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
NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 13
1Yonge Street, Known as "The Jolly Miller" - Report on RFP Responses - North York Centre South
2Designation By-law - "Oakley" Property - Philip Edward Brent - 288 Old Yonge Street (Formerly 264 Old
Yonge Street) - North York Centre South
3Sign By-law Variance Request - Ground Signage - Neon Products - 55 Orfus Road - North York Spadina
4Sign By-law Variance Request - Billboard Road Sign - Just Cole - 2013 Finch Avenue West - Black Creek
5Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Old Orchard Grove - North York Centre South
6All Way Stop Control - Faywood Boulevard at Faith Avenue/Invermay Avenue - North York Spadina
7Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan - Empress Avenue - North York Centre
8All Way Stop Control - Exbury Road and Parent Avenue - North York Black Creek
9Parking Prohibitions - Glen Park Avenue - North York Spadina
10Parking Prohibitions - Glenallan Road - North York Centre South
11Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Haven Road - North York Spadina
12Parking and Stopping Prohibitions
13Stopping Prohibitions - Connaught Avenue Between Lariviere Road and Fargo Avenue - North York Centre
14All Way Stop Control - Patricia Avenue at Fargo Avenue - North York Centre
155 Percent Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication - 693316 Ontario Limited - 508-518 Coldstream Avenue -
North York Spadina
16Amendments to the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan - North York Spadina
17Sidewalks - Local Improvement Initiatives in the Approved 1998 Capital Budget - North York Spadina,
North York Centre and North York Centre South
18Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-95-21 - Dangreen Properties Inc. - Northeast
Corner of Bayview Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East - Seneca Heights
19Modifications to the Intersection of Pembury Avenue With the Bayview Avenue Access Ramp - North York
Centre South
20Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-20 - 799806 Ontario Ltd. - 303 Finch Avenue East - North York
Centre
21Zoning Amendment and Subdivision Applications UDZ-97-52 and UDSB-1235 - Graywood Developments
Limited Block Bounded by Rochefort Drive and Ferrand Drive - Don Parkway
22Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-95-17 - Albert De Luca - 129 Willowdale Avenue -
Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Retention of Outside Planning Consultant - North York Centre
23Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-28 - Destination: Technodome - Heathmount
A.E. Corp. - West of W.R. Allen Road, South of Sheppard Avenue West - North York Spadina
24Other Items Considered by the Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 13
OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on November 12, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998
1
Yonge Street, Known as "The Jolly Miller" -
Report on RFP Responses -
North York Centre South
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 1, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to secure approval in principle to negotiate a lease with a single proponent for the tenancy of
the property at 3885 Yonge Street, known as "The Jolly Miller".
Source of Funds: N/A
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)staff be authorized to negotiate within 6 months, a lease with Prime Asset Management Corporation for tenancy of the
property at 3885 Yonge Street, known as "The Jolly Miller", according to the terms set out in the Request for Proposal
(FA64-98003), the Condition Assessment, and subsequent correspondence, and satisfactory to the Commissioners of
Corporate Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and
(2)once negotiated, the lease be forwarded to Council for approval through the Corporate Services Committee.
Background:
The Jolly Miller Tavern, located at 3885 Yonge Street, was constructed in 1856 and is the only 19th century commercial
structure remaining on its original site in North York. It has been approved for designation under the terms of the Ontario
Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990) as a building of historical and architectural significance in the North York community. In 1997,
the former City of North York purchased the property to bring it into public ownership. The parking lot on the north
portion of the site is operated by the Toronto Parking Authority. When the parking lot is no longer required to recoup the
costs of acquisition, which is estimated to be within 20 years, Council will reconsider the use of this land as a parking lot.
The Report on the Official Plan / Zoning Amendment for the site, approved by North York Council on June 25, 1997,
identified the following objectives in relation to the property:
(a) to provide for the protection and enhancement of the heritage property's character while providing a variety of
commercial opportunities to ensure the financial integrity for the re-use of the Jolly Miller;
(b) to ensure that the heritage nature of the Jolly Miller property is preserved and enhanced and that, in the long term, the
property shall be integrated in a compatible manner into the surrounding open space system; and
(c) the continued commercial function of the Jolly Miller building is encouraged in a manner that is complementary and
sympathetic to its heritage nature. To complement the heritage aspects of the building, future expansions should be
generally limited to the north and east sides of the Jolly Miller building.
On May 20, 1998 the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and the Corporate Services Department
issued a Request for Proposals for the Lease of the Jolly Miller. The Request for Proposal (RFP) outlined the City's
objectives as identified above, the criteria for evaluation, zoning restrictions, and terms and conditions. A Condition
Assessment of the heritage building was prepared by Philip Goldsmith and Co. Ltd. on the City's behalf and was provided
to all parties that obtained the RFP package. A copy of the full package is on file with the Clerk of the North York
Community Council.
Four proposals were received by the closing date of June 15, 1998. The proponents were interviewed and the proposals
reviewed by a Review Team of staff representing the following divisions: Parks and Recreation, Culture, Finance,
Planning, Legal, and Property.
All proposals were reviewed against the provisions of the RFP, which included:
(1)City's objectives and criteria for the property as outlined in the Report on the Official Plan/Zoning Amendment
approved by North York Council on June 25, 1997;
(2)requirements for restoration and upgrading of the property, identified in the Condition Assessment;
(3)requirement that the lease be carefree to the City and that the tenant bear all costs for leasehold improvements,
restoration and enhancement, realty taxes, maintenance and insurance;
(4)stated preference for one tenant for the entire building;
(5)requirements for parking over and above the immediate site would be the responsibility of the tenant to negotiate with
the Toronto Parking Authority; and
(6)no obligation on the part of the City to accept the proposal for the highest amount expressed as rent to be paid.
Review of the Proposals:
In assessing the relative merits of each proposal, a number of factors were considered: ability to address the conditions set
out in the RFP, sensitivity to the heritage nature of the property, financial return to the City, financial ability of the
proponent, and the limiting conditions stipulated with each proposal.
The emphasis of the financial analysis was based on the business terms proposed by each of the proponents based on the
net financial returns to the City and the probability that these returns will be realized (i.e. that the proponent is of sufficient
financial strength to honour its commitments under the lease agreement). The financial analysis of the proposals is attached
as Appendix 'A'.
Appendix 'B' provides an assessment of the proposals against the evaluation criteria. The proposals can be summarized as
follows:
(A)Falcon Construction and Associates:
Falcon Construction and Associates has submitted a proposal to move the original building to the east end of the site,
construct new foundations and additions, and operate a restaurant similar to "Marche" on the first floor, a high-end
seafood/steak house on the second floor and use the third floor for administrative space.
Falcon Construction and Associates, proposes a capital cash outlay of $1,733,000.00 with a rental fee of $2.00 per annum
for a 99 year lease.
(B)Jessup Food and Heritage Limited:
Jessup Food and Heritage Ltd. proposes to restore the original building and the 1920s addition, and to remove the later
additions. They also propose reconstruction of the historic verandah on Yonge Street and to build a two-storey verandah on
the east side of the building. It would be operated as a "period" fine dining establishment with professional offices on the
second and third floors.
Jessup Food and Heritage Limited, proposes a capital cash outlay of $1,063,000.00. They propose to pay $100.00 per
annum as rent for the first 20 years and $24,000.00 per annum for the final five years. The present value of rent paid over
the 25 year period is $17,386.00.
(C)Oliver Bonacini Restaurants:
Oliver Bonacini Restaurants propose to restore the original building and the 1920s addition and remove the later additions.
The Yonge Street verandah would be reconstructed and a two-storey east facing verandah added. A new addition,
appropriate in design to the period, would be built on the north-east side of the building behind the 1920s addition. The
property would be operated as a food shop, market cafe and grill. The second and third floors of the original building
would become the operational headquarters for the corporation.
Oliver Bonacini Restaurants, proposes a capital cash outlay of $2,500,000.00 and a rental payment stream over a 50-year
period equivalent to $354,350.00 in present value terms. Their proposed lease is for 20 years with six additional 5-year
renewal options. They have requested an option to purchase at the end of 10 or 20 years and have been advised that this is
unlikely.
(D)Prime Asset Management Corporation:
Prime Asset Management Corporation submitted a proposal to restore the original building and the 1920s addition to the
mid-19th century period, and to remove the later additions. A three-storey structure would be built on the east side,
connected to the original by a glass atrium and running the full north/south length of the building. The ground and lower
levels would be leased for restaurant and retail uses, and the second and third floors for office and community space. Prime
Asset alternately proposed the positioning of the addition to the south of the property, which is contrary to the requirements
of the RFP.
Prime Asset proposes a capital cash outlay of $2,470,000.00 and a rental payment stream over a 30-year period equivalent
to $1,391,461.00 in present value terms. It is proposed that a 50-year lease term be executed, but it should be noted that the
cash flows that have been identified in present value terms reflect only the first 30 years. The remaining 20 years
contemplate a lease payment adjusted by the inflation index. This proposal yields the highest financial return to the City.
Review by the North York Heritage Committee:
The North York Heritage Committee, at its meeting held July 9, 1998, reviewed the heritage aspects of the four proposals
and provided their comments for the consideration of the Review Team.
The North York Heritage Committee was encouraged by the creative responses to this property and by the obvious care
taken by the proponents to address the heritage nature of the property. The Committee indicated a preference for the Oliver
Bonacini proposal because it retains the original elements of the building and its 1920s character, using photographs and
other documentation for the restoration. The size and location of the addition also provides a better perspective on the
heritage
building. The Heritage Committee considered that the addition proposed by Prime Asset is too large and its placement and
connection by an atrium in both design options detracts from the heritage building. The Jessup Food and Heritage
treatment of the 1920s addition was thought to detract from the original building. The Committee will not support the
move of the original building as proposed by Falcon Construction. With these comments in mind, it will support any of the
other three proposals.
Discussion:
Following review of the proposals, interviews with the proponents and the review provided by the North York Heritage
Committee, the Staff Review Team short-listed to two proponents: Prime Asset Management Corporation and Oliver
Bonacini Restaurants. These two leading proponents were asked to provide additional information about their corporate
structure, their experience with similar projects, and their financial status. Sketches of their proposals are attached as
Appendices 'C' and 'D'.
From a design perspective, the submissions by Prime Asset Management Corporation and the Oliver Bonacini Restaurants
are both considered desirable. They offer more than just rehabilitating the existing structure and undertaking the 'Required
Work' described in the Condition Assessment report by introducing additional floor area by way of building expansions.
The Prime Asset proposal includes two design schemes for consideration. Scheme "A" consists of removing or restoring
the later additions and constructing a three storey rear east addition. The structure would be designed in a complementary
style and separated from the original building by a full height glass atrium thus maintaining the east wall of the existing
structure. The original brick building will retain predominance on the site. This scheme also creates an opportunity to
establish a landscaped feature at the Yonge Street/Mill Street corner. The Scheme "B" proposal comprises a two-storey
expansion to the south side of the existing structure which extends along the Mill Street frontage. As with the other
scheme, the design is complementary and is separated by a glass atrium to expose the existing south wall. Of the two,
Scheme "A" is considered the more desirable, as it does not visually dominate the heritage building.
The Oliver Bonacini Restaurants submission also comprises the removal or restoration of the later additions and a
two-storey addition at the north-east corner of the existing structure, behind the garage. The design would be appropriate
and sympathetic with the original architecture. From a built form perspective, this expansion proposal competes the least
with the existing structure.
The location and conceptual designs of both submissions are considered to be compatible with the zoning and site plan
review criteria outlined in the RFP and (with the exception of the Scheme "B" Prime Asset proposal) do not detract from,
screen or visually dominate the heritage nature of the existing building. A further advantage of these submissions would be
the additional floor area component. The extra floor space would be a more desirable asset for the City once the lease
expires.
Conclusions:
Considering the four proposals against the criteria and objectives established by the City, the staff review team is prepared
to recommend that the City of Toronto begin negotiations with Prime Asset Management Corporation for a lease and
restoration plan for The Jolly Miller. This proposal will provide the City with a significant asset which protects and
enhances this heritage building, while also providing the highest financial return to the City.
To ensure that there is no delay in proceeding with the redevelopment , the lease should be fully negotiated and reported to
the Corporate Services Committee within 6 months from the time of approval by Council.
Contact Names:
Beth Hanna, Manager, Culture Office, North York
Telephone: 395-7415, Fax: 395-7886
Vicky Papas,
Telephone: 392-1830, Fax: 392-1880
________
(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.)
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a confidential report (November 9, 1998) from the
City Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and a confidential report (October 29, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, copies of which have been provided to Members of
Council under "Confidential" cover.
The following persons appeared before an In Camera meeting of the North York Community Council with respect to this
matter:
-Mr. Peter Oliver, Partner, Oliver Bonacini Restaurants;
-Mr. Andrew Wilkes, Managing Partner, Prime Asset Management Corporation;
-Ms. Barbara Wilkes, Management Initiatives Inc.,
-Mr. Ken Lipson, Principal, Prime Asset Management;
-Mr. Angus Stein, Architect;
-Mr. Grant Warfield, owner of Gaby's Restaurants.
Councillor Feldman, North York Spadina, declared his interest in the foregoing matter as he resides in the immediate
vicinity of the Jolly Miller.
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a
confidential joint report (November 9, 1998) from the City Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, as
requested by the North York Community Council, on a review of the partners involved in Prime Asset Management
Corporation, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act.)
(Councillor Feldman, at the meeting of City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, declared his interest in the
foregoing Clause, in that he resides in the immediate vicinity of the Jolly Miller.)
2
Designation By-law - "Oakley" Property -
Philip Edward Brent - 288 Old Yonge Street
(Formerly 264 Old Yonge Street) -
North York Centre South
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 15, 1998) from the
City Solicitor:
Purpose:
To obtain approval to amend By-law No. 32852 to amend the legal description of the parcel on which the heritage building
known as "Oakley" is located.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that By-law No. 32852 be amended in accordance with the draft by-law attached hereto and registered
on the title to the lands subject to By-law No. 32852.
Council Reference/Back Ground\History:
On October 16, 1996, Council adopted By-law No. 32852 designating the residence known as "Oakley", located at 288 Old
Yonge Street, as being of architectural and historical value, for the reasons set out in the by-law, a copy of which is
attached hereto.
The lands have since been subdivided, with other lands, into a residential subdivision, No.66M-2322 and "Oakley" is now
situated on Lot 16 of that plan.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The lands designated in By-law No. 32852 as being the land on which the residence known as "Oakley" sits, are now
subdivided and include vacant lots on a registered plan of subdivision. In order to release those vacant lots from the
heritage by-law and to correct the legal description of the heritage building, it is necessary to amend By-law No. 32852 in
accordance with the draft by-law attached hereto. The by-law amends Schedule "A" to the existing by-law and replaces the
legal description with Lot 16 on Plan 66M-2322.
Conclusions:
It is recommended that the attached draft by-law be adopted by Council and registered on the title to the lands described in
the original designating by-law.
Contact Name:
Catherine M. Conrad, Solicitor, 392-7244, cconrad@toronto.ca
________
(A copy of the by-laws referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
3
Sign By-law Variance Request -
Ground Signage - Neon Products -
55 Orfus Road - North York Spadina
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 26, 1998) from the
Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:
Purpose:
Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Dominic Rotundo, of Neon Products, for a variance from the
sign by-law. The variance is required to permit the erection of a ground sign, to be placed at the south side of Orfus Road
facing east and west, with a sign area of 128 square feet, where the Sign By-law permits 85 square feet.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request for a minor variance from the sign by-law be approved.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The building for which the sign is intended is located in an M2 zone, the building fronts onto Orfus Road and contains
various commercial use.
Section 5.3.2.3. of Sign By-law No. 30788 permits one ground sign on an inside lot in an industrial zone provided that such
sign has a maximum sign area of one square foot for every two feet of frontage.
As the subject lot has a frontage of 170 feet the by-law would permit a single sign having a sign area of 85 sq.ft. The
applicant wishes to erect a single sign in the centre of the frontage of 128 sq.ft. which is clearly larger than permitted.
However, since the nature of the property is commercial in its use, consideration should be given to use the provisions of
the commercial zones in the sign by-law. If the provisions of a commercial zone area applied, namely Section 5.2.2.2., a lot
with a frontage of 170 feet would permit a ground sign with an area of 170 square feet. The Ward Councillors have been
notified of this request and have been provided with a copy of the report and attachment.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of this department that the request for a variance is minor in nature and that the proposed sign would be in
keeping with the area, as well as, the existing uses on the site.
4
Sign By-law Variance Request -
Billboard Road Sign - Just Cole -
2013 Finch Avenue West - Black Creek
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 29, 1998) from the
Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:
Purpose:
Evaluate and make a recommendation concerning a request by Mr. Just Cole, for a variance from the Sign By-law to
permit the erection of an illuminated 10 foot by 20 foot billboard sign on the roof of an existing 2 storey commercial
building.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the request for a minor variance from the sign by-law be approved.
Council Reference/Background/History
The building on which the sign is proposed is in a commercial zone (C1) and is located at the southwest corner of Jane St.
and Finch Ave. Currently, approval has been given for a billboard roof sign on this building (S98-3786). The approved sign
will front on to Jane Street and will be visible from the north and south. The sign, which is the subject of this report, is
located on the same building, however, it would front on to Finch Avenue and would be visible from the east and west.
Section 5.2.1.1 of the Sign By-law permits a single roof sign on a building and the sign must be 500 feet from another roof
sign. Since this is a single building the sign by-law would not permit two roof signs on the same building, further the
distance between the signs, approximately 472 feet, is less than the required distance of 500 feet, measured diagonally as
required by the Sign By-law when the roof signs are located on the same building.
The recommendation for this approval stems from the fact that the existing sign and the proposed sign front on different
streets. Secondly, there are no existing roof signs within 500 feet from either roof sign along the respective streets on which
they front. If the building on which the signs are proposed were divided to be considered two separate buildings, the signs
would comply with the requirements of the Sign By-law and a variance would not have been required. This is due to the
requirement in the Sign By-law which permits the distance between signs to be measured along the street on which they
front, when signs are on separate buildings, and not diagonally. The only negative impact of the proposed sign is that it
abuts a residential zone (RM2) directly to west on Finch Ave., however, considering the extensive commercial use of this
area the negative impact should be minimal. The Ward Councillors have been notified of this request and have been
provided with a copy of the report and attachments.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of this department that the proposed sign would not have a negative impact on the area and is in keeping
with the intent of the sign by-law.
5
Proposed Parking Prohibitions -
Old Orchard Grove -
North York Centre South
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3, be received and no action taken:
Purpose:
To prohibit parking from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Old Orchard Grove, between Barse
Street and Falkirk Street.
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 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Old Orchard Grove, between Barse Street and
Falkirk Street.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Old Orchard Grove, between Barse
Street and Falkirk Street.
Discussion:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department received a request from Mr Richard
Frankel, 585 Old Orchard Grove, to prohibit parking on the north side of Old Orchard Grove, between Barse Street and
Falkirk Street.
Mr. Frankel is of the opinion that vehicles parked on Old Orchard Grove are generated by employees of the Baycrest
Centre. Despite numerous requests to the Toronto Police Services for the enforcement of the three hour parking limit,
motorists continue to park daily on both sides of the street. Staff have verified Mr. Frankel's concern.
Conclusions:
In order to maintain two way traffic, this department supports amending the current parking regulations on Old Orchard
Grove.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484.
6
All Way Stop Control -
Faywood Boulevard at Faith Avenue/
Invermay Avenue - North York Spadina
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 2, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control, to improve pedestrian and motorists safety, at the intersection of Faywood Boulevard at
Faith Avenue/Invermay Avenue.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
The Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services, recommends that Schedule XVIII 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
intersection of Faywood Boulevard at Faith Avenue/Invermay Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Several complaints, received through both this department and the local Councillors offices, have been made to provide an
increased level of protection for the students attending the nearby school. Residents have indicated that due to the heavy
volume of am and pm peak hour traffic travelling through the intersection, pedestrian safety is reduced.
Currently, eastbound traffic on Faith Avenue and westbound traffic on Invermay Avenue are required to stop at Faywood
Boulevard.
Discussion:
Observations by staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services, have confirmed that,
during the am and pm peak hours, there is a significant volume of traffic travelling on Faywood Boulevard, Faith Avenue
and Invermay Avenue. The geometrics of the intersection at times create confusion with regards to right-of-way between
pedestrians and vehicles. In addition to the volume of traffic, any pedestrians on the west side of Faywood Boulevard, who
wish to cross Faywood Boulevard with the protection of stop controls, must travel either to Wilson Avenue in the south or
Clanton Park Road to the north. With the installation of the all way stop, signs will also be posted to direct pedestrians to
the appropriate leg of the intersection, before crossing the road.
Conclusions:
Considering the negative impacts the existing conditions imposed on pedestrian traffic, this department would support the
installation of an all way stop at the intersection of Faywood Boulevard at Faith Avenue/Invermay Avenue.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations
395-7484 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
mjfreder@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)
7
Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan -
Empress Avenue - North York Centre
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (October28,1998) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3:
The North York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to
provide a report to a future meeting of the North York Community Council on the impact of the proposed speed humps on
emergency response times for ambulances and fire trucks.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
This report details the installation of temporary traffic calming measures on Empress Avenue, to address issues of traffic
safety and speeding, brought forward by residents, in accordance with the former City of North York's Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Policy.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the temporary Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan are included within
the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1)the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan, as described in this report and in accordance with policy, be approved
for installation as a temporary six month test;
(2)the installation of three proposed speed humps be deferred until the Spring of 1999;
(3)Transportation Services staff report back to North York Community Council upon the completion of the six month
test, in accordance with policy, regarding the effectiveness of the measures and appropriate recommendations as to whether
the plan should be made permanent; and
(4)By-law No. 31878, of the former City of North York be amended to reduce the speed limit on Empress Avenue,
through the traffic calmed area, to 40 km/h.
Council Reference/Background/History:
As a result of concerns from the residents along Empress Avenue, Councillor Norm Gardner invited local residents to a
community meeting. Councillor Gardner's office has advised that over 100 residents, between Kingsdale Avenue and
Parkview Avenue, received notification of the community meeting.
In accordance with the Traffic Calming Policy, a traffic work group, made up of residents who live on Empress Avenue,
was established to work with staff, to address the traffic concerns. After several meetings of the traffic work group, a plan
has been developed through the implementation of several different traffic calming measures. The plan was agreed to, in
principle, for a six month test by the affected residents who attended the September 8th public meeting, in accordance with
the former City of North York's Council Policy. The traffic work group has submitted a request that this matter be brought
forward to the North York Community Council for consideration of the proposed temporary plan.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The attached graphs illustrate that while traffic volumes, over a twenty four hour and peak hour periods, are within
acceptable limits for a collector roadway, residents are concerned that traffic patterns are unacceptable. Changes in traffic
patterns and volume increases in the general area can be attributed to traffic from Sheppard Avenue diverting because of
construction of the subway. The situation is temporary and once the construction of the subway is completed and
particularly when the Service Road is extended north, traffic patterns will normalize on Empress Avenue.
These traffic calming measures proposed to address the residents concerns of safety and off peak speeding consist of
"pinch points", "mid-block median dividers", "sidewalk extensions" and "speed humps" as detailed on Appendix 'A'.
Several other types of traffic control measures were suggested by the community and reviewed by the traffic work group
including turn restrictions, stop signs and continuous police enforcement. For a variety of reasons, as reviewed by the
community during the process, these were not pursued at this time.
Due to limitations associated with construction activities late in the season, the installation of the speed humps must be
deferred until the spring of 1999.
Conclusions:
The Transportation Division has been active for numerous years, responding to concerns of vehicle speed, volume and
traffic safety. Past studies confirm that traditional methods in controlling traffic have had only limited and short term
effect. Legislated traffic controls or police enforcement have not been effective in addressing driver behaviour to date. The
physical measures which are being proposed have shown success in addressing concerns of speeding in other areas. Staff
will continue to work with the residents through to the final phases of the design and installation process.
All City departments and emergency services have been contacted for comments pertaining to the installation of the traffic
calming measure. With the exception of the Fire Services, we have received no objections.
In general, the emergency services supported measures that can be taken to improve safety on our streets, however, they
expressed concern that when they encounter severe restrictions, emergency services vehicles will be delayed when
responding to calls.
The Fire Services specifically noted this as Empress Avenue was a primary service route for both the Canterbury Place
(Station 1) and Bayview Avenue (Station 13) stations, and the principal access to this community, therefore delays in
responding could be significant, depending on the extent of the emergency. With respect to the proposal, the staff of the
Fire Services would anticipate delays only at locations where speed humps were installed. All other measures only
introduce horizontal changes and therefore would not require a reduction in the speed of the response vehicle.
As a result of the fast approaching cold weather, there is a concern that the three proposed speed humps might not be able
to be properly built, and it is suggested that their installation be deferred until the spring. This deferral would also allow
staff to assess the benefits associated with the installation of the remaining traffic calming measures. Should it be
substantiated that the residents' concerns have been met without the speed humps, their installation could be reconsidered,
and if removed from the traffic calming plan, would address the Fire Services concern for delayed response times.
Staff considers the proposed traffic calming plan to be functional in addressing driver behaviour, managing vehicle speeds
and increasing traffic/pedestrian safety.
Funds exist in the current operating budget to install these features for a six month test. Prior to a final submission to deal
with the permanent installation of a Traffic Management Plan on Empress Avenue, a cost estimate would be developed .
Contact Name:
Allen J. Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
________
(A copy of Appendix 'A' and graphs 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 also reports having had before it a communication (November8, 1998) from Tina
Mei Ho Tsai, Gary Yen and Cindy Yen.
Ms. Lola Bartoszewicz appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
8
All Way Stop Control -
Exbury Road and Parent Avenue -
North York Black Creek
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 22, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control, to improve pedestrian and motorist safety, at the intersection of Exbury Road and Parent
Avenue.
Source of Funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule XVIII and XIX of the former North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to require traffic to stop on all
approaches to the intersection of Exbury Road and Parent Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, northbound and southbound motorists on Exbury are required to stop at Parent Avenue.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
On numerous occasions, over the past several years, residents have identified a concern for safety, particularly pedestrians,
at the intersection of Exbury Road and Parent Avenue. As a result of those concerns, all way stop studies were undertaken.
Although the technical warrants for the installation of an all way stop control have not been satisfied, current traffic
operations would support the need for an all way stop control.
As Parent Avenue, to the east of Exbury Road, is slightly skewed, motorists travelling westbound experience difficulties in
viewing southbound traffic on Exbury Road. This, in association with the number of pedestrians generated by St. Conrad
Separate School to the east on Parent Avenue, would generate a need for an all way stop control.
Conclusions:
In order to increase the safety level for pedestrian staff of the Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency
Services Department, support the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Exbury Road and Parent
Avenue.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
9
Parking Prohibitions - Glen Park Avenue -
North York Spadina
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 22, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To prohibit parking at anytime on the south side of Glen Park Avenue, from Marlee Avenue to a point 37.0 meters westerly
thereof.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at anytime on
the south side of Glen Park Avenue, from Marlee Avenue to a point 37.0 metres west of Marlee Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Glen Park Avenue, from Marlee Avenue to Danesbury
Avenue. On the south side of the street, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has received a request from Mr.
Bruno Minicucci, 229 Glen Park Avenue, to prohibit parking at anytime on the south side of Glen Park Avenue, between
Marlee Avenue and the westerly limit of his property.
Mr. Minicucci has indicated that vehicles parked on the south side of Glen Park Avenue, adjacent to 229 Glen Park
Avenue, are restricting the driveway access and interfering with waste/recycling collections.
Our investigation has verified Mr. Minicucci's concern, as vehicles parked on either side of the driveway access to 229
Glen Park Avenue create an obstruction.
Conclusions:
In order to maintain the operation of garbage collection and to increase safety for motorists accessing/egressing at the
driveway access at 229 Glen Park Avenue, this department supports Mr. Minicucci's request.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Investigations
395-7463 (telephone), 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
10
Parking Prohibitions - Glenallan Road -
North York Centre South
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 26, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, prohibition on both sides of Glenallan Road, from
Strathgowan Crescent to Mildenhall Road.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to install "No Parking 8:00 A.M.
to 5:00 P.M., Monday to Friday" prohibition on both sides of Glenallan Road, from the westerly limit of Mildenhall Road
to the easterly limit of Strathgowan Crescent.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited on both sides of Glenallan Road, east of Mildenhall Road. Parking is permitted for up to a
maximum of three hours on Glenallan Road, west of Mildenhall Road.
Discussion:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department have received a petition from the
residents of the roadway supporting the installation of the parking restrictions.
The request for the parking prohibitions was made due to the continual daily parking by the students of York University,
Glendon College Campus and the employees of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Enforcement of the three hour limit
has proven to be ineffective.
Conclusions:
This department supports amending the current parking regulations on Glenallan Road, as per the residents' request.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton
Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
11
Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Haven Road -
North York Spadina
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 26, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To prohibit parking between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Haven Road, from
Glen Long Avenue to Glen Park Avenue.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking on both sides
of Haven Road, from the northerly limit of Glen Park Avenue to the southerly limit of Glen Long Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of this section of Haven Road.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department have been advised by local
residents that students of the nearby schools are parking daily for extended periods of time. This parking activity restricts
two way traffic and access/egress from residential driveways. Despite numerous requests to the Toronto Police Services for
enforcement of the three hour parking limit, the students' parking habits have not changed. As identified in the attached
petition, the majority of residents of this section of the roadway support the proposed parking restrictions. The concerns of
the residents have been confirmed by staff.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this department supports amending the current parking regulations, as requested by the local
residents.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone); 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E.Mail)
________
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a petition (undated) signed by approximately 16
residents of Haven Road, in support of the proposed parking prohibitions.
(A copy of the petition referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
12
Parking and Stopping Prohibitions
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 27, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To modify/amend the existing traffic by-law entries to match the posted restrictions.
Source of funds:
All funds associated with amendments to the traffic by-law is included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedules VIII and IX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to
allow for the coordination of the entries between the traffic by-law and signs posted on specific roadways.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Regular operational maintenance.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
As a result of regular maintenance, several locations were identified where the specific by-law entries did not match the
posted signs. To allow for proper enforcement of the restrictions, the traffic by-law must be amended.
Conclusions:
This department supports the amendments to the traffic by-law.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone); 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
13
Stopping Prohibitions - Connaught Avenue
Between Lariviere Road and Fargo Avenue -
North York Centre
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 27, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To prohibit stopping between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., on both sides of Connaught Avenue, from Lariviere
Road to Fargo Avenue
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the stopping restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that schedule IX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit
stopping on both sides of Connaught Avenue between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., from Lariviere Road to Fargo
Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently stopping is prohibited on both sides of Connaught Avenue between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., from
Yonge Street to Lariviere Road. Parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Connaught
Avenue, west of Lariviere Road.
Discussion:
Following the opening of the Basic Funeral Home on the northwest corner of the Yonge Street\Connaught Avenue
intersection, numerous vehicles were parked on both sides of Connaught Avenue, west of Yonge Street. As a result,
residents requested the installation of stopping prohibitions between Yonge Street and Lariviere Road.
Since the installation of the stopping prohibitions on Connaught Avenue, vehicles belonging to patrons of the Basic
Funeral Home are parking west of Lariviere Road. As a result, residents are requesting that the stopping prohibitions be
farther extended westerly to Fargo Avenue.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this department would support an amendment to the stopping regulations on Connaught Avenue, as
per the residents' request.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca. (E.Mail)
14
All Way Stop Control -
Patricia Avenue at Fargo Avenue -
North York Centre
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 30, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control, to improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety, at the intersection of Patricia Avenue and
Fargo Avenue.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to
stop at all approaches to the intersection of Patricia Avenue at Fargo Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, eastbound and westbound motorists on Patricia Avenue are required to stop at Fargo Avenue. Traffic on Fargo
Avenue is not required to stop between Connaught and Moore Park Avenues.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department have been requested by
local residents to consider the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Patricia Avenue and Fargo
Avenue. Residents are concerned for the safety of the many pedestrians who cross at the intersection, without the
protection of the stop controls.
The results of the most recent all way stop study, conducted on October 15, concluded that the technical requirements for
an all way stop control have been satisfied. Although the majority of traffic currently travels east and west along Patricia
Avenue, motorists are required to provide right of way to traffic on Fargo Avenue.
Conclusions:
To improve the level of safety for all road users, the Works and Emergency Services Department supports the installation
of an all way stop control at the intersection of Patricia Avenue and Fargo Avenue.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (Telephone); 395-7482 (Facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)
15
5 Percent Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication -
693316 Ontario Limited -
508-518 Coldstream Avenue -
North York Spadina
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (August 18, 1998) from the Director of
Policy and Development, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism not be adopted and that the total
cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment be $27,000.00 for the three new lots created and $1,000.00 for each of
the remaining seven lots, for a combined total figure of $34,000.00:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to clarify the application of the 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment
attributable to the above noted development. The solicitor acting on behalf of 693316 Ontario Limited wishes to make a
submission to Community Council to present his position with regard to the 5 percent cash-in-lieu payment (see attached
Schedule A).
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment remain applicable for this development.
Background:
1.0Subject Lands:
The subject lands involve 7 lots, Lots 2 to 7, R.P. 3171 and Part of Lot 1, R.P. 3556. These lands are municipally known as
508, 510 and 518 Coldstream Avenue (see attached Schedule B).
The above noted lands were the subject of amendment application UDOZ-96-12 which was approved by the former City of
North York Council at its meeting held on April 16, 1997. Council approved the redevelopment of the subject lands to
permit 10 new detached dwellings and enacted By-law No.32999 (see attached Schedule C). At the time of the zoning
amendment application 3 of the lots had existing detached dwellings located on them and 4 of the lots did not have
structures on them, were undeveloped and vacant.
2.0Planning Act, Section 42 and By-law No. 30152:
Section 42(1) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c. P.13, reads as follows:
"As a condition of development or redevelopment of land, the council of a local municipality may, by-by-law applicable to
the whole municipality or to any defined area or areas thereof, require that land in an amount not exceeding, in the case of
land proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes, 2 per cent and in all other cases
5percent of the land be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes."
The option for municipalities to request payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication from developers did not appear as a
provision within the Planning Act until 1983 (Section 41, Planning Act, 1983, S.O. 1983, C.1).
On March 9, 1987 the former City of North York enacted By-law No. 30152 (see attached ScheduleD). By-law No. 30152
still remains in full force and effect. This is the by-law specified in Section 42(1) of the Planning Act, which enables the
former municipality of North York to apply a parkland dedication requirement to development or redevelopment of land.
That dedication can be in the form of land or cash-in-lieu of a land dedication payment. By-law No. 30152 defines
development and redevelopment of lands as follows:
"Development means the construction, erection or placing of one or more buildings or structures on land or the making of
an addition or alternation to a building or structure that has the effect of substantially increasing the size or usability
thereof, or the laying out and establishment of a commercial parking lot.
Redevelopment means the removal of a building or structures from land and further development of the land, or the
substantial renovation of a building or structure and a change in the character or density of use in connection therewith".
2.1Exemptions:
There are exemptions where the City does not apply a parkland dedication requirement. Generally, developments such as
places or worship, publicly funded schools and institutional uses are exempt. Detached dwellings on an individual basis are
exempt when they are as-of-right development or redevelopment of an existing detached dwelling. Or if a land conveyance
was made by a previously registered plan of subdivision, that may fulfill the statutory parkland dedication requirement.
2.2Current Practice:
There are two ways the City can apply the parkland dedication requirement as set out in By-law No.30152. The first is if
the lands in question are the subject of a zoning amendment application or a plan of subdivision application. The Parks and
Recreation Department determines, at time of application circulation, if a land dedication or cash-in-lieu of parkland
dedication is appropriate for the development. Parks and Recreation then reports its requirements to the Planning
Department for inclusion in their staff report on the application and it becomes a condition of approval.
The second method of application is when the development is permitted as-of-right. If this is the case, then it is determined
by Parks and Recreation if a cash-in-lieu payment is applicable or not.
At present, the majority of parkland dedication requirements secured in North York are by means of zoning amendment or
subdivision applications and are in the form of cash-in-lieu. This is due to the fact that most development or redevelopment
sites in North York are small in size and do not warrant an on-site parkland dedication.
3.0Land Divisions:
North York also applies the practice of collecting a cash levy for parks through applications for land divisions. If a land
division is applied for, then the City has the ability to collect $1,000.00 for each new lot created by means of a land
division.
4.0Registered Plans 3171 and 3556:
The majority of the subject lands, Lots 2 to 7, are lots found within Registered Plan 3171 which was registered on July 13,
1944. The plan consists of 68 detached dwelling lots, 4 commercial blocks and public roadways. Part of Lot 1, R.P. 3556
also forms part of the subject lands. This plan consists of 36 detached dwelling lots and public roadways and was registered
on April 26, 1948. No conveyance of parkland blocks are indicated on either of these plans of subdivision.
5.0UDOZ-96-12:
Amendment application UDOZ-96-12 was received by the Planning Department on April 2, 1996 and then circulated to
other departments and agencies for comments. The original proposal was for development of the site with 14 multiple
attached dwelling units.
In its comments to the Planning Department dated August 8, 1996 (see attached Schedule E) the Parks and Recreation
Department advised that if this application was approved by Council, it would be subject to a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of
parkland dedication payment. A copy of these comments were forwarded directly to the applicant by Planning Department
staff (see attached Schedule E1).
On November 26, 1996 the Planning Department recirculated amendment application UDOZ-96-12 to other departments
and agencies for comments, as the applicant had modified their proposal. The applicant was now requesting permission to
develop the subject lands with 10 detached dwellings.
In its revised comments to the Planning Department dated January 7, 1997 (see attached Schedule F) the Parks and
Recreation Department advised that if this application was approved by Council, it would be subject to a 5 percent
cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment.
The Planning Department prepared a staff report on this application dated February 4, 1997. The report was received by
Planning Committee on February 12, 1997. The statutory public meeting was held on March 26, 1997 and former City of
North York Council approved this amendment application at its meeting held on April 16, 1997. By-law No. 32999 was
enacted by former City of North York Council on May 28, 1997 and is now deemed to be in force.
Comments and Discussion:
6.0Current Status:
The land owner has made application to the City for building permits for the 10 detached dwellings. At time of building
permit application, the applicant was informed that the development would be subject to a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of
parkland dedication payment. In a memorandum dated May 4, 1998 (see attached Schedule G), the Property Section of the
Finance Department assessed the 5percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment for the 10 detached dwellings at
$90,000.00 or $9,000.00 per dwelling. The land owner has been advised of this information.
At the time of writing this report, the land owner has made two payments to the City of $9,000.00 each for cash-in-lieu of
parkland dedication. This fulfills the parkland dedication requirement for two of the ten building permits. These payments
have been made under protest.
7.0Legal Department Interpretation:
The solicitor acting on behalf of the land owner wrote a letter to the Parks and Recreation Department dated March 25,
1998 (see attached Schedule H) questioning the applicability of the 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment
for his client's development.
The Parks and Recreation Department forwarded the March 25, 1998 letter from the land owner's solicitor to the Legal
Department for interpretation and response. In a letter dated March 26, 1998 (see attached Schedule I) the Legal
Department advised the land owner's solicitor of the following:
- The Planning Act of Ontario gives authority to all local municipalities to require a parkland dedication, or cash-in-lieu
thereof, as a condition of development or redevelopment of land.
- Within the text of By-law No. 30152, development and redevelopment are defined. It is the City's position that the
proposal for 10 detached dwellings on the above noted lands, which was approved by Council by means of an amending
by-law, constitutes development of the subject lands. Therefore, you are subject to, in this case, a 5 percent cash-in-lieu
of parkland dedication payment prior to the issuance of any building permits for the subject lands.
- By-law No. 30152 does not require that you receive notice in advance of this levy. This is a levy recognized by public
statute and must be paid prior to building permit issuance.
Conclusions:
Despite the fact the land owner has said he was unaware of the cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirement of Parks
and Recreation when the property was purchased, the Ontario Planning Act permits municipalities the ability to apply a
parkland dedication requirement as a condition of development or redevelopment of land. The land owner was advised of
this requirement at time of building permit application.
Former City of North York By-law No. 30152 is the enabling by-law which gives the City the authority to implement a
parkland dedication, or cash-in-lieu thereof, for development or redevelopment of land. By-law No. 30152 remains in full
force and effect. The lands in question were the subject of an amendment application that represented both development
and redevelopment of these lands.
Therefore, the City was operating within its authority to request a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication from this land owner
for this development.
Contact Names:
Ed Newhook, Manager Policy and Planning
Phone: 395-7907Fax: 395-7886
Tim Park, Land Use Planner
Phone: 395-0221Fax: 395-7886
(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York City
Centre.)
16
Amendments to the Downsview Area
Transportation Master Plan -
North York Spadina
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause, together with the communication
dated November12, 1998, from the City Clerk, and the communication dated November 20, 1998, from the General
Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for further
consideration, with a request that she, in consultation with the affected Ward Councillors, the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services and the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, submit a joint report thereon to
Council, through the North York Community Council and the Urban Environment and Development Committee.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 27, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to present revisions to the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan that identify and
incorporate specific initiatives in achieving a more transit-oriented, less auto-reliant development at Downsview as directed
by City Council on July 31, 1998;
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the revisions to the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan set out in Schedule "A" to this
report be adopted;
Background:
Toronto City Council adopted the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, Official Plan Amendment No.464, at its meeting of
July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, and directed that:
"The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Toronto Transit Commission
and the 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."
Discussion:
Since adoption of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan in July, City Planning and Transportation staff in consultation with
staff from the Toronto Transit Commission have had an opportunity to consider clarifications to the Downsview Area
Transportation Master Plan to help achieve more transit-oriented, less auto reliant development at Downsview.
Revisions to the Transportation Master Plan set out in the attached table, strengthen the role of Transportation Demand
Management in achieving a shift to non-automobile modes of transportation and the protection of transit operations,
facilities and service. These revisions also require that transportation impact studies submitted in support of development
applications identify and assess the feasibility and impact of Transportation Demand Management measures.
Contact Name:
Marta Roias, Transportation Services, District 3, Telephone: (416) 395-7461
________
(A copy of Schedule 'A' and the revisions to the Transportation Master Plan referred to in the foregoing report is on file in
the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a
communication (November 12, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding a copy of Schedule"A", entitled "Revisions to the
Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan", referred to in the foregoing Clause.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (November
20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:
At its meeting on November 18, 1998, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Amendments to
Downsview Area Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment No. 464)."
The Commission approved the Recommendations contained in the report, as listed below:
"It is recommended that the Commission:
(1)endorse the incorporation of explicit non-auto mode split targets in the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (Official
Plan Amendment No. 464) which will govern the nature of development in the Downsview planning area, formerly known
as the Downsview Air Base, noting that:
(a)the Downsview planning area is the last major "greenfield" site left to be developed in the City of Toronto;
(b)over $120 million of public money has been spent extending Toronto's subway system to Downsview, thus providing
the area with an extraordinarily-high level of transit access;
(c)development within the Downsview planning area should be required to be designed in such a way that at least a
modest, but achievable percentage of trips to and from the area are taken on public transit, rather than in private cars;
(d)the still-evolving Secondary Plan (OPA 464) for the Downsview area is a means by which Council can ensure that
development there conforms with the City's transportation objectives and makes best possible use of the public's
investment in high-quality transportation infrastructure;
(2)request City of Toronto Council to amend Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 464 by incorporating into it the changes
contained in Appendix A of this report; and
(3)forward this report to North York Community Council, Councillor Michael Feldman, and the Planning and
Transportation Departments of the City of Toronto."
In addition, the Commission approved forwarding the foregoing report to Toronto City Council for consideration at its
meeting on November 25, 1998, in conjunction with Clause 16 of Report No. 13 of The North York Community Council
entitled, "Amendment to Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan," with a request that City Council defer both
matters pending reconciliation of the discrepancies that exist between the two reports.
The foregoing is forwarded to Toronto City Council for consideration at its meeting on Wednesday, November 25, 1998 in
conjunction with Clause 16 of Report No. 13 of The North York Community Council.(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 25,
entitled "Amendments to Downsview Area Secondary Plan
(Official Plan Amendment No. 464))
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Commission:
(1)endorse the incorporation of explicit non-auto mode split targets in the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (Official
Plan Amendment No. 464) which will govern the nature of development in the Downsview planning area, formerly known
as the Downsview Air Base, noting that:
(a)the Downsview planning area is the last major "greenfield" site left to be developed in the City of Toronto;
(b)over $120 million of public money has been spent extending Toronto's subway system to Downsview, thus providing
the area with an extraordinarily-high level of transit access;
(c)development within the Downsview planning area should be required to be designed in such a way that at least a
modest, but achievable percentage of trips to and from the area are taken on public transit, rather than in private cars;
(d)the still-evolving Secondary Plan (OPA 464) for the Downsview area is a means by which Council can ensure that
development there conforms with the City's transportation objectives and makes best possible use of the public's
investment in high-quality transportation infrastructure;
(2)request City of Toronto Council to amend Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 464 by incorporating into it the changes
contained in Appendix A of this report; and
(3)forward this report to North York Community Council, Councillor Michael Feldman, and the Planning and
Transportation Departments of the City of Toronto.
Funding:
This report has no funding implications for the Toronto Transit Commission.
Background:
The Downsview planning area formerly the Downsview Air Base is now undergoing redevelopment, which requires
preparation of a secondary plan and associated zoning by-laws. Downsview is the last major "greenfield" site left to be
developed within the City of Toronto. Over $120 million of public money has been spent extending the subway system to
Downsview in order to provide the area with an excellent level of transit access. Transit investments of this magnitude
make sense only if they are supported by transit-oriented development. With its location adjacent to Downsview subway
station, development within the Downsview area should be required to be designed in such a way that a reasonable
percentage of trips to and from the area is taken on public transit, rather than in private cars. In order to ensure that this
happens, Council should amend the Secondary Plan for the Downsview Area that is, Official Plan Amendment No. 464 to
incorporate an explicit non-auto mode split target and associated supporting policies.
This report proposes specific amendments for OPA No. 464.
Discussion:
The City of Toronto's Official Plan is a formal, legal document which describes Council's vision of how the City should be
developed with respect to land use, transportation, utilities, economic development, recreational resources, and other
areas. It lays out the objectives which Council and the City's residents wish to achieve in order to enjoy a liveable city, and
it contains policies designed to help achieve the vision and objectives. Although Toronto's Official Plan is undergoing
review in light of the recent municipal amalgamation, a common element found in all of the former Metro and area
municipal Official Plans is the support and promotion of the use of public transit as a means of reducing congestion and
pollution, and reducing the amount of precious urban land which must be dedicated to road widenings, parking lots, etc. A
representative sample of this long-standing Council-endorsed policy may be drawn from the Metro Official Plan, The
Liveable Metropolis, which states that it is the policy of Council to reduce vehicle use through achievement of an increase
in the combined proportion of peak period transit, cycling, and walking trips to 50 percent of total trips.
This policy is very clear in that it makes specific reference to a target proportion of trips to be made by non-auto modes
(i.e., a mode split). OPA 464 is a Secondary Plan which is more detailed and area-specific than the Metro Official Plan.
To this end, it is entirely appropriate to include specific targets related to non-auto mode split which are tailored to the
Downsview planning area, its unique features and attributes, and its needs.
TTC staff have been working with North York District Planning and Transportation staffs regarding the Secondary Plan
and supporting Transportation Master Plan for the Downsview area. The Transportation Plan, developed by an
independent consultant under contract to North York District Transportation staff, concluded that the road system, even
after planned expansions, will be able to accommodate no more than 80 percent of the projected trips to and from the area
by automobile. Therefore, the minimum non-auto mode split target for the area should be at least 20 percent -- that is, no
less than 20 percent of all trips should be made by other modes such as transit, bicycling, walking, etc. This target of at
least 20percent is not particularly pro-active; it represents the minimum which must be achieved to allow the overall
transportation system to function as planned. In recognition of this fact, this target, and the appropriate supporting
policies, should be explicitly included in the planning documents which will govern development of this valuable site for
following generations. Therefore, it is recommended that the Commission endorse the incorporation of an explicit
non-auto mode split target in OPA No. 464, and that the Commission request the City of Toronto Council to amend OPA
No. 464 by incorporating the changes contained in Appendix A of this report.
If the policies and objectives in the OPA are not as specific and clearly stated as those proposed in Appendix A of this
report, then the Secondary Plan will not be effective in influencing the development to actually achieve the mode split
target. Statements of general intent have, in the past, proven to be ineffective in actually influencing transportation and
development in the City.)
(A copy of Appendix A: Proposed changes to OPA No. 464 (Downsview Secondary Plan) which was appended to the
foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
17
Sidewalks - Local Improvement Initiatives in the
Approved 1998 Capital Budget - North York Spadina,
North York Centre and North York Centre South
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the construction of sidewalks on Wimpole Drive from
Bayview Avenue to Forest Heights Boulevard, as part of the Local Improvement Initiative Projects referred to in
the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre, be approved:
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 9, Clause 8 of 1988, Resolution No. 88-18
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$42,000.003
(from Bayview Ave.to Forest Heights Blvd)(lowest priority)
Stafford Road$ 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)
Estimated Cost of
StreetSidewalkCategory
Maplehurst Avenue$ 20,000.002
(from Willowdale Ave. to West End)(middle priority)
Fenn Avenue$ 3,000.00(N/A)
(from York 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
--------
The balance of the projects referred to the in the foregoing report were approved by City Council at its meeting held on
October 28, 29 and 30, 1998.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:
(i)(November 9, 1998) from Ms. Bonnie Novack, objecting to the construction of the sidewalks on Wimpole Drive;
(ii)(November 9, 1998) from Mr. Michael Croghan, objecting to the construction of the sidewalks on Wimpole Drive and
forwarding a copy of a letter (October 19, 1998) of objection addressed to the City Solicitor;
(iii)(November 2, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30,
1998, adopted, without amendment, a motion by Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, wherein it recommended that
the construction of the sidewalk on Wimpole Dive embodied in Clause 11 of Report No. 8 of the North York Community
Council, headed 'Sidewalks - Local Improvement Initiatives in the Approved 1998 Capital Budget - North York Spadina,
North York Centre and North York Centre South, be re-opened and referred back to the North York Community Council
for consideration at its November 12, 1998 meeting in order to allow local residents an opportunity to speak on the issue;
and
(iv)(September 28, 1998) from Dr. Philip and Mrs. Bonnie Novack.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Sandra Bleeman; and
-Ms. Diana Rosenswag.
18
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
UDOZ-95-21 - Dangreen Properties Inc. -
Northeast Corner of Bayview Avenue and
Sheppard Avenue East - Seneca Heights
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 26, 1998) from the
Director, Community Planning, North District, with the following amendments:
(1)Principle (a) be amended to read:
"Intensification of this block to facilitate the proposed massing concept as detailed in Schedule "C" to the staff
report dated July 8, 1998, should be a municipal objective";
(2)Principle (i) be amended to read:
"Intensification of the Orlando site should take place in the current F.S.I. of 1.0 to1.5.";
(3)Principle (j) be amended to read:
"A minimum of 1.5 m2 of private indoor recreational space per residential dwelling unit and a minimum of 1.5 m2
of private outdoor recreational space per residential dwelling unit should be provided by the new development.";
and
(4)Principle (z) be numbered as (aa) and a new Principle (z) be added as follows:
"(z)Dangreen and Orlando should undertake a joint parking demand study based upon the full built out
development concept for the block.":
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the community meeting held on October 7, 1998 on the Preliminary
Evaluation Report (Schedule "A"), considered by Community Council at its July22, 1998 meeting. The report, dated July
8, 1998, was referred back to staff to be brought forward after further consultation with the community in conjunction with
the local Councillors.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the principles of development from the staff report dated July 8, 1998, as modified in the attached
Appendix "A" to this report, be adopted.
Background:
At the July 22, 1998 meeting, Community Council considered a Preliminary Evaluation Report which established
principles of development for an evaluation of an application filed by Dangreen Properties Inc. and within the context of a
comprehensive development concept for the Bayview Village Shopping Centre Block. Community Council recommended
that further community consultation on this report occur in conjunction with the local Councillors. After this consultation,
the principles of development for Dangreen properties were to be brought back to Community Council for endorsement.
This will allow the continued processing of the application in keeping with established principles.
Discussion:
A community meeting was convened on October 7, 1998. At that meeting, concerns were expressed about the proposed
development by residents in the area and a tenant of the Bayview Village Shopping Centre. A summary of the comments
and concerns raised at this meeting are included as Appendix "B".
The principles of development for this block will address issues raised at the meeting. Others, such as the impact of the
proposed Dangreen building on the Teagarden Court residents (shadowing, privacy, other development interests in the area
and the signalization for the TTC bus loop) and the impact on existing commercial uses at the Bayview Village Shopping
Centre, will be considered as part of staff's evaluation of the application. To this end, a new principle of development has
been included which addresses urban design related concerns of the residents on Teagarden Court.
One of the principles recommended in the July 8, 1998 report considered by Community Council was that based on an
appropriate parking demand analysis, reduced parking requirements should be supported. The applicant advised at the
community meeting that their intention is to provide the full parking requirements as described in By-law 7625 and this
development principle has been deleted.
Conclusions:
The concerns raised by the residents at the meeting will be considered by staff in their evaluation of development on this
block. Development of the northeast corner of Bayview Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East and on the Bayview Village
Shopping Centre site should proceed on the basis of the comprehensive block development concept and principles of
development from the July 8, 1998 report as modified in the attached Appendix "A" to this report.
Contact Name:
Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner; Telephone: (416) 395-7110
--------
(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.)
19
Modifications to the Intersection of Pembury Avenue
With the Bayview Avenue Access Ramp -
North York Centre South
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the report (July 10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of
Transportation, North York Civic Centre, not be adopted and that access to/from Pembury Avenue be closed
permanently at its intersection with the Bayview Avenue access ramp.
The North York Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, to report
back to the North York Community Council after one year on the impact on the neighbourhood of the closing of Pembury
Avenue.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner
of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
Provide assessment of either the closure of Pembury Avenue at the intersection with the ramp from Lawrence Avenue East
to southbound Bayview Avenue or modifications to the intersection to reduce southbound vehicle operating speeds.
Source of funds:
This project should be considered as a local intersection improvement and sufficient funds be included in the 1999 Capital
Works Construction Program.
Recommendation:
It is recommended 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.
Background:
The current configuration at the intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue access ramp, (see Exhibit 1
attached), provides the opportunity for southbound motorists on the access ramp to continue on Pembury Avenue at a
higher than acceptable rate of speed. As can be noted from the exhibit, the intersection is designed at an angle of much
greater that the traditional 90 degrees. Northbound traffic on Pembury Avenue is required to stop prior to proceeding
southbound on the Bayview Avenue access ramp.
Access from Bayview Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East, to the greater community to the west and south, is significantly
restricted during the am peak traffic period as southbound right turn restrictions are in place at all intersections along
Bayview Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue East and Eglinton Avenue East and westbound traffic on Lawrence Avenue
East is restricted from travelling southbound on Mildenhall Road. These restrictions divert considerable traffic on both
Pembury Avenue and Wood Avenue as they are the only roadways where motorists may legally access the community.
However, as neither Wood or Pembury Avenues have full access to Bayview Avenue, they would not experience the same
volume of traffic, local or transient, as those with direct access to Bayview Avenue.
Only southbound traffic is permitted on the ramp from Lawrence Avenue East to southbound Bayview Avenue.
Southbound traffic on the Bayview Avenue access ramp may continue to the west on either Pembury or Wood Avenues.
Eastbound traffic on Pembury or Wood Avenues may only continue southbound on the Bayview Avenue access ramp.
Residents of Pembury Avenue have indicated in a petition to Councillor Flint that the current traffic volume and rate of
speed on Pembury Avenue are not appropriate for the roadway. On Pembury Avenue, between the Bayview Avenue access
ramp and St. Leonard Drive, there are only single family residential properties.
As a result of their concerns, residents have requested that access to/from Pembury Avenue at the Bayview Avenue access
ramp not be permitted.
Discussion:
At the time of the request for the permanent closure of Pembury Avenue, the Transportation Committee for the former City
of North York could not support the residents' proposal due to objections received from the residents of Wood Avenue.
The residents of Wood Avenue indicated that, as access to the community is restricted to either Pembury or Wood Avenues
during the a.m. peak traffic period, any additional restrictions put in place, would result in significant increases in the
traffic volumes on Wood Avenue. Residents of Wood Avenue did not indicate any concern for the rate of speed of traffic
on Wood Avenue.
Consequently, staff of the Transportation Division were directed to consider alternatives to a full closure, which would
reduce the rate of speed of southbound traffic on Pembury Avenue, and to identify the potential impacts on traffic
operations on Wood Avenue should a permanent closure be considered for Pembury Avenue at the Bayview Avenue access
ramp.
To thoroughly identify the potential impacts and benefits for traffic on the existing roadway system, Transportation
Division staff undertook the necessary studies to identify existing traffic volumes and developed Traffic Management
Techniques (TMT) to address the Pembury Avenue and Wood Avenue residents. Specifically, TMT included the
temporary closure/redesign of the Pembury Avenue/Bayview Avenue access ramp intersection and:
- identify the existing traffic volumes on Pembury and Wood Avenues, and the rate of speed of southbound traffic on
Pembury Avenue, south of the Bayview Avenue access ramp;
- the use of new Jersey barriers (see Exhibit 2 attached), to temporarily restrict northbound and southbound traffic at the
intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bavyiew Avenue access ramp. With the closure in place, identify what effects
the closure had on traffic volumes on Wood Avenue; and
- with the use of temporary curb stones and minor intersection improvements, modify the intersection of Pembury
Avenue and the Bayview Avenue access ramp to require southbound motorists to access Pembury Avenue at a more
traditional intersection (see Exhibit 3 attached). Northbound traffic would not be permitted to access the Bayview
Avenue access ramp. With the intersection modifications in place, identify what affects the modifications had on traffic
volumes on Wood Avenue.
Existing Conditions
Table 1, below, identifies the traffic volumes and vehicle speeds on Pembury and Wood Avenues prior to the installation
of any temporary TMT at the intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue access ramp.
These traffic volumes are well within acceptable levels for both local roadways. The speed of southbound traffic on
Pembury Avenue is of concern, due to the existing alignment of the intersection and the character of the properties along
the roadway.
Road Closure
With the use of new Jersey barriers, northbound and southbound traffic on Pembury Avenue, at the Bayview Avenue
access ramp, was prohibited. Subsequently, numerous traffic studies were undertaken to determine what effects the closure
would have on traffic volumes on Wood Avenue. Table 1 below identifies the average traffic volume on Wood Avenue,
recorded during the studies, with the closure of the intersection.
Intersection Modifications
In order to maintain access to Pembury Avenue while reducing the operating speeds of southbound motorists, the
intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue access ramp was modified.
Although southbound motorists on the Bayview access ramp were required to access Pembury Avenue at a more traditional
intersection design, it was not possible to continue to permit northbound traffic on Pembury Avenue to access the Bayview
Avenue access ramp.
Table 1, below, identifies the average vehicle volume and speeds, which were recorded on Pembury and Wood Avenues
during the traffic studies, with the modifications to the intersection.
Conclusions:
As a result of the traffic studies completed on both Pembury Avenue and Wood Avenue, the following was concluded:
- Should access to/from Pembury Avenue be closed permanently at its intersection with the Bayview Avenue access
ramp, the expected increase in traffic volumes on Wood Avenue would not be considered excessive;
- With the proper modifications to the intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue access ramp,
northbound traffic on Pembury Avenue could access the Bayview Avenue access ramp to continue southbound on
Bayview Avenue, traffic volumes on Wood Avenue would be maintained at their existing level, and the rate of speed of
southbound traffic on Pembury Avenue would be significantly reduced from that which is currently being observed; and
- From the results of the traffic studies, it would appear that when access was restricted at the intersection of Pembury
Avenue with the Bayview Avenue access ramp, the majority of traffic which previously utilized Pembury Avenue was
reassigned to Wood Avenue. Although the total volume of traffic which was reassigned on Wood Avenue is not
significant, the concerns of the residents of Wood Avenue, which included further access restrictions into the
community, were justified.
It was generally concluded that traffic volumes on Pembury and Wood Avenues are not, even when access is restricted or
modified at the Pembury Avenue/Bayview Avenue access ramp intersection, considered excessive. Southbound Pembury
Avenue vehicle speeds were significantly reduced with the modifications to the intersection.
It is this departments opinion that to address the principal concerns of the residents of both Wood Avenue and Pembury
Avenue, the intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue access ramp should be modified as described in
this report.
Contact Name:
Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484
--------
(A copy of Table 1 and the Exhibits referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York
Civic Centre.)
20
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-20 -
799806 Ontario Ltd. -
303 Finch Avenue East - North York Centre
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 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 report (September26, 1997) from the Commissioner of
Planning, former City of North York, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands,
recommends that the application submitted by 799806 Ontario Ltd. regarding Zoning Amendment for 303Finch
Avenue East, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the reports.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on November12, 1998, with
appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 26, 1997) from the Commissioner of
Planning, former City of North York:
1.0Summary:
This application proposes to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of four 3-storey townhouse units. The
property is located within the Central Finch Area Secondary Plan. The proposed development is appropriate and conforms
to the site's official plan designation.
2.0Recommendations:
It is recommended the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
Zoning By-law
2.1the R4 zoning of the site be amended to RM1 exception subject to the following specific provisions:
Exception Regulations for Multiple Attached Dwellings
(a) the maximum gross floor area shall be 910m²;
(b)the minimum lot frontage shall be 22.5 metres;
(c)the minimum lot area shall be 200m² per dwelling unit;
(d)Yard Requirements
(i)the minimum front yard shall be (awaiting Metro Comments) from the centre line of Finch Avenue East;
(ii)the minimum side yard setbacks shall be 1.2 metres; and
(iii)the minimum rear yard setback shall be 9.5 metres;
(e)the maximum building height shall be the lessor of 10 metres or three storeys. However, in no case shall the height of
a building (except accessory structures) exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance separating the building from the rear
lot line; and
(f)Landscaping and Lot Coverage requirements shall not apply.
General
2.2Prior to enactment of the zoning by-law, the applicant shall receive site plan approval with particular attention given
to:
- the treatment of the street frontage along Finch Avenue;
- ensuring sufficient landscaping, buffering and fencing is provided for the balance of the site;
- ensuring proper driveway widths, on site circulation and the opportunities to coordinate entrances from Finch
Avenue East from two separate driveways to one driveway;
- the conditions of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department attached as Schedule "F" to the report
(September 26, 1997) from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York;
- the conditions of the North York Transportation Department attached as Schedule"G" to the report (September
26, 1997) from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York; and
- the conditions of the North York Public Works Department attached as Schedule "H" to the report (September
26, 1997) from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York.
2.3That the site plan application be scheduled on the same agenda as the statutory public meeting for the rezoning
application.
3.0Proposal:
The application is for the development of four 3-storey townhouse dwellings representing a gross floor area of 910m² and a
corresponding floor space index of 0.85 (prior to conveyance). The applicant has indicated the units will be sold separately.
As a result a Part Lot Control Exemption Application will be submitted. The conceptual site plan is shown on Schedule
"C" to the report (September 26, 1997) from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York.
4.0Location and Existing Site:
The property is located on the south side of Finch Avenue East, between Bayview Avenue and Estelle Avenue. The site has
a frontage of 22.86 metres, an area of 1076m² and is developed with a one and one half storey single family detached
dwelling. Abutting the property to the east and south are single family homes. To the west is Finch Public School. The
south-west corner of Finch Avenue and Bayview Avenue is developed with 13 townhouse units. Across the street, on the
north side of Finch Avenue, is the Carefree Lodge Vint Foundation.
5.0Planning Controls:
Official Plan:
The lands are designated Central Finch Residential-Two (CFR-2) by the Official Plan. This designation permits
multiple-unit residential uses and no Official Plan amendment is required for this proposal.
Zoning By-law:
The property is zoned R4 which permits one-family detached dwellings. An amendment to the zoning by-law is required to
permit the proposed townhouse development.
The Official Plan and zoning of this site and surrounding uses are shown on Schedules "A" and "B" to the report
(September 26, 1997) from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York.
6.0Other Department Comments:
Relevant comments received from circulated departments and agencies are as follows:
The Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department advise a conveyance is required across the frontage of the property in
order to secure the future 36 metre right-of-way of Finch Avenue East (Schedule"F" of the report (September 26, 1997)
from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York).
The North York Transportation Department advise that the proposal meets the minimum required driveway width at the
property line of 6 metres and the minimum requirement of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (Schedule "G"of the report
(September 26, 1997) from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York)
The North York Public Works Department advise the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City
requiring the unit owners' of the freehold townhouses agree to jointly maintain the common driveway (Schedule "H" of the
report (September 26, 1997) from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York).
The North York Parks and Recreation Department advise a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment is
required for this project at the building permit stage (Schedule "I" of the report (September 26, 1997) from the
Commissioner of Planning, City of North York).
7.0Public Consultation:
A Community Meeting was held on September 23, 1997 at the City of North York. There were four residents in
attendance. Comments were made regarding the height of the proposed building, fencing, the possibility of providing a
singular driveway onto Finch Avenue and setback requirements. Based on the issues raised by the community, it is
appropriate that the site plan application be considered at the same meeting as the statutory public meeting for the rezoning
application. The applicant concurs with this request.
The issues raised by the community have been specifically addressed in the following discussion.
8.0Planning Issues:
8.1The Central Finch Area Secondary Plan
The Central Finch Area Secondary Plan provides policy direction for redevelopment and intensification of properties
fronting onto Finch Avenue east and west of Yonge Street. The Plan encourages the establishment of a vibrant, interesting
and active street-front in the Central Finch Area through the provision of residential uses with front doors and building
faces which address the street. The CFR-2 designation of this property permits, among other uses, multiple-unit residential
uses having a maximum floor space index of 1.0. This residential proposal at a density of 0.96 FSI meets the Secondary
Plan policies.
As a result of this proposal, the property at 305 Finch Avenue East, will be between the proposed 4 townhouse units and
the townhouses located at the south west corner of Finch Avenue East and Bayview Avenue. However, the development of
the subject property does not preclude a similar development on the adjacent lot to the east.
8.2Urban Design Issues
Building Height and Setback Relationship
The Plan requires an overall building height of three storeys and 10 metres and that the height of a building shall not
exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance separating the new construction and the nearest stable residential property
lines. The proposed development is 3 storeys and has a maximum height of 10 metres and conforms to the angular plane
policies of the Plan. The proposed elevation drawings are shown on Schedules "D" and "E" of the report (September 26,
1997) from the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York.
The height of the proposed building was an issue for the residents in the area. Consistent with the Secondary Plan, the
recommended RM1 exception should establish zoning standards to ensure the townhomes maintain the three storey, 10
metre maximum height and angular plane requirements of the Plan are maintained.
Setbacks and Gross Floor Area
In order to create a street oriented development which enhances the pedestrian relationship along Finch Avenue, the
townhomes are located with their front facing onto Finch Avenue. The location of the building maintains the future 36
metre right-of-way and provides enough driveway area to ensure proper on site circulation while complying with the
required parking provisions of the by-law. A minimum rear yard setback of 11.27 metres is proposed which increases to
12.8 metres at the rear westerly portion of the building. This setback will ensure the protection of the stable residential
properties to the south. The 1.2 metre side yard setbacks reflect the nature of the redevelopment opportunities on Finch
Avenue.
The development represents an overall lot coverage of 35 percent. The coverage proposed is appropriate and allows for a
development which is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan. It is recommended the RM1 exception for this site
reflect the maximum gross floor area and minimum setback requirements to ensure development conforms to the policies
in the Plan. It is not necessary to establish lot coverage provisions when the maximum gross floor area and minimum
setback requirements are regulated.
Site Plan Approval
Prior to enactment of the zoning by-law, the applicant will be required to obtain site plan approval. This review will
include treatment along the Finch Avenue frontage and the balance of the site through a combination of landscape planting
and privacy fencing as was raised at the community consultation meeting. The design of walkways, parking areas and
driveways will also be reviewed to ensure proper on site circulation. Reducing the number of driveways onto Finch Avenue
East will provide for additional landscaping opportunities and will meet the general intent of the Plan to reduce the number
of access points onto the arterial road. The site plan should also ensure that the width of the driveway is 6 metres as
indicated in the North York Transportation comments attached as Schedule "G" to the report (September 26, 1997) from
the Commissioner of Planning, City of North York).
8.3Parking and Vehicular Access
The By-law requires a total of 8 parking spaces, 2 for each townhouse unit. The plans circulated with this application
indicate the proposed building would be setback 10.51 metres from the required 36metre Finch Avenue right-of-way. The
proposal provides adequate front yard parking spaces between the building face and the new Metro right-of-way while
complying with the By-law requirement of 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit. The front yard setback and parking
provisions should be specifically addressed in the exception zoning for this site.
10.0Conclusion:
The proposal creates a street oriented development while ensuring the adjacent stable residential areas to the south are
protected. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in this report.
(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on filed in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
The North York Community Council reports having received the following Supplementary Report No. 1 (October
8, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the conditions of site plan approval for this property.
Recommendation:
It is recommended this report be received for information.
Background:
On September 26, 1997, the North York Planning Committee recommended that a public meeting for this application be
scheduled. Notice of a public meeting is for November 12, 1998. The Planning Committee also recommended that the draft
conditions of Site Plan Approval be made available at the time of this public meeting. The draft site plan conditions are
attached to this report as Appendix "A".
The Director of Community Planning is delegated to approve plans and drawings and is prepared to do so with Community
Council consideration of our report dated September 26, 1997 on the rezoning.
Contact Name:
Anthony Rossi, Planner; Telephone: (416) 395-7114Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of Appendix "A" referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
--------
Ms. Muriel Drummond appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
21
Zoning Amendment and Subdivision Applications
UDZ-97-52 and UDSB-1235 -
Graywood Developments Limited -
Block Bounded by Rochefort Drive and Ferrand Drive -
Don Parkway
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 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 (October15, 1998) from the Director,
Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands,
recommends that the application submitted by Graywood Developments Limited regarding Zoning Amendment
and Subdivision Application for the block bounded by Rochefort Drive and Ferrand Drive, be approved subject to
the conditions outlined in the referenced report and subject to the following:
(1)that an additional condition be incorporated as part of Recommendation Number 2, which condition shall read
as follows:
"(2) (ix)that the subdivision application be subject to site plan approval and the site plan include design features
and elevations to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, North District."
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on November12, 1998, with
appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (October 15, 1998) from the Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of the applications to permit the residential subdivision of the site. The applicant
proposes a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision approval in order to permit the construction of 195
semi-detached and multiple-attached dwelling units.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the zoning amendment application be approved and the property's M2 zoning be amended to O1 (Open Space Zone)
and RM1 (Multiple Family Dwellings Zone) with the following exceptions:
(i)permitted uses may include semi-detached dwellings;
(ii)minimum front yard of 3m to the main dwelling and 5.5m to the garage;
(iii)minimum rear yard of 6m;
(iv)minimum side yard of 1.2m;
(v)minimum street frontage for semi-detached dwellings of 13.5m;
(vi)lot area, lot coverage, street frontage and distance between buildings need not apply; and
(vii)Schedule Q to by-law No. 7625 be amended to include the site within the Grenoble neighbourhood;
(2)that the subdivision application shall be recommended for draft plan approval, subject to the following conditions:
(i)the approval applies to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith, dated May
28, 1998 (drawing number A-9724-29DP);
(ii)Streets A, B and C on the plan shall be dedicated as a public highway on the final plan and may have reduced road
allowances of 18.5 metres, as approved by Council;
(iii)Block 84 on the plan shall be dedicated as a park, free of all encumbrances, to the satisfaction of the City;
(iv)Block 85 on the plan shall be dedicated as a minimum 3m wide walkway, free of all encumbrances, to the satisfaction
of the City;
(v)the subdivision agreement shall contain a clause to require that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall submit a record of site condition that is acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment;
(vi)that easements within the plan shall be granted for all required utilities and services to the authority having
jurisdiction;
(vii)the appropriate standard conditions of approval for subdivisions (Schedule K); and
(viii)Bell Canada shall confirm that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise have been made with Bell Canada
for any Bell Canada facilities servicing this draft plan of subdivision which are required by the City to be installed
underground; a copy of such confirmation shall be forwarded to the City;
(3)the conditions of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Schedule D);
(4)the conditions of the Parks and Recreation Division (Schedule E);
(5)the conditions of Works and Emergency Services (Schedules F1 and F2); and
(6)the conditions of the Public Health Department (Schedules G1).
Background:
Council Reference:
In 1993 North York Council approved Official Plan, zoning and subdivision applications to permit the predominantly
residential development of the site. Official Plan Amendment 385 has been approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
while the zoning and subdivision of the site have not been finalized or pursued by the former proponent (Don Valley Park
Limited). This 1993 approval would permit a phased development consisting of the following:
- about 1130 residential units consisting of apartments, street and stacked townhouses;
- retail commercial, office and institutional uses along Eglinton Avenue East;
- maximum density of 1.75 floor space index and 65 units per acre;
- maximum building height of 18 storeys; and
- 2 acre park fronting onto Rochefort Drive.
Proposal:
The current application proposes a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision approval in order to permit the
construction of 195 houses consisting of semi-detached and multiple attached dwelling units, as shown on Schedule C. A
2.1 acre park located at the southeast corner of the site forms part of the proposal. The pertinent statistics are as follows:
| Site Statistics |
| Land Area |
6 hectares (15 acres) |
| Semi-Detached Dwelling Units |
148 |
| Multiple Attached Dwelling Units |
47 |
| Total Number of Dwelling Units |
195 |
| Density |
32 units per hectare (13 units per acre) |
| Park Area |
0.877 hectares (2.1 acres) |
Location and Existing Site:
The site is located south of Eglinton Avenue East, midway between Don Mills Road and the Don Valley Parkway. It
consists of vacant lands within the Ferrand Drive and Rochefort Drive block. The surrounding area is developed with a mix
of employment and residential uses.
Official Plan:
Residential Density Four and Local Open Space which permit primarily residential and open space uses, respectively
(Schedule A).
Zoning:
Industrial Zone Two (M2) by By-law No. 33091 which permits employment uses (Schedule B). An amendment to the
industrial zone is required in order to permit the residential land uses.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Other Department Comments:
The following section summarizes the comments received from the departments and agencies circulated.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority identifies grading and stormwater management issues which will be
carried out as part of implementing the subdivision (Schedule D).
The Parks and Recreation Division notes that the size and location of the proposed park within the plan is acceptable and
will be subject to final approval by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Schedule E).
Works and Emergency Services report that the site has access to full municipal services and that the traffic that will be
generated from the residential development can be accommodated on the surrounding road network. Subdivision
considerations regarding road layout, parking, access and sidewalks are also identified (Schedules F1 and F2).
The Public Health Department reports that the environmental site assessments should be studied by a peer review
consultant and that the conclusions of the applicant's noise consultant are acceptable and should be implemented as part of
the site development (Schedules G1 and G2).
The Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic School Board note that accommodation is available at certain
schools and that some facilities are experiencing accommodation pressures (Schedules H and I).
Community Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was held on March 25, 1998 during which time there was general support to have the
site developed for residential and park purposes (Schedule J).
Discussion:
Built Form and Subdivision Design:
The proposed mix of low-rise residential (semi-detached and townhouse units) is a change in the intensity and composition
of the medium to high-rise, predominantly residential development that is permitted by the current Official Plan
designation. The proposal represents an opportunity to develop the vacant site with a mix of low-rise housing types to
complement the medium to high density Flemingdon Park residential community to the south.
The subdivision layout accommodates performance standards that are comparable with other infill residential proposals
within the north district of the City. With minimum 1.2m side yards and 6m rear yards, the new houses will provide
adequate separation distances between houses while accommodating modest outdoor amenity areas for the enjoyment of
the new residents.
While the proposed minimum 3m front yard is acceptable from a design perspective, it is important that a minimum 5.5m
be provided to the front of a garage in order to accommodate one unenclosed parking space for the use of visitors to each
house. This is supported by the Transportation Services Division (Schedule F1). The amending zoning by-law should
permit a minimum 3m front yard to the main dwelling and 5.5m to the garage of all dwellings.
Community Facilities, Services and Infrastructure:
The Official Plan contains criteria to guide the consideration of this type of rezoning proposal, in particular, to review the
availability of community facilities, services and infrastructure to accommodate the proposed residential land use. In
addition, the site specific Official Plan Amendment 385 describes certain additional community facilities and services
which would have been secured in the area within the context of introducing on the site 1130 residential units, retail
commercial and office uses, as previously proposed by Don Valley Park.
The provision of the additional community facilities was to be phased along with the phasing of that residential proposal.
For example, within the first phase of the residential development, a maximum of 228 residential units would be permitted.
As part of the conditional approval of this first phase, the City would secure appropriate on-site parkland, funding for the
development of the parkland and additional community meeting space in the area.
The current proposal for 195 residential units incorporates the park component as part of the development despite the fact
that it is substantially less than the previously proposed 1130 units (and less than the 228 units for phase one of the Don
Valley Park proposal). In addition to the park contribution, the applicant will be subject to applicable development charges
associated with the construction of the houses. Funding for additional community facilities in the area has been secured as
part of the residential approval of an adjacent site (Mony Life building). Council's conditional approval for the residential
conversion of the Mony Life building requires that applicant to provide a cash contribution targeted towards the area's
community facilities in addition to applicable development charges.
The existing supply of community facilities and services, therefore, will be augmented with new facilities resulting from
the residential development of the site and the adjacent Mony Life building.
Park:
The subdivision design locates the 2.1 acre park on the site so that it has frontage onto both Ferrand Drive and Rochefort
Drive, as shown on Schedule C. This maximizes the street frontage of the park, optimizing its accessibility and visibility
for amenity and safety purposes. The park will also be accessible from the northwest via a 3m (10 ft) wide public walkway
which will be constructed to City standards.
Schools:
In terms of school accommodation, both the Toronto Catholic School Board and the Toronto District School Board have
identified accommodation pressures on their facilities, however, have not objected to the proposal. The Toronto Catholic
School Board has identified a new secondary school that is under construction and could accommodate the secondary
school students emanating from the residential development. There are also other options available to the school boards to
address the accommodation pressures including development charges and the rationalization of school catchment areas
resulting from the consolidation of school boards within the Toronto area.
Road Network, Sewer and Water Infrastructure:
The transportation review of the proposal finds that the surrounding road network can accommodate the traffic that will be
generated (Schedule F1). The subdivision design also incorporates a road layout which permits good access, circulation
and links to the surrounding area while maximizing the street frontage for each new house. The reduced road allowances of
18.5m (60 ft) that are proposed for all of the new roads have received Community Council approval.
The site has access to an adequate supply of sewer and water services, as confirmed by the engineering review (Schedule
F2).
Soil Condition:
The environmental site assessment reports that have been submitted in support of the application are being studied by a
peer review consultant. The suitability of the soil conditions to accommodate the proposed residential and park land uses
should be verified by a record of site condition. Any approval of the residential subdivision should be conditional upon the
City receiving a record of site condition that has been acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Conclusions:
The subdivision of the site into a 2.1 acre park and 195 semi-detached and multiple attached dwellings will enhance the
current mix of land uses within the area, representing an appropriate development.
Contact Name:
Randy Jones; Telephone: (416) 395-7137
(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
--------
Mr. John Bousfield, Planning Consultant, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter on behalf of the applicant, Graywood Developments Limited, and indicated that the applicant concurred
with the staff recommendations.
22
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-95-17 -
Albert De Luca - 129 Willowdale Avenue -
Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -
Retention of Outside Planning Consultant - North York Centre
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(1)striking out the recommendation of the North York Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"It is recommended that a maximum of $10,000.00 be allocated to the Legal Division from the Corporate Contingency
Account to retain a planning witness with respect to the pending Ontario Municipal Board appeal on 129 Willowdale
Avenue."; and
(2)adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that when a staff report is submitted which recommends that funds be provided from the
Corporate Contingency Account, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to submit a report on the
appropriateness of that funding source.".)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (October30,1998) from the City
Solicitor not be adopted and that staff of the Legal Division be instructed not to appear at the Ontario Municipal
Board to oppose this appeal:
Purpose:
The Legal Division is requesting Council authority to retain outside planning evidence.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
A maximum of $10,000.00 to be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account for the retention of an outside
planning witness.
Recommendation:
1.that a maximum of $10,000.00 be allocated to the Legal Division from the Corporate Contingency Account to retain a
planning witness with respect to the pending Ontario Municipal Board appeal on 129 Willowdale Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The landowner appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board from the refusal of the Council of the former City of North York
to enact a proposed amendment to its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the lands at 261 Greenfield Avenue and
260 Maplehurst Avenue to be used for a commercial parking lot to serve an existing commercial use located immediately
to the west, at 129 Willowdale Avenue.
Applications were filed with the former City of North York for the specific Official Plan and Zoning Amendments to
permit the continued use of the rear portions of two residential properties for the parking of vehicles to serve the abutting
commercial property at 129Willowdale Avenue. Staff recommended approval of the applications, subject to certain
conditions, relating mainly to landscaping of the properties, and buffering of the parking area from the street. The Council
of the former City refused the application and did not adopt the Planning Department's recommendation.
The Ontario Municipal Board has scheduled a hearing commencing Wednesday, December 9, 1998.
Since planning staff are unable to provide evidence under oath, we require a planning consultant to support the Decision of
the Council of the former City of North York.
Conclusions:
We estimate that an upset limit of $10,000.00 be set aside in the Corporate Contingency Account for this purpose.
Contact Name:
Larry J. Darkes; Solicitor, Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law
Tel. No. (416) 392-7247; Fax No. (416) 392-0005
--------
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (November5, 1998) from Mr.
Wm. J. Dolan, B.A., Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Wm. J. Dolan, Planning Consultant, appeared before the North York Community Council on behalf of the applicants.
A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Feldman, as amended by Councillor King, was as follows:
FOR:Sgro, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, King
AGAINST:Moscoe, Flint
ABSENT:Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
Purpose:
To identify a funding source for the retention of an outside planning consultant, if required, with respect to the Ontario
Municipal Board appeal on 129 Willowdale Avenue.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
If required, the cost for the retention of an outside planning consultant to a maximum of $10,000.00 be provided from the
Legal program's approved 1999 operating budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
City Council will be considering Clause No. 22 of Report No. 13 of The North York Community Council with respect to the
Ontario Municipal Board appeal at 129 Willowdale Avenue. North York Community Council recommends that the report
(October 30, 1998) from the City Solicitor not be adopted and that staff of the Legal Division be instructed not to appear
at the Ontario Municipal Board to oppose this appeal.
At its meeting on October 1 and 2, 1998, City Council considered Clause No. 5 of Report No. 11 of The Urban
Environment and Development Committee, headed "Ontario Municipal Board Hearings". The purpose of this report was
to review the practices of the former municipalities and to standardize the City Solicitor's instructions to attend Ontario
Municipal Board hearings in support of Council's position with respect to planning applications.
In consideration of this clause, City Council also considered the joint report dated September 30, 1998, from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor, entitled "Retention of Planning Experts". City Council
adopted the joint report dated September 30, 1998 recommending that this report be referred to the Budget Committee for
review.
At its meeting on November 18, 1998, the Budget Committee stipulated that in the event that Council directs the hiring of
an outside planner, the necessary funding be taken from the Department's contingency.
Conclusion:
In the event that outside planning consultants are required to provide evidence at Ontario Municipal Board hearings in
support of City Council's position, funding should be provided from the Legal program's approved operating budget.
Contact Name:
Shekhar Prasad, Director of Budget Services, 392-8095
E-mail: sprasad@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.)
23
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-28 -
Destination: Technodome - Heathmount A.E. Corp. -
West of W.R. Allen Road, South of Sheppard Avenue West -
North York Spadina
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolutions by Councillor Moscoe,
North York Spadina and reports having deferred further consideration of this matter to its next meeting scheduled
for December 9, 1998:
1."BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
(i)a Phase 2 Environmental Audit be undertaken on each site within the Downsview Land Use Plan including, but
not limited to, all lands proposed to be used as parkland;
(ii)it be a requirement that all contaminants - but particularly PCB's and munitions - other than those currently
being used for military purposes have been removed from the site to the satisfaction of a qualified soils engineer
employed by the City of Toronto and paid for by Canada Lands and/or the applicants for development within the
Secondary Plan area, as the case may be; and
(iii)no building permits be issued and no parkland be permitted to be used, within the Downsview Lands, until
such time as these conditions are met;
2. WHEREAS during the consideration of the Secondary Plan for the Downsview Lands, it was the intent that all
permanent parking associated with Destination: Technodome Sports/Entertainment facility would be contained on
site; and
WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission has been involved in ongoing discussions with the applicant to
develop a strategy whereby public transit is promoted to raise the transit modal split of Destination: Technodome;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
(i)a study, to be funded by Heathmount A.E. Corporation, be undertaken by the City of Toronto's independent
transportation consultant, to determine the following:
a.the impact on the parking supply requirements if the transit modal split for Destination: Technodome is
increased;
b.the impact of providing free transit passes to all Destination: Technodome employees; and
c.the ability to provide all necessary parking on site;
and that the results of this study shall be presented at the North York Community Council meeting scheduled
for December 9, 1998, along with any necessary supplementary staff reports.
3.BE IT RESOLVED THAT clause XI of Section 2.1 of Appendix A (Section 37 Agreements) be amended by the
deletion of "where appropriate," on the second line, and substituting in its place the words "the applicant shall" so
that the clause now reads:
"(xi)Pay for the installation of new signal timing equipment, lane detectors, signal timing plans, etc., at
intersections to be modified. Also the applicant shall pay all costs associated with the expansion of the City's
SCOOT traffic adaptive system (or some other form of traffic responsive control). Ultimately, it may be desirable to
have this system linked to the major intersections within the Secondary Plan area."
4.WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission raised concerns regarding the Official Plan and Transportation
Master Plan;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
(i)concerns raised by the T.T.C. regarding the Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan be considered
concurrently with the revised land use plan to be submitted by Canada Lands; and
(ii)the local councillors be involved in discussions between the City of Toronto and T.T.C. staff to develop
language that can best accommodate acceptable amendments to the plan.
5.BE IT RESOLVED THAT recommendation 2(D)(ii) be amended by the addition of:
"and a cash contribution of $25,000.00 towards the establishment of a studio within the Downsview Collegiate
Project."
so that the recommendation reads:
"ii)a cash contribution to the City of $25,000.00 towards the development of an Arts Park project within the
Downsview Park and a cash contribution of $25,000.00 towards the establishment of a studio within the Downsview
Collegiate Project."
The North York Community Council also reports having requested:
A.the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:
1.report on drop-off and pickup facilities for both cars and buses, as to capacity requirements and locations;
2.determine the number of taxi-stand spaces required to service Destination: Technodome, and the appropriate
location(s);
3.review and report on the feasibility of widening the ramp from southbound Allen Road to westbound Highway 401;
and
4.report on the provision of emergency services to the facility and community surrounding Destination: Technodome;
B.the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to:
1.report on attaching a condition to the development agreement (Section 37) that the 10,000 seat Multi-Functional Arena
only be permitted to open after:
(i)the balance of Destination: Technodome has been open and operating for a period of at least four months to allow
patron attendance levels to stabilize; and
(ii)parking requirements have been reassessed by the City of Toronto's independent consultant; and
(iii)sufficient parking is made available to satisfy the demand for the stadium over and above parking requirements
needed to service the remainder of the site based on actual use experience;
2.review the setback requirements as they relate to other properties along the Allen Road and address the need for
appropriate setbacks with respect to:
(i)sight-lines;
(ii)provision of landscaping;
(iii)public art; and
(iv)other matters related to the siting including entrances;
3.report on progress made under Section 37 negotiations with respect to community benefits promised during the
Destination: Technodome discussions; and
4.report on how all arena/stadium activities can be accommodated within one or two facilities, rather than the four
facilities proposed;
C.the Toronto Police to report on policing requirements for Destination: Technodome and make recommendations to
North York Community Council at the meeting scheduled for December9, 1998.
The North York Community Council further reports having referred:
(a)recommendations 1(F) and 1(G), to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Design Services with a request to adjust
these clauses to conform with the requirements of the Downsview Secondary Plan as approved by Council; and
(b)the correspondence (and report) from Idomo dated November 12, 1998 and all the written submissions received at this
meeting to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for a supplementary report to be considered by
Community Council on December 9, 1998".
The North York Community Council also reports having held a statutory public meeting on November 12, 1998, with
appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following Supplementary Report No. 1 (October 28, 1998) from
the Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is table, for Council's information, comments (Appendix "A") received from a second
community consultation meeting held October 27, 1998 on the Destination: Technodome proposal and to provide revised
comments received from the Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) Department (Appendix "B").
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this information be received as information.
Discussion:
1.0Community Consultation
The applicant's proposal was presented to the community at a community consultation meeting on October 7, 1998. A
second community meeting was held on Tuesday, October 27, 1998 to provide an additional opportunity for residents of
the Clanton Park and Bathurst Manor neighbourhoods to learn more about the Destination: Technodome proposal and
provide comments to the City.
At the October 27th. meeting, the applicant presented his proposal, followed by a question and answer period. In general,
matters raised by the community focussed on:
Traffic and Parking Management
- measures should be taken to mitigate any traffic congestion on the City's adjacent roads;
- visitors to the Destination: Technodome must not park on local roads within neighbourhoods and commercial areas;
- the number of parking spaces must be sufficient to meet the needs of expected visitors to the Destination: Technodome;
and
- transit usage should be encouraged.
Copies of the written comments received at the October 27, 1998 community meeting are attached. (See Appendix "A").
The staff report dated October 22, 1998 sets out recommendations respecting the provision of new roads, transportation
improvements and measures to manage traffic and the parking necessary for the development of the Destination:
Technodome. The report sets out the matters to be secured through Section 37 agreements such as the provision for a
transit incentive program. Further, the report identifies the objectives to be achieved through site plan approval.
2.0Public Health Comments
The staff report dated October 22,1998, included comments from the Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public
Health) Department respecting the applicant's Noise and Air Quality studies. As indicated in the report, Public Health
advised (verbally) that the Noise and Air Quality studies satisfies its concerns. The report also incorporated Public Health's
request that the applicant provide a noise assessment report, at the time of site plan approval. Public Health has now
provided written comments which mirror its verbal comments. (See Appendix "B").
Contact Name:
Russell Crooks, Telephone: (416)-395-7108
--------
The North York Community Council submits the following report (October 22, 1998) from the Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of a zoning amendment application to permit "Destination:
Technodome", a 236,300m2 (2.5 million sq. ft.) indoor, sport and entertainment facility. New zoning standards, as set out
in the recommendations of this report, will be applied to the site. Facilities, services and matters, identified in Appendices
"A" and "B", will be secured through Section37 and 41 Agreements between the applicant/landowner and the City.
The recommendations of this report represent further refinement of an interim report which recommended zoning standards
for Destination: Technodome including permitted uses, gross floor area, height, parking and yards. The report, received as
information at the July 29, 1998 meeting of Council also identified matters to be addressed before the proposal is
considered by Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following:
(1)the zoning for the site be amended to establish a new zone category, "Downsview Sport and Entertainment Zone
(DSE)", with the following provisions:
(a)Definitions:
"Sport, Leisure and Entertainment Use" means a building or part thereof used primarily for commercial recreation
including spectator activities, sports, both participatory and passive (spectator) including computer assisted or enhanced
activities, entertainment activities and events, amusement rides and simulation rides or a combination of both as well as
adventure activities including but not limited to scuba-diving and rock climbing;
(b)Permitted Uses
the following uses shall be permitted:
Art Gallery, Artist Studio, Banquet Hall, Bandstand, Billiard Parlour, Bowling Alley, Commercial Gallery, Commercial
Recreation, Communications and Broadcasting, Community Centre, Custom Workshop, Day Nursery, Fitness Centre,
Museum, Outdoor Cafe, Park and Open Space, Personal Service Shop, Pinball and Video Games Arcade, Retail Store,
Restaurant, Service Shop, Showroom, Sport, Leisure and Entertainment Use, Take-out Restaurant, Theatre;
(c)Use Qualifications
(i)the majority of gross floor area devoted to retail stores shall be related to, or oriented towards, sport, leisure,
recreational and entertainment uses or shall be ancillary thereto. Retails stores shall not include an adult entertainment
parlour, supermarkets, department stores, department store outlets and clearance centres, automotive parts and service
related stores, home improvement outlets and household furnishing stores other than accessory or related to recreational
and entertainment oriented merchandising;
(ii)a maximum of four arenas may be provided;
(iii)no more than 2 arenas may have seating in excess of 600 seats each;
(iv)for any arena in excess of 600 seats the following shall apply:
(I)one arena may have a maximum of 2,500 seats; and
(II)any arena in excess of 600 seats, but not exceeding 2,500 seats, the parking requirement shall be deemed to be
satisfied with the 5,000 parking spaces as set out in (f) below;
(v)where an arena is proposed in excess of 2,500 seats, up to a maximum of 10,000 seats can be provided and up to a
maximum of 7,000 parking spaces, may be required as set out in (g) below;
(vi)an outdoor cafe is permitted whether or not it is in conjunction with, or adjoining, a restaurant, provided that the
outdoor cafe is located within an area adjacent to the building and not within an area used for required parking;
(vii)a custom workshop includes making articles or products to be sold on the premises; and
(viii)a restaurant does not include a nightclub;
(d)Gross Floor Area
the total gross floor area permitted on the lands shall not exceed 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.) of which not more than
27,870m2 (300,000 sq.ft) of the total gross floor area shall be used for retail and restaurant use;
(e)Building Height
the maximum height shall be as shown on Schedule "E2" and shall not exceed 238.8 metres above sea level (ASL);
(f)Parking
parking for 5,000 vehicles will be provided on site, of which:
(i)a minimum of 75 bus parking spaces shall be provided on site;
(ii)a maximum of 4,500 parking spaces for vehicles shall be provided as surface parking on site; and
(iii)a minimum of 500 parking spaces for vehicles may be provided below grade;
(g)Temporary Parking
in addition to the 5,000 on-site parking spaces, a maximum of 2,000 parking spaces, shall be provided as a temporary
measure at an off-site location. Prior to the opening of the facility, the applicant shall apply for, and receive approval of a
Temporary Use By-law if required, to permit the parking area which shall be located on lands in close proximity to the
Destination: Technodome and within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, excluding lands designated "Park and Open
Space (POS)" and "Residential Density One (RD-1)";
(h)Yard Setbacks
subject to technical changes which may occur at Site Plan Approval, the minimum yard setbacks shall be as shown on
Schedule "E3";
(i)Loading Spaces
a minimum of 10 parking spaces, 11metres in length, 3.6 metres in width and a vertical clearance of 4.2 metres each, shall
be provided;
(j)Pedestrian Walkway
a minimum 20 metre wide, landscaped, pedestrian walkway, to be located generally as shown on Schedule "D2" and
extends from the pedestrian bridge and the Sheppard Avenue/W.R. Allen intersection to the Transit Road extension shall
be provided;
(k)Activity Plaza
a minimum of 1.5ha (3.7ac) shall be provided as an outdoor activity plaza located generally as shown on Schedule "D2"
and shall, without limiting its design, include active and passive recreational activities, formal plantings, lighting, seating
and public art;
(l)Landscaping
a landscaped strip consisting of a minimum 3 metre width along all lot lines abutting a public or private street shall be
provided;
(m)Other Regulations
outside display is limited to the temporary keeping of equipment, goods, materials, and products outside a building and
used by, associated with, or promoted by the primary use and may include the display of one or more new vehicles for
promotional purposes but does not include a motor vehicle dealership; and
(n)notwithstanding any severance, partition or division of the site, the provisions shall apply to the whole of the site as if
no severance, partition or division has occurred;
(2)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:
(a)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the recommended zoning provisions noted above, has
been perfected;
(b)the applicant/landowner submit to the Director, Community Planning, North District, a Reference Plan of Survey
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor which delineates the lands subject to this application and any rights-of ways and
easements appurtenant thereto;
(c)Section 37 Agreement(s)
the applicant/owner enter into an Agreement(s) with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990,
c.P.13, as amended, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Director, Community Planning,
North District, to secure the facilities, services and matters noted in Appendix "A" to this report;
(d)should Council deem appropriate, the applicant shall provide a cash contribution to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape
and Arts Park projects. The process to be followed and the timing of contributions, are to be reported on, prior to
enactment of the zoning by-law. Such contributions shall be secured through a Section 37 Agreement(s) and include:
(i)a cash contribution to the City of $150,000.00 for the purposes of streetscape improvements to Wilson Avenue; and
(ii)a cash contribution to the City of $25,000.00 towards the development of an Arts Park project within the Downsview
Park.
(3)Site Plan Approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Director, Community Planning, North District, shall have granted site plan
approval which satisfactorily addresses the technical requirements of City departments and commenting agencies and the
site plan objectives outlined in Appendix "B"; and
(4)prior to the opening of the facility, the applicant shall apply for, and receive approval of a Temporary Use By-law, if
required, to permit the temporary overflow parking area for a minimum of 1,500 parking spaces and a maximum of 2,000
parking spaces for vehicles on lands in close proximity to the Destination: Technodome and on lands within the
Downsview Area Secondary Plan, excluding lands designated "Park and Open Space (POS)" and "Residential Density One
(RD-1)";
Background:
1.0Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application:
Heathmount A. E. Corp. has applied for an amendment to North York Official Plan and the Zoning By-law to permit
"Destination: Technodome". At its meeting of July 29, 1998 Council adopted OPA464 ( Downsview Area Secondary Plan)
which specifies land use and development policies for the subject site.
2.0Destination: Technodome - Interim Report (July/98)
An interim report, tabled with Council on July 29, 1998, assessed the Destination: Technodome proposal within the
context of the policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. The report illustrated for Council and the community, a
zoning framework for the proposal that would implement the policies of OPA 464. Further, the report, as amended,
identified for Council's information zoning standards including permitted uses, gross floor area, height, parking and yards
for the proposed Destination: Technodome.
3.0Council Directives (July/98)
In its consideration of OPA 464 and the interim report on Destination: Technodome, Council adopted motions respecting
the future development of the site. With respect to the official plan policies, Council directed that the landowner and
applicant:
- pursue high levels of energy efficiency and parking minimization strategies;
- be urged to consider district heating options for heating and cooling facilities and that the Toronto District Heating be
given an opportunity to make a proposal to that effect; and
- provide guidelines for the nature and form of the activity plaza, to be determined through the zoning process.
With respect to the future zoning of the site, Council requested the applicant and landowner to:
- provide and pay for an independent review of all parking studies;
- submit a plan, to the satisfaction of City officials, for the staging of construction and the routing of construction; and
- undertake an environmental analysis to determine the level of air emissions which will result from vehicles generated
from Destination: Technodome.
Council also directed that:
- staff address the issue of deliveries to Destination: Technodome;
- no individual venue be permitted of a size that generates sufficient traffic that exceeds the capacity of the road system
and that the Works and Emergency Services Department (Transportation Services) recommend the maximum size of
any particular venue;
- notice of the public meeting 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; and
- Canada Lands Company Limited provide certification acceptable to the City that all PCB's and munitions (other than
those currently being utilized for military purposes) have been removed from the site.
4.0Community Consultation
The applicant's proposal has been presented to the community at open houses and community meetings held in 1997 and
1998 during the preparation of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. In addition, the proposal has been discussed at
numerous weekly meetings of the Downsview Community Advisory Panel (CAP) over the last 15 months. The
Community Advisory Panel has been instrumental in articulating the community's comments respecting this proposal and
has met with the applicant to discuss planning and transportation issues and identify measures to resolve these matters.
A community consultation meeting, specifically on Destination: Technodome was held on October7, 1998, with
approximately 180 persons attending. The applicant's presentation of the proposal was followed by a question and answer
period. In general, the matters raised by the community focussed on:
Traffic:The proposal may cause traffic congestion on the City's adjacent roads and visitors may park on local roads
within neighbourhoods and commercial areas.
Parking:That the number of parking spaces will be sufficient and that large parking lots will be necessary and may create
a "sea of asphalt" which would be unsightly for the local neighbourhoods.
Transit:The proposed development should encourage greater transit ridership.
Copies of the written comments received at the community meeting are attached. (See Appendix "I")
A second community meeting on the proposed "Destination: Technodome" has been scheduled for October 27, 1998. A
supplemental report will be tabled to advise Council on the matters raised at this meeting.
5.0Proposal
Destination: Technodome is a 236,300m2 (2.5 million sq. ft.) sport and entertainment facility that is proposed to be
constructed on lands that form a part of the former CFB - Toronto (Downsview) military base. The site is owned by the
Federal Government and would be leased to the applicant. Destination: Technodome is to be located at the south-west
corner of Sheppard Avenue West and W.R. Allen Road, adjacent to the existing Defence and Civil Institute of
Environmental Medicine (DCIEM). (See Schedule "D1").
|
Site Statistics |
| Site Area 31ha (76acre)
Proposed Density0.765 FSI
Permitted Density (OPA 464) 0.875 FSI
Proposed Parking Spaces (on-site) min. 5,000 (vehicles)
and 75 (buses)
Overflow Parking (off-site) Requested1,500 vehicles
Proposed Max. Height42 m. (138ft)
Arenas1 - 10,000 seats
1 - 2,500 seats
2 - 600 seats (each) |
|
Gross Floor Area |
| Sports and Entertainment171,253m2 (1,843,416sq.ft.)
Admin/Circ./Servicing 6,503m2 (70,000sq.ft.)
177,756m2 (1,913,416sq.ft.)
Themed Retail and 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.) |
The Destination: Technodome proposal would provide a variety of indoor sport and entertainment 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, cinemas, themed retail stores, restaurants, a 10,000
seat, multi-function hockey arena and three smaller hockey arenas that would provide a venue for the Metropolitan Toronto
Hockey League. (MTHL/International Sports Centre (ISC) Inc., in July, 1997, made an application to amend the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law the City to permit a 55,480m2 (597,200sq.ft.) multi-function arena facility containing four hockey
arenas, two with 600 seats, one with 1,200 seats and one arena with 12,500 seats. In June, 1998 MTHL/ISC advised the
City that it wished to place it s amendment application on hold (See Appendix "D"). Since that time, the applicant for the
Destination: Technodome has advised that a venue for MTHL has been incorporated into its facility. MTHL/ISC, by letter
dated September 28, 1998 (See Appendix "D"), advised the City that it has not yet finalized its agreement with the
applicant, but that it has no objection to, and supports, the Destination: Technodome application.)
Following discussions with the City, the applicant has agreed to create a major pedestrian entrance to the Downsview Park
on the subject site. A 20metre (66 ft) landscaped pedestrian walkway that connects with the pedestrian bridge will be
provided. (See Schedules "D1" and "D2") The City also requested, that the Destination: Technodome proposal animate and
enliven the outdoor areas adjacent to the building, specifically the area adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. The applicant
has agreed to incorporate an "Activity Plaza", adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. This activity plaza that would be
designed to reinforce the expression of this area as an entrance to the park. It would contain trees, formal plantings,
lighting, seating, public art and other public features.
Destination: Technodome meets Transport Canada's height limitations for the Downsview Airport. The proposed building
ranges in height from 5.5m (18 ft) to a maximum height of 42 metres (138 ft.) at its highest point. (See Schedule "E2" . The
facility would be approximately 15 percent larger in area, than the Toronto Skydome. Unlike Skydome however, 30
percent of the building would be below grade and the facility will be connected directly to the Downsview Subway Station
by an above-grade, pedestrian bridge at the intersection of W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue.
On-site parking for 5,000 vehicles and 75 buses is proposed. Two parking areas would be provided. One area, located to
the south of the building, would accommodate 2760 vehicles and be connected to the building by a landscaped pedestrian
walkway. (See Schedules "D1" and "D2") A second parking area, located to the north of the DCIEM building, would
provide parking for 1705 vehicles and 75 buses. This area would be connected to the building by a landscaped walkway
adjacent to Sheppard Avenue. Below grade parking for 535 vehicles will be provided to the rear of the building. Access to
Destination: Technodome would be provided by an extension of Transit Road from Wilson Avenue, north to Chesswood
Drive including a new direction ramp over W. R. Allen Roads. Intersection improvements to Sheppard Avenue, traffic
signalization at key access points and a direct connection to the subway would be required to manage traffic generated
from the proposal and provide direct and easy access to, and from, the facility.
Destination: Technodome will complement and enhance the Federal Government's and the City's initiatives to create a
unique mixed use, urban park and open space on the former military lands. Destination: Technodome will achieve
economic benefits including the creation of construction jobs, opportunities for permanent, high-tech, management and
service employment, tax revenue, and expand Toronto's tourist attractions.
6.0Existing Planning Controls
6.1Official Plan Policies
This amendment application proposes development on lands designated "Sport and Entertainment" by OPA 464
(Downsview Area Secondary Plan) (See Schedule "B"), adopted by City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 1998. As a
result, the applicant's request for a site-specific amendment has been dealt with by OPA 464 and is not required.
In conjunction with the Secondary Plan, Council also approved a Transportation Master Plan which identifies and
incorporates transportation improvements required in part to support the Destination: Technodome proposal. The applicant
has appealed OPA 464 stating that the Transportation Master Plan, as an integral a part of the Secondary Plan, restricts
Heathmount A.E. Corp.'s options respecting traffic and parking management. The applicant has also appealed the
permitted density for the lands, the public art policy and the failure of the OPA to recognize lands designated Park and
Open Space (POS) as parkland contributions.
6.2Current Zoning
The site is currently zoned "Airport Hazard (A)"(Schedule "C") which permits uses associated with the Department of
National Defence. A site-specific by-law is required to delete the existing Airport (A) zone on the subject site and apply
development standards required by the Downsview Area Secondary Plan.
Discussion:
7.0 Planning Considerations:
The July 29/98 interim report on Destination: Technodome reviewed the proposal within the context of the land use
policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. As noted in that report, Destination: Technodome is consistent with the
land use and development policies of OPA 464 which permit sport, entertainment and commercial recreational activities
and events on lands designated "Sport and Entertainment".
The Destination: Technodome proposal has been further refined and additional work has been completed by the applicant.
Updated transportation and parking studies have been submitted, as well as an urban design framework for the site. These
matters have now been reviewed by the City and, with the input of area residents, a clear understanding of community
interests and resolution of the planning considerations can be brought forward.
7.1Urban Design Including Landscape Treatment
The Downsview Area Secondary Plan sets out design matters to be achieved. The applicant has retained EDA
Collaborative Inc., a landscape architect and urban design consulting firm. EDA has submitted an "Urban Design and
Landscape Submission" for the site that demonstrates how the Destination: Technodome proposal meets the design
objectives of the Secondary Plan by:
- integrating the proposed development into the framework of the Downsview lands;
- creating a pedestrian friendly and safe environment at the Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road intersection;
- extending the public circulation system of Destination: Technodome so that it links with the Downsview Subway
Station and the Downsview park and open spaces;
- establishing a strong pedestrian entrance to the Downsview park; and
- incorporating measures to mitigate the visual impact of parking areas, ensure pedestrian safety within these facilities and
to enhance the park-like character of the area.
Further review of the applicant's urban design and landscaping submission and the objectives to be achieved, as noted in
Appendix "B", will be detailed as the proposal proceeds through site plan approval and secured, as required, through a
Section 41 Agreement with the City.
7.2Programming for the Activity Plaza
Council, in its consideration of OPA 464, requested the applicant to provide guidelines for the programming and design of
the proposed activity plaza to be located adjacent to the Destination: Technodome building and the pedestrian walkway. In
response, the applicant's Urban Design and Landscape Submission, prepared by EDA Collaborative Inc., includes an urban
design framework for the plaza, with particular emphasis on its intended programming. EDA identifies two distinct
functional areas of the activity plaza. The "Multi-Use Activity Area" would be located between the Technodome building
and the existing Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) building.(See See Schedule "D2") This
area will accommodate a significant amount of pedestrian activity and will include bus and car drop-off areas, access to the
building entrances/exits and at-grade and spill out activities from Destination: Technodome. The "Program Use Area" is
located adjacent to the pedestrian walkway (See Schedule "D2") so that events that require access control, visual and noise
buffering can be easily provided. Program uses could include small venue plays, performances by community or
professional groups, displays, exhibits, trade shows, product launches, and art shows. Its location at the extreme west of the
site and the use of design features such as berms, landscaping, walls and baffles will mitigate noise associated with these
uses.
Further refinement of the design elements to be applied will occur as the proposal proceeds through site plan approval and
will be secured, as required, through a Section 41 (site plan) agreement with the City.
7.3Examination of the Potential for an Impact on Local Retail
The applicant advises that the area within Destination: Technodome devoted to retail is intended to be themed oriented,
highly specialized in nature and therefore would not be compete with the local retail area for the daily and weekly shopping
needs of the surrounding community. The City requested the applicant to retain a market consultant to evaluate the
Destination: Technodome retail component. Malone Given Parsons Ltd. (MGP) was retained by the applicant to determine
whether the retail component would have any impact upon established retail commercial facilities and shopping centres in
the local area. MGP concluded that the retail would not have an impact upon local businesses and this conclusion was
confirmed by Robin Dee and Associates, acting on behalf of the City Appendix"C" provides details respecting these
studies.
7.4Expected Attendance:
One of key interests of the community relates to the expected visitors to Destination: Technodome and whether the
assumptions respecting the attendance figures are valid. The study prepared by Malone Given Parsons (MGP) provides an
analysis of the attendance and visitors origins for Destination: Technodome. The study concludes that the facility will serve
a broad geographic area that extends beyond the Greater Toronto Area. The study indicates that Destination: Technodome
is expected to generate approximately 11 million (primary) visits and provides a break-down of these visits by venue.
Robin Dee and Associates on behalf of the City, was asked to verify the attendance and visitor origin for the Destination:
Technodome and concluded that the methodology and assumptions were valid and that the 11 million visits to the site is a
realistic assumption. (See Appendix "C").
7.5Transportation Considerations:
The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) Department has reviewed the Transportation Impact Study and
Parking Demand Study prepared by Read, Voorhees and Associates, an behalf of the applicant. These studies have been
further reviewed by an independent transportation consultant, MM Dillon Consulting Limited which has verified the
methodology, assumptions and forecasts and concurred with the applicant's studies. (See Appendix 1 of the Works and
Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department memorandum dated October 20, 1998).
Transportation Services has also undertaken its own examination of the Destination: Technodome proposal within the
context of the transportation policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, endorsed
by Council. In its analysis, Transportation Services evaluated a typical day of operation along with the worst case scenario
to determine the ultimate requirements of the future road network, adequacy of the parking supply and the resulting impact
of the Destination: Technodome on the transportation network.
One of the key objectives of the Transportation Services analysis is that traffic generated from the Destination:
Technodome proposal not rely upon the local road network. Specifically, all traffic generated from the Destination:
Technodome proposal would only be permitted to rely upon existing and future arterial and collector roads.
Parking demand and supply has been examined by Transportation Services within the context of creating a balance
between an under-supply of parking that might threaten private property and the public road system and an over-supply of
parking which is counter-productive in reaching and maintaining an appropriate transit modal split. In addition to the
provision for 5,000 parking spaces on the site, Transportation Services recommends that a minimum of 1,500 parking
spaces, up to a maximum of 2,000 parking spaces be available, on a daily basis, for a period of 12 months. During this
period, the applicant will determine whether this additional parking will be required on a regular basis.
The applicant has advised that he is currently negotiating with the Toronto Transit Commission to develop a transit
incentive program that would result in an improved transit modal split and which may negate the need for substantial
parking. The zoning provisions recommended in this report provide for a temporary parking area for up to 2,000 vehicles.
The applicant will be required to obtain a temporary use by-law to permit any additional parking. Should the
implementation of the transit incentive program result in an improved transit modal split, the number of number of parking
spaces may be reduced.
The recommendations and conclusions of the Transportation Services are set out in their memorandum dated October 21,
1998 .(See Appendix "E"). Transportation Services has recommended a number of road and transportation related
improvements that are consistent with the Downsview Area Secondary Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, approved
by Council. All roads and improvements will be constructed to the satisfaction of the City and the costs of acquisition and
construction will be the responsibility of the applicant/landowner and will be secured through appropriate Section 37 and
41 agreements. The roads, improvements to facilities and measures to address parking and traffic management that will be
secured through a Section 37 agreement are illustrated in Appendix "A" and include a provision that the building will not
be open for operation until the necessary infrastructure is in place. Transportation matters to be addressed at the time of site
plan approval are detailed in Appendix "B".
7.6Loading Facilities:
The applicant proposes that loading and servicing areas for Destination: Technodome would be located on the west side of
the building, in a below grade, enclosed loading facility that will be accessed from the new collector road. The applicant
has advised that all deliveries would occur at the loading area and that 10 loading spaces would be provided.
Transportation Services has advised that a minimum of 10 loading spaces is required.
7.7Frequency of Truck Deliveries and Delivery Routes:
Council requested the applicant to provide details respecting truck deliveries to the site and the potential impact upon the
existing road network. The applicant's transportation consultant, Read, Voorhees and Associates Ltd., has advised that the
peak hour for truck deliveries occurs between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., during which there would be 40 trips associated
with trucks entering and exiting the facility. Truck volumes during the remainder of the day would be lower.
Read, Voorhees and Associates further advises that there are several routes to serve the Destination: Technodome which
would provide delivery access including Sheppard Avenue (east and west), W.R. Allen Road, Chesswood Drive and the
new collector road. The consultant also advises that most of the truck activity will relate to commercial deliveries to retail
stores and restaurants. However, some of the trucks associated with the entertainment activities will stay on site all day.
read, Voorhees and Associates concludes that, with 20 trucks (40 trips) spread over the available routes, the hourly load on
any one section of a road or intersection in the vicinity of Destination: Technodome, will be nominal. Transportation
Services has advised that these trip movements can be accommodated on the road network as they will not conflict with
either the road peak or the facility peak periods.
7.8Soils Review and On-site PCB storage
The landowner has submitted a soil's investigation report prepared by Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited
(DCS), dated July, 1998 which concludes that the site is suited for the proposed Destination: Technodome. This report
identifies that the environmental liabilities associated with the site are relatively minor and can be readily managed. A peer
review of this report and a Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment is required. The
peer review will be paid for by the applicant and secured through the Section 37 agreement(s). The City will select the
consultant to undertake the peer review which will be required prior to site plan approval.
At its July meeting, Council requested that Canada Lands Company CLC Limited provide certification acceptable to the
City that all PCB's and munitions, other than those currently being utilized for military purposes, have been removed from
the Destination : Technodome site. In a letter dated July 20, 1998, (Appendix "F"Canada Lands advised that, with the
closure of the Base, the Department of National Defence was required to formally decommission all operations associated
with the Base which included the investigation, identification and removal/remediation of any contaminants and hazardous
substances. Further, Environment Canada, has provided a letter indicating that PCB's formerly stored at Downsview were
removed in 1996. (See Appendix "F").
As part of its soils review, DCS Limited undertook an audit of each building on the site and determined that the current
inventory of PCB's is composed of 20mg of test fluid housed in a storage compound and that the only other know sources
of PCB containing materials are found in fluorescent light ballasts and electrical transformers which are to be removed as
part of building demolition.
7.9Staging of Construction:
Council requested the applicant to provide 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 adjacent residential neighbourhoods
and nearby commercial and industrial areas. The Section 37 agreement will require the applicant to provide such a plan to
the satisfaction of City officials prior to the issuance of a building permit (See Appendix "A"). Further, this agreement will
provide for the details of the plan to be provided at the time of site plan approval.
7.10Public Art Contribution
OPA 464 requires that the applicant provide one percent of the gross building construction costs for public art on
publicly-accessible or publicly-visible portions of the lands including abutting City-owned lands. Such contribution, its
maintenance, the selection criteria and process is to be report on and finalized prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Provision for the public art contribution will be secured through the Section 37 Agreement (See Appendix "A")
7.11Energy Conservation/Efficiency
Council requested the developers to pursue high levels of energy efficiency in the redevelopment of the Downsview area.
The applicant has advised that its consultants, Yolles Strategic Engineering Consultants Ltd. and Proctor and Redfern are
examining a number of options to achieve greater energy efficiency within the Destination: Technodome proposal (See
Appendix "G"). Options being explored include alternative sewage treatment measures, water conservation methods
including storm water storage and re-use, innovative building materials to minimize heating and cooling requirements and
high efficiency mechanical equipment to achieve maximum output. These and other measures will be further developed as
the project is further refined. A report on this matter will be brought forward for Council's consideration, prior to site plan
approval.
7.12District Heating
Council has requested that Toronto District Heating Corporation be given an opportunity to bid on any future district
energy system on the Downsview lands. Canada Lands Company CLC Limited, by letter dated October 9, 1998 (see
Appendix "H") has advised that it is currently investigating the potential for a district heating system to serve developments
on the former base lands. Canada Lands has indicated that it is its intent to initiate a proposal call for a district energy
system. Once the proposal process has been established, Toronto District Heating could submit a proposal call along with
other interested parties.
7.13Noise Impact
The applicant retained Valcoustics Canada Ltd. to evaluate the potential impact of noise resulting from traffic generated
from the Destination: Technodome proposal. This preliminary study concluded that there would be no adverse noise
impacts on residential areas. The Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) Department has requested that
the applicant provide a noise assessment of on-site equipment such as outdoor mechanical equipment (See Appendix "J ".
The applicant will be required to provide this study at the time of site plan approval.
7.14Air Quality
Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin Inc. (RWDI), on behalf of the applicant, provided an analysis of impact of vehicular
traffic generated from Destination: Technodome upon air quality. RWDI concludes that there will be no exceedence of
Provincial air quality respecting carbon monoxide or nitrogen dioxide. Further, that there will be no exceedence of
Provincial criteria respecting suspended particulate (TSP) and inhalable particulate matter (PM10). Public Health has
advised that it concurs with the findings of this study and that its concerns respecting long term and site-specific
monitoring are satisfied (See Appendix "J")..
7.15Contributions for Wilson Avenue Streetscape Improvement and Arts Park
Council, at its July 29, 1998 meeting, adopted motions that require developers within the Downsview Secondary Plan area
to provide cash contributions to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape program and the future Arts Park project for Downsview.
In keeping with Council's direction, the applicant has proposed a contribution of $150,000.00 to the Wilson Avenue
Streetscape and $25,000.00 to the Arts Park project. Should Council agree with these proposed contributions, the provision
of the funds and the parameters of how the funds will be used will be secured by the Section 37 agreement(s).
7.16Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication
The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation) Department has advised that this application is
subject to a 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7.17Notice for the Statutory Public Meeting
A public meeting on the Destination: Technodome proposal is targeted for the November 12,1998 meeting of Council. In
accordance with Council's direction, notice has been given by mail distribution to all residence and businesses within the
area bounded by Jane Street, on the west, Finch Avenue on the north, Bathurst Street on the east and Highway 401 on the
south.
8.0Planning Controls to be Applied
8.1Zoning By-law:
This report refines the July, 1998 zoning framework which identified zoning standards for the site such as permitted uses,
gross floor area, height, parking and yards. Following review of the applicant's proposal and refinement of the
development standards to be applied to the site, it is now appropriate to recommend site-specific zoning for the lands. The
recommendations of this report include zoning provisions that would implement the policies of OPA 464, establish
development standards as required by the Secondary Plan and contain conditions of approval designed to address planning,
transportation, urban design issues, community interests and Council directives.
8.2Section 37 Agreement(s)
The Downsview Area Secondary Plan contains provisions for the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure services,
facilities and matters, required for the desirable development of the lands and to meet the objectives set out in the Plan. In
consideration of the necessary roads, transportation improvements and municipal infrastructure requirements for the
Destination: Technodome proposal to proceed to development, new off-site transportation improvements are required as
well as improvements to existing municipal servicing. To secure transportation and parking management measures, urban
design features and public benefits such as public art as set out in Appendix "A", the applicant/ land owner is required to
enter into a Section 37 agreement(s). Further discussions on the parameters and mechanisms of implementation are
required for the matters to be included in the Section 37 Agreement(s) between the City and the applicant/landowner. If the
City Solicitor determines that further clarification or direction on matters set out in Appendix "A" is required, he will
report back to Council.
8.3Site Plan Agreement(s)
The Destination: Technodome proposal has been reviewed within the context of the Downsview Urban Design Guidelines.
During the site plan approval process, the urban design objectives, as generally set out in Appendix "B", will be achieved
and secured in the development through a Section 41 agreement(s) with the City.
8.4Temporary Use By-law
The recommendations of this report require the applicant to provide an overflow parking area to a maximum of 2,000
vehicles for scheduled special events in the proposed 10,000 seat arena. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City to require
that the lands to be used for an overflow parking area be subject to a Temporary Use By-law for a maximum period of
three years, with further extensions subject to Council approval.
Should traffic monitoring and/or the implementation of a transit incentive program determine that additional on-site
parking is required, provisions for permanent on-site parking facilities would be necessary and an extension of the
Temporary Use By-law would not be required. The location of the overflow parking area is limited to lands within the
Downsview Secondary Plan area excluding lands designated for park, open space and residential use.
8.5Environmental Assessment
The Downsview Transportation Master Plan identified specific road projects required for both an interim and the year 2011
planning horizons for the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. Review of the Destination: Technodome proposal by the
Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) Department has determined the specific road requirements and
transportation improvements necessary for the Destination: Technodome development to proceed.
The location and design of all new public roads, road improvements and intersection improvements for the Downsview
Secondary plan area must satisfy the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road projects.
The City has initiated the relevant Environmental Studies that will address, where necessary, the potential social, economic
and environmental effects of specific projects and mitigation measures, where appropriate. While the specific road projects
are being processed by the City, the transfer of the lands required for road right-of-way and construction costs are the
responsibility of the landowner.
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, consulting engineers, has been retained by the City to assist with the study of the road
projects necessary for the interim planning horizon including the following roads and improvements required for the
Destination: Technodome.
8.6Next Steps
- Prior to enactment of any zoning by-law, a Section 37 agreement(s) between the applicant/landowner and the City must
be executed, incorporating the matters set out, generally, in Appendix "a". As noted above, these matters will be
reported on to Council following further discussions with the applicant/landowner and City officials.
- The applicant must apply for and receive site plan approval. Objectives to be achieved are set out in Appendix "B" and
will be further refined during the site plan approval process.
- Completion of, and approval of the relevant Environment Studies and Class Environmental Assessment associated with
the required roads and improvements necessary for the Destination: Technodome. This process is concurrent with
planning approvals.
Conclusion:
This report recommends approval, subject to conditions, of Destination: Technodome, a multi-function, sport, commercial
recreational and entertainment facility on lands within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464). The proposal is
consistent with the land use and development policies of OPA 464, adopted by Council on July 29, 1998 and is in keeping
with the City's reurbanization policies which support efforts to direct more intensified land uses, such as Destination:
Technodome, to areas that are well served by transportation facilities. Planning and transportation issues can be resolved
using the planning controls such as the zoning provisions set out in the recommendations of this report. The necessary road
infrastructure and other transportation requirements, the provision of public art, a pedestrian bridge to the Downsview
Subway Station and the public walkway through the site will be secured through Section 37 and Section 41 agreements.
The community and specifically the Downsview Community Advisory Panel, has made an invaluable contribution to the
review of this application, especially in identifying community interests. Approval of the recommendations of this report
will be a first step to ensuring their interests are met.
Contact Name:
Russell Crooks; Telephone: (416)-395-7108
(A copy of the Appendices and Schedules referred to in the foregoing report and Supplementary Report No. 1 is on file in
the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
--------
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:
(a)(November 12, 1998) from Mr. Bruce H. Enggell, Solicitor, on behalf of 81956 Ontario Limited, property owners of
120 Regis Crescent and 99 Tuscan Gate, advising of his client's objection to the application;
(b)(November 6, 1998) from Mr. Paul P. Ginou, Fraser, Milner, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Canada
Lands Company CLC Limited and CLC Downsview Inc., commenting on the concerns raised at the meeting held with
planning and transportation staff;
(c)(November 8, 1998) from Mr. Bob Shour, advising of his objection to the application;
(d)(November 3, 1998) from Mr. Dennis Colautti, advising of his objection to the application;
(e)(November 1, 1998) from Mr. Morris Sosnovitch, advising of his objection to the application;
(f)(November 1, 1998) from Mr. Morris Sosnovitch, advising of his objection to the application and proposed project;
(g)(October 31, 1998) from Mr. Bruce J. Gitelman, advising of his support of the proposal for the new Destination
Technodome;
(h)(October 29, 1998) from Mr. Jim Purnell, advising of his objection to the application;
(i)(October 29, 1998) from Mr. Dick Fisher, Richard H. Fisher Insurance Agency Ltd., advising of his concerns with the
application;
(j)(October 29, 1998) from Mrs. Caradant, in support of the application;
(k)(October 28, 1998) from M. J. Anderson, President, The Toronto Parking Authority, reporting on parking matters
arising out of the redevelopment proposals for the Downsview area;
(l)(October 28, 1998) from Mr. Paul P. Ginou, Fraser, Milner, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Canada
Lands Company CLC Limited and CLC Downsview Inc., advising of their support of the application and concerns with the
conditions of approval;
(m)(October 28, 1998) from Mr. Frank Bruno, advising of his objection to the application;
(n)(October 28, 1998) from Mr. Shalom Schachter, advising of his concerns with the application;
(o)(October 27, 1998) from Dr. Jean O'Grady, advising of his opposition to the application;
(p)(October 27, 1998) from Ms. Eleanor Richmond and Mr. Laurence Richard, expressing their concerns with the
application;
(q)(October 27, 1998) from Mr. Sam Pacht, advising of his objection to the application;
(r)(October 24, 1998) from R. Burnice McKay and Ruth E. McKay advising of their concerns with the application;
(s)(undated) from Mr. Stewart Richardson, expressing his comments with the application; and
(t)(undated) from Mr. John Berke, addressed to Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina, advising of his
opposition to the development.
(u)(undated) from Mr. Christopher York, commenting on ways in which the Dehavilland site can be used to improve the
recycling and waste collection process.
A staff presentation was made by Russell Crooks, Planner, City Planning Division, North District.
Prior to hearing the deputations the Chairman clarified that in light of Councillor's Moscoe intention to move a motion
deferring consideration of this item and recommending a continuation of this public meeting on December 9, 1998,
individuals could either make their comments on the application that evening or on the evening of December 9, 1998.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Stephen Diamond, on behalf of the applicant, Destination Technodome, Heathmount A.E. Corp., who indicated that
although there has been extensive consultation and progress has been made, a continuation of this public meeting in one
month's time would allow the applicant an opportunity to resolve some of the outstanding issues. He therefore concurred
with the deferral request suggested by the Mayor, Ward Councillors and residents.
-Mr. Paul Ginou, Solicitor on behalf of Canada Lands Company and CLC Downsview Inc., who indicated that he had no
comments to make at this time but would like an opportunity to address the Community Council at the continuation of this
public meeting.
-Mr. Garrit DeBoer, who thanked the applicant for conceding to the deferral request. However, in light of the Chairman's
comments he was disappointed that he would only be given one opportunity to address the Community Council with
respect to the application even though new information would be brought forward at the continuation of this public
meeting.
-Mr. S. Hernick, who indicated that he would reserve his right to address the Community Council at the continuation of
this public meeting.
-Mr. Jim Purnell, who expressed concern with the size and scale of the project. In his opinion, the number of visitors
anticipated for the proposed theme park is excessive especially if the required road network is not in place.
-Ms. Rebecca Birnbaum, who expressed concern with the scale of the proposed theme park; increased traffic; overlow
parking onto the residential streets; the character of the neighborhood being altered and negative impact on the quality of
life. In her opinion consideration of this application should be deferred until such time as a full environmental assessment
has been conducted.
-Mr. Joel Cohen, expressed concern with the process. He also indicated that he was opposed to the proposed theme park
especially since it would have an adverse impact on the residents in the area.
-Ms. Maxime Povering, who expressed concern with the scale of the proposed theme park. She also pointed out that
existing theme parks found throughout the world are not located within a residential community as is the case in this
proposal. She was concerned about the increased traffic and was of the opinion that this project would create traffic
gridlock on streets such as the Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue.
-Mr. Vincent Lombardi, on behalf of the Downsview Lands Community Voice Association, who indicated that he would
reserve his right to make comments on the report at the continuation of the public meeting. He also thanked the applicant
and City staff for attempting to address their concerns and trying to reach a resolution. In addition he pointed out that many
individuals as well as Annemarie Castrilli, M.P.P. were wondering why a full environmental assessment has not been
conducted on this application.
-Mr. David Birnbaum, who commented on the negative impact of the proposed theme park on the residents in the
community. He also pointed out that the studies that have been conducted thus far have inaccuracies. In concluding he
indicated that he supported the request for deferral since many of the outstanding issues must be resolved.
-Mr. Ron Hart, on behalf of the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, who indicated that he would like a
pedestrian cycling trail and community bike parking being provided. He was also concerned about the large parking area
and would prefer more greenspace and the parking being provided underground.
-Mr. Andy Doudoumis, on behalf of the Community Advisory Panel of Downsview, who supported the deferral request
especially since there are still many outstanding issues. He was pleased that the applicant has finally shown a willingness to
listen to the concerns of the residents.
-Mr. Albert Krivickas, who indicated that he had a number of concerns with the size and location and hours of operation
of the proposed Technodome. He also indicated that in light of the developer's lack of experience in constructing theme
parks, he should not be allowed to build one in the midst of a residential community. In addition he stated that the size of
the proposed arenas and theatre should be reduced and the theme park should not be open beyond 10:00 p.m. in the
evening.
-Ms. Lisa Graham, who enquired whether any thought had been given to a contingency plan in the event the proposed
theme park is not successful.
-Mr. Morris Sosnovitch, who indicated that he would reserve his right to make comments on the application at the
continuation of the public meeting tentatively scheduled for December9, 1998. He further indicated that he was concerned
about the size of the proposed theme park and the traffic impact. He agreed with the deferral because it would allow an
opportunity for further studies as suggested by Councillor Moscoe and would allow the community time to review these
studies. In addition he suggested that these reports be made available to members of the ratepayer and neighbourhood
groups prior to the next meeting. Since the effects of this development would be irreversible once built, the project should
not be allowed until the requested studies have been undertaken.
-Mr. Lou D'Angelo, who indicated that he would reserve his right to make detailed comments at the continuation of the
public meeting tentatively scheduled for December 9, 1998. He also indicated that no residential community has ever been
asked to absorb the kind of development contemplated by the applicant. In addition he stated that he wanted to remain in
the community and he looked forward to more community involvement and input.
-Mr. Bob Shour, who indicated that he would reserve his right to make detailed comments once the additional
information has been received. His primary concerns were with respect to traffic and parking. In his opinion it would be
impossible to place a theme park, the size of "Canada's Wonderland" or "Disneyworld" in this residential community
without creating gridlock or parking problems on nearby streets.
-Mr. Arthur Little, who indicated that this site is inappropriate for the proposed use. He also believed that the benefits
will not equal the social cost and there are a number of social consequences that should be dealt with.
-Ms. Annemarie Castrilli, M.P.P., who indicated that two weeks ago she attended a meeting at Faywood Public School at
which time she discovered that the City and the Federal Government have decided not to conduct a full environmental
assessment. She has subsequently written to the Minister of the Environment to look into this matter and requested that a
full environmental assessment be conducted.
-Mr. Allan Ettenson, who indicated that while the City may benefit from tax revenues from the proposed development, it
will not make up for the losses in property values that will be experienced by property owners in the area.
-Mr. Leon Wasser, who indicated that there are many outstanding issues that have not been fully addressed. He supported
the deferral request and he urged the Community Council to support the request for the full environmental assessment.
-Mr. Stewart Richardson, who expressed concern about the impact of the proposed development on the existing
infrastructure such as water pressure and road capacity. He was also concerned about overflow parking on nearby
residential streets and he supported the request for a full environmental assessment.
-Mr. Saul Schipper, who expressed concern about potential problems being created for residents in the future and
wondered what measures would be taken to preserve and protect the existing residential communities,
Councillor Li Preti declared his interest in this matter since his principal residence is located within 600 metres from the
subject site.
--------
A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Sgro, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Shiner, King
AGAINST:Nil
ABSENT:Councillors Augimeri, Chong, Filion, Li Preti, Mammoliti. Minnan-Wong
Carried
(Councillor Li Preti, at the meeting of City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, declared his interest in the
foregoing Clause, in that his principal residence is located within 600 metres of the subject site.)
24
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-88-037 - Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology - 43
Sheppard Avenue East - Ontario Municipal Board Decision - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(October 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor, reporting on the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to allow the appeal by
Seneca College from North York Council's refusal and recommending that the report be received as information.
(b)Sign By-law Variance Request - Pattison Outdoor Signs - 4640 Jane Street - Black Creek.
The North York Community Council reports having withdrawn the following report (October 14, 1998) from the
Director and Deputy Chief Building Official at the request of Mr. Just Cole, Pattison:
(October 14, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official recommending approval of the requested minor
variance from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit the erection of an illuminated off-premise roof sign.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (October 30, 1998) from Mr. Just
Cole, Permits Coordinator, Leasing and Legislation, Pattison, withdrawing his application for a variance to the Sign
By-law to permit a billboard sign at this location.
(c)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-23 and SitePlan Application
UDSP-98-159 - The Urban Design Workshop - 139 to 147DorisAvenue - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(October 27, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an application to amend the
Zoning By-law to permit a 24 unit 4 storey condominium townhouse development; and recommending that staff continue
processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.
(d)Sign By-law Variance Request - Billboard Roof Sign - Leroy Cassanova - 4140BathurstStreet - North York
Spadina.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred sine die consideration of the request referred to in
the following report:
(October 27, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official recommending that the request for a variance
from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit the erection of a billboard roof sign be refused.
--------
Mr. Leroy Cassanova, Omni, The Outdoor Company, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with this matter.
(e)Sign By-law Variance Request - Billboard Roof Sign - Raffaella Russo - 373WilsonAvenue - North York Centre
South.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next regular meeting
scheduled for December 9, 1998:
(October 27, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, recommending that the request for a minor
variance from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit the erection of a billboard roof sign be refused.
--------
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Raffaella Russo; and
-Mr. Jim Ditrani.
(f)Community and Social Planning Council of Toronto - Information Session - Street Youth/Squeegee Kids.
The North York Community Council reports having received a presentation by Ms. Ellen Ostofsky, Community
Planning, Social Planning Council, regarding the life of kids involved in squeegeeing in Toronto.
The North York Community Council also reports having viewed a video presentation entitled "Squeegeeing in Toronto"
and being provided with a copy of a publication entitled "Surviving the Streets - Street Youth and Squeegeeing in
Toronto".
The following persons also addressed the North York Community Council with respect to this matter:
-Ms. Karen Wirsig, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;
-Ms. Ellen Ostofsky, Community Planning, Social Planning Council; and
-Mr. Steve Geatz, Shout Clinic.
(g)1999 Capital Works Program.
The North York Community Council reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the
following motion (November 12, 1998) from Councillor Peter Li Preti, Black Creek:
"WHEREAS in 1990 the PRIDE program and Project Rebirth commenced improvements to the northeast quadrant of the
Jane and Finch intersection, including the Ontario Hydro Lands, Driftwood and Edgeley Park; and
WHEREAS on June 11, 1997, the former City of North York Council approved the concept design developed by staff for
the Jane and Finch Streetscape; and
WHEREAS on April 29, 1998, the City of Toronto Council approved $85,000 for the services of consultants to produce
the detailed design, working drawings, and tender ready documents for the first phase (approximately two and a half
kilometers) of the streetscape project; and
WHEREAS a team of consultants has been retained to produce the detailed design, working drawings and tender ready
documents for the first phase of the streetscape project by March 1999; and
WHEREAS upon approval of the construction budget, the construction of the streetscape is anticipated to commence in
June 1999 and be completed by November 1999; and
WHEREAS on September 15, 1998, the Jane and Finch Community was awarded the Trillium Award, which recognizes
the achievements of the many community organizations in the area; and
WHEREAS the Jane and Finch community has worked diligently to redefine its image, in order to reflect the cultural
richness and community building strengths; and
WHEREAS the collaborative efforts of the community have challenged the media to examine their role in creating
negative perceptions; and
WHEREAS increased positive support has strengthened the community's determination to build on, and benefit from, the
history and experience of its cultural mosaic; and
WHEREAS the beautification of the area's public open spaces and streets would serve to improve the safety and image of
this area as well as revitalize the neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS the Jane and Finch intersection has been identified as having a high percentage of red light runners causing a
large number of accidents; and
WHEREAS the completion of the streetscape project would be the fulfilment of hopes and dreams that have emerged from
years of dialogue and planning;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, $1.7 million for the implementation of the first phase of the streetscape
project be approved as part of the 1999 Capital Works Budget and $1.785 million be included as part of the Capital Works
Program for completion of phase two in the year 2000."
(h)Purchase of Parkland - Northwest Corner of Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard.
The North York Community Council reports having referred the following motion moved by Councillor Li Preti,
Black Creek, to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of
Corporate Services for a report back to the next meeting of the North York Community Council scheduled for
December 9, 1998:
"WHEREAS the residential population of the Black Creek residential community will substantially increase with the
addition of 220 freehold townhouse units and 775 apartment units on the lands located at the northwest corner of Finch
Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard; and
WHEREAS the statutory parkland dedication has already been fulfilled for the plan of subdivision in which these lands are
located; and
WHEREAS the City is not legally entitled to any further conveyance of parkland from this development;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
(a)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Corporate Services
investigate the feasibility of purchasing land for use as parkland, to a maximum of 5 acres, from the current land owner,
Elderbrook Developments; and
(b)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Corporate Services
report back to the North York Community Council on the options available to the City in order to pursue this matter."
Respectfully submitted,
MILTON BERGER,
Chair
Toronto, November 12, 1998
(Report No. 13 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City
Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.)
