CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 7 of the North York Community Council, as deferred by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on June 24, 1998.

45(b)Continuation of Statutory Public Meeting - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-96-30 - Harry Snoek - 15-19 Finch Avenue West and 7-11 Blakely Road - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for July 22, 1998 and that it be considered as a continuation of the public meeting on that date at 2:45 p.m.:

The North York Community Council also requested that:

(1)recommendation 3(e) of the report dated May 18, 1998 from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be amended to read as follows:

"the property identified municipally as 11 Blakely Road described as Lot 88, Registered Plan 3705 has been conveyed to the City, subject to the existing tenancy";

(2)that staff of the Real Estate Division be directed to negotiate, and bring to Council for approval, a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the acquisition of 31 Lorraine Drive, at fair market value and in accordance with the City's acquisition/purchasing policies, for parks purposes, utilizing funds from the Parkland Acquisition Account (Account No. 007-435-000); and

(3)that staff of the Transportation Division, North York Civic Centre, bring forward to the North York Community Council, a plan and timetable for the completion of the service road for its meeting of July 22, 1998.The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications and report:

(i)(June 10, 1998) from Virginia M. West, Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, responding to the motion made by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on May 6, 1998;

(ii)(June 11, 1998) from Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird & Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant;

(iii)(undated) from Mr. John Monita, forwarding a petition containing 108 signatures and 78 letters from area residents forwarding their comments on the proposed application;

(iv)(June 24, 1998) from William deBacker, President, Edithvale-Yonge Community Association, requesting that the City purchase 31 Lorraine Drive for parks purposes, in light of the fact that it has recently been placed on the market for sale; and

(v)(June 24, 1998) from Sharolyn Vettese, Chair, on behalf of the Yonge Street Area Ratepayer Associations, commenting on the parkland and service road issues.

A staff presentation was made by Karen Whitney, Planner, Planning Department, North York Civic Centre.

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

-Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, who commented on the merits of the application. She further indicated that there would appear to be two issues which are of interest to the residents The first being the parkland issue and the second being the service road issue.

With respect to the parkland issue, she indicated that the applicant will be required to pay cash-in-lieu of parkland, in accordance with the Official Plan policies of the North York Centre Secondary Plan OPA 447. She pointed out that the Willowdale West community is not deficient but that in fact it has a surplus of parkland.

With respect to the service road issue, the applicant, although not required to, purchased 11 Blakely Avenue so that it can be conveyed to the City to be used for the service road. This development does not trigger the need to build the functional section of the service road but the applicant acquired the lands in order to address the concerns expressed by the community.

In concluding Ms. Kovar indicated that the applicant concurred with the recommendations contained in the report from the Acting Commissioner of Planning dated March 18, 1998 with the exception of 3(e) which should be amended by adding the words, "subject to the existing tenancy".;

-Mr. Jim Morwood, 23 Holmes Avenue, who expressed concern with the increased level of traffic penetrating the residential areas as a result of piece-meal development. He also indicated that the service road should be completed in order to alleviate the traffic congestion in the area;

-Ms. Sharolyn Vettese, Chair, on behalf of the Yonge Street Area Ratepayer Associations, who commented on the parkland and service road issues. In her opinion, the Supplementary Report does not satisfactorily address the concerns regarding these two issues.

With respect to the parkland, she pointed out that the City Centre is one of the most parkland deficient areas in the former City of North York. There has been little success in getting parkland within the City Centre and that is why the new policies consider obtaining land in the immediate environs. Often parkland is not available at the desired time for various reasons and therefore polices have to be in place, and property owners have to want to sell when the money is available to buy those properties. Property values may go up in the future and available funds may not be adequate. The Yonge Street Area Ratepayer Associations request that 31 Lorraine Drive be purchased either by the applicant or by the Parks Acquisition Fund at this time before another opportunity to gain parkland is lost.

With respect to the service road, the report does not answer the question of what is the likelihood of it being built, given the multi-owner make-up of most of the blocks in the former Uptown, and the new megacity policies. She further indicated that ratepayers view the service road as an important physical barrier between the redevelopment and the stable residential neighbourhoods so that they can continue to enjoy their homes adjacent to the redevelopment; and

-Mr. John Monita who indicated that since the last public meeting on this proposal, he canvassed the residents in the area and acquired 125 signatures on a petition and 185 letters from residents expressing concern with traffic infiltration. He outlined the importance of the service road being completed and was of the opinion that a partially implemented service road would be more of a hinderence than a help.

Mr. Monita further indicated that until a proper service road and infrastructure are in place, this proposal is premature and should not be approved until this issue has been addressed.

______

A.Councillor Filion, North York Centre South, moved that:

WHEREAS new development in and around Lorraine Drive will generate additional residential demand for parkland; and

WHEREAS the City has acquired a portion of 27 Lorraine Drive and all of 29 Loraine Drive for parks purposes, and

WHEREAS it is the City's long range plan to acquire additional parkland in the North York City Centre; and

WHEREAS the Service Road is planned to be developed immediately adjacent to 31 Lorraine Drive; and

WHEREAS the Economic Development, Culture, and Tourism Department supports further acquisition in the area; and

WHEREAS the owners of 31 Lorraine Drive have placed their home on the market for sale;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to negotiate, and bring to Council for approval, a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the acquisition of 31 Lorraine Drive, at fair market value, for parks purposes, utilizing funds from the Parkland Acquisition Account (Account No. 007-435-000).

B.Councillor Filion, North York Centre, moved that:

(i)recommendation 3(e) of the report dated May 18, 1998 from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be amended to read as follows:

"the property identified municipally as 11 Blakely Road described as Lot 88, Registered Plan 3705 has been conveyed to the City, subject to the existing tenancy"; and

(ii)that staff bring forward to the North York Community Council, a plan and timetable for the completion of the service road for its meeting of July 22, 1998.

C.Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, moved in amendment to foregoing motion A. by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, that the matter be deferred for one month and the following words be inserted after the words, fair market value, "and in accordance with the City's acquisition/purchasing policies"

A recorded vote on motion A. by Councillor Filion was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong

AGAINST:NIL

ABSENT:Councillors Augimeri, Shiner, King

Carried

A recorded vote on Part (ii) of motion B by Councillor Filion was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong

AGAINST:NIL

ABSENT:Councillors Augimeri, Shiner, King

Carried

A recorded vote on motion C by Councillor Gardner was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong

AGAINST:Councillor Flint

ABSENT:Councillors Augimeri, Shiner, King

Carried

(A copy of the draft zoning by-law amendment, schedules and appendices referred to in the foregoing reports is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 5 of the North York Community Council, as deferred by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on May 6, 1998.

27(b)Statutory Public Meeting - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-96-30 & UDSP-96-116 - Harry Snoek - 15, 17 and 19 Finch Avenue West - 7, 9 and 11 Lorraine Drive and 11 Blakely Road - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled to be held on June 24, 1998, and that it be considered as a continuation of the public meeting on that date at 2:00 p.m. in order to obtain reports from the following:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development on:

(a)whether the lack of conveyance of parkland by the applicant is contrary to the intent of the Official Plan;

(b)whether the issue of the shortage of school accommodation should be addressed by the applicant and Council in light of the recent Provincial legislation; and

(c)the likelihood of the City's service road being completed under existing policies and whether a change in Council Policy is desirable in order to ensure that the road is built;

(2)the Toronto Transit Commission estimating the percentage of transit versus automobile use at this location both with and without a direct subway connection; and

(3)the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Division, commenting on the request by Councillor Gardner that funding be included in the 1999 Capital Budget for the purpose of acquiring land to build the service road.

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

(March 18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning forwarding recommendations with respect to the subject application to permit two residential apartment buildings;

(May 1, 1998) from Ms. Kara Sutherland, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, forwarding an updated list of the individuals they represent who are objecting to the application;

(May 1, 1998) from Mr. William deBacker, President, Edithvale-Yonge Community Association;

(April 23, 1998) from Ms. Kara Sutherland, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of various area residents; and

(April 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning tabling a draft by-law for the public meeting.

The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council:

a)Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird & Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant who commented on the merits of the application. She also indicated that the applicant concurred with the recommendations contained in the report from the Acting Commissioner of Planning with the exception of 3(e) which should be amended by adding the words, "subject to the existing tenancy";

b)Ms. Kara Sutherland, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of various area residents, who commented in opposition to the application. In her opinion approval of this application would preclude comprehensive development in this area and would place the burden of providing the service road on her clients;

c)Mr. John Monita, 8 Lorraine Drive, who commented on the traffic congestion in this area and particularly Lorraine Drive. In his opinion this proposal is contrary to the Specific Development Policy of the Uptown Secondary Plan which states that Lorraine Drive between Blakely Road and Finch Avenue West be closed and incorporated into a comprehensive development that includes the surrounding lands. He therefore requested that the matter be deferred until a financial analysis regarding such a comprehensive development can be provided either by the applicant or the City; and

(d)Ms. Betty Kline, 31 Lorraine Drive, who indicated that the applicant had approached her about purchasing her property but she was only given 24 hours to decide. In light of the number of years she has been residing at this address she believed that the time frame given by the applicant was inappropriate.

(A copy of the draft zoning by-law amendment and schedules referred to in the foregoing reports is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

June 10, 1998

To: North York Community Council

From: Virginia M. West,

Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject: SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 - ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION

Harry Snoek, 15-19 Finch Avenue West and 7-11 Lorraine Drive and 11 Blakeley Road, UDZ-96-30, Ward 10 - North York Centre

Purpose:

May 6, 1998, North York Community Council directed the following reports be submitted:

"1) The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report on:

a) whether the lack of conveyance of parkland by the applicant is contrary to the intent of the Official Plan; and

b) whether the issue of the shortage of school accommodation should be addressed by the applicant and Council in light of the recent Provincial legislation; and

c) the likelihood of the City Service Road being completed under existing policies and whether change in Council Policy is desirable in order to ensure that the road is built."

Community Council also directed separate reports from the TTC and from the Public Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Division which will accompany this agenda item.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be received for information.

Discussion:

1.0 Parkland Dedication :Is the lack of a parkland conveyance by this applicant contrary to the intent of the Official Plan?

The provision of cash-in-lieu of parkland on this site is not contrary to the intent of the Official Plan policies of the North York Centre Secondary Plan OPA 447. The plan requires the conveyance of parkland when this is feasible and when it is not, it allows Council to accept cash-in-lieu to achieve its own parkland acquisition strategy. An on-site conveyance of parkland should result in a useable park site.

OPA 447 has also introduced policies new to the North York Centre plan which allow Council to accept off-site parkland dedications within an adjacent community as the park dedication requirements for new development in the urban core. These policies apply when the adjacent community is already deficient in available parkland and where a useable new park area can be achieved. The policies which outline when off-site parkland acquisition is to be pursued as an alternative solution are found in Appendix "A" to this report.

In the case of this application, the adjacent Community of West Willowdale has a surplus of 3.06 hectares of parkland when measured against the established official plan level of one hectare of parkland per 1,000 population.

An on-site dedication is not feasible for this applicant's site due to the area of the site. The applicant made an effort to acquire off-site land for parks, but these efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Under these circumstances cash-in-lieu is the recommended means to meet municipal objectives.

Community Council may accept parkland off-site but not require it. Community Council's policies are that it will endeavour to acquire parkland within 0.8 km of the site in an effort to achieve the established standard. Downtown Plan policies of Part D.2 gave no such direction in this regard.

The City will continue to pursue opportunities to partner with developers in off-site park acquisitions. The new North York Centre Plan provides a number of new tools to do this.

2.0 School Accommodations:Is the issue of the shortage of school accommodation a matter which should be addressed by this applicant and Council in light of recent Provincial legislation?

At the present time, a development charges by-law is not in place which would permit either the Toronto District School Board or the Toronto Catholic School Board to impose a development charge on this proposal. There is not, therefore, any current legislative authority to impose a land or development charge requirement on this applicant to address the School Board's concerns.

Council has adopted a report, however, which recommends that the City and the School Boards work together to develop a new protocol to address new residential development applications in the future in a way which recognizes that schools are an important element of the neighbourhood. The policies of OPA 447 which introduce incentives for the provision of schools is but one example of how such cooperation can be achieved through planning documents. The new policies allow for density bonuses if a developer provides school facilities. These can be up to 4 times the gross floor area of the facility. The plan also provides for the ability of unused density to be transferred to another site in order to facilitate the retention or provision of a school facility. Council is aware of the strong language used in recent Ontario Municipal Board decisions for the Empress Plaza Inc. (Menkes Development Corporation) and for Wittington Properties both in the Downtown, which have dismissed appeals by both School Boards.

Amendments to the Planning Act under discussion among the School Boards, the Province and the development industry have considered the provisions of that Act governing the setting aside of lands within draft plans of subdivision. There has not been any extension of this discussion to include site specific development applications which involve only a rezoning within an established policy framework.

The status of provincial legislation that affects the provision of school sites and education development charges is outlined in Appendix "B" to this report.

3.0Service Road :What is the likelihood of the City Service Road being completed under the existing policies and is a change in Council's policies desirable in order to ensure that the road is built?

There is no requirement to amend the existing policies in the official plan for Council to achieve its service road in the North York Centre.

The Downtown Service Road, with the exception of the area south east of Yonge St and Sheppard Avenue, is constructed.

There is nothing in the existing official plan policies which inhibits the construction of the Uptown Service Road. Rather, the official plan establishes a number of policies which encourage the development industry to partner with the City in the construction of the road and which ensures that new development will not be zoned when a functional section of the infrastructure is required. It is Council's decision as to whether it intends to use other tools at its disposal to achieve the service road on its own initiative outside of this partnership.

The existing policies in the Official Plan (OPA 447) regarding the service road are attached as Appendix "D" to this report. The lands within municipal control for the construction of new sections of the service road have been conveyed to the City through development approvals.

The construction of the existing Downtown service road has been paid for through development charges. Developments within the North York Centre are subject to an additional development charge above those levied on a city-wide basis.

Council has the ability to acquire land for the service road and construct the road. It can do this on its own initiative as a municipal undertaking or in partnership with the development industry through the development approval process as set out in the official plan.

City Wide Issues:

None

Conclusions:

The application which is before Community Council has been evaluated within the context of the existing official plan.

The applicant has made reasonable efforts to acquire parkland within the vicinity of its site but in the absence of this a cash-in-lieu of parkland condition is appropriate and not contrary to the Official Plan policies. The North York Centre school accommodation requirements is an issue which this application on its own cannot resolve. The new Official Plan policies do, however, present opportunities to assist the School Boards in its future plans.

The Official Plan policies for the provision of the Uptown Service Road can effectively provide opportunities for municipal partnerships which will achieve the road through the development approval process over time. Council is not limited by these and may explore alternative implementation measures if it so decides.

Contact Names:

Karen Whitney, Planner (North York District)

Phone: 395-7109Fax: 395-7155

Reviewed by:

Paul J. Bedford,Virginia M. West,

Executive Director and Chief Planner, Commissioner of Urban Planning and

City Planning DivisionDevelopment Services

Appendices:

Appendix A- Excerpt from OPA 447 - Parkland Dedication

Appendix B- Status of Provincial Legislation Affecting the Acquisition of School Site and Education Development Charges

Appendix C- OMB Disposition Regarding the Empress Plaza Downtown Rezoning Application

Appendix C1- OMB Order Regarding the Wittington Development Application (South Downtown)

Appendix D- Excerpts from OPA 447- Section 8.0 Roads and Services & Section 3.4 Density Transfers

Appendix "A"

Excerpt from OPA 447 - Section 6.5: Parkland Dedication

"6.5(c) Parkland dedication either in the form of land or cash-in-lieu of land or land and cash-in-lieu shall be required for each development. The specific combination of land or cash will be determined as part of the consideration of a specific proposal.

(d) Where as part of a development, on site parkland dedication is not feasible and the abutting Community is below the established park standard of 1 hectare per 1,000 population, Council may consider an off-site parkland dedication which is located within .8 km of the site.

(e) When a development is located in a part of the Downtown or Uptown where the abutting Community is below the established level of 1 hectare per 1,000 population, it shall be Council's policy to endeavour to acquire parkland within .8 km of the site in an effort to achieve the established standard in that Community."

Appendix "B"

Status of Provincial Legislation

Affecting the Acquisition of School Site and

Education Development Charges

1 Provincial Legislation

1.1 Planning Act

The future possible changes to the Planning Act relates to section 51 plans of subdivisions. The provincial Ministry of Education and Training and the School Boards and the development community have been working together to address the issue of the acquisition of land for schools through the subdivision process. The first reading of Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, included an amendment to section 51(25) of the Planning Act to strengthen the role of School Boards in the subdivision process and to fix the price of land to be conveyed for use as school sites. However, these amendments were not proclaimed as part of Bill 160 when it received Royal Assent on December 8, 1997. These amendments to the Planning Act once proclaimed would affect applications under section 51(subdivisions) and not applications under section 34 (zoning).

These amendments have not yet been proclaimed and therefore new legislative powers are not yet in place. The Ministry of Training and Education and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are discussing with the School Boards and the development industry the issue of school sites in subdivisions, however, no new legislation has been introduced at this time.

Even though no new legislation has been introduced to change the Planning Act, the province has introduced new funding formulae and provisions contained in the new Education Act which could impact on how school boards will respond to and manage growth within the various neighbourhoods of the new City. A report was before the Urban Environment and Development Committee from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on May 19, 1998 to address the issue of planning for school facilities. It is recommended in that report the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services convene a meeting with the Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic School Board to review the impacts of the new education funding, develop a protocol for addressing new residential development applications, review any proposed plan to close or dispose of school site and consider facility requirements with respect to services that may be displaced as a result of the changes in education funding. These recommendations were adopted by the UEDC without modification.

1.2 Education Development Charges

The second legislative issue with regard to schools, is the ability of the school boards to impose development charges. The former Metropolitan Toronto School Board had the ability to implement a development charges by-law through the Development Charges Act and chose not to pursue such a by-law. The former Metropolitan Separate School Board (MSSB)(now Toronto Catholic School Board) also had such authority and was in the process of pursuing such a by-law. However, MSSB did not have an opportunity to submit a Development Charges by-law to the Minister of Education and Training prior to the implementation of Bill 160.

New Educational Development Charge (EDC) legislation is contained in the provisions of the Education Quality Improvement Act (Bill 160). The EDC's will fund only the acquisition of new school sites required as a result of residential growth. The Provincial government will fund the construction costs of the school facilities through their pupil accommodation grants. However, before a School Board can impose development charges, it will need to be determined if the school board even qualifies to do so. In order to qualify, the average total enrollment over the term of the EDC by-law must exceed capacity of either the elementary or the secondary schools. The enrollment figures for the entire City will have to be used in this determination. The Province will be determining the school capacity and will not be relying on the current individual school board(s) figures.

It is expected that the enrolment figures will be available sometime this fall. Until these figures are available, the school boards will have to wait to introduce any new development charges and it may be determined that the school boards will not be able to do so.

Appendix "D"

Excerpts from OPA 447- Section 8.0 Roads and Services & Section 3.4 Density Transfers

"SECTION 8 ROADS AND SERVICES

8.1 Road Structure within the North York Centre

The road structure within the North York Centre is based on a network of arterial, minor arterial, collector and local roads of which Yonge Street, Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue as arterial roads will form the primary routes for vehicular traffic through the North York Centre. The Service Roads as identified in the relevant Environmental Study Reports will function as collector roads and are intended generally to carry traffic originating in or destined for the Uptown or the Downtown. The minor arterial and other collector roads connect with the greater regional network while the local roads within the North York Centre will provide a fine grained access grid.

8.2 Cummer and Drewry Avenues

Cummer Avenue and Drewry Avenue, east and west of Yonge Street respectively, form the northerly boundary of the North York Centre and are the only minor arterial roads associated with the road network for the Centre. The widening of Cummer and Drewry Avenues outside the Uptown boundary is not required to accommodate the development levels shown in this Secondary Plan, and will not be considered as an alternative to the widening of arterial roads needed to accommodate development proposed by this Plan.

8.3 Service Roads

(a) Purpose

The North York Centre requires the implementation of the Service Roads to support the full development of the Centre as designated. These roads are intended to provide capacity to the road network, as well as vehicular circulation and access to developments in the Centre. The Service Roads and associated network are also intended to separate North York Centre traffic from traffic related to surrounding residential neighbourhoods to the greatest extent practical.

(b) Implementation in Phases

It is intended that North York Centre development pay the costs of infrastructure improvements needed to support planned development. In order to achieve this, it is foreseen that development of the Service Roads may proceed in phases, consistent with the need to provide functional sections of the Service Roads to support new development.

(c) Functional Sections

(i) The City shall be responsible for the construction of the Downtown and Uptown Service Roads in functional sections, or any extensions or widenings of existing portions as related development proceeds or, if necessary, prior to such development should such need be demonstrated through the monitoring program. In no case shall Council enact a site specific zoning by-law which will allow development to proceed until the City has acquired, or secured binding commitments to acquire the lands required for the functional section of the Service Road that is relevant to a particular development.

(ii) The functional section of the Service Roads related to a particular development refers to the segment (or segments) that, according to the result of the traffic certification (Section 4.8) is required to support the development; or through the review by the City and Metro Toronto using the monitoring program.

8.4 Land Acquisition for the Service Roads

(a) Council shall use its available powers, including without limitation, its right to require the conveyance of land pursuant to Sections 40, 50, 52 of the Planning Act, and/or its power to acquire land, compulsorily or otherwise, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act and the Expropriations Act, in order to acquire lands identified as being required for the implementation of the Downtown and Uptown Service Roads. The lands which are required in order to implement the Downtown Service Road and associated buffer areas are shown on Map D.1.8. The lands which are required in order to implement the Uptown Service Road and associated buffer areas are shown on Map D.1.9.

(b) Where appropriate, additional land will be acquired by the City beyond the outer limit of the Downtown and Uptown Service Roads and associated buffer areas, as shown on Map D.1.8 and D.1.9, for further buffering in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.2 and 8.3 and for improvements to the local street system that are designed to prevent traffic infiltration. Additional lands may also be acquired by the City within the inner limit of the Downtown and Uptown Service Roads as shown on Map D.1.8 and D.1.9 in order to implement requirements for additional widenings in accordance with Part C.7, Section 8.4.0 and for other functional improvements to the road.

8.5 Service Roads - Pedestrian Enhancing Measures

(a) The Service Roads will support wherever practical, integration with the pedestrian environment through the use of pedestrian enhancing measures such as links to crosswalks and sidewalk widenings.

(b) To ensure that the Service Roads do not become a barrier to pedestrian movement, safe and convenient pedestrian crossings (pedestrian crossover) will be installed in accordance with the appropriate legislation and prescribed guidelines.

Consistent with standard practices for such crossings, sidewalks will be ramped down to the street in order to facilitate the movement of wheelchairs, baby carriages/ strollers etc.

8.6 Downtown Service Road

(a) The higher density portion of the Downtown is intended to be encircled by a four-lane collector road (service road) which will provide access to development in the Downtown and thereby relieve traffic pressure on Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue. This four lane road is designated on Map C.7.1. In addition, Map D.1.8 shows in greater detail the lands that are used or will be used for the Downtown Service Road and associated buffer areas.

(b) The location of the Downtown Service Road is located in accordance with the approved Environmental Study Report (ESR) as shown on Map D.1.8. This road is to be separated from the adjacent stable residential area by the creation of a suitable buffer. Accordingly, in all cases the nearest curb of the Downtown Service Road yet to be constructed, including widenings, shall be a minimum of 12 metres from the property lines of detached or semi-detached dwellings located in the adjacent stable residential area. Wherever possible, the intervening property shall either form part of the road right-of-way or be appropriately landscaped, owned by the City , and form part of a linear park and/or other public open space.

(c) The Downtown Service Road will be comprised of both existing road rights-of-way and new road segments. The Downtown Service Road presently exists in its full width and correct alignment on Beecroft Road between Sheppard Avenue and Park Home Avenue and on Doris Avenue between Sheppard Avenue and Norton Avenue.

(d) The specific alignment of the Downtown Service Road between Sheppard Avenue East and Yonge Street will be determined in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Service Road routes are generally shown on Map D.1.8 and will be subject to technical adjustments as may be required by the final approved Environmental Study Report without amendment to the Official Plan.

(e) In all cases, road construction within the Downtown will be in accordance with the Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the "Downtown Service Road and Associated Road Network" as approved by the Minister of the Environment on August 12, 1991.

8.7 Uptown Service Road

(a) The Uptown is also intended to be encircled by a four lane collector road (an extension of the Downtown Service Road) which will provide access to development in the Uptown and thereby relieve traffic pressure on Yonge Street and Finch Avenue. This four lane road is designated on Map D.1.9. In addition, Map D.1.9 shows in greater detail the lands that are used or will be used for the Uptown Service Road and associated buffer areas.

(b) Relationship with Local Roads

(i) It is intended that local roads in nearby residential neighbourhoods be separated from the Service Road. To achieve this, local roads should be ended in a cul-de-sac, or looped, to eliminate intersections with the Service Road.

(ii) Pedestrian walkways between the local roads and the Service Road shall be designed and constructed so that they may also serve as all season emergency vehicle access routes.

(c) In all cases, road construction within the Uptown will be in accordance with the Environmental Study Report (ESR) for the "Uptown Service Road and Associated Road Network" as approved by the Minister of Environment and Energy on December 14, 1993."

3.4 Density Transfers

3.4.1 General Policies

(a) Council may permit a development to have a greater amount of total floor space than would otherwise be permitted on that specific site in accordance with Maps D.1.4 and D.1.5 provided the density transfer is in accordance with Section 3.4.2 and subject to the density limits specified in Section 3.2.

(b) Density transfers shall be implemented by rezoning the donor site and the receiving site so that the total gross floor area permitted does not exceed the aggregate of the gross floor area permitted by this Secondary Plan on the individual sites. A record of density transfers showing the parcel from which the density originates, and the parcel which receives the transferred density, shall be kept as an appendix to the Official Plan.

© The determination of the use of and amount of transferred floor space shall be based on the Land Use District and assigned density of the donor site, and on the ability of development at the receiving site to satisfy all other requirements of this Secondary Plan.

(d) In the Downtown, density may only be transferred to a receiving site which is within the Downtown and which is on the same side of Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue as the donor site.

(e) In the Uptown, density may only be transferred to a receiving site which is within the Uptown and which is on the same side of Yonge Street and Finch Avenue as the donor site.

3.4.2 Qualifications for Density Transfers

Density transfers may be permitted only in accordance with the following:

(a) Provision of Land for Public Purposes

The gross floor area resulting from the density assigned to land within the Downtown or Uptown may be transferred if the land is conveyed to the City or Metropolitan Toronto for nominal consideration for public purposes such as roads, public parks subject to the parkland dedication polices in Section 6.5, public recreational centres or other public purposes identified in this Secondary Plan.

(b) Density Transfer from Public Land

It is an objective of this Secondary Plan that, to the greatest extent possible, new development pay for the costs of infrastructure and facilities needed to support or serve new development, and that the general tax rate not be used to support development.

Accordingly, when the City or Metropolitan Toronto has purchased land for public purposes, the gross floor area attributable to the land may be transferred by the City or Metropolitan Toronto subsequent to that purchase.

(Copies of Schedules and Appendices mentioned in the foregoing, are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)