TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998
ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 11
1Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning CodeFieldgate Apartments, 2 Triburnham Place -File
No. Z-2255
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 11
OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on October 14, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998
1
Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code
Fieldgate Apartments, 2 Triburnham Place - File No. Z-2255
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City
Council to be held on November 25, 1998.)
--------
(Clause No. 13 of Report No. 10 of The Etobicoke Community Council)
The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and the findings of fact, conclusions and
recommendations contained in the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community
Planning, West District, recommends as follows:
(1)the application for amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan to correct a technical mapping error that
occurred during the drafting of maps associated with the review of the Official Plan, be approved; and
(2)the report of the Director of Community Planning (September 16, 1998) pertaining to the proposed Official
Plan Amendment, be adopted:
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting in accordance with Section 34 of the
Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the
regulations thereunder.
The Etobicoke Community Council further reports having deferred consideration of the application for amendment to the
Zoning Code and requested the Director of Community Planning, West District to submit a further report to a continuation
of the public meeting on November 12, 1998, with respect to the staff reports and an Ontario Municipal Board Decision
made in 1965 regarding the subject property.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report from the Director of Community Planning, West
District:
Purpose:
To consider an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit the development of 14, two-storey condominium townhouse units
to be developed in conjunction with an existing 10-storey rental apartment building municipally known as 2 Triburnham
Place. An amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan has also been requested in order to correct a technical mapping error
that occurred during the drafting of maps associated with the review of Etobicoke's Official Plan.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the application by Fieldgate Apartments be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of
interested parties and, if approved, the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.
Background:
The subject property was rezoned from Second Density Residential (R2) to Fourth Density Residential (R4) in 1966 by
Zoning By-law 14,915. A 10-storey, rental apartment building (2Triburnham Place), containing 137 units, was constructed
in 1967.
On June 25, 1997, the applicant notified Council that the existing apartment building property was designated as "Medium
Density Residential" on Map 4, Land Use, of the Official Plan. Staff reviewed this matter and confirmed that the previous
Consolidated Official Plan had designated this property as Residential High Density, and that a 'technical' error occurred as
part of the 1990 Official Plan review process, which resulted in the site's current designation as Medium Density
Residential. In the absence of a formal development proposal by the applicant, Council at its meeting of October 6, 1997,
decided that no action be taken.
In December, 1997, an application for an amendment to the Zoning Code was received requesting permission to develop
14, two-storey condominium townhouses on the northerly portion of the property. An amendment to the Etobicoke Official
Plan has also been applied for order to correct the technical mapping error.
Site Description and Surrounding Uses:
The total site is approximately 1.54 ha (3.80 acres) in size with frontage on two roadways; Burnhamthorpe Road and
Triburnham Place (Exhibit No. 1). Access to the property is taken off Triburnham Place. A water feature and circular drive
are located at the front of the existing 10-storey, 137 unit rental building, south of which is an above ground swimming
pool, located at the southeast corner of the property.
Parking is located in an underground garage accessed by one ramp and on surface parking areas towards the north end of
the site directly behind the existing building. The site contains a considerable amount of landscaped open space (62%) and
a number of mature trees.
Surrounding zoning categories and land uses are as follows:
North:Second Density Residential (R2) - single detached dwellings
South:Planned Commercial Local (CPL) - local shopping plaza on the south side of BurnhamthorpeRoad
East:Second Density Residential (R2) and Planned Commercial Local (CPL) - single detached dwellings and automobile
service station
West:Third Density Residential (R3) and Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) - ElmcrestCreek and
townhouses beyond.
Proposal:
Fieldgate Apartments are proposing to amend the Zoning Code to permit the development of fourteen condominium
townhouse units, 2 storeys in height, to be developed in conjunction with an existing 10-storey, 137 unit rental apartment
building for a combined total of 151 units. The applicants propose to sever a portion of the existing apartment site (Block
A) to create a smaller development parcel to the north (Block B), adjacent to the neighbouring single detached housing.
Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of the site and elevation
plans submitted by the applicant. A summary of site statistics is provided in Table 1. The proposed condominium
townhouses would be located at the north end of the property accessed off of Triburnham Place. Each of the townhouses
would contain three bedrooms and would be approximately 6 m (20 ft.) in width and 143.5 mē (l, 544.7 sq.ft.) in size. Two
blocks of townhouses are proposed: one block of nine units and one block of five units.
Access to the townhouse parking spaces would occur via a new 7.0 m (23 ft.) wide driveway off the Triburnham Place
right-of-way. Two parking spaces would be provided for every townhouse, one in the garage and one on the driveway. An
additional 5 visitor parking spaces will be provided at-grade near the entrance to the development.
The proposed development of Block B would cause the displacement of some landscape open space and a number of
surface visitor parking spaces currently utilized by the existing 10storey apartment building. The applicant proposes to
relocate the visitor parking spaces around the driveway system at the front of the building on Block A. A 1.8 m (6 ft.) wood
screen fence will be installed along the north property line which would limit the impact on privacy and views for the
adjacent residential properties.
Comment:
Official Plan:
The site is designated as "Medium Density Residential" on Map 4, Land Use, of the (1990) Official Plan. Staff have
reviewed this matter and confirm that the previous Consolidated Official Plan had designated this property as Residential
High Density, and, that a 'technical' error occurred as part of the 1990 Official Plan review process, which resulted in the
site's current designation as Medium Density Residential.
As there was no intention to down-designate this property, it is suggested that an amendment to the Official Plan be
initiated to restore its rightful designation as High Density Residential which generally permits multiple unit housing of all
types to be developed within the range of 70-185uph (28-75 upa) to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. A draft of
Parts 1 and 2 of a proposed Official Plan Amendment to rectify this 'technical' error is attached (Exhibit No. 11).
The existing apartment site at 2 Triburnham has been developed at a density of 89 uph (36 upa) with a corresponding FSI
of 0.98. As a result of the proposed condominium townhouse development and associated realignment of property
boundaries, Block A would exhibit a density of 119 uph (48 upa) and a FSI of 1.32. A density and FSI of 36 uph (15 upa)
and 0.52, respectively, would be provided on Block B. The proposal would comply with the low end of the density
provisions contained within the Official Plan for Residential High Density.
Residential Intensification Policies:
Section 4.2.17 of the Official Plan provides for the intensification of High Density Residential designations through the
provision of additional residential units on apartment sites, provided that the level of development is within the density
limits of the Plan. The townhouses would be located on a vacant portion of the site between the existing 10-storey
apartment building and the low density residential neighbourhood to the north with sufficient separation from adjacent
buildings and surrounding land uses. The project would provide an appropriate transition between the Low Density
Residential community to the north and the existing 10-storey building (Exhibit No. 3).
Section 4.2.18 of the Official Plan recognizes the potential for additional residential development at higher densities.
Proposals to amend the Official Plan or Zoning Code for these purposes shall be subject to the criteria outlined in Section
4.2.19. Staff have evaluated the proposal within the context of these criteria which have been appended as Exhibit No.4.
Based on this review, staff are satisfied from a land use point of view that the proposal meets the criteria for High Density
Residential Development and Housing Intensification. The site is directly adjacent to an arterial roadway with sufficient
capacity to support the proposed development. In terms of height, density, floor space index and landscape open space, the
project could be accommodated on the site with limited impact on the existing apartment building and surrounding
developments. Residents of the proposed development would have access to local social services, retail facilities and parks.
Zoning Code:
The application would require the repeal of Site Specific Zoning By-law 14,915, as it applies to the subject lands, and the
introduction of a new site specific zoning by-law. This by-law should provide the necessary exemptions to reflect both the
existing and the proposed developments, as well as take into consideration the anticipated land severance application.
Landscape Open Space and Recreational Amenities:
The proposed site plan would allow for 53 percent of Block A and 45 percent of Block B to be devoted to landscape open
space, with an average of 51 percent over the combined site. This would be consistent with the landscape percentages
associated with other recent approvals for housing intensification. The applicant is proposing to refurbish areas
surrounding the existing swimming pool, patio area, and provide a new passive recreation area for the residents of the
existing apartment building. Intensified landscaping is also proposed in certain areas around the existing building and water
feature.
Notwithstanding these percentage figures, the amount of useable on-site landscape space and recreational amenities on
Block A would be only marginally reduced for residents of the existing building. Each Block would be self sufficient in
terms of its provision of landscape open space and recreational amenities.
The proposed rear yards of the townhouses would be generally 7.5 m (25 ft.) in depth, with the exception of those units
backing onto Elmcrest Creek, where the rear yards would be 10 m (33 ft.) in depth, measured to the long-term stable slope
line. (This matter is discussed further in the Valley Impact Zone Section of this report.)
As the site contains a significant number of mature trees, the applicant will be required to submit a tree survey during the
Site Plan review process, in the event of approval. The survey shall identify the size, species and health of each tree and
indicate which trees are to be preserved, relocated or removed. Tree protection and preservation details will also be
required.
Parking and Traffic:
The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has advised that due to the modest scale and limited trip
generating potential of the development, a traffic impact study is not required. Transportation staff are satisfied with the
driveway layout, traffic circulation and parking supply proposed by the applicant (Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6).
Transportation staff are also satisfied with the location of the proposed driveway which gains access via the northerly end
of Triburnham Place, subject to the submission of a report to the satisfaction of the Division regarding the condition of the
below grade parking structure and its ability to accommodate the added weight of the roadway and vehicle traffic.
Valley Impact Zone:
Section 6.1.2 of the Official Plan establishes a Valley Impact Zone which includes all land within a valley, from
top-of-bank to top-of-bank and all lands in between. In accordance with these policies, all structures, including paved
surfaces, are to be located 10 m (33 ft.) from the long term stable slope line.
Toronto Region Conservation Authority staff have concluded that the location of the proposed townhouse units flanking
Elmcrest Creek is acceptable, provided that a survey is submitted which identifies the top-of-bank limit and that the site
specific by-law prohibits any principal structures within the 10 m (33 ft.) setback and restricts the use of the lands below
the top-of-bank to passive recreational (Exhibit No. 7).
TRCA and Parks staff recommend that lands beyond this limit be conveyed to the appropriate public authority, and that
such conveyance would not be eligible to offset credit against the associated parkland dedication requirement. Such lands
should also be rezoned to Public Open Space (OS), consistent with the valleyland acquisition policy set out in Section
6.1.12 of the Official Plan.
Agency Comments/Department Circulation:
In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, the former Metropolitan Toronto Planning
Department, Fire Department, Realty Services and Canada Post Corporation, have expressed no objections.
Comments from Parks and Recreation Services, Toronto Hydro, Toronto Police Department and Bell Canada remain
outstanding.
The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that there are existing watermains, storm and
sanitary sewers available on Triburnham Place (Exhibit No. 8). Storm water management shall be to the satisfaction of the
Works Department.
The Toronto District School Board has advised that the students anticipated from the proposed development can be
accommodated at Mill Valley Junior School, Bloordale Middle School, and Silverthorn Collegiate Institute, but the Board
may be required to make alternative accommodation arrangements for some or all of these students once the local schools
reach their capacity (Exhibit No.9). The Toronto Catholic School Board has objected to the proposal due to the lack of
permanent facilities and overcrowding at Nativity Catholic School (Exhibit No.10). Staff note that neither Board has
adopted a Development Charges By-Law on which to base such contributions. In accordance with the practise adopted in
the rest of the City, Planning staff do not recommend that such a condition be imposed.
The project would be subject to the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of the building
permits, as well as a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution.
Community Meeting:
On February 16, 1998, approximately 40 people attended a community meeting to review the subject proposal. Concerns
expressed by area residents related to loss of trees and landscape open space, lack of parking, traffic generation, density,
loss of views and privacy, loss of wildlife, and cost of townhouse units.
The concerns related to planning matters have been discussed in this report.
Conclusions:
The subject application has been evaluated within the context of the housing intensification and High Density Residential
provisions of the Official Plan. Urban Development staff are of the opinion the proposed development is within the density
limits of the Official Plan and would comply with the criteria for housing intensification. In the event of approval, it would
be appropriate to incorporate development standards with respect to height, floor space index and density into the
amending by-law.
The proposed development would have limited impact on surrounding developments and would provide an appropriate
transition between the Low Density Residential community to the north and the existing apartment building. Recreational
facilities will be improved for the existing apartment building while the proposed townhouses will enjoy private amenity
spaces.
In the event of approval, the following conditions should apply:
Conditions to Approval:
l.Fulfillment of the following conditions by the applicant prior to the enactment of an amendment to the Official Plan and
amending by-law:
(i)The submission of a survey which identifies the top-of-bank limit to the satisfaction of the TRCA, Parks and
Recreation Services and Urban Development Department. Lands beyond this limit are to be conveyed to the appropriate
public authority.
(ii)The submission of a report, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division, on the condition of the below-grade
parking structure and its ability to accommodate the added weight of the roadway and vehicle traffic.
(iii) The signing of a Development Agreement and/or Servicing Agreement and payment of the necessary fees, if
required.
(iv)Receipt of comments from, and subject to any requirements of Parks and Recreation Services, Toronto Hydro,
Toronto Police Department and Bell Canada .
2.The amending by-law shall provide the appropriate exemptions from, or repeal of, site specific by-laws, and
incorporate the following provisions inter alia:
(i)Development of Block A shall be limited to one apartment building with a maximum height of 10-storeys, 137 units, a
floor space index of 1.33 and a minimum landscape open space of 53 percent.
(ii)Development of Block B shall be limited to a maximum of fourteen condominium townhouse units, with a building
height of 2-storeys, a floor space index of 0.53, and a minimum landscape open space of 45 percent.
(iii)Development standards for Blocks A and B to reflect above and below grade building setbacks and parking
requirements.
(iv)Conveyed below-top-of bank lands be rezoned to Public Open Space (OS).
3.Further detailed consideration of the proposal under the Site Plan Control provisions to include inter alia:
(i)Signing of a Site Control Agreement, and payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and
registration of same.
(ii)Submission of site and landscaping plans detailing fencing, curbing, grading, upgrading recreational facilities for
Block A, planting and tree preservation to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and
the posting of an appropriate financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans.
(iii)Provision of on-site facilities for storage and collection of waste and recyclable materials, the provision of stormwater
management facilities or cash-in-lieu payment, the signing of agreements, and the posting of financial guarantees, if
required by the Works Department.
(iv)Submission of a parking and construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Works Department.
(v)Submission of necessary legal agreements, maintenance, encroachment or otherwise between the existing rental
apartment building and the proposed condominium complex regarding the proposed location of surface parking and
circulation for the condominium complex on top of the existing below-grade parking structure to the satisfaction of the
City Solicitor.
(vi)The developer will be required to pay the prevailing development charges and parkland dedication requirements in
effect at the time of the issuance of building permit.
Contact Name:
Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP, Planner - Central District, Development and Design
Tel: (416) 394-6004; Fax: (416) 394-6063
(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-11 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda
of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City
Clerk.)
_____
The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the foregoing:
-Mr. J. Dawson, Solicitor for Fieldgate Apartments;
-Mrs. J. Beames, Etobicoke, totally opposed to any development on the subject lands, which she and her neighbours
conveyed to the original developer with the understanding that it would not be developed with anything other than the
existing apartment building and would be maintained as a buffer zone; noting the major impact on their residences by a
road realignment; the negative impact on the value and the reduction in enjoyment of their properties;
-Mr. S. Kleynhans, Etobicoke, opposed to the application and development on the greenspace backing onto his property,
which he was assured would remain when he purchased his house;
-Ms. V. Anderson, Etobicoke, opposed to the application, noting that the history of the property dates back to 1965;
citing the loss of greenspace and wildlife, increase in traffic, loss of property value, etc;
-Mr. D. Zeraldo, Etobicoke, who stated that in 1965 the abutting owners each sold a portion of their land to the developer
of the apartment building, to be retained as green space, pointing out that they would never have done so had they thought
it would be used for future development; and
-Mr. I. Noble, asking that the proposal be refused, noting the impact of recent developments on the Etobicoke Creek and
the resulting loss of wildlife.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following communication:
-(October 1, 1998) from Ms. M. Copes, Etobicoke, objecting to the proposal because it would cause terrible density in
the neighbourhood.
Respectfully submitted,
ELIZABETH BROWN,
Chair
Toronto, October 14, 1998
(Report No. 11 of The Etobicoke Community Council was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on November 25,
26 and 27, 1998.)