale thereof, should not be enacted, that the report dated June 28, 1999 from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be adopted.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 4 of Report No. 6 of the York Community Council, adopted by Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, notice of the public hearing held by the York Community Council on July 15, 1999, with respect to the proposed by-law To Stop-Up and Close the Public Lane between Lots 73 & 74 on Plan 1665, York, west of 2620 St. Clair Avenue West, and To Authorize the Sale Thereof, was published in the Toronto Star on June 24, June 30, July 7 and July 14, 1999; and that no one appeared at the public hearing to address the York Community Council.

The York Community Council submits the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To enact a By-law, To Stop-Up, Close and Sell the lane between Lots 73 and 74 on Plan 1665, York, west of 2620 St. Clair Avenue West.

Financial Implications:

The City will receive revenue in the amount of $17,000.00 from the sale of these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) a by-law in the form of the attached Draft (Appendix 'A'), To Stop-Up, Close and Sell the Lane between Lots 73 and 74, on Plan 1665, York, west of 2620 St. Clair Avenue West be enacted, subject to the appropriate legal description being inserted in Section 1 of the attached Draft, following the deposit of the necessary reference plan in the appropriate Land Registry Office;

(2) the lane measuring approximately 4.57 (15 feet) x 11.3 m (36.52 feet) irregular, shown hatched on the attached plan, be sold to the abutting owner(s), subject to the reservation of any necessary easements for municipal services or public utilities, at a price of $17,000.00; and

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

Background:

The abutting owner at 2620 St. Clair Avenue West has requested that the City take the steps necessary to sell the lane so that it can be assembled with his adjacent holdings. The same owner holds property to the east and west side of the lane.

City Council at its meeting on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted Clause 4 in Report No. 6 of the York Community Council, thereby declaring the property surplus to municipal requirements and authorizing staff to initiate the stop-up, close and sell the subject portion of lane.

Comments:

In 1993, the former City of York received a formal application from Zdeno Cycle Warehouse Ltd. to purchase the lane immediately west of its property. It appears that this file was not processed to its conclusion. Zdeno Cycle Warehouse Ltd. have recently advised that they are still interested in acquiring the lane.

The lane measures approximately 4.57 m (15 feet) x 11.13 m (36.52 feet) irregular and has been used exclusively by Zdeno Cycle for outdoor storage for several years.

A poll was taken to determine it there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no interest was expressed in this parcel of land.

An in-house opinion of value indicates a market value of $17,000.00 which the abutting owner at 2620 St. Clair Avenue West has agreed to pay.

The sale will be on the following basis:

Price: $17,000.00

Terms: Cash or certified cheque

Closing: Within sixty (60) days of approval

Condition: "As is" basis

Easements: To be reserved for any municipal services or public utilities

Other: Subject to the usual adjustments on closing

Survey and advertising costs at the expense of the purchaser

Conclusion:

The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be sold to the abutting owner(s).

It is recommended that a by-law to stop-up, close, and sell the surplus lane be approved. Once the required survey plan is registered, the appropriate Parts can be included in the By-law for enactment by Council.

Contact Name:

Francois (Frank) G. Bedard

Manager, Realty Services

Etobicoke-York Districts

Tel: (416) 392-1256

Fax: (416) 392-1880

Appendix 'A'

Authority: York Community Council

Clause 4, Report No. 6

Adopted by Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW NO.

To Stop-Up and Close the Public Lane between Lots 73 & 74,

on Plan 1665, York, west of 2620 St. Clair Avenue West, and

To Authorize the Sale thereof

WHEREAS it is recommended that the public lane between Lots 73 & 74, on Plan 1665, York, west of 2620 St. Clair Avenue West, be stopped-up and closed as a public lane and be sold on terms and conditions to be determined by Council; and

WHEREAS notice of the proposed by-law to stop-up and close the said portion of the public lane and to authorize the sale thereof, was published in the Toronto Star on June 24, June 30, July 7 and July 14, 1999;

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

1. The portion of the public lane between Lots 73 & 74 on Plan 1665, York, west of 2620 St. Clair Avenue West, described as follows:

is hereby stopped-up and closed as a public lane.

2. The soil and freehold of the portion of the public lane stopped-up and closed by Section 1 of this By-law shall be sold on terms and conditions to be determined by Council

ENACTED and PASSED this day of , 1999.

2 Heathdale Road and 1608 Bathurst Street, OMB Hearing on

Referral of OPA 128, Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan

Owner: Estate of Susan Burton; Agent: A. Paton, Solicitor

Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends that based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report dated June 23, 1999 from the Director, Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, that the application for an Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the subject lands from Low Density Residential to Medium Density residential with specific limitations on the Medium Density Residential designation, be approved.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a statutory public meeting on July 15, 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 regulations thereunder.

The York Community Council submits the following report (June 23, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider the applicant's proposed Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the lands from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential with specific limitations on the Medium Density Residential designation and to give direction to staff regarding the City's position for an upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing respecting the referral and the 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 revised by this report and set out in the draft Modification to Official Plan Amendment 128 attached as Schedule 1, and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to undertake any necessary action to support the revised proposal and introduce the attached draft Modification to Official Plan Amendment 128 (Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan) respecting the subject lands at the Ontario Municipal Board.

Background:

Proposal:

At the request of the owner of 2 Heathdale Road and 1608 Bathurst Street, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has referred portions of the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board. The owner is proposing a redesignation of the site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential with limitations by way of a site specific policy to prescribe maximum height, building area through setbacks, additional gross floor area, and number of units and a "house form" building form for any development on the lands. No related rezoning application has been filed.

Site and surrounding Area:

The subject lands are located on the northwest corner of Bathurst Street and Heathdale Road adjoining Cedarvale Park and approximately 0.5 kilometres north of St. Clair Avenue West. A location map is attached as Appendix 1. The property has a frontage on Heathdale Road of 15.14 metres (49.7 feet) and an area of 537.76 m² (5788.6 ft²). A legal non-conforming four level multiple dwelling house containing four units currently exists on the site.

The site topography is such that it slopes down from the south (Heathdale Road) toward the north (rear of the lot) thus exposing the lower level of the dwelling house along Bathurst Street. At the rear of the building is an attached two-car garage and gravel parking area beyond. A site plan is attached as Appendix 2.

The existing uses surrounding the site are as follows:

North: City of Toronto vacant surplus land parcel and Cedarvale Park and ravine, both zoned G-Green Open Space District

East: Cedarvale Park and ravine and low rise apartment buildings along Bathurst Street

South: Three-storey semi-detached dwellings on the opposite side of Heathdale Road and a mix of residential uses consisting of three and four storey apartment buildings and detached dwellings along Bathurst Street.

West: Single detached homes along Heathdale Road

Official Plan:

The Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan Official Plan Amendment No. 128 adopted on October 5, 1994 by By-law 2944-94 designates the lands Low Density Residential. Policies for this designation permit single detached, semi-detached, and duplex dwellings as well as townhouse dwellings or other ground-oriented dwellings subject to approval through a rezoning process. Other uses such as one apartment-in-house (second suite), home occupations, group homes, schools, parks, places of worship, and municipal uses and facilities necessary for the community are also permitted. The Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan Amendment states that Low Density Residential areas shall be regarded as stable, and shall be protected to ensure adjacent redevelopment activity is generally of a scale and character which is compatible with the existing housing form.

Zoning By-Law

On October 1, 1997, the former City of York Council passed Zoning By-Law 3623-97 (Housing Zoning By-Law Amendment). The amendment continued the R1- Residential District zoning of the lands to implement the Low Density Residential designation and policies of the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan. The R1 zoning permits single detached dwellings, an apartment-in-house, schools, parks and places worship. While By-law 3623-97 is under appeal by other parties for other reasons, the owner did not appeal the R1 zoning designation of his site. The owner does not wish to pursue a Zoning By-law Amendment application at this time to implement the requested Official Plan Amendment proposal.

Ontario Municipal Board referral.

The landowner requested the referral of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan. Schedule 1 designates the site Low Density Residential and Schedule 2 identifies areas to which specific policies as set out in the Secondary Plan apply.

The owner's referral request was based on his contention that the Low Density Residential designation is not appropriate for the site and should be designated as Medium Density Residential and either included as an extension of abutting Area 6 (West side of Bathurst Street, South of Heathdale Road) or as a new Area 8, to act as a buffer to the low density residential area to the west. The owner noted that the Low Density Residential designation would maintain the existing multiple unit dwelling not in compliance with the Secondary Plan.

A series of Ontario Municipal Board Pre-Hearing Conferences have been held respecting this referral. The Board has set a hearing date commencing on September 27, 1999 and will hold a further Pre-Hearing Conference on July 30, 1999 to finalize the procedural order and consider any additional motions to be brought before the Board. As a result of these conferences, the appellant and staff have held discussions in an attempt to identify mutually acceptable options to resolve issues underlying the referral request. Following these discussions, the owner's solicitor and planning consultant on April 16, 1999 submitted the more detailed Official Plan Amendment proposal summarized earlier. Staff has reviewed the proposal and, given the nature of discussions leading up to the proposal, considered that a negotiated settlement could be achieved with some revision and refinements to the proposal.

Comment:

Official Plan Amendment Proposal:

A redesignation of the site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential along with site specific limitations is proposed by the owner. The limitations are as follows:

(1) A maximum height equal to that of the existing building;

(2) A building footprint that approximates the existing building with setbacks equal to the existing setbacks but extended out to the rear wall of the attached garage;

(3) A statement that the building form for any new or renovated building will remain "house form";

(4) An increase in gross floor area of 200 m² which represents the area of three floors of building to replace the one-storey attached garage at the north end of the existing building, having setbacks equal to the existing building. This extra floor area is likely necessary to recoup the costs of placing some of the parking below grade; and,

(5) An increase in units from 4 to 8, to make efficient use of the existing and new floor area.

The redesignation is requested to bring the existing multiple unit building into conformity with the Official Plan and to permit an opportunity for future redevelopment of the site with a new multiple unit residential building to reflect the same building form, in generally the same location while providing for some increase in units and gross floor area. The owner is prepared to take his case to the Ontario Municipal Board but would prefer to settle this matter prior to the hearing.

A summary comparison of the development statistics that the appellant's proposal would generate as compared to the existing multiple unit dwelling is provided below.

Existing Legal Non-Conforming Dwelling House Redevelopment Potential under Policy Proposal

Site Area 537.76 m² (5788.6 ft²) 537.76 m² (5788.6 ft²)

Gross Floor Area 0.0538 ha (0.13 ac)

502.6 m²(5410 ft²)
0.0538 ha (0.13 ac)

702.6 m² (7563 ft²)

Units 4 8

Density

Unit Density 74 uph (31 upa) 148 uph (62 upa)

Floor Space Index 0.93 1.3

Parking Provided 4 spaces 4 spaces

Parking Required 4 spaces Min 7-8 spaces and

Approximately 2 visitor spaces

Height 3 storeys from Heathdale Road

third storey within roof structure - 11.36 m height to peak of roof (based on survey plan)
3 storeys from Heathdale Road

third storey within roof structure - 11.36 m height to peak of roof (based on survey plan)

Building Area 186.6 m² (2008 ft²)

including garage area
approximately 214.7 m² ( 2311 ft²)

including garage area

Department and Agency Comments:

Staff circulated the Official Plan Amendment proposal to appropriate departments and agencies for comment. The Municipal Licensing and Standards Division and Building Division of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department; the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Solid Waste Management Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, and Toronto Fire Services reported either no comment or no objections. Toronto Fire Services did advise that the Fire Code Residential Retrofit Legislation may apply to the existing building and that the owner should contact Fire Services to ensure the building is in compliance. The owner has been advised. Planning and Urban Design staff comments are reflected in the discussion of issues that follows:

Official Plan policies for residential intensification or redevelopment:

Section 9.14 of the Official Plan outlines policies to guide the integration of any intensification or redevelopment activities for housing purposes so as to preserve and strengthen the stability of low density residential area. Section 9.14 states that no application to amend the Official Plan in a Low Density Residential designation will be approved except for "sensitively designed medium density or higher forms of housing development for locations which are on the periphery of the existing built form of the low density neighbourhood, subject to a number of planning criteria to assess rezoning or Official Plan Amendment applications in such areas. Discussion of the applicable planning criteria to evaluate the applicant's proposal is presented in the following sections.

Assessment of Proposal

(1) Suitability of site location and characteristics for intensification

Policy 9.14 specifically notes that locations which are generally suitable for intensification or medium density development include sites along arterial streets and sites which contain non-conforming uses, and areas already mixed in character or form of development. The existing site and use at 2 Heathdale Road and 1608 Bathurst Street reflects these attributes.

(2) Availability of transportation facilities

Located adjacent to Bathurst Street, the site is readily accessible to the arterial road system and public transit. This site is within a 0.7 kilometre walking distance of the Heath Street West entrance to the St. Clair Avenue West Subway Station. The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has not identified problems with the road network to meet existing needs or the future need arising from the additional units requested by the owner.

(3) Availability of community services and facilities

The site is located within a 0.7 kilometre walking distance of the commercial strip along St. Clair Avenue West where a variety of retail, service, and commercial uses are available. The site also is located adjacent to Cedarvale Park. Although some informal park access points are located in close proximity to the site, the closest formal access, at the Cedarvale Bridge stairway access, is within a 0.7 kilometre walking distance from the site.

Both the Toronto District Catholic School Board and the Toronto District School Board have orally advised they have no concerns with the proposal.

(4) Physical design and visual and spatial relationship to low density residential uses

In order to address the issue of compatibility with the built form character of Heathdale Road and to minimize the impact on the abutting dwelling house to the west, Community Planning and Urban Design staff have reviewed the owner's proposed limitations to the Medium Density Residential designation giving consideration to the visual effects of building height, character, and orientation of any addition to intensify the residential use of the site or to redevelop the site with a new multiple unit dwelling. Staff concur with the owner's proposal that the existing building height of 11.36 m to the roof peak should be respected as a maximum height. This height has been measured from the elevation at the intersection of Bathurst Street and Heathdale Road. The existing building height is within the 11 metre (36 feet) maximum height of building zoning provision that would be apply for similar multiple unit residential buildings. Accordingly, it is recommended that the owner's proposal relating to maximum height be reworded to provide for a maximum height of building of 11 metres.

Staff also concur that a statement should be included in the specific area policy to required that the form of any new renovated building shall continue as a "house form" building with a modification to add a requirement for a building entrance on Heathdale Road and on Bathurst Street.

In terms of building orientation and separation from adjoining low density uses, staff generally concur with the owner's proposal that the footprint and setbacks of any renovated or new building equal that of the existing building extended to the rear limit of the attached garage wall.

However, it is recommended that the applicant's proposal be revised, at minimum, to maintain the current side and rear yard setbacks of the existing building and garage wall adjoining the westerly lot line or the setbacks provisions of the zoning by-law for similar multiple unit dwelling house uses, whichever is greater. Such a modification will maintain existing site lines and development separation for the abutting property at 4 Heathdale Road while also providing opportunity for a protected side and rear yard amenity area for the site. In all other instances, setbacks should approximate, rather than equal, the existing building setbacks extended to the rear most limit of the existing garage wall in keeping with the setbacks provisions of the Zoning By-law for similar multiple unit dwelling house uses.

(5) Vehicular Access and On-Site Parking

On site parking is currently provided in a slightly undersized two-car garage and in a rear yard gravel surface parking area capable of accommodating up to three vehicles.

The surface parking area appears to share the ramp access to the garage, which is directly from Bathurst Street across the flankage of the lot. Sufficient parking for the existing four units is provided to comply with current Zoning By-Law parking standards.

The owner's proposed limitations to the Medium Density Residential designation do not indicate minimum standards for parking and access.

Community Planning and Urban Design staff in consultation with Works and Emergency Services- Transportation Division staff have determined that up to six parking spaces provided as a combination of attached garage spaces and surface parking spaces with one driveway access from Bathurst Street can pragmatically be provided on-site. Parking facilities can be provided in accordance with the parking and access provisions of the Zoning By-law while having regard for the site constraints relating to topography, the location of trees in the rear year and the provision of some outdoor amenity area, and landscaping and screening for the residential dwelling to the west.

Staff recommend that a new limitation to the Medium Density Residential designation be added as to require that parking, driveway and access facilities shall be provided in accordance with Zoning By-law standards.

(6) Capability of the site to support the proposed density and number of units.

Official Plan Policies for Medium Density Residential Areas allow the density of development to generally be within a range from 50 to 125 units per hectare and the floor space index to generally not exceed 1.25, except in specific circumstances as outlined in the Plan. The specific circumstances do not apply to this site.

The owner has proposed limitations to the Medium Density designation to permit an increase of up to 200 m² of additional gross floor area and four additional units. The proposal would result in maximum densities of 148 units per hectare and a floor space index of 1.3, both in excess of the density provisions for Medium Density Residential areas.

While planning staff agree that this site provides an opportunity for some intensification, given its location and context, the degree of intensification should be limited to reflect the constraints of the site relating to the provision of amenity space; landscaping and buffering for adjoining dwellings; the arrangement of development which does not detract from sightlines; the ability to provide a compatible development in building form and height, and the provision of adequate parking and access in accordance with the by-law standards.

Having regard for these objectives, staff recommend that the owner's proposed limitations relating to additional gross floor area (proposed increase of 200m²over the existing gross floor area of 503m²) and to additional units (proposed increase from four to eight units) be both reduced to permit an gross floor area increase of up to 100 m² for a maximum total gross floor area of 603m² and an increase in units from four to six. The additional gross floor area and units can be accommodated on two or three levels of building contained within the expanded attached garage footprint at the north and the approximate footprint of the existing building.

These recommended reductions would ensure that any development on the site would be within the density ranges prescribed for Medium Density Residential areas.

Staff's recommended modifications to the owner's proposed limitations to the Medium Density Residential, which result from the preceding assessment of the proposal, are set out in the Conclusion section of this report.

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 Planning Act Public Meeting forum scheduled for the July 15, 1999 Community Council Meeting. Comments received at the Public Meeting will be considered by Community Council in making an informed decision on the recommended modifications and the direction staff is to follow for the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the matter.

Further Planning Approvals:

Despite the proposed Medium Density Residential designation with specific policy limitations, the owner will be required to obtain Committee of Adjustment approval for any extension or enlargement of the existing legal non-conforming use to realize the increased development permission. If the owner intends to redevelop the site for a residential development consistent with the proposed Medium Density Residential designation and limitations, approval of a Zoning By-Law Amendment to give effect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and a Site Plan Control application, will be required.

Conclusion:

Based upon the comments noted above, and the subject to the endorsement of City Council, planning staff are prepared to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on September 27, 1999 in support of a modification to the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan to redesignate the site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and to introduce new policies which will allow the use of the site for only a residential building subject to the following limitations:

1. A maximum height of building of 11 metres.

2. A buildable area that approximates the existing building; with setbacks corresponding to the existing building and garage perimeter adjoining the west side yard and the setback provisions of the Zoning by-law for similar multiple family dwellings, whichever is greater. In all other instances setbacks shall approximate the existing building setbacks extending to the rear most limit of the existing garage wall in keeping with the setbacks provisions of the Zoning By-law for similar multiple unit dwelling house uses.

3. The form of any new or renovated building shall continue as "house form" with a building entrance on Heathdale Road and on Bathurst Street.

4. A maximum gross floor area of 603 m².

5. A maximum of six units.

6. Parking, driveway and access facilities shall be provided in accordance with Zoning By-law standards.

The staff position noted above reflecting the revisions to the proposal is detailed in Schedule 1 as a draft Modification to Official Plan Amendment Number 128. The revised proposal and draft modifications was presented and discussed with the owner's agent. The agent has orally advised that, with Council's approval, the appellant is prepared to support the revisions to his proposal and the corresponding modifications to the Official Plan Amendment as set out in this report and will further address the matter at Community Council July 15, 1999.

Staff therefore recommend that Council endorse the revisions to the proposal and the modifications to Official Plan Amendment Number 128 noted herein, and authorize staff to support this position at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Staff's recommended revisions to the proposal and modifications to the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan would result in a development that would be in character and compatible with the surrounding areas, and that reflects the opportunities and constraints of the site.

Contact Name:

Lou Moretto,

Manager

Community Planning, West District

Tel: (416) 394-2618

Fax: (416) 394-2782

Schedule 1: Draft Modifications to Amendment No. 128 to the Official Plan of the former City of York.

That Official Plan Amendment No. 128 of the former City of York be modified as follows:

(i) By amending Schedule 1 to Official Plan Amendment No. 128 so as to change the land use designation of the lands municipally known as 2 Heathdale Road and 1608 Bathurst Street from "Low Density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential" and by amending Schedule 1 accordingly; *

(ii) By amending Schedule 2 to Official Plan Amendment No. 128 so as to outline and identify the lands municipally known as 2 Heathdale Road and 1608 Bathurst Street as Area 8 and by amending Schedule 2 accordingly; *

(iii) By deleting the text within Section 3.1 Description and by inserting the following as the new text for Section 3.1 Description:

"The Medium Density Residential Areas on Schedule 1 are those areas which are presently developed for low rise apartments or multiple family housing. Also designated is an area at the intersection of Vaughan Road and Winona Drive, identified as Area 4 and a site at northwest corner of Heathdale Road and Bathurst Street, identified as Area 8. Policies for these areas are set out in Sub-paragraphs D.4 and D.8, respectively."

(iv) By amending the opening sentence in Section D. Specific Area Policies to delete the word "seven" and to insert the word "eight" in its place.

(v) By further amending Section D Specific Area Policies to insert the following new policy following policy 7.0;

"8.0 Site at northwest corner of Heathdale Road and Bathurst Street.

Area 8 consists of the lands municipally know as 2 Heathdale Road and 1608 Bathurst Street. Notwithstanding, their Medium Density Residential designation and the Medium Density Policies of the Plan, the lands may only be used for a residential building subject to the following provisions:

1. A maximum height of building of 11 metres.

*NOTE: These changes are shown for information purposes only in the Schedule A to Draft Modifications to Schedules 1 and 2 of Official Plan No. 128 attached hereto.

3. The form of any new or renovated building shall continue as "house form" with a building entrance on Heathdale Road and on Bathurst Street.

4. A maximum gross floor area of 603 m².

5. A maximum of six dwelling units.

6. Parking, driveway and access facilities shall be provided in accordance with Zoning By-law standards."

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 15, 1999) from Mark Christie, Plans Analyst, Development Services Section, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:

This will acknowledge receipt of the above noted notice. We offer the following commehnts.

It is our understanding the land owner proposes a redesignation of the sit from low density residential to Medium Density Residential with specific limitations to regulate the use and development of these lands. We understand that the owner will be seeking approval for intensification from a 4-unit multiple dwelling to permit 8 units.

The subject property abuts a well defined valley corridor. Please be advised that a geotechnical report may be required to determine the stability of the slope and could restrict additional development on the subject property. As well, in accordance with the Authority's policy document, Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) the top of bank limit of the valley will need to be established on site and development will need to be setback appropriately from this limit. Furthermore, the land use designation should reflect the valleyland appropriately to prohibit structural encroachment.

In view of the above, we cannot support the proposed Official Plan Amendment requested by the applicant.

We trust you wil find the above to be satisfactory. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Tricia Rosa at extension 267.

--------

No one appeared before the York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1: Location Map for 2 Heathdale & 1608 Bathurst Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix 2: Site Plan

310 & 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue - Official Plan Amendment

and Rezoning Applications; Applicant: Walker Nott Dragicevic;

Owner: Goldlist Properties Inc. - Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue be refused;

(2) in the event the applicant submits a new application regarding these properties, that a citizens reference group be formed to review such application, and any future applications, prior to formal public meetings being held;

(3) the City Solicitor and the staff of Urban Planning and Development Services, together with any other appropriate staff, be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board to defend Council's position in opposition to the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications respecting 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue; and

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

The York Community Council submits the following Final Report (June 28, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To report on the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue for 286 condominium units in two 25-storey towers which involve the demolition of 246 existing rental units in two 12 storey buildings.

Financing Implications:

There are no financial implications stemming from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the application for 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue be refused and that the applicant be advised that City Council would be willing to consider a revised application that addresses the issues outlined in this report;

(2) the City Solicitor and the staff of Urban Planning and Development Services, together with any other appropriate staff, be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board to defend Council's position in opposition to the applications for Official Plan Amendment and rezoning respecting 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

In 1995, following York Council's adoption of the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan, the owner, Goldlist Properties, appealed the provisions of the Secondary Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), prior to the submission of the subject application in July 1998. A date for hearing this appeal has been set by the Board for September 27, 1999. A Pre-hearing Conference has been also scheduled for July 30, 1999, to finalize the procedural order for the hearing and to consider any additional motions to be brought before the Board. On May 17, 1999, the proponent appealed the subject application to the OMB to be consolidated with the hearing on the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan.

In addition, the applicant, together with 19 other appellants of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (or OPA2 - the City's Official Plan amendment regarding the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing) have obtained a motion date commencing July 21, 1999, for the purposes of obtaining a determination from the OMB as to the legal validity and applicability of OPA2.

Given this timetable, the July 15, 1999 meeting of York Community Council and the subsequent July 27, 28, 1999 meeting of City Council are the last opportunities for Council to consider a report and give direction to staff on these matters prior July 30, 1999, Pre-hearing Conference and the September 27, 1999 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

Description of the Proposal:

The site is located within the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan area at the southwest corner of Heath Street and Tweedsmuir Avenue (See Appendix 1 - Location Map), and presently has two 12-storey rental apartment buildings with 246 units. Of the 246 existing units, the owners advise that the buildings contain 144 rental units and 102 hotel suites that are exempted from rent control and which are rented on a short-term lease basis.

The application for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning was filed on July 30, 1998. The applicant is proposing to demolish the two existing rental buildings and replace them with two 25-storey condominium apartment towers and 36 townhouse units, for a total of 286 units. (See Table 1 - Project Information).

The current application consists of two 25-storey towers facing Tweedsmuir Avenue and connected at the second level by a recreation complex. The 36 four-storey proposed townhouse units face Heath Street, St. Michael's playing fields and Holy Rosary Catholic School. The proposed towers and townhouses would enclose an internal landscaped courtyard. All parking is to be provided below-grade and accessed from Tweedsmuir Avenue by a driveway between the two towers (See Appendices 2 - Site Plan and 3 - Elevations).

TABLE 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION

Official Plan: High Density Residential - maximum floor space index of 3.0

Zoning: RM2 - maximum floor space index of 2.5 and height of 8 storeys

Site Area: 0.9226 hectares (2.2 acres)

Existing Use: two 12-storey rental apartment buildings with 144 rental units and 102 short-term rental units

Proposed Use: two 25-storey condominium apartment buildings with 250 units and 36 townhouses around the perimeter of the site. Total 286 units

Average Apartment 140 m² (1,500 ft)

Average Townhouse 149 m² (1,600 ft)

Proposed GFA 45,066 m² (485,100 ft²)

Proposed FSI 4.9 floor space index

Proposed UPH 310 units per hectare

Height Apartment Buildings - 25 storeys (67 metres)

Townhouses - 3 and 4 storeys (11.7 metres)

Proposed Parking 358 spaces in an underground parking garage

The proposal shows 5 units per floor in the high-rise buildings, each approximately 140 m²/unit (1,500 ft²) in size.

The surrounding uses are as follows:

West: St. Michael's College playing field;

South: Holy Rosary Catholic School;

East: Apartment buildings ranging in height from 15 to 25 storeys; and

North: Apartment buildings ranging in height from 17-18 storeys.

Application Chronology:

Following its submission in July 1998, the application was circulated to other departments and agencies for their review. A preliminary staff report on the matter was submitted to the York Community Council at its meeting of November 1998. This report identified a range of issues, including the potential loss of rental housing. The report noted that the application would be subject to emerging City policies on condominium conversion and demolition of rental housing.

A Public Information Meeting on the application was held on November 11, 1998. A further meeting was held with the community on March 30, 1999 to provide an overview of the planning process. Concerns raised by the community are discussed further in this report.

The applicant submitted the required information concerning the application in February through April 1999. As noted above, on May 17, 1999, the proponent appealed the subject application to the OMB to be consolidated with the hearing on the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan, the date for which has been set for September 27, 1999. In addition, the applicant, together with 19 other appellants of OPA2 have obtained a motion date commencing July 21, 1999, for the purposes of obtaining a determination from the OMB as to its legal validity and applicability.

Comment:

Overview of Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Provisions:

This section of the report takes a closer look at the current planning framework with respect to the applicant's proposal.

City of York Official Plan and Zoning By-law:

As indicated, the site is designated High Density Residential in the City of York Official Plan. This designation allows apartment buildings in the range of 125 to 300 units per hectare, with a floor space index of up to 3.0 (Section 9.20). The current zoning of the site is RM2, which allows a maximum floor space index (f.s.i.) of 2.5 and a maximum height of 8 storeys. At a proposed density of 310 units per hectare and an f.s.i. of 4.9, the application would require both an Official Plan Amendment and a Rezoning.

The Official Plan provides opportunities for greater increases in density, subject to the provisions set out in Sections 9.20 and 9.22 of the Plan. Locations in the vicinity of subways may be candidate sites where the site has the capability for accommodating the intensified use, height and density, and where the development is integrated to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.

Section 9.22 further stipulates that among the factors to be considered in assessing the applications for high-density residential development is the ability of the site to accommodate affordable housing or other needed types of housing, among other matters. Section 9.6 addresses Council's policies to encourage at least 25% of new housing production to be affordable. Both sections of the York Official Plan refer to Bonus Zoning, under Section 37 of the Planning Act, as the appropriate vehicle for permitting higher densities in exchange for affordable housing and public amenities.

The Official Plan contains general provisions (Section 4.9) which encourage diversity in form and tenure of housing, emphasizing the production of ownership housing. However, it also provides criteria in Section 9.7 b to restrict the conversion of rental housing to condominiums, as a means of preserving rental housing stock, and to discourage unnecessary or premature loss of housing through the use of demolition control.

The Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan, in which this site is located, does not contain any specific provisions relating to the site. However, the Secondary Plan (Section 21.11.4.5) removes the ability to use bonusing to add community benefits in exchange for increased density or height within its boundaries. A summary of relevant City of York Official Plan policies is provided in Appendix 5.

The Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan:

In addition to provisions related to affordable housing, Policy No. 125, states that it is the policy of Council to encourage the investment in new private rental housing and the preservation and maintenance of existing rental housing and to support provincial and federal policies in this regard.

Current Policies of the Amalgamated City of Toronto:

In 1998, the Province of Ontario repealed the Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA) and enacted the Tenant Protection Act, which does not provide a provincially mandated approval process with respect to conversions and demolition of existing rental stock.

In recognition of the fact that:

1. policies to encourage retention and conservation of the existing stock of private rental housing (for example through discouraging demolition and conversion) represent good planning;

2. the Provincial Policy Statement directs that all planning jurisdictions in the province provide for a full range of housing types and densities to meet projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents by a variety of means, including encouraging housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower income households; and

3. more than half of the residents of the City (52.5%) live in rented accommodation and the current rental vacancy rate across the City is approximately 0.8 percent.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services reported to Council in June 1998, regarding the potential loss of rental housing. She was directed to review and report back on the matter by early fall of 1998 on appropriate City-wide policies and procedures respecting condominium conversion and the demolition of rental housing.

City Council, at its meeting of March 2, 3, and 4, 1999, approved draft official plan amendments regarding the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing (i.e. OPA2) and on April 15, 1999, City Council adopted by by-law, the above-noted Official Plan Amendments. The new City policies also reflect ongoing initiatives to harmonize the policies and practices of the former municipalities with regard to the preservation of rental housing.

The policies related to the demolition of rental housing adopted by Council are as follows:

Policy 135.4 - to seek the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, where appropriate, acquiring or leasing a property where such units are at risk of being demolished.

Policy 135.5 (a) - when considering redevelopment applications involving the demolition of rented residential units, to seek the replacement of the demolished rental units with rental units of a similar number, type, size and level of affordability in the new development, and/or alternative arrangements, which in the opinion of Council are consistent with the intent of this policy; and

Policy 135.5 (b) - when considering such applications in the context of an increase in height and-or density, to secure such replacement units and/or alternative arrangements through an appropriate legal agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act.

These policies will assist City Council in meeting its goal of no net loss of rental housing as recommended by the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force which identified the decreasing supply of low-cost rental housing as one of the six major barriers that have prevented effective solutions to homelessness in the City. When in force, these provisions will supercede provisions in existing Official Plans regarding conversion/demolition of rental housing. As noted previously, these provisions are currently under appeal. Nevertheless, they represent an implementation and continuum of currently in force official plan provisions and form a context within which this application should be considered.

Appraisal of the Application:

This section of the report provides an overview of some of the key considerations, which have been identified in reviewing the application.

In support of the application, the applicant submitted information with regard to traffic, parking, the location of community services in the area, existing rents and housing data in response to both the Metropolitan and York Official Plans.

Agency Response:

The Buildings Section, Toronto Public School Board, and Parks Division did not forward comments. The Toronto Region Conservation Authority has no objection.

Works and Emergency Services indicated that the existing street network could accommodate the increased traffic. In addition, the applicant must prepare a recycling program and submit a storm water management study for the development.

The Fire Protection Division requires that access requirements be addressed.

Toronto Hydro required the applicant to contact the Commission about the project's electrical requirements.

The Toronto Separate School Board is concerned with construction and its effect on the adjacent school property and indicates that it objects to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments due to lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at the Holy Rosary Catholic School.

Policy Considerations:

As discussed above, to seek an increase in density from the existing 1.9 f.s.i. to the proposed 4.9 f.s.i., the York Official Plan sets out a number of criteria which must be reviewed when assessing applications for increases in density. It is noted that the site is located in close proximity to the St. Clair West subway station with convenient access to shops and services. In terms of the impact of the proposal on hard and soft services, the review of information submitted by the applicant has identified few problems with existing hard and soft services, with the exception of school capacity at the adjacent Holy Rosary Catholic School.

However it is clear from the York Official Plan that considerations of increased density beyond 300 u.p.h. and 3.0 f.s.i., as set out in Sections 9.20 and 9.22 of the Plan, are also related to the provision of affordable or other needed types of housing, as well as an appropriate built form. Of paramount importance in this instance is that the higher densities sought by the applicant involve the loss of 246 units of rental housing.

While the application addresses the general provisions in the York Official Plan encouraging ownership production, it does not address the issue of diversity in tenure of housing on site, nor does it reflect the policies addressing the provision of affordable housing and the preservation of rental stock. According to 1998 data that the applicant supplied from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the vacancy rate for rental apartments in the former City of York was 0.8 percent, which is consistent with the City-wide rate, and reflects the scarcity of rental supply. The current proposal, which provides for luxury units at an average of 145 m2 (1,560 ft2), makes no provision for affordable ownership or rental housing.

When City Council passed OPA 2, it also provided for the repeal and replacement of the existing York provisions (Section 9.7) with regard to conversion of rental housing. Through OPA 2, staff are directed to seek the replacement of the rental units proposed for demolition with rental units of a similar number, type, size and level of affordability in the new development, and/or alternative arrangements.

The current application is for a condominium form of tenure. The site is large enough to accommodate a reasonable replacement of the 246-unit rental building, as well as adding a condominium development. It is the opinion of planning staff that the applicant should include this rental component in the development proposal and that it should be appropriately secured.

Of the 246 existing units, 102 have been classified as "apartment hotel suites". These suites are typically short-term rentals and the rents were not regulated under the Residential Rent Regulation Act or the superseding Rent Control Act. The applicant has requested that these units should not be considered in determining the number of rental units that are required to be replaced as a result of OPA No. 2. It is staff's position that they should be considered for replacement as they form part of the City's rental housing stock.

Site Design and Density:

In addition to the policy concerns, staff has reviewed the application in terms of its compatibility with adjacent areas and the appropriateness of the proposed scale, massing, street relationship, heights, building profiles and shadow impact. Subsection 9.22 requires that in order to support an increase in density the development must be carefully integrated to ensure that it reflects the opportunities and constraints of the location and will result in a compatible built form with adjacent areas.

The current proposal places the two towers along the Tweedsmuir frontage with the townhouses ringing the site to the rear of the building (See Appendix 2 - Site Plan). The two towers are slab buildings that rise from grade with no building setbacks. There is no gradation of height from the two 25 storeys to the townhouses on site, and an abrupt transition from the southerly tower to the adjacent two-storey school building.

With regard to shadow impact, there is an increase in shadow from the development on adjacent buildings to the east and north (see Appendix 4 - Shadow Study) which will create a negative impact on these sites.

For these reasons, staff find the design and scale of the current proposal unacceptable. Staff has, however, reviewed the site in some detail and feel that there is sufficient opportunity within the 0.92 hectare (2.2 acre) site to achieve a satisfactory site design that relates better internally and to the neighbourhood, and which can accommodate both rental and ownership housing.

Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the concerns with respect to site design, density, and replacement of the rental units. To date, these matters remain unresolved. It is hoped that discussions with the applicant can continue. However, Council direction is required so that staff can attend the Pre-hearing Conference on July 30, 1999, and the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing which begins September 27, 1999, to defend Council's position on the application.

Community Consultation:

As noted above, public information meetings were held on November 11, 1998, and March 30, 1999. The residents living at 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir and people living in the surrounding community identified a number of issues. The building residents, many of whom have lived in the building for a number of years, are very concerned about the loss of their housing and the need to make alternative arrangements in the face of a tight rental market.

The surrounding community's concerns include the application's height and density, shadow impact, the increased amount of traffic as well as protection for the building's residents and the need for a tenant relocation plan. These issues were highlighted at the first community meeting and have been repeated at subsequent meetings. Comments on these matters are provided in this report.

Tenant Relocation:

The rental buildings were constructed in 1963. Some of the existing tenants have lived in the buildings since that time and many others are long-term renters.

We are advised by the applicant that they have given notice to the tenants which meets the requirements of the Tenant Protection Act, and have offered an enhanced payment in addition to that required by the Act provided the tenants agree to vacate their units by August, 1999. The applicant also advises that they have offered to make other rental units available. However, these units are not in proximity to the subject site, and staff have been advised that the Tweedsmuir tenants have expressed a desire to remain in the area.

Conclusion:

Staff have reviewed the application from Goldlist Properties to amend the York Official Plan and Zoning By-law in order to permit the construction of two 125 unit condominium towers and 36 townhouses at a proposed density of 310 u.p.h. and 4.9 f.s.i. While it is recognized that the site is located near a subway station, and is of a reasonable size to support some level of intensification, the current proposal does not otherwise meet the criteria of the Official Plan for an increase in density. It does not address the retention or replacement of rental housing, the provision of affordable units, and the compatibility of the project within the context of the surrounding area and internally with respect to scale, massing, and density. Therefore staff recommend refusal.

Redevelopment of this site should be dependent on the reasonable replacement of 246 existing rental units that are of similar type, size, and level of affordability as currently provided for at this location within an appropriate site design that also provides for ownership housing.

Staff has advised the applicant that the City is willing to keep the lines of communication open in order to resolve outstanding matters. Should a revised application, which addresses the issues identified in this report, be forthcoming, a supplementary report will be forwarded to Council. In this event, it is recognized that relief from the restriction on bonusing contained in the Oakwood/Vaughan Secondary Plan may need to be further considered.

Contact Names:

Wendy Johncox, MCIP, RPP

Senior Planner

Tel: (416) 394-2868

Fax: (416) 394-2782

Helen Bulat

Principal Planner

Tel: (416) 394-8229

Fax: (416) 394-6063

The York Community Council also had before it the following communications during consideration of the aforementioned matter:

(i) (June 30, 1999) from Mr. Bramley Paulin, advising that the project is overly dense; the increase in traffic, noise and the sudden influx in the population would totally destroy the tranquillity of this quiet neighbourhood; the surrounding residences would be left in perpetual darkness from the shadows of this development; the project is out of character and scale with the rest of the neighbourhood; and is adamantly opposed to the project.

(ii) (July 9, 1999) from Ms. Doreen Lowe, Tweedsmuir Tenants Association, advising that she has been a resident for 19 years; that during this time Goldlist Properties has allowed the buildings to deteriorate; now claims that it would cost millions of dollars to renovate; the demolition has been planned for years and as soon as the provincial government changed the regulations allowing landlords to demolish rental accommodation for construction of condominiums, Goldlist immediately applied to demolish and replace the buildings with luxury condominiums; the residents of these buildings are not only facing the possibility of losing their homes, but also the impossible task of finding affordable housing; if the City allows Goldlist Properties to demolish these buildings it will set a precedent for other landlords to do the same thing.

(iii) (June 29, 1999) from Ms. Susan Willemsen, expressing opposition to the proposal; that the changes effectively double the height of the buildings, obscure the view and sunlight currently enjoyed and cast long shadows over the homes in the area; the increase in population with add to the traffic congestion in an area that is already strained by traffic at peak hours; and that there will be the added noise and dirt pollution from the number of construction vehicles.

(iv) (July 5, 1999) from Ms. Lois Wells, objecting to the proposal; concerned that the homes of the residents will be destroyed; there are many on fixed incomes who cannot afford the cost of luxury condominiums; there will be more traffic and pollution of the area; and the demolition of these buildings will set a precedent.

(v) (June 30, 1999) from Ms. Julia Matthews, stating that many of the residents have lived there for 20 to 35 years and are on fixed incomes; they are familiar with the residents in the buildings who take care of them; the cost of rental housing is unaffordable; over fifty-percent of income is spent on housing; the density proposed will increase the traffic in the area in addition to the traffic from the Holy Rosary School and Church on Tweedsmuir where buses drop off children in the morning and afternoon; the parking meters are always occupied; the vehicles from the garages at the two 25-storey buildings (Walmer Road Apartments) exit onto Tweedsmuir Avenue; St. Clair Avenue westbound is blocked in by a railed 4-ft. wall from Bathurst Street to just east of Tweedsmuir, to allow street cars access to the underground subway; this locks in traffic and on St. Clair Avenue just west of Bathurst Street, meters are in place where cars and taxis park, forcing two lanes of traffic to merge as one when they cross Bathurst Street, creating traffic backups and delays; and the huge new Loblaws Superstore when completed will increase the volume of traffic on St. Clair Avenue.

(vi) (June 28, 1999) from Mr. Paul Williger, submitting a letter signed by six other area residents, objecting to the proposal; and commenting on the traffic congestion, lack of adequate parking; obstruction of sunlight; and the need to retain rental housing

(vii) (July 5, 1999) from Dr. D.C. Slezakova, requesting notification regarding decisions on this proposal.

(viii) (June 29, 1999) from Mr. William Solomon, President of the Tenants Committee, advising that he has resided at this building for 38 years, is physically disabled, that there are many senior citizens in the buildings on fixed incomes; there has been no rental apartments constructed in the last ten years; the rents being charged are exorbitant; the residents of these buildings cannot afford the luxury condominiums; and requesting that the application to demolish the buildings not be approved.

(ix) (July 12, 1999) from Rev. Paul McGill, Pastor, Church of the Holy Rosary, the Basilian Fathers, advising that he has known the area residents for many years; have visited some at their homes; that the past eleven months have been very stressful for the elderly; expressing concern for the health and welfare of the parishioners and stating that they are not in a position to relocate.

(x) From Dr. Len Green, Walmer Road Chiropractic Clinic, expressing concern regarding the physical toll this proposal has had on some of his clients, many of whom are seniors and have lived in these buildings for many; and indicating support for the position of the residents.

(xi) (July 12, 1999) from Ms. Mary Leah Kitchen, advising that she has lived in the building for 21 years; had hoped to spend the remaining years there; and that the owners had done very little to improve the buildings.

(xii) (July 7, 1999) from Ms. Norma Jackson, stating that she is retired on a fixed income, is very happy living in the building; that there are many other seniors, some elderly, who are very upset and scared on the prospect of having to relocate; and is opposed to the demolition.

Similar letters in opposition to the demolition were submitted by the following persons:

(xiii) (July 9, 1999) from Mary and Gordon Hopkins;

(xiv) (July 7, 1999) from Ms. Marie Walsh;

(xv) (July 10, 1999) from Bertie Sullivan;

(xvi) (June 30, 1999) from Ms. Roslyn Oleuder;

(xvii) (July 8, 1999) from Ms. Jean Beauregard;

(xviii) (July 7, 1999) from Ms. Carolyn Oldham;

(xix) (June 30, 1999) from Ms. Cecilia McCea;

(xx) (June 30, 1999) from Ms. Veronica Boros;

(xxi) (June 30, 1999) from Ms. Magdolna Boros;

(xxii) (June 30, 1999) from Mr. Alexander Boros;

(xxiii) (July 7, 1999) from H.C. Levargs

(xxiv) (July 6, 1999) from Ms. Joan Darling;

(xxv) (July 8, 1999) from Ms. Mary McGeachy;

(xxvi) (July 8, 1999) from Ms. Frances McGeachy;

(xxvii) (July 8, 1999) from Ms. Mera Bubenick;

(xxviii)(July 7, 1999) from Ms. Bernice Oldham;

(xxix) (July 8, 1999) from Ms. Rochelle Couton;

(xxx) (July 9, 1999) from Ms. Annette Goldstein;

(xxxi) (July 10, 1999) from Ms. Agnes Austerweil; and

(xxxii) (July 9, 1999) from Ms. Regina McBain.

--------

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

Mr. Phil White - commended the planning staff for an excellent report; expressed opposition to this application; advised that construction of two such massive structures with the proposed height and density in the heart of the community is irresponsible; that the proposal does not abut on any arterial road but on two residential streets; the fact that the buildings will be close to the Heath Street subway entrance subway does not merit extra density or height; the only way a 25-storey building might be considered is if the building was built close to the St. Clair Subway Station on St. Clair Avenue; it would be irresponsible to consider a density of 4.9 when right next door to St. Michael's College lands the density is 2.6 to 3; that the application is out of step when you consider the High Park area which has high rise buildings which has the density of 2.6 to 3, Yonge and Eglinton 3.7, Yonge and St. Clair 2.7 and St. James town of all places has 3.5; that the planning report did indicate that the application doesn't provide affordable housing; that this development is geared for the rich with a luxury building and with townhouses which would sell for approximately $800,000. and condominiums for about $400,000. to $500,000.; the design of the building leaves much to be desired; it lacks originality and uniqueness; that parking is another concern; there are some people who will park their vehicles on the street; at the present time there are no on-stree parking spaces available according to a staff report; there are also no permits available for parking on Tichester Road and Heath Street West and on the surrounding streets; the Works and Emergency Services have stated that the streets could accommodate increased traffic; the roads can accommodate a few more cars but only into the village area where most of the residents visit once or twice a week; there is a high volume of vehicles; the parking meters and the lot are constantly full; vehicles from this project will only compound the problems; there will also be the opening of Loblaws with almost 100,000 sq. ft.; every street within the quadrant will see increased traffic from shoppers who will try and avoid traffic on the main roads and use the residential roads to bypass; there will be shadow effect and wind tunnels; there are condominiums being built all over the City, but there are no rental units being built; concern has to be shown for rental properties for seniors, single people on fixed incomes; to approve this application would be a tragedy especially when the vacancy rate is at an all-time low of 0.8 percent; tenants are forced to pay increased rents and are deferring on the basic essentials of their needs in order to pay these increased rents; to allow for the removal of these rental units without suitable alternative it will be political suicide; more than half of the City's population are tenants and are running at 52.5 percent; that the aim should be to morally and socially fight for the retention or replacement of rental units and protect vulnerable tenants and to give the community a compatible project that the residents can be satisfied with; and urged consideration of the following motion:

(1) that the application for 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir be refused;

(2) that the applicant be advised that City Council will consider an application that addresses the issues that the planning officials and the concerns of the residents; and

(3) that a sub-committee be formed with approximately 3 citizens from this community and 2 representatives from Ward 28 to work in tandem with the appropriate planning officials and the applicant to ultimately submit a revised application for the consideration of our community.

Ms. Roz Mendelson - expressed support for the staff recommendations; encouraged the planners in considering a revised application that all the issues outlined in the report be addressed and not be compromised; that there is a real concern regarding the traffic that will be generated; the number of cars that exit from the Tweedsmuir garages is really significant contrary to the Works Department; the residents are aware of the volume of traffic on a daily basis; challenged the staff report that the street could handle the traffic; Tweedsmuir is one block long with no access to eastbound traffic; fender benders on Walmer and Heath Streets are not uncommon; they may not be reported due to fear of increased insurance costs but they do take place; traffic must really be a consideration; requested notification of OMB hearing; expressed concerns for the well-being of the tenants who are also neighbours who have lived in the area for many years in affordable housing, longer than the condominium owners; these residents would be displaced to far away neighbourhoods if Council does not endorse the recommendations; quoted Mr. Bramley Paulin, who faxed the Clerk's Department, "Placing such a large project of this magnitude in the middle of our small neighbourhood would be equal to placing 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack"; urged the Community Council to accept the recommendations of the Planning Department; and requested notification if there are any revisions going forward to Council.

Mr. Issie Glassman - expressed concerns for the residents who will be displaced; they will be moved away from their church, the priest, rabbi and synagogue; and advised that the human factor is very important in this case, as well as the fact that close to 250 rental units will be eliminated which are needed in the City.

Mr. Philip Connell, Chair of the Walmer Road Tenants Association at 400 Walmer Road - commented that they are a small village with about 800 to 1000 people living in the complex; indicated strong support for the Planning staff's recommendations; emphasized that density is a significant factor not to be viewed in isolation; referred to Loblaws, a major foodstore and ancillary stores; the large multi-development at Bathurst and St. Clair Avenue, future changes to the St. Michael's lands; the entire neighbourhood has to be considered; there will be a massive collection of people on residential streets; and that a relatively pleasant area will be turned into a concrete jungle.

Mr. Michael Bryant, MPP, St. Paul's - commented that from a provincial perspective, St. Paul's has 100,000 people, the most educated riding in the province; advised that during the election the main issue was the housing crisis whereby rent control has been gutted and the provincial protection that had existed since Premier Davis's early days in office were eliminated; that if you moved into a building and the City was going through a time where there was a crisis as the residents are experiencing now, City Council would not permit this kind of application go through; with these new regulations, we are here because it is now possible, but that does not change the political and democratic landscape in this area and these neighbourhoods; the people in the neighbourhood surrounding Tweedsmuir and the building themselves and from Bayview to Winona have all said the same thing; it is setting a precedent, it is sending a signal to the rest of Toronto and province; the housing crisis is acknowledged and should be addressed now; referred to the Homelessness Task Force from Anne Golden and the Mayor's Task Force; the residents in the Tweedsmuir buildings are living that crisis; there is an 0.8 % vacancy rate; we cannot have a situation where affordable housing is demolished and replaced by what it is referred to in the report as luxury housing; from a residential and provincial point of view the application must be denied and that the staff report be accepted; if a compromise is being sought, at the very least the application should be denied and sent back for revisions; the residents of St. Paul's have spoken, indicating that these buildings should remain.

Ms. Annette Devon - spoke of the traffic issues; at the Goldlist meeting held at the Holy Rosary Church, a statement was made that the increase in traffic will be minimal; this is unrealistic; a plan to erect two buildings over twice as high in addition to townhouses for a total of 286 units, there is likely to be one car for each unit whereas the rental units now are occupied by many 80 and 90 year olds unlikely to be drivers; there are times on Heath Street when vehicles are bumper to bumper; the volume will be increased with 286 new units.

Mr. Jim Davison, Secretary and Acting Chair of the Tweedsmuir Committee, President of 450 Walmer Tenant's Association and an area resident; advised that the Tweedsmuir committee was formed by local residents representing 17 buildings and approximately 2700 residents living within the immediate area of the site; that the committee was formed to oppose the demolishing of the existing building at 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue on the grounds that it would further reduce the stock of affordable rental units in Toronto and to oppose the amendments to the Official Plan and by-laws regulating to the Tweedsmuir property which would permit construction of larger buildings on the site; that through a number of meetings and letters with both local councillors and City Council, opposition to this project is very clear; the City's staff report has been reviewed and comments noted as follows - when reference is made to surrounding uses it is usually in regard to apartment buildings located on the east and north sides, but fails to mention clearly the fact that there are no other apartment buildings on Tweedsmuir Avenue; the issue of setback is not addressed; there is no landscaping with respect to this site, except internally; the Works and Emergency Services have indicated that the existing street network could accommodate the increased traffic; if this were the case why have speed bumps been recently installed; this is a secondary road and is only accessed one way west onto St. Clair Avenue and then it runs into another residential street, then Heath Street; there is no mention of the neighbourhood stability, the impact of light or the removal of trees; the latest highrise in the area was one of 10 or 11-storeys and other new buildings which have been built are only 4-storeys; the proposal does not fit the neighbourhood; we are all aware of the new Tenant Protection Act; while we are having an existing housing crisis at this point time it probably relates to those on the lower economical scale; if developments such as this one is allowed to proceed, it will increase; this should not be allowed to continue, we do have a crisis and it has to be dealt with accordingly.

Ms. Betty Johnson, Vice President of the 450 Walmer Association and resident of the area; indicated strong opposition to the density of the proposed development; the tunnel effect already exists between this building and the east building of the Park Towers and right on to 447 & 449 Walmer Road; enquiries were made regarding this issue but were not addressed; there will be a significant number of vehicles on a small residential street, especially during rush hours; expressed strong opposition to the reduction of affordable housing which will place more residents into poverty; some can afford $600. to $800. a month; in her building, where a little work has been done, the rent now in some of the apartments is $1200. which is unaffordable; and that this is taking place all over the City.

Mr. Bill Solomon, Co-chair of 310 & 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue and also a representative of our building on the Tweedsmuir committee; indicated that he was 78 years old and physically disabled; has lived at Tweedsmuir for 38 years and suddenly his life and that of 250 other tenants have been almost destroyed; is very angry at what is happening to their lives; when residents voted for the common sense revolution, little did they realize that this took away the Rental Housing Act leaving all renters at the complete mercy of the landlords; this new approach to Tenant Landlord Legislation is obviously not for the good of the tenants or our protection; tenants are neither consulted nor considered in making decisions; the landlords are not building any rental units, they are building thousands of condominium at outrageous prices; too expensive for those on fixed income, senior citizens, pensioners, middle income and newlyweds who live in rental units; Goldlist Properties would like to destroy our buildings, displace the tenants and replace them with those who can afford those very expensive condominiums; the residents have no where to go; rental units which become available but we have no where to go; no rental units are being built; as units become available due to someone dying or moving to another province, the rent is more than doubled; there are some basement apartments now available in old houses they are renting for over $1000 a month; this proposal by Goldlist Properties is being monitored by other landlords; the City has been declared a disaster area due to the homeless situation; the residents on Heath Street will not have a beautiful view of the City, instead they will be looking into bathrooms, kitchens and bedrooms on Tweedsmuir Avenue; the very expensive properties on Heath Street will diminish in value; the tenants of 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue are very much against any compromises that will allow us to be evicted; that the City must retain its present by-laws in order to protect the tenants and save their homes.

Ms. Suzi Cass - representing the younger community that stands to lose everything with no warning; they can be displaced with nowhere to go; they are all hardworking and cannot afford to lose their homes; most of the residents have been there for twenty or more years and are well into their eighties; imagine being displaced from your home, having to pack your personal effects, and move into a brand new area at 80 years of age; the residents are very scared; there are also concerns with regard to traffic and shadowing; the buildings have not been maintained by Goldlist; the by-law should not be amended; there are may residents who could not attend tonight's meeting but have sent letters indicating their opposition to the proposal; consideration should be given to the tenants who deserve a place to live; and urged the Community Council to reject the project.

Mr. Paul York - the residents need protection from arbitrary eviction; it is a human right that is necessary for the functioning of a civil society and every civilization on earth has statutes which provide and protect for security of tenure in one form or another; the Rental Housing Act was one such statute, which is now gone; the Landlord Tenant Protection Legislation we now states that the tenants will have first right or first refusal as if this is going to make things better; tempering the injustice of forced displacement with provisions of right of first refusal is a cruel joke; tenant advocates have acknowledged this all throughout the Bill 96 hearings; most tenants cannot afford a luxury condominium, especially the ones that are proposed here; where would they live in the interim; this proposed compensation by the landlord is considered to be totally unacceptable by the tenants; the tenants are doing their part, they have formed an association and working with the local residents; it is now the time for their elected officials to come to their aid; and expressed confidence that the Community Council will support the staff recommendations.

Mr. Normal Rogal - stated that after hearing all the comments, Goldlist Properties should abandon this proposal; there will be increased pollution with the traffic generated which is a very serious health issue.

Mr. George Solomon - at present the units at 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue are occupied by older residents who do not drive; most of the owners in this new development will have two or three vehicles; the traffic study is meaningless and useless; each new high-rise compromises the area; Please consider the Cityscape with all these large buildings being constructed; and indicated concern for the future of the long-term residents of the buildings.

Mr. Phillip Apper - the City has identified the negative impact of shadowing during the summer and spring/fall period; and noted that there was no shadow study for the winter months.

Ms. Alicia Bulwik, Lower Village Gate - indicated support for the staff recommendations; concerned with Council's direction with regards to the OMB; stated that there is a window of opportunity to negotiate the application further with the developer between this meeting and Council's meeting; that she would like to be involved with the negotiations because of the number of issues which remain open at this point in time; that it is unknown as to what staff will be supporting in terms of height, parkland dedication and the removal of Section 37 provision; can support the application if a suitable proposal can be reached working; requested that they be invited to attend the negotiations and that the negotiations be held in the evening to ensure that the members of the committee can attend.

Ms. Janet Coloran - stated that the parking proposed is one parking space per unit; that because of the size of the units, it is more than likely that there will be more than one car per unit; most buyers of a condominium or townhouse in considering its resale value would expect to have two or more parking spaces; enquired as to whether the traffic study is valid if it was based on one parking space per unit; the needs of the owners of these units will require the creation of additional parking spaces or on-street parking.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix 1: Location Map for 310 and 320 Tweedsmur Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix 2: Site Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix 3: Elevation

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Appendix 4: Summer Shadow Study

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Appendix 4: Spring/Fall Shadow Study

Appendix 5

Policies within the City of York:

The City of York Official Plan contains policies which speak to the preservation of rental housing and the diversification of housing types and tenure, including the accommodation of affordable housing. The City of York Official Plan policies can be summarized as follows:

Section 4.7 encourages the production of a full range of housing types;

Section 4.9 encourages diversity in form and tenure of housing, emphasizing the production of ownership housing;

Section 9.6 recognizes High Density Residential Areas as being suitable for housing intensification and seeks to provide greater housing production in co-operation with both private and public housing providers;

Section 9.6 a) encourages and enables at least 25% of new housing production to be affordable housing;

Section 9.7 a) by reference to Appendix 1- City Procedures, Specifications and Requirements for Condominium Housing requires that each condominium application be considered on its own merits with reference to current City policies and criteria;

Section 9.7 b) provides criteria for assessing conversion of rental to condominium, which include having regard for the following matters in considering an application:

the overall mix of rental and freehold housing in the City;

the availability of rental housing in the general area of the application;

and

the vacancy rate for rental housing in the City;

Section 9.8 discourages unnecessary and premature removal of housing and provides for the utilization of demolition control to further this end; and

Section 9.20 permits high density ranges and situations where densities can be exceeded:

- in vicinity of a subway station

- for seniors housing

- high coverage, low profile buildings

- through the bonusing provisions in Section 9.22

Section 9.22 establishes factors for consideration in assessing an application for high density residential development, among them; the capability of the site to accommodate affordable housing or other needed types of housing as indicated by any established housing targets or identified through the implementation provisions of sub-section 24.7 and the potential for altering the proposed development in order to accommodate such types of housing.

Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan

Section 21.11.C.4.5 prohibits bonusing in the High Density Residential Areas within the Secondary Plan boundaries.

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Request to Revert the Two-Way Operation on Atlas Avenue between Eglinton Avenue West and the Beth Shalom Synagogue to One-Way Northbound - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having requested:

(1) the City Clerk to undertake a poll of the residents on Atlas Avenue between Gloucester Grove and Eglinton Avenue West, to determine interest in Scenario Three in the following report (June 28, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, which recommends the implementation of a pavement narrowing with a speed regulator hump immediately south of the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom Synagogue and a mid-block speed regulator hump;

(2) the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to:

(a) proceed as soon as possible to give this work priority, should the poll determine that the residents are in favour of the proposal; and

(b) to examine ways by which Atlas Avenue can be returned to one-way northbound from Gloucester Grove to Eglinton Avenue West, including possible changes to Winnett Avenue:

(June 22, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, responding to a request from the York Community Council as a result of a petition submitted by residents expressing concerns regarding motorists are ignoring the one-way regulation to continue travelling southbound on Atlas Avenue to Gloucester Grove endangering public safety and that motorists were also reversing at high speeds; and submitting the following three alternatives:

Scenario One - Advising that to revert Atlas Avenue from two-way to one-way northbound between the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom Synagogue and Eglinton Avenue West, as requested by the petitioners; that this option may discourage motorists from illegally entering Atlas Avenue from Eglinton Avenue West, however motorists can continue to ignore the one-way northbound regulation on Atlas Avenue when exiting the Synagogue to Gloucester Grove; that speed will continue to be an issue on Atlas Avenue with the one-way northbound regulation; that residents within the community and persons attending the Beth Shalom will experience more circuitous routings which in turn will increase overall vehicular volumes on those select streets; and that the cost association with implementing this option (i.e. changing signage) is estimated at $300.00.

Scenario Two - Advising that to revert Atlas Avenue from two-way to one-way northbound and install a pavement narrowing and speed hump at the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom Synagogue and a speed hump mid-block between the Synagogue and Gloucester Grove; that the traffic operations impact on this alternative are the same as Scenario One above; that the additional traffic calming measures will deal with the vehicle speed concerns expressed by residents; that the traffic calming devices under this scenario as detailed in the attached appendix are an asphalt hump and modular concrete narrowing, installed on top of the existing roadway, unlike the permanent materials utilized for the existing traffic calming devices in the area; and that the costs associated with implementing this option are estimated at $3,800.00.

Scenario Three - Advising that the two-way operation on Atlas Avenue be maintained but install a pavement narrowing with a speed regulator hump, immediately south of the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom Synagogue and a mid-block speed regulator hump between the Synagogue and Gloucester Grove; that this scenario maintains the existing operation which eliminates the traffic circulation concerns associated with reverting the section of Atlas Avenue to one-way north bound operation while also dealing with the residents' speeding concerns; that the narrowing at the synagogue driveway will physically reinforce the change from two-way to one-way operation; and that the materials proposed are an asphalt hump and a modular concrete curb narrowing installed on top of the existing roadway and that the costs associated with implementing this potion are estimated at $3,500; and

recommending that:

(1) Scenario Three, recommending a pavement narrowing with a speed regulator hump immediately south of the entrance/exit to Beth Shalom and a mid-block speed regulator hump be approved, subject to a poll revealing the majority of municipally addressed property owners support this alternative; and

(2) a road alteration by-law be prepared and public notice be given; and

that funds required for the implementation of Scenario Three, involving two speed humps and a roadway narrowing estimated at $3,500.00 are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department 1999 Capital Budget.

The York Community Council also had before it during consideration of the aforementioned matter, a letter dated July 8, 1999 from Messrs. Stan Gershman and David Jourard, indicating support for Scenario Two.

--------

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

- Mr. Stan Gershman; and

- Mr. David Jourard.

(b) Request for a Pedestrian Crossover on Trethewey Drive at Clearview Heights (North Leg) - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(June 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Responding to a request for a pedestrian crossover on Trethewey Drive at Clearview Heights (north leg); and advising that Clearview Heights is a two-lane, local roadway operating two-way in a north/south direction; that it forms the north leg of a "T" type intersection with Trethewey Drive and is controlled by a stop sign; that Trethewey Drive is classified as an arterial roadway between Jane Street and Yore Road, providing two-lane, two-way vehicular traffic flow in an east/west direction; that when considering the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossover at a particular location, established warrant criteria must be fulfilled by one hundred percent; that there is concern with this location due to the alignment of Trethewey Drive at Clearview Heights as the horizontal curvature would result in limited visibility between pedestrians and approaching motorists; also that during an eight-hour survey, only two pedestrians were observed crossing Trethewey Drive at this location and neither pedestrian experienced a significant delay; that in order to meet the technical requirements for the installation of a pedestrian crossover, the minimum volume of pedestrians required is 200 in an eight-hour period with 130 experiencing a delay of greater than ten seconds when crossing Trethewey Drive; that a review of the Toronto Police Services collision records for a five-year period ending December 31, 1997, did not reveal any collisions involving pedestrians; that due to extremely low pedestrian volumes, no pedestrian delays, and concerns with the curvature of the roadway, a pedestrian crossover is not warranted at this intersection of Trethewey Drive and Clearview Heights and is therefore not recommended; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(c) Parking Prohibition on Avalon Avenue Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to undertake a poll of the residents on Avalon Avenue from Bexley Crescent to the north terminus, to determine interest in the implementation of a "No Stopping" regulation, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, on the west side of Avalon Avenue:

Responding to a request from the York Community Council for the introduction of a No Stopping regulation, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, on the west side of Avalon Avenue; that Avalon Avenue traverses in a north/south direction between Bexley Crescent and its northerly terminus entrance to Roselands Junior Public School providing two-way vehicular traffic flow; that currently on-street parking is allowed at all times on the west side of Avalon Avenue for a maximum period of three (3) hours; that parking is prohibited at all times on the east side of Avalon Avenue; that the introduction of a No Stopping regulation 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday is feasible on the west side of Avalon Avenue; that the regulation would address safety concerns during the winter months but would impact on the availability of occasional parking for residents and visitors to the street; and recommending that subject to a poll revealing that the majority of residents are in favour, that the York Uniform Traffic By-law Nos. 194-84 and 2958-94 be amended to implement a No Stopping regulation, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, on the west side of Avalon Avenue.

(d) Application for a Liquor Licence - Madeira Cafe, 1671 Keele Street - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to include the following petition as part of the City's permanent records to be taken into consideration when processing the subject application; and to forward copies to the appropriate officials:

(June 25, 1999) from Councillor F. Nunziata, forwarding a petition signed by area residents requesting that the application for a liquor licence for the Madeira Café be refused due to (1) the establishment is in close proximity to school; (2) there is limited parking available; and (3) that it undermines the community safety efforts; and advising that the impact of this liquor licence with or without a patio area is an area with the petitioners who should be allowed to comment and look forward to their views.

(e) Request for All-Way Stop Control at Spears Street and Feltham Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the installation of stop controls at an alternative intersection in order to address the residents concerns; and

(2) received the following communications:

(June 21, 1999) from Councillor F. Nunziata advising that a complaints have been received from the residents of Spears Avenue requesting the installation of an all-way stop control at Spears Street and Feltham Avenue; and forwarding copy of a report from the Manager, Traffic Operations, District 1, responding to the above request and providing information that Spears Street is classified as a local roadway operating two-way in a north/south direction between McCormack Street and Northland Avenue with a posted speed limit of 40 km/h; that Feltham Avenue is classified as a local roadway operating two-way in an east/west direction between Spears Street and Avon Avenue with a posted limit of 40 km/h; that the present geometric layout of the intersection is a "T" type design; that study results indicate that the highest recorded vehicular volume in a one hour period from all approaches, was only 39 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour; that the Police Services collision records for this intersection for the three-year period from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997 revealed that there were no reported collisions at this intersection; and that due to very low traffic volumes, no reported collision experience and no unusual physical characteristics, an all-way stop control is not warranted at the intersection of Spears Street and Feltham Avenue and is therefore not recommended.

(f) Standing Committee Requests - Project Update.

The York Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(June 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 4 of Report No. 4 of the Audit Committee, which was adopted, without amendment by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999; wherein the Audit Committee:

(1) recommended to Council that it advise all Committees that, in accordance with Council policy, all requests for Audits will be forwarded to the Audit Committee for consideration, so that the Audit Committee can prioritize such request giving regard to the Audit Workplan approved by Council;

(2) authorized Projects 1, 7 and 8 set out in the report (March 29, 1999) from the City Auditor;

(3) requested that the Audit Committee receive:

(a) a detailed breakdown of each individual Councillor's office expenses, including the Mayor's office and staff;

(b) a list of remuneration and expenses received by each individual Councillor for activities in their duties as a Member of a local Agency, Board or Commission;

as previously requested by the Audit Committee, at its meeting held on March 1, 1999; and

(4) received Projects 2-6 set out in the report (March 29, 1999) from the City Auditor.

(g) 460 Gilbert Avenue - Preliminary Evaluation Report Zoning By-law Amendment; Applicant: Domi Construction Co. Ltd. Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(June 30, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on an application by Domi Construction Co. Ltd. to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-83 from PE-Prestige Employment Zone to R2-Residential Zone to permit the development of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings; and advising that this application was submitted on June 4, 1999; that the 1 083 m² (0.27 acre) vacant property was formerly used for metal railing manufacturing and is located on the west side of Gilbert Avenue, south of Eglinton Avenue West; that similar rezoning applications, located to the south of the site (File Nos. R98-001 and R98-008 consisting of three and five pairs of semi-detached dwellings, respectively), are the subject of Public Meetings scheduled for June 22, 1999; City-wide issues include the confirmation of compliance with the criteria set out in Section 12.8 of the Official Plan for the introduction of residential uses in Employment designations; local issues include the mitigation of potential land use conflicts with existing industrial and Canadian National Railway uses, separation distances and buffering; that the application is currently in circulation; a staff report on the application will be distributed to Councillors and will be available to the public, prior to the Public Meeting; a Community Meeting will be held prior to the staff report being prepared, if deemed necessary by the Ward Councillors; that a Site Plan application for the proposal is being processed concurrently; and recommending that:

(1) this report be received and that the application continue to be circulated;

(2) a community meeting be arranged in consultation with local area Councillors, and;

(3) upon completion of a Planning staff report, a public meeting to consider the application be scheduled for a meeting of Community Council.

(h) Request for Removal of Tree at 139 Everden Road - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the Director, Parks and Recreation, West District, to investigate the request of the owner of 139 Everden Road to have the Chinese Elm tree on City property removed, and to report on the feasibility of replacing it with a more suitable specie, conditional upon the owner assuming the costs associated with this tree; and

(2) received the following communication:

(June 22, 1999) from Councillor Mihevc, requesting a staff report on the feasibility of removing the Chinese Elm tree situated on City property at 139 Everden Road, and replacing it with a more suitable specie, conditional upon the owner financing the cost.

(i) Maintenance of Throat Narrowing at Arlington Avenue and Vaughan Road - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the Director, Parks and Recreation, West District, to replace the grassed portion of the throat narrowing at Arlington Avenue and Vaughan Road, with interlocking brick; and

(2) received the following communication:

(July 5, 1999) from Councillor Mihevc requesting that the grass at the throat narrowing at Arlington Avenue and Vaughan Road be replaced with interlocking brick as it is not adequately maintained.

(j) Toronto Public Library Materials Budget Information Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(June 28, 1999) from the City Librarian, responding to York Community Council's request for additional information on:

- the formula and comparative analysis used between districts, i.e. per capita spending;

- a breakdown of materials acquisition for the 1999 fiscal year detailing printed materia, periodicals, electronics and videos; and

- proposals to increase the circulation of reading material and to reduce the video circulation.

(k) York Community Alliance Request for Space at 2700 Eglinton Avenue West and 2696 Eglinton Avenue West Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1) altered the order of business by majority vote, to consider a communication from the York Community Alliance (July 15, 1999) not listed on the agenda, requesting space at the York Civic Centre and to hear deputations on this matter from representatives of the Alliance;

(2) endorsed and forwarded the following request from the York Community Alliance to the Administration Committee, viz:

"That the current City plans for space utilization and office consolidation with respect to future use of the York Civic Centre and 2696 Eglinton Avenue West ensure that adequate provision is made for the immediate community space requirements of the members of the York Community Alliance;"

(3) requested the Executive Director, Facilities and Real Estate Division, to:

(a) work with the York Community Alliance, in the event that the Alliance's space needs cannot be accommodated at 2700 Eglinton Avenue West and/or 2696 Eglinton Avenue West, to determine their precise requirements and ability to assume rental costs;

(b) assist the York Community Alliance, in securing an appropriate location in the York District on a rental basis, in the private sector or in public facilities, including the former York Hydro building at 1652 Keele Street;

(4) advised the York Community Alliance to follow the application process for requesting funds to cover the cost of rental accommodation, when identified, from the Community Services Grants Program for the year 2000; and

(5) requested the Municipal Grants Review Committee to support the above application, when submitted.

The York Community Council had before it the following communications:

(i) (July 15, 1999) from the York Community Alliance consisting of the following:

- Arts York **;

- Community Information Centre for York *;

- Community Social Planning Council - York Office *;

- Cross Edge Community Network;

- Eritrean Canadian Community Centre;

- Eritrean Canadian Society for Youth Advancement;

- Eritrean Women's Committee;

- Filipino Action Committee for Toronto and Suburbs;

- For Youth Project *;

- Oromo Canadian Community Centre;

- Portuguese Outreach Committee;

- Somali Canadian Community Advancement Centre *;

- Somali Immigrant Aid Organization *;

- Somali Immigrant Women Association; and

- York Hispanic Centre *;

* groups currently located at 2696 Eglinton Avenue West

** group currently located at 2700 Eglinton Avenue West

requesting that the York Community Council adopt the following motion:

"That the current City plans for space utilization and office consolidation with respect to the future use of the York Civic Centre and 2696 Eglinton Avenue West ensure that adequate provision is made for the immediate community space requirements of the members of the York Community Alliance; and

That officials of the Facilities and Real Estate Division of Corporate Services responsible for civic space utilization and office consolidation plans and officials of the Planning Department work with the York Community Alliance to formulate a concept plan for the development of a Community and Cultural Civic Centre in the facilities and on the grounds of the York Civic Centre and environs."

(ii) (July 14, 1999) from Ms. Ella Jackson, Chair, Black Creek Business Association, expressing support for the request from the York Community Alliance for office space in the York community.

--------

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

- Ms. Rosa Maria Andino, York Hispanic Centre;

- Mr. Peter Mutchler, York Community Information Centre;

- Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Social Planning Council; and

- Representative from the York Community Alliance.

Respectfully submitted,

ROB DAVIS

Chair

Toronto, July 15, 1999

(Report No. 8 of The York Community Council was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999.)

	Existing Legal Non-Conforming Dwelling House	Redevelopment Potential under Policy Proposal
Site Area	537.76 m² (5788.6 ft²)	537.76 m² (5788.6 ft²)
Gross Floor Area	0.0538 ha (0.13 ac) 502.6 m²(5410 ft²)	0.0538 ha (0.13 ac) 702.6 m² (7563 ft²)
Units	4	8
Density
Unit Density	74 uph (31 upa)	148 uph (62 upa)
Floor Space Index	0.93	1.3
Parking Provided	4 spaces	4 spaces
Parking Required	4 spaces	Min 7-8 spaces and Approximately 2 visitor spaces
Height	3 storeys from Heathdale Road third storey within roof structure - 11.36 m height to peak of roof (based on survey plan)	3 storeys from Heathdale Road third storey within roof structure - 11.36 m height to peak of roof (based on survey plan)
Building Area	186.6 m² (2008 ft²) including garage area	approximately 214.7 m² ( 2311 ft²) including garage area