19 Principles of Development Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-13 and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application UDSB-1238 - Glenarda Properties Ltd. - 20 Bond Avenue - Don Parkway

20 Alteration of Pembury Avenue - Construction of Turning Circle Blocking Access from the Ramp to Bayview Avenue - North York Centre South

21 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-45 - 505000 N.B. Inc. - 2800 Bathurst Street - North York Spadina

22 Temporary Road Closure - Ridley Boulevard - North York Centre South

23 Temporary Road Closure - Brookfield Road - North York Centre South

24 Curb Cuts - Corner Properties - All Wards

25 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the Toronto Taste '99 event being held by Second Harvest, be declared a community festival event.

The North York Community Council submits the following communication (March 24, 1999) from Ms. Jacqueline Inwood, Event Manager, Toronto Taste '99, Second Harvest:

In compliance with our application for a special occasion permit from the Liquor License Board of Ontario, we are providing you with the following information regarding the special event we are hosting, Toronto Taste '99.

Toronto Taste '99 is a benefit in support of Second Harvest, Toronto's only perishable food recovery program. Second Harvest collects and delivers fresh food to help feed more than 153,000 hungry people in Toronto every day.

Toronto Taste '99 will take place Sunday, June 6, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. at Windfields, Canadian Film Centre. The Canadian Film Centre is located at 2489 Bayview Avenue, North York.

This will be an outdoor event, where people will be able to sample the culinary works of 65 of Toronto's finest chefs. The outdoor component will require eight tents, 30 barbecues, and we will have fire extinguishers on-site.

Approximately 1,200 people are expected to be in attendance at this event.

If you have any questions regarding this event, you can contact me at Second Harvest.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

The North-York Community Council on January 20, 1999 had before it a resolution regarding the removal of land development signs placed on residential properties after the completion of construction.

This report, requested by Community Council, will review the existing Sign By-law and Building Division procedures with respect to Land Development Signs placed on construction sites of single family dwellings and will make recommendations for the control, removal and placement of these signs.

The report will also review the existing provision in the Sign By-law and how they control the placement of advertising and posters on hoarding around construction sites and enforcement issues related to signs placed on private property and the public road allowance.

It should be noted that the provisions, enforcement and inspections of signs under the Sign By-law is currently under review. As of the date of this report there has been no decision on the services to be provided and where and how these service will be delivered.

Recommendations:

(1) enforcement of the existing provisions of the Sign By-law:

(i) the Building Division of Urban Planning and Development Services continue to enforce the provisions of the Sign By-law as they pertain to land development signs, construction signs and posters on construction hoarding as off premise signs, until such time as the review of the Sign By-law across the City is complete;

(2) that the City Solicitor be requested to prepare amendments to the Sign By-law as it pertains to land development signs as follows:

(i) define construction signs to avoid any confusion with Land Development signs as follows: "a Construction Sign is a temporary sign without a foundation, which is used to advertise the work or company performing work on a property or structure, which may only be displayed while the specific work related to that sign is in progress and has a maximum area of 1.1 sq. metres (12 sq. ft.), in a single family residential zone." Further require the removal of construction signs once the work the sign was advertising is substantially complete;

(ii) limit the time frame that land development signs are permitted to remain to a maximum of six months after the issuance of a sign permit or 30 days after a construction is substantial complete;

(iii) limit the number of renewals of a permit for a Land Development sign to one, so that, the maximum length of time any land development sign could remain is one year. Further, do not allow for the renewal or subsequent permits for a land development sign, if an application for a building permit has not been submitted for the subject property; and

(iv) reduce the permitted sign area of land development signs in residential zones to 20 square feet for each lot, and where two or more lots are contiguous permit an individual sign to have a sign area equal to that permitted for each lot to a maximum of 80 square feet; and

(3) that the City Solicitor be requested to prepare amendments to the Sign By-law as it pertains to posters on construction hoarding:

(i) specifically prohibit posters on hoarding unless approved by the Community Council in the form of a variance to the By-law.

Discussion:

Current Sign By-law Regulations:

Land Development Signs:

The existing North-York Sign By-law No. 30788, as amended, contains regulations for the size, location and length of time that Land Development Signs related to the construction of single family dwellings. The regulations are found in Sub-Section 4.6.2 of the Sign By-law.

Land development is defined in the Sign By-law as follows:

Development of vacant land or the development, redevelopment, or construction of a building including the initial selling or leasing information but shall not include minor interior changes to an existing building.

Following is an overview of the existing regulations for Land Development Signs in single family residential zones:

In R1 to R5 zones one land development ground sign with a maximum area of 32.3 square feet is permitted for each lot.

Where two or more lots are contiguous in lieu of individual signs the signs may be combined into one sign with a maximum area of 107 square feet.

The maximum time the signs can remain in place is for one year after the sign permit is issued.

Construction Signs:

Section 2.8.7 of the Sign By-law permits non-illuminated construction signs with a sign area of 50.6 square feet on a "land development" site without a permit, provided the sign is removed within 90 days of the completion of the project. The Sign By-law does not define or regulate what constitutes a construction sign.

Although, construction signs are not defined in the Sign By-law the intent was to allow for signs to advertise the work of contractors, taking place to a building on a specific property.

Single Family Residential Construction Sites

Land Development Signs vs. Construction Signs:

The sections of the Sign By-law dealing with Land Development signs and Construction Signs contradict one another. As previously stated the Sign By-law permits land development signs subject to the regulations of Sub-Section 4.6.2.; the Sign By-law also permits construction signs without defining them or requiring a permit for their placement in Sub-Section 2.8.7.

Since the Sign By-law does not define construction signs it could be argued that some land development signs are construction signs, and their placement does not require a permit. This anomaly could be used to circumvent the requirements in the By-law to control and regulate land development signs, and should be addressed. If construction signs are defined, as recommended, it would clearly distinguish a construction sign from a land development sign.

Length of Time Land Development Signs are Permitted to Remain:

Land Development Signs are presently permitted to remain in place for one year after the issuance of a permit. This time period could be increased by renewing the existing permit or by applying for a new permit. This may have a negative impact on the surrounding area by allowing a land development sign to remain in place for a significant length of time during a protracted approval process. In established residential areas this would not be desirable, particularly for infill housing projects.

Advertising on Hoarding

Prohibiting Signs:

The existing Sign By-law does not contain any specific references or regulations for advertising signs or posters placed on hoarding, however, there are provisions prohibiting off premise signs. Prohibited signs are listed in Sub-section 2.9 of the Sign By-law.

Sentence 2.9.15 of the Sign By-law specifically prohibits off premise signs, which is defined as follows:

"Means an advertisement related to a to a business or manufacturing enterprise or other activity not conducted within the building or upon the premises on which the sign is erected."

This section of the Sign By-law could be utilized to prohibit the placing of signs or posters on hoarding typically found around construction sites. However, specific reference in the Sign By-law prohibiting the placing of posters on hoarding would clarify the existing provisions of the By-law.

Enforcement Issues

Private Property:

The enforcement provisions of the Sign By-law are found in Section 2.7. This section outlines action that can be taken when dealing with unsafe signs, illegal signs or signs erected without a permit.

Any sign which is unsafe or does not comply with the provisions of the Sign By-law, whether a permit was issued or not, must be removed by the owner of the property upon receiving written notification from the Building Division. The notice stipulates the nature of the contravention and specifies a time frame for compliance. These notifications are standard "Notice of Violation" forms, which are completed and issued by the sign inspector.

The Building Division also has the authority to remove unsafe signs, illegal signs or signs erected without a permit where the owner fails to comply with a Notice of Violation within the time specified. These signs can be removed without any further notifications to the owner. In addition, the cost of the removal of the sign could be passed on to the owner of the property, and this cost collected in the same manner as municipal taxes

Public Property:

Currently, signs erected illegally on City property are removed by a Works and Emergency Services staff member working with Building Division Sign Inspectors. This placement has resulted in a more timely response to complaints regarding illegal signs and in the removal of over 10,500 illegal signs last year.

Signs which are removed are stored within a locked enclosure in two Works yards. Sign owners are able to reclaim their signs upon payment of a one hundred dollar fee. This fee is used to offset storage and handling costs. There are no provisions within the Sign By-law to allow for the recovery of the cost of removing signs from City property.

Conclusion

The reduction in the size of permitted Land Development signs should reduce the negative visual impact these signs have on the existing neighbourhood. In addition defining construction signs in the Sign By-law would prevent the provisions regulating Land Development Signs from being circumvented.

The reduction in the time that a development sign is permitted to remain, and limiting the renewal of these permits should also any reduce the negative impact a sign may create.

Effective enforcement of the current provisions of the Sign By-law when dealing with posters on hoarding is difficult. If the recommended changes are made to the Sign By-law, with respect to advertising on hoarding, it will allow the Building Division to enforce these provisions on the property owners more effectively.

Contact Name:

Mario Angelucci P.Eng.

Manager Plan Review,

395-7535

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, that posters on hoarding be permitted only in non-residential areas, in residential zones but only when approved by Council as a variance to the Sign By-law, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Moscoe, Gardner, Chong

AGAINST: Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Shiner

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Augimeri, Filion, Minnan-Wong, King

Lost

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 15, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To extend and relocate the existing school bus loading zone on Lamberton Boulevard, adjacent to the Lamberton Public School.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the extension and relocation of the school bus loading zone are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

That By-law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended as follows:

(1) that the existing loading zone on the south side of Lamberton Boulevard, from a point 85 metres west of the westerly list of Clayhall Crescent to a point 40 metres westerly thereof, be deleted; and

(2) that a loading zone on the south side of Lamberton Boulevard, from a point 115 metres west of the westerly limit of Clayhall Crescent to a point 55 metres westerly thereof, be added.

Background:

In December of 1998, Council for the City of Toronto adopted a report from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, to install a School Bus Loading Zone on the south side of Lamberton Boulevard, adjacent to Lamberton Public School.

Discussion:

Since the installation of the school bus loading zone on Lamberton Boulevard, staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department have received a request from Mrs. Sue Young, Principal of Lamberton Public School, to extend the existing school bus loading zone, to accommodate one additional large school bus. In addition, Mrs. Young has indicated that the existing loading zone is located at the front entrance to the school, which causes congestion on the sidewalk and boulevard area. In this regard, Mrs. Young has requested that the loading zone be relocated closer to the west entrance of Lamberton Public School.

Conclusions:

In order to accommodate an extra school bus and to reduce congestion at the front entrance of Lamberton Public School, the Transportation Services Division would have no objections to Mrs. Young's request to extend and relocate the existing school bus loading zone on the south side of Lamberton Boulevard, adjacent to the Lamberton Public School.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To temporarily close North York Boulevard, to accommodate a motorcycle rally fund raising event for the Distress Centre in the community.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the temporary closure of North York Boulevard, excluding the $50.00 application fee, are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

(1) by enactment of a confirmatory By-law adopting this report, North York Boulevard be closed temporarily on Sunday, May 30, 1999, from 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m., subject to the applicant's compliance with procedural By-law No. 27433 of the former City of North York; and

(2) during the temporary closure, there shall be no use of the closed roadway for vehicular traffic except under the authority of a permit issued by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department received a request from Ms. Karen Letofsky, representing a non profit organization, to temporarily close North York Boulevard for the purpose of conducting a motorcycle rally fund raising event, for the Distress Centre in the community.

Ms. Letofsky has indicated that on Sunday, May 30th, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., North York Boulevard will be used as a registration and formation area for their annual motorcycle rally. This 190 km motorcycle rally will start from the Ford Performance Art Centre, ride through Kettleby, Bond Head, Beeton, Hockely, Orangeville, and finish at Bronte Creek Provincial Park.

Discussion:

Staff of the Transportation Services Division has received no objections to the closure, subject to the following conditions from the Fire and Police Services.

(1) the applicant shall insure that the area to be barricaded off is cleared of parked vehicles and obstacles that would interfere with the movement of fire vehicles, in the event of an emergency, and that individuals be readily available to remove the barricades in order not to impede the movement of the fire department vehicles should an emergency occur. Further, the organizers of the event be made aware that should an emergency arise within the area, it could well interrupt the program as planned; and

(2) paid duty police officers shall be provided to assist traffic in and out of North York Boulevard.

Conclusions:

The Transportation Service Division supports the temporary closure of North York Boulevard between Yonge Street and Beecroft Road, as requested by the applicant.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To temporarily close Cortleigh Boulevard, between Alexandra Wood and Proudfoot Avenue, to permit the residents of Cortleigh Boulevard to conduct their annual Victoria Day Street Party on Monday May 24, 1999.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the temporary closure are included within the 1999 operating budget, exclusive of the $50.00 application fee submitted by the applicant.

Recommendations:

(1) by enactment of a confirmatory By-law adopting this report, Cortleigh Boulevard, between Alexandra Wood and Proudfoot Avenue, be closed temporarily on Monday, May 24, 1999, from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., subject to the applicant's compliance with Procedural By-law No. 27433, of the former City of North York; and

(2) during the temporary closure, there shall be no use of the closed road for vehicular traffic except under the authority of a permit issued by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has received a request from Mrs. Kala Solway, on behalf of the residents of Cortleigh Boulevard, to temporarily close Cortleigh Boulevard, between Alexandra Wood and Proudfoot Avenue. This closure is required to accommodate their annual Vitoria Day Fire Works Celebration which has been conducted, without incident, at this location for the past six years.

Discussions:

The investigation by staff of the Transportation Services Division has determined that the proposed closure would not adversely affect the surrounding road system. The Toronto Police Services and the local Councillors have no objections to the temporary road closure of Cortleigh Boulevard. Furthermore, local home owners and/or tenants, by virtue of their signatures affixed to the application form, have indicated their support of this event.

In accordance with the former City of North York Procedural By-law No. 24733, the appropriate agencies and departments have been contacted for comments. There have been no objections to the closure, subject to the applicant adhering to the following conditions set forth by the Toronto Fire Services:

(1) the applicant ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles, in the event of an emergency, and that personnel be readily available to remove the barricades in order not to impede the movement of emergency vehicles;

(2) the applicant be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could interrupt the program as planned; and

(3) that the fireworks display set-up area be located a minimum of 30 metres from property and people and not located near overhead wires.

Conclusions:

The Transportation Services Division supports the closure and issuance of the appropriate permit to allow Cortleigh Boulevard to be closed to vehicular traffic on Monday, May 24, 1999, from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. to accommodate the scheduled event.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 30, 1999) 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 Blossomfield Drive at Dane Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the all way stop control are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

That Schedules 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 Blossomfield Drive and Dane Avenue.

Background:

Currently, eastbound motorists on Dane Avenue are required to stop at Blossomfield Drive.

Discussion:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has reviewed a request from Councillor Howard Moscoe to install an all way stop control at the 'T' type intersection of Blossomfield Drive and Dane Avenue.

The results of the most recent all way stop study has concluded that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control have been satisfied.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Blossomfield Drive and Dane Avenue.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 31, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To restrict parking on the west side of Dudley Avenue, from the northerly limit of Craigmore Crescent to Anndale Drive.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Dudley Avenue, from the northerly limit of Craigmore Crescent to the northerly limit of Anndale Drive.

Background:

Councillor Filion's office has been advised by a resident of Dudley Avenue that numerous vehicles are being parked for extended periods of time on the west side of the roadway, south of Craigmore Crescent.

Currently, parking is prohibited on the west side of Dudley Avenue, from Sheppard Avenue East to Craigmore Crescent, and on the east side, from Sheppard Avenue East to Anndale Drive, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday. Parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the west side of Dudley Avenue, from Craigmore Crescent to Anndale Drive.

Discussion:

As a result of an investigation by staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, the residents' concerns have been confirmed as numerous vehicles were observed parked on Dudley Avenue. Enforcement of the three hour parking regulation has not been effective in reducing the parking activities.

Councillor Filion has surveyed the affected residents and has obtained their support to prohibit parking from 8:30 a.m. 4:30 p.m. Monday to Friday, on the west side of Dudley Avenue, from Craigmore Crescent to Anndale Drive. Councillor Gardner has indicated that he has no objection, provided the residents are in support of the proposed amendments.

Conclusions:

The Transportation Services Division supports amending the parking restrictions, as per the residents' request.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 30, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To introduce a 40 km/h speed zone on Scarsdale Avenue from York Mills Road to Bond Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the 40 km/h speed zone are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that By-law No. 31878, of the former City of North York, be amended to introduce a 40 km/h speed limit on Scarsdale Avenue from the southerly limit of York Mills Road to the northerly limit of Bond Avenue.

Background:

Staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department reviewed a request from staff of the Willow Wood School for the installation of "School Zone" signing on Scarsdale Road, north and south of the school.

Currently, the speed limit on Scarsdale Avenue is 50 km/h. The roadway is comprised mainly of industrial uses with the exception of the Hawthorn School for Girls, 101 Scarsdale Avenue, and Willow Wood School, 55 Scarsdale Avenue. Both schools enrolment consist of school age children from Junior Kindergarten to Grade 13 with a combined population of approximately 330 students.

Discussion:

The former City of North York enacted a policy governing the installation of 40 km/h speed limits. This policy indicated that reduced speed zones are to be installed on roadways that either front or flank primary schools, or where a principal pedestrian access to a primary or junior high school is via parkland which has frontage or flankage on a road where the parkland actually is a continuation of the school property.

Accordingly, it is our analysis that Scarsdale Avenue meets the requirements of the 40 km/h speed zone policy of the former City of North York.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this division supports the enactment of the appropriate By-law to designate the maximum rate of speed on Scarsdale Avenue as 40 km/h.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 15, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To temporarily close Kenneth Avenue, between McKee and Church Avenues to permit the McKee Home and School Fundraising Committee to conduct their annual Community Fund Rasing and Community Day on Saturday June 12, 1999.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the temporary closure are included within the 1999 operating budget, exclusive of the $50.00 application fee submitted by the applicant.

Recommendations:

(1) by enactment of a confirmatory by-law adopting this report, Kenneth Avenue, between McKee and Church Avenues, be closed temporarily on Saturday, June 12, 1999, from 10:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., subject to the applicant's compliance with procedural By-law No. 27433 of the former City of North York; and

(2) during the temporary closure, there shall be no use of the closed road for vehicular traffic except under the authority of a permit issued by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Toronto Police Services, Toronto Fire Services and Ambulance Services.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Division has received a request from Ms. Brenda Falkner, on behalf of the McKee Home and School Fundraising Committee, to temporarily close Kenneth Avenue, between McKee and Church Avenues, to vehicular traffic. This closure is required to accommodate their annual Community Picnic and Fundraising event.

Discussions:

In accordance with the former City of North York Procedural By-law No. 24733, the appropriate agencies and departments have been contacted for comments. There have been no objections to the closure, subject to the applicant adhering to the following conditions set forth by the Toronto Police and Toronto Fire Services:

(a) the applicant shall ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles in the event of an emergency, and that personnel by readily available to remove the barricades in order not to impede the movement of the fire trucks; and

(b) that the organizer be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could interrupt the program as planned.

It should be noted that the above event had been conducted at this location in 1998, without any incident.

Conclusions:

Staff of the Transportation Services Division support the closure and recommend that the appropriate permit be issued in order that Kenneth Avenue may be closed to vehicular traffic on Saturday, June 12, 1999, from 10:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 15, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To install parking prohibitions on the north side of Clair Road, from Mayberry Road to Jane Street.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999

operating budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedules VIII and IX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at any time on the north side of Clair Road, from Mayberry Road to Jane Street.

Background:

Currently, parking is prohibited at any time on the south side of Clair Road, between Mayberry Road and Jane Street. On the north side of Clair Road, parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, between Mayberry Road and 48 Clair Road, stopping is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, between 46 and 30 Clair Road and parking is permitted for periods of up to a maximum of three hour between 28 Clair Road and Jane Street.

Discussion:

Councillor Mammoliti advised that his office was in receipt of a petition from the affected residents requesting to install parking prohibitions on the north side of Clair Road, between Mayberry Road and Jane Street.

Local residents have advised that vehicles are parked continually on various sections of the roadway. These vehicles, when parked on the north side of the roadway, restrict access to their properties and reduce the visibility of approaching vehicles.

Conclusions:

This Division supports the proposed parking amendments, as requested by the local residents.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 15, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To temporarily close portions of Mildenhall Road and Cheltenham Avenue to permit the Lawrence Park Community Athletic Association to conduct their annual Community Picnic.

Source of funds:

With the exception of a $50.00 application fee, all costs associated with the temporary closure are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

(1) by enactment of a confirmatory by-law adopting this report, Mildenhall Road, between Rochester and Buckingham Avenues, and Cheltenham Avenue, between St. Ives Crescent and Mildenhall Road, be closed temporarily on Saturday, June 5, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., subject to the applicant's compliance with Procedural By-law No. 27433 of the former City of North York; and

(2) during the temporary closure, there shall be no use of the closed road for vehicular traffic except under the authority of a permit issued by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Toronto Police Services, Toronto Fire Services and Ambulance Services.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department received a request from Mr. William Best, on behalf of the Lawrence Park Community Athletic Association, to temporarily close Mildenhall Road, between Rochester and Buckingham Avenues, and Cheltenham Avenue between St. Ives Crescent and Mildenhall Road, to vehicle traffic. This closure is required to accommodate their annual Community Picnic.

It should be noted that the above event has been conducted at this location for the past 20 years, without serious incident.

Discussions:

In accordance with the former City of North York Procedural By-Law No. 24733, the appropriate agencies and departments have been contacted for comments. There have been no objections to the closure, subject to the applicant adhering to the following conditions set forth by the Toronto Fire Services:

(a) the applicant shall ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles in the event of an emergency, and that personnel be readily available to remove the barricades in order not to impede the movement of the fire trucks; and

(b) that the organizer be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could interrupt the program as planned.

Conclusions:

Staff of the Transportation Services Division support the closure and recommend that the appropriate permit be issued in order that Mildenhall Road and Cheltenham Avenue be closed to vehicular traffic on Saturday, June 5, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1) the reports (April 23, 1999 and March 1, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, be received;

(2) speed humps be installed on Invermay Avenue; and

(2) the implementation of an all way stop control at the intersection of King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue, be deferred for six months in order to allow the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, to review the traffic impact resulting from the installation of the noted speed humps on Invermay Avenue and in order to determine whether a stop sign would be necessary.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (April 23, 1999) 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 King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the all way stop control are included within the 1999 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 on all approaches to the intersection of King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.

Council Reference:

North York Community Council, at its meeting of March 30, 1999, deferred a decision on the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Invermay Avenue and King High Avenue (east leg) until staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department were able to determine whether community support existed.

Background:

Currently, northbound motorists on King High Avenue are required to stop at Invermay Avenue.

The Transportation Services Division reviewed a request from a resident to consider the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.

The results of the most recent all way stop study concluded that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control were satisfied.

History:

Upon completing an investigation for the implementation of an all way stop control at the intersection of King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue, a report was prepared by the Transportation Services Division for inclusion on the March 30, 1999 agenda of the North York Community Council. The report recommended the installation of an all way stop control as a means of providing right of way control for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic through the intersection.

Upon receiving notice of the recommendation for the installation of an all way stop control, several residents within the community submitted a petition to the North York Community Council requesting that the all way stop control not be installed. The decision of the North York Community Council was to defer the item to the next meeting, during which time the local residents could be contacted for comments.

The result of a petition, forwarded to local residents through Councillor Michael Feldman's office, indicated that the community supports the installation of the all way stop control.

Comments:

The installation of an all way stop control was reviewed and the existing intersection traffic volumes satisfy the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control. Local residents have provided, through a petition, their support to the installation.

Conclusions:

In view of the previous review and the support of the local residents, the Transportation Services Division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

The North York Community Council also submits the following report (March 1, 1999) 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 King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the all way stop control are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

That Schedules 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 King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, northbound motorists on King High Avenue are required to stop at Invermay Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has reviewed a request from a resident to consider the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.

The results of the most recent all way stop study concluded that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control have been satisfied.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of King high Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, be received; and that the request by the applicant's consultant to reduce the parking rate from $7,500.00 to $2,500.00 for payment-in-lieu of parking for the one space parking deficiency, be approved:

Purpose:

To consider a request to reduce the parking rate for payment-in-lieu of parking as it relates to the above noted property and refund part of the payment.

Source of Funds:

There are no financial implications for the City of Toronto.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the report be received as information.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division, in March of 1998, reviewed Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-37 to permit the existing one story commercial building and parking lot which fronts onto Jane Street, to be maintained and to develop the eastern portion of the property which fronts on to Hearne Avenue with two semi-detached dwellings ( 4 units).

The development of the residential dwelling units, necessitated modifications to the rear of the existing retail establishment in order to accommodate a loading facility and provide sufficient maneuvering area. This also, impacted the on-site parking supply for the retail component which resulted in the loss of one parking space. The parking provided was 20 spaces, whereas 21 spaces were required which resulted in a one space parking deficiency. This deficiency was accepted, subject to payment-in-lieu of parking.

The application was approved by the North York Community Council on June 24, 1998, and by the City Council on July 8, 1998, including the recommendation for payment in-lieu of parking at the rate of $7500.00 per space. The applicant subsequently paid the recommended fee of $7500.00

Discussion

The applicant's consultant Mr. Peter Cheatley in a letter dated July 24, 1998, requested confirmation as to the amount to be paid, as it was his opinion that the lower rate of $2500.00 per space should have been applied. A response was sent dated August 18, 1998, by the Transportation Services Division confirming that the parking rate to be applied against the parking deficiency was $7500.00 and advising that any reduction in payment would have to be reviewed by North York Community Council. Mr. Cheatley has since submitted a letter dated January 11, 1999, requesting a reduction in the amount that was paid by the applicant.

The parking policy for payment-in-lieu of parking was established by Council in the former City of North York. With respect to this application, Category 1 of the policy would be applicable, which states that parking deficiencies associated with applications for new developments or new buildings (including any additions to existing buildings), or changes in use (which changes arise through the zoning amendment process) are subject to a payment of $7500.00/space.

Conclusion:

Based on the foregoing information, the parking rate to be applied to the one space parking deficiency should remain at $7500.00.

Contact Name:

Pascoal D'Souza

Manager, Traffic Planning/Right of Way (District 3)

Phone: (416) 395-7458

Fax: (416) 395-7482

E-mailpdsouza@city.north-york.on.ca

Mr. Peter Cheatley, Planning Consultant, appeared before the North York Community Council on behalf of the applicant, in connection with the foregoing matter.

A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri, Berger, Flint, Gardner

AGAINST: Councillors Sgro, Moscoe, Feldman, Filion, King

ABSENT: Councillors Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

Carried

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (December 4, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, be received; and the request by the property owner of 67 Claver Road for a 1.4 metre curb cut extension be approved:

Purpose:

The property owner has requested a curb cut extension of 1.4 metres to the west of his driveway. The 1.4 metre proposed widening along with the existing driveway width of 6.1 metres would provide a total driveway opening of 7.5 metres. Presently, the Departments policy permits a maximum driveway opening, not to exceed 6.1 metres.

Funding Sources:

All costs to process and administer a curb cut are to be covered by the property owner.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that no immediate action be taken as the resident has the maximum driveway width permitted.

Council Reference:

By-law No. 29189 amending Zoning By-law No. 7625 (Zoning) in part reads as follows:

"The width of any driveway in the front yard or side of a dwelling shall not exceed 6.1 metres in width unless said driveway leads to a private garage or carport, in which case the width of the driveway may exceed 6.1 metres but may not exceed the width of the garage or carport."

Comments and/or Discussion:

Presently, the above property has a double car garage and no carport. The double car garage entitles the owner to the maximum allowable curb cut opening of 6.1 metres.

Conclusions:

The proposed curb cut extension will be contrary to North York By-law No. 29189 amending Zoning By-law No. 7625 (Zoning) that permits a maximum driveway opening not to exceed 6.1 metres.

Contact Name:

Dino Eleuteri

(416) 395 - 6283

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4, subject to deferring consideration of the construction of sidewalks on Whitman Street in order to allow the Ward Councillors an opportunity to consult with residents:

The North York Community Council also reports having requested the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4, to meet with the Ward Councillors for the purpose of establishing an inclusive process for dealing with local initiatives as a result of petitions and City initiatives.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4:

Purpose:

To obtain direction on the construction of sidewalks included with road improvement projects in the 1999 Capital Budget, Local Improvement Initiatives.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for the sidewalks is included in the 1999 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 included on Local Improvement Initiative road improvement projects on Frontenac Ave. from Chicoutimi Ave. to West limit, Arjay Cr. from Bayview Ave. to Bayview Ave., Lytton Blvd. from Bathurst St. to East limit and Whitman St. from Nipigon Ave. to South limit (subject to approval of the road improvement projects by residents through the Local Improvement Act process);

(2) any funds made available by the cancellation of sidewalks be made available for other sidewalk works to be built in the 1999 construction year under the North York Transportation Project Line TR604, Sidewalks and Walkways; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

The former City of North York Council Policy (Works Committee Report 9, Clause 8 of 1988, Resolution No. 88-18) states as follows:

1. road improvements done under the Local Improvement Act be conditional upon a sidewalk being installed in accordance with the approved City's standards;

2. wording on Local Improvement notices or petitions shall indicate that a sidewalk "is recommended" for construction on one side of the street;

3. requests for deletion of a sidewalk be considered by the Works Committee in terms of the relative Hazard Exposure Index (HEI) as available and provided by the Commissioner of Transportation; and

4. 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.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Hazard Exposure Index (H.E.I.) Studies have been performed by Transportation Services (North York) and the appropriate H.E.I. category is listed below:

Sidewalk H.E.I.

Street Limits Estimated Cost Category

Frontenac Ave. Chicoutimi Ave. to West Limit $ 5,000.00 3 (lowest priority)

Arjay Cr. Bayview Ave. to Bayview Ave. $40,000.00 3 (lowest priority)

Lytton Blvd. Bathurst St., to East Limit $13,000.00 3 (lowest priority)

Whitman St. Nipigon Ave. to South Limit $ 8,000.00 3 (lowest priority)

As information, the attached facsimile from Mr. Armand Scaini concerning the Local Improvement and sidewalk on Whitman St., was received by this Department on April 14, 1999. The Finance Department has advised that the residents have not yet been notified.

Conclusion:

As per the former City of North York Council Policy, sidewalks have been included on the Local Improvement projects. The Hazard Exposure Index Studies 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:

Gord MacMillan. P.Eng.

Manager, Design & Construction, District 3

Tel. No. 395-6359

Fax. No. 395-0349

E-Mail: gmacmill@city.north-york.on.ca

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to enter into an encroachment agreement with Apotex Realty Inc. to permit the installation, ownership and maintenance of underground fibre optic conduits by Apotex Realty Inc. within the public road allowance at various locations.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the proposed encroachments be approved by the City subject to the following conditions:

(1) the owner enter into an encroachment agreement with the City including the terms and conditions as set out in this report and such other terms as may be required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to do all things necessary.

Council Reference / Background /History:

North York Community Council, at its meeting on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted Clause No. 20 contained in Report No. 6 which required that:

1. the City be authorized to enter into negotiations with Apotex Realty Inc. toward an agreement to permit the installation, ownership and maintenance of underground fibre optic conduits within the public road allowance at various locations;

2. the appropriate City officials report back to Council upon conclusion of the negotiations;

3. the proposal respect the Federation of Canadian Municipalities model agreement; and

4. the agreement be negotiated through the local councillors.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Following the above-mentioned Council resolutions, the City and Apotex Realty Inc. held several discussions as to the terms of the encroachment agreement to permit the installation, ownership and

maintenance of the fibre optic conduits within the City road allowances, linking the various Apotex Realty Inc. buildings in the Ormont Drive and Garyray Drive area. Negotiations between the City and the owner have now been completed. A draft agreement has been prepared and reviewed to the satisfaction of both parties.

The Legal Department advises that the encroachment agreement adheres to the principles of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities model Municipal Access Agreement.

Both Local Councillors of Ward 6 - North York Humber have been consulted for their comments.

The highlights of the encroachment agreement are as follows:

1. the agreement provides for a licence fee to be paid annually to the City (licence fee for 1999 approximately $15,000.00) and increased annually by the Consumer Price Index;

2. the agreement provides for a liability clause to indemnify the City against all actions, suits, claims, demands and costs associated with the encroachments;

3. the agreement requires the owner maintain comprehensive general liability insurance for a minimum of $5,000,000.00 for each occurrence;

4. the agreement requires that the owner be a member of an underground utility "Locate" service such as "Ontario One Call Ltd.";

5. the agreement provides for the relocation of the encroachments upon notice by the City and removal of the encroachments if the owner is in default of the agreement;

6. the use of the encroachments is limited to Apotex Realty Inc. and its affiliates for their own internal business purposes; and

7. the agreement provides (as do similar agreements in the former City of Toronto) that the term shall be for the life of the buildings (including a replacement building) or 75 years, whichever is less.

Conclusions:

All issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor; therefore, this Department has no objection for the City to enter into an agreement to allow the encroachments in the public road allowance.

Contact Name and Address:

Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng., Manager, Development Services, District 3

Tel. No. 416-395-6307 Fax No. 416-395-0349

E-Mail: rbedrosy@city.north-york.on.ca

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to grant a proposed encroachment of a retaining wall, gabion baskets and private catchbasin onto an existing City storm sewer easement.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the proposed encroachments be approved by the City subject to the following conditions:

(1) the owner(s) enter into an agreement with the City with terms to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to do all things necessary.

Background and Discussion:

There is an existing municipal storm sewer easement described as Instrument TB99062 on Reference Plan 64R-15027, at the south limit of the site of development located at 11 William Carson Crescent. In order to facilitate the development, the owner, L & A Management, is requesting that a retaining wall, gabion baskets and catchbasin be permitted to encroach onto the City's easement.

The development was approved by Council on July 8, 1998. By-law No. 707-1998 in connection with this development was enacted October 2, 1998.

This department's comments on the subject site plan application included the condition that the owner enter into an encroachment agreement.

The Works and Emergency Services Department is in receipt of a correspondence dated October 30, 1998 from Burka Architects Inc., architects for the owner, requesting that the City permit the encroachment. The retaining wall is required to provide the necessary grading to allow the natural overland drainage of the subject lands around the proposed development and onto William Carson Crescent.

The former City of North York policy requires that certain requirements are satisfied before an encroachment is considered for approval, including but not limited to the following:

(i) that all encroachments be subject to an agreement being entered into between the City and the owner of the property abutting the encroachment;

(ii) that such an agreement be to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and be registered on the title of the property;

(iii) that a suitable survey drawing of the lands involved, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, showing the location of the encroachment, its dimensions and areas, and any significant features pertinent to the encroachment and satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, be provided by the owner, to delineate the encroachment and that such plan be attached to and form part of the agreement; and

(iv) that the owner pay a one-time administrative fee of $150.00 to the Works and Emergency Services Department and a one-time administrative fee of $350.00 to the Legal Department.

The encroachments onto the storm sewer easement consist of the following:

1. concrete retaining walls at the north and south limits of the existing easement;

2. a catchbasin and lead which connect to the proposed private drainage system on private property; and

3. a concrete block mat or gabion baskets to stabilize an east-west slope and channelize overland flow.

Conclusions:

The encroachments do not seriously impact on the existing storm sewer in easement; therefore, the Department has no objection to the encroachments subject to the owner entering into an encroachment agreement with the City.

Contact Name and Address:

Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng., Manager, Development Services, District 3

Tel. No. 416-395-6307 Fax No. 416-395-0349

E-Mail: rbedrosy@city.north-york.on.ca

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, be directed to:

(1) oppose the referral of the application to the Ontario Municipal Board;

(2) provide notice of the statutory public meeting for the May 26, 1999 meeting of the North York Community Council; and

(3) advise the Ontario Municipal Board accordingly.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

An appeal of zoning amendment application UDZ-98-20 has been filed by Murray H. Chusid, solicitor for the applicant, Tor-bel Developments Limited.

The applicant's solicitor has filed the appeal on the grounds that the Council for the City of Toronto has failed to consider the rezoning application.

A copy of the appeal letter sent to the Ontario Municipal Board and the City Clerk is attached to this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information purposes.

Contact Name:

Randy Jones, Planner

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 395-7137 Fax: (416) 395-7155

(A copy of the appeal letter referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1) the following report (April 14, 199) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, not be adopted;

(2) that the Zoning Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision application, submitted by Glenarda Properties Limited be refused and the lands retain their current industrial designation and zoning of Industrial Zone One (M1); and

(3) to prepare for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing, that the City Solicitor be directed to report to the North York Community Council on the retention of consultants as may be necessary to defend the City's position.

Purpose:

This report recommends that the application to amend the Industrial Zone One (M1) uses on the property located at 20 Bond Avenue to permit live/work uses not be approved. This report establishes Principles of Development which direct that the current applications be revised to include an official plan amendment to redesignate the lands to Residential Density One RD1 with appropriate limited residential intensification zoning and a re-configured road network.

The applicant has referred the applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. A pre-hearing conference has been scheduled for May 17, 1999. Council should have an adopted position for the purposes of this pre-hearing.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the application to amend the Industrial Zone One (M1) uses on this property to permit live/work uses not be approved;

(2) the current application be revised:

(a) to amend the Official Plan to redesignate these lands as Residential One (RD-1) with a part C.9 specific Development policy to permit limited residential intensification of 34 units per hectare (14 units per acre) as may be appropriate;

(b) to revise the application for draft plan approval to reflect the re-configured road network shown on the attached Schedule "D1";

(c) to revise the application for draft plan approval and rezoning

- to provide a mix of one family detached and semi-detached dwellings;

- to generally meet the zoning standards of the R6 and RM2 zones as appropriate; and

- to permit limited home occupations only on those properties which front on Scarsdale Road or abut lands zoned M1 subject to the applicable parking standards for the accessory use; home occupations are limited to professional office and professional business office; and

(d) to revise the application for draft plan approval to meet the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Technical Services Division (Schedule "E");

(3) community consultation with the residents in the area and with the employment landowners on Scarsdale Road continue with the revised applications; and

(4) a final report on these applications be prepared with appropriate conditions of approval when the applicant has perfected their revised applications and that staff give Notice of a Statutory Public Meeting at the appropriate time.

Background

Proposal

The original rezoning and draft plan of subdivision applications submitted for this site were for a mixed use development consisting of 82 residential units (27 detached houses and 55 townhouses), stand alone office uses and park land for a total FSI of .90. The size of the proposed park was 0.04 hectares (0.1 acres). The single detached dwelling units were to be located along the west side of the site, adjacent to the single detached dwelling lots on Charnwood Road and fronting on to Bond Avenue. The interior of the site was for multiple attached townhouse units. Each of the residential units were to be designed to include a dedicated work space as an accessory use to the main residential living area. The commercial office building proposed for the Scarsdale Road frontage proposed independent office uses as well as support services for the home based office space and sought to maintain a strong employment presence on the site. It is this original application which is before the OMB.

The following table provides statistics for the site.

An official plan amendment application was not submitted because the application was submitted under the Industrial policies in the official plan which permit applications for live/work subject to specific development criteria.

Revised Proposal:

After considerable community consultation, the application was revised. The revised proposal has evolved from a live/work development concept to a more traditional style of housing. The revised application proposes a zoning by-law amendment and the subdivision of the site in order to permit a development consisting of 14 single detached dwelling units and 68 semi-detached dwelling units (total 82 residential units), and park land uses as shown on Schedule "C". The single detached houses would be located adjacent to the west of the site, nearest to the existing residential properties on Charnwood. The semi-detached units would front onto a new internal road network and onto Bond Avenue and Scarsdale Road.

Each of these residential units would be designed to include a dedicated work space such as an office. The work space would be a separate area in the residential unit and function as an accessory use to the main living area. The stand alone office building was deleted.

The following table provides revised statistics for the site.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan

The site is currently designated Industrial which permits employment (Schedule "A") up to a Floor Space Index of 1.0. Industrial areas are intended to accommodate a wide range of industrial and other employment uses.

Official Plan policies affecting this site are found in Appendix "A".

The Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan identifies Metropolitan Industrial/Employment Areas to meet its objective of maintaining a sufficient supply of industrial lands and a diversity of employment necessary to enhance Metropolitan Toronto's economic competitiveness. The subject lands have not been identified as part of the inventory of Metropolitan Industrial/Employment Areas.

Zoning

The site is zoned Industrial Zone One (M1) which permits employment uses (Schedule "B"). A zoning by-law amendment is required to permit the additional uses requested under this application.

Community Consultation

A community consultation meeting was held on October 19, 1998. Three working group meetings were subsequently held on November 23 and December 15, 1998 and February 22, 1999. A number of concerns were raised by those in attendance at the meeting, including the concept of live/work, density, built form, traffic, privacy, precedent of use, and the ability of services in the area to accommodate development. A summary of the comments raised by the community are attached as Schedule "L". A copy of all of the submissions made are available for viewing in the Planning Department and will be available at the statutory public meeting. The issues raised by the community are addressed in the Discussion section of the report. Staff have also met with members of the Don Mills Residents Inc. and with several residents on Charnwood Road.

A final working group meeting was convened on February 24, 1999 at which time the revised plan for the site was presented.

In response to community concerns, the revised plan was submitted which no longer includes townhouses or the central office building. Further changes have also been made, such as increased lot frontages and setbacks generally increasing the residential character of the proposal closer in character with the abutting residential community.

Other Department Comments:

A summary of the comments received from departments and agencies circulated is included in Appendix "D". Only the Economic Development Division, Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department objects to the proposed redevelopment of this site. The comments of the Director, Business Development and Retention are attached as Schedule "K".

Economic Development cites the reinvestment which has occurred at 115 Scarsdale Road by Bell Express Vu and the reinvestment which has occurred at 75 Scarsdale Road by QUAD Engineering. The continued viability of these operations is important.

They assert the economic viability of the 20 Bond site should be upheld since it is one of only 6 properties over 5.0 acres available within the North York community

They have four concerns with this application:

• the limited supply of employment sites 5 acres or greater;
• the precedent of residential uses on Scarsdale Road encouraging more residential uses which could undermine the continued viability of Scarsdale Road for employment purposes;
• the erosion of the non-residential tax base; and
• the lack of credibility for the live/work concept and the lack of any policy in place which would provide the city with commercial assessment based on the live/work designation.

Within the context of the revised proposal they do not support the deletion of the commercial office block in favour of semi-detached dwellings. They anticipate truck/automobile conflicts on Scarsdale Road.

A discussion of the four areas of concern cited by Economic Development is found in Appendix "F".

Discussion

Location and Existing Site Analysis

The 2.3 hectare (6.0 acres) site is located on the northwest corner of Bond Avenue and Scarsdale Road, which is east of Leslie Street and south of York Mills Road on the edge of the industrial area. The site is occupied by a one storey older industrial building that was owned by Ingram and Bell Inc., which had specialty uses for office, production and storage with a customized building configuration designed to meet their specific needs. The site does not have exposure on a minor or major arterial road or highway.

Industrial uses are located immediately to the north and across the street east of the site. These are TelCom Equipment who refurbished used telephones, located directly north of the site at 30 Scarsdale Road (presently up for lease); Aztech New Media Corp., an office use, located across the street at 1 Scarsdale Road; and, Grenville Printing, located at 25 Scarsdale Road. Further north along Scarsdale Road is a mix of uses, including office, industrial, private schools and churches. Southwell Park is also located north of the site. Immediately to the west of the site and south of Bond Avenue are residential communities with single family detached houses. (See Schedule "N" for existing land uses.)

The site is located at the southern edge of an older Industrial area, bounded to the north by York Mills Road, the south by Bond Avenue and a residential community, the west by a residential community and to the east by the CNR line. The industrial area is bisected by Scarsdale Road which runs south from York Mills Road to Bond Avenue. Bond Avenue and Scarsdale Road are local roads. The Wrenthem Estate Business Park is located to the north and east of the Scarsdale Road industrial area, with the two areas being separated by a CNR line.

All of the lands within this area are designated Industrial, permitting a wide range of industrial and other employment uses at an FSI of 1.0. The zoning in the area is M1 (Industrial Zone One) and M2 (Industrial Zone Two) with the site at the corner of York Mills Road and Scarsdale Road zoned MC(H) (Industrial- Commercial Zone), all of which permit a variety of industrial and employment uses.

The character of the industrial area along Scarsdale Road is one of a mix of uses. Industrial users include private commercial schools, churches, offices, automotive uses and storage. A map of the existing land use on Scarsdale Road is attached as Schedule "D2". Scarsdale Road is reflective of the success of the original Don Mills Garden City concept which positioned low rise industrial/employment uses on large well appointed, generously landscaped lots immediately adjacent to very stable and desirable single family enclaves.

A 1997 survey of users in the Scarsdale Road industrial area, conducted by the Planning Department, yielded the following information about this industrial area:

- offices, warehousing and distribution uses were predominant,

- many businesses were tenants rather than owners who had been there less than 10 years, and

- businesses were moving elsewhere to accommodate expansion.

A 1997 Employment Survey of the Scarsdale Road area, also conducted by the Planning Department, identified the total number of employees as 1,607. The figures for 1997 by employment type are found below.

Historically, there has always been a mix of employment uses in this industrial area, as evidenced by employment figures dating back to 1983 (See Appendix "E"). There has been a decline in employment in the Scarsdale Road Industrial area since the 1993 survey was undertaken. The area was not surveyed in 1998, so further declines, such as the departure of Ingram and Bell Inc. with approximately 220 employees have not been documented. The predominant employment use on Scarsdale Road is not manufacturing and warehousing but is office, retail and other.

The Banbury Residential Community is adjacent to the Scarsdale Road industrial area. The neighbourhoods immediately west and south are designated Residential Density One (RD-1) which permits single detached dwellings, and semi-detached dwellings subject to certain criteria at a maximum density of 20 units per net hectare (8 units per net acre). The zoning in these residential areas is R4 (One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone) which permits one family detached dwellings. These areas are occupied by single detached dwellings with generously sized lots.

Community facilities and services in the area, including such uses as parks, schools, roads and servicing, are adequate.

Industrial Policy Review

In July 1996 Council adopted the report "Industrial/Employment Areas Study: A Discussion Paper" which examined trends and issues affecting the City's industrial/employment lands, explored future employment potential of the City's industrial lands and suggested steps the City take to reinforce their continued viability and attract new uses for these lands and existing buildings. The discussion paper identified North York Core Industrial/Employment Districts for the purpose of consolidating those lands best able to accommodate future industrial/employment growth while still providing land which has the flexibility to accommodate opportunities for new uses. The subject site was not identified as being part of the core Industrial/Employment lands. Those lands not included are still considered a valuable resource for the City. In those areas where continued industrial use of lands is no longer considered to be reasonable or appropriate, however, re-use for non-employment uses may be considered subject to a series of evaluation criteria. The Industrial review included the participation of staff from various departments, including Planning and Economic Development.

The City is undertaking an employment/industrial land strategy as part of the new Official Plan review. Redesignating this site at this time will not jeopardize this strategy.

Concept of Live/Work:

Live/work is an innovative concept which was introduced by OPA 443. It combines work with living space within the same unit. Dwellings which combine work with living space comprise live/work accommodation. There have not, however, been any applications for rezoning approved under the Industrial Zoning of a property for live work as described in OPA 443 since it has been adopted.

The Industrial Policies of the official plan indicate that dwellings are permitted in industrial areas as an accessory use provided they support and are compatible with the primary use of the land for employment purposes. Offices are permitted in all industrial areas provided the combined gross floor area for all offices on a lot does not exceed the lesser of 5000 m² or 0.5 FSI. Additional office development may be permitted along the edge of the industrial areas adjacent to residential areas.

On this site, the applicant has proposed that each of the residential units will have the capacity to have limited employment uses in the form of a home office. No more than 30 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit will be permitted to be used for these employment uses. In addition, such uses can only be conducted by a member or members of the household who reside in the dwelling unit as their principal residence. It is clear, however, that the character of the application is predominantly (70 percent) residential rather than employment. Rather than a credible live/work proposal the evolution of the application, particularly as a consequence of the extensive community consultation, has increasingly taken on the character of a residential redesignation with an extensive component of home occupation permissions. Live/work in an industrial employment designation is not the same as home occupation in a residential setting. In the former, the employment use is predominant whereas in the latter the employment component is accessory.

For this site, there is an opportunity for home occupations in the dwelling units having frontage on Scarsdale Road and on the northern perimeter of the site.

Criteria for Redesignation for Residential Purposes:

The Criteria for the redesignation of industrial lands are set out in the official plan as follows:

Part C.8 Section 5.3.0. Redesignation of Industrial Lands for Non-Industrial Purposes

Part C.4 Section 6.0 Criteria to Guide the Redesignation of Non-residential Lands to Residential

Redesignation of Industrial Lands for Non-Industrial Purposes:

(a) the land proposed for redesignation should be on the periphery of an industrial area;

The subject site is located on the edge of the Scarsdale Road industrial area, bounded on two sides by residential uses. There are industrial employment uses to the north and across the street on the east side of Scarsdale Road. These are TelCom Equipment who refurbish used telephones, located directly north of the site at 30 Scarsdale Road, Aztech New Media Corp., an office use, located across the street at 1 Scarsdale Road and Grenville Printing, located at 25 Scarsdale Road.

The majority of lands along Scarsdale have been rezoned to M1 as part of the Industrial Review because of their proximity to the existing residential community. The west side of Scarsdale Road, and the property directly across the street at 1 Scarsdale Road have been zoned to M1. There are still two parcels on the east side of Scarsdale Road (25 and 31)which are zoned M2.

The total supply of industrial land in the Leslie/York Mills industrial area is 41 hectares (101.1 acres). The subject site is 2.3 hectares (6 acres) or 6 percent of the total land area of this industrial area. A 1997 inventory of serviced industrial land for the former City of North York, prepared by the Economic Development Centre, was 2,469 hectares (6,100 acres). The subject site represents 0.09 percent of the inventory. In the amalgamated City, this figure would be less. This indicates that this site, on the edge of an industrial area, does not represent a large portion of the City's industrial inventory.

(b) the proposed redesignation will not jeopardize the planned role and function of other land use districts nor set a precedent for further redesignations;

The proposed redesignation of the site will not jeopardize the planned role and function of the remaining industrial area for the following reasons:

- the site is located on the periphery of the industrial area, not in the middle of employment uses, reducing the opportunity for conflict;

- the City has not received any other applications to redesignate lands in the area for residential uses; and

- OPA 443 broadened the types of employment uses permitted, putting less pressure on employment lands to be redesignated.

The proposed designation will not jeopardize the role and function of the residential land use district because there are adequate community facilities and services to support new residential development.

In order to further discourage interior redesignations, the subdivision road network should be revised to create a block along the northern perimeter of the site which under the current application is an open sided road allowance inviting more residential development on the adjacent property. Having development lots turning their backs to the existing industrial use to the north, will increase the self-sufficiency of the redevelopment area to be defined separately from the employment area and will minimize the opportunity for this abutting property to also be redesignated creating a domino effect up the street.

(c) the new land uses will not negatively impact the viability and stability of any of the remaining industrial lands in the long term;

Being located on the edge of the industrial area, and having road access to Bond Avenue, means that access and traffic on Scarsdale Road is minimized. The area has a mix of industrial uses, some of which (churches, private schools, storage units) could be supported by residential uses.

The industrial employment policies have been opened up to permit a broader range of employment uses. These permitted employment uses, unlike conventional heavy industrial uses are naturally attracted to perimeter areas which already abut long term stable residential areas.

(d) the boundaries for change:

- will be logical and appropriate for the area;

- will provide opportunities to minimize incompatibilities between land uses; and

- will create a defined edge which will be stable over the long term;

The boundary is logical and appropriate for the area. Incompatibilities between land uses can be minimized by the location of the site on the edge of the industrial area, adjacent to existing residential communities. The northern boundary of the site which is immediately adjacent to a site with existing industrial uses is being addressed by having rear lots back onto the industrial use. By having the rear of lots as the boundary, a defined edge is created which will minimize the opportunity for residential redevelopment to the north.

The location of residential uses on this site will make the site more inviting for residents in the area, particularly those to the south, to use Southwell Park. It is a more inviting environment and will draw people into the park.

The subdivision, with single detached units on the west side of the site and semi detached units on the remainder of the site, will function as a transition between the residential and industrial uses.

(e) the new development will fit within the context of surrounding existing development in scale, height and built form;

Existing development in the area consists of one and two storey single family detached dwellings and low to medium rise industrial uses. Single detached dwelling and semi-detached dwellings, generally consistent with the R6 and RM2 zoning provision and RD-1 Official Plan policies, can fit within the context of limited residential intensification.

Residential Density One permits single detached and semi-detached dwellings. Semi-detached dwellings are permitted subject to rezoning, at locations designated for residential use which form the edge between the residential use and industrial use, provided that the lot proposed for semi-detached use flanks a lot or lots designated for industrial purposes. This redevelopment site flanks industrial lands and addresses an industrial street and semi-detached dwellings may be considered in this context.

(f) the density and massing of new development should complement the existing built form context;

The density of the new development will generally be consistent with the density permitted for limited intensification infill residential development in an RD-1 land use district. The massing of the new development can be consistent with the existing residential areas and can complement the existing built form.

The built form for development on this site should be low-rise in nature to complement the surrounding built form in both the industrial (which consists of low rise industrial buildings and offices) and the residential area (which consists of one and two storey residential units).

Comparable limited intensification in the form of single family and semi-detached dwelling lots have recently been approved in North York. Examples include 16 detached units on Risa Boulevard (UDOZ-97-39 approved in June 1998), 195 semi-detached and multiple attached dwellings on Rochefort Drive/Ferrand Drive (UDZ-97-52 approved in October 1998) and 10 single detached units on Granlea Road, Calvin Road and Vonda Avenue (UDZ-98-17 approved by Council February 1999).

(g) the new development can be integrated and linked into the fabric of surrounding community, where appropriate, such as through provision of public streets, pedestrian walkways and the location of public parks;

The new development can be integrated and linked to the community through a pedestrian link from one of the new streets to the existing Southwell Park, which fronts onto Charnwood Road. The new development will also be linked into the community by Bond Avenue sidewalks and the sharing of recreational facilities at Bond Park.

The residential community to the west of the site will not experience significant reductions of sunlight or privacy since the new development is low-rise in nature. The single detached units proposed on the west side of the site will be 8.8 metres in height, consistent with zoning by-law requirements for residential zones. The privacy of the existing single family dwelling units to the west of the site will be protected by the preservation and enhancement of the existing mature cedar hedge, located on the site and by the rear yard setbacks for the new houses. The lands immediately abutting existing single family dwelling lots on Charnwood Road can more appropriately carry forward a similar single family built form. Along this edge there is a significant difference in grade with the 20 Bond Avenue site depressed about a metre below the Charnwood lots. There is also a mature line of approximately 15 foot high cedars which separate the two areas which is to be retained. There will not be overview problems.

Redevelopment should be guided by the desire to achieve a comfortable, lively, safe and attractive public realm. The impacts of the garages and car parking at the front of the houses should be minimized while the amount of soft landscaping should be maximized. Part C.4 of the Official Plan includes guidelines for urban design features. Additional guidelines are also provided in Appendix "B".

(h) the continued operation of existing industrial uses which remain in the area of a redevelopment can be encouraged through such measures as the phasing of development, the provision of on-site building yard setbacks, landscaped areas, intervening facilities, buildings and fencing, and the protection of trucking routes and driveways;

The operation of existing industrial uses which remain in the area could be encouraged by additional rear yard setbacks and fencing/ landscaping along the northern property boundary.

(i) that adequate parkland, amenities, community facilities and social services can be provided for future residents;

The new development will become part of Don Mills and as such will have the benefit of having schools in an open space setting, a linked park system, and trees and landscaping of a matured community.

Adequate parkland, community facilities and services can be provided for future residents. Comments received from various City Departments and the school boards do not object to the proposal.

The proposed development site is on the edge of the industrial area and surrounded on two sides by residential communities with existing accessible community facilities and social services. In addition to these existing services, the proposed development will provide a portion of its parkland dedication requirement in the form of an on site dedication which will expand Southwell Park and provide access to future residents from their development. The balance of the parkland dedication will be used for improvements to Southwell Park. With regards to schools, neither Board has objected to this development. Access is available to community facilities and services.

(j) that sufficient sewer and transportation capacity can be provided to meet the needs of the redevelopment areas; and

Interim sewer capacity exists in the Don Trunk system which would be made available for this development should it be approved by Council. Evaluation of the Traffic Impact Study indicates that traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated on the area road network. The existing employment uses on the west side of Scarsdale Road function well now immediately adjacent to a residential area. The transportation analysis of the proposal indicates that the traffic generated will be less than that associated with the former use. The new traffic can be accommodated on the area road network and a gap study indicates the intersection of Leslie Street and Bond Avenue can accommodate the turning movements. The planned function of Scarsdale Road should not be adversely affected.

(k) that the environmental conditions of the development area are suitable for the proposed land use.

The industrial history of this site has necessitated an environmental site assessment and peer review, which have been undertaken for the site which has not precluded residential development on the site. Approval of the proposed application will be conditional upon the City and MOEE receiving a completed record of site condition.

A satisfactory Phase One environmental audit and peer review will be required prior to the adoption of any official plan amendment. All of the required strategies for the remediation of the site including indemnification of the city and the requirement for a record of Site Condition satisfactory to the Ministry of Environment will be secured through the execution of the subdivision agreement prior to registration of the plan.

Criteria to Guide the Redesignation of Non-residential Lands to Residential

Under Council's Housing policies, adopted October 1997, Council may consider official plan amendments that propose to redesignate non-residential lands to a residential land category when, in Council's opinion, community services and facilities are in place or can be provided to serve the proposed residential development and cumulative impact of the redesignation for residential use does not have an undue negative impact on existing community facilities and transportation facilities and transportation facilities and municipal servicing capacities. Further, Council may consider application to redesignate non-residential land to residential land use when one of the following conditions apply:

1) there is a demonstrated need to improve or rejuvenate areas due to obsolescence or physical or economic decline; or

2) the introduction of residential land use will not jeopardize the continued viability of commercial, industrial, institutional and open space land uses.

These Housing criteria are in addition to the General Development Criteria and the Criteria to Guide the redesignation of lands to a higher density which are also set out in Part C.4 - Housing Policies of the Official Plan.

Information has been received from the applicant regarding efforts to sell/lease/develop the property, which have been underway since 1997. Ingram and Bell Inc. relocated to more efficient space and to a site where they can have 24 hour per day operations. It is their position that because of the age of the building and its many deficiencies, it has been difficult to lease or sell the property. The deficiencies include:

- poor building configuration and layout;

- low ceilings in a portion of the warehouse which limits the storage of product;

- the setup of the lab with concrete walls, the prohibitive costs associated with tearing down the interior walls in the lab and/or office and lunchroom areas in order to make it useable;

- the high cost of maintaining and heating the building;

- the higher taxes as compared to other areas;

- difficulties associated with using side shipping doors;

- potential lack of maneuverability of large trucks and poor circulation;

- concerns as regards to location, accessibility and visibility in that the site does not have direct access from or exposure to any of the major highways; and

- being adjacent to an existing residential area, where there were complaints from adjacent residents, a factor to be considered for 24 hour per day operation with any degree of noise or smell.

The conclusions of the realty agent acting on behalf of the applicant is that the existing older industrial building on the site had specialty uses and a unique building configuration which would be costly to retrofit and maintain.

Staff have consulted with the City's Realty Services staff regarding the comments of the applicant's realty agent. They have concluded that given today's economic climate, the information provided and conclusions reached are reasonable.

Conclusion

The revised proposal has evolved from a live/work development concept to a more traditional residential development. An official plan amendment is required to permit development on the site, which satisfies the Official Plan criteria for redesignation of industrial lands to residential uses.

The principles of development in this report provide direction for revisions to the application to amend the Official Plan to redesignate these lands as Residential and re-configure the road network.

Contact Name:

Gwen Manderson, Senior Planner

Telephone: (416) 395-7117 Fax (416)395-7155

Appendices and Schedules:

Appendix "A" Official Plan Policies

Appendix "B" Urban Design Guidelines

Appendix "C" Comparison of Zoning Provisions

Appendix "D" Summary of Comments from Other Departments

Appendix "E" Employment by Type for Scarsdale Road Area

Appendix "F" Discussion-Concerns of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department

Schedule "A" Official Plan Designation

Schedule "B" Zoning

Schedule "C" Site Plan

Schedule "D" Draft Plan of Subdivision

Schedule "D1"Re-configured Road Network

Schedule "D2"Existing Land Use

Schedule "E" Comments-Works and Emergency Services Department (Public Works)

Schedule "F" Comments-Works and Emergency Services Department (Transportation)

Schedule "G" Comments-Toronto District School Board

Schedule "H" Comments-Toronto District Catholic Board

Schedule "I" Comments-Economic Development Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation)

Schedule "J" Comments-Public Health Department

Schedule "K" Comments-Economic Development Culture and Tourism (Economic Development)

Schedule "L" Summary-Community Consultation

Appendix "A"

Official Plan Policies Affecting the Lands at 20 Bond Avenue

Part C.8 Industrial Policies

Section 5.3.0 Redesignation of Industrial Lands for Non-Industrial Purposes

Council recognizes that with little vacant land available for new development, additional housing and employment uses must be accommodated in part through the conversion of one land use to another. While Industrial areas should generally be preserved for employment purposes, it is recognized that the City has more land designated for this purpose than is required in the long term. Accordingly, Council may, in limited circumstances and subject to the policies of this plan, consider applications that propose to redesignate Industrial land for other purposes, including residential, institutional, recreational, and commercial purposes or a combination of those uses, subject to compliance with the following criteria and the applicable policies of the land use district for the proposed use:

(a) the land proposed for redesignation should be on the periphery of an industrial area;

(b) the proposed redesignation will not jeopardize the planned role and function of other land use districts nor set a precedent for further redesignations;

(c) the new land uses will not negatively impact the viability and stability of any of the remaining industrial lands in the long term;

(d) the boundaries for change:

-will be logical and appropriate for the area;

-will provide opportunities to minimize incompatibilities between land uses; and

-will create a defined edge which will be stable over the long term;

(e) the new development will fit within the context of surrounding existing development in scale, height and built form;

(f) the density and massing of new development should complement the existing built form context;

(g) the new development can be integrated and linked into the fabric of surrounding community, where appropriate, such as through provision of public streets, pedestrian walkways and the location of public parks;

(h) the continued operation of existing industrial uses which remain in the area of a redevelopment can be encouraged through such measures as the phasing of development, the provision of on-site building setbacks, landscaped areas, intervening facilities, buildings and fencing, and the protection of trucking routes and driveways;

(i) that adequate parkland, amenities, community facilities and social services can be provided for future residents;

(j) that sufficient sewer and transportation capacity can be provided to meet the needs of the redevelopment areas; and

(k) that the environmental conditions of the development area are suitable for the proposed land use.

Section 5.1.0 Compatibility Criteria

Development applications which propose additional uses or density may create impacts on adjacent uses beyond those which may be expected from redevelopment for industrial purposes. To assess and manage those impacts, Council may approve rezoning of lands within Industrial areas, to permit additional uses or density where the development proposal, together with any specific conditions required by Council, meets the following Compatibility Criteria to the satisfaction of Council.

(a) The proposed development should be adequately served by transportation facilities and be compatible with any transportation improvement plan.

(b) The traffic generated from the proposed development should not result in an unacceptable level of arterial road service.

(c) Traffic on local, collector or minor arterial roads within Residential Communities should not be increased by the proposed development to a level that would adversely affect pedestrian safety.

(d) The proposed development should provide satisfactory movement of employees and visiting pedestrians, and provide for adequate site circulation so that visiting automobiles and commercial vehicles are unlikely to disrupt bordering streets or properties.

(e) The proposed development should provide for sufficient parking so that off-site roadways and unaffiliated parking areas are unlikely to be disrupted.

(f) Dwellings within Residential Communities should not experience significant reductions of sunlight and privacy resulting from the proposed development.

(g) The design, site layout, landscaping, and building placement of the proposed development should be generally consistent with the existing or proposed development.

(h) The proposed development should not be of such a nature or scale as to destabilize nearby neighbourhoods in designated residential areas and remaining nearby industrial uses.

Section 5.2.0 Redevelopment of Industrial Lands for Live/Work Accommodation

Dwellings which combine work space with living space comprise live/work accommodation. Live/work accommodation can provide a land use buffer between residential lands and industrial lands as well as meeting the needs of some employment uses for combined residential/employment occupancy. Recognizing the hybrid residential/employment character of live/work accommodation, Council may approve rezoning to permit this use in Industrial areas provided that the following compatibility criteria, in addition to those set out in Section 5.1, are complied with to the satisfaction of Council.

(a) The character of the proposed development should blend with the character of the surrounding area.

(b) The proposed development should fit within the context of the neighbouring development in scale, height and building form.

(c) The proposed development should be integrated and linked, as appropriate, to the neighbouring residential community.

(d) The proposed development should ensure a compatible relationship with existing employment activities through such measures as building setbacks, maximum height limits, fencing, landscaping and protection of industrial trucking and access routes.

(e) Adequate parkland, recreational amenities, community facilities and social services should be available for future residents.

(f) Sufficient sewer and transportation capacity should be provided to support the needs of the redevelopment area.

(g) The environmental conditions of the development area should be suitable for the proposed land use.

Part C.4 Housing Policies

Section 3.0 Specific Residential Land Use Policies

Section 3.1 Residential Density One (RD-1)

Permitted Uses

In Residential Density One (RD-1) designation, the following residential uses shall be permitted subject to the provisions of this Plan and the Zoning By-law:

1) Single detached and semi-detached dwellings. Semi-detached dwellings may be permitted subject to rezoning and where one of the following apply:

1. Where the lot proposed for semi-detached use is on a street where other semi-detached dwellings exist.

2. On a major or minor arterial road where the arterial road forms the edge or boundary of a residential neighbourhood as set out in the zoning by-law.

3. At locations that form the edge between RD-1 and RD-2 to RD-5 land sue categories, provided that the lot proposed for semi-detached use flanks a lot or lots designated for a higher density.

4. At locations designated for residential use but which form the edge between the residential use and a commercial, industrial or mixed use, provided that the lot proposed for semi-detached use flanks a lot or lots designated for commercial, industrial or mixed use purposes.

Density

Subject to the other provisions of the section, the development of single detached dwellings on lands designated Residential Density One (RD-1) shall not exceed a density of 20 dwelling units per net residential hectare (8 upa). Semi-detached dwellings are permitted provided that the density on the site of a semi- detached dwelling does not exceed approximately 30 dwelling units per net residential hectare (12 upa).

Height

The maximum height permitted on any site shall be specified in the Zoning By-law.

Appendix "B"

Urban Design Principles and Guidelines

Official Plan

Part C.4 Housing Policies

Section 4.0 Development Criteria

Section 4.2.3 Urban Design Features

1) .....

2) .....

3) .....

4) Council shall encourage the preservation of trees, in advance of, and after redevelopment of a site.

Additional Guidelines

In addition to the above, the following additional guidelines shall apply to this site to promote a comfortable, lively, safe and attractive public realm by minimizing the impact of garages and car parking at the front of the houses, maximizing the amount of soft landscaping and ensuring the appropriate relationship of houses to roads:

Building Siting and Organization

(a) houses fronting on two streets should address both streets, with a high level of architectural finish including windows as appropriate and that the entrance to the front of the house address the major street;

(b) driveways should be grouped or paired;

(c) the height of the steps to the front door of the house should not exceed 1.65 metres (5.4 feet);

(d) the house, or part thereof, should be in front of the garage when facing the street;

(e) a 6.0 metre (19.6 feet) setback to the face of the garage should be provided; and

Pedestrian Amenity

(f) a landscape plan should be provided which illustrates the following:

(i) the maintenance and preservation of the row of cedar trees along the west side of the site, backing onto the Charnwood Road properties;

(ii) new trees planted approximately 7.0 metres on centre in the public boulevard along all streets;

(iii) on lots more than 9.15 metres (30 feet)wide, the driveway width should not exceed 3.05 metres (10 feet) at the front lot line and may expand to a maximum width of 4.9 metres (16 feet) at the garage entrance, to accommodate a double garage, with two doors rather than on in the front wall;

(iv) on lots less that 9.15 metres (30 feet) wide, the driveway width should not exceed 2.6 metres (8.5 feet) at the front lot line and entrance to a single garage in the front wall;

(v) adequate front gardens defined by planting and other soft landscaping; and

(vi) rear yards which are screened from adjacent uses with trees and fences.

Appendix "C"

Comparison of Zoning Provisions of Recently Approved Small Lot Single Detached and Semi-detached Units with the R6 and Rm2 Zones

Appendix "D"

Summary of Comments From Other Departments and Agencies

The original proposal was circulated to all of the Departments and agencies listed below. The revised proposal was circulated to: Technical Services, North District Office of the Works and Emergency Services Department; Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department; Parks and Recreation, Policy and Development Division of the Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department; and, Economic Development Division, Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department. The following section summarizes the comments received from the departments and agencies circulated:

The Technical Services, North District Office of the Works and Emergency Services Department have no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions outlined in their comments attached to this report as Schedule "E". Their comments are to be in addition to the Standard Conditions of Approval for Subdivisions which shall form part of the conditions for Draft Plan Approval. They advise that the allocation of the Interim Sanitary Truck capacity for this development is subject to Council approval of this application, and that consideration of this development should include the fact that the equivalent population increase generated by this development will result in an equal decrease in interim trunk capacity available to other developments in the Don Trunk area. They also advise that they do no support a reduced road allowance width and endorse the standard 20 metre wide road allowance. A stormwater management report and plan is required to be submitted by the owner's consulting engineers which must be approved by the City.

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department

have no objections to the proposal subject to the conditions outlined in their comments being addressed (See Schedule "F"). The traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated on the area road network. In response to concerns expressed by local residents that traffic generated from the proposed development will infiltrate the local community, a traffic investigation will be undertaken once the development is complete to determine the level of traffic infiltration and what mitigating measures may be required. Any measures proposed will be done through the area Councillors and in consultation with the community affected.

The Toronto District School Board advises that the anticipated students from the proposed development currently can be accommodated at Rippleton Public School, but the Toronto District School Board may be required to make alternative accommodation arrangements for some or all of these students once this school reaches its capacity (Appendix "G"). The anticipated student yield from the proposed development can not be accommodated at St. Andrews J.H.S., Windfields J.H.S. and York Mills C.I. and alternative accommodation arrangements will be required for these students.

The Toronto Catholic District School Board advises that although the Board does not object to the proposed development, it would like to express its concern regarding the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at St. Bonaventure Catholic School, Loretto Abbey and Senator O'Connor Catholic Secondary School. It also advises that Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School is now under construction, and serves the subject area and will be able to accommodate secondary students in permanent facilities. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".

The Parks and Recreation , Policy and Development Division of the Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department comments are attached as Schedule "I". They advise that the applicant's 5 percent parkland dedication will be provided through both an on site dedication and cash-in-lieu. The cash payment will be secured through the subdivision agreement. This cash payment is to be used for the expansion of and improvements to Southwell Park. The applicant will be required to meet with the Department's Urban Forestry By-law Officers and execute a Tree Preservation Agreement prior to by-law enactment.

The Public Health Department have no objections to the proposed application provided that an environmental site assessment is completed in accordance with the MOE's Guideline For Use At Contaminated Sites in Ontario, revised February 1997. The environmental site assessment should identify any significant potential environmental liabilities at the site that may have resulted due to the historical usage of the site, and to identify any present conditions or practices that may represent a materially significant environmental risk. Their comments are attached as Schedule "J".

The Economic Development Division, Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department does not support the application in its present form. They feel that the property is still a viable industrial property, are concerned that the development, if approved will set a precedent for this employment area. Further there is little assurance that the new development will be anything other than a residential neighbourhood. Finally, the rezoning and plan of subdivision proposed in this application will likely in a reduction in municipal tax revenue while increasing the City's ongoing servicing costs. Their comments are attached as Appendix "K".

Appendix "E"

Employment by Type for Scarsdale Road Industrial Area

Survey Results for 1983 to 1997

Source: City of Toronto Planning Department, April 1999

Appendix "F"

Concerns of the Economic Development Centre, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department

• the limited supply of employment sites 5 acres or greater;

An industrial user who needs or wants a 5 acre or greater site will do so through severance or consolidation of properties in any industrial area in the City. The existing character of the Scarsdale Road industrial properties is that of smaller parcels able to respond to a variety of industrial employment users needs.

• the precedent of residential uses on Scarsdale Road encouraging more residential uses which could undermine the continued viability of Scarsdale Road for employment purposes;

The 1997 Planning Department survey of industrial users in the Scarsdale Road area asked about the future plans of each of the businesses. Of the eighteen businesses that provided a response, twelve or 66 percent indicated that they will stay in the area.

In 1995, there were preliminary discussions with City staff about the possible development of 58 and 66 Scarsdale Road for townhouses. Staff did not encourage an application on this site because of the site being located in the middle of the Scarsdale Road area.

Other than the subject site, no applications have been made for the residential redevelopment of lands in the Scarsdale Road industrial area. Since this application has been received, there have been no development pressures for residential development in this area.

• the erosion of the non-residential tax base;

Ingram and Bell Inc. relocated to another industrial property because they were not able to intensify their operation on this site to 24 hours per day. Limited hours of operation is a consideration for potential industrial users. The likelihood of finding a manufacturing and warehouse user who does not operate 24 hours per day is not high. In the City, buildings are being demolished if they can't be leased. Without another industrial user, the building would have been demolished and lower taxes would have been collected on a vacant property. Redevelopment of the site for residential will provide significant property taxes.

• the lack of credibility for the live/work concept and the lack of any policy in place which would provide the city with commercial assessment based on the live/work designation.

The character of the application, through community consultation and other forces has evolved with a strong residential character which outweighs the original live/work concept.

(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.)

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:

(i) (April 28, 1999) from Ms. Bonnie Kennedy, expressing her concerns with the proposed development;

(ii) (April 28, 1999) from Mr. John G. Croutch, expressing his concerns with the proposed development;

(iii) (April 28, 1999) from Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan, Chair, Executive Committee of the Working Group for 20 Bond Avenue, advising of the Working Committee's position and concerns with the proposed development;

(iv) (April 28, 1999) from Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan, Chair, Executive Committee of the Working Group for 20 Bond Avenue, submitting the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Working Group for 20 Bond Avenue;

(v) (undated) from J. Kelly, expressing concerns with the proposed development;

(vi) (April 27, 1999) from Mr. Martin M. Poizner, expressing his concerns with the proposed development; and

(vii) (March 18, 1999) from Mr. H. J. Jochem, General Manager, Intertechnology Inc., advising of his concerns with the proposed development.

A staff presentation was made by Ms. Gwen Manderson, Senior Planner, Community Planning, North District.

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

- Ms. Claudia Pedone, who spoke in opposition to the application. Her primary concerns were with respect to overview, loss of privacy and any change in grading at the rear of her property which abuts the subject lands.. She also commented on the inadequate screening at the rear of her property and suggested that certain measures be taken in order to mitigate the negative impact of the proposed development.

- Mr. Jeff Woodlock, on behalf of Ash Temple Ltd., who spoke in opposition to the application and expressed concerns with regard to traffic safety in relation to the volume of truck traffic and their requirements for manoeuvring into the loading dock areas. He also expressed concerns with regard to the safety of children residing across the street from an industrial area. He further advised of his concerns regarding the security of the industrial property, such as people parking after hours on their property and individuals using their industrial refuse containers. In concluding he indicated that Ash Temple Ltd. have been at their current location for the past 22 years and would like to remain in this industrial area. However, given the proximity of the proposed residential development to their building and the possibility of complaints being lodged by future residents of this subdivision regarding their industrial operation, they may have to relocate elsewhere.

- Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan, Chair, on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Working Group for 20 Bond Avenue, who spoke in opposition to the application and advised that the consensus of the Working Group for 20 Bond Avenue is that the proposed development be designated Residential Density One and zoned R4.

A recorded vote on Recommendation (3), moved by Councillor Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe. Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner and King

AGAINST: NIL

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro. Augimeri and Filion

Carried

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway, that the live-work component not be approved; that the application be revised to reflect an R4 zoning to permit single family dwellings; that the road be reconfigured to reflect a curvilinear road pattern and that community consultation continue, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Filion and Minnan-Wong

AGAINST: Councillors Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Shiner and King

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro and Augimeri

Lost

A recorded vote on Recommendations (1) and (2), moved by Councillor Chong, Don Parkway, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner and King

AGAINST: Councillor Mammoliti

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro and Augimeri

Carried

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 13 of Report No. 19 of the North York Community Council , titled "Modifications to the Intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue Access Ramp - North York Centre South", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on April 7, 13, 20 and 27, 1999, and no one addressed the North York Community Council.

The North York Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Bill No.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1999 and it is appropriate to permit the alteration.

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

1. Pembury Avenue is altered by the construction of a turning circle to block access from Bayview Avenue, in accordance with Drawing No. NY-PEM-2 dated _______________.

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

The North York Community Council also submits Clause 13 of Report No. 19 of the North York Community Council , titled "Modifications to the Intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue Access Ramp - North York Centre South", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998:

(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 Bayview 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.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, 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 (April 8, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by 505000 N.B. Inc. regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application for 2800 Bathurst Street, be approved, subject to the conditions contained in the referenced report:

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having instructed the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, to conduct a traffic study, as requested by Councillor Moscoe, in order to determine if the installation of a stop sign at Englemount Avenue and Glen Park Avenue meets the required technical requirements; and to report back to the North York Community Council at a future meeting.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on April 28, 1999, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (April 8, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval to permit the construction of a 6 and 7 storey, 52 unit apartment hotel with ground floor commercial uses at the south west corner of Bathurst Street and Glen Park Avenue.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the site's Commercial (COM) Official Plan designation be amended to a Commercial Specific (COM Specific) designation with the following site specific C.9 policy:

(a) Density

the maximum density permitted is 3.5 floor space index;

(2) the site's C1 zoning be amended to a C1 exception zone with the following exceptions:

Permitted Uses

(a) apartment hotel, apartment house dwelling, retail store, personal service shop shall only be permitted;

(b) for the purpose of this exception an "apartment hotel" shall mean a building or portion of a building used mainly for the purpose of furnishing living quarters with full cooking facilities for families on a daily basis and having at least six suites of rooms for rent, with no restaurant or dining room, but shall not include a hotel or ordinary lodging house;

(c) the maximum permitted gross floor area is 6780m²;

(d) the minimum yard setback requirements are as shown on Schedule "C";

(e) there shall be a minimum of 90 parking spaces provided on site with the minimum parking standard of 1.5 parking spaces for each dwelling;

(f) the maximum number of dwelling units or suites shall be 52; and

(g) the maximum height of the building shall be as shown on Schedule "E";

(3) staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any zoning by-law the following conditions have been satisfied:

(a) the conditions of the Technical Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services attached as Schedule "F";

(b) the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services attached as Schedule "G"; and

(c) the conditions of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Policy and Development attached as Schedule "H";

(4) prior to enactment of the zoning by-law, the Acting Director of Community Planning, North District, shall have granted site plan approval which addresses, public art contribution, location of roof top terraces, landscaping, building elevations, location of garbage pickup and ingress and egress; and

(5) prior to the adoption of the Official Plan amendment the applicant shall have submitted the necessary studies required under the Ministry of the Environment Guidelines for contaminated sites which in turn, have been subject to a peer review and commented on by the Medical Officer of Health. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to submit a Record of Site Condition that has been acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment.

Background:

Proposal:

The revised application proposes an official plan and zoning amendment to permit a new 6 and 7 storey, 52 unit apartment hotel with ground floor commercial uses. The applicant has indicated that the tenure of the units is to be condominium which allows the building in the future to be used as a condominium apartment house dwelling with grade related commercial if the apartment hotel concept is abandoned. In the event the building is used in the future as a apartment house dwelling with grade related commercial the more restricted parking standard for apartment house dwelling units of 1.5 spaces for each unit has been applied instead of the apartment hotel standard. There is no restaurant or dining room associated with the proposal. The applicant has indicated that the meals for guests will be catered.

A statistical breakdown of the original proposal and revised proposal is set out below.

Official Plan: The site is designated Commercial (COM) which permits a variety of retail and office uses as well as upper floor residential uses with a maximum density of 1.5 fsi.

Zoning: General Commercial (C1) permitting a variety of retail, office and residential uses at a maximum density of 1.0.

Location and Existing Use:

The triangular shaped site is located at the south west corner of Glen Park Avenue and Bathurst Street. The site is located next to an existing 5 storey residential condominium building with ground floor commercial uses to the south and an existing place of worship to the west which fronts on Glen Park Avenue. To the north of the site along Bathurst Street there is a one storey commercial building followed by a 6 storey office building. Diagonally to the site on the north side of Glen Park Avenue and Hollaman Road there are single family dwellings. To the east of the site along Bathurst Street there are existing one and two storey commercial buildings followed by an existing place of worship. The site is currently vacant but was previously used as a service station and as a portion of Hollaman Road prior to its closure. The closed road has been conveyed to this landowner.

Comments:

Other Departments:

Works and Emergency Services, Development Services advises that the location of the garbage pickup area requires further discussion (Refer to Schedule "F"). Interim capacity exists within the Black Creek Trunk Sewer to accommodate the proposed development.

Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Services advises that they concur with the traffic impact study submitted by Grant A. Bacchus Limited (dated March 18, 1998) which supported the original proposal which was larger. With the reduction in the number of units, the removal of the two proposed restaurants in the revised proposal, the traffic generated would have a less impact on adjacent roadways. The applicant will be required to contact the Toronto Parking Authority to determine if any parking meters on Glen Park Avenue are affected and if financial compensation is required. Works and Emergency Services also advise that there are a number of site plan issues relating to signage for the driveway, loading and drop-off areas, width of right out access on to Bathurst Street, underground parking layout and boulevard work (refer to Schedule "G").

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Policy and Development advises that the applicant is subject to the City's 5 percent for the residential units and 2 percent for the commercial component cash in lieu parkland dedication requirement (refer to Schedule "H").

Community Consultation:

The applicant's November 7, 1997 proposal was presented to the community at a meeting held in March of 1998 at Glen Park Elementary School. At this meeting the community expressed its opposition to the proposed development. The community's issues related to the density and height, not enough parking being provided, the increased traffic infiltration through the adjacent neighbourhood and ingress and egress to and from the site (refer to Schedule "I").

Subsequent to this first community meeting, a working group was set up which consisted of members of the condominium board at 500 Glencairn, residents living on Glen Park Avenue and Hollaman Road, local councillors and Planning staff. The working group identified issues relating to density, height, massing, number of units, egress and ingress, overview, traffic and parking and use and provided options to resolve them. Subsequently all parties agreed on a revised proposal which is before Council.

A second community consultation meeting was held on February 15, 1999, to present the revised plan that was based on the working group's recommendations. There were approximately 70 people in attendance. The applicant's presentation of the revised proposal was followed by a question and answer period. The majority of the people in attendance showed support for the revised proposal. In general, the matters raised by the community focussed on:

Traffic: Some residents were concerned that people will use Glen Park Avenue as a drop off area. Also, some residents requested that a traffic study be prepared for the proposed use.

Roof top Terraces: Residents do not want rooftop terraces facing west or north to avoid possible overview into the yards of the single family dwellings yards along Glen Park Avenue. They prefer that all roof top terraces face Bathurst Street.

Number of Units: Residents wanted assurances that the owner is limited to the proposed 52 units (Refer to Schedule "J").

The residents' issues have been addressed in the Discussion Section of the report. To capsulize, the proposed apartment hotel will have a drop off area on site which should discourage people from using Glen Park Avenue as a drop off area. The location of the roof top terraces will be addressed during the site plan approval process. The number of units will be restricted under the zoning by-law.

Discussion:

Official Plan:

Land Use:

The site's existing Commercial (COM) designation is to be amended to permit the proposed apartment hotel with grade related commercial.

The proposed apartment hotel will be one of the few apartment hotels that exist in the City that provides daily, weekly or monthly accommodations for out of town guests or relatives of residents in the area visiting or attending a function at one of the local synagogues in the area. The close proximity to the synagogues in the area allows the guests to have a short walk when required on religious occasions.

The location takes advantage of physical infrastructure, existing community services and transportation facilities. It is located on an arterial road, well served by public transit and close to local area parks.

The community has stated that this portion of Bathurst Street needs to be revitalized. The community is hopeful that the proposed development will encourage future development along this stretch of Bathurst Street.

Density

The current proposal has a density of 3.5 fsi (floor space index). This is a significant reduction from the applicant's original proposed density of 5.64 fsi. The proposed density is in context within the range of densities that exist with existing development along this section of Bathurst Street between Lawrence Avenue West and Glencairn Avenue. These densities range between less than 1 fsi to 3.9 fsi at the corner of Lawrence Avenue West and Bathurst Street (refer to Appendix "A").

Under Part C.5 of the Official Plan Council may approve rezoning of lands within the Commercial (COM) district to permit increase density if the development proposal meets a number of compatibility criteria that are set out on Appendix B.

The proposal meets the Official Plan's compatibility criteria as set on the next page.

- The proposed development is adequately served by transportation facilities as it is located on Bathurst Street which is an arterial road and is served by the TTC;

- The traffic study submitted by the applicant's traffic consultant and supported by Transportation Services of the Works and Emergency Services Department states that the traffic generated from the proposed development will not significantly affect the level of arterial road service;

- Traffic on Glen Park Avenue will not be increased as vehicular traffic will be restricted to only left hand turns off Glen Park Avenue into the site as the driveway entrance will be designed to prevent right hand turns into the site. All traffic leaving the site will exit onto Bathurst Street and not Glen Park Avenue. Also, the applicant no longer has a restaurant component as part of the proposal in addition to a large reduction in the number of units which reduces the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic that would frequent the site. The level of pedestrian safety is improved by the provision of an enclosed pedestrian walkway through the building from the south east corner of the building on Bathurst Street to the north west corner building fronting on Glen Park Avenue. There is also a drop off area on site for guests of the apartment hotel;

- The proposed one way driveway system with a drop off area and loading area provides satisfactory movement of employees and visiting automobiles and commercial vehicles, thus preventing any disruption to adjacent bordering streets or properties.

Built Form:

The current proposal is for a building that is six and seven storeys in height with the seven storey portion of the building being located towards Bathurst Street and the six storey portion being located towards the existing residential area to the west. The proposed height of the building is comparable to existing buildings that are located along this section of Bathurst Street between Glencairn Avenue and Lawrence Avenue West which range in height from one storey to 14 storeys (refer to Appendix A).

The siting of the proposed building being located closer to Bathurst Street than what was originally proposed minimizes any impact on the owners of the single family dwellings on Glen Park Avenue and Hollaman Road and the residents living in the condominium building next door. Also, Glen Park Avenue rises as you go west from Bathurst Street which gives the perception that the building is lower when looking east along Glen Park Avenue.

The general massing of this proposal implements the city's urban design policy. The new building will clearly define the street's public open space. It will also add character and increased activity along its edges, both at Bathurst Street and Glen Park Avenue. At the site plan stage, detailed consideration should be given to the integration of the open stairwell, the canopied walkway and the completion of the street edge on Bathurst Street at the southern end of the building.

The existing place of worship to the west provides a buffer to the single family dwellings to the west along Glen Park Avenue. The existing residential area to the east is buffered from this development by the existing commercial strip and a place of worship.

Zoning By-law:

Amendments to the City's zoning standards are required for density, lot coverage and building height.

Site Plan:

A comprehensive landscape plan and details should be submitted, which illustrate how the site is to be landscaped, with particular care for screening and landscaping along the property line and the boulevards along Glen Park Avenue and Bathurst Street. Additional landscaping should be provided adjacent to the parking area along Glen Park Avenue. The landscape plan should also indicate where the air intake/exhaust are for the underground garage. The location of these should minimize their impact on the pedestrian realm.

Detailed elevations should be provided to show the architectural resolution of the building, both at grade and at the roof terrace level. Elevation drawings should also include elevations of adjacent buildings to show the integration of the new development.

The roof terrace facing Bathurst Street should be handicapped accessible. It should be landscaped and promote a safe and comfortable activity area.

The location of the garbage pick-up area should be finalized with the Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services. Minimize all curb cuts and driveway widths to provide a maximum area for landscaping.

Public Art:

The applicant has agreed to provide a public art contribution that is equal to one percent of the total cost of construction. The art work shall be publicly accessible on the site. The site plan agreement shall address matters including, but not limited to, the timing of the contribution, location, selection of art and if there is any maintenance.

Site Conditions:

The site has been identified as a potential soil contaminated property because of its prior use as a gas station. The applicant has been advised that this application will be required to be supported by any necessary studies required under the Ministry of the Environment Guidelines for contaminated sites. These studies will be subject to a peer review and commented on by the Medical Officer of Health as part of the site plan approval prior to the adoption of the Official Plan amendment. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a Record of Site Condition acknowledged by Ministry of the Environment is required to be submitted by the applicant. Appropriate remediation of the site and indemnification for the city will be secured through the site plan agreement as may be required.

Conclusions:

The proposed apartment hotel with ground floor commercial is an appropriate use for this site. The community and applicant have worked diligently with the local Councillors and staff to achieve a proposal that addresses the concerns of introducing an apartment hotel into the neighbourhood. It is seen by the community that this will be a positive development for the community and should encourage similar high quality buildings in the future for this area.

Contact Name:

Randy Jones, Planner

Telephone: (416) 395-7137

Comparison of built form of existing buildings along the west side of Bathurst Street with the proposed development.

Set out below are the compatibility criteria under Part C5 of the Official Plan for permitting increased density:

- the proposed development be adequately served by transportation facilities and be compatible with any transportation improvement plan;

- the traffic generated from the proposed development should not result in an unacceptable level of arterial road service;

- traffic on local, collector or minor arterial roads within Residential Communities should not be increased by the proposed development to a level that would adversely affect pedestrian safety;

- the proposed development should provide for satisfactory movement of employees and visiting automobiles and commercial vehicles are unlikely to disrupt bordering streets or properties; and

- the proposed development should provide for sufficient parking so that off-site roadways and unaffiliated parking areas are unlikely to be disrupted

(A copy of Schedules F, G, H, I and J 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 the following communications:

(i) (April 27, 1999) from Dr. Howard Smith, advising of his opposition to the proposed development;

(ii) (April 18, 1999) from Shaul Ezer, expressing objection to the proposed development of an apartment hotel;

(iii) (April 14, 1999) from E. L. Weisz, expressing concerns with the proposed development;

(iv) (April 12, 1999) from Mr. Allan Kazdan, outlining his opposition to the application;

(v) (April 12, 1999) from Mr. Alex Bolton, outlining his objections to the proposed development; and

(vi) (April 12, 1999) from Ms. Jean Kaydan, outlining her opposition to the application.

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

- Mr. Clifford Korman, Architect, on behalf of the applicant, who indicated that the applicant was in support of the staff recommendations;

- Mr. Vince Pallotto, who spoke in opposition to the proposed development and expressed concerns with respect to the traffic impact on the surrounding community resulting from the proposed hotel. He also expressed concern with respect to the precedent being set by permitting a hotel in the area.

A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, King

AGAINST: NIL

ABSENT: Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Augimeri, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

Carried

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 21, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To temporarily close a portion of Ridley Boulevard, to accommodate the 4th Annual Ridley Boulevard street party.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the temporary road closure, with the exception of the $50.00 application fee, are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

(1) by enactment of a confirmatory by-Law adopting this report, Ridley Boulevard, between Sandringham Drive and Bombay Avenue, should be closed temporarily on Monday, May 24, 1999, from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., subject to the applicant's compliance with procedural By-Law No. 27433 of the former City of North York; and

(2) during the temporary closure, there shall be no use of the closed roadway for vehicular traffic except under the authority of a permit issued by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department received a request from Mr. Peter Seligmen, on behalf of the local residents, to temporarily close a portion of Ridley to accommodate their street party.

Similar events have been conducted at this location for the proceeding 3 years, without incident.

Discussion:

In accordance with a procedure established by the former City of North York, staff of the Transportation Services Division canvassed the local Councillors and other Divisions within the City of Toronto for comments regarding the proposed closure. As a result of the requests for comments, no objections to the closure were received. The Toronto Fire Services supported the closure, subject to the following conditions:

(a) the applicant shall insure that the area to be barricaded off is cleared of parked vehicles and obstacles that would interfere with the movement of fire vehicles, in the event of an emergency, and that individuals be readily available to remove the barricades in order not to impede the movement of the fire department vehicles should an emergency occur; and

(b) the organizers of the event be made aware that should an emergency arise within the area, it could well interrupt the program as planned.

Conclusions:

The Transportation Service Division supports the temporary closure of a portion of Ridley Boulevard, as requested by the applicant.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 21, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To temporarily close Brookfield Road, between Old Yonge Street and Plymbridge Crescent to permit the York Mills Valley Association to conduct their annual Community Valley Fair on Saturday June 5, 1999.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the temporary closure are included within the 1999 operating budget, exclusive of the $50.00 application fee submitted by the applicant.

Recommendations:

(1) by enactment of a confirmatory by-law adopting this report, Brookfield Road, between Old Yonge Street and Plymbridge Crescent, be closed temporarily on Saturday, June 5, from 2:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., subject to the applicant's compliance with Procedural By-law No. 27433 of the former City of North York; and

(2) during the temporary closure, there shall be no use of the closed road for vehicular traffic except under the authority of a permit issued by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Division has received a request from Mr. Dennis Sherwood, on behalf of the York Mills Valley Association, to temporarily close Brookfield Road to vehicular traffic. This closure is required to accommodate their annual Community Valley Fair.

It should be noted that this event had been conducted at this location for several years, without any incident.

Discussions:

In accordance with the former City of North York Procedural By-law No. 24733, the appropriate agencies and departments have been contacted for comments. There have been no objections to the closure, subject to the applicant adhering to the following conditions set forth by the Toronto Fire Services:

a) the applicant shall ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles in the event of an emergency, and that personnel by readily available to remove the barricades in order not to impede the movement of emergency vehicles; and

b) that the organizer be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could interrupt the program as planned.

Conclusions:

Staff of the Transportation Services Division support the closure and recommend that the appropriate permit be issued in order that Brookfield Road may be closed to vehicular traffic.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor Berger, North York Centre South:

WHEREAS in the past we have received requests from property owners of a corner lot located on a major arterial road and abutting a residential street, for a second curb cut on the residential side of the road abutting the property; and

WHEREAS by permitting a second curb cut on a secondary road creates a problem for the adjoining residential property, as the property receiving the curb cut builds a car parking platform ,which usually is right next to the window of the adjoining house and affects the owner's life by the emission of fumes through the window; and

WHEREAS residents in the neighbourhood are unhappy about additional traffic by the creation of a second curb cut and parking for more cars; and

WHEREAS the by-law governing residential properties does not require more than one parking spot; and

WHEREAS up to now the works department has always complied with any application for a second curb cut without notifying the Local Councillor;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Local Councillor be advised prior to approving a second curb cut to a corner property, adjoining a major arterial road and residential street, in order to receive input from the community, as to how it would affect the community and the neighbour of the adjoining house, and whether there are any objections to it.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

(a) Traffic Calming Study - Chalkfarm Drive - North York Humber.

The North York Community Council reports having referred the request from Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, to conduct a traffic calming study of the Chalkfarm area to the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, for a report to the next meeting of the North York Community Council scheduled for May 26, 1999.

(b) Turn Restrictions - Wood Avenue at the Southbound Bayview Avenue Access Ramp from Lawrence Avenue East, Lawrence Avenue East at Mildenhall Road and St. Leonard's Avenue at Bayview Avenue - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred sine die, the following report:

(April 1, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, recommending that appropriate by-laws be enacted to:

(1) prohibit southbound right turns to Wood Avenue from the access ramp from Lawrence Avenue East to southbound Bayview Avenue, between 7:00 am and 9:00 am, Monday to Friday;

(2) amend the current restrictions to prohibit southbound right turns to St. Leonard's Avenue from Bayview Avenue, between 7:00 am and 8:00 am, Monday to Friday, buses exempted; and

(3) amend the current restrictions to prohibit eastbound right and westbound left turns to Mildenhall Road from Lawrence Avenue East, between 8:00 am and 9:00 am, Monday to Friday, buses exempted.

(c) Sewer and Water Connection Charges - 1999 - All North York Community Council Wards.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(April 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, providing a report on the issues embodied in Clause 2 of Report No. 2 of the North York Community Council, adopted by City Council on March 2, 3, and 4, 1999, wherein the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services was requested to:

(1) contact the Toronto Home Builders Association advising them of the new fees for the sanitary sewer and storm sewer connection charges, and to obtain their comments on how these fees compare to fees in other parts of the GTA; and

(2) (a) the specific bids made by all contractors and which contractors were awarded the tenders throughout the entire City of Toronto;

(b) the contractors that were used last year in each area and the associated costs; and

(c) the areas in the City of Toronto that are not required to install storm sewer connections to infill and new homes; which of these areas have combined sewers and if these homes are allowed to be built with only a sanitary sewer, how the area could be converted from combined sewer systems in the future.

(d) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-99-03 - Eduardo Manapul - 276 Duplex Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(March 29, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a portion of a residence to be used as a physiotherapy clinic at 276 Duplex Avenue; and recommending that staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.

(e) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-99-08 and Site Plan Amendment Application UDSP-99-027 - Cassels Brock and Blackwell - 267 Finch Avenue East - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(April 6, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the redevelopment of the site with 4 three-storey townhouse units; and recommending that staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.

(f) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-99-09 and Site Plan Amendment Application UDSP-99-028 - Brown, Dryer, Karol (Judy Cohen in Trust) - 718 Sheppard Avenue West - North York Spadina.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(April 12, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the redevelopment of the site with a three storey retirement home consisting of 30 units; recommending that staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.

The North York Community Council also reports having requested the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, to convey to the applicant that his plans should be revised in order to reflect a building having a front yard setback in accordance with the Sheppard West/Dublin Secondary Plan.

Councillor Shiner, Seneca Heights, declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the applicant is representing Councillor Shiner on another matter.

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, declared his interest in Item (f), headed "Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDC-99-09 and Site Plan Amendment Application UDSP-99-028 - Brown, Dryer, Karol (Judy Cohen in Trust) - 718 Sheppard Avenue West - North York Spadina", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the applicant is representing Councillor Shiner on another matter.)

(g) Report - New Development Applications for North District.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(April 14, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on new development applications (zoning and official plan amendments, lifting of (H) holding zone designations and plans of subdivision) received by the Planning Division, North District, from January 1, 1999 to March 30, 1999, and recommending that the report be received for information.

Councillor Shiner, Seneca Heights, declared his interest in File No. UDZ-99-02 and File No. UDZ-99-09 - Brown, Dryer, Karol, listed in Exhibit No. 1 attached to the report (April 14, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District,in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the applicant is representing Councillor Shiner on another matter.

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, declared his interest in Item (g), headed "Report - New Development Applications for North District", embodied in the foregoing Clause, as it pertains to File No. UDC-99-02 and File No. UDC-99-09 - Brown, Dryer, Karol, listed in Exhibit No. 1 attached to the report (April 14, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the applicant is representing Councillor Shiner on another matter.)

(h) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan Amendment Application UDOP-99-07 - Aird & Berlis - Jane Pepino - 2-10 Wingreen Court - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(April 15, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an application to amend the Official Plan to permit intensified residential redevelopment; and recommending that:

(1) the applicant be advised that the following are required prior to a Final Report:

(a) a clear planning rationale for the proposal as discussed in Section 1(a) of this report;

(b) an acceptable re-housing strategy which addresses replacement rental housing and the accommodation of existing tenants;

(c) all submission requirements for official plan amendments and rezonings, as described in the City's common application form; and

(d) an appropriate traffic impact analysis; and

(2) once the conditions set out in Recommendation (1) have been met, that:

(a) staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, schedule a community consultation meeting with the tenants and with the residents; and

(b) staff prepare a Final Report evaluating the proposal and provide Notice of the statutory public meeting at the appropriate time.

(i) Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program.

The North York Community Council on April 28, 1999, reports having received the following reports and having recommended to the Works and Utilities Committee that:

(1) the minimum acceptable flow of 18L/min., as outlined in the report (November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, be the City standard; and

(2) the program be harmonized throughout the City of Toronto.

The North York Community Council also reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to bring forward to the next meeting of the North York Community Council scheduled for May 26, 1999, a report for information purposes, listing the property owners, on a Ward by Ward basis, who have applied for an upgrade in water service.

(March 26, 1999) from the Director of Quality Control and Systems Planning, Water and Wastewater Services, Works and Emergency Services, referring two reports (October 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, and (November 20, 1998) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, both submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee, respecting a harmonized Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program which encompasses the categories: Breaks/Leaks, Standard Size of Water Service Connection, Minimum Acceptable Flow, Water Service Cleaning and the Water Service Connection Replacement/Upgrade Program, with the request that Community Council provide its comments thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee.

Respectfully submitted,

MILTON BERGER

Chair

Toronto, April 28, 1999

(Report No. 4 of The North York Community Council including additions thereto, was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999.)