|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998
NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 8
1 Community Festival Event - St. Bernard of Clairvaux Church - Annual Feast
of St. Bernard - August 9, 1998 -1789 Lawrence Avenue West - North York
Humber
2 Community Festival Event - York University - Calumet College Council, Stong
College Student Government and Bethune College Council - Orientation Event
-September 12, 1998 - 4700 Keele Street - Black Creek
3 Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals
4 Traffic Management Plan - St. Andrews Community - North York Centre South
5 Traffic Area Management Plan - Teddington Park/Wanless Park Area - North
York Centre South
6 Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Richard Clark Drive -Black Creek
7 Parking Prohibitions - Alness Street - North York
8 Dedication of 0.3 Metre Reserve Across the Westerly Limit of John Best
Avenue - Amendment Application UDOZ-96-035 and Subdivision Application
UDSB-1225 - 1082907 Ontario Limited -40 Denison Road and 185 Wright
Avenue - North York Humber
9 Final Payment Contract No. 971-030 - Reconstruction of Beveridge Drive,
Draycott Drive, Mission Drive and Seneca Hill Drive - 1997 Supplementary
Budget - Don Parkway
10 Roads - Ambrose Road from Maureen Drive toArrowstook Road - Seneca
Heights
11 Sidewalks - Local Improvement Initiatives in the Approved 1998 Capital
Budget - North York Spadina, North York Centre and North York Centre South
12 North York Local Improvements
13 Preliminary Evaluation Report - Principles of Land Use Report - Zoning
Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application UDZ-97-36 and UDSB-1233 -
Elderbrook Developments Ltd. - Northwest Corner of Finch Avenue West and
York Gate Boulevard - Black Creek
14 Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application
UD52-97-04 and UDSP-98-13 - Shaftesbury Development Ltd. - 4935 - 4937
Yonge Street -North York Centre
15 Notice Provisions for Official Plan Amendments - UD03-HOP - All North York
Community Council Wards
16 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-37 -Lopes Bros. Contracting - 1721
Jane Street - North York Humber
17 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-03 - Rowland
Lincoln Mercury - South of Eglinton Avenue East and North of Jonesville
Crescent - Don Parkway
18 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97- 48 -Har-Ru
Holdings Limited - 1 Canyon Avenue - North York Centre South
19 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-96-30 - Harry Snoek - 15-19 Finch
Avenue West and 7-11 Blakeley Road - North York Centre
20 Strategy for the Implementation of the North York Centre Plan Service Road
- North York Centre
21 Evaluation of Unleashed Dog Area - Sherwood Park - North York Centre
South9339
22 Refund of Reimbursement Paid for Damages to City Trees -105 Wigmore
Drive - Don Parkway9340
23 Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue,Registered Plan M-108 - North
York Centre South9343
24 Reallocation of Approved 1998 Capital Budget - Clanton Park - North York
Spadina9347
25 Speed Humps - Newbury Lane Between Bathurst Street and Armour
Boulevard - North York Centre South9350
26 Speed Humps - Raeburn Avenue from Bathurst Street to Armour
BoulevardNorth York Centre South9350
27 Pay Parking - Civic Garden Centre9351
28 Downsview Area Secondary Plan - Official Plan Amendment No. 464 - North
York Spadina9352
29 Interim Report - Zoning Framework -Official Plan and Zoning Amendment
Application UDOZ-97-28 -Heathmount A.E. Corporation (Destination
Technodome) - North York Spadina9392
30 Other Items Considered by the Community Council9404
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 8
OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on July 22, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998
1
Community Festival Event - St. Bernard of Clairvaux Church -
Annual Feast of St. Bernard - August 9, 1998 -
1789 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Humber
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the Annual Feast of St. Bernard
being held by the St. Bernard of Clairvaux Church, be declared a community festival
event.
The North York Community Council submits the following communication (July 6,
1998) from Ms. Sabina Farelli, St. Bernard of Clairvaux Church:
"I am writing to you on behalf of the St. Bernard of Clairvaux Fundraising Committee. On
August9, 1998, we will be holding our annual Feast of St. Bernard. In order for us to proceed
with the function and our preparations, we require a motion from council to obtain our Special
Occasion Permit for the sale of alcohol. The festivities will take place from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00
p.m. outdoors on the St. Bernard of Clairvaux property.
Attached please find a map of the enclosed area of the festival and a copy of the letter sent to
the Fire, Police and Health Departments notifying them about the festival. Please contact me
by telephone at (416) 695-3324 if there are any additional questions or concerns. Thank you
for your assistance."
(A copy of the map and the letter sent to the Fire, Police and Health Departments referred to
in the foregoing communication on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
2
Community Festival Event - York University -
Calumet College Council, Stong College Student Government
and Bethune College Council - Orientation Event -
September 12, 1998 - 4700 Keele Street - Black Creek
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the Orientation Event being held
by York University be declared a community festival event.
The North York Community Council submits the following communication (July 8,
1998) from Mr. Norman D. Crandles, Director, Hospitality, Food and Beverage Services,
York University:
"York University is applying for a temporary extension to their liquor licence. In order for us
to obtain such an extension, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (previously
Liquor Licence Board of Ontario) requires a letter from your department stating the
municipality does not object to an orientation event taking place in an outdoor area. There will
be three college councils - Calumet College Council, Stong College Student Government and
Bethune College Council hosting this event to take place on Saturday, September 12, 1998,
8:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. There will be the sale of alcohol at this event.
Please accept this as a request for the above mentioned letter from your department. If you
require further information I can be reached at 736-5518."
3
Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals
City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the Toronto
Transit Commission for consideration at its first meeting in September; and the Chief General
Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, the Director of Planning, North York District, and
the Chief Building Official, North York District, were requested to submit a joint report to
such Commission meeting on all outstanding matters required to obtain the necessary
building permits; and these City officials were requested to be in attendance at the
aforementioned Commission meeting.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the Toronto Transit
Commission be requested to:
(1)stop construction on the Sheppard Subway until such time as the necessary approvals
and permits have been received from the appropriate City of Toronto departments and
that the Executive Director of Building Services be instructed to issue stop work orders;
(2)obtain site plan approval prior to tendering contracts and that if the Toronto Transit
Commission does not have the appropriate approvals in place stop work orders be
issued by City staff;
(3)direct its staff to work with the local Councillors on the site plan applications in the
project areas and on the emergency exits immediately.
The North York Community Council submits the following communication (June 19,
1998) from Mr. Vincent Rodo, General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:
At its meeting On Wednesday, June 17, 1998, the Commission considered the attached report
entitled, "Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals."
The Commission received the foregoing report and requested that a copy be forwarded to the
North York Community Council for information.
(Copy of Toronto Transit Commission
Report No. 30 dated June 17, 1998)
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Commission receive this report for information.
Funding
Funds for this Sheppard Subway project expenditure are included in the TTC 1998-2002
Capital Program (as set out on pages 695-705 - Sheppard Subway Category) as approved by
City of Toronto Council on April 29, 1998. The project is currently forecast to over-run the
project budget.
Background
At its meeting on May 20, 1998 the Commission received for information the report entitled
"Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals." That report indicated that TTC requires
site plan approval, foundation permits and building permits for each Sheppard Subway
construction contract. The aim is to have site plan approval and building permits within six to
eight weeks after award of each construction contract. To date, the schedule for approval of
the necessary permits has not been achieved due, in large part, to the introduction of site plan
conditions that are not within the scope of the project budget. Site plan approval is normally
required prior to the issuance of foundation and/or building permits.
The Commission then approved that "staff report on the critical path for completion of the
Sheppard Subway including tenders, site plan approvals, building permits, design work,
tunnelling work and any other appropriate deadlines associated with the project." The report
herein is staff's response to that approval.
Discussion
Exhibit 1 provides an overview of the project critical path, and Exhibit 2 tabulates the current
status of the necessary permits and approvals for the Sheppard Subway station contracts. If
any of the activities in the critical path sequence is delayed, the end date of the sequence will
also be delayed by the same amount. It is therefore essential that the major permits and
approvals required for each station construction contract are received in a timely manner. To
date, in the absence of such permits, staff have reluctantly been proceeding with construction
to avoid construction delays, schedule slippage and contractor claims. However, staff should
not be put in the position of having to do this to mitigate potential impact on the project
budget and schedule.
The critical path diagram shows a sequence of summary activities for the tunnels and stations.
Those on the project critical path are black, meaning there is little or no "float" in each of
them, i.e. a delay in any one will produce a like delay in project completion. The critical path
diagram shows the dates on which we currently expect to receive these permits. Generally,
site plan approval is assumed to be required six weeks after contract award, and building
permit approval two weeks later. Of particular note:
(a)the building permit for the Twin Tunnels Emergency Exit Buildings (EEB's), submitted for
approval in February, 1997, has not yet been approved;
(b)permits for Leslie and Don Mills Stations are overdue, as construction is well underway at
both sites (foundation permits have been received); and
(c)permits for Yonge, Bayview and Bessarion Stations are all on the project critical path.
The critical permits and approvals that are still to be received (all except those for Bayview
Station have been submitted for approval), and the dates by which they are required are as
follows:
Yonge Station
(a)Site Plan Approval required by 16-Sep-98
(b)Building Permit required by 30-Sep-98
Bayview Station
(a)Tree Cutting Permit required immediately
(b)Site Plan Approval required 18-Nov-98
(c)Building Permit required 02-Dec-98
Bessarion Station
(a)Site Plan Approval required 26-Aug-98
(b)Building Permit required 09-Sep-98
Leslie Station
(a)Building Permit required immediately (construction is underway)
Don Mills Station
(a)Site Plan Approval required immediately (construction is underway)
(b)Building Permit required immediately (partial permit issued)
Twin Tunnels
(a)Building Permit for EEB's required immediately (construction is underway)
________
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, also having
had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter a copy of a report (June 22,
1998) addressed to Councillor Shiner from the Acting Commissioner of Planning providing a
chronology of events and status reports in connection with the Sheppard Subway Stations.
(A copy of the Exhibits referred to above was distributed with the agenda for the North York
Community Council meeting held July 22, 1998 and is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
________
A recorded vote on the adoption of the foregoing recommendations were as follows:
Recommendation No. 1 moved by Councillor Shiner:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner,
Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:Councillor Chong
ABSENT:Councillor Moscoe
Carried
Recommendation No. 2 moved by Councillor Shiner:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner
AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Gardner, Chong, King
ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Augimeri
Carried
Recommendation No. 3 moved by Councillor King:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion,
Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:NIL
ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Augimeri
Carried
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the
foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 28, 1998) from the Chief General
Manager, Toronto Transit Commission:
At the North York Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998, three recommendations were
passed that if approved by City Council, would stop work on the Sheppard Subway project.
There are currently four active contracts underway, with a total value of about $350 million
and a total monthly expenditure of about $13 million, which would be severely affected by any
such stop work order. They are Yonge Station, Don Mills Station, Leslie Station and the Twin
Tunnels. Should these four contractors be directed to stop work, staff estimate that the
liability for damages claimed by the contractors would cost the project $6.7 million per
month. Furthermore, additional direct costs of $1to2 million would be incurred every month
the project is delayed, i.e. as a result of stop work orders or delays in tendering Bayview
Station. The value of issues currently being reviewed by local Councillors is only a small
fraction of the above construction costs. In fact, most of the issues have been resolved.
Recently, the Commission signed the Site Plan Agreement for Don Mills Station. As can be
seen by the attached table, and further to my memo of July 23, 1998, all relevant applications
have been made and are awaiting approvals. Staff understand that the quick approvals
anticipated at the outset of the project have been slowed by the workload and lack of staff
resources at the City and North York Fire Department who review and approve the
applications. Nevertheless, good cooperation is being provided and real progress is being
made.
It is our view that any stoppage in work or other obstructions to the progress of this project
would impose further financial burden and delay the project without any real benefit to the
City, the Commission or the project.
A copy of the minutes covering the status of permits and approvals is attached along with the
table relating to this issue. This table is updated for the Commission on a regular basis.
(Communication dated July 23, 1998 addressed
to the Commissioners, Toronto Transit Commission,
from the Chief General Manager, headed "Status of Permits
and Approvals - Sheppard Subway)
The following responds to the Toronto Star article "Permit Snafus Plague Sheppard Subway".
Contrary to the article, the approval process for the project is well in hand and is not
expected to affect the cost and schedule of the project.
Yonge Station:
The Site Plan and Building Permit applications have been submitted for approval on
February 27, 1998 and May 4, 1998, respectively. The only issue concerning the Site Plan is
the architectural design of the Emergency Exit Building (EEB) that will be located on the
southeast corner of the Yonge/Sheppard intersection. At a meeting with Councillor Filion on
July 22, staff agreed to take a fresh look at the design of the EEB.
The review of the Building Permit application by the Building Department has been delayed
due to their workload.
Bayview Station:
The Site Plan application was submitted on July 14, 1998 and a Building Permit application
will be submitted by August 7, 1998.
Bessarion Station:
The Building Permit application was submitted on April 30, 1998. The Site Plan application
was submitted on May 6, 1998. Staff have met with the Councillor Flint and the various minor
concerns about the Site Plan are currently being addressed. Due to the delay in awarding
Bessarion Station, North York staff have been requested to complete the review of Yonge
Station prior to initiating their review of Bessarion Station.
Leslie Station:
The Site Plan agreement has been executed with a few minor conditions which are being
addressed. The Building Department review of the Building Permit application has been
completed (submitted May 26, 1997) and only the final approval of the North York Fire
Department is required prior to the issuance of a full Building Permit which is anticipated
mid-August.
Don Mills:
The Site Plan agreement has been finalized and sent to the Toronto Transit Commission for
execution. The signature of the necessary agreements is expected shortly.
The Building Department review of the Building Permit application (submitted October 28,
1997) has been completed and only the final approval of the North York Fire Department, is
required prior to the issuance of a full Building Permit, which is anticipated mid-August.
Twin Tunnels - Emergency Exit Buildings:
Site Plan Approvals and Building Permits are expected by the end of August.
In summary, TTC staff have made their best efforts to expedite the permits and approvals
process and have worked closely with North York Planning staff, particularly Brian Tuckey to
resolve problems and concerns. To my knowledge, North York staff are satisfied that the
current process is working satisfactorily.
For your information.)
(A copy of the table, appended to the foregoing communication dated July 23, 1998 from the
Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.)
4
Traffic Management Plan - St. Andrews Community -
North York Centre South
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic
Centre:
Purpose:
To install on a temporary basis, two sets of speed humps, stopping restrictions adjacent to
speed cushions, and a 40 km/h zone on Upper Canada Drive. Installation of all way stop
controls at the intersections of Fenn Avenue with Upper Highland Crescent and Aldershot
Crescent with Yorkminster Road.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the speed humps, traffic control signing and the
installation of the all way stop controls are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1)that two sets of speed humps be installed on Upper Canada Drive, for a six month period;
(2)that By-law No. 31878, of the former City of North York be amended to designate Upper
Canada Drive, from Lord Seaton Road (westerly limit) to the easterly limit of Upper Canada
Drive as a 40 km/h zone;
(3)that Schedule IX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York be amended to
install "No Stopping at Any Time" restrictions adjacent to the speed humps; and
(4)that Schedules XVII and XIX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York be
amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersections of Fenn Avenue with
Upper Highland Crescent and Aldershot Crescent with Yorkminster Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Transportation Division in accordance with the former City of North York Council Policy
for Traffic Calming, has met with the residents of the community and Councillor Joanne Flint
to address the concerns of the residents with respect to traffic related issues. A Traffic Work
Group comprised of the residents of the area and staff was established to identify the specific
concerns of the community and to develop a traffic management plan which will be
considered appropriate and acceptable by the community.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The Traffic Work Group, in conjunction with staff of the Transportation Division of the
Works and Emergency Services Department, have reviewed various locations throughout the
community which were identified as problematic locations.
At a majority of the locations it was determined that the existing situations could be improved
by either the installation of additional signing and or pavement markings. However at the
intersections of Fenn Avenue with Upper Highland Crescent and Aldershot Crescent with
Yorkminster Road it was determined that these intersections be considered for the installation
of an all way stop control.
When examining an intersection for the feasibility of installing an all way stop control,
consideration is given to the road classification and alignments (vertical and horizontal),
vehicle and pedestrian volumes, delay to minor street traffic, collision history, vehicle and
pedestrian sight lines, and existing pavement markings and signage.
A portion of the above information is then tabulated to determine if the technical warrant for
the installation of an all way stop control is met. Notwithstanding, where existing geometric
characteristics of the intersection or specific site conditions would support the installation of
an all way stop control, consideration is given.
Therefore, in the instance of the intersections of Fenn Avenue with Upper Highland Crescent
and Aldershot Crescent with Yorkminster Road it was determined that due to the alignment at
these intersections an all way stop control be installed. Accordingly, the Traffic Work Group
and Councillor Joanne Flint have obtained the endorsement of the community at a public
meeting held in the community.
Twenty-four hour vehicle speed and volumes counts conducted on Upper Canada Drive have
indicated that during the morning peak periods, vehicle speeds can be deemed excessive. The
Traffic Work Group has examined various methods of improving the traffic situation on
Upper Canada Drive, from the installation of all way stop controls to the installation of
appropriate traffic calming measures.
The Work Group, with the endorsement of Councillor Flint and the residents in attendance at
the public meeting held on June 22, 1998, have requested the installation of speed humps on
Upper Canada Drive.
The speed humps that will be used at these locations are specially designed to minimize the
impact on transit vehicles. These speed humps are called 'speed cushions' and occupy part of
the traffic lane in which they are installed and are generally located in pairs. The height of the
speed cushion is 7.5 centimetres. The intent of a speed cushion is to alter the driving
behaviour of motorists, and not interfere or disrupt transit vehicle operations. This is achieved
by designing the width of the speed cushion to accommodate a standard wheel base of a
transit vehicle.
Operational characteristics of speed humps/cushions have been reviewed by the City's
Emergency Services Departments, Road Maintenance Divisions, and the Toronto Transit
Commission, resulting in a general approval of these measures as a speed control.
The Toronto Transit Commission, Ambulance Services, Fire Services and Police Services
have been requested to provide this department with their comments on the installation of
speed cushions on Upper Canada Drive so that any specific concerns may be addressed prior
to installation.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, the Transportation Division supports the installation of the traffic
calming measures proposed for Upper Canada Drive, and the installation of the all-way stop
controls. In accordance with the former City of North York's Traffic Management Plan
adopted by Council, that the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation
Division, will report back to Council in six months on the effectiveness of the traffic calming
proposal.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, at 395-7484
5
Traffic Area Management Plan -
Teddington Park/Wanless Park Area -
North York Centre South
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic
Centre:
Purpose:
To advise North York Community Council of a traffic plan being proposed in Ward 22 that
may have an effect on the Lawrence Park Community in Ward 9.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the restrictions are included within the 1998
operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1)that the Traffic Area Management Plan being proposed by the Toronto District, for the
Teddington Park/Wanless Park area, proceed as described in their attached report;
(2)that staff of the Transportation Division continue to monitoring the effect of the proposed
traffic area plan on North York streets; and
(3)that staff of the North York District report back to the North York Community Council in
six months upon completion of the test of the traffic area management plan.
Council Reference:
At its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration
to Clause No. 61 contained in Report No. 5 of the Toronto Community Council, headed
"Traffic Area Management Plan for the Teddington Park/Wanless Park Area (North
Toronto)".
Council deferred consideration of this Clause and requested the Ward Councillors to hold a
public meeting in this regard, with representatives from the North York District.
Comments:
Councillors, community representatives and staff of the North York District met with
Councillors, community representatives and staff of the Toronto District to discuss the
proposed traffic area management plan and its possible implications on the North York
community.
It was agreed after a lengthy discussion that the proposed right turn restrictions from
Lawrence Avenue at Ronan Avenue and Ardrossan Place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays excepted, could proceed to
Council for consideration.
The major concern of the Lawrence Park Community in North York is that the proposed
restrictions could cause traffic to turn through the community from Lawrence Avenue at
Mildenhall Road, the first street prior to the proposed turn restrictions. This would impact an
already congested roadway, because of the parents who pick up and drop off their children at
the Toronto French School, at No.101 Mildenhall Road.
Conclusions:
This proposal, if approved, will be monitored by staff of the Works and Emergency Services
Department during the six month test. Communications with the area Councillors and
community will be open through out the test and any variations in traffic volume will be
reported. Upon completion of the six month test, based on the results of the traffic data, a
decision will be made by all involved parties as to weather the restriction remain.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, at 395-7484.
(A copy of the Traffic Area Management Plan being proposed by the Toronto District, for the
Teddington Park/Wanless Park area, referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office
of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
6
Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Richard Clark Drive -
Black Creek
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic
Centre:
Purpose:
To prohibit parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the both sides of Richard Clark
Drive, from Smallwood Drive to the westerly limit of Richard Clark Drive.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North
York, be amended to prohibit parking on both sides of Richard Clark Drive, from the westerly
limit of Smallwood Drive to the westerly limit of Richard Clark Drive.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Richard
Clark Drive.
Discussion:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has
been advised by local residents that throughout the night vehicles are continually parked on
both sides of the roadway, between Smallwood Drive and Heathrow Park, located at the
westerly limit of Richard Clark Drive. Despite numerous requests to the Toronto Police
Services for enforcement of three hour parking limit, the individual parking behaviours, have
not changed. As identified in a petition, the majority of residents on this section of the
roadway support the proposed parking restrictions.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this department supports amending the current parking regulations, as
requested by the residents.
Contact Name:
Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
7
Parking Prohibitions -
Alness Street - North York Spadina
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July9, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic
Centre:
Purpose:
To prohibit parking on the west side of Alness Street, between Brisbane Road to Martin Ross
Avenue.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North
York, be amended to prohibit parking at any time on the west side of Alness Street, from the
northerly limit of Brisbane Road to the southerly limit of Martin Ross Avenue.
Background:
Currently, parking is permitted for a maximum of up to three hours on west side of Alness
Street, between Brisbane Road and Martin Ross Avenue. On the east side of the street,
parking is prohibited at any time for its entire length.
Staff have been advised by Councillor Howard Moscoe that due to parked vehicles on the
west side of Alness Street, north of Brisbane Road, eastbound motorists exiting from Brisbane
Road to Alness Street are experiencing difficulties viewing southbound traffic on Alness
Street.
Discussions:
Investigations by staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services
Department have verified that vehicles, particularly combination tractor trailer units, parked
on the west side of Alness Street immediately north of Brisbane Road, are creating a sight
obstruction for eastbound motorists to view southbound traffic at the intersection of Brisbane
Road and Alness Street.
Conclusions:
To improve safety for all road users on Brisbane Road and Alness Street, the parking
prohibitions should be implemented.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, at 395-7484.
8
Dedication of 0.3 Metre Reserve Across the
Westerly Limit of John Best Avenue -
Amendment Application UDOZ-96-035 and Subdivision
Application UDSB-1225 - 1082907 Ontario Limited -
40 Denison Road and 185 Wright Avenue - North York Humber
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July2,1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic
Centre:
Purpose:
To dedicate a 0.3 metre reserve across the westerly limit of John Best Avenue for the
extension of the road into a plan of subdivision consisting of 179 detached and semi-detached
houses.
Funding Sources:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
(1)The existing 0.3 metre reserve at the westerly limit of John Best Avenue be dedicated to
facilitate connection of the proposed roadway to the existing roadway.
Discussion:
Council on September 17, 1997 approved a plan of subdivision for the re-development of the
property located on the north side of Denison Avenue, west of Jane Street. The subdivision is
located on lands in both the former Cities of York and North York.
A 0.3 metre reserve was established across the westerly limit of John Best Avenue at the time
of registration under Plan No. 3411, Instrument No. NY662217.
Conclusion:
Staff has reviewed the subdivision plan and draft agreement and recommends that the 0.3
metre reserve across John Best Avenue be dedicated as part of a public highway with the
registration of the 'dedication' by-law.
Contact Name:
Colin Couper, Director of Transportation Planning,
Works and Emergency Services, Transportation, North York Office.
Telephone 395-7470, Fax 395-7482, email cwcouper@city.north-york.on.ca
9
Final Payment Contract No. 971-030 -
Reconstruction of Beveridge Drive, Draycott Drive,
Mission Drive and Seneca Hill Drive -
1997 Supplementary Budget - Don Parkway
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July7, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's authorization to finalize the contract.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funding for the above project was provided in the 1997 Supplementary Budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to finalize
payment in the amount of $1,101,184.20 to Furfari Construction Co. Ltd.
Background:
Contract No. 971-030 was awarded to Furfari Construction Co. Limited on September 3, 1997
for the tendered amount of $966,683.48.
This work was for the reconstruction of the above streets including sidewalk repair. The
design and contract administration of the project was assigned by the City to the consulting
firm of Proctor and Redfern Limited.
The total cost of all work associated with this project, including consultant fees, is
approximately $1,262.000.00. The breakdown is as follows:
- Contract tender amount $1,101,184.20
- Engineering Fee and Testing$ 160,828.15
There is sufficient funding available in the contract accounts for this project.
The final cost of the tendered items, as stated above, is $1,101,184.20 which exceeds the
tendered amount by $134,500.72 or 13.91 percent. The former City of North York's Council
policy required the Management Committee's approval for contract payments which exceeded
the tendered amount by more than 5 percent.
The cost overrun in the value of the contract is attributed to the actual measured quantities
exceeding the estimated tendered quantities in the following areas:
- repair of concrete sidewalks;
- removal of existing asphalt surface by grinding;
- excavation of poor sub-base in the roadway;
- supply of crushed limestone aggregates for the poor sub-base areas of the roadway;
- supply of engineering fabric in the areas of poor sub-base; and
- supply of base and surface asphalt.
Contact Name and Telephone Number.
Stan Bertoia, P.Eng.
Director of Engineering, North York District
Telephone: (416) 395-6235
Fax No. (416) 395-0349
E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca
10
Roads - Ambrose Road from Maureen Drive to
Arrowstook Road - Seneca Heights
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July8, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the construction of a sidewalk on
the west side of Ambrose Road from Maureen Drive to Arrowstook Road.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The estimated cost of the sidewalk is $6,000.00 and is to be financed from available funds in
the 1998 Capital Budget, North York - Sidewalks & Walkways.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)a sidewalk be constructed on the west side of Ambrose Road from Maureen Drive to
Arrowstook Road; and
(2)the cost of the sidewalk estimated at $6,000.00 be financed from available funds in the
1998 Capital Budget, North York - Sidewalks & Walkways.
Council Reference/Background/History and
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Funds for the construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Ambrose Road from Protea
Gardens to Maureen Drive were approved in the 1998 Capital Budget.
This Department received a request from Councillor Shiner to examine whether the sidewalk
should be extended from Maureen Drive to Arrowstook Road.
There is a park on the west side of Ambrose Road between Maureen Drive and Arrowstook
Road and there is a sidewalk on Arrowstook Road on the north side of the park. The extension
of the sidewalk on Ambrose Road to connect with the existing sidewalk on Arrowstook Road
would improve pedestrian safety and access to the park.
Conclusion:
It would be appropriate to extend the sidewalk on Ambrose Road to connect with the existing
sidewalk system on Arrowstook Road.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Stan Bertoia, P.Eng.
Director of Engineering, North York District
Tel: 416-395-6235
Fax: 416-395-0349
E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca
11
Sidewalks - Local Improvement Initiatives in the Approved
1998 Capital Budget - North York Spadina,
North York Centre and North York Centre South
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July9, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre, subject to the
following amendments to Recommendation No. 1:
(1)that sidewalks be deleted from the Local improvement Initiative projects for Stafford
Road, Alfred Avenue and Maplehurst Avenue;
(2)the installation of sidewalks on York Downs Drive from Almore Avenue to Yeomans
Road be deferred sine die to permit the Ward Councillors to have some consultation
thereon.
Purpose:
To obtain direction on the construction of sidewalks included in the 1998 Capital Budget,
Local Improvement Initiatives.
Source of Funds:
From the 1998 Capital Budget Item for Local Improvements (North York)
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)North York Community Council give direction on the construction of sidewalks on Local
Improvement Initiative projects on York Downs Drive from Almore Avenue to Yeomans
Road, Wimpole Drive from Bayview Avenue to Forest Heights Boulevard, Stafford Road
from Betty Ann Drive to Ellerslie Avenue, Alfred Avenue from Dudley Avenue to 80m West,
Maplehurst Avenue from Willowdale Avenue to West End, Greenfield Avenue from Dudley
Avenue to 80m West and Fenn Avenue from York Road to South limit (subject to approval of
the projects by residents through the Local Improvement Act process);
(2)that any funds made available by the cancellation of sidewalks be made available for other
sidewalk works to be built in 1998 construction year under the North York Transportation
Project Line 604, Sidewalks and Walkways; and
(3)The appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to
give effect thereto.
Background:
The following roads were included in the approved 1998 Capital Works Budget under the
item for Local Improvements Initiatives.
The former City of North York Council Policy (Works Committee Report 19, Clause 8 of
1988, Resolution No. 188-18) requires that:
(a)road improvements done under the Local Improvement Act be conditional upon a sidewalk
being installed in accordance with the approved City's standards and that the wording on a
Local Improvement notice or petition indicate that a sidewalk "is recommended" for
construction on one side of the street;
(b)each request for deletion of a sidewalk be considered by The Works Committee in terms of
the relative Hazard Exposure Index reading as available and provided by the Commissioner of
Traffic; and
(c)where objections to a proposed sidewalk have been received, the local Councillor may
request the Works Committee, in writing, to conduct a poll of the affected property owners.
Hazard Exposure Index (H.E.I.) Studies have been performed by North York Transportation
and the appropriate H.E.I. category is also listed below:
Estimated Cost of
StreetSidewalkCategory
York Downs Rd.3
(from Almore Ave. to Yeomans Rd.)$11,000.00(lowest priority)
Wimpole Drive$42,000.003
(from Bayview Ave.to Forest Heights Blvd)(lowest priority)
StreetSidewalkCategory
Stafford Road$12,000.003
(from Betty Ann Dr. to Ellerslie Ave.)(lowest priority)
Alfred Avenue $ 7,000.003
(from Dudley Ave. to West End)(lowest priority)
Greenfield Avenue$ 5,000.003
(from Dudley Ave. to 80m West)(lowest priority)
Maplehurst Avenue$ 20,000.002
(from Willowdale Ave. to West End)(middle priority)
Fenn Avenue$ 3,000.00(N/A)
(fromYork Road to South limit)
In accordance with the former City of North York Council Policy, sidewalks have been
included with the Initiatives for Local Improvements.
Conclusion:
As per the former City of North York's Council Policy, sidewalks have been included with the
Local Improvement projects. Hazard Exposure Index (H.E.I.) Studies performed indicate a
low priority for sidewalk construction. Direction from North York Community Council is
required to determine whether these sidewalks are to be included with the road work.
Contact Name and Address:
Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering
Tel. No. 416-395-6235
Fax.No. 416-395-0349
E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca
12
North York Local Improvements
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July9, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for changes with respect to works
approved in the 1998 Capital Budget, North York Local Improvement Program.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The approval of the recommendations in this report will have no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the following projects be cancelled from the 1998 Local Improvement Program:
-Franklin Avenue from Walker Road to 55m east;
-Walker Road from Cameron Avenue to Franklin Avenue; and
-Walker Road from Stuart Avenue to 40m north; and
(2)Tregellis Road from Bombay Avenue to Sandringham Drive be added to the 1998 Local
Improvement Program to replace the above noted cancelled projects.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The 1998 Capital Works Program included road improvements in Ward 10 under the Local
Improvement Act Initiative Plan.
Under the Local Improvement Act Initiative Plan, it is required that the owners of properties
abutting each project be notified by the City by public notice of the proposed project and
advised that they may petition against the project. If the majority of the owners representing at
least one-half of the value of the lots are dissatisfied with the project, the City may not
proceed with the project.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Councillor Gardner and Councillor Filion have conducted informal surveys of the residents
affected by the Local Improvements in Ward 10 and advise that they failed to get a response
in favour of the improvements on the following streets:
-Franklin Avenue from Walker Road to 55m east;
-Walker Road from Cameron Avenue to Franklin Avenue; and
-Walker Road from Stuart Avenue to 40m north.
It appears that the residents of the above noted roads would petition against the improvement
of the road and the improvements would then be cancelled.
This Department has received requests from the residents of Tregellis Road from Bombay
Avenue to Sandringham Drive for the improvement of the road.
Tregellis Road is surface treated with no curbs or storm sewers. The road should be improved
to urban standards and added to the 1998 Local Improvement Program to replace the projects
recommended to be cancelled. The funds from the cancelled projects would be sufficient for
the improvement of Tregellis Road.
Conclusion:
It would be appropriate to make the above noted changes to the 1998 North York Local
Improvement Program in view of the requests of the affected residents through the local
Councillors.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering, North York District
Tel: 416-395-6235, Fax: 416-395-0349
E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca
13
Preliminary Evaluation Report - Principles of Land Use
Report - Zoning Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application
UDZ-97-36 and UDSB-1233 - Elderbrook Developments Ltd. -
Northwest Corner of Finch Avenue West and
York Gate Boulevard - Black Creek
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be
adopted;
(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to:
(a)consult with the appropriate officials of the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources;
the Ministry of Community and Social Services; and the Ministry of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation; and the appropriate officials of the federal Ministry of
Canadian Heritage/Parks Canada; and
(b)report back to the Community Council meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, on
grants and programs which may be available through these agencies that would enable
the acquisition of these lands for parks and community related purposes; and
(3)if this property is developed under any Arterial Corridor Area (ACA) designation,
opportunities be provided for employment uses on the Finch frontage lands.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to establish principles of development which provide the basis
for considering a rezoning application and re-subdivision of the lands at the northwest corner
of Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard (Schedule "A"). The application as
submitted, is to permit 220 freehold townhouse units and 775 condominium apartment units
on the lands west of York Gate Boulevard near Jane Street between Finch Avenue and the
hydro corridor. A new public street off York Gate Boulevard serves the townhouses.
Existing property rights have been previously established by the Official Plan but have only
partially been implemented through zoning. In revising this development plan, the main
objective of this report is to come forward with a strategy which:
(i)redistributes density in an appropriate built form in keeping with the low density
neighbourhood to the north;
(ii)may provide for limited intensification along the Finch Avenue frontage; and
(iii)seeks to balance the development potential upon which investment has been made in the
past with the development potential which realistically can be supported as good planning at
the present time.
To achieve these objectives, it will be necessary to reduce the overall development level for
the lands.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)development of the lands bounded by Finch Avenue West, Norfinch Drive, the hydro
corridor and York Gate Boulevard be evaluated on the basis of the following principles of
development:
Official Plan
(a)the RD4 designation of the site be amended based on the following:
(i)the entire site be redesignated to RD2 or RD3 with site specific densities which permit a
wide variety of lower density freehold residential and institutional uses and community
facilities; and
(ii)consideration be given to redesignate the lands along the Finch Avenue frontage to Arterial
Corridor Area (ACA) to permit a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, medical and
health care uses with a fall back base that would permit those uses in a RD2 or RD3
designation as above;
(b)the Official Plan be amended to delete site specific policy C.9.114 which permits 1,296
dwelling units on the site to be replaced with a policy with density provisions adequate to
permit a wide variety of small lot single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings or
multiple attached grade related dwellings;
Zoning By-law
(c)the zoning by-law and the zoning on the site be amended as follows:
(i)rezone the entire site including the Finch frontage lands to an RM1 exception zone to
permit a broad mix and range of residential uses such as small lot single detached dwellings,
semi-detached dwellings, and 2-3 storey townhouses or similar built form freehold units, and
recreational uses and community facilities;
(ii)consideration be given to rezoning the lands along the Finch Avenue frontage to an ACA
(Arterial Corridor Area) zone permitting a mix of residential, commercial, medical and health
care related uses, recreational uses and community facilities with building heights of 3 to 6
storeys. The density should be regulated through a holding zone and base density permissions
be included; and
(iii)The performance standards used in the zoning should provide maximum flexibility to
develop the site with single detached, semi-detached and multiple attached built form within
comparable building envelopes;
Urban Design
(d)development of the site be guided by the following urban design principles:
(i)a public road network should divide the site into smaller development blocks to
accommodate freehold development and provide for street connectivity so as to increase
accessibility and safety;
(ii)an articulated built form massed to support pedestrian scale development along Finch
Avenue and other streets is encouraged;
(iii)there should be a variety of low density residential building types including single
detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and 2 to 3 storey townhouses or similar
multiple attached grade related dwelling units;
(iv)a variety of small lot configurations should be permitted, including wider lot frontages
with shallower lot depths and/or narrower lot frontages with greater lot depth;
(v)there should be no parking in the front yard for development along Finch Avenue; parking
should be provided underground or at the rear accessed from the internal street network;
(vi)development along the Finch Avenue frontage should complement and implement the
Finch Avenue Streetscape Design Concept; and
(vii)along the Finch Avenue frontage, consideration should be given to the following
additional guidelines for any ACA built form development:
(a)provide for maximum building heights of 6 storeys.
(b)encourage retail and commercial uses at grade to address the arterial road frontage and
provide animation at the street level; and
(c)provide service access to development through a new public road;
General
(e)the joint venture public acquisition of lands for consolidated and shared community and
recreational facilities and parkland between one or both school boards and the City is
encouraged;
(f)a traffic impact study be required with terms of reference satisfactory to the Commissioner
of Transportation taking into account an expanded Humber River Regional Hospital;
(g)the applicant consult with the Works and Emergency Services staff to prepare all necessary
engineering and technical reports to support the application for draft plan of subdivision
approval. At the time of the statutory public meeting on the subdivision, staff report on the
status of sewer allocations within the Black Creek Drainage area as part of any report on the
subdivision;
(2)the applicant update the information of the 1975 Klein and Sears study (A Review of
Planning Policies re Lands bounded by Finch Avenue, Highway 400, the H.E.P.C.
Right-of-Way and Jane Street), with terms of reference established by the Acting
Commissioner of Planning. Further planning studies may be required as a consequence of this
update at the discretion of the Acting Commissioner of Planning;
(3)staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, schedule a community consultation
meeting; and
(4)staff prepare a final report evaluating a revised proposal and provide notice of the statutory
public meeting at the appropriate time.
Council Reference/Background/History:
1.0Proposal:
The application is to amend the zoning by-law and re-subdivide the lands west of York Gate
Boulevard between Finch Avenue and the hydro corridor to permit 220 freehold townhouse
units and 775 condominium apartment units. A new public street off York Gate Boulevard
would serve the townhouses (Schedule "C"). A statistical breakdown of the proposal is set out
below:
|
Site Statistics |
| Site Area |
82,250 square metres (8.225 ha) |
| Total Gross Floor Area |
110,500 square metres (to be confirmed) |
| Total Number of Residential Units |
townhouses 220 units
apartments 775 units |
| Proposed Density |
2.48 FSI for apartment area
0.65 FSI for townhouses
Total: 1.34 FSI |
| Parking Required |
townhouses: 440 spaces
apartments: 1,162 spaces
Total: 1,602 spaces |
| Building Height |
townhouses: 2 storeys
apartments: information not provided |
2.0Location and Existing Site:
The site is located on the north side of Finch Avenue West between York Gate Boulevard and
Norfinch Drive and is bounded on the north by a hydro corridor (Schedule "B"). The site is
currently vacant land. To the north-west is Regina Pacis Catholic Secondary School. On the
west side of Norfinch Drive are industrial lands developed with commercial uses. On the east
side of York Gate Boulevard is York Gate Mall. Fronting on the south side of Finch Avenue
is a 5 storey office-medical building and a 3 storey retirement home with semi-detached
dwellings located at the corner of Elana Drive. At the south-west corner of Finch Avenue and
Jane Street is a commercial plaza. Further west on the south side of Finch Avenue between
Oakdale Road and Highway 400 is Humber River Regional Hospital.
3.0Previous Applications:
The site has been the subject of several previous applications, approvals and Ontario
Municipal Board decisions dating back to 1975 which include the commercial lands east of
York Gate Boulevard. A summary of the main applications relating to the site can be found in
Appendix "A". While past applications have been for 1,296 residential units and school sites,
Council and OMB decisions have only approved implementing zoning for 436 dwelling units
and 2 school sites.
4.0Planning Controls:
4.1Official Plan:
The site is designated Residential Density 4 (RD4) which permits townhouses and high rise
apartment buildings, public facilities and amenities, community institutions and minor
commercial uses ancillary to or serving the local population. The maximum density is 1.5 FSI.
The site is also subject to site specific policy Part C.9.114 which permits a total of 1,296
dwelling units on the lands between York Gate Boulevard and Norfinch Drive south of the
hydro corridor (Schedule "A").
The lands east of York Gate Boulevard are generally designated Commercial and developed
with a shopping centre. A portion of the land abutting the hydro corridor east of York Gate
Boulevard is designated RD4 with a site specific policy C.9.111 permitting the land to also be
used for non-required parking for the shopping centre on the adjacent lands and permitting
community centre uses in the shopping centre. Both the RD4 and Commercial lands are
identified as a sub-centre on Schedule "A".
4.2Zoning:
The lands adjacent to the hydro corridor and York Gate Boulevard are zoned RM6 while the
remainder of the site is zoned RM2 (Schedule "B"). The site as well as the lands east of York
Gate Boulevard are subject to By-law 30200 (as amended by by-law 32765). By-law 30200 as
amended sets out the following for the site:
- on the RM6 zoned lands, the only uses permitted are 2 apartment buildings of 26 and 29
storeys with 436 units, and a recreation centre, with a maximum gross floor area of 279%
of RM6 land area.
- the remainder of the site is zoned RM2. The RM2 zone permits single detached,
semi-detached and duplex dwellings, recreational uses such as parks and community
centres, and institutional uses such as schools and places of worship subject to the
requirements of the RM2 zone.
By-law No. 30200 as amended, also applies to the lands east of York Gate Boulevard (see
Appendix"B").
4.3Release of Part Lot Control
In 1981, Council passed By-law No. 28073 releasing part lot control on the site comprising
Registered Plan M-1994. This enables the lots to be conveyed without obtaining land division
approval from the City. Each new lot or block created would be required to comply with its
zoning and to have frontage on a street. The land could be conveyed for single detached,
semi-detached or duplex dwellings.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
5.0Other Department Comments:
Comments on the current development application have been received from a number of
departments and agencies. A summary of the comments is attached as Appendix "C".
Generally, there are transportation, community facility and school services matters that should
be addressed. We anticipate receiving further comments from these departments and agencies
based on a revised development concept for this site.
6.0Planning Issues:
6.1Previous Planning Study
In 1975, the City retained the firm of Klein and Sears to undertake a review of the planning
policies for the site. The major findings of the study were as follows:
- The area has experienced a high rate of growth, however, public facilities and services
have not developed at the same rate as the population has increased.
- The park provisions do not meet the recreation needs of the area and there is a lack of
commercial recreation facilities in the area.
- There is a need for additional school facilities in the area and a park should be located
adjacent to the proposed school facilities.
- The proposal for 1,296 residential units would severely overload the major road
intersections along Finch Avenue in the vicinity of the site The study also concluded that
intensive redevelopment of the site would require major improvements to Highway 400
such as additional interchanges. The study concluded that "the traffic conditions in the area
are serious enough to require major traffic improvements before major development could
take place on the lands".
In order to provide for a suitable gradation between the existing low rise residential area to the
north, the study suggested that high rise condominium development be located along the
Finch Avenue portion of the site and low rise row housing adjacent to the hydro corridor. This
would provide a better physical relationship with the housing to the north and provide an
opportunity for integrating the family portion of the development with the residential
neighbourhood to the north. This would also help link the parts of the community divided by
the hydro corridor providing for a visual link to the north.
The study concluded that while residential development on the lands is desirable and should
be encouraged, no intensive development should occur until major improvements are made to
the traffic, school and recreation situations in the area.
Development of the site has not proceeded and these findings have not been revisited for 23
years.
In 1986, the City entered into an agreement with Elderbrook Developments Ltd. which states
that the City is to undertake a planning study prior to the approval of any new development
beyond the 436 dwelling units. The study is to review the land use policies in the area and
compare the results with the 1975 Klein and Sears study. An independent City Planning
Department study of this area is not a current budget item. So as to enable a development
proposal to be reviewed at this time, it is important that the applicant update the information
of the 1975 Klein and Sears study (dealing with such areas as development and population
growth, schools, social services, recreation and traffic) with terms of reference established by
the Acting Commissioner of Planning. Any further analysis which the update recommends,
should be done at the discretion of the Planning Department as may be required for a final
report.
6.2Land Use and Density:
It is now 23 years since the first application was submitted for the lands for residential
development. Since that time, a number of changes have occurred in the planning context for
the area. Part of the site was sold to the Metro Separate School Board and developed with a
secondary school. Commercial uses including an office building and hotels have developed to
the west along Norfinch Drive. The lands to the east between York Gate Boulevard and Jane
Street have developed with a shopping centre. The lands at the four corners of Jane Street and
Finch Avenue are designated as a Sub-Centre. It is appropriate to review the planning policies
for this site.
While the Official Plan policy permits a total of 1,296 dwelling units, the as-of-right zoning
only permits 436 dwelling units. The proposal for 995 dwelling units is less than the 1,296
dwelling units permitted under the Official Plan, but is a significant increase above the
existing zoning permission. The development proposal is for an overall density of 1.34 FSI
which is within the general limit of 1.5 FSI permitted by a RD4 designation.
Since the adoption of the site specific policy for this property, the City has adopted new
housing policies in its Official Plan. The Official Plan includes housing objectives for the
development of residential areas:
- intensified development should occur where it can be accommodated by hard and soft
services and should be compatible with surrounding development.
- new housing should achieve a high standard of urban design and enhancement of
streetscape through the avoidance of excessive size, scale or mass.
- the scale and density of new development should be contingent upon the physical
capability of the lands to support the development and on the impact upon transportation
and community services and facilities and the establishment of satisfactory physical and
functional relationships with adjacent land uses.
While past plans for these lands proposed six high rise apartment buildings, the 1979 OMB
decision provided an opportunity to weigh the success of the first intensification proposal as
built before further rezonings are considered. Since no development of the lands has occurred,
the appropriate tests to apply are the current housing policies of Part C.4 of the Official Plan.
The Official Plan acknowledges that it is desirable to encourage a shift from high rise towers
to a more balanced mix of housing types. The Plan directs major residential development to
those areas in the City identified as potential reurbanization areas. This site is not identified as
a potential reurbanization area.
The site is located in the Black Creek Residential Community. On the north side of the hydro
corridor is a low density residential neighbourhood comprised of single detached and
semi-detached dwellings and low rise apartments. This provides a context which works well
in which to reconsider the residential extension to this site.
The type of housing appropriate for this site should be reconsidered. This report recommends
lower density residential development which can be pre-zoned to an appropriate exception
zone to permit a broad range of housing. This could complement the low density residential
community to the north and knit the lands north and south of the hydro corridor together.
The zoning should provide certainty that the development is low density built form but
provide flexibility to respond to the market demand for privately owned single detached,
semi-detached or townhouse development. Similar zoning strategies have recently been
approved on the Wittington site along Avondale Avenue frontage. The City recently also
approved zoning for small lot residential development on the old Bridgehome site providing
for lot frontages of 7 metres (23 ft.) for semi-detached and townhouse units, and 9 metres (30
ft.) for detached homes, as well as shallower lot depths of about 23 metres (75 ft.). A similar
approach can be designed with the applicant for this site.
Finch Avenue is a major arterial road with lands at the intersection of Jane and Finch
designated as a sub-centre for a mix of uses. Redevelopment of the Finch Avenue frontage
with a broader range of uses including medium rise apartments, commercial uses, medical and
health care related uses would support a pedestrian environment along the street, would be in
keeping with the mixed use nature of the lands in the vicinity of the site, and capitalize on the
reinvestment potential that will accompany the expansion of the Humber River Regional
Hospital. A mix of uses along Finch Avenue would promote animation and vitality in the area
providing places for people to live and work. Under this option, the Finch Avenue frontage
would be designated Arterial Corridor Area and pre-zoned with holding zone regulations as
set out in the official plan.
Community facilities are an integral part of a successful residential area. Past studies have
noted the need for additional community facilities. With the potential for residential infill of
this large site, it is appropriate to encourage the provision of public and private community
facility uses. This could be oriented along the Finch Avenue frontage or incorporated within a
new residential subdivision.
Encouraging a mix of low rise residential and community uses will result in a lower number
of dwelling units than the 1,296 units permitted by the Official Plan.
6.3Built Form:
A reduction in the number of dwelling units will enable a reduction in the height of buildings
to a more desirable level. It provides for a pedestrian scale of development along Finch
Avenue. The heights of two permitted residential buildings of 26 and 29 storeys is the product
of a suburban style of towers in the field reflecting a different time and context. Today, it is
recognized that a more ground oriented built form along public roads with a more sensitive
pedestrian scale is safer, and more attractive. When combined with pedestrian intensive uses
on the ground floor along main streets, this form results in an enriched public realm.
For these reasons, a maximum height of 2 storeys for single detached and semi-detached
dwellings and 2 to 3 storeys for townhouses or other multiple attached grade related units
should apply across the site. If an Arterial Corridor Area option is selected for the Finch
frontage, a maximum height of 6 storeys should apply to the frontage lands in keeping with
the Arterial Corridor Area policies of the Official Plan.
6.4Jane and Finch Streetscape Design
In June 1997, Council adopted in principle the Jane and Finch streetscape preliminary design
concept. The streetscape design pertains to the public boulevards along Finch Avenue West
adjacent to this site. The proposed streetscape design includes elements that would break the
monotony of the large flat surfaces and provide some vertical features that will give the area a
stronger edge. Tree planting, wider and decorative sidewalks, seating areas and pedestrian
lights are elements that are proposed for the public space. A consultant is to be hired this fall
to develop an implementation strategy, do a detailed design, and produce drawings of the
streetscape design. Any development along the Finch Avenue frontage of this site should
complement and support the streetscape design concept.
6.5Transportation
A traffic impact study is required which accounts for:
- traffic operations at the major road intersections in the area;
- traffic operations along Finch Avenue, York Gate Boulevard and Norfinch Drive;
- the requirements of access to the site in the context of the arterial road network;
- traffic operations of any new streets proposed to serve the development; and
- the traffic generated by future development within the area including the implications of
the Humber River Regional Hospital expansion along Finch Avenue.
The applicant is encouraged to meet with transportation staff prior to commencement of the
study to determine the terms of reference of the traffic impact study.
6.6Community Services and Facilities:
The Official Plan includes policies encouraging residential intensification provided there are
community services and facilities to support the development. In the past, a concern raised
with the proposal for 1,296 dwelling units on this site was the lack of sufficient community
services, school and recreational facilities. The development proposal once revised will be
assessed to determine its impact on existing community facilities including parkland, schools,
libraries, emergency services, child care and recreational facilities. A change in the type of
residential development proposed for this area to low rise residential units could affect the
demands placed for additional community services and facilities.
The Toronto Catholic School Board has indicated that they would like to acquire additional
lands for Regina Pacis School for outdoor play space. There may be opportunities for public
acquisition of lands which encourage consolidated and shared community and recreational
facilities and parkland between one or both school boards and the City.
Staff will work with the Parks and Recreation staff, the School Boards and other community
agencies to develop ways in which to address community facility and school desires.
6.7Development Principles:
Based on the above discussion, the following urban design principles should be applied in
guiding any new development of these lands:
(i)a public road network should divide the site into smaller development blocks to
accommodate freehold development and provide for street connectivity so as to increase
accessibility and safety;
(ii)an articulated built form massed to support pedestrian scale development along Finch
Avenue and other streets is encouraged;
(iii)there should be a variety of low density residential building types including single
detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and 2 to 3 storey townhouses or similar
multiple attached grade related dwelling units;
(iv)a variety of small lot configurations should be permitted, including wider lot frontages
with shallower lot depths and/or narrower lot frontages with greater lot depth;
(v)there should be no parking in the front yard for development along Finch Avenue; parking
should be provided underground or at the rear accessed from the internal street network;
(vi)development along the Finch Avenue frontage should complement and implement the
Finch Avenue Streetscape Design Concept;
(vii)along the Finch Avenue frontage, consideration should be given to the following
additional guidelines for any ACA built form development:
(a)provide for maximum building heights of 6 storeys;
(b)encourage retail and commercial uses at grade to address the arterial road frontage and
provide animation at the street level;
(c)Provide service access to development through a new public road.
7.0Community Consultation
Staff are committed to working with the community in an effort to resolve issues related to
redevelopment of this site. Plans for community consultation are being coordinated with the
two local Councillors with the community consultation meeting to be held in the fall prior to a
final recommendation report. In 1987, Council approved a motion that a 1,000 ft. notice
circulation area be used for any future rezoning of the RM2 lands. Based on this Council
approved motion, rather than use the standard 400 feet notice area, we will use the 1000 ft.
radius for any notices relating to this application.
Conclusions:
This report recommends principles to guide the development of the lands at Finch Avenue
West and York Gate Boulevard based on low density residential uses including small lot
single detached and semi-detached dwellings and townhouses with possible consideration for
a broader range of uses and intensified development along the Finch Avenue frontage. The
principles of development for this site should be agreed upon now to set the stage for a more
detailed development application recommendation report. The applicant should revise their
proposal so that it implements the principles set out in this report. Community consultation
will be coordinated with the two local Councillors prior to a final report.
Contact Name:
Nimrod Salamon, Senior Planner
Phone: 395-7134Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of the schedules, appendices, draft official plan amendment, draft zoning by-law
amendment and site plan referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had
before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:
(i)(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Lindsay Dale-Harris, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith
Inc., Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant requesting the Community Council to
direct that no further studies will be required, provided that the total number of units does not
exceed 436; and
(ii)(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Ruth Morris, Executive Director, Black Creek Focus, advising of
her concerns with the proposed application.
Ms. Lindsay Dale-Harris, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., Planning Consultant
on behalf of the applicant, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter.
14
Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment and
Site Plan Application UD52-97-04 and UDSP-98-13 -
Shaftesbury Development Ltd. - 4935 - 4937 Yonge Street -
North York Centre
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend refusal of this application to amend the zoning
by-law and receive site plan approval. The applicant is requesting approval of a temporary use
by-law in order to permit the existing parking lot to remain until they are ready to proceed
with their approved development.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)The application be refused.
Background:
1.0Proposal:
The application proposes an amendment to the zoning by-law and requests site plan approval
for a 3-year temporary use by-law to permit the existing parking lot to remain on the site, as
shown on attached Schedule C. The applicant advises that they are not ready to proceed with
the approved office tower development at this time, and as such in the interim, wish to make
use of the property in this way.
Pertinent site statistics are set out below:
| Site Area |
1.4 hectares (3.5 acres) |
| Number of Parking Spaces |
368 |
| Proposed Surface Finish |
crushed stone |
2.0Location and Existing Site:
The site is located on the east side of Yonge Street, between Hollywood Avenue and Spring
Garden Avenue (Schedule B). The northwest and southwest corners of the block are
developed with one-storey retail establishments, including a Hertz car rental, 2 restaurants, a
clothing store, and a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, which abut the site. Immediately
east of the property is a site owned by the North York Board of Education, containing the
Claude Watson School for the Arts and its associated portables and playing field.
The site is operating as an unpaved, public parking lot. Approximately 30 parking spaces at
the northwest corner of the lot are leased by Hertz Car Rental. An additional number of spaces
at the southwest corner of the lot are used by the adjacent Royal Canadian Legion building.
3.0Planning Controls:
3.1Official Plan:
Amendment 447 - North York Centre Secondary Plan, designates the Yonge Street-fronting
portion of the site as Downtown Mixed Use - One (DMU-1), and the remainder of the site as
Downtown Mixed Use - Three (DMU-3). Both of these designations permit a mix of uses on
the property, including commercial, institutional, park and recreational uses, to a maximum
density of 4.5 FSI (exclusive of transfers and incentives). The DMU-3 designation also
permits residential uses. Commercial parking lots are not permitted by Amendment 447.
It is noted that at the time of submission of this application, the Downtown Secondary Plan
contained a provision permitting parking lots as a temporary use on sites where development
is approved but not yet constructed. Amendment 447 was approved by Council approximately
3 months later, specifically prohibiting such uses. As such, no Official Plan amendment
application was required upon submission.
3.2Zoning:
The site, subject of previous Official Plan and zoning amendment applications (OZ-86-84 and
UDZ-94-15), is currently zoned C1(42) which permits a 28-storey office building containing
ground floor retail uses, a 2-storey community centre (Legion Hall), and a 3-storey live
theatre. A public parking lot is not permitted.
Comments and Discussion:
4.0Other Department Comments:
The Transportation division of the Works and Emergency Services Department advises that
they cannot support the temporary private parking lot given that several policy objectives in
the Official Plan related to transit modal split and reduced auto use are compromised. Further,
Section 4.6.3 of Amendment 447 clearly prohibits commercial parking lots within the North
York Centre and encourages transit supportive development. They also note that the surface
of the lot must be finished with asphalt, concrete or interlocking stone. The applicant proposes
to maintain the existing crushed stone finish (Schedule D).
The Public Works division of the Works and Emergency Services Department advises, among
other things, that they will require a grading and drainage plan to be submitted (Schedule E).
The By-law Enforcement section of the Municipal Standards division recommends that
should the request be approved, that the property be graded and drained to prevent excessive
ponding of water, and that the lot be paved and marked. Past enforcement actions are noted in
Section 5.1 below.
5.0Planning Issues:
5.1History of Use
Based on a review of By-law Enforcement Section records for this site and earlier air photos,
it appears that the site has operated as a parking lot for a number of years. In 1988, the
buildings on site were demolished, and parking was operating on the former C1 portion of the
site (Yonge Street fronting lands). After 1992, when the applicant received approval for a high
density mixed use development, it appears that this parking lot expanded to incorporate the
entire site, notwithstanding that the new commercial zoning prohibited public parking lots.
Only the parking on the former C1 portion of the site, ie. the Yonge-fronting lands
(approximately 75 spaces), may have been a permitted use at some time.
A complaint was received by the City in 1995. The applicant, as well as Hertz and the parking
lot operator, were charged and convicted in September 1997 of permitting and operating an
illegal public parking lot. Around the time of the conviction, the applicant agreed to submit
the subject application in order to attempt to have the use legalized temporarily.
5.2Urban Design
The applicant has submitted a site plan indicating a total of 368 parking spaces on a surface
finish of crushed stone. As some of these parking spaces are shown in the place of existing
trees, the applicant has indicated that the supply could be reduced to preserve the trees on site,
thus reducing the parking spaces to a maximum of 364.
On the Yonge Street frontage, a 9.14 m (30 ft.) landscaped strip consisting of sodding and
benches is proposed. This strip exists presently. A 1.2 m (4 ft.) high wood fence is proposed
along the Hollywood and Spring Garden Avenue frontages. An existing chain link fence is
located along the east property line. The only access to the parking lot would be from
Hollywood Avenue where it is presently taken.
5.3Land Use
A commercial parking lot is not permitted under the existing C1(42) zoning or the Downtown
Mixed Use designations of the property. The C1(42) zone was approved by Council to
specifically permit a mixed use development on the site. There are numerous policies in the
Official Plan which provide support for increased transit usage and discourage excess parking
in inappropriate locations. For example, the North York Centre Secondary Plan (Amendment
447) contains a number of policies which focus specifically on the issue of parking supply. As
a general objective, Section 1.13 - Transit Modal Split and Capacity of Infrastructure, notes
that: "It is an objective of this Secondary Plan to work towards reducing the reliance on the
use of the automobile and attaining a high transit modal split, and to ensure that development
levels do not exceed the capacity of the infrastructure serving the North York Centre."
Under Section 4 - Transportation, Subsection 4.6.1 - Provisions for Parking Supply (a) and (b)
note
that: "Council shall strictly regulate the supply of parking in the North York Centre so as to
attain an overall average auto driver modal split of no more than 33% (in the p.m. peak hour)
for all new development in the Centre... To achieve its goal, Council has established a parking
policy for the North York Centre which is included in Appendix 6 of the Official Plan...".
Appendix 6 sets out minimum and maximum parking standards for residential, commercial
and mixed use projects. The parking provisions in By-law C1(42) pertaining to this site,
conform to these standards.
In addition, Subsection 4.6.3 Other Parking Operators, makes clear the intent of the Plan:
"Council shall not permit private commercial parking lots for non-accessory parking, either
interim or temporary, within the North York Centre as such use is contrary to the objectives of
the plan to attain a high transit modal split associated with the development of the Centre."
In summary, the short and long-term objectives of the Official Plan are to promote a high
transit modal split and discourage stand-alone parking within the North York Centre. These
objectives lend themselves to development levels which are supportable by existing
infrastructure capacity, to more efficient use of transit systems in place, and to
environmentally advantageous means of commuting generally.
Conclusions:
The proposal to zone the existing parking lot by approving a temporary use by-law on the site
is not appropriate. A parking lot use is contrary to the land use principles and objectives
established in the Official Plan and specifically the North York Centre Secondary Plan, which
promote and encourage increased use of rapid transit and discourage excess parking within
this area.
Contact Name:
Malini Rawal, Planner
Phone: 395-7100Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of the schedules, draft official plan amendment and draft zoning by-law amendment
referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
15
Notice Provisions for Official Plan Amendments -
UD03-HOP - All North York Community Council Wards
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council after considering the findings of fact, conclusions
and recommendations contained in the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Acting
Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, recommends the adoption of
Official Plan Amendment No. 462 attached as Appendix 3 to the report.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July
22, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (May 12, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend that a minimum of twenty days notice be given for
all public meetings to consider official plan amendments. The alternative notice procedure in
the Official Plan should be amended to permit a notice period of twenty days for "old"
Planning Act applications, and to permit current applications submitted under Bill 20 to
proceed with the statutory twenty day notice period.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)that notice be given for a statutory public meeting to consider an amendment to the Official
Plan to revise the Alternative Notice Procedure as described in this report.
Discussion:
The minimum notice period for public meetings to consider official plan amendments has
been shortened from thirty days to twenty days under the new Planning Act (the Land Use
Planning and Protection Act, 1996, or Bill 20). This change in the legislation allows official
plan amendments and associated zoning by-laws to be dealt with concurrently with twenty
days notice.
The number of active applications on file for official plan amendments, and the minimum
notice periods under the three versions of the Planning Act are shown in the following table:
Table 1Minimum Notice Periods for North York Official Plan Amendment Applications
| Planning Act
Version |
No. of Official Plan
Amendment
Applications on file |
Minimum Notice Period
for OPA's |
Minimum Notice Period
for associated Zoning
By-laws |
| "old Act" (a) |
12 |
28 days |
20 days |
| (b) |
2 |
30 days |
20 days |
| Bill 163 |
0 |
30 days |
20 days |
| Bill 20 |
22 |
20 days |
20 days |
The "old" Planning Act required a minimum of thirty days notice for public meetings to
consider official plan amendments. North York adopted an Alternative Notice Procedure
under the "old" Act, requiring (a) a minimum of twenty-eight days notice for most
applications, and (b) a minimum of thirty days notice in the case of secondary plans, major
amendments or applications, and Downtown/Uptown applications (refer to Appendix 1).
A number of changes in recent years support revising the alternative notice procedure to allow
for twenty days notice as set out in the new Planning Act. There have been significant changes
in the way we do our business. Preconsultation, community consultation meetings and
preliminary evaluation reports have become the norm for processing amendments. This
provides ample opportunity for the public to be notified and to participate in the review of an
application before a statutory public meeting is held.
The North York Planning Committee met every two weeks. The present Community Council
operates on a four week meeting cycle which does not work well with a thirty day notice
requirement. A twenty day notice period, consistent with the new Planning Act, meshes well
with the new meeting cycle and contributes to on-going streamlining efforts.
Three of the former cities in Toronto have alternative notice provisions in their official plans
(refer to Appendix 2). The North York and Etobicoke policies require more notice than the
twenty days prescribed by the current Planning Act; East York requires twenty days notice.
The other three former cities give notice in accordance with the applicable version of the
Planning Act. Amending the Alternative Notice Procedure in the North York Official Plan to
permit a notice period of twenty days in accordance with the current Planning Act will allow
us to harmonize our normal practice for new applications with that used by four of the other
five former cities.
Conclusions:
Extensive preconsultation takes place before public meetings are held to consider official plan
amendments. It is recommended that Part A, Section 5, Alternative Notice Procedure, of the
North York Official Plan be amended to permit a twenty day notice period for public meetings
for all official plan amendments regardless of which Planning Act governs their processing
(refer to Appendix 3). This notice period reflects the statutory requirement in the new
Planning Act, complements the meeting cycle of the Community Council, and is consistent
with the general practice throughout the rest of the new City of Toronto. The establishment of
a consistent twenty day Alternative Notice Procedure in no way limits the Community
Council's ability to require an extended notice period under special circumstances where this
is warranted.
Contact Name:
Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner
Phone:395-7110
Fax:395-7155
________
No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter.
(A copy of the Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
16
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-37 -
Lopes Bros. Contracting - 1721 Jane Street -
North York Humber
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on
the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report
(May 13, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons that the
proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by
Lopes Bros. Contracting regarding Zoning Amendment Application for 1721 Jane
Street, be approved subject to the recommendations contained in the following report
(May 13, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning.
The North York Community Council reports having held a further statutory public meeting on
July22, 1998, in order to provide all owners and tenants who may not have received the notice
for the previous meeting an opportunity to submit their comments, in accordance with the
Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend a zoning by-law amendment to allow the existing
one storey commercial building and parking lot which fronts onto Jane Street, to be
maintained and to develop the eastern portion of the property which fronts onto Hearne
Avenue, with 2 semi-detached dwellings (4 units). The site plan and elevation drawings are
attached as schedule "C" and "D".
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the application be approved and the site be rezoned to C1 Exception on the Jane Street
frontage and RM2 Exception on the Hearne Avenue frontage subject to the following:
C1 Exception Zone:
(a)the existing retail store shall provide a minimum of:
(i)20 parking spaces; and
(ii)a courier loading space having dimensions of 6m long and 3.6m wide; and
(b)there shall be no front yard setback, rear yard setback, lot area and lot depth requirements;
RM2 Exception Zone
(a)the minimum lot area shall be 276m² for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 550m² for
each semi-detached dwelling;
(b)the minimum lot frontage shall be 8.0m for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 16.0m
for each semi-detached dwelling;
(c)the minimum side yard setback shall be 1.2m; and
(d)the maximum lot coverage shall be 34 percent;
(2)that prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Hearne Street site, the applicant shall
submit a grading and drainage plan, which is satisfactory to the Chief Building Official and
which shall be registered on title as part of the release of part lot control agreement. The
grading plan will ensure that surface drainage is directed towards Hearne Avenue; and
(3)prior to the enactment of the amending by-law, the applicant will submit payment-in-lieu
of parking for one parking space at the rate of $7,500.00 as per Council policy.
Background:
Proposal:
The applicant proposes to retain the commercial operation fronting onto Jane Street (The
Dollar Joint) and construct 2 semi-detached dwellings (4 units) fronting onto Hearne Avenue.
On the Jane Street site, the applicant proposes to demolish approximately 4 metres of the rear
portion of the commercial building to allow unobstructed access from the right-of-way to the
parking lot. Each semi-detached dwelling unit will have a gross floor area of 190m² which
represents a lot coverage of 34 percent. The proposed lots are to be created through a Part Lot
Control Exemption Application.
Location:
The development site is located on the east side of Jane Street in the area north of Lawrence
Avenue West and is currently occupied by a retail establishment and associated parking lot.
Properties fronting onto Jane Street are primarily developed with retail commercial uses.
Properties on Hearne Avenue are primarily developed with low density residential uses. There
is a 6m wide right-of-way in the rear yards of the proposed residential properties which is in
favour of the Jane Street properties. The right-of-way provides car access to the abutting
commercial and residential properties and runs the full length of this block. Semi-detached
dwellings are located immediately to the south of the subject lands at 10, 12, 16 and 18
Hearne Avenue (which were approved under applications UDOZ-93-09 and UDOZ-96-11
respectively) and further east on Everglades Drive (refer to schedule"B").
Official Plan:
The western portion of the property, fronting onto Jane Street, is designated Arterial Corridor
Area (ACA) which permits a mixture of residential and commercial uses generally up to a
Floor Space Index of 2.0. The eastern portion of the property, fronting onto Hearne Avenue, is
designated Commercial (COM) with a site specific policy (C.9.58) which permits, among
other uses, single and semi-detached dwellings at a maximum density of 39 units per hectare.
The proposed development represents a density of 36 units per hectare. No Official Plan
amendment is required (refer to schedule "A").
Zoning:
The lands fronting onto Jane Street are zoned C1 which permits a wide range of retail and
service commercial uses. A rezoning to C1 exception for the Jane Street property is required
to recognize the reduced size of the site and a parking deficiency. The portion of the property
which is zoned R4 permits one single family residential dwelling. A rezoning to RM2 is
required to permit the proposed semi-detached dwellings (refer to schedule "B").
Comments:
A summary of the relevant comments received is outlined below.
The Transportation Department (North York Office - schedule "E") advise that 21 parking
spaces are required for the commercial building. There are 20 parking spaces on site. The one
space deficiency in parking is supported subject to payment in-lieu-of parking being applied.
The Public Works Department (North York Office - schedule "F") advise that existing
drainage patterns on adjacent properties and the right-of-way shall not be altered.
Discussion:
The proposed semi-detached dwellings are similar to those approved and built on the lots to
the south with the exception of the proposed front yard setback and building height. The
applicant has proposed a 6m front yard setback and a building height of 10.36m and 3 storeys.
This portion of Hearne Avenue is primarily built with a minimum front yard setback of 7.5
metres. The semi-detached dwellings in the area are 2 storeys and a maximum of 9.2m in
height. To ensure development is compatible with the adjacent buildings, it is recommended
the proposed semi-detached dwellings comply with the front yard and building height
requirements of the zoning by-law. A table which compares the proposed semi-detached
dwellings with the approved semi-detached dwellings to the south and the standard
requirements of the RM2 zone is attached as schedule "G".
The Commercial Building
On the Jane Street frontage a C1 exception zoning is recommended to recognize the existing
commercial property and to ensure a minimum parking supply is provided for the existing
retail store with adequate loading facilities. There are 20 parking spaces provided on site at
1721 Jane Street, which is sufficient to accommodate the existing retail store. The remaining
properties provide on site parking for the commercial activities along Jane Street, between
Lawrence Avenue West and Marshlynn Avenue.
Lot Drainage
Issues relating to grade and drainage were raised by the owners of the adjacent commercial
buildings located on Jane Street. Similar issues were raised when considering the previous
applications (UDOZ-93-09 and UDOZ-96-11) for the semi-detached dwellings located to the
south. In order to ensure drainage problems do not occur as a result of the current proposal, it
is recommended that the applicant submit a grading and drainage plan which would be
registered on title as part of the release of part lot control agreement.
Conclusions:
Semi-detached residential buildings along the eastern portion of the subject property are
appropriate as they will enhance the stability of the neighbourhood by helping to separate the
existing commercial uses fronting on Jane Street from the residential uses along Hearne
Avenue. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions contained
within the report.
Contact Name:
Anthony Rossi, Planner Phone: 395-7114Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of the schedules, draft zoning by-law amendment and site plan referred to in the
foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
________
Mr. Peter Cheatley Planning Consultant, appeared before the North York Community Council
on behalf of the applicant in connection with the foregoing matter and indicated that the
applicant concurred with the staff recommendations.
17
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-03 -
Rowland Lincoln Mercury - South of Eglinton Avenue East
and North of Jonesville Crescent - Don Parkway
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause to provide that the approval
of this application in no way sets a precedent for the use of Ontario Hydro Corridor lands. )
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on
the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report
(June 22, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that:
(1)the application submitted by Rowland Lincoln Mercury regarding Official Plan and
Zoning Amendment Application for south of Eglinton Avenue East and north of
Jonesville Crescent, be approved; and
(2)the following report (June 22, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be
adopted subject to Recommendation No. (2)(ii) contained therein being amended to read
as follows:
"(2)(ii)Maximum gross floor area: 2,200 square metres."
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July
22, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (June 22, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
This report recommends the approval of the application to permit the construction of a motor
vehicle dealership and a restaurant within the Ontario Hydro corridor that is located south of
Eglinton Avenue East and north of Jonesville Crescent.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1)the PUT official plan designation be amended to permit motor vehicle dealerships and
restaurants;
(2)the zoning be amended to MC(H) (Industrial-Commercial Holding Zone) with the
following exceptions:
(i)permitted uses are: motor vehicle dealerships and restaurants;
(ii)maximum gross floor area: 2,000 square metres; and
(iii)landscaping, fencing and temporary outside sales and display area performance standards
need not apply for motor vehicle dealerships and restaurants;
(3)the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, as a condition of site plan
approval, to protect for a 10m (33 ft) wide open space link through the lands. The preferred
location for the open space link is adjacent to the Jonesville Crescent frontage. The open
space link should ensure that any future bicycle and pedestrian trail that traverses this section
of the Gatineau hydro corridor will be uninterrupted;
(4)prior to final site plan approval, the applicant shall submit, or agree to submit prior to the
issuance of a building permit, a record of site condition that is acknowledged by the Ministry
of Environment and Energy; and
(5)the site plan review and approval shall achieve the urban design objectives discussed in this
report.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Proposal:
The application proposes official plan and zoning by-law amendments in order to permit the
construction of a motor vehicle dealership and a restaurant within the Ontario Hydro corridor
that is located south of Eglinton Avenue East and north of Jonesville Crescent (Schedule C).
Ontario Hydro will retain ownership of the site, leasing the lands to Rowland Lincoln
Mercury and, potentially, Tim Hortons. Rowland Lincoln Mercury wishes to relocate to the
site from its present location at 1800 O'Connor Drive as shown at the bottom right-hand
corner of Schedule B. A future car compound area for the dealership and a driveway access
from Jonesville Crescent for the restaurant are also proposed and shown on Schedule C. The
pertinent statistics are as follows:
|
Site Statistics |
|
Motor Vehicle Dealership |
Restaurant |
Total |
| Land Area |
4.1 acres (including a 1.1
acre car compound area) |
1.7 acres |
5.8 acres |
| Gross Floor Area |
1,670 sq.m. |
280 sq.m. |
1,950 sq.m. |
Location and Existing Site:
The site consists of a triangular-shaped parcel of land that is located within the Ontario hydro
corridor south of Eglinton Avenue East and north of Jonesville Crescent. The site forms part
of the Gatineau transmission right-of-way and contains three hydro towers which are used for
distribution of electricity.
Planning Controls:
Official Plan:
Public Utility (PUT) which permits utility and outdoor recreational uses (Schedule A).
Zoning:
Semi-public Open Space (O3) which permits public uses (Schedule B).
Trail Study Within Rail and Hydro Corridors:
On June 15, 1998 the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC)
recommended that Council endorse, in principle, developing trails in active and abandoned
rail and hydro corridors subject to a multi-year implementation plan. UEDC also
recommended that Council authorize the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services to protect opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian trails in rail and hydro corridors
wherever possible through the development approval process.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Other Department Comments:
The following section summarizes the comments received from the departments and agencies
circulated.
The Transportation Department reports that the surrounding road network can accommodate
the traffic that will be generated by the proposal (Schedule F).
The Public Works Department describes the servicing parameters that are available and
necessary to accommodate the proposal (Schedule G).
The Public Health Department has no objection to the proposal. The department has reviewed
reports dealing with soil condition and electromagnetic field (EMF) matters and generally
concurs with the consultant findings (Schedules H1 and H2).
The Parks and Recreation Department reports that the proposal will be subject to the City's
cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirement (Schedule I).
Community Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was held on March 26, 1998. Traffic, noise and lighting
infiltration into the adjacent residential neighbourhood are amongst the issues raised by
residents. The issues are summarized in Schedule D and discussed in this report in the
following sections and in Schedule E. Submissions that have been received from the
community are also attached.
Planning Issues:
(a)Land Use:
The proposal to construct the motor vehicle dealership and restaurant along the Eglinton
Avenue portion of the Gatineau hydro corridor illustrates how Ontario Hydro have been
investigating opportunities to make better use of its hydro corridors. Hydro corridors offer an
opportunity to achieve uninterrupted outdoor linkages and may be able to accommodate
limited development provided it is compatible with adjacent land uses.
In principle, the proposal appears to be capable of achieving these opportunities given that the
site has an arterial road frontage and is located in an area where a mix of uses cohabitate: light
industrial, live-work, retail-commercial, recreational, institutional and low scale residential
uses. The introduction of the dealership and restaurant uses along Eglinton Avenue is
appropriate and should integrate in a compatible manner with the existing mix of surrounding
land uses.
In order to enhance opportunities for uninterrupted outdoor linkages through the hydro
corridor, such as a bicycle and pedestrian trail, it is recommended that the applicant enter into
an agreement with the City, as a condition of site plan approval, to protect for a 10m (33 ft)
wide open space link through the site. The open space link should ensure that any future trail
that traverses this section of the Gatineau hydro corridor will be uninterrupted. This is
consistent with the railway and hydro corridor trail study the City has undertaken which
includes these lands within the inventory of potential trail sections.
The preferred location for the 10m wide trail is adjacent to the Jonesville Crescent frontage of
the site. Locating the trail adjacent to Jonesville Crescent will introduce a significant
landscape feature which will function as a prominent open space buffer for the adjacent
residential area, particularly when combined with the Jonesville Crescent boulevard. The
preferred location will also minimize the potential for conflict between trail users and vehicles
travelling on the site because: it optimizes the separation between the open space function and
the site development; and, it will direct trail users to an existing intersection.
(b)Urban Design:
The restaurant and motor vehicle dealership buildings are centrally located on the site with
parking spaces and vehicle display areas being provided along the Eglinton Avenue frontage
(Schedule C). To enhance the relationship of the buildings to Eglinton Avenue the applicant
proposes landscaping, pedestrian connections and a decoratively paved court along the
Eglinton Avenue frontage. The site plan should be refined in order to provide for an
architectural element along the Eglinton Avenue frontage as well as a perimeter landscape
treatment which includes an area of landscape emphasis at the northeast corner of the site (i.e.,
at the intersection of Eglinton and Jonesville). Opportunities will be investigated through the
site plan approval process to encourage and achieve the following objectives:
(i)an architectural treatment which provides a strong streetscape definition, particularly along
Eglinton Avenue;
(ii)an enhanced landscape buffer along the east periphery of the site including landscaped
islands within the east periphery of the parking lot which fronts onto Jonesville Crescent.
Particular attention should be given to incorporating a 10m wide open space link along the
Jonesville Crescent frontage;
(iii)a site landscape treatment which achieves a continuous landscape treatment along the
street frontages to screen the asphalt areas from the street and adjacent areas;
(iv)investigating opportunities to achieve an area of landscape emphasis (i.e., trees, shrubs,
ground covers) at the corner of Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent;
(v)a site and landscape treatment for the site and appropriate landscape treatment along the
Eglinton Avenue and Jonesville Crescent frontages;
(vi)minimum dimensions of parking aisles, driveway and parking stalls in order to maximize
landscape opportunities; and
(vii)the technical requirements of the commenting departments and agencies.
(c)Environment:
The applicant has submitted environmental site assessments which assess the proposal in the
context of the soil condition and electromagnetic field (EMF) environment. The site
assessments conclude that the site will be suitable for the proposed land use. A record of site
condition that attests to the suitability of the site to accommodate the proposal should be
submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(d)Transportation and Access:
Access to the site will be from Eglinton Avenue and Jonesville Crescent. While the traffic that
will be generated from the proposal can be accommodated on the surrounding road network,
some residents have raised the issue of traffic infiltration into the community, specifically
relating to the test-driving of vehicles associated with the automobile dealership. As noted by
the applicant (Schedule E), the proposal generates low volumes of traffic and includes the
relocation of an existing dealership from 1800 O'Connor Drive which is located generally in
the same neighbourhood as the site (bottom right-hand corner of Schedule B).
Conclusions:
The proposal to permit the construction of a motor vehicle dealership and restaurant within
the hydro corridor is appropriate. The objective of an open space linkage (i.e., pedestrian and
bicycle trail) through the corridor will be secured through the site plan process.
Contact Name:
Franco Romano, Senior Planner
Phone: 395-7119Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of the Schedules, draft official plan amendment and draft zoning by-law amendment
referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
---------------
A staff presentation was made by Franco Romano, Senior Planner, Planning Department,
North York Civic Centre.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it during the
consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:
(i)(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Ron Hart and Ms. Helen Hansen, North York Cycling and
Pedestrian Committee, expressing their concerns with the application;
(ii)(July 8, 1998) from Chris and Danny Papagiannis advising of their opposition to the
application;
(iii)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. Michael Tappenden, President, Paul Willison Limited, in support
of the application;
(iv)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Michael Martan, President, Don Valley Volkswagen Ltd., in
support of the application;
(v)(July 6, 1998) from Ms. Anne L. Andrew, expressing her concerns with the proposed
application, together with a petition signed by 9 area residents; and
(vi)(June 29, 1998) from Mr. Bryndon Davies, Vice-president, Parkway Honda, in support of
the application.
________
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Linda Kaye, PMB, Planning Consultant, on behalf of the applicant, Rowland Lincoln
Mercury, who commented on the merits of the application and the concerns raised by the area
residents. She also indicated that the applicant concurred with the staff recommendations with
the exception of Recommendation 2(ii). She requested that this recommendation be amended
to reflect a maximum gross floor area of 2,200 square metres in order to include the
mezzanine area which was excluded from the calculation.
-Ms. Helen Hansen, on behalf of the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, who
filed a written submission, expressed the Committee's concerns with the proposed vehicle
dealership and restaurant replacing public utility land and space which could be used for a
future trailway and park. The Committee was also concerned about the precedent setting
nature of the application because it could encourage others to file similar proposals thereby
creating a corridor which is inappropriate and unusable for recreational and transportation
purposes. She also indicated that commercial uses will restrict opportunities for full
development of a trail and park system.
-Ms. Amy Baker, who filed a written submission, commented in opposition to the application.
Her primary objections were with respect to increased traffic, and the negative impact on the
surrounding residential area from the noise generated by the test driving of vehicles, the
intercom, car alarms and automobile repair operations.
18
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-48 -
Har-Ru Holdings Limited -
1 Canyon Avenue - North York Centre South
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on
the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report
(June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that
the application submitted by Har-Ru Holdings Limited regarding Official Plan and
Zoning Amendment Application for 1 Canyon Avenue, be approved, as set out in the
following report (June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning and subject
to:
(1)Recommendation No. 3(a)(ii) contained in the following report from the Acting
Commissioner of Planning be deleted and replaced with the following:
" (3)(a)(ii)an undertaking from the owner that arrangements will be made, upon
consultation with the tenants of the existing rental building, to create in the B1 level of
the existing rental building, meeting and recreational facilities occupying, in the
aggregate, approximately 150 square metres, within such location or locations as the
owner shall designate.";
(2)that the undertaking referred to in Recommendation No. (1) be subject to the
approval of the North York Community Council through the site plan process;
(3)not less than $50,000.00 be spent on the recreational facilities; and that the $50,000.00
be secured by a letter of credit, such letter of credit to be received prior to the enactment
of the zoning by-law; and that the facility be built within one year of the enactment of
the by-law; and
(4)there be, as a condition of approval, safe access and egress to this condominium from
Sheppard Avenue West and that this be worked out in connection with the site plan
process and at the expense of the applicant.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July
22, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (June 24, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning
by-law to permit the development of an underutilized portion of an existing rental building
site with a new eleven storey apartment building subject to conditions. The proposal conforms
with Part C.4 official plan policies for the intensification of an existing apartment site. This
report addresses:
- the preservation of the existing rental housing stock through an agreement under section 37
of the Planning Act in the absence of the Rental Housing Protection Act;
- the appropriateness of any intensification at this location; and
- the conveyance of valley lands below the top of bank to the Toronto Conservation
Authority for nominal sum.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following:
Official Plan Amendment
(1)the Official Plan be amended:
(a)to redesignate the lands below the stable top of bank to VOS Valley Open Space; and
(b)to redesignate the remainder of the lands forming the net site to RD5 Residential Density
Five with a Site Specific C.9 policy:
(i)which recognizes the existing rental apartment house building; and
(ii)which permits the addition of a new 11 storey, 9,550 m² apartment housing building;
Zoning By-law
(2)Zoning By-law 7625 be amended:
(a)to repeal the existing Site Specific By-law No. 18112;
(b)to rezone the lands below the stable top of bank from RM6 to Open Space O1;
(c)subject to the final technical refinement of the site plan, to rezone the table lands RM6
(exception) to recognize the existing apartment house dwelling with respect to the maximum
existing gross floor area, number of units, new yards, building height, and a minimum
landscaped area of 3,000 m²; and
to permit an additional apartment house dwelling of 11 storeys with a maximum gross floor
area of 9,550 m² of 100 units;
General Conditions
(3)prior to the enactment of any zoning by-law:
(a)the applicant enter into an agreement under section 37 of the Planning Act which will
permit the construction of an additional 11 storey, 100 unit apartment house building provided
that through this agreement the City secures the following considerations:
(i)an undertaking from the owner that for a period of fifteen years the existing rental
apartment housing building will be preserved as rental housing stock; no application for
condominium conversion or for demolition to construct anything other than rental housing
units will be made by the owner during this period of time; and
(ii)an undertaking from the owner that arrangements will be made to secure access to common
recreational facilities and amenities of the new condominium building by the tenants of the
existing rental building under fair and reasonable terms and such arrangements will be
properly reflected in the condominium declaration governing the new building;
(b)submission of reference plan of survey which describes the lands below the stable top of
bank, Site A and Site B as shown on Schedule "C";
(c)site plan approval be granted to achieve good linkages between the buildings with the
maximization of landscaping throughout the site, and pedestrian and vehicular site circulation
improvements for both the existing and new building;
(4)conveyance to Toronto & Region Conservation Authority of all lands below the stable top
of bank for nominal sum;
(5)prior to any building permit the applicant shall:
(i)obtain all easements or consents necessary to achieve the site plan as approved;
(ii)obtain all permits and permission required under Ontario Regulation 158; and
(iii)provide a Record of Site Condition in accordance with the MOEE Guidelines for Use at
Contaminated Sites (1996);
(6)the conditions of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as set out in Schedule
"E" be complied with;
(7)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Service Department as set out in Schedule "F"
be complied with;
(8)the conditions of the Parks and Recreation Department as set out in Schedule "H" be
complied with;
(9)the conditions of the Fire Department as set out in Schedule "I" be complied with; and
(10)the conditions of the Transportation Department as set out in Schedule "L" be complied
with.
Background:
1.0Proposal
The applicant is proposing residential intensification of 1 Canyon Avenue with an 11 storey,
100 unit residential apartment building. The site is occupied by a 17 storey, 202 unit
apartment building which will remain. The new building will be located to the east of the
existing building with frontage on Sheppard Avenue West with access from Canyon Avenue.
The statistics are listed below.
|
Proposed Building
(Site A) |
Existing Building
(Site B) |
Total |
| Site Area* |
0.47 ha |
0.83 ha |
1.3 ha |
| Gross Floor Area |
9,550 m2 |
22,027 m2 |
31,577 m2 |
| Floor Space Index |
2.04 |
2.66 |
2.43 |
| Units |
100 |
202 |
302 |
| Parking Provided |
150 |
230 |
342 |
* this includes lands below the stable top of bank
2.0Location and Existing Site:
The site is located at the north east corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Canyon Avenue east
of Bathurst Street. The new building site is tableland adjacent to a natural valley slope of the
Don River. Two 20 storey apartment buildings (15 and 25 Canyon Avenue) containing
approximately 233 units are to the north. A small retail strip plaza which fronts on Sheppard
Avenue is west of the site across Canyon Avenue. A 14 storey apartment building is located
north of this plaza. There are 3 apartment buildings which vary in height from 12 to 13 storeys
across Sheppard Avenue to the south. See Schedule "C2" Context Plan.
Canyon Avenue is developed with high rise apartment buildings and a private school located
at the north end of the street. The area was originally developed in the mid 1960s.
3.0Planning Controls
3.1Official Plan
The site is designated Residential Density Four (RD4) which permits residential uses at a
density of 1.5 FSI with a very small portion of the lands being designated Valley Open Space
at the eastern end of the property as shown on Schedule "A". The eastern portion of the lands
fall within the Valley Impact Zone (VIZ). Part C.4 (Housing Policies) establishes the general
development policies and criteria for the intensification of existing apartment sites to
accommodate additional density. These polices are attached as Appendix "C".
3.2Zoning:
The site is zoned RM6 (Multiple Family Dwellings Sixth Density Zone) and is subject to site
specific By-law 18112 which permits a maximum height of 800 feet above sea level allowing
for the existing 17 storey building. The existing gross floor area represents FSI 1.5 based on
the entire site.
Discussion:
4.0Other Department Comments:
The following section summarizes significant comments received from the departments and
agencies circulated:
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staked the stable top of bank and
established a development limit and reviewed a geotechnical report. The conservation
authority has no objection provided a minimum setback of 1 to 2 metres from the stable top of
bank is provided. The TRCA identified the valley lands as appropriate for public acquisition.
Their comments are attached as Schedule "E".
The Works and Emergency Service Department indicated structures will not be permitted to
encroach on a sewer easement on site. The waste collection arrangements are not considered
acceptable and must be settled at site plan approval. Their comments are attached as Schedule
"F".
The Public Health Department reviewed the applicant's environmental reports and a
subsequent peer review. They have no objections. Their comments are attached as Schedules
"G" through "G3".
The Parks and Recreation Department indicate the development is subject to a 5% cash-in-lieu
of parkland payment. The lands below the top of bank should be conveyed to the appropriate
public body and designated and zoned as open space. Parks encourages the provision of
landscaping and outdoor recreational space. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".
The Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic School Board indicate the
proposed development will create accommodation pressures. Their comments are attached as
Schedule "J" and Schedule "K".
The Fire Department have concerns regarding the fire route access which must be resolved as
part of any approved site plan. Their comments are attached as Schedule "I".
The Transportation Department indicates the traffic generated by the proposed development
will have minimal impact on the overall operations. Access onto Sheppard Avenue will not be
permitted because of safety and operational concerns. The number of parking stalls proposed
is adequate, however some modifications will be required to the location of some of the
spaces. Their comments are attached as Schedule "L".
5.0Community Consultation
In March, there were three community meetings held in the immediate area. The issues raised
by the residents were:
1)increased traffic generated from the new development and access onto Canyon Avenue
rather than Sheppard Avenue West;
2)location of the building and the environmental impacts of construction at this location;
3)adequate parking on site in order to prevent overflow on street parking;
4)community benefits to residents in the existing building on site;
5)loss of open space; and
6)overview and shadow impact.
During the review period, the applicant and the transportation staff have endeavoured to
resolve the resident concerns with respect to traffic impacts of this development. The
recommendations of this report with respect to the conveyance of valley lands, the
establishment of a minimum landscaped area on site and other recreational access conditions,
respond to the concerns of the community with respect to the loss of open space. A follow up
meeting was held with several of the residents in May.
6.0Planning Issues
6.1Redesignation of Residential Lands to a Higher Density
The official plan's housing policies state that in order to consider a site appropriate for
intensification, at least one of the following criteria must be met:
"a)the area, which includes lands beyond a single development site, demonstrates a need for
rejuvenation and reinvestment, or
b)existing land uses or buildings are considered to be obsolete or underutilized; or
c)land use conflict is occurring."
This proposal conforms to the official plan criteria. The area primarily consists of high rise
rental apartment buildings developed in the 1960's which require reinvestment on an ongoing
basis to preserve this valued rental housing stock. The existing building at 1 Canyon is
currently undergoing a program of improvements. The residential land use itself cannot be
considered obsolete or in conflict with other land uses, as the existing apartment building on
site and other residential dwellings in the area appear to be occupied, well maintained and do
not represent an area in transition.
There is an opportunity to more efficiently use the site and the surrounding community
facilities, services and infrastructure. The existing apartment building being located towards
the Canyon Avenue frontage, instead of centred in the middle of the site, provides a large
amount of open area to the east of the building. The location and orientation of the existing
apartment building provides the opportunity for redevelopment of the property. Any
intensification of the site must demonstrate that the proposal can be accommodated from an
urban design perspective on site and within the existing community. Further it must be
demonstrated that there is available community facilities, services and infrastructure to serve
the additional 100 apartment house units.
The following section of this report will review and assess the proposal's bearing on
community services, transportation, its compatibility with the adjacent residential
neighbourhood and its impact on the existing site.
6.2Land Use and Density
(a)Built Form Considerations:
This site is appropriate for residential intensification. The location takes advantage of physical
infrastructure, existing community services and transportation facilities. It is located on an
arterial road, well served by public transit and close to Earl Bales Park, Community Centres
and the Don Valley.
This residential node contains several high rise apartment buildings. Its expansion is limited
by the valley lands to the north and east. This site represents the only parcel above the top of
bank capable of accommodating additional development here.
This proposal represents an appropriate scale of residential intensification. The building will
be one of the smaller apartment buildings in the area. Its floor plate is square with an coverage
of approximately 800 square metres giving the building a compact form. The building is
smaller than the existing apartments to the north and the west. This provides an opportunity
for existing views to be maintained for the surrounding apartments. The apartment buildings
on the south side of Sheppard Avenue are 12 to 13 storeys with gross floor areas of
approximately 8,600 m² to 14,900m². This infill building is in keeping with this scale of the
area and is reflective of the existing RM6 zone regulations with respect to building separation.
(b)Preservation of Rental Housing Stock:
The Rental Housing Protection Act repeal came into effect June 17, 1998. The city is
reviewing its policies to establish a citywide strategy for the preservation of rental stock. This
application, however, represents an opportunity to take action now with the full cooperation of
the owner to ensure that the existing rental building remains and is integrated with the new
condominium.
There is an ongoing program of reinvestment in the rental building including renovations to
all balconies, common areas, roof, and the individual suites. Fire safety upgrades, lighting
improvements, elevator modernization and new appliances and broadloom have been
completed. This represents a substantial new investment in the existing rental apartment
building. The maintenance of the rental building is strongly encouraged by Council. Rental
accommodation is recognized as an essential form of housing tenure that is currently limited
in supply.
To secure this rental stock, the applicant is prepared to enter into a section 37 agreement under
the Planning Act ensuring that:
- the existing rental apartment building remains as rental for a minimum period of fifteen
years and there is agreement that no application for condominium conversion or
application to demolish to construct anything other than a replacement rental housing
building be permitted,
- on site amenities in the new building will be accessible to the residents of the rental
building under fair and reasonable terms which will need to be carried forward in the
condominium declaration.
See the submission of the Owner attached as Appendix "A".
(c)Recognition of Existing Property Rights
The entire property to the bottom of the slope is designated RD4 and zoned RM6 as was the
practice in the 1960's before the city had any Valley Open Space policies.
This application provides the opportunity to rezone the valley lands from RM6 to O1 Open
Space which consolidates the existing official plan designation and zoning on the tablelands
consistent with the current Official Plan policies. The net density on the tableland increases to
approximately 3.0 FSI with the development of the new building. The removal of the valley
lands from the RM6 zone also presents an opportunity for the long term preservation of the
lands in public ownership and maintenance of the valley. The Valley Open Space designation
and Valley Impact Zone (VIZ) will work together to manage the valley land uses. The policies
are found in Appendix "B". In addition, redesignation of the lands below the stable top of
bank to Valley Open Space and conveyance of these lands for a nominal sum to the TRCA is
appropriate. The applicant and TRCA concur with this. This conveyance completes a cross
section of land from crest to crest in public ownership.
(d)Common Amenities
This proposal also has the ability to provide a net benefit to the existing residents in terms of
on-site facilities and improvements to amenities.
Significant shared outdoor amenity space is proposed by the applicant comprised of
approximately 2,000 m² between the existing and proposed buildings. This will be landscaped
to include a tot lot and/or passive park with walkways, a gazebo, benches and lawn areas.
These outdoor amenity areas will be shared by the existing and the new building and are an
improvement to the site. Currently, the area consists of natural field above the top of bank and
a natural treed slope below with no formalized landscaped area.
The new building will be a condominium apartment rather than a rental apartment building.
As all of the residential buildings in this node except for one are rental, the provision of a
condominium building will help to provide variety in tenure in the area while preserving the
existing rental building.
6.3Shadowing and Overview
There are substantial yard setbacks proposed for the new building from the existing buildings
surrounding the site which will minimize the impact of both shadowing and overview. The
proposed building is approximately 47 metres from the existing building of 1 Canyon Avenue
and will be approximately 35 metres in height. The siting of the buildings will maintain many
of the view corridors from the surrounding buildings to the valley lands.
6.4Community Services and Facilities
The site is well served by parks and community facilities. Located adjacent to the Don Valley
System, it is within walking distance of Earl Bales Park which contains the Earl Bales Seniors
Centre and the Earl Bales Community Centre. The John Bales House which is an historical
land mark is also located within this 30 hectare park. The site is in close proximity is the
North York Ski Centre as well. There are park facilities within walking distance of the site.
6.5Physical Feasibility of Development
6.5.1Geotechnical - Slope Stability
The applicant submitted a geotechnical report which assessed the stability of the slope. It
concludes that there is no evidence of erosion and the slope is considered stable and will not
be adversely affected by the construction of the proposed building. In order to maintain this
stability, surface runoff from the top will not be allowed to run down the slopes and the
vegetation on the face of the slope will be maintained and improved where possible. The
TRCA reviewed these finding and have no objections provided a 1 to 2 metre yard setback is
maintained for all structures including those underground. The construction is subject to
TRCA permits.
6.5.2Soil Contamination
A storm sewer easement is located on a portion of the property. Due to the fill operations that
were associated with the construction of the sewer, an environmental site assessment was
submitted by the applicant in order to determine whether these operations resulted in any soil
contamination. These studies were subject to peer review and comments from the Medical
Officer of Health. The assessment suggests that residential use is appropriate. This conclusion
must be verified by the submission of a record of site condition prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
6.5.3Traffic and Parking
The Transportation Division is satisfied vehicular access to Canyon Avenue is feasible and
has no adverse impacts on traffic operation. However, since the issue of access onto Canyon
Avenue was raised at the community meetings, a review of the possibility of access onto
Sheppard Avenue rather than Canyon Avenue was examined by the Transportation
Department. Ideally direct access onto Sheppard Avenue would ensure there is no additional
traffic on Canyon Avenue. However, access onto Sheppard Avenue is not recommended
because of safety and operational concerns. There is inadequate stopping sight distances
available due to the grade of the road at this location. The presence of a driveway on the south
side of Sheppard Avenue could further present traffic conflicts for left turning vehicles and
sightlines are reduced because of the steel beam guide rail along the north side of Sheppard
Avenue.
The current volume and speed of traffic on Canyon Avenue was further investigated by the
Traffic Investigation Section of the Transportation Department. A speed and volume study
was carried out over a number of days in April of this year concluding there were no traffic
operations or safety concerns on Canyon Avenue. A study was also undertaken by the former
Metro Transportation Department in 1995 to investigate the issue of transient traffic on
Canyon Avenue due to traffic using Canyon Avenue as a shortcut around the Bathurst Street
and Sheppard Avenue intersection. This study concluded the absolute number of transient
vehicles was relatively small and therefore did not significantly impact the safety and
operations of Canyon Avenue.
Since both the existing and proposed building will share driveway access onto Canyon
Avenue, the granting of reciprocal easements rights of way across the property may be needed
or alternative arrangements can be made to have a condominium description include all lands
necessary to provide direct access.
The applicant originally proposed 112 new parking spaces for the 100 units. In light of the
residents' issue with regard to adequate parking on site, and to avoid on street parking of
visitors, the applicant revised their plans to include 3 levels of underground parking rather
than 2 levels and a total of 150 parking spaces (125 for residents and 25 for visitors). This
complies with with the parking rate for new apartment house dwellings as set out in zoning
By-law 7625. There have been improvements to the existing apartment building parking
supply as well.
6.6Urban Design
A site plan application has been filed by the applicant. In order to achieve an optimal
development, a number of urban design principles will guide the site plan application:
- edge treatment of all sides of the site which includes substantially treed edges;
- extensive landscape screening of the existing raised parking structure from Sheppard and
from the new landscaped area to the north and the proposed building to the east;
- east edge needs to include the integration of buildings and structures into the natural
landscape and screen with plantings any exposed concrete;
- clear linkages to the shared landscaped space located between the existing building and the
proposed building must be present for both buildings;
- a well articulated pedestrian entrance should be present along Sheppard Avenue; and
- the existing pedestrian entrance at the Canyon Avenue frontage needs to be substantially
improved in terms of landscaping including the walkway.
Additional principles may be defined to further improve the existing building and proposed
new building.
Conclusions:
The proposed new apartment house dwelling at this site is appropriate as it meets the intent of
the Official Plan policies for residential intensification. The site is located on an arterial road
near a major intersection which gives the site the advantage of good transit. The traffic and
parking impacts are minimal. The nearby park, open space and community centre facilities
supports the intensification. It is appropriate the City secure the preservation of existing rental
units through an Agreement under section 37 of the Planning Act. This development proposal
presents an opportunity to preserve, improve and intensify a rental apartment site.
Contact Name:
Karen Whitney, Planner (North York District)
Phone: 395-7109Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of the Schedules, Appendices, draft official plan amendment, draft zoning by-law
amendment and site plan referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
________
A staff presentation was made by Karen Whitney, Planner, Planning Department, North York
Civic Centre.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it during the
consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:
(i)(July 20, 1998) from Teresa Hyatt, expressing her concerns with the application.
(i)(July 13, 1998) from Mr. Raymond H. Mikkola, Fraser & Beatty, Barristers and Solicitors,
Solicitor on behalf of the owner of the property;
(iii)(June 30, 1998) from Mr. Jerry Willer, advising of his concerns with the application; and
(iv)(June 25, 1998) from Ms. Rose Silverman, advising of her objection to the application.
________
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Raymond H. Mikkola, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, Har-ru Holdings Limited,
who indicated that the applicant concurred with the staff recommendations and with North
York Community Council Recommendation No. 2 that the undertaking referred to in
Recommendation No. (1) be subject to the approval of the North York Community Council
through the site plan process;
-Mr. Julian Jacobs, Architect on behalf of the applicant, who commented on the architectural
aspects and the merits of the proposed apartment building. In his opinion, the proposal is
appropriate as it meets the intent of the Official Plan policies for residential intensification.
-Mrs. Haneford, who spoke in opposition to the application. Her primary objections were with
respect to increased traffic; insufficient parking for visitors; air and noise pollution; overview
and shadow impact.
-Mr. Joseph Spring, who spoke in opposition to the application. He was primarily concerned
with the intensification of this site and the traffic that would be generated by the proposed
development.
-Ms. Teresa Hyatt, who outlined her opposition to the application. She was concerned about
increased population and the impact on existing retail services in the area; the integrity of the
valley being jeopardized by the proposed apartment building; and increased pedestrian and
commuter congestion.
-Ms. Debbie Edelist, who expressed her opposition to the location of the proposed entrance to
the apartment building and its proximity to the existing apartment building at 15 Canyon
Avenue.
-Mr. George Jolson, who expressed concern with the parking being proposed for the new
apartment building.
________
The motions and recorded votes on this issue were as follows:
A.Councillor Berger, North York Centre South, moved that the report from the Acting
Commissioner of Planning dated June 24, 1998, be adopted and the application UD0Z-97-48 -
Har-ru Holdings Limited, be approved as set out in the report (June 24, 1998) from the Acting
Commissioner of Planning subject to the following:
(i)Recommendation No. 3 (a)(ii) be deleted and replaced with the following:
"an undertaking from the owner that arrangements will be made, upon consultation with the
tenants of the existing rental building, to create in the B1 level of the existing rental building,
meeting and recreational facilities occupying, in the aggregate, approximately 150 square
metres, within such location or locations as the owner shall designate"; and
(ii)that this undertaking be subject to the approval of the North York Community Council
through he site plan process.
B.Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, moved that the foregoing motion A moved by
Councillor Berger, North York Centre South, be amended as follows:
(i)not less than $25,000.00 be spent on the recreational facilities;
(ii)there be, as a condition of approval, safe access and egress to this condominium from
Sheppard Avenue West and that this be worked out in connection with the site plan process
and at the expense of the applicant.
C.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that Part (i) of the foregoing motion B by
Councillor Flint, North York Centre be amended by striking out the amount of $25,000.00
and inserting in lieu thereof the amount of $50,000.00.
D.Councillor Shiner, Seneca Heights, moved that the $50,000.00 be secured by letter of
credit, such letter of credit to be received prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law; and
further, that the facility be built within one year of the enactment of the by-law.
A recorded vote on the foregoing motion C. moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, LiPreti, Moscoe, Flint, Filion, Shiner, King, Augimeri
AGAINST:Councillors Berger, Feldman, Chong, Gardner, Minnan-Wong
Carried
A recorded vote on Part (ii) of the foregoing motion B. moved by Councillor Flint, was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Sgro, LiPreti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong,
Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:Councillor Mammoliti
Carried
A recorded vote on the foregoing motion D. moved by Councillor Shiner, was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, LiPreti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Flint, Filion, Minnan-Wong,
Shiner, King
AGAINST:Councillors Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong
Carried
A recorded vote on the foregoing motion A. by Councillor Berger, as amended, was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, LiPreti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint,
Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:NIL
Carried
19
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-96-30 - Harry Snoek -
15-19 Finch Avenue West and 7-11 Blakeley Road -
North York Centre
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out the
recommendations of the North York Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
"It is recommended that this Clause be received and that no action be taken at this time with
respect to this zoning amendment application having regard that Section 37 of the Planning
Act and Site Plan and Development Agreements have not been fully executed.")
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on
the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report
(March18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons that
the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted
by Harry Snoek regarding Zoning Amendment for 15-19 Finch Avenue West and 7-11
Blakeley Road, be approved, subject to the recommendations contained in the following
report (March 18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning and subject to the
following amendment adopted by the North York Community Council on June 24, 1998:
(1)Recommendation No. 3(e) contained in the following report from the Acting
Commissioner of Planning be amended to read as follows:
"(3)(e)the property identified municipally as 11 Blakeley Road described as Lot88,
Registered Plan 3705 has been conveyed to the City, subject to the existing tenancy."
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested
that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to prepare for the North
York Community Council, a transportation analysis for this development based on the 24
percent transit use noted in the report from the Toronto Transit Commission; and that such
report include any transportation improvements that may be required to deal with traffic from
this site.
The North York Community Council also reports having held the continuation of the statutory
public meeting on July 22, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with
the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (March 18, 1998)
from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of this application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit
two residential apartment buildings. The north tower is proposed to be 18 storeys high
containing 112 units with first floor commercial space with frontage on Finch Avenue West.
The south tower is proposed to be 18 storeys high containing 121 units with frontage on
Lorraine Drive.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)a public meeting be scheduled and appropriate notice be given;
(2)prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law, the Acting Commissioner of Planning shall
have granted site plan approval with the conditions described in Appendix "B";
(3)staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any
zoning by-law, the following conditions have been satisfied:
Zoning By-law
(a)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached as
Schedule "E1" to this report has been perfected;
(b)the Owner has paid to the City in cash or certified cheque, the Yonge Centre Development
Charges in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time;
(c)a 10 metre strip at the south end of the site as shown on Schedule "C" has been conveyed to
the City;
(d)a 2.76 metre widening along the Finch Avenue West frontage has been conveyed to the
City; and
(e)the property identified municipally as 11 Blakeley Road described as Lot 88, Registered
Plan 3705 has been conveyed to the City;
General
(f)a Section 37 agreement with the City shall have been executed to secure the items referred
to as incentives and density transfers;
(g)the Owner has satisfied:
(i)the conditions of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department as set out in Schedule "F";
(ii)the conditions of the Parks and Recreation Department as set out in Schedules "G" and
"H";
(iii)the conditions of the Transportation Department as set out in Schedules "J" and "J1";
(iv)the conditions of the Public Works Department as set out in Schedule "K";
(v)the conditions of the Fire Department as set out in Schedule "M";
(vi)the conditions as set out in the February 17, 1998 Wind, Snow and Sun/shade studies
referred to in the Certification attached as Schedule "N"; and
(vii)the conditions as set out in the October 27, 1997 Traffic Impact Study referred to in the
Traffic Certification attached as Schedule "O";
(h)the Owner has acknowledged and agreed that prior to the issuance of any Building Permit,
the following condition will be required to have been met:
(i)that they shall pay to the City in cash or certified cheque, on or before Building Permit
issuance, the City-wide and Hydro Development Charges, the Sewer and Water Services
Development Charge, and the Sheppard Subway Development Charge, in accordance with
Council policy as amended from time to time; and
(3)the Owner shall agree to develop the two residential towers as condominiums in
accordance with Council policy.
Council Reference/Background/History:
1.0Proposal:
The applicant has proposed two residential towers for the site. The north tower fronting onto
Finch Avenue West would contain ground floor commercial uses. The pertinent statistics are
listed below.
|
North Tower |
South
Tower |
Total |
| Site Area for both buildings |
|
4,091 m² |
| Gross Floor Area
(excluding incentives and transfers) for both
buildings |
|
19,583 m² |
| Incentive - Indoor Amenity Area |
501 m² |
62 m² |
563 m² |
| Incentive - Bike Storage |
|
64 m² |
64 m² |
| Density Transfer - Service Road Lot |
|
|
1,812 m² |
| Dwelling Units |
112 units |
121 units |
233 units |
| Outdoor Recreational Amenity Area |
332 m² |
278 m² |
610 m² |
| Height |
18 storeys |
18 storeys |
|
| Parking Proposed |
|
|
256 spaces |
| Parking Required |
|
|
253 to 300
spaces |
| Total Residential and Related Gross Floor Area |
21,457 m² |
| Total Commercial Gross Floor Area |
565 m² |
2.0Location and Existing Site:
The site is on the south east corner of Finch Avenue West and Lorraine Drive and has an area
of approximately 0.4 hectares. The site is made up of 6 lots that previously were occupied by
single family homes. Part of the site is currently being used for a sales office for a residential
tower approved to the south currently known as "Symphony Square".
By-law 33061 was passed on July 9, 1997 to implement a rezoning application immediately
south of the site for a 20-storey, 305 unit residential building. Immediately to the east of the
site is a North York Parking Authority parking lot and further to the east of the site towards
Yonge Street are low rise retail commercial buildings. Across Lorraine Drive to the west are
single family homes. To the north of the site across Finch Avenue is a three storey office
complex fronting onto Duplex Avenue.
3.0Planning Controls:
3.1Official Plan:
The site is within the Uptown Secondary Plan. The northern five lots are designated Uptown
Mixed Use One (UMU1) and the southern lot is designated Uptown Residential Two (UR2)
as shown on Schedule "A". Specific Development Policy 6.3 of the Uptown Secondary Plan
applies to the site which is outlined in Appendix "A".
3.2Zoning:
The three northerly lots of the site are zoned C1 (General Commercial) and the southerly three
lots of the site are zoned R4 (One-Family Detached Dwelling, Fourth Density Zone) as shown
on Schedule "B". The C1 zone permits a wide variety of commercial uses at a density of 1.0
FSI and also permits limited residential uses. The R4 zone generally permits single family
homes. The applicant has requested a site specific RM6 (Multiple-Family Dwellings Sixth
Density Zone) to permit the residential towers and the ground floor commercial in the north
tower.
3.3Site Plan:
The Site Plan Approval process is required by Council to proceed concurrently with the
rezoning process for the City Centre development applications. This includes all
developments within the Uptown Plan. The applicant submitted a Site Plan application which
has been processed with the rezoning application and has provided detailed drawings to
enable evaluation of the application in the context of the Urban Design and Environmental
objectives of the Uptown Plan. The Commissioner of Planning is delegated to approve plans
and drawings and is prepared to do so with Community Council consideration of this report.
The site plan considerations are outlined in Appendix "A" and the recommendations are in
Appendix "B".
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
4.0Other Department Comments:
The following section summarizes significant comments received from the departments and
agencies circulated.
The former Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department requested that a Traffic Impact Study
be submitted. This study has been completed and reviewed. A 2.76 m road widening along the
Finch Avenue West frontage is required and a north bound left turn lane is required on
Lorraine Drive at the intersection of Finch Avenue West and Lorraine Drive. This widening
will be secured prior to enactment of the zoning by-law.
A number of criteria have been outlined for the design of the Finch Avenue West boulevard
area. A number of permits are required which are outlined in the comments attached as
Schedule "F". Further, since the site is located adjacent to the Yonge subway line, the
developer should contact the TTC to address noise and vibration impacts from the subway to
adjacent buildings and determine appropriate mitigation measures. It is also noted that the
developer should investigate opportunities to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff and to
improve the quality of stormwater discharge.
All access to the site will be from Lorraine Drive only with no direct access onto Finch
Avenue West. The Traffic Impact Study which was reviewed and accepted by Metro
Transportation indicated auto traffic resulting from occupancy of the proposed development
will not significantly contribute to reducing the levels of service on nearby arterial roads and
their intersections with local roads to below a generally acceptable level. This analysis
included both the Finch/Lorraine intersection and the Finch/Yonge intersection.
The North York Parks and Recreation Department have discussed with the applicant
opportunities to acquire land for parks, but will accept cash-in-lieu of parkland. The
application originally included 12 Lorraine Drive, however the applicant revised their plans
after the Parks and Recreation Department indicated that 12 Lorraine Drive was not
acceptable for parkland. The applicant was unable to acquire other land for parks that were
considered appropriate by the Parks Department. The provision of additional indoor and
outdoor amenity space is encouraged. The comments are outlined in Schedules "G" and "H".
The Metropolitan Separate School Board advises that the Board objects to the rezoning
application due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at Brebeuf College,
Loretto Abbey and St. Joseph Morrow Park Catholic Secondary Schools. At the elementary
level, St. Cyril Catholic School (JK-8) could accommodate additional enrollment in portable
facilities. These comments are attached as Schedule "I".
The former North York Board of Education advised that this proposal will result in
accommodation pressures at Yorkview Public School and that Churchill Public School will
become the sole designated school. These comments are attached as Schedule "I2".
The North York Transportation Department has indicated that the proposed parking supply
satisfies the City Centre Parking Policy requirements. There are several comments regarding
site plan issues which are outlined in Schedule "J". It is also noted that Lorraine Drive will
eventually be closed at Finch Avenue West and that future tenants and owners should be made
aware that the driveways to Lorraine Drive may be altered to accommodate this future road
design. The optimum driveway arrangement will be achieved through site plan approval. The
November 3, 1997 comments attached as Schedule "J1" indicate that the department does not
object to the proposal. No functional section of the Service Road is required as a result of this
development. Future alterations to the site plan, that may result from the future closing of
Lorraine Drive, will be dealt with through the Environmental Assessment process if
necessary.
The North York Public Works Department has indicated that the waste collection arrangement
shown on the October 11, 1996 plans is not acceptable. The applicant has been working with
the Works Department to achieve an acceptable design. The Public Works Department has
given direction to perfect the site circulation and driveway arrangement to allow for adequate
garbage pick-up areas. With respect to sanitary sewer allocation, this application will form
part of the allocation upon enactment of the zoning by-law. Additional comments are noted in
Schedule "K".
The Fire Department had concerns with the fire route access. The applicant modified their
plans in accordance with the Fire Department's direction and the access issue has been
resolved. The comments are attached as Schedules "L" and "M".
5.0Community Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was held on February 16, 1998, attended by
approximately 40 people. The key issues that arose from the meeting were:
- Construction of service road is too uncertain. This development does not trigger a need for
a functional section of the Service Road, however many people expressed the view that the
Service Road should be built today.
- Access onto Finch Avenue West from Lorraine Drive is an issue of the residents on
Lorraine Drive within the Uptown development area. Several residents say that it is
difficult to make a left or right turn from Lorraine Drive onto Finch Avenue West at the
present time.
- Traffic levels on Finch Avenue West and at the intersection of Yonge Street and Finch
Avenue are heavy.
- Comprehensive development on Lorraine Drive has not been achieved. Some residents
from the remainder of the Lorraine Drive development block expressed the view that this
proposal was not comprehensive in nature. The remainder of the block west of Lorraine
Drive is not currently assembled with the ownership fragmented.
A further meeting was held with planning and transportation staff on March 11, 1998 to
address the above concerns and to ensure a clear understanding by all. Key issues that were
also addressed at that meeting, in addition to those expressed previously, were:
- The provision of Service Road lots by developers was questioned. It was expressed that the
two development applications already approved and proposed should both share equally
the land acquisition for the Service Road.
- The location of the temporary cul-de-sac on Lorraine was questioned. Several people
expressed the view that the cul-de-sac that was approved as a result of the Ghods
application (UDZ-95-31) on Lorraine be moved to allow the remaining residents to access
the western portion of Lorraine or Blakeley Road.
- There was also concern about emergency access onto Lorraine Drive caused by the
temporary blocking off of Lorraine Drive at Blakeley Road. There is a concern that
emergency vehicles may be delayed if they access the wrong portion of Lorraine Drive.
There was also concern expressed about emergency vehicles being able to get quick access
onto Finch Avenue West from Lorraine Drive because of heavy traffic.
The densities from the service road between Lorraine Drive and Finch Avenue West could be
transferred to the remainder of the site west of Lorraine Drive to make a viable development
site. There have been meetings over the years with the existing residents to help them
appreciate the scope of an application to redevelop their block. The opportunity to pursue the
development of these lands by the residents can be followed up with Planning Department.
With respect to the emergency access concern, Planning staff will be following up with the
emergency service providers to ensure they are well aware of the access situation for
properties on Lorraine Drive.
6.0Planning Issues:
6.1Land Use:
The proposed residential towers and the ground floor commercial uses are in keeping with the
permitted uses of the Official Plan designations on the site.
6.2Density:
The maximum density assigned to the site, exclusive of incentives and transfers is a
combination of 5.0 FSI on the 5 northern lots and 3.75 FSI on the southern lot. The Plan
permits a density increase through incentives for the provision of specific uses and facilities
and density transfers for the provision of land for public purposes such as roads.
6.2.1Incentives
The applicant has proposed to include indoor amenity space of 502 m² on the second floor in
the north tower and indoor space of 62 m² in the south tower. A bicycle storage area is also
proposed in the south tower of 64 m². In accordance with the policies of the Uptown Plan,
these areas qualify as incentives to a maximum of 1x the gross floor area of each facility. On a
per unit basis, there is approximately 4.5 m² per unit of indoor recreational space proposed for
the north tower and 0.5 m² per unit of indoor recreational space proposed for the south tower.
This amounts to an aggregate of approximately 2.5 m² per unit or approximately 3% of the
gross floor area.
A total of 627 m² of gross floor area can be exempted from the calculation of density.
6.2.2Transfers
The applicant will convey 11 Blakeley Road to the City in exchange for the density
attributable to the site. The City will use 11 Blakeley for a portion of the Service Road and
associated buffer area. The Uptown policies require that the developer provide land for the
Service Road when the site abuts the Service Road or requires a functional section of the
Service Road. The policies encourage the provision of such lands through density transfers.
In addition, the southern 10 metres of the site are to be conveyed to the City for future access
to redevelopment on the Yonge Street frontage. The development to the south has contributed
the southern 10 metres. All conveyances will be secured at this time. The applicant will
provide for the maintenance of this land as a condition of site plan approval until it is
required. A total density increase of 12.5 percent results from the combination of incentives
and transfers.
| DENSITY SUMMARY |
FSI |
Permitted Gross Floor Area |
| ASSIGNED DENSITY
15-19 Finch Avenue West & 7-9 Lorraine Drive
11 Lorraine Drive |
5.0
3.75 |
16,966 m²
2,617 m²
19,583 m² |
| DENSITY INCENTIVES
Indoor Recreational Area
Bicycle Storage Area |
1x
1x |
563 m²
64 m² |
| DENSITY TRANSFERS
11 Blakeley Road |
2.6 |
1,812 m² |
| PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA |
|
22,021 m² |
| PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA |
|
22,021 m² |
6.3Comprehensive Development:
The development proposed does not cover the entire site specific policy area. It leaves
adequate development sites on the west side of Lorraine Drive. An assessment of the Lorraine
block was made during the review of rezoning application UDZ-95-31 at 15-25 Lorraine
Drive by Ghods Developments. It was determined that a concept as outlined in Schedule "E"
was achievable on the city block through this previous assessment. Residential development
of 15-25 storeys was shown on the current site. The two proposed 18 storeys residential
buildings are in keeping with this scenario, and provision for access between the development
to south at 15-25 Lorraine Drive and the current proposal have been made in accordance with
this concept plan.
The proposed development does not preclude development in the remainder of the block.
Development parcels are of a sufficient size and have adequate density to support the
development of the remainder of the block. Density from the remaining Service Road lands
can be transferred to lands within the remainder of the block, including the Yonge Street
fronting properties, in compliance with the Official Plan policies. It should be noted that if
assembled as a whole, the density from the Service Road lots between Lorraine Drive and
Finch Avenue West could all be transferred to the development lots of the west side of
Lorraine Drive.
6.4Infrastructure and Service Road:
The Uptown Service Road is planned to accommodate the ultimate levels of development
contemplated by the Uptown Plan. It is intended that the construction of the Service Road be
paid for by private development, and therefore the timing of construction is dependent on the
pace of growth within the Uptown. Any new development must demonstrate that the traffic
generated by the development can be accommodated in the existing road network. If the
traffic cannot be accommodated, a functional section of the Service Road is required. The
Traffic Impact Study submitted by the applicant has been reviewed by the Transportation
Department. It shows that the proposed development can be accommodated within the
existing road network.
It should be noted that there was considerable concern from the community regarding the
timing of the construction of the Service Road and the traffic in the area. Subsequent to the
community meeting, and in response to these concerns, the applicant acquired 11 Blakeley
Road for Service Road purposes. The applicant will convey this property to the City and the
density attributable to that property will be transferred to the development site. Further, the
applicant will be required to pay Yonge Centre Development Charges, which are intended to
contribute specifically towards the hard and soft service requirements of the North York
Centre. A portion of these contributions is specially allocated for the construction of the
Service Road.
The applicant will also convey a 10 metre strip of land at the south end of the site which
represents half of a future access. The development to the south also conveyed a 10 metre
strip of land to make up the balance of the requirement. This future access is illustrated on the
block concept plan in Schedule "E". Lands will be held by the City until such a time as the
front part of the block is redeveloped.
The temporary cul-de-sac on Lorraine Drive prohibiting access onto Blakeley Road resulted
from the Ghods rezoning application to the south of the site and the concerns of the residents
of the Edithvale neighbourhood to the west of the Uptown. The temporary cul-de-sac is
intended to prevent traffic infiltration into this stable residential neighbourhood to the west
from new development. The accompanying landscaping around the cul-de-sac will form part
of the permanent landscaping next to the Service Road when it is built. The construction of
the cul-de-sac is a condition of approval for the Ghods development. Currently, Lorraine
Drive is blocked off by concrete barriers but will be replaced by a properly constructed
cul-de-sac this year. The Fire Department has been made aware of the emergency access
concerns of the residents of Lorraine Drive. The concerns can be further addressed through
signs at the Finch Avenue West and Lorraine Drive intersections.
In the long term, Lorraine Drive will be closed at Finch Avenue West when the Service Road
is constructed as a new point of access to Finch Avenue West and the temporary cul-de-sac at
Lorraine Drive and Blakeley Road removed. Approvals for any necessary road closing and the
opening of the Service Road will be coordinated to ensure ongoing access to Finch Avenue
West for all residents on the block.
6.4.1Traffic Certification
It is the policy of Council not to approve a rezoning for a development having more than
5,000 m² of total floor space unless a traffic certification is completed and acceptable to
Council and in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan. It must be shown that:
- traffic resulting from the development will not significantly contribute to reducing the level
of service on nearby arterial roads and their intersections with local and collector roads to
below a generally acceptable level;
- the project can be accommodated by the existing and planned transportation infrastructure;
- the project will not increase local residential road traffic significantly;
- the project provides enough parking so that occupants and visitors will be unlikely to
disrupt off-site roadways and unaffiliated parking areas, but does not provide so much
parking as to discourage achievement of the transit modal split targets of this plan; and
- the site layout provides adequately for the movement needs of visiting pedestrians,
automobiles and commercial vehicles without disrupting bordering streets and properties.
Traffic certification has been provided by the applicant and is attached as Schedule "O". The
Transportation Department has reviewed the Traffic Impact Studies which accompanies this
certification and has no objections.
6.5Community Services and Facilities
6.5.1 Parkland
The applicant had originally proposed that 12 Lorraine Drive be used for parks purposes. The
Parks and Recreation Department determined that the conveyance of 12 Lorraine Drive was
not acceptable because it represents an isolated parcel of land which is far removed from any
existing parkland in the area and is of little practical use for parkland development. The Parks
and Recreation Department subsequently advised that a parcel of land in the vicinity of 29 or
31 Lorraine Drive would be more appropriate as they had been identified as potential parkland
sites abutting St. Cyril Separate School in the Parkland Acquisition Strategy. The City has
since purchased 29 Lorraine Drive.
The development will also be subject to 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland.
6.5.2Private Amenity Space
The applicant has proposed private indoor recreational uses in both the north and south towers
as discussed in the section regarding incentives. This type of space in encouraged by both the
policies of the Uptown Plan and Official Plan Amendment 447.
The applicant has also proposed some outdoor recreational space. A pre-school playground of
278m² has been proposed next to the south tower at the southeast corner. A second floor
outdoor terrace of 332 m² is proposed on the north tower. Minimum indoor and outdoor
amenity space requirements are reflected in the draft zoning by-law.
6.5.3School Facilities
The Metropolitan Separate School Board objects to the rezoning application due to the lack of
permanent facilities and overcrowding at Brebeuf College, Loretto Abbey and St. Joseph
Morrow Park Catholic Secondary Schools. The Board has not identified required lands or
facilities to address this situation. It should be noted that the western portion of St. Cyril's
Separate School is required for a portion of the Service Road in this general location.
The North York Board of Education has indicated accommodation pressures on their facilities
will result from this proposal being built, but have not objected to the application.
Conclusions:
The proposal to develop the Finch Avenue West and Lorraine Drive site with two 18 storey
residential towers is appropriate development which is consistent with the policies of the
Uptown Plan. The applicant is contributing lands for the future Service Road and associated
buffer area as well as land for an access to service the Lorraine Drive block. This will assist
the City in achieving the infrastructure and open space objectives of the Secondary Plan. The
development is consistent with both the Uptown Plan policies and the policies in Official Plan
Amendment 447 known as the North York Centre Secondary Plan.
In accordance with Council policy, a Site Plan application has been processed concurrently
with the rezoning application. The applicant has provided detailed plans and drawings that
demonstrate the proposal satisfies the urban design objectives of the Uptown Plan.
Contact Name:
Karen Whitney, Planner
Phone: 395-7109Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of the schedules, appendices, draft zoning by-law amendment and site plan referred
to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
________
A staff presentation was made by Karen Whitney, Planner, Planning Department, North York
Civic Centre.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it during the
consideration of the foregoing matter, the following reports:
(i)(July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services regarding a strategy for the
implementation of the North York Centre Plan Service Road, in response to North York
Community Council's requests at its meetings of May 6, 1998 and June 24, 1998;
(ii)(July 10, 1998) from the Toronto Transit Commission reporting on the estimation of the
percentage of transit versus auto use at this location both with and without a direct subway
connection, in response to North York Community Council's request at its meeting of May6,
1998;
________
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Kim Kovar, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant, Harry Snoek, who indicated that this
development does not trigger the need to build the functional section of the service road but
the applicant has acquired 11 Blakeley Road so that it can be used for the future service road.
She also agreed with the recommendations contained in the joint report from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning
and Development Services regarding a strategy for the implementation of the North York
Centre Plan service road. Insofar as this development was concerned, it does comply with
both the Uptown Plan policies and the policies in Official Plan Amendment 447. She
concluded by requesting the Community Council to approve the application.
-Mr. Peter Cheatley, Planning Consultant, on behalf of the 15 property owners on Lorraine
Drive, who indicated that these residents wish to reserve their right to file an appeal. He
further indicated that these property owners will be filing a rezoning application for the lands
on the west side of Lorraine Drive and east of Blakeley. Mr. Harry Snoek is also one of the
owners of property within that block and the residents would be discussing with him the
possibility of joining their group for the rezoning of those lands. The residents will be
working on the submission of their own rezoning application but wish to reserve their right to
appeal at a later date regarding any amending by-law for this site.
________
The motions and recorded votes on this issue were as follows:
A.Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, moved that the report (March 18, 1998) from the
Acting Commissioner of Planning, be adopted; and that application UDZ-96-30 - Harry
Snoek, be approved as set out in the foregoing report.
B.Councillor Filion, North York Centre, moved that:
(i)the application be approved in principle;
(ii)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to prepare
for the North York Community Council, a transportation analysis for this development based
on the 24 percent transit use noted in the report from the Toronto Transit Commission; and
that such report include any transportation improvements that may be required to deal with
traffic from this site;
(iii)the by-law not be enacted until such time as Council has dealt with this report.
Part (i) of the foregoing motion by Councillor Filion was ruled by the Chair to be out of order.
A recorded vote on Part (ii) of the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Filion, was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion,
Minnan-Wong, King
AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Feldman
ABSENT:Councillor Shiner
Carried
A recorded vote on Part (iii) of the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Filion was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Flint, Filion
AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong,
King
ABSENT:Councillor Shiner
Lost
A recorded vote on the foregoing motion A. moved by Councillor Gardner, as amended, was
as follows:
FOR:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong,
Minnan-Wong, King
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Filion
ABSENT:Councillor Shiner
Carried
20
Strategy for the Implementation of the North York Centre Plan
Service Road - North York Centre
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the joint report (July
10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested
the Chief Financial Officer to consider, as part of her current review of the development
charges by-law for the City of Toronto, the land acquisition cost required for implementation
of the North York Centre Plan service road..
The North York Community Council submits the following joint report (July 10, 1998)
from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services:
1.0Purpose
This report is in response to North York Community Council's request at its meeting of May
6, 1998, for a number of reports, including a report on:
"The Works and Emergency Services Department comment on the request of Councillor
Gardner that funding be included in the 1999 Capital Budget for the purpose of acquiring land
to build the Service Road."
Further, North York Community Council at its meeting of June 24, 1998, requested that the
subject report also include a plan and timetable for the implementation of the Service Road:
"That the staff of the Transportation Division, North York Civic Centre, bring forward to the
North York Community Council, a plan and a timetable for the completion of the Service
Road for its meeting of July 22, 1998."
2.0Funding
Funds be made available from:
a)the Yonge Centre Development Charges, for the acquisition of property for the
implementation of the Service Road for the years 1999, and 2000; and,
b)the Capital Budget, in the amount of $1.5 million commencing in the year 2001 and
continue as an annual commitment until such time as the Service Road is substantially
complete or Council directs otherwise.
3.0Recommendations
In order to provide opportunities for ongoing development of the North York Centre area, as
well as providing an early resolution to recent traffic concerns expressed by the residential
communities adjacent to the redevelopment area, it is recommended that:
i)appropriate funds be provided from the Yonge Centre Development Charges for the
acquisition of lands for the implementation of the Service Road for the years 1999, and 2000;
ii)a property acquisition strategy and reporting mechanism be developed to ensure a
continuance of a program to initiate the construction of the Service Road in stages and that the
matter be referred to the Property Division of the Corporate Services Department for
implementation;
iii)the property acquisition strategy include the powers granted to the City under the
Expropriations Act to ensure that contiguous land assemblies are successfully acquired in a
reasonable time frame to enable the annual road construction program to be implemented;
iv)the property acquisition be focused in those areas as outlined in the schedule in this report
wherein the road network will achieve the most effective results for the connecting links or
extensions to the Service Road in phases;
v)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to implement an annual
construction program for the construction of the Service Road in keeping with the land
assembly through the property acquisition strategy in ii) above; and
vi)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to include funds in the
annual Capital Budget commencing in the year 2001 to be continued as an annual
commitment until such time as the Service Road is substantially complete or Council directs
otherwise.
4.0Discussion
The intent of the Service Road is to facilitate new development in the North York Centre by
establishing a collector 'ring road' to integrate with the surrounding road network hierarchy
which also includes other collector, minor arterial and arterial roads. Also, the Service Road is
to provide in part, physical separation from the local road network of the adjacent stable
residential community. While the Service Road concept was approved in support of the
development levels, its construction was based on the requirements of development as it
occurred. As a result, the road has not been constructed in a continuous manner.
Consequently, its lack of continuity, external influencing factors such as the Sheppard
Subway construction and the uncertainty in the timing of complete construction of the road
are placing a burden on the adjacent road network and are raising a number of traffic related
concerns and issues from residents both outside and inside the North York Centre planning
area.
4.1Service Road Status
4.1.1The Downtown Service Road
For the purpose of this report, the Downtown Service Road may be considered to be complete.
The Environmental Study Report for the "Downtown Service Road and Associated Road
Network" was approved on August 12, 1991, and the majority of the road is in place.
To the east, the road has been constructed from Sheppard Avenue in the south to Norton
Avenue in the north. South of Sheppard Avenue the Service Road has been assessed to reflect
the recent Ontario Municipal Board decision of September 29, 1997, with regards to Official
Plan Amendment No. 393. To the west, the Service Road has been constructed from Poyntz
Avenue in the south to Ellerslie Avenue in the north.
The construction of the 'Downtown' Service Road was aided by the fact that 88% of the
alignment was located along then existing roads and roads rights-of-way (Beecroft Road and
Doris Avenue). 46 percent of the existing roads had to be widened with the majority of that
property acquired from development through conditions of approval. Likewise, the property
required for the road where a road right-of-way was not existing (12 percent) was also
acquired through development as conditions of approval. In the Downtown, the City only
contributed towards the acquisition of one property for the Service Road and the cost of such
was charged against development levies, now collected as development charges.
4.1.2The Uptown Service Road
The Uptown Service Road implementation has not been as successful as the Downtown
Service Road due to the Plan's boundary. The majority of the road could not be placed to take
advantage of existing road rights-of-way. The planning of the Uptown Plan was premised
upon the earlier economic conditions which assumed that comprehensive development would
occur in a similar manner as the Downtown Plan thereby the Service Road, in particular the
property acquisition, would be provided by the development industry. The Environmental
Study Report for the "Uptown Service Road and Associated Road Network" which was
approved on December 14, 1993.
At present, there is only limited amount of Service Road actually constructed within the
Uptown and even with that, there are still, in certain locations, additional improvements
required along those sections.
4.1.3 Pressures of Implementation
The policies for the implementation of the Service Road in the Official Plan are still
appropriate, whereby development must provide the necessary road improvements in support
of site specific application. The need for functional sections of the Service Road are
determined through the required Traffic Certification policy of the Official Plan. Over time,
changes in the economy, market conditions as well as other outside influences have, by
default, placed pressure on the adjacent road system.
Generally, the recent market conditions have resulted in smaller scale development rather than
the larger comprehensive block development which occurred during the earlier development
of the Centre. This trend is continuing and consequently, the acquisition of functional sections
of the Service Road in the Uptown Plan has not taken place and is unlikely to occur in the
foreseeable future. The high cost of providing sections of Service Road may discourage
desirable, more comprehensive development proposals. The ability on the part of the more
modest developer to finance acquisition and construction of any required section of the
Service Road is onerous and is not always realistic in terms of cost benefit. This may be
viewed as counterproductive to meeting the long term planning objectives of the North York
Centre plan, and not enhance the road network now being demonstrated as important for the
surrounding communities, as it is for the development within the North York Centre Plan.
It must be reiterated that the present scale of development which is proceeding does not
diminish the need for the eventual completion of the Service Road as the cumulative traffic
impact from all development is the driving factor.
4.1.3.1Use of Other Roads
With the current trend of development, and in the absence of key sections of the Service
Road, more emphasis is being placed upon the surrounding collector roads to carry traffic
flows which, although form part of the overall network, were not intended to replace the need
for the Service Road.
While the east Service Road connecting Sheppard Avenue to Finch Avenue will alleviate
some of the pressure, it should be noted that the current traffic impacts on other roads such as
Kenneth Avenue or Empress Avenue are not solely as a result of new or recent redevelopment
within the North York Centre. The Sheppard Subway construction has disrupted established
traffic flows in the greater area and as a result drivers have found alternate routings using the
collector grid system to the east and west of Yonge Street.
4.1.3.2Circulation and Access
Improvements to the road network with the introduction of key sections of the Service Road
and the associated roads within the 'plan' boundary will facilitate development by improving
access and circulation. However, the connection and completion of Service Road links will
also greatly improve mobility, access and circulation for those residents in the adjacent
communities who have a need to access the North York Centre to take advantage of the many
public facilities and services now established along many sections of the Yonge Street
frontage.
4.1.3.3Parties Affected within the Plan
More recently, residents who are located within the Centre and are directly impacted by either
the alignment of the Service Road or the buffer areas adjacent to the Service Road are
similarly concerned that with the current market conditions, the development trends are of
such a nature that the smaller developers will not be able to entertain development prospects if
significant property acquisition is associated with the prospective development to satisfy the
Service Road requirements. A number of these residents have expressed concern with the
policies of the Plan and their ability to provide certainty for the future of their properties as
their homes can no longer be considered, for sales purposes, single family residences, and any
benefit accrued by the designation of density within the 'plan' may never be realized if the
constraints for the cost of implementing the Service Road are not adequately addressed.
The areas most affected in the Uptown Plan are, in the east, between Byng Avenue and Olive
Avenue, and in the west, between the south side of Churchill Avenue to the south side of
Finch Avenue. North of Finch Avenue, there are a number of different issues to be addressed,
some of which are associated with how the Service Road is established through the Hydro
corridor and the impacts on the commuter parking lots.
4.1.3.4Developers Responsibilities
As identified earlier in this section, the approved development to date has provided the
property for the Service Road, and the road construction has been incorporated into and
funded through the Yonge Centre Development Charges. Should sections of the Service Road
be constructed in advance of development, such a strategic approach should be viewed as
complementary to the established policies of the Official Plan and in no way lessen the
ultimate responsibilities of the developer who will be benefitting from the development
potential which the North York Centre Plan offers. In particular, if a development proposal is
of a certain size and in a location where through traffic certification, it is demonstrated that a
functional section of the Service Road is required in support of the proposal, then it will be the
responsibility of the developer to provide that section of Service Road.
In order to rationalize the construction of the road in advance of development, it is first
necessary to recognize that the Service Road provides a greater function than that of
facilitating new development. The Service Road must be seen as a benefit to the overall road
network and that, should the City proceed with a property acquisition and construction
program, a portion of the funds for property acquisition will continue to be collected through
development charges.
5.0 Phasing Plan and Costs
Acknowledging that the Service Road implementation would be an ongoing for a number of
years, then this report addresses a short to interim schedule which can initiate the project in
1999. Staff will have the opportunity to review the benefits of those links or improvements
which would be put in place, and report in the annual monitoring program of the Centre and
make the appropriate recommendations for the next stages or phases.
The missing links of the Service Road in the Uptown Plan, in particular to the east of Yonge
Street, should be viewed as the highest priority as they would develop a parallel road to
Yonge Street connecting Sheppard Avenue with Finch Avenue, increasing circulation and
providing a more direct access to the Centre. As an alternate route, it will free up capacity on a
number of roads in the area.
In this regard, the following property acquisition and construction schedule is proposed over
the next three years.
Uptown Plan
East Service RoadFromToAcq'n. Year.Cons't. Year
Norton Church 1998/99 1999
ChurchByng 1999/2000 End of 2000
Byng Finch 1999 End of 2001
As a result of the road alignment, the property acquisition from Byng Avenue to Olive
Avenue is seen to be difficult from a prospective developers point of view, and therefore it
would appear appropriate that the City embark on this area first recognizing the benefit to the
road network. It must also be recognized that the property for the Service Road between
Church Avenue and Byng Avenue is to be conveyed to the City by Tridel from the Nortown
site, and the property for the Service Road between Olive Avenue and Finch Avenue is to be
conveyed to the City from the Harry Snoek east site. The time frame for design, construction
and opening as a dedicated public road is premised upon tentative schedules associated with
the property transfers from those particular developments.
5.1Property Costs
To provide an estimate for the overall property cost with any amount of accuracy is an
extensive undertaking which may take months of market research and comparison evaluation.
For the purpose of this report, that type of accuracy may not be necessary recognizing that
actual property values will vary based upon lot size, permitted land uses (which can be mixed
in some locations) and densities.
Values will also vary as to property location, past and present property sales in the area, and
the time period at which the property would be acquired. For the purpose of establishing an
estimate of property acquisition costs for this report, an average value was allocated for
property within the alignment of the Service Road which allowed the magnitude of the project
to be determined.
East Side - Uptown Service Road$ 8.0M
West Side - Uptown Service Road minimum to provide a network$ 15.2M
Buffer $ 4.4M
full road configuration $ 8.0M
Based upon the estimated values, the total cost to provide the property for a linked road
network for the Uptown area, along the alignment of the Service Road is in a range of $ 36M.
The Service Road in the South Downtown, which is still the subject of review through the
Environmental Assessment process, would increase the above costs by approximately $18M.
Consequently, it is obvious that regardless of the accuracy of the property value estimates, the
total cost implies a significant capital investment for property acquisition and therefore the
City should not embark on such a complex and costly undertaking as a single project.
However, it does not preclude the City by proceeding with a program by engaging in a
strategy for the Service Road property acquisition in phases. The strategy should strive to
implement those key sections of Service Road which best benefit the overall road network and
the area community.
The cost for property acquisition for the Uptown Service Road, east of Yonge Street, seen as
the road link with the highest priority, is estimated to be approximately $8.0 million exclusive
of the lands to be conveyed by current development.
5.2Construction Costs
The cost of Service Road construction as well as reconstruction of the internal road network
of the Plan is collected through the Yonge Centre Development Charges. It is anticipated the
pace of development and the collection of development charges will provide sufficient funds
to cover the cost of road construction and installation of municipal services.
6.0Funding Sources
6.1Development Charges
The use of development charges for property acquisition is applicable, but at this time, the
estimated costs are not covered in the relevant account. The Yonge Centre Development
Charges were established to provide the following services for development within the North
York Centre Plan:
Roads and curbs;
Road widenings;
Local storm sewers;
Local sanitary sewers;
Local water mains;
Sidewalks;
Street Lighting; and,
Land Acquisition for roads and streetscaping.
As identified earlier, the cost for property acquisition for the Uptown Service Road (east) is
estimated to be approximately $8.0 million, a significant portion of that will become available
from the Yonge Centre Development Charges. It has been determined that there are presently
over $6M in the Yonge Centre Development Charge of which approximately $3.6M can be
used for land acquisition. Consequently, there is enough 'seed' money to initiate this property
acquisition program with additional funds coming to development charges as building permits
are issued with the Centre. Funds collected through development charges will be monitored
for the purpose of advising Council as to the adequacy of those funds to singularly provide the
property requirements of the service road.
If all of the funds are not readily available from development charges, it may be necessary to
provide funds from the annual Capital Budget to supplement any shortage.
6.2Capital Budget
In keeping with Councillor Gardner's original motion, funds in the Capital Budget could be
dedicated for property acquisition. In order to provide a commitment in support of the Service
Road construction and should funds be required, then funds should be dedicated in the Capital
Budget to supplement those funds collected though development charges for land acquisition.
A figure in the range of $1.5 million per annum would in all likelihood be sufficient to
complement those funds from development charges to ensure that a if a section, a connecting
link of the Service Road is started, it can be completed. That figure may have to be adjusted
depending on the time and extent of negotiations being carried out at a given time.
6.3Recovery of Funds
Development is presently occurring within the Centre and over time, new development will
contribute to the Yonge Centre Development Charges with specific funds dedicated towards
property acquisition and road construction. As contributions into the development charges are
ongoing, funds spent for property acquisition will therefore be replenished.
Another factor to be considered is that when the City acquires property in the North York
Centre Plan, the density assigned to that particular property can be 'banked' and sold to other
development sites in the area.. The financial return from that sale should also be used as a
source to regenerate the property acquisition funds in the development charges.
7.0PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION
7.1East Side
Section 5.0 outlines property acquisition/construction schedule which staff are recommending
for the sections of Service Road which will deliver the best value from a roads operation point
of view at this time. However, the City should not limit itself to this initial phase, if in fact
funds and/or opportunities for further property acquisition become available allowing thereby
other links in the Service Road to be established.
This section of the Service Road in the Uptown would provide the greatest initial benefit. On
the east side of Yonge Street, significant sections of the road are complete and property for
major additional sections have already been allocated by development. It is for these reasons,
that the property acquisition phasing in Section 5.0 has been suggested.
7.2West Side
The next section for consideration should be in the south west quadrant of Yonge Street and
Finch Avenue. In this area, it might be feasible to initially provide a road link between
Lorraine Avenue and Kempford Boulevard, in the alignment of the Service Road, but without
the need to construct the full Service Road up to Finch Avenue. This type of road connection
would provide circulation and relief to those residents residing in the single family homes in
that quadrant, who have expressed concern with respect to access.
7.3General
Phasing and construction of links or sections of the Service Road initiated by the City are not
the result of any requirement of development. The construction initiatives are for those
sections which may be difficult to provide through development. Therefore the initiatives
must be considered from the point of view of providing certain road links in a timely fashion
for the improvement of the current traffic operations and which compliment the roads that are
required to be provided by development.
8.0Conclusion
There are many advantages for the City to proceed with a property acquisition strategy and
road construction program for the North York Centre Service Road . Only when missing links
in the Service Road are constructed will the overall road network receive true value.
Prioritizing sections and developing construction phases must be endorsed by Council to
address effective road network improvements and not to accommodate special interest groups
or developers. The current policies of the Official Plan as they relate to the implementation of
the Service Road are still valid and must be adhered to therefore, development still has a
responsibility to provide functional sections of the Service Road and/or a property
contributions towards the future extensions of the Service Road.
In summary, the City has the funds collected for the purpose of property acquisition which
will allow the City to commence with a program which will have little or no impact on the
capital budget. The approach outlined in this report will encourage development, but more
importantly provide ongoing improvement and expansion to the roads infrastructure as a
commitment to the adjacent stable residential communities, encourage growth in the North
York Centre and support the City's objective of intensification.
________
The motions and recorded vote on this issue were as follows:
A.Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, moved that the joint report (July 10, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services be adopted.
B.Councillor Filion, North York Centre, moved that the Chief Financial Officer be requested
to consider, as part of her current review of the development charges by-law for the City of
Toronto, the land acquisition cost required for implementation of the North York Centre Plan
service road.
A recorded vote on the foregoing motions A. and B. was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint,
Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, King
AGAINST:NIL
ABSENT:Councillor Shiner
Carried
21
Evaluation of Unleashed Dog Area -
Sherwood Park - North York Centre South
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following
Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, and that the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report
thereon to the North York Community Council:
WHEREAS dogs in the unleashed area of Sherwood Park continue to run out of control; and
WHEREAS unleashed dogs are causing long-term damage to the undergrowth of the forest
area; and
WHEREAS unleashed dogs frequently run onto private property, destroying gardens and
frightening residents, including young children; and
WHEREAS professional dog walkers, who walk up to a dozen dogs each, are increasing users
of the park; and
WHEREAS many local residents no longer use their neighbourhood park, preferring to go
elsewhere so as to avoid unleashed dogs; and
WHEREAS there have been many reports from joggers of menacing dogs, and at least one
biting incident that resulted in a muzzling order; and
WHEREAS there is increased public anxiety about uncontrolled dogs due to reports in the
media about vicious attacks; and
WHEREAS local residents who have volunteered many hours planting new trees, flowers and
shrubs are discouraged because unleashed dogs have destroyed much of their work; and
WHEREAS measures taken last year to protect the forest undergrowth have resulted in more
damage to unprotected areas; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the evaluation of the unleashed dog area in Sherwood
Park scheduled for September 1998 be commenced immediately; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the results of the evaluation be referred to the North York
Community Council and the User Fee Committee for consideration.
22
Refund of Reimbursement Paid for Damages to City Trees -
105 Wigmore Drive - Don Parkway
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide information to the North York Community Council in
response to a request from Mr. and Mrs. Camilleri, 105 Wigmore Drive, that they be refunded
a $500.00 damage reimbursement which they paid to the City for two City trees in front of
their house (Appendix I).
Source of Funds:
With the exception of the $500 in question, there are no City funds required with respect to
this matter.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)this reimbursement be retained by the City and applied towards the costs for City arborists
to perform remedial pruning to rectify damage caused by the unauthorized and improper
pruning of two trees in front of 105 Wigmore Drive.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The residents of 105 Wigmore Drive have requested, through Councillor Denzil
Minnan-Wong, the refund of a damage reimbursement which they paid to the Parks and
Recreation Division, Urban Forestry Section (Appendix I). This sum of $500.00 is intended to
be used to partially offset the costs for Urban Forestry Field Services staff to perform remedial
pruning work on two City trees that were improperly pruned by a contractor hired by the
residents, Mr. and Mrs. Camilleri. This pruning had been done in contravention of North York
By-law No. 31729 which states that, " No person shall without the prior written authorization
of the Commissioner, do or cause, or permit to be done, any of the following: spray, fertilize,
prune, trim, disturb, or alter a tree or any part of a tree." Under the by-law, "tree" refers to a
tree growing on the road allowance.
On March 24, 1998, Urban Forestry Inspectors noted that two City trees had been severely
pruned at 105 Wigmore Drive (Appendix II). Our records indicated that no authorization had
been given to do this work. The two (2) trees in question, a 72 cm (28 inch) Northern Catalpa
and a 59 cm (23 inch) Silver Maple had been pollarded, a destructive practice whereby the
branches of a tree are excessively cut back to abrupt, thick stubs. At the very least, the
appearance of these trees has been destroyed and it will require time and money for several
years of pruning to even partially restore them.
In addition, the trees are now much more likely to become safety hazards. New bark will be
unable to grow over the end of the stubs. The bark of a tree is its first line of defense against
attack by insects or disease pathogens and the stubs of these pollarded trees will now remain
potential sites of entry for damaging insects or diseases and the resultant decline and death of
the trees. The severe cutting back of much of the trees' branches will also result in the
proliferation of many quickly growing, upright branches, called "water sprouts", to
compensate. Water sprouts are unlike other branches in that they are poorly attached to the
tree and if left to grow will become hazards. These branches, as well as the hazards created by
the "stubbed" branches as they die back, will require monitoring and action by City staff to
maintain safety. This necessary remedial work, as well as pruning to correct the unsightliness
of these trees, will have to be spread over several years and will cost at least $1,300.00 in staff
and equipment time over this period. This figure does not include the loss of value in the trees
due to poor pruning which has left them with an unnatural, displeasing appearance.
The Camilleris have agreed with Urban Forestry staff that the trees were "butchered" by their
contractor. They maintain that they were unaware of existing tree protection by-laws and they
had been advised that trimming these trees was their responsibility. We are unaware as to who
would have told them this because it has never been our policy to place the responsibility of
City tree care on adjacent residents. We are certain that the Camilleris have not been directed
to perform this work by Parks and Recreation staff. The Urban Forestry section records all
inspection requests and work activities on City trees by municipal address on our
computerized "Tree Management Information System (TMIS)". These records indicate that no
Urban Forestry staff have visited this address since the system was brought on-line in 1990.
The Parks and Recreation Division (North York Region) has communicated our tree policy to
all North York residents. Our bi-annual (formerly quarterly) newsletter of Programs and
Services which is delivered to all North York households has always included a section on
City Street Trees advising residents that it is illegal to prune or interfere with a tree growing
on City property. The phone number of the City Forestry desk, which residents are directed to
call for assistance, is also included.
One recourse which staff may take in response to heavy tree damages like those at 105
Wigmore is to lay charges under the by-law. The by-law carries a maximum fine of $5,000. In
addition, compensatory damages may also be awarded. However, based on a number of
discussions with the Camilleris, it was agreed that no action would be taken if the residents
agreed to pay a portion of the costs for remedial work. The figure was set at $500.00 and the
Camilleris sent a cheque to the City.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Under the North York Street Tree By-law No. 31729 and its predecessor By-law No. 30022,
care of the City's street trees is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Parks and
Recreation or his or her designate. It is illegal under the by-law to do anything to a City tree
without the prior authorization of the Commissioner.
The City employs trained Urban Forestry staff who apply their knowledge and experience to
prune, remove and treat disease or insect problems on the City's trees. This expertise is
essential in ensuring that trees do not become safety hazards, or that their appearance does not
become a detriment to the neighbourhood. Provincial Offenses Officers in the Parks and
Recreation Division enforce the North York Street By-law No. 31729 employing firmness,
fairness, and consistency in their dealings to ensure that unauthorized practices are not
undertaken on City trees that result in unsafe or unsightly trees.
Where damage to City trees results from unauthorized work to the trees or in their vicinity,
By-law Officers may consider laying charges to serve as a deterrent to similar occurrences and
to recoup damages. Where possible and in order to maintain goodwill between residents and
the City, court action will be avoided if a reasonable compromise can be reached between
parties. We believe that such a compromise had been agreed to as a result of our discussions
with the Camilleris and as a result did not pursue court action to recoup the City's losses,
which were substantially more than $500.00.
Conclusions:
The unauthorized and improper pruning of these trees has created a situation whereby the City
is obligated to correct bad work at an expense to the City. It is reasonable to require that the
resident accept responsibility and pay at least partial compensation for remedial work.
Contact Name:
Bob Crump
Supervisor of Urban Forestry and Environmental Services
Tel. No.: 416-395-7991
Fax. No.: 416-395-7937
E-mail:bcrump@city.north-york.on.ca
(A copy of the Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
23
Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue,
Registered Plan M-108 - North York Centre South
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (May 4,
1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services embodied in the following Clause
No. 28 of Report No. 7 of the Corporate Services Committee:
(Clause No. 28 of Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee,
headed "Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue,
Registered Plan M-108 - North York Centre South")
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the North
York Community Council for further consideration.
Council also adopted the following recommendations:
"It is recommended that:
(1)Ward Councillors be notified of all real estate related requests in their Wards and be kept
informed of all ongoing negotiations;
(2)Ward Councillors be advised of the details prior to the final conclusion of any transactions
and before any reports are signed or the matter is considered by the Corporate Services
Committee/Council; and
(3)the following motion be referred to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee
to be held on June 22, 1998, for consideration with the report from the Commissioner of
Corporate Services on the processing of real estate transactions:
Moved by Councillor Flint:
'It is recommended that:
(1)real estate matters under $500,000.00, that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of
special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at that
Councillor's request;
(2)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the
Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;
(3)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective
Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services
Committee; and
(4)the Council Procedural By-law be amended accordingly.' ")
The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May4,
1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.
The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded
a copy of the aforementioned report to the North York Community Council for comment
thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998.
The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May4, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To obtain Council approval for the sale of the subject property to the abutting property owner
at 530Woburn Avenue.
Financial Implications:
The sale of the subject property will generate funds in the amount of $100,000.00 to be
deposited in the Land Acquisition Account No. 007-430-0000-8340.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City accept the offer to purchase for the subject property, made by the abutting property
owner at 530 Woburn Avenue, Boaz Feiner, for the appraised value of $100,000.00;
(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and
conditions of the offer to purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the
closing of the transaction of otherwise;
(3)the proceeds from the sale be credited to Account No. 007-430-000-8340; and
(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary.
Background:
The former City of North York acquired the subject vacant residential property through a
Certificate of Tax Arrears on November 20, 1939. The property has frontage of 6.1 m (20 ft)
by a depth of 36.57 m (120 ft) and an area of 239.7 m² (2,400 square ft.). This property has
always been considered to have only contributory value with abutting lands.
However, in 1996, a number of similar size properties in the surrounding area received
Committee of Adjustment approval of variances to the minimum lot frontage and coverage
provisions and thereby establishing them as viable building parcels. In view of these recent
approvals, staff determined that there was a reasonable chance that the Committee of
Adjustment would also approve an application to establish the subject property as a viable
(R6) residential building lot. On April 17, 1996, staff received approval from the former City
of North York Council to make such an application to the Committee of Adjustment.
The application to establish the subject property as a viable building lot was heard by the
North York Committee of Adjustment on June 13, 1996. The Committee stated that if
approval was granted to this application there could be a proliferation of 6.1 m (20 ft) lots in
the area. It was moved by the Committee that the application be deferred sine die with the
understanding that City staff attempt to negotiate the sale of the subject property with the
owner of 530 Woburn Avenue.
The Committee of Adjustment in making their decision was aware that the new owner of
530Woburn Avenue had contacted City staff to inquire about purchasing the subject City
property. It was his intention to assemble a large enough site for a possible land severance.
The Committee concluded that such an assembly may provide them with the opportunity to
consider land severances at that location with frontages in excess of 6.1 m (20 ft).
Former North York Council on December 11, 1996, by Resolution No. 96-18 declared the
subject lands as surplus. Staff entered into prolonged negotiations with the owner of 530
Woburn Avenue for the sale of the subject property. As the result of this action a settlement
has now been secured. The financial consideration is $100,000.00 and is based on the
appraised value according to an independent appraisal prepared by Royal LePage for the
former City of North York.
Conclusion:
The financial terms are considered to be fair and equitable and the sale being recommended
for approval addresses the concerns of the former North York Committee of Adjustment.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Wayne O'Brien, Telephone No. (416)395-6847, Fax No. (416)395-6703, (cs98060.wpd)
(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of
Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy
thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing
Clause, the following communication (May 28, 1998) from the City Clerk:
Recommendations :
The North York Community Council on May 27, 1998, recommended to City Council that:
(1)the report (May 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services regarding Woburn
Avenue - Proposed Sale of Lot 198, Registered Plan M-108 (Ward 9 - North York Centre
South) be referred to the North York Community Council for consideration;
(2)real estate matters under $500,000.00, that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of
special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at that
Councillor's request;
(3)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the
Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;
(4)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective
Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services
Committee; and
(5)the Council Procedure By-law be amended accordingly.
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having
requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to:
(a)notify all Councillors of all real estate related requests in their Wards and keep them
informed of all ongoing negotiations; and
(b)advise Councillors of the details prior to the final conclusion of any transactions and before
any reports are signed or the matter is considered by the Corporate Services
Committee/Council.
Background:
The North York Community Council had before it a communication (May 26, 1998) from the
City Clerk regarding Woburn Avenue - Proposed Sale of Lot 198, Registered Plan M-108.)
--------
The North York Community Council had before it a communication (June 8, 1998) from the
City Clerk advising that City Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out
and referred back to the North York Community Council for further consideration Clause No.
28 of Report No.7 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Proposed Sale of Lot 198 -
Woburn Avenue, Registered Plan M-108 - North York Centre South".
24
Reallocation of Approved 1998 Capital Budget -
Clanton Park - North York Spadina
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(July9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to reallocate approved capital funding
of $780,000 from facility improvement initiatives at Clanton Park to required artificial ice
rink maintenance at the Glen Long and Irving W. Chapley Rinks.
Source of Funds:
New funding would not be required as only approved/existing capital funds would be utilized.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the approved capital funding for facility improvements at Clanton Park (98 Project No. 697
- $780,000.00) and the multi sport pads at the Glen Long (96 Project No. 007 - $100,000.00)
and Irving W. Chapley Rinks (98 Project No. 699 - $100,000.00) be utilized as follows:
(i)Upgrade the existing building at Clanton Park$100,000.00;
(ii)Redevelop the Glen Long A.I.R.$468,000.00;
(iii)Redevelop the Irving W. Chapley A.I.R.$310,000.00;
(iv)Additional amenities at the two A.I.R.'s$102,000.00; and
(2)the appropriate City officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The Glen Long and Irving W. Chapley artificial outdoor ice rinks in Ward 8 have recently
experienced serious mechanical difficulties. Both rinks are at the end of their life cycle being
some thirty years old and now require substantial maintenance if they are to open this coming
winter. Total redevelopment costs estimated at $468,000.00 at Glen Long and $310,000.00 at
Irving W. Chapley reflect the following:
The Situation
-Glen Long A.I.R. has been operating for 35 years.
-Chapley A.I.R. has been operating for 30 years.
-The expected life cycle of these installations is 25 years.
-At Glen Long the pad and board system are in very bad shape and need complete
replacements. The refrigeration plant has had some repairs and is functioning well.
-At Chapley the pad is in good shape but the boards and refrigeration plant must be replaced.
The Replacement Costs
| GLEN LONG |
| Component |
Cost |
| Rink Pad |
$160,000.00 |
| Rink Boards and Glass |
$150,000.00 |
| Header |
$20,000.00 |
| Evaporative Chiller |
$38,000.00 |
| Brine Pump |
$10,000.00 |
| Compressor No. 1 |
$25,000.00 |
| Piping / Valves |
$30,000.00 |
| Electrical Switching Equipment |
$35,000.00 |
|
Total $468,000.00 |
| IRVING W. CHAPLEY |
| Component |
Cost |
| Piping / Valves |
$30,000.00 |
| Compressor No. 1 |
$25,000.00 |
| Evaporative Chiller |
$38,000.00 |
| Rink Boards and Glass |
$150,000.00 |
| Header |
$22,000.00 |
| Electrical Switching Equipment |
$35,000.00 |
| Brine Pump |
$10,000.00 |
|
Total $310,000.00 |
Comments/Discussions/Justification
Due to the immediate attention that must now be paid to these two A.I.R.'s, it was necessary
to re-examine and if possible, re-prioritize approved capital budget initiatives. Discussions
were held with the Ward Councillors Feldman and Moscoe and with local residents through
two public meetings. As a result of these, a recommendation came forth to re-allocate the
approved capital funding for Clanton Park ($780,000.00) and the multi sport pads at the Glen
Long and Irving W. Chapley Rinks ($200,000.00) as follows:
(i)upgrade the existing building at Clanton Park$100,000.00
(ii)redevelop the Glen Long A.I.R.$468,000.00
(iii)redevelop the Irving W. Chapley A.I.R.$310,000.00
(iv)additional amenities at the two A.I.R.'s$102,000.00
Having considered a number of options the Division supports this recommendation.
Conclusions
The Division recommends that approval be given to proceed to reallocate the existing
approved Capital funds as noted above.
Contact Name:
Gary W. Stoner
Deputy Commissioner, Parks and Recreation
Telephone: 395-6190Fax: 395-0105
E-mail: gwstoner@city.north-york.on.ca
25
Speed Humps -
Newbury Lane between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard -
North York Centre South
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following
Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:
WHEREAS Newbury Lane from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard is scheduled for
resurfacing later this summer; and
WHEREAS this block of Newbury Lane is used by many transient motorists as a "cut-off"
from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard; and
WHEREAS residents, by petition, have requested the installation of speed humps to slow
down vehicles on their block; and
WHEREAS all residents of the affected block of Newbury Lane have been made aware of the
opportunity for speed humps by letter, survey and public meeting; and
WHEREAS more than the required 66 percent of residents have indicated their desire for
speed humps; and
WHEREAS staff have determined and residents have agreed on the most suitable location for
speed humps; and
WHEREAS speed humps can be installed in connection with the road resurfacing at no extra
cost;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT two speed humps of standard City design be
installed on Newbury Lane between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard at suitable
locations identified by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and Transportation
Services, in connection with the 1998 road reconstruction.
26
Speed Humps -
Raeburn Avenue from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard
North York Centre South
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following
Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:
WHEREAS Raeburn Avenue from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard is scheduled for
resurfacing later this Summer; and
WHEREAS this block of Raeburn Avenue is used by many transient motorists as a "cutoff"
from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard; and
WHEREAS residents, by petition, have requested the installation of speed humps to slow
down vehicles on their block; and
WHEREAS all residents of the affected block of Raeburn Avenue have been made aware of
the opportunity for speed humps by letter, survey and public meeting; and
WHEREAS 16 surveys were mailed out; 12 returned of which 10 indicated their desire for
speed humps; and
WHEREAS staff have determined - and residents have agreed - on the most suitable location
for speed humps; and
WHEREAS speed humps can be installed in connection with the road resurfacing at no extra
cost;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT two (2) speed humps of standard City design be
installed on Raeburn Avenue between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard at suitable
locations identified by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and Transportation
Services, in connection with the 1998 road reconstruction.
27
Pay Parking - Civic Garden Centre
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following
Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:
WHEREAS last year the Civic Garden Centre was identified by Metro Council as a location
for pay parking; and
WHEREAS parking revenue from the Civic Garden Centre was included in the 1998 Toronto
City budget; and
WHEREAS there are 42 volunteer groups with well over 1,000 active volunteers and even
more members associated with the Civic Garden Centre (including 3 "resident" groups:
Toronto Garden Club, Milne Garden Club and the Civic Garden Centre); and
WHEREAS a fully accessible teaching garden was recently opened at this location; and
WHEREAS the Civic Garden Centre is comparable to a community centre; and
WHEREAS there is no commuter parking problem at this time; and
WHEREAS pay parking will legitimize and increase the use by commuters; and
WHEREAS one meeting has been held between Parks Department staff, local Councillors and
major stakeholders, at which it was agreed that more information was needed before any
specific proposals for relief or exemption from parking fees could be recommended; and
WHEREAS August 1st, 1998 is the date targeted for the installation of pay parking;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pay parking not be implemented at this time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff be directed to continue discussions with volunteer
groups, nearby community associations, Civic Garden Centre staff and local Councillors, in
an effort to determine appropriate recommendations regarding the pay parking initiative; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Councillors report back through the Community Council
to Toronto City Council no later than October 1998.
28
Downsview Area Secondary Plan -
Official Plan Amendment No. 464 - North York Spadina
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(1)amending Recommendation No. (1) of the North York Community Council to provide that
the Official Plan Amendment No. 464 be amended by incorporating the following clause at
the beginning of Section 7 - Transportation and Circulation Policies:
"All developments within the area covered by this Official Plan Amendment must conform
with the requirements of the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, as approved by
City Council, which is an integral part of, and has the same force and effect as, this OPA.";
(2)amending Recommendation No.(1)(g)(i) of the North York Community Council by deleting
the following words:
"and replacing it with the following:
'(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, no direct access shall be
permitted from lands in the Secondary Plan area to Wilson Avenue through the Mt. Sinai
Cemetery.' "; and
(3)adding thereto the following new Recommendation No. (1)(h) as follows:
"(h)no direct access shall be permitted from lands in the Secondary Plan to Wilson Avenue
through the Mt. Sinai Cemetery.";
(4)renumbering the Recommendations of the North York Community Council accordingly;
and
(5)adding thereto the following:
(a)"WHEREAS the Guiding Principles for the development of the Downsview Lands include
the following transportation and traffic principles:
-'the development of the Downsview Lands should not negatively impact operations on the
surrounding transportation network'; and
-'the fundamental premise/principle behind the mobility servicing plans for development on
the Downsview Lands should be that the adjacent communities (individual, residential,
commercial) should not be impacted from a traffic infiltration or spillover parking
perspective'; and
WHEREAS the traffic situation at the Allen Expressway and Eglinton Avenue West, already
impossible, may be aggravated by any development along the Allen Expressway;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services be requested to examine means, including the use of outside consultants,
to alleviate this further aggravation, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:
(i)use of City of Toronto development charges to help finance additional ramps on Allen
Road, between Eglinton Avenue West and Lawrence Avenue West;
(ii)capital improvements to the Eglinton Avenue/Allen Road intersection; and
(iii)provision of additional parking lots around Eglinton Avenue/Allen Road;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT all local area Councillors, along the Allen
Expressway, and the Mayor's Office, be included in the aforementioned studies as they
progress."; and
(b)that City staff involved with this project as it develops, and the developers, be requested to
pursue:
(i)high levels of energy efficiency; and
(ii)parking minimization strategies;
(c)that the developer be urged to consider district energy options for heating and cooling
their facilities;
(d)that the Toronto District Heating Corporation be given the opportunity to make a proposal
to that effect; and
(e)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the
Toronto Transit Commission and City Transportation staff, be directed to revise the
Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, incorporating specific initiatives which would
achieve a more transit-oriented, less auto-reliant development at Downsview, and to present
this revised Plan for City Council approval in October, 1998.)
The North York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the by-law attached to the July 17, 1998, report of the Acting Commissioner of
Planning to adopt the final draft of Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the Downsview
Area Secondary Plan, be enacted subject to the following amendments to Official Plan
Amendment No. 464:
(a)Section 5.2, Public Art, by deleting from sub-section (b) (ii) the words:
"as a guideline";
(b)Section 7.1, Transportation and Circulation Policies - General, by adding thereto the
following:
"(d)Transportation infrastructure facilities shall have as a first priority the intent to
mitigate impact on the surrounding residential community.";
(c)Section 7.4, Transportation and Circulation Policies - Parking, by adding thereto the
following:
"Council shall, in co-operation with the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto
Parking Authority, undertake a review of provisions for commuter parking in relation
to the Wilson and Downsview stations."
(d)Section 9, Municipal Servicing, by deleting sub-section (b) which reads:
"Council encourages the provision of conduits and associated infrastructure within the
municipal road allowance to support the future installation of telecommunications
networks.
and replacing it with the following:
"Conduits and associated infrastructure to support the installation of future
telecommunications networks within the road allowance shall be provided.";
(e)Section 10.1.2 (b), Parks and Open Space - Land Use and Density, by deleting the
word "restaurants" and replacing it with:
"food service outlets to serve park patrons";
(f)Section 10.1.3 (b), Parks and Open Space - Development Policies, by deleting the word
"restaurants" and replacing it with:
"food service outlets to serve park patrons";
(g)Section 10.2.3, Residential Density One (RD1) - Development Policies, by:
(i)deleting the following subsection (d):
"(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, Council will secure a
linear open space incorporating a pedestrian walkway that connects the Park and Open
Space lands to Mt. Sinai Cemetery and Wilson Avenue."
and replacing it with the following:
"(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, no direct access shall be
permitted from lands in the Secondary Plan area to Wilson Avenue through the Mt.
Sinai Cemetery."; and
(ii)deleting the following sub-section (g):
"The public park on RD1 lands east of the Allen Road should be part of a recreational
trail connecting the parkland, activity plaza and walkway west of the Allen Road, the
pedestrian and trail linkage on the lands designated Mixed Commercial Residential, and
the City's trail system east of Wilson Heights Boulevard.";
(h)Section 10.3.2 (c), Research-Technology Park (RTP) - Land Use and Density, be
amended to read as follows:
"It is intended that the lands designated Research-Technology Park be developed up to
a maximum gross floor area of 278,700 sq. m. (3,000,000sq. ft.). The development will be
limited to a maximum gross floor area of 92,900 sq. m. (1,000,000 sq. ft.) until such time
as detailed transportation and parking studies demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
that this level of development can be supported.";
(i)Section 10.5.2. (a), Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Land Use and Density, by adding
the words "excluding gambling casinos" to the end of the sentence;
(j)Section 10.4.2 (c), Cultural Campus (CC) - Land Use and Density, be corrected to
read "35 acres" instead of "25 acres";
(k)Section 10.5.2 (b) - Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Land Use and Density - by
deleting "1.0 FSI" and replacing it with ".875 FSI";
(l)Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, by adding:
(i)to sub-section (c) the following:
"Guidelines for the nature and form of the activity plaza shall be determined during the
zoning process in consultation with the neighbouring community.";
(m)Section 10.8.3, Mixed Commercial Residential (MCR) - Development Policies, by
deleting the following sub-section:
"(c)A pedestrian and trail linkage should be provided to connect the public park and
recreational train on RD1 lands south of Reiner Road to the parkland, activity plaza
and walkway located west of the Allen Road.";
(n)Section 11.3.1(e), Transportation Master Plan, be amended by deleting "Grandravine
Drive" and replacing it with "Finch Avenue", so that it now reads:
"(e)a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Wilson Avenue to Finch Avenue";
(o)Section 11.8 (a), Future Studies, be amended to provide that the second sentence read
as follows:
"A study will be undertaken by Canada Lands Co. Ltd., in consultation with the City
and other stakeholders, to identify the purpose and function of the park and open space
area and may include other parts of the Secondary Plan area.";
(p)the addition of the following General Provisions:
"(i)Density Transfer
No density transfer between or among land use districts within the Secondary Plan area
shall be permitted.
(ii)Toronto Lands
Council defer consideration of the designation of "Toronto Lands", being those lands
east of Allen Road, until such time as the agreed upon discussions with federal officials
have been reported to the North York Community Council.
That staff use as guidelines for these discussions the principles established by the
proposed Secondary Plan.";
(iii)School Board Submissions
As per the request of the Toronto District School Board, new policies to identify an
elementary school site in the Downsview Secondary Plan be added, before it is approved,
and that policies requiring a site specific per residential unit educational levy be
established to ensure that the necessary school facilities are available to service future
residents of the Downsview lands.;
(2)the Downsview Urban Design Study attached to the July 7, 1998, report of the Acting
Commissioner of Planning be adopted as an appendix to Official Plan Amendment
No.464, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, to provide urban design guidelines for
development in the Secondary Plan Area;
(3)the Transportation Master Plan attached to the July 7, 1998, report of the Acting
Commissioner of Planning be adopted which will satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal
Class Environmental Assessment and be used as a basis for future environmental
assessment studies that will be required for specific transportation projects subject to
the following amendments;
(a)Section 2.1.1, Principles (p. I-4), by adding to principle No. 6 (Protection of Rail
Corridor) the following:
"Canada Lands shall bear the primary responsibility for protecting this rail corridor.";
(b)Section 2.1.1, Principles (p. I-4), by adding to principle No. 9 in the last line the words
"proposed and" so that it reads:
"9.The provision of parking on developments within the Downsview Lands must
recognize the potential for spillover into the adjacent residential and industrial
communities and districts. Measures to control parking demand and protect sensitive
areas abutting the Downsview Lands must be thoroughly addressed in the context of
proposed and future development."
(c)Section 2.1.1, Objectives (p. I-5), by replacing the following sentence in item 5:
"Consideration will be given to the specific needs of the mobility challenged."
with the following:
"All transportation facilities shall be designed to provide full accessibility to citizens
with disabilities. In that regard, every proposed land use application shall be required to
provide for the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Environment and Development
an 'access for disabled citizens' plan.";
(d)Wilson Avenue
(i)Provision for the widening of Wilson Avenue which was inserted into the official plan
of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto by amending a map - be deleted;
(ii)Alternatively the "Wilson Avenue Revitalization Study" include the necessary
transportation improvements to Wilson Avenue from the western boundary of the
Ministry of Transportation and Communication lands (west of Keele Street) to Avenue
Road, and the study be considered in conjunction with a review of:
(a)present and future land use;
(b)parking requirements;
(c)upgrades to streetscape amenities; and
(d)public policy with respect to future road widening;
(iii)Particular attention be given to developing a public strategy to mitigate the
deteriorating condition of strip plazas including the legislative, planning, and traffic
management tools available and those required to effect improvements;
(e)Section 2.2.1, Objectives (pI-4), by adding to Item No. 8 the following:
"The land surface devoted to parking shall be minimized.";
(f)Section 2.2.1, Objectives (p. I-7), by adding to Item No. 9 the following:
"Parking facilities shall be designed to preclude reliance on off site parking."
(g)Section 4.2.2, Transit Facilities (p. I-21), be amended to provide that staff report
further on the following statement in section A) T.T.C. Subway Facilities:
"It has been concluded that there is justification to revisit the alignment for the Yonge -
Spadina loop with consideration to extend to Sheppard and Spadina subways lines
parallel to Sheppard Avenue."
(h)Section 4.3, Constraints and Issues (p. I-23), be amended to provide that the original
wording in the first draft of the Transportation Master Plan for the second point on
page I-23 be restored so that it reads:
"There are two subway stations in the immediate vicinity of the Downsview Lands,
namely the Wilson and Downsview stations. Methods to accommodate additional person
carrying capacity from either of these subway stations and/or through a potential
extension of either the Spadina or Sheppard subway lines must be explored to ensure
that the ultimate developments as proposed in the Secondary Plan can be achieved.";
(i)Section 3.5, Other Area Roadways (p. II-12), be amended by deleting the specific
example:
"such as Dufferin Street north of Finch Avenue";
(j)Section 3.5, Other Area Roadways - Recommended Road Widenings (p. II-12), be
amended to further clarify its intent by adding:
"between Dufferin Street and Transit Road."
so that it reads:
"Implement widening on Wilson Avenue between Dufferin Street and Transit Road as
part of the development of the Commercial Retail land use district in conjunction with
the extension of Transit Road south of Wilson Avenue to Dufferin Street."
(k)Section 2, Managing Transportation Supply (p. III-9), by adding:
"Additional monitoring be undertaken at the intersection of Wilson Heights and Wilson
Avenue to review the measures that may be required to reduce infiltration of traffic into
local neighbourhoods."
(l)Section 2.0, Managing Transportation Supply, Exhibit 8, 2011 Planning Horizon Road
Modifications, be amended by:
(i)Extending the proposed deletion of the HOV lanes on the Allen Road from Transit
Road to Sheppard as far north as Finch Avenue;
(ii)Consideration be given to establishing exclusive bus lanes where appropriate; and
(iii)The recently opened one-way entrance to Old Dufferin Street north of Sheppard for
inbound vehicles be reviewed for possible closure to protect this neighbourhood from
itinerant parking;
(m)Section 2.1 (b), Guiding Principles, Commitments and Future Study Requirements -
General Principles - Parking, by adding the following additional sub-section:
"2.1.25All parking areas in all land use districts shall be hard-surfaced and built to
municipal standards.";
(n)Section 2.2, Interim Planning Horizon, be amended as follows:
(i)add to Item (d), Intersection Improvements (page III-10), the following:
"Initiate expansion of the City's SCOOT traffic adaptive system to serve the Downsview
lands linked to the major intersections within the secondary plan."; and
(ii)amend Item (e), Property Protection (page II1-10), by clarifying this statement to
indicate that it specifically refers to Chesswood Avenue;
(o)Section 2.3 (a), Transportation and Traffic, which reads:
"Adjacent residential and industrial communities and districts will not be negatively
impacted by traffic infiltration and spillover parking."
be amended by adding thereto the following:
"and in that regard parking pricing policy shall be designed to discourage spillover
parking."; and
(p)the Transportation Master Plan be further amended to provide that:
(i)a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Wilson Avenue to Grandravine Drive be
entirely constructed in the Interim Planning Horizon;
(ii)a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Grandravine Drive to Finch Avenue be
constructed as part of the 2011 Planning Horizon.";
(iii)to state that there will be no extension of either Grandravine Drive, nor of Whitburn
Crescent, east of Keele Street;
(4)prior to any decision being made to extend either the Spadina subway line north, or
the Sheppard subway line west, a full process of public consultation be undertaken
beginning with a public meeting on the issue; and
(5)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action
to give effect thereto.
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:
(a)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
(i)to undertake a plan review for the northwest and northeast quadrants of the Allen Road and
Sheppard Avenue and that staff be requested to facilitate that review as expeditiously as
possible and that it be done in conjunction with the Allen\Sheppard Urban Design Study
incorporated in the current Urban Planning and Development Services Department's work
program;
(ii)in cooperation with Canada Lands Co. Ltd., to develop a plan for staging the removal of
existing chain link fencing with a view to making the area as open as possible; and
(iii)to review the present use of barbed wire in relation to each land use district, and make
specific recommendations with respect to its conformity with the by-laws of the municipality
and its retention only where deemed appropriate;
(b)requested that the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) continue to meet to review zoning
applications and related studies to make recommendations thereon to staff and Council;
(c)deferred the following motions by Councillor Moscoe and directed that these matters be
brought forward at the time the zoning by-law amendment for Destination Technodome is
considered by the North York Community Council:
(i)the Official Plan Amendment No. 464 be amended by adding to Section 10.5.3, Sport and
Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, the following additional sub-section(e):
"(e)To discourage off site parking, charges for long term parking shall be built into the price
of admission to venues with rebates or discounts to encourage the use of public transit.
Charges will be permitted for short term parking and preferred parking located in close
proximity to the facility.";
(ii)the Transportation Master Plan be amended by adding to Section 2.1 (b), Guiding
Principles, Commitments and Future Study Requirements - General Principles - Parking, the
following sub-section:
"2.1.26To ensure protection for the environment, parking surfaces shall be limited to no more
than 50% of the land area of any given site exclusive of landscaped areas, but in no case shall
parking surfaces in a land use district exceed more than 30 acres.";
(d)referred the following motion by Councillor Augimeri to the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services:
"That City staff prepare a Secondary Plan for the entire Sheppard Avenue and Allen Road
intersection which includes both land parcels to the south and to the north, and that this
Secondary Plan be approved before any zoning applications are dealt with by Council within
the Downsview Area Secondary Plan."
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July
22, 1998, with appropriate notice of meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (July 17, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning:
Purpose:
This report is further to my report of July 7, 1998. Its purpose is to:
(i)bring forward a final draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA No. 464), for adoption;
(ii)highlight changes recommended by the Downsview Community Advisory Panel and
Canada Lands Company Limited that are supported by staff and which have been
incorporated into the revised Secondary Plan; and
(iii)to identify changes suggested by the Community Advisory Panel that staff are unable to
support and the reasons why these changes have not been incorporated into this revised
Secondary Plan.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Recommendations (1) and (3) of the report dated July 7, 1998 be deleted and replaced with
the following:
(a)the attached by-law to adopt the final draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan, OPA No.
464, be enacted; and
(b)the Downsview Urban Design Study attached to the report dated July 7, 1997, be adopted
as an appendix to Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, to
provide urban design guidelines for development in the Secondary Plan area; and
(2)Recommendations (1) and (3) above, and (2) and (4) of the report dated July 7, 1998, be
adopted.
Background:
Over the past few weeks, staff have met with various community representatives including the
Downsview Community Advisory Panel (CAP), the applicant, Canada Lands Company
Limited, and the various development proponents to discuss the draft Secondary Plan. In
addition, the Downsview Lands Community Voice Association has submitted written
comments on the "Development Concept for Downsview". CAP specifically requested a
number of changes to the draft Secondary Plan (see Appendix "A" to this report). The nature
and extent of these changes recommended by CAP are discussed in the following section.
A revised Secondary Plan is attached to this report and incorporates text and map changes
resulting from meetings with the applicant, development proponents and community
representatives and changes recommended by CAP. Revised text which has been added or
re-located from other sections of the document is shaded, while text which has been deleted
has been struck out as indicated in the revised draft Secondary Plan attached to this report.
Discussion:
1.0Text Changes Incorporated into the Revised Secondary Plan
Throughout meetings with CAP and other community representatives, no issue has been
raised with the fundamental principles of development nor the land uses permitted by the draft
Secondary Plan. CAP and others generally support the overall development framework and
land use strategy of OPA 464. Comments received relate to the community's need for
certainty and predictability as development occurs. Many of the suggestions made by CAP in
their submission are intended to clarify the document. For example, CAP requested
clarification and further detail respecting:
- intent of the proposed Sport, Entertainment & Recreation land use; since this use relates to
commercial recreation and not public recreational uses, the word "recreation" should be
removed;
- restaurants in the Park and Open Space; wording should be added to limit restaurants to
those which "serve park patrons" only; and
- the status of the DownsView Urban Design Study; it should form an Appendix to the
Secondary Plan
- Staff support these, and similar changes designed to strike an improved balance between
the need to achieve certainty for the community and the need to set out a general
development framework to guide future development. The draft Secondary Plan has been
revised to incorporate changes designed to clarify the document.
CAP also recommended changes that are more substantive in nature. These changes, noted
below, clarify Council's intent for the lands and have been incorporated into the revised
Secondary Plan:
(1)Applying an Institutional Designation to Military Lands
The revised draft Secondary Plan designates lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue,
"General Institutional (G-INS)" to recognize their continued use for the Defence and Civil
Institute of Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) and to accommodate a future armoury and
military administrative building complex southeast of the Chesswood/Sheppard intersection.
Future proposals to expand the Sport and Entertainment area to incorporate the military lands
will require an amendment to the Secondary Plan and be subject to an extensive public review
process.
(2)Applying a Residential Designation to City-owned Lands
The lands on the southeast corner of W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue are intended to
be developed with low density housing. CAP has recommended that these lands be designated
Residential Density One (RD-1). The draft Secondary Plan has been amended to reflect this
change.
(3)Limiting Retail and Restaurants in the Research-Technology Park
CAP has recommended that retail uses and restaurants in the Research-Technology Park be
subject to a provision to limit where they can be located. CAP has agreed that the Secondary
Plan be revised such that retail, services commercial uses and restaurants would be required to
locate on the ground floor and must front onto Carl Hall Road.
2.0Outstanding Matters
The Community Advisory Panel has recommended the following changes to the draft
Secondary Plan that, in the opinion of staff, are not appropriate or supportable as they are
either beyond the scope of the document or jurisdiction of the City, or are not consistent with
the intent of the Secondary Plan or the orderly development of the lands. The following
matters remain outstanding:
(1)Regulating Competition Between Commercial Uses
It was proposed that the draft Secondary Plan be amended to require that new commercial
uses that duplicate existing facilities in adjacent areas not be permitted unless a market impact
study demonstrates sufficient market support is available for both new and existing facilities.
This proposed change exceeds the City's jurisdiction. As established by the Ontario Municipal
Board, the role of a municipality in competition matters is limited to ensuring that the planned
commercial function of lands is maintained, that an adequate range of commercial services is
conveniently available to meet the needs of consumers, and that "blight" is prevented.
(2)Improving Servicing in Adjacent Residential Communities
While new development will be required to provide needed infrastructure, it was proposed
that new development also be required to address existing low water pressure, rusty water and
basement flooding problems in adjacent residential communities. Staff have clarified with
CAP members that new development can not make existing problems worse. A new policy
has been added to the draft Secondary Plan stating that Council will explore opportunities to
enhance the levels of service provided in adjacent areas during the review of studies and
designs for development-related engineering works and modifications and may, where
appropriate and feasible, seek to improve services in the context of the proposed
development-related engineering works.However, staff are not able to support the request
from CAP that new development be obligated to correct existing deficiencies.
(3)Density & Parking in the Sport & Entertainment District
CAP recommends that the maximum permitted density on lands in the Sport and
Entertainment district be consistent with the Destination: Technodome application, thereby
ensuring that future expansions to the Technodome would be subject to an Official Plan
amendment and rezoning process.
The revised draft Secondary Plan continues to recommend that the maximum permitted
density for development in the Sport and Entertainment District be 1.0 FSI. This density is
equal to the 1.0 FSI permitted on the Industrial lands on the opposite side of Sheppard
Avenue, and the 1.0 FSI generally permitted on Commercial lands throughout North York. A
1.0 FSI is below the permitted density on lands in the North York Centre and the Sheppard
East Corridor that are also close to subway stations and which have access to arterial roads
connecting with Highway 401. The Official Plan is a policy document and should not be used
as a regulatory tool. Implementing by-laws would regulate the appropriate density limits for
any proposal in this District and a rezoning would be required for any future expansion.
CAP also recommends that a large portion of the parking in the Sport and Entertainment area
should be located in structures, as required of development in the Research-Technology Park
(RTP). Development in the RTP is intended to occur in a park-like setting and be compatible
with the adjacent major public park. Unless parking is provided in structures, development in
the RTP area cannot reach its full potential. On the other hand, the Sport and Entertainment
District is separated from the major park by the airport runway. While development in this
District will contribute to the park-like character, surface parking lots are acceptable if they
meet the landscape requirements and guidelines in the DownsView Urban Design Study.
(4)Deletion of Restaurants and Supermarkets in the Commercial Retail District
CAP has recommended that restaurants be deleted as a permitted use on lands designated
Commercial Retail due to the existing number of restaurants along Wilson Avenue. As it is
beyond the City's jurisdiction to restrict land use based upon competition, this change has not
been incorporated into the revised Secondary Plan.
CAP also requested that supermarkets be deleted as a permitted use on the basis that
supermarkets would add an unduly amount of traffic into the area. A new policy has been
added to the draft Secondary Plan that requires traffic studies and analyses to consider the
impacts of mixing the uses permitted in the Commercial Retail District and that Council may,
on the basis of such analyses, limit the size or range of uses permitted in an implementing
by-law. This measure would ensure the impacts of any uses, including supermarkets will be
assessed and dealt with through the review of appropriate transportation studies.
(5)Apartment Building on Northeast Corner of Keele and Sheppard
Community residents have indicated that they would support the use of the lands at Keele
Street and Sheppard Avenue for a seniors' apartment building. However, they are not
supportive of such higher density uses if this site is not restricted for "seniors' only". The use
of the site for higher density uses was brought forward at the outset of the DownsView study,
and until very recently, little or no objection was raised with the proposed use for this site.
While there are good planning reasons for such a use at this site, the City is not able to restrict
its eventual development as a site for seniors' housing. The revised draft Secondary Plan
continues to permit this building because it would be appropriate for the physical context of
the site, it would increase the range of housing types available on lands to be developed for
residential purposes. Restrictions on the occupants of a building would exceed the City's
authority under the Planning Act to regulate land use.
Conclusion:
The community has proposed modifications which improve the clarity and intent of the
Secondary Plan. The DownsView Community Advisory Panel, in particular, has
recommended a large number of these changes that have been incorporated into the revised
Secondary Plan. However, there are a number of changes requested by CAP that are beyond
the scope of the planning document and the jurisdiction of the City and for these reasons, have
not been incorporated into the revised Secondary Plan.
Contact Name:
Tom Keefe, Manager (DownsView), tel.: 395-7170.
---------------
Staff presentations were made by Tom Keefe, Manager (Downsview), Planning Department,
North York Civic Centre and Roberto Stopnicki, Deputy Commissioner of Transportation,
North York Civic Centre.
The North York Community Council also submits the following report (July 7, 1998)
from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
As directed by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on May 27, 1998, and
confirmed by Toronto City Council on June 3, 1998, this report brings forward the draft
Downsview Area Secondary Plan for adoption by North York Community Council as part of
a package of documents setting out the planning framework for future development of the
Downsview area. This report also responds to North York Community Council's motions at
its meeting on May 27, 1998.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the attached by-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the DownsView Area
Secondary Plan, be enacted;
(2)the Transportation Master Plan be adopted which will satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment and be used as a basis for future environmental
assessment studies that will be required for specific transportation projects;
(3)the DownsView Urban Design Study be adopted as urban design guidelines for
development in the Secondary Plan area; and
(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Background:
On May 27, 1998, North York Community Council endorsed public circulation of the
Development Concept for the DownsView Area as the basis for preparing a draft Secondary
Plan and directed:
(i)that the draft Secondary Plan be brought forward for a statutory meeting after additional
public consultation;
(ii)that a Transportation Master Plan be prepared, and
(iii)that the draft DownsView Urban Design Study be refined based on public and stakeholder
feedback and be incorporated as part of the draft Secondary Plan.
North York Community Council also directed that staff examine a number of matters related
to the DownsView Area Secondary Plan, including transportation and parking, servicing,
public art, and the park and open space area. The North York Community Council's
recommendations were adopted by City Council on June 3, 1998. This report tables the draft
Secondary Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, the revised Urban Design Study and
responds to the matters raised. Reports on applications in the Secondary Plan area will be
brought forward separately at the appropriate time.
Discussion:
(1)Public Consultation on the Development Concept:
The fundamental objectives and principles of the Development Concept were confirmed as a
result of public input at three open houses attended by approximately 350 people at Wm.
Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute on June 1, at Downsview Secondary School on June 9,
and at C. W. Jefferys Secondary School on June 11, as well as at additional public
information meetings attended by City staff.
Many written submissions and speakers at the open houses commented favourably on the
Development Concept and the emerging vision for Downsview, including support for:
- provision of bicycle and pedestrian trails as part of the overall transportation plan for the
Secondary Plan area;
- creation of a major public park which should be green, natural and with limited roadways
or parking areas; and
- inclusion of employment uses and the creation of job opportunities.
Questions were raised about specific aspects of the Development Concept, particularly traffic
and transportation matters such as:
- the effect of traffic from specific developments on adjacent arterial roads;
- traffic infiltration and spillover parking in adjacent residential areas;
- the nature and timing of proposed road improvements;
- whether proposed road improvements would be sufficient to accommodate the
transportation demands of specific proposed developments and whether additional
improvements should be provided; and
- measures to ensure that required infrastructure is in place prior to development opening to
the public.
Other comments received at the public open houses included observations that:
- financial arrangements to build infrastructure required for development should not create
any future public liability for their completion;
- large parking areas should be avoided and measures taken to ensure that parking lots have
an attractive appearance; and
- low water pressure in surrounding residential areas should be addressed.
Public feedback on the Development Concept was generally supportive, asking for additional
detailed information about the Development Concept, proposed developments, proposed
transportation infrastructure, and the secondary plan process. No position emerged that
contradicted the fundamental principles or objectives of the Development Concept nor its
planning policies. Accordingly, it is appropriate to proceed with the draft Secondary Plan
based on the principles of the Development Concept.
(2)Draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan:
The draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan, draft OPA No. 464, is based on the Development
Concept and Council's major goals for the Secondary Plan area and sets out a comprehensive
development framework which is the foundation of this major City-building exercise. This
development framework provides direction for the overall structure, form and physical
development of the Secondary Plan area, including how a park-like character of the public
realm will be created and extended throughout the area. The draft Secondary Plan specifically
provides for a major park on the east side of Keele Street, new low-density residential
neighbourhoods, a full range of employment uses, a cultural focus celebrating the area's
military and aviation history, provision for a continued military presence, and attractive and
generously proportioned park, trail and pedestrian linkages.
The draft Secondary Plan creates six new land use districts that set out the role, function,
permitted density, and specific development requirements for individual parts of the
Secondary Plan area. The new land use districts ensure that specific development and land use
objectives for the DownsView area will be achieved. These districts include:
- Park and Open Space, which is to have a minimum area of 88 ha. (218 acres), and include
a major public park consistent with the Federal government's objective for creating a
unique urban recreational greenspace;
- Research-Technology Park, is intended as a business park with a high-technology focus
accommodating office, research, technology and related uses in a park-like setting;
- Cultural Campus, in the centre of the Secondary Plan area, where a fine-grained, urban,
pedestrian-oriented area with a festive atmosphere celebrating the military and cultural
history of the area is to emerge; and
- Sport, Entertainment and Recreation, located opposite the DownsView subway station and
adjacent to the Allen Road, accommodating high intensity sport, entertainment, recreation
and related uses near high capacity transportation infrastructure.
Other districts accommodate new low-density residential neighbourhoods, commercial retail
uses, mixed commercial residential development on City-owned lands at the Allen/Sheppard
intersection and support the continued operations of Bombardier Aerospace (de Havilland)
and the Toronto Transit Commission's Wilson subway station and related yards and commuter
parking lots.
The draft Secondary Plan also establishes heritage, public art, and transportation policies,
including required transportation facilities. Finally, the draft Secondary Plan contains a strong
and innovative implementation framework which provides for design review of low density
housing, requires development plans that will ensure the orderly and co-ordinated
development of areas expected to develop incrementally, monitors the impact of development
on transportation and servicing infrastructure to ensure that the capacity of infrastructure
keeps pace with development and to ensure that new infrastructure required for development
will be available when needed.
The Transportation Master Plan attached to this report satisfies Phases 1 and 2 of the Class
Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects and forms the basis for future
environmental assessment studies that will be required for specific transportation works. The
Plan identifies a number of new transportation facilities, as well as improvements to the
existing road network, in order to support the levels and types of development contemplated
by the draft Secondary Plan.
The DownsView Urban Design Study is attached, but does not form part of the draft
Secondary Plan. This study sets out urban design guidelines, illustrative examples and design
options showing how fundamental design principles will shape development, including
criteria that should be considered for the design of the park.
Together, these three documents set out the City's development vision, detailed analysis and
environmental review for required transportation infrastructure, and the urban design
framework to ensure that development will achieve the City's objectives of a major public
park and a balanced mix of land uses which integrate these lands into the urban fabric.
(3)Public Submissions on the Draft Secondary Plan:
A number of public submissions and agency comments have been received in response to
circulation of the draft Secondary Plan and publication of the notice of the Statutory Public
Meeting, and additional comments are expected. In particular, staff is meeting with the
Downsview Community Advisory Panel to discuss their comments on the draft Secondary
Plan. While CAP continues to express support for the fundamental objectives, principles and
structure of the draft Secondary Plan, specific issues have been raised concerning certain land
use districts and specific policy requirements which require further discussion and
consideration. These further public and agency comments, and recommended refinements to
the draft Secondary Plan, will be addressed in a supplementary report to be tabled at the July
22nd meeting of the North York Community Council.
(4)Other Matters Raised by North York Community Council:
North York Community Council's decision of May 27, 1998, identified a number of traffic
and parking, land use and urban design, public art and open space and servicing matters to be
addressed in preparing the draft Secondary Plan. Most of these matters had already been
identified by staff and have either been completed, and/or included in the draft Secondary
Plan. Those outstanding matters will be addressed through the review and processing of
specific development applications. The related extract from the minutes of the North York
Community Council, as adopted by Toronto City Council, is attached for reference.
Traffic, Transportation and Parking:
(a)Comprehensive review of all parking on the Downsview lands and inclusion of an overall
parking plan in the draft Secondary Plan
Parking policies in the draft Secondary Plan set the stage for implementation of an overall
parking plan as development occurs. Policies encourage use of public transit and other modes
of transportation which will reduce vehicle use and the number of parking spaces required.
Increasing the use of public transit and reducing the need for parking will be achieved through
the co-ordinated management of parking supply and demand, shared parking, reduced parking
standards in proximity to transit facilities, the application of minimum and maximum parking
standards, and strategy for the implementation of travel demand measures to be applied
through the review of specific development applications.
(b)Feasibility of accepting responsibility for building and managing all parking for both
public and private recreational uses on the Downsview lands and applying parking revenues to
public purposes
The Toronto Parking Authority has begun a review of this matter, has held preliminary
discussions with the Planning Division, and expects to report to North York Community
Council in September.
(c)Proposed Transit Road extension and specific matters related to TTC operations
The recommended road network shown in the Downsview Lands Master Plan Transportation
Study, Technical Status Report No. 2, which was before North York Community Council on
May 27, was developed in consultation with planning staff at the Toronto Transit
Commission. Commission staff will further examine details of this facility relative to existing
TTC operations, the Wilson Yards present and future, and the Transit Road extension, and
will provide comments as part of the Transportation Master Plan process.
(d)Local traffic management study to develop a plan to prevent traffic infiltration into
residential neighbourhoods east of the W. R. Allen Road
A local traffic management study to identify means of preventing traffic infiltration into the
residential neighbourhoods east of the W. R. Allen Road has been started. Data collection in
the form of automatic traffic counts, manual turning movement counts, and review of accident
data will be initiated in the near future. This data will establish existing conditions which can
be compared with traffic volumes associated with future development. As part of the ongoing
transportation monitoring which will be undertaken by the City, there will be a requirement
that development applications contribute additional funds to develop traffic management
plans.
(e)Review of the Official Plan designations of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Faywood
Boulevard
The Official Plan designations of Faywood Boulevard and Wilson Heights Boulevards were
reviewed in terms of the former City of North York road classification. The draft Secondary
Plan redesignates Faywood Boulevard from a Minor Arterial to a Collector, and redesignates
Wilson Heights Boulevard from a Collector to a Minor Arterial. The draft Secondary Plan
also redesignates Wilmington Avenue, which is the northerly extension of Faywood
Boulevard north from Sheppard Avenue to Finch Avenue, from a Minor Arterial to a
Collector. Minor amendments to the zoning by-law will also be required to implement these
changes.
(f)Maximizing the capacity of the road network serving the Technodome by installation of an
area-wide SCOOT system provided as a requirement of development approval
The Transportation Master Plan has identified the SCOOT traffic adaptive system as an
improvement which could be implemented by conditions of approval for development in the
Secondary Plan area, subject to other traffic-related operations, and could be part of a traffic
management strategy for the surrounding road network.
(g)Study of how de Havilland traffic will be redirected to the edges of the community,
including a revised parking lot structure.
A study of de Havilland's traffic operations was undertaken as part of the transportation
review for the draft Secondary Plan and will be appended to the Transportation Master Plan.
The draft Secondary Plan encourages the provision of a new parking facility north of de
Havilland's existing manufacturing plant with a driveway connecting north to Carl Hall Road.
(h)Explore the possibility of a three million square foot research-technology park which
operates on a 24 hour cycle, 7 days a week
The Transportation Master Plan will discuss the impacts of non-traditional office park users,
such as 24-hour cycle, 7 day a week operations. This evaluation will explore methods and
incentives to reduce auto usage during the morning and afternoon peak hours and to increase
transit modal split and vehicle occupancy, as well as to promote the implementation of
flexible work hours, shift work and/or 24-hour operations and work-at-home positions. This
evaluation will explore transportation management options to help achieve the maximum of
278,700 sm. (3,000,000 sq. ft.) of research-technology uses permitted in the
Research-Technology Park by the draft Secondary Plan.
Land Use and Urban Design:
(a)Development of commercial retail uses on Wilson Avenue and enhancement of the Wilson
Avenue streetscape
The draft Secondary Plan requires that development on the Commercial Retail lands on the
south side of Wilson Avenue contribute to an appropriate streetscape by siting commercial
uses along street frontages and encouraging the provision of small retail stores with direct
pedestrian access to Wilson Avenue.
The draft Secondary Plan designates the south Wilson subway station commuter parking lot
Commercial Retail which will facilitate inclusion of these lands in the development site of
application UDOZ-97-41 (Price-Costco Canada Inc.).
Relocating commuter parking from the TTC's Wilson subway station to the Downsview
subway station, and gaining contributions from project developers for improvement of the
Wilson Avenue streetscape, will be addressed through the processing of application
UDOZ-97-41.
(b)Encouraging contributions from major commercial recreational developers toward the
enhancement of the Wilson Avenue streetscape
Discussions on this matter are underway with the local councillor and the developer. This
matter will be addressed through the processing of the specific development application.
(c)Mt. Sinai Cemetery - Pedestrian Access
Staff met with representatives of Mt. Sinai Cemetery in February, 1998. Cemetery
representatives expressed interest in providing access for pedestrians and bicycles through the
cemetery to Wilson Avenue. Staff will be meeting with the area councillor and representatives
of Mt. Sinai to further discuss the proposal as outlined in the draft Secondary Plan.
(d)Discussions between the Member of Parliament for the area, City Councillors and a
representative from the Mayor's Office on the release of restrictive covenants affecting
City-owned lands at the Allen/Sheppard intersection
Two restrictive covenants in favour of the Federal government affect the City's
Allen/Sheppard lands. One covenant restricts the use of these lands to industrial purposes
only, while the other limits the maximum height of buildings and structures in relation to de
Havilland's non-operating east-west runway. These covenants must be addressed prior to the
City proceeding with the proposed mixed use development of its lands as shown in the draft
Secondary Plan.
City and Federal staff have begun discussions on these matters, which are co-ordinated by the
Commissioner of Corporate Services. In addition to the covenants, the opportunity for the
City to deal with other matters, including ownership of the lands upon which the Allen Road
is built and use of the City's land for proposed transportation infrastructure improvements,
must be resolved.
Public Art, Park and Open Space:
(a)Incorporating public art into major projects and incorporating public art requirements into
planning reports on all major projects
The former City of Toronto administers a public art program that secures a 1% contribution
for public art through the processing of major development applications, such as the
Skydome, BCE Place and Metro Hall. Staff of both the former City of Toronto Urban
Development Services Department and the former Metro Cultural Affairs Division have
assisted in developing the public art policy included in the draft Secondary Plan, which
requires that public art contributions be secured at the time major development applications
are processed. The draft Secondary Plan also encourages the Downsview Trust to develop a
District Public Art Plan for all lands under its jurisdiction to ensure that public art is provided
in a co-ordinated manner.
(b)Providing a major park facility on the City-owned lands on the southeast corner of the
W.R.Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue
The draft Secondary Plan requires that a neighbourhood park having a minimum area of 1.6
ha. (four acres) be provided on the City lands. A detailed assessment of the future park will be
undertaken as part of the Allen/Sheppard Urban Design study included in the Planning
Division's 1998 Work Program.
(c)Feasibility of an "Arts Park" for Downsview
The feasibility of developing an "Arts Park" project for the Federal lands at Downsview will
be assessed as part of the park design process, which will be jointly managed by the City and
Canada Lands, as a design and programming option within the park rather than as a policy in
the draft Secondary Plan. This process will determine the program requirements and overall
design for the Park and assess opportunities to enhance and extend other public art
components on the Downsview lands. Development of a District Public Art Plan by the
Downsview Trust as encouraged by the draft Secondary Plan will help to ensure that public
art, such as an "Arts Park", is provided in a co-ordinated manner. Staff will be meeting with
the Downsview Community Arts Project and will report back further on these matters and on
securing the participation of developers in the studio and Arts Park project.
(d)Limits on the area of roads and parking lots in the Downsview Park
The draft Secondary Plan permits up to 5% of the lands designated Park and Open Space to be
used for buildings and structures to ensure that a major open space and parkland area will be
established and to control the number of large scale recreational facilities, but does not set out
a maximum for roadways and parking areas.
Data collected on other major parks in the City indicates that road and parking areas vary
from 5.7 percent to 18.6 percent. The wide range in the area used for roadways and parking
reflects the unique balance in each park between the conflicting demands of maintaining open
spaces, providing recreational and service facilities, and accommodating visitor facilities.
It is noted that the Downsview Park is intended to be a "unique urban recreational greenspace"
which meets a balance of both local and regional park and recreational needs that have not
been determined. Retaining large areas of open space is a major objective for the park.
However, adequate facilities for all visitors, infrastructure for bus routes, roadways, parking
areas, cycling and hiking trails must also be provided.
The amount and type of facilities needed in the Downsview Park will depend on a number of
factors and will be determined through the park design process. This joint City-Canada Lands
process will allow the City to determine which facilities should be provided, the public
demand which may be expected, and the resultant need for roadways and parking areas. As
part of the City's review of Canada Land's proposals, a number of measures have been
identified which could limit the impact of roads and parking areas. These measures include
pick-up, drop-off and small parking areas that could be located at entrances and along
boundary roads and which could be well landscaped and designed to integrate with the park
landscape. Once the park design process is complete, limits on the amount of land used for
roads and parking areas may be determined.
Servicing:
(a)Comprehensive plan to deal with low water pressure in Downsview as part of the
redevelopment of the Downsview Base lands
A water needs study to determine existing conditions and the impact of various development
scenarios on water flows and pressures in the general area surrounding the Base lands has
been started. Water flow and pressure tests to determine existing conditions have also been
started, and should be completed within the next two months. It is a principle of development
for the Secondary Plan area that no negative impact will be created and that, where feasible,
new infrastructure should improve existing conditions.
(b)Plan to manage stormwater on parking lots
On-site stormwater management controls have been required for the Heathmount and
Price-Costco developments to deal with the stormwater quantity and quality issues associated
with those developments in general and with their large parking lots in particular. An overall
stormwater management study, co-ordinated with the Toronto Region Conservation Authority
and Canada Lands Co. Ltd. to deal with the stormwater runoff quantity and quality issues for
the remainder of the Downsview base lands, has also been started.
Conclusion:
The planning framework for the Downsview area is contained in the draft Secondary Plan, the
Transportation Master Plan, and Downsview Urban Design Study attached to this report. The
draft Secondary Plan sets out a land use policy framework that will achieve a major public
open space and create a mix of residential, cultural, employment and recreational uses that
will knit these lands into the fabric of the Downsview community. The Transportation Master
Plan provides the fundamental basis for the environmental assessment of transportation
infrastructure required to support the draft Secondary Plan. The Downsview Urban Design
Study elaborates and refines the draft Secondary Plan by providing illustrative examples and
design options to ensure that development occurs within and extends a park-like character
throughout the Secondary Plan area. Consultation with the community and stakeholders is
continuing with respect to the draft Official Plan Amendment and the results of these
discussions will be reported on in a supplementary report to the July 22nd meeting of the
North York Community Council.
Contact Name:
Tom Keefe, Manager (DownsView) tel.: 395-7170
--------------
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it during the
consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:
(i)(July 22, 1998) from Mr. Steven A. Zakem, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors,
Solicitor on behalf of Loblaw Properties Limited, expressing concerns and comments with
regard to O.P.A. No. 464;
(ii)(July 22, 1998) from Ms. Helen Mills, Chair, Lost Rivers Project, The North Toronto
Green Community, expressing her concerns on the overall environmental impact of the
proposed development;
(iii)Fax communication dated July 22, 1998, from The Honourable Arthur C. Eggleton,
Minister of National Defence, confirming the establishment of CLC Downsview Inc. under
the Canada Business Corporation Act which now formally establishes the entity to mange the
lands and develop the parkland and other uses; and stating that the balance of the provisions
will be in place by the end of September in time to meet the stated requirement prior to the
issue of any building permits;
(iv)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hansen, advising of their objections to the
proposed development;
(v)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Paul P. Ginou, Fraser and Beatty, Barristers and Solicitors,
Solicitor on behalf of Canada Lands Company CLC Limited, requesting that the Official Plan
not be referred back to staff as requested by the Toronto District School Board;
(vi)(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Christine M. Silversides, Shibley Righton, Barristers and
Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of the Toronto District School Board, requesting that the draft
OPA No. 464 be referred back to City staff for a further discussion with representatives of the
Toronto District School Board;
(vii)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Paul P. Ginou, Fraser & Beatty, Barristers and Solicitors,
Solicitor on behalf of Canada Lands Company CLC Limited, requesting that the
recommendations contained in the report (July 17, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of
Planning be adopted;
(viii)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Stephen H. Diamond, McCarthy Tétrault, Solicitor on behalf of
Destination Technodome, expressing strong support for the general thrust of the proposed
OPA 464 and raising a number of concerns, particularly with regard to public art, the
designation of parkland within Downsview and to sub-section 11.4(a)(iv) which refers to
price;
(ix)(July 19, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. A. Gartner, expressing their opposition with the
proposed development and stating that this land should be used for low density housing and
park land only;
(x)(July 15, 1998) from Mr. James Purnell and Dr. Ruth-Burnice McKay advising of their
concerns with the Downsview plans and with regard to the timing of the public hearing
thereon;
(xi)(July 13, 1998) from Ms. Karen Fraser, Planner, CN Engineering Services, recommending
polices she would like included in the Secondary Plan;
(xii)(July 10, 1998) from Mr. Michael Bowman, Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, Barristers and
Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Bombardier Inc., owner of the Bombardier Aerospace
(deHavilland) aircraft manufacturing facility; and
(xiii)(July 4, 1998) from Mr. Jim Purnell forwarding his deputation and requesting deferral of
the item in order to receive further public input.
(A copy of Downsview Area Secondary Plan, OPA No. 464, Appendix "A", the
Transportation Master Plan, the Downsview Urban Design Study and the extract from the
minutes of the North York Community Council, as adopted by Toronto City Council, referred
to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
________
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Arnold Tenney, President and CEO of Arc International Corporation, on behalf of
Chesswood Arena;
-Ms. Jan Kuzina, who also filed a written submission;
-Ms. Chaya Levinson, on behalf of Mr. Joseph Winter, who also filed Mr. Winter's written
submission;
-Mr. Jay Peterson, Business Representative, Toronto Central Ontario Building Trades
Council;
-Mr. Vince Lombardi;
-Mr. Jim Purvis;
-Ann Hershtal, who also filed a written submission ;
-Mrs. Chaya Levinson;
-Mr. Toni Varone, Balmoral Homeowners' Association;
-Mr. Jeff Chelin, on behalf of the Tudor Chesswood Business Association;
-Mr. Norman Winter, who also filed a written submission;
Mr. Richard Gilbert, on behalf of the Tudor Chesswood Business Association;
-Ms. Eve Jesin;
-Mr. Massimo Dante;
-Mr. Gerrit de Boer on behalf of Idomo Furniture;
-Mr. Andy Doudoumis;
-Mrs. Miriam Sweet-Goldstein, who also filed a written submission;
-Mr. David Birnbaum;
-Mr. Jeffrey Dorfman;
-Ms. Christine Silversides, Solicitor on behalf of the Toronto District School Board and
Trustee Sheine Mankofsky, North York Spadina;
-Ms. Natalie Litwin, who also filed a written submission;
-Mr. Marvin Sigler, on behalf of the Clanton Park Synagogue, the Chevra Mishnais
Congregation and on his own behalf and filed a copy of a submission by Dr. George
Rothenstein, President, Clanton Park Synagogue;
-Mrs. Rebecca Birnbaum;
-Professor Eleazar Birnbaum;
-Ms. Gemma Connolly;
-Mr. Stewart Richardson, who filed a copy of his submission and a petition signed by
approximately 100 residents in opposition to the development of high density residential and
commercial properties within 200 metres (approximately) of Banting Avenue, Reiner Road,
Findlay Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue West;
-Ms. Rina Camarra;
-Mr. Michael Homsi and Mr. Scott Cavalier on behalf of DownsView International Centre for
Technology;
-Mr. Keith Cooper on behalf of LIUNA Local No. 183:
-Mr. Joe Riggillo;
-Ms. Diana Iorio;
-Mr. Carmine Casciato;
-Mr. Jim Wega;
-Ms. Jackie Albani;
-Ms. Maurice Coulter;
-Mr. Anthony Perruzza;
-Mr. Paul Ginou, Solicitor, who filed a written submission, and Mr. David Sadowski on
behalf of Canada Lands; and
-Mr. Albert Krivickas, who filed a written submission.
The issues rasied by the residents who addressed the North York Community Council related
to:
-traffic;
-overflow parking in adjacent neighbourhoods;
-expediency of the approval process;
-market impact analysis;
-environmental impacts related to air quality, health and noise;
-identification of a school site; and
-creation of new jobs.
Councillor Li Preti declared his interest in this matter, as it relates to the city-owned lands at
the southeast corner of Sheppard Avenue West and the William R. Allen Road, in that he
owns a property in the vicinity.
________
The following are the motions and recorded votes on this issue:
Councillor Augimeri moved that this Public Hearing on the Downsview Area Secondary Plan,
Official Plan Amendment No. 464, continue on September 16, 1998, at 8:00 p.m. during the
next meeting of the North York Community Council.
A recorded vote on the foregoing motion by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Augimeri, Filion
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner,
Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
ABSENT:NIL
Lost
________
A.Councillor Feldman, North York Spadina, moved that:
(1)the by-law attached to the July 17, 1998, report of the Acting Commissioner of Planning to
adopt the final draft of Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the Downsview Area Secondary
Plan, be enacted;
(2)the Downsview Urban Design Study attached to the July 7, 1998, report of the Acting
Commissioner of Planning be adopted as an appendix to Official Plan Amendment No. 464,
the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, to provide urban design guidelines for development in
the Secondary Plan Area;
(3)the Transportation Master Plan attached to the July 7, 1998, report of the Acting
Commissioner of Planning be adopted which will satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal
Class Environmental Assessment and be used as a basis for future environmental assessment
studies that will be required for specific transportation projects; and
(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
B.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that:
I.the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows:
(1)Section 2.1.1, Principles (p. I-4), by adding to principle No. 6 (Protection of Rail Corridor)
the following:
"Canada Lands shall bear the primary responsibility for protecting this rail corridor.";
(2)Section 2.1.1, Principles (p. I-4), by adding to principle No. 9 in the last line the words
"proposed and" so that it reads:
"9.The provision of parking on developments within the Downsview Lands must recognize
the potential for spillover into the adjacent residential and industrial communities and
districts. Measures to control parking demand and protect sensitive areas abutting the
Downsview Lands must be thoroughly addressed in the context of proposed and future
development."
(3)Section 2.1.1, Objectives (p. I-5), by replacing the following sentence in item5:
"Consideration will be given to the specific needs of the mobility challenged."
with the following:
"All transportation facilities shall be designed to provide full accessibility to citizens with
disabilities. In that regard, every proposed land use application shall be required to provide for
the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Environment and Development an 'access for
disabled citizens' plan.";
(4)Wilson Avenue
(i)Provision for the widening of Wilson Avenue which was inserted into the official plan of
the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto by amending a map - be deleted;
(ii)Alternatively the "Wilson Avenue Revitalization Study" include the necessary
transportation improvements to Wilson Avenue from the western boundary of the Ministry of
Transportation and Communication lands (west of Keele Street) to Avenue Road, and the
study be considered in conjunction with a review of:
(a)present and future land use;
(b)parking requirements;
(c)upgrades to streetscape amenities; and
(d)public policy with respect to future road widening;
(iii)Particular attention be given to developing a public strategy to mitigate the deteriorating
condition of strip plazas including the legislative, planning, and traffic management tools
available and those required to effect improvements;
(5)Section 2.2.1, Objectives (pI-4), by adding to Item No. 8 the following:
"The land surface devoted to parking shall be minimized.";
(6)Section 2.2.1, Objectives (p. I-7), by adding to Item No. 9 the following:
"Parking facilities shall be designed to preclude reliance on off site parking."
(7)Section 4.2.2, Transit Facilities (p. I-21), be amended to provide that staff report further on
the following statement in section A) T.T.C. Subway Facilities:
"It has been concluded that there is justification to revisit the alignment for the Yonge -
Spadina loop with consideration to extend to Sheppard and Spadina subways lines parallel to
Sheppard Avenue."
(8)Section 4.3, Constraints and Issues (p. I-23), be amended to provide that the original
wording in the first draft of the Transportation Master Plan for the second point on page I-23
be restored so that it reads:
"There are two subway stations in the immediate vicinity of the Downsview Lands, namely
the Wilson and Downsview stations. Methods to accommodate additional person carrying
capacity from either of these subway stations and/or through a potential extension of either the
Spadina or Sheppard subway lines must be explored to ensure that the ultimate developments
as proposed in the Secondary Plan can be achieved.";
(9)Section 3.5, Other Area Roadways (p. II-12), be amended by deleting the specific example:
"such as Dufferin Street north of Finch Avenue";
(10)Section 3.5, Other Area Roadways - Recommended Road Widenings (p.II-12), be
amended to further clarify its intent by adding:
"between Dufferin Street and Transit Road."
so that it reads:
"Implement widening on Wilson Avenue between Dufferin Street and Transit Road as part of
the development of the Commercial Retail land use district in conjunction with the extension
of Transit Road south of Wilson Avenue to Dufferin Street."
(11)Section 2, Managing Transportation Supply (p. III-9), by adding:
"Additional monitoring be undertaken at the intersection of Wilson Heights and Wilson
Avenue to review the measures that may be required to reduce infiltration of traffic into local
neighbourhoods."
(12)Section 2.0, Managing Transportation Supply, Exhibit 8, 2011 Planning Horizon Road
Modifications, be amended by:
(i)Extending the proposed deletion of the HOV lanes on the Allen Road from Transit Road to
Sheppard as far north as Finch Avenue,
(ii)Consideration be given to establishing exclusive bus lanes where appropriate; and
(iii)The recently opened one-way entrance to Old Dufferin Street north of Sheppard for
inbound vehicles be reviewed for possible closure to protect this neighbourhood from itinerant
parking;
(13)Section 2.2, Interim Planning Horizon, be amended as follows:
(i)add to Item (d), Intersection Improvements (page III-10), the following:
"Initiate expansion of the City's SCOOT traffic adaptive system to serve the Downsview lands
linked to the major intersections within the secondary plan."; and
(ii)amend Item (e), Property Protection (page II1-10), by clarifying this statement to indicate
that it specifically refers to Chesswood Avenue;
(14)Section 2.1 (b), Guiding Principles, Commitments and Future Study Requirements
(i)General Principles - Parking, be amended by adding the following additional sub-sections:
"2.1.25All parking areas in all land use districts shall be hard-surfaced and built to municipal
standards."; and
2.1.26To ensure protection for the environment parking surfaces shall be limited to no more
than 50% of the land area of any given site exclusive of landscaped areas, but in no case shall
parking surfaces in a land use district exceed more than 30 acres.";
(ii)Section 2.3 (a), Transportation and Traffic, which reads:
"Adjacent residential and industrial communities and districts will not be negatively impacted
by traffic infiltration and spillover parking."
be amended by adding thereto the following:
"and in that regard parking pricing policy shall be designed to discourage spillover parking.";
and
II.Downsview Area Secondary Plan, Official Plan Amendment No. 464:
(15)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested:
(i)in cooperation with Canada Lands Co. Ltd., to develop a plan for staging the removal of
existing chain link fencing with a view to making the area as open as possible; and
(ii)to review the present use of barbed wire in relation to each land use district, and make
specific recommendations with respect to its conformity with the by-laws of the municipality
and its retention only where deemed appropriate;
(16)(i)Section 5.2, Public Art, by deleting from sub-section (b) (ii) the words:
"as a guideline"; and
(ii)Section 7.1, Transportation and Circulation Policies - General, by adding thereto the
following:
"(d)Transportation infrastructure facilities shall have as a first priority the intent to mitigate
impact on the surrounding residential community.";
(iii)Section 7.4, Transportation and Circulation Policies - Parking, by adding thereto the
following:
"Council shall, in co-operation with the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Parking
Authority, undertake a review of provisions for commuter parking in relation to the Wilson
and Downsview stations."
(iv)Section 10.1.2 (b), Parks and Open Space - Land Use and Density, by deleting the word
"restaurants" and replacing it with:
"food service outlets to serve park patrons";
(v)Section 10.1.3 (b), Parks and Open Space - Development Policies, by deleting the word
"restaurants" and replacing it with:
"food service outlets to serve park patrons";
(17)Section 10.2.3, Residential Density One (RD1) - Development Policies, by deleting the
following sub-section (g):
"The public park on RD1 lands east of the Allen Road should be part of a recreational trail
connecting the parkland, activity plaza and walkway west of the Allen Road, the pedestrian
and trail linkage on the lands designated Mixed Commercial Residential, and the City's trail
system east of Wilson Heights Boulevard.";
(18)(i)Section 10.5.2 - Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Land Use and Density - by deleting
"1.0 FSI" and replacing it with ".875 FSI";
(ii)Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, by addingto
sub-section (c) the following:
"Guidelines for the nature and form of the activity plaza shall be determined during the zoning
process in consultation with the neighbouring community."; and
(iii)Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, by adding the
following additional sub-section (e):
"(e)To discourage off site parking, charges for long term parking shall be built into the price
of admission to venues with rebates or discounts to encourage the use of public transit.
Charges will be permitted for short term parking and preferred parking located in close
proximity to the facility.";
(19)Section 10.8.3, Mixed Commercial Residential (MCR) - Development Policies, by
deleting the following sub-section:
"(c)A pedestrian and trail linkage should be provided to connect the public park and
recreational train on RD1 lands south of Reiner Road to the parkland, activity plaza and
walkway located west of the Allen Road.";
III.General Provisions
(20)Density Transfer
No density transfer between or among land use districts within the Secondary Plan area shall
be permitted.
(21)Toronto Lands
Council defer consideration of the designation of "Toronto Lands", being those lands east of
Allen Road, until such time as the agreed upon discussions with federal officials have been
reported to the North York Community Council.
That staff use as guidelines for these discussions the principles established by the proposed
secondary Plan.";
(22)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to
undertake a plan review for the northwest and northeast quadrants of the Allen Road and
Sheppard Avenue and that staff be requested to facilitate that review as expeditiously as
possible and that it be done in conjunction with the Allen\Sheppard Urban Design Study
incorporated in the current Urban Planning and Development Services Department's work
program;
(23)School Board Submissions
As per the request of the Toronto District School Board, new policies to identify an
elementary school site in the Downsview Secondary Plan be added, before it is approved, and
that policies requiring a site specific per residential unit educational levy be established to
ensure that the necessary school facilities are available to service future residents of the
Downsview lands.;
(24)Secondary Plan
Section 9, Municipal Servicing, by deleting sub-section (b) which reads:
"Council encourages the provision of conduits and associated infrastructure within the
municipal road allowance to support the future installation of telecommunications networks.
and replacing it with the following:
"Conduits and associated infrastructure to support the installation of future
telecommunications networks within the road allowance shall be provided.";
(25)Section 10.2.3, Residential Density One (RD1) - Development Policies, bydeleting the
following subsection (d):
"(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, Council will secure a linear
open space incorporating a pedestrian walkway that connects the Park and Open Space lands
to Mt. Sinai Cemetery and Wilson Avenue."
and replacing it with the following:
"(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, no direct access shall be
permitted from lands in the Secondary Plan area to Wilson Avenue through the Mt. Sinai
Cemetery."; and
(26)the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) continue to meet to review zoning applications
and related studies to make recommendations thereon to staff and Council;
Councillor Moscoe requested that the following parts of his motion be deferred and be
brought forward at the time the zoning by-law amendment for Destination Technodome is
considered by the:
(14)(i)the Transportation Master Plan be amended by adding to Section 2.1 (b), Guiding
Principles, Commitments and Future Study Requirements - General Principles - Parking, the
following sub-section:
"2.1.26To ensure protection for the environment, parking surfaces shall be limited to no more
than 50% of the land area of any given site exclusive of landscaped areas, but in no case shall
parking surfaces in a land use district exceed more than 30 acres.";
(18)(iii)Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, of OPA No.
464 be amended by adding the following additional sub-section (e):
"(e)To discourage off site parking, charges for long term parking shall be built into the price
of admission to venues with rebates or discounts to encourage the use of public transit.
Charges will be permitted for short term parking and preferred parking located in close
proximity to the facility."
C.Councillor Augimeri, Black Creek, moved that:
(1)(a)Section 11.3.1, Transportation Master Plan, Item (e) of the OPA be amended by deleting
"Grandravine Drive" and replacing it with "Finch Avenue", so that it now reads:
"(e)a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Wilson Avenue to Finch Avenue";
(b)the Transportation Master Plan be amended to provide that a centre turn lane on Keele
Street from Wilson Avenue to Grandravine Drive be entirely constructed in the Interim
Planning Horizon; and
(2)the Transportation Master be amended to provide that a centre turn lane on Keele Street
from Grandravine Drive to Finch Avenue be constructed as part of the 2011 Planning
Horizon.";
(3)the Transportation Master Plan be amended to state that there will be no extension of either
Grandravine Drive, nor of Whitburn Crescent, east of Keele Street;
(4)Section 10.3.2 (c), Research-Technology Park (RTP) - Land Use and Density, be amended
to read as follows:
"It is intended that the lands designated Research-Technology Park be developed up to a
maximum gross floor area of 278,700 sq. m. (3,000,000sq.ft.). The development will be
limited to a maximum gross floor area of 92,900 sq. m. (1,000,000 sq. ft..) until such time as
detailed transportation and parking studies demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that this
level of development can be supported.";
(5)Section 10.5.2. (a), Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Land Use and Density, by adding the
words "excluding gambling casinos" to the end of the sentence;
(6)Section 10.7.2 (a) (i), Commercial Retail - Land Use and Density, be amended by deleting
"supermarkets" as a permitted use;
(7)Section 10.4.2 (c), Cultural Campus (CC) - Land Use and Density, be corrected to read "35
acres" instead of 25 acres.
(8)Section 11.8 (a), Future Studies, be amended to provide that the second sentence read as
follows:
"A study will be undertaken by Canada Lands Co. Ltd., in consultation with the City and
other stakeholders, to identify the purpose and function of the park and open space area and
may include other parts of the Secondary Plan area.";
(9)no site specific zoning be approved by the City until financial securing of the construction
and maintenance costs of the Park and Public Facilities is in place or a letter of credit is
obtained by the City from the federal government;
(10)the park be opened, and related programs established, at the same time as Destination:
Technodome;
(11)a report be conducted on the highest and best use of public lands in the Downsview
Secondary Plan Area by a land economist to determine if the value of the lands has been
maximized;
(12)prior to adoption of the Secondary Plan, a cost/benefit analysis of the lands be made
available to the community for review;
(13)prior to any decision being made to extend either the Spadina subway line north, or the
Sheppard subway line west, a full process of public consultation be undertaken beginning
with a public meeting on the issue;
(14)the following be referred to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services:
"That City staff prepare a Secondary Plan for the entire Sheppard Avenue and Allen Road
intersection which includes both land parcels to the south and to the north, and that this
Secondary Plan be approved before any zoning applications are dealt with by Council within
the Downsview Area Secondary Plan."
A recorded vote on Parts (1) to (4) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri, was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Flint, Filion, King
AGAINST:Councillors Berger, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner
ABSENT:NIL
Carried
A recorded vote on Part (5) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri, was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Flint, Filion, Minnan-Wong,
Shiner, King
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Berger, Gardner, Chong
ABSENT:NIL
Carried
A recorded vote on Part (6) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Augimeri, Filion
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner,
Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
ABSENT:NIL
Lost
A recorded vote on Part (7) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Flint, Gardner,
Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:Councillors Berger, Chong
ABSENT:NIL
Carried
A recorded vote on Part (8) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong,
Filion, King
AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Minnan-Wong, Shiner
ABSENT:NIL
Carried
A recorded vote on Part (9) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri, Filion
AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong,
Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
ABSENT:NIL
Lost
A recorded vote on Part (10) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Augimeri, Filion
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner,
Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
ABSENT:NIL
Lost
A recorded vote on Part (11) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as
follows:
FOR:Councillor Augimeri
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner,
Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
ABSENT:NIL
Lost
A recorded vote on Part (12) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri, Filion
AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong,
Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
ABSENT:NIL
Lost
A recorded vote on Part (13) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as
follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner,
Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:Councillor Flint
ABSENT:NIL
Carried
Part (14) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was carried.
A recorded vote on the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Moscoe, save and except Parts (17)
and (21), and including the deferral of parts 14(i) and 18(iii), was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint,
Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:NIL
ABSENT:NIL
Carried
A recorded vote on Parts (17) and (21) of the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Moscoe, was
as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner,
Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:NIL
ABSENT:Councillor Li Preti
(Councillor Li Preti, having previously declared his interest in this matter, refrained from
voting on parts (17) and (21) of the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Moscoe.
A recorded vote on the foregoing motion A. moved by Councillor Feldman, as amended, was
as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner,
Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:Councillors Augimeri, Filion
ABSENT:NIL
Carried
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the
foregoing Clause, the following communications requesting City Council to defer a decision
on the adoption of the Amendment to the Official Plan for the Downsview Lands until
September 1998:
(i)(July 28, 1998) addressed to Councillor Norman Kelly, Scarborough Wexford, from the
Downsview Lands Community Voice Association and the Tudor Chesswood Business
Association of Downsview; and
(ii)(July 22, 1998) from Mr. Albert Krivickas.)
(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, declared his
interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to:
(i)the City-owned lands at the southeast corner of Sheppard Avenue West and the William R.
Allen Road, in that his younger son lives in the area; and
(ii)as it relates to Block "H", in that the applicant's solicitor is a partner at the same law firm
as his older son, who is not a real estate lawyer and does not personally act on this file.)
(Councillor Li Preti, at the meeting of City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, declared his
interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the City-owned lands at the southeast
corner of Sheppard Avenue West and the William R. Allen Road, in that he owns a property in
the vicinity.)
29
Interim Report - Zoning Framework -
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-28 -
Heathmount A.E. Corporation (Destination Technodome) -
North York Spadina
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the report (July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be received
subject to the following amendments:
(i)Section 3.0 (i) be amended to provide for an independent review of all parking studies
undertaken to date to be commissioned by the Works and Emergency Services
Department, Transportation Services, and paid for by the applicant;
(ii)No individual venue shall be permitted to be of a size that will generate sufficient
traffic to exceed the capacity of the road system; and in that regard staff, on the basis of
a careful analysis, will recommend the maximum size of any particular venue, including
the proposed 12,500 seat arena;
(iii)Staff address the issue of deliveries to the Technodome and report to Council
through the zoning process; and
(iv)Notification of the public hearing on this matter to include a mail distribution to all
residents and business in all areas bounded by Jane Street on the west, Finch Avenue on
the north, Bathurst Street on the east, and Highway 401 on the south;
(2)the applicant and/or landowner be required to:
(i)submit a plan for the staging of construction and the routing of construction vehicles
with particular emphasis on confining these vehicles to routes that will not impact on
residential neighbourhoods, and have a minimum impact on neighbouring industrial
and commercial zones, to the satisfaction of the Works and Emergency Services
Department, Transportation Services (North York);
(ii)undertake an environmental analysis to determine the level of air emissions which
will result from the vehicles expected to be generated by the Technodome; and
(3)Canada Lands Co. Ltd. provide certification acceptable to City staff that all PCB's
and munitions (other than those currently being utilized for military purposes) have
been removed from the site.
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:
(1)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to undertake the
following studies to be considered with this zoning application:
(i)a review of parking requirements for stadia and theatres within the G.T.A., with particular
attention to those associated with theme or amusement parks including but not limited to:
- Kingswood (Canada's Wonderland)
- Molson Amphitheatre (Ontario Place)
- Copp's Coliseum (Hamilton)
- Ford Centre (North York)
- Markham Centennial Arena
- Markham Theatre
- Ice Gardens - York University
- North York Centennial Arena
(ii)an examination of parking pricing, and pricing policies in the vicinity of, and/or associated
with large stadia and other large volume traffic generating venues including but not limited to:
- Exhibition Place and The National Trade Centre;
- Woodbine Racetrack;
- T.T.C. Commuter Lots; and
- Skydome;
and that this study include both public and private lots;
(iii)a review of bus parking requirements and a comparison of bus parking provisions at a
variety of similar venues including but not limited to:
- Skydome;
- Air Canada Centre (To Open February, 1999); and
- Canada's Wonderland;
(iv)a review of parking requirements for employees in comparison with parking provisions for
employees at a variety of similar venues and the incorporation of employee parking
assumptions into previous parking and transportation studies;
(2)deferred the following motion by Councillor Moscoe for consideration with the zoning
application:
"That until such time as the appropriate studies are completed a cap of 4,000 seats shall be
established."; and
(3)referred the following motion by Councillor Augimeri to the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services for a report thereon to the Community Council:
"That the Section 37 Agreement include a clause which mandates the developer to provide a
market impact study for any future use which is not compatible with the surrounding land
uses. The study would be required for any use over 50,000 sq. ft. and shall have an impact
area of a 2 km. radius."
The North York Community Council submits the following report (July 10, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to:
- provide an update on the Destination: Technodome application;
- illustrate, for the information of Council and the community, a zoning framework, as set
out in Appendix 1 of this report, that could be applied to the Destination: Technodome
proposal, based upon the draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan. This framework will
assist Council, applicants and the community to understand how the Secondary Plan will
be implemented for this significant proposal and provide certainty for all parties with
respect to the implementation process; and
- to identify matters that are outstanding and must be addressed by the landowner and/or
applicant prior to the enactment of a Zoning By-law to permit Destination: Technodome.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)This report be received as information.
Background:
Proposal
Heathmount A.E. Corporation is seeking an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit
"Destination Technodome", a 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.), year-round sport and
entertainment facility (See Schedules A - H). Destination: Technodome provides
opportunities for residents and visitors to the Toronto area to enjoy and participate in a variety
of activities such as downhill skiing, snowboarding, hockey, tennis, basketball, volleyball,
swimming, canoeing and kayaking. It features interactive and virtual reality attractions and
rides, an IMAX theatre, a rainforest, cinemas, themed retail stores, restaurants, a 12,500 seat,
multi-function arena and three hockey arenas that would provide a venue for the Metropolitan
Toronto Hockey League, which has been incorporated into the proposal. Destination:
Technodome will have a maximum height of 42 metres (138 ft.) at its highest point, adjacent
to the W.R. Allen Road/Sheppard Avenue intersection. As proposed, the Destination:
Technodome would have a footprint approximately 15% larger than the Skydome.
Destination: Technodome would be located on an approximate 30ha (75.8ac) parcel of land at
the south-west corner of Sheppard Avenue and the W.R. Allen Road. The site has direct
access to Sheppard Avenue and W.R.Allen Road and can be linked to Highway 401 via the
W.R. Allen Road. The site is also adjacent to the Downsview Subway Station. To the north
and east the lands are designated Industrial (IND) and to the north-east the lands are
designated Sheppard West Commercial (SW-COM) (See Schedule "A").
Destination:Technodome will complement and enhance the Federal Government's initiatives
and the City's interest to create a unique mixed use, urban park and open space on the lands in
the Downsview Secondary Plan area. Destination Technodome will also assist in achieving a
number of economic benefits including the creation of construction jobs, opportunities for
permanent, high-tech, management and service employment, additional tax revenue, and the
expansion of tourist attractions in the Toronto area.
North York Official Plan
Destination Technodome is consistent with the North York Official Plan. The site forms part
of a larger area at the Sheppard Avenue/W.R. Allen intersection that has been identified as a
proposed sub-centre by North York's Urban Structure Map A-2 (Potential Reurbanization
Areas). The proposal is consistent with the City's reurbanization policies which support efforts
to direct more intensified land uses, such as Destination: Technodome, to centres, nodes and
arterial corridor areas that are well served by transportation facilities.
Downsview Area Secondary Plan
Destination: Technodome would occupy two-thirds of an approximate 45ha (112 acre) parcel
of land to be designated for sport and entertainment purposes by the Downsview Area
Secondary Plan (See Schedule "B"). This designation provides for a range of sport and
entertainment uses and intends that those uses, which generate the highest volume of visitors
and traffic, be located in close proximity to high volume roads and the City's subway system.
The proposed Destination: Technodome is consistent with these policies since:
- it would be located immediately adjacent to Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road,
arterial roads that are designed to carry high volumes of vehicles;
- Destination: Technodome would be located in close proximity to Highway 401 and a direct
route to Highway 401 can be provided; and
- Destination: Technodome would be located near the Downsview TTC Station, a transfer
point for TTC buses and the subway system. A direct connection to the subway station
would be provided.
The Secondary Plan provides for a maximum density of 1.0 FSI, which is approximately
306,790m2 (3,302,368sq.ft.) on the Destination: Technodome site. The applicant's proposal
has a density of approximately 0.8 FSI which is approximately 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.).
The remaining 0.2 FSI or approximately 70,489m2 (758,762sq.ft.), could be achieved through
a re-zoning, subject to meeting all of the provisions of the Plan regarding transportation,
municipal servicing and parking impacts, and in light of the results of the monitoring
program.
Community Consultation
Detailed analysis of the Destination: Technodome proposal by City staff and the community
has been undertaken as part of the review of development plans for the Downsview area and
in conjunction with the preparation of OPA 464. The Destination: Technodome proposal has
been discussed at many of the weekly meetings of the Downsview Community Advisory
Panel. Plans for Destination: Technodome have also been reviewed by the public at
community consultation meetings held in August, 1997 and February, May and June, 1998.
Appendix 2 provides an overview of the comments received from the public concerning
Destination: Technodome.
As a result of the community consultation to date, a clearer picture of the development
standards to be established through any zoning by-law amendment, the design elements to be
achieved through site plan approval and the matters to be secured through agreements
between the City and the landowner and/or applicant has emerged. Further, outstanding
matters that need to be addressed by the applicant and/or landowner can now be identified.
Discussion:
1.0Zoning Framework
The intent of the zoning is to implement the Downsview Area Secondary Plan to permit sport
and entertainment uses on lands shown on Schedule "B". A site-specific amendment to
Zoning By-law 7625 for the Destination: Technodome lands would :
- establish permitted uses on the lands that are contemplated for sport and
entertainment purposes and restrict certain uses;
- limit the size of specific uses;
- establish development standards including maximum gross floor area, height,
amount of vehicular and bus parking and yard setbacks.
On lands proposed for Destination Technodome as shown on Schedule "D", it is appropriate
to delete the existing "Airport Hazard (A)"zone which permits uses associated with the
Department of National Defence, and add a new zone category. On all remaining lands
designated for sport and entertainment purposes, the existing zoning would be amended to
limit the use to existing uses and to permit a park and open spaces. Appendix 1 sets out a
framework for the zoning to be applied to the Destination: Technodome. The uses to be
permitted and the standards to be established are described below:
1.1Permitted Uses
I)On lands proposed for Destination Technodome the new zone category would permit sport
and entertainment uses and accessory uses including administration offices
ii)Specific retail uses will be restricted based upon the findings of the City's review of a
market impact analysis. The retail component of Destination: Technodome would be
restricted to exclude supermarkets, department stores, department store outlets and clearance
centres, household furnishing stores other than accessory and/or theme-related or recreational
and entertainment oriented merchandising, automotive parts and service related stores and
home improvement outlets.
1.2Gross Floor Area (GFA)
The applicant has proposed a gross floor area of 205,626m2 (2,213,416sq.ft.) devoted to sport
and entertainment uses, retail and restaurants, administration, servicing and circulation. This
GFA has been used as the basis for the City's transportation analysis and the applicant's
Traffic Impact Study. The approximate 30,675m2 (330,195 sq.ft.) devoted to mechanical and
loading areas, does not generate traffic and is necessary to service the proposal.
| Total Gross Floor Area |
| Sports & Entertainment171,253m2 (1,843,416sq.ft.)
Admin/Circ./Servicing 6,503m2 (70,000sq.ft.)
177,756m2 (1,913,416sq.ft.)
Themed Retail & Restaurants 27,870m2 (300,000sq.ft.)
205,626m2 (2,213,416sq.ft.)
Mechanical/Loading 30,675m2 (330,195sq.ft.)
Total GFA 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.) |
i)The zoning by-law would limit the total gross floor area on the site to approximately
236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.) and specifically limit the total GFA for the sport and
entertainment uses and the administration/servicing uses to approximately 177,756m2
(1,913,416sq.ft.). The themed retail and restaurants would be limited to an approximate
maximum GFA of 27,870m2 (300,000 sq.ft).
ii)Based upon a Traffic Impact Study, the size of the proposed multi-function arena will be
limited to a maximum seating capacity. (a 12,500 seat arena has been proposed and is being
reviewed)
iii)Any increase above the maximum GFA will require an amendment to the Zoning By-law.
Council may require that appropriate transportation impact studies be undertaken by the
proponent to ensure that additional development can be accommodated by the existing
regional transportation system or feasible and desirable improvements to it.
iv)Gross floor area will be defined as the total area of all the floors in a building above or
below grade, measured from the outside of the exterior wall but excluding car parking areas
within the building.
1.3Height
The maximum height of all buildings and structures, including mechanical, on lands
designated for sport and entertainment purposes can not exceed the height limitations based
on Transport Canada criteria for the Downsview Airport. The Destination: Technodome
building has been designed and located to meet the Federal requirements. It is below the
maximum height restriction as shown on Schedule "E". Destination: Technodome would have
a maximum height of 42 metres (138 ft), approximately 12 storeys, at the Sheppard
Avenue/W.R.Allen intersection.
1.4Parking
Approximately 5,000 automobile and 75 bus parking spaces have been proposed. The total
amount of required vehicular and bus parking spaces will be determined, based in part, upon
the applicant's site-specific Parking Demand Study completed to the satisfaction of the City.
This study must demonstrate that sufficient parking can be accommodated. The applicant has
submitted a Parking Demand Study for Destination: Technodome. A full review of the
parking demand study is required prior to the application being considered by Council.
In keeping with Council's motion of May 27, 1998, the Toronto Parking Authority is to
review and report on the feasibility of building and managing parking for both private and
public recreational uses on the Downsview lands. Further discussions between the City,
landowner and the applicant are necessary.
2.0Matters to be Finalized Before A Zoning By-law is Enacted
While the zoning by-law would set out the permitted use on the lands and the development
standards to apply, other important planning matters will need to be finalized before a zoning
by-law for Destination: Technodome will be enacted. These matters included:
2.1Urban Design
Destination: Technodome must be consistent with the Downsview Urban Design Guidelines.
Sufficient detail regarding the proposed Destination: Technodome is required to ensure these
guidelines can be met. Appendix 2 sets out matters to be addressed. An understanding of how
the urban design elements are incorporated into the proposal is required prior to the enactment
of a zoning by-law, with further detailed review of the urban design matters undertaken at the
time of site plan approval. A Section 41 agreement would ensure these matters are
incorporated into the development.
2.3Road Network and Transportation Facilities
The impact of traffic upon the road network must be known. The City has developed a
transportation network in support of the draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan which
accounts for existing traffic flows and accommodates the traffic generated from new
developments including Destination: Technodome. New roads and infrastructure
improvements would be provided, including, but are not limited to:
- a new interchange and directional ramp on W.R. Allen Road., south of Sheppard
Ave to provide direct vehicular access to the Technodome site;
- a new road that extends from the Transit Road/W.R.Allen Road intersection to
Chesswood Avenue;
- a direct, grade-separated pedestrian connection to the Downsview Subway Station;
and
- intersection improvements at Sheppard Avenue and W.R.Allen Road including
signalized entrance/exit points on Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road.
A Traffic Impact Study is required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, that the
proposal can be accommodated within the proposed road network and the feasible and
desirable improvements identified by the City. A full review of the Traffic Impact Study,
submitted by the applicant, including the impacts on the road network, must be completed
prior to the application being considered by Council.
The landowner will be required to provide the necessary roads and infrastructure
improvements. A Section 37 agreement(s) will secure the provision of new roads to City
standards, the required street landscaping and furnishings, the timing for the construction of
the roads and road improvements and the implementation of parking and traffic management.
Details respecting specific matters to be addressed by agreements with the City will be
detailed in a final Recommendations Report. The Destination: Technodome proposal relies
upon road improvements that require further environmental assessment, currently underway.
2.4Servicing
The impact upon municipal servicing facilities and storm water management must be known.
Desirable and feasible improvements to municipal servicing infrastructure have been
identified in support of the draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan. The applicant has
submitted preliminary engineering studies to demonstrate that the proposal can be
accommodated through existing and proposed improvements to municipal water distribution,
sanitary sewer infrastructure and storm water management facilities. A complete review of the
applicant's engineering reports is necessary before the application can be considered by
Council.
All works, modifications and required infrastructure will be required to be located, designed
and constructed to the City's satisfaction and conveyed to the City free of encumbrances and
at no cost to the City, prior to the occupancy of the development. Storm water management
facilities must be provided to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority. The provision for, and the timing of delivery for new
infrastructure, improvements and storm water management facilities and easements for such
facilities and services will be secured, through Section 37 agreement(s) with the City. Details
respecting specific matters to be addressed by agreements with the City will be detailed in a
final Recommendations Report.
2.5Other matters
Agreement(s) under Section 37 must also be executed to secure the provision of public art, the
enhancement of the Wilson Avenue streetscape and the timing for the occupancy of the
building. Details respecting specific matters to be addressed by agreements with the City will
be detailed in a final Recommendations Report.
3.0Next Steps
The residents and business community have taken an active interest in Destination:
Technodome and contributed to the principles established in this zoning framework which has
been put forward at this time to clarify for all parties how the Secondary Plan will be
implemented through zoning. This framework will be further refined over the next few
months and the following matters will need to be addressed by the landowner and applicant
before the proposal is considered by Council:
i)Submission of additional information required for a complete review and assessment of both
the Traffic Impact Study and Parking Demand Study;
ii)Confirmation from the Ministry of Transportation on the required road network
improvements and traffic movements relative to Highway 401;
iii)A complete review and assessment of the findings of preliminary engineering reports;
iv)Toronto Transit Commission agreement, in principle, to the proposed grade-separated
pedestrian link to the Downsview Subway Station and concurrence with the proposed road
network required for the build-out of the Downsview Secondary Plan area;
v)Approval in principle by the Works and Emergency Services Department of the
encroachment of the grade-separated pedestrian link on W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard
Avenue and confirmation by the Department of National Defence, owner of the W.R. Allen
Road;
vi)Submission of a plan for zoning purposes that indicates the total land area and size, the
building setbacks, easements, access points, number of parking spaces, parking layout,
location of pedestrian routes, loading facilities, and general consistency with the Downsview
Urban Design Guidelines; and
Conclusions:
This report illustrates for the information of Council and the community, a zoning framework
that could be applied to the proposed Destination: Technodome, based upon draft Official
Plan Amendment 464 (Downsview Area Secondary Plan). This report also identifies matters
that must be addressed prior to a final Recommendations Report on Destination: Technodome
including matters that must be finalized before a zoning by-law can be enacted.
Contact Name:
Russell Crooks, Planner tel.: 395-7108
________
The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having had
before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:
(i)(July 22, 1998) from Ms. Helen Mills, Chair, Lost Rivers Project, The North Toronto Green
Community, expressing her concerns with the proposed development;
(ii)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hansen, advising of their objections to the
proposed development; and
(iii)(July 20, 1998) from A. Milliken Heisey, Kerzner, Papazian, MacDermind, Barristers and
Solicitors, Solicitors on behalf of 584952 Ontario Limited (Idomo lands).
(A copy of the Appendices and Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the
office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
________
The motions and recorded vote on this matter were as follows:
A.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that:
(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to undertake
the following studies to be considered with this zoning application:
(i)a review of parking requirements for stadia and theatres within the G.T.A., with particular
attention to those associated with theme or amusement parks including but not limited to:
- Kingswood (Canada's Wonderland)
- Molson Amphitheatre (Ontario Place)
- Copp's Coliseum (Hamilton)
- Ford Centre (North York)
- Markham Centennial Arena
- Markham Theatre
- Ice Gardens - York University
- North York Centennial Arena
(ii)an examination of parking pricing, and pricing policies in the vicinity of, and/or associated
with large stadia and other large volume traffic generating venues including but not limited to:
- Exhibition Place and The National Trade Centre;
- Woodbine Racetrack;
- T.T.C. Commuter Lots; and
- Skydome;
and that this study include both public and private lots;
(iii)a review of bus parking requirements and a comparison of bus parking provisions at a
variety of similar venues including but not limited to:
- Skydome;
- Air Canada Centre (To Open February, 1999); and
- Canada's Wonderland;
(iv)a review of parking requirements for employees in comparison with parking provisions for
employees at a variety of similar venues and the incorporation of employee parking
assumptions into previous parking and transportation studies;
(2)the applicant and/or landowner be required to submit a plan for the staging of construction
and the routing of construction vehicles with particular emphasis on confining these vehicles
to routes that will not impact on residential neighbourhoods, and have a minimum impact on
neighbouring industrial and commercial zones, to the satisfaction of the Works and
Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services (North York);
(3)the report (July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be received subject
to the following:
(i)Section 3.0 (i) be amended to provide for an independent review of all parking studies
undertaken to date to be commissioned by the Works and Emergency Services Department,
Transportation Services, and paid for by the applicant; and
(ii)Notification of the public hearing on this matter to include a mail distribution to all
residents and business in all areas bounded by Jane Street on the west, Finch Avenue on the
north, Bathurst Street on the east, and Highway 401 on the south;
(iii)Size of Venue
(a)No individual venue shall be permitted to be of a size that will generate sufficient traffic to
exceed the capacity of the road system; and in that regard staff, on the basis of a careful
analysis, will recommend the maximum size of any particular venue, including the proposed
12,500 seat arena; and
(b)the following be deferred for consideration with the zoning application:
"That until such time as the appropriate studies are completed a cap of 4,000 seats shall be
established.;
(iv)Staff address the issue of deliveries to the Technodome and report to Council through the
zoning process; and
(4)the applicant and/or landowner be required to undertake an environmental analysis to
determine the level of air emissions which will result from the vehicles expected to be
generated by the Technodome; and
(5)Canada Lands Co. Ltd. provide certification acceptable to City staff that all PCB's and
munitions (other than those currently being utilized for military purposes) have been removed
from the site.
B.Councillor Augimeri, Black Creek, moved that the following be referred to the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for a report thereon to the
Community Council:
"That the Section 37 Agreement include a clause which mandates the developer to provide a
market impact study for any future use which is not compatible with the surrounding land
uses. The study would be required for any use over 50,000 sq. ft. and shall have an impact
area of a 2 km. radius."
A recorded vote on the foregoing motions A. and B. was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint,
Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King
AGAINST:NIL
ABSENT:NIL
30
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)2008 Toronto Olympic Bid - Public Consultation.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism,
outlining the public consultation process related to Toronto's bid to host the 2008 Olympics;
setting out the details of Phase I of the process; and advising that a presentation will be made
to the North York Community Council at a public meeting to be held on October 21, 1998 at
7:30 p.m.
(b)Street Vending Permit Application No. 97 - The Donway East - Don Parkway.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998:
(i)Report (July 10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic
Centre, recommending that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed
to issue a permit for the sale of hot dogs and sausages within the municipal boulevard adjacent
to Don Mills Collegiate Institute; and
(ii)Communication (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Sunny Chhabra, Barrister and Solicitor,
expressing his opposition to the manner in which this matter has been dealt with by the City
of Toronto.
(c)Modifications to the Intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue
Access Ramp - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following report to its meeting scheduled for October 14, 1998:
(July 10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre,
recommending that Pembury Avenue, at the intersection with the ramp from Lawrence
Avenue East to southbound Bayview Avenue, be redesigned to discourage the high speed
access to Pembury Avenue from the ramp while maintaining access to/from the greater
community to the west of Bayview Avenue and south of Lawrence Avenue East.
(d)Post Road Allowance East of Bridle Heath Gate - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following report to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998:
(June 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre,
recommending that:
(1)the unimproved portion of the Post Road road allowance which extends east of Bridle
Heath Gate be legally closed and dedicated as parkland; and
(2)the closure be subject to the provision of utility easements as required.
(e)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision
Application UDZ-98-13 and UDSB-1238 - Glenarda Properties Ltd. - 20 Bond Sreet -
Don Parkway.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law and approve a plan of subdivision to
permit a mixed use development consisting of detached houses, townhouses, office and park
land uses, and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.
(f)Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-11
- Sanmal Investments Limited - 699 Sheppard Avenue East - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having referred the following report back
to the Acting Commissioner of Planning to be brought forward after further
consultation with the community in conjunction with the local Councillors:
(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
reporting on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit
development of this site in two phases; firstly to convert the existing one storey post office to
a retail building and subsequently to develop the site with a 5 storey, commercial building at
2.0 F.S.I., and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.
(g)Preliminary Report - Zoning Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application
UDZ-97-43 and UDSB-1237 - 295151 Ontario Limited - 65, 69, 71, 75, 81 and83 Drewry
Avenue and 55 and 57 Fairchild Avenue - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(July 9, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law and approve a plan of subdivision to
permit 32 three storey townhouses on a new public road connected to Drewry Avenue and 3
new small lot single family dwellings with frontage on Fairchild Avenue, and submitting
recommendations with respect thereto.
(h)Preliminary Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-12 -Tak On
Developments Ltd. - 221 Finch Avenue East - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit redevelopment of the site
with a 3-storey semi-detached dwelling, and submitting recommendations with respect
thereto.
(i)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
UDOZ-95-21 - Dangreen Properties Inc. - Northeast Corner of Bayview Avenue and
Sheppard Avenue East - Seneca Heights.
The North York Community Council reports having referred the following report back
to the Acting Commissioner of Planning to be brought forward after further
consultation with the community in conjunction with the local Councillors:
(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
reporting on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit mixed
use development at the corner of Bayview Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East in the context
of a comprehensive development plan for the Dangreen Properties Inc./Bayview Village
Shopping Centre (Orlando Corporation) block and submitting recommendations with respect
thereto.
(j)Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application UDZ-97-12
and UDSP-97-042 - Edilcan Development Corporation - 16, 18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng
Avenue - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and
having authorized staff to schedule a public meeting:
(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit one 14 storey residential
apartment building with 136 units having frontage on Byng Avenue, and submitting
recommendations with respect thereto.
(k)Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment Application and Site Plan
Application UDZ-98-04 and UDSP-98-015 - Oxford Hills Developments (Horsham) Inc. -
24, 26, 36, 38 and 44 Horsham Avenue - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and
having authorized staff to schedule a public meeting on October 14, 1998:
(July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law and site plan application to permit a
16 unit 3 storey freehold townhouse development, and submitting recommendations with
respect thereto.
(l)Site Specific By-laws Study UD43-SSB - All North York Community Council Wards.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and
having requested the Acting Commissioner of Planning to consult with each Councillor
before releasing the list of sites in each particular ward:
(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
reporting on progress in the Site Specific By-law Study, and to obtain Community Council's
concurrence on the planning principles that are to be applied to the study.
(m)Claim - Reimbursement for Damages during the Bridle Path Area Road
Reconstruction - 77 The Bridle Path - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following
memorandum to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998:
(May 19, 1998) from Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, forwarding a request from
the owner of 77 The Bridle Path for compensation for costs incurred as a result of damage to
his sprinkler system by the contractor during the local improvements to The Bridle Path area
last year.
(n)Proposed Amendment to Low Lot By-law No. 7273 - Lots 799 and 800, Plan M-108
(Between 446 and 466 Bedford Park Avenue) - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the draft
by-law to amend the City of North York By-law No. 7273, as amended, to its next
meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998.
(i)Draft by-law to amend the City of North York By-law No. 7273, as amended; and
(ii)Communication (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Alan S. Lam, M. Eng., P. Eng., Principal,
Greenland Engineering Group, requesting a deferral on behalf of the applicant.
(o)Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-27 - Zoning By-law No. 331-1998 - Shell
Canada Limited - 2831 Bayview Avenue - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following
communication and having advised the Ontario Municipal Board accordingly:
(July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
advising that two objections have been received to Zoning By-law No. 331-1998;
recommending that the report be received for information purposes; and that the Ontario
Municipal Board be advised accordingly.
(p)Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-88-40 - Zoning By-law No.
330-1998 - R. G. Thwaites - 15 Cameron Avenue - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following
communication and having advised the Ontario Municipal Board accordingly:
(July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
advising that one objection has been received to Zoning By-Law No. 330-1998;
recommending that the report be received for information purposes; and that the Ontario
Municipal Board be advised accordingly
(q)Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests in Planning Matters.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following
communication for information:
(July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development
Committee on July 13, 1998, approved Recommendation No. (3) of the report (June 29, 1998)
from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk,
regarding guidelines for determining City-wide interests in planning matters, and requesting
that any comments from Community Councils be forwarded directly to the July29, 1998, City
Council meeting.
(r)Applications - Officials Plans and Re-zoning Matters.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following Resolution
to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998:
(July 22, 1998) from Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, recommending that the
Planning Department inform local Councillors about all Official Plan and re-zoning
applications immediately upon their receipt by means of a consent FYI item on the
Community Council agenda; and that this consist of a photocopy of the application form, area
map and accompanying letter from the applicant.
Respectfully submitted,
MILTON BERGER,
Chair
Toronto, July 27, 1998
(Report No. 8 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was
adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998.)
|
