Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Scarlett Gate

Developments, 542 Scarlett Road - File No. Z-2262

 The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:

 (1)the application submitted by Scarlett Gate Developments regarding a zoning by-law amendment for 542 Scarlett Road, be approved;

 (2)the following report (i) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May 27, 1998) with respect to the application be adopted, as amended by the addition of the following to Condition 3(ii) therein:

 "the planting of shrubs on the 15' retaining wall, and, if possible, resiting of the buildings even further easterly"; and

 (3)the following report (ii) from the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District (June 25, 1998) be received for information:

 (i) (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, with respect to a proposal to amend the Zoning Code with respect to the property located on the west side of Scarlett Road, north of La Rose Avenue from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) to permit the development of 12 freehold townhouses; and

 (ii)(June 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District, commenting on the implications of a shared underground parking garage:

 The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District, on June 24, 1998, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council at a continuation of the public meeting on June 25, 1998, on the matter of a shared underground garage in a freehold townhouse development.

 The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June 24 and June 25, 1998 in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder:

 The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

 Purpose:

 To review a proposal to amend the Zoning Code with respect to the property located on the west side of Scarlett Road, north of La Rose Avenue from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) to permit the development of 12 freehold townhouses.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that the application by Scarlett Gate Developments be the subject of a public meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

 Background:

 In 1964, By-law No. 14,583 was passed which rezoned the property from Second Density Residential (R2) to Limited Commercial (CL) which limited development to a neighbourhood gasoline service station. The site was most recently occupied by a Petro Canada Station which was demolished in October, 1992. The site is vacant.

 In December, 1997, an application was submitted by Scarlett Gate Developments for the development of 14 townhouse units. In an attempt to address the concerns of staff, the applicant has submitted numerous revised plans. In May, 1998, a revised plan for 12 townhouse units was submitted to the City for review. These plans are the subject of this report.

 Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

 The rectangular site is located on the west side of Scarlett Road, north of LaRose Avenue (Exhibit No. 1). The grade of the site rises approximately 5.5 m (18.0 ft) from the street, up towards the rear property line. The rear yard of the residential properties backing onto the site are supported by a gabion retaining wall.

 Surrounding lands to the north, south, east and west are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and are all occupied by single detached dwellings, with the exception of the lands adjacent to the westerly portion of the northerly lot line, which are vacant. The property situated at the northwest corner of Scarlett Road and LaRose Avenue is zoned Sixth Density Residential (R6) and is occupied by a 13 storey apartment building (Exhibit No. 1).

 Proposal:

 Scarlett Gate Developments has requested a rezoning from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) to permit the development of 12 condominium townhouse units with a single level underground garage.

 The project would consist of three townhouse blocks. Block 'A', containing five units, would be oriented towards Scarlett Road. Blocks 'B' and 'C', containing four and three units, respectively, would be situated towards the rear of the property. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via a single driveway from Scarlett Road at the north portion of the frontage. The driveway would lead directly into the underground garage, for access to parking areas. A service area and visitor parking for two cars would be provided at-grade to the south of the garage ramp and driveway. Walkways would provide pedestrian access to each of the units at-grade. The driveway and all walkways would be heated to reduce snow removal requirements (Exhibit No. 2).

 Each dwelling would be approximately 217 m² (2,340 sq. ft.) in size and contain three levels of living space plus a basement level. The basement of each unit would have access to two tandem parking spaces in the underground garage. Block 'A' would be approximately 10.7 m (35 ft.) in height and Blocks 'B' and 'C' would be approximately 9.7 m (32 ft.) in height (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4).

 The following is a summary of information relevant to this application:

 Official Plan:

High Density Residential

Zoning:

ExistingLimited Commercial (CL) as amended by By-law No. 14,583

ProposedFourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G)

 Site Area0.25 ha(0.61 ac)

Units12

Density48 uph9.4 upa

G.F.A.:2 608.6 m²8,079.6 sq.ft. (excluding basement)

F.S.I.1.0

Coverage869.5 m²9,359.5 sq.ft.34%

LOS1 344.0 m²14,467.1 sq.ft53%

Paved Area323.5 m²3,482.2 sq.ft.13%

 Parking:

Required: owner: 23 spacesProvided:owner: 24 spaces

visitor: 5 spacesvisitor: 2 spaces

total: 28 spaces total: 26 spaces (shortfall 2 spaces)

 Comment:

 Official Plan:

 The site is designated High Density Residential in the Etobicoke Official Plan. This designation permits all housing types, including apartments and townhouses. Development is limited to a maximum density of 185 uph (75 upa) with a floor space index of 2.5. The proposal would result in a density of 48 uph (19.4 upa) and corresponding floor space index of 1.0. Staff have evaluated the application based on the criteria established for considering High Density Residential proposals, as contained in Section 4.2.19 of the Plan, and are of the opinion that the proposed use generally satisfies those criteria. A review of the Metropolitan Official Plan has not identified any City-wide issues.

 Zoning Code:

 The property is zoned Limited Commercial (CL), as amended by By-law No. 14,583, which limits use of the property to a neighbourhood gasoline service station only. In the event of approval, staff suggest that By-law No. 14,583 be repealed and that the site be rezoned to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) which would provide for the proposed townhouse dwelling type. Site specific development standards should be incorporated into the amending by-law to reflect the approved plans.

 Land Use and Site Design Considerations:

 The site is located in an area designated for High Density Residential development with direct access to Scarlett Road which has been identified as a Metropolitan Arterial Roadway in the Etobicoke Official Plan. Public transit is available on Scarlett Road. The Works Department has not identified any concerns with respect to the capacity of the local roadway system to support the development. The Health Department, Fire Department and Parks and Recreation Services have not identified any concerns with providing services to the project.

 Comments have not been received from the Toronto Public School Board or the Toronto Separate School Board.

 The three-storey height of the proposed townhouses, up to a maximum of 10.7 m (35 ft.), would be only slightly greater than the maximum building height of 9.5 m (31 ft.) permitted for the adjacent single detached dwellings. In addition, the proposed minimum sideyard setback of 1.3 m (4.2 ft.) would be comparable with the 1.2 m (3.9 ft.) minimum sideyard setback required for detached dwellings. Block 'A' would maintain a setback of 11.7 m (38.3 ft.) from Scarlett Road which would be in line with the street wall established by the adjacent detached dwellings. Blocks 'B' and 'C' would be situated at the rear of the property. In order to prevent the opportunity for views and overlook into the adjacent rear yards and to reduce the mass of the end walls, it is recommended that no windows be provided on the end wall elevations of the units and that hipped roofs be incorporated into the design of the project (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4).

 The applicant is proposing internal walkways to provide at-grade pedestrian access to each of the units, allowing for approximately 53% of the site, including walkways and areas occupied by retaining walls, to be devoted to landscape open space. A children's play area would be located adjacent to the northerly lot line, between the waste enclosure and the ramp to the underground garage.

 The units in Blocks 'B' and 'C' would be provided with a reduced rear yard of approximately 4.5 m (14.7 ft.) in depth, directly adjacent to retaining walls approximately 4.57 m (15.0 ft.) in height. In addition, a 1.8 m (6 ft.) privacy fence is located on the top of the retaining wall, along the rear yard of the abutting residential properties to the west, for a combined height of 6.4 m (21 ft.). Staff have anticipate that these areas would receive limited amounts of sunlight and have limited useability.

The location of the children's play area, adjacent to the northerly lot line, between the garbage room and the underground garage ramp, will be reviewed during the Site Plan Control process.

 A truck turn around and visitor parking area is proposed adjacent to Scarlett Road. This would result in over 50% of the site frontage being devoted to paved driveway, parking and service areas with no opportunity to screen service functions from the street. Pedestrian access to a number of the units in Block 'A' would require individuals to cross the service/parking area. In addition, a 1.5 m (4.9 ft.) wide pedestrian walkway leading to Blocks 'B' and 'C' would be located directly adjacent the loading area and waste enclosure.

 The proposal for a townhouse development on the site is considered satisfactory from a land use perspective, however, staff have concerns that the limited size of the property in combination with the number of units proposed, would result in a less than desirable site layout with respect to walkway connections, private rear yard amenity space, suitable children's play area and the location of parking and service areas.

 The applicant is aware of staff's concerns and has submitted a number of revised plans in an attempt to address these outstanding issues. Further review of these elements will be undertaken as part of the Site Plan Approval process.

 Agency/Department Circulation:

 In response to the circulation of plan submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by the following departments:

 Fire DepartmentToronto Hydro

Toronto Transit CommissionBell Canada

Health Department

 Comments from The Toronto Public School Board and The Toronto Separate School Board remain outstanding.

 The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has verbally advised that they are satisfied with the parking supply and driveway layout subject to compliance with City standards with respect to corner radii. It is anticipated that formal written comments would be made available at the time of the public hearing.

 The Development Engineering section of the Works Department has advised that the applicant would be required to address storm water management and may be subject to a cash-in-lieu contribution. The site plan as submitted does not contain sufficient grading information to evaluate the proposal adequately. In the event of approval, a separate grading plan is to be submitted indicating existing and proposed elevations, drainage patterns and facilities, deed restrictions to convey surface drainage, and major storm overflow facilities. All driveways and boulevard areas are to be reinstated in accordance with City standards. Access to waste management facilities as proposed is satisfactory. The applicant has submitted an environmental report for peer review to determine the suitability of the site for residential purposes (Exhibit No. 5).

 Parks and Recreation Services has advised that design details for the children's play should be submitted for review. In the event that a satisfactory design can not be implemented, a contribution of $7,500.00 would be required to upgrade facilities in a local park. The applicant would also be subject to the payment of 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and provide boulevard planting to the satisfaction of the Forestry Division (Exhibit No. 6).

 Given the limited number of units, Urban Development staff are of the opinion that the provision of an affordable housing component is not warranted.

 Tenure:

 In April, 1998, the applicant advised that, given the proposed common elements and facilities, the project would be developed as a condominium. In recent discussions the applicant has expressed an interest in developing the project as a freehold development. Staff of the Urban Development and Works Departments continue to have concerns regarding the long term suitability of freehold developments utilizing common facilities such as roadways and underground services. In particular, the degree of common elements and services that would be involved in the development of the subject project, such as an underground garage, waste enclosure, heated driveway and walkways and a children's play area, does not lend itself to the freehold style of ownership. Staff recommend that the proposal would more appropriately be dealt with under the provisions of the Condominium Act through the registration of a condominium corporation.

 Community Meeting:

 On May 12, 1998, seven area residents attended a community meeting to review the proposed plans. Those in attendance supported the proposed townhouses. Concerns were raised following the meeting regarding the adequacy of school accommodation.

 Conclusions:

 It is the opinion of Urban Development staff that the application for townhouses would generally satisfy the Official Plan criteria for considering development in a High Density Residential designation. However, staff have concerns that the limited size of the property in combination with the number of townhouse units proposed would result in a less than desirable site design. Staff are of the opinion that a redesign of the project would be required to adequately address these issues which may result in a reduction in the number of units. However, in the event of approval the following conditions should apply:

 Conditions to Approval:

 1.Fulfilment of the following conditions prior to the enactment of an amending by-law:

 (i)Submission of revised plans indicating a redesign of the site layout and a reduced number of units to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

 (ii)Receipt of favourable comments from the Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department.

 (iii)Confirmation of the condominium tenure of the application.

 (iv)Confirmation from the Works Department that the environmental report submitted by the applicant is satisfactory.

 (v)Signing of a Development Agreement and the payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation execution and registration of same, if required by the Works Department.

 2.The amending by-law shall repeal By-law No. 14,583 and rezone the lands from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) and shall provide development standards to include: floor space index, building height, setbacks, coverage, parking, landscaping, internal sidewalks and a maximum number of units.

 3.Further detailed consideration of the proposal under Site Plan Control to include inter alia:

 (i)Signing of a Site Control Agreement, which may include indemnity clauses, and payment of necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and registration of same, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

 (ii)Submission of a landscaping plan detailing fencing, curbing, grading, retaining walls, street trees, planting, and tree preservation methods for trees on abutting properties, to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control, and posting of an appropriate financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans.

 (iii)Provision of on-site services, including storage of waste and recyclable materials, the provision of stormwater management facilities or cash-in-lieu payment, submission of a grading plan, the signing of agreements, and the posting of financial guarantees, if required by the Works Department.

 (iv)Confirmation that the site decommissioning and cleanup has been carried out to the satisfaction of the Works Department in accordance with Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines, if required.

 (v)Submission of building elevations incorporating a hipped roof design and no windows on the exterior end walls.

 (vi)The developer to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of issuance of building permits and five percent cash in lieu of parkland dedication.

 (vii)A construction site management plan to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

 (viii)Details of garage illumination and security measures to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and the Toronto Police.

 (ix)Submission of design details for a children's play area to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation, or the payment of $7,500.00 to upgrade facilities in a local park, if required.

 (x)Confirmation that the site plan is satisfactory to the Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department.

 Contact Name:

 Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8229, Fax: (416)394-6063

 The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District:

 Purpose:

 The purpose of this report is to provide you with our opinion regarding a shared underground garage in a townhouse freehold development.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 There are no funding requirements. The possibility exists that there may be future financial implications associated with this matter.

 Recommendations:

 That this report be received.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 At its meeting on June 24th, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council had before it an application for an amendment to the Zoning Code concerning a freehold townhouse development at 542 Scarlett Road.

The freehold townhouse development would include an underground parking garage accessed from the northeast corner of the property, adjacent to Scarlett Road. Our understanding is that each townhouse unit would have a below grade parking garage, which would allow for the tandem parking of vehicles for the owners of that townhouse unit. The property lines of each townhouse unit would be established. The underground roadway leading to the various parking garages would traverse the property lines. Mutual easements would be created to allow for this traffic movement.

 The underground parking garage would be access by way of a reverse slope driveway.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 In the past, Council has allowed developments which contain surface private roadways, provided that appropriate Owners' Maintenance Agreements are in place. The proposed development extends the concept of private roadways to create underground private roadways. As a result, two new issues are raised:

 1.One full concrete foundation below all the townhouses.

 2.Reverse slope driveway.

 By introducing one full concrete foundation under all of the townhouse units, each townhouse unit owner is now subjected to an additional risk based on the construction and maintenance quality of that foundation. The failure of the foundation in one area could affect all townhouse unit owners.

 The likelihood of foundation failure may be increased, in that the Developer intends to install into the foundation a heating system for snow melting purposes. The heating system would extend throughout the foundation and, once again, if it failed in any one particular area, it would be the responsibility of all parties.

 The usual expectation when one buys a freehold piece of property is that the municipality owns the roadway and is responsible for its care and maintenance. We are advised constantly by Developers that a freehold development will generate far more revenue than a condominium development. However, in a private roadway situation, what a freehold purchaser is purchasing into is a "condominium like" situation, without the protection of the Condominium Act. The only protection that would exist would be the various agreements executed among the property owners for easements and maintenance of the interior "common areas".

 One unusual feature of this freehold development is the inclusion of a central garbage storage room. Once again, this feature would be expected in a condominium situation.

 In this particular development, any knowledgeable purchaser would recognise the development as a condominium, notwithstanding that it is cloaked in the guise of freehold.

 With respect to reverse slope driveways, reference is made to the Ontario Building Code. In dealing with drainage, the Code provides that "the building shall be located and the building site graded so that water will not accumulate at or near the building and will not adversely affect adjacent properties." The Code also provides that "unless it can be shown to be unnecessary, drainage shall be provided at the bottom of every foundation wall that contains the building interior." Dealing specifically with garages, the Code provides that "where run off water from a driveway is likely to accumulate or enter a garage, a catch basin shall be installed to provide adequate drainage."

 Here, the reverse slope driveway leading into the underground garage will have a catch basin at its base and will have several catch basins along the common travelled area, so as to allow for drainage. The weeping tile located around the foundation will also connect to the same storm water system.

 This situation introduces two elements of risk. The catch basins interfere with the integrity of the storm water system and allow for the possible entry of foreign objects into the storm water system. Additionally, the catch basins may introduce more water into the storm water system, resulting in a possible overcharging of the system. Such overcharging could result in basement flooding.

 Based on the above, for a number of years, the City has refused reverse slope driveways, in that such driveways fail to meet the minimum standards of the Building Code.

 Conclusions:

 It is our conclusion that this townhouse development cannot adequately be developed as a freehold development. This development is more suited to condominium development.

 Contact Name:

 John R. Hart,

Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitor

Tel: (416) 622-6601, Fax: (416) 622-4713

 The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (May 31, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. P. Vairo, together with signatures of 22 residents in the area:

 We are the owners of 4 Greyswood Court, which is directly abuts 542 Scarlett Road (the "Property") to the west.

 I am writing in regards to the proposed development on the Property and the Application for Rezoning/Official Plan Amendment, which we discussed a recent Community Meeting on May 12, 1998. At the meeting, Scarlett Gate Development (the "Developer") provided me with the proposed site plans and elevations for the proposed townhouse complex. I will be bringing with me the said plan at our meeting tomorrow, at which time I would like to discuss with the you the compliance of said plan with the various applicable by-laws.

 I have also had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Developer at my home. The representative of the Developer observed my concerns directly from my backyard. One of the concerns we have relates to the privacy and use and enjoyment of the Property, but there was a substantial green belt (including mature trees) between the gasoline station and our home. As a result, at no time did the existence of the gas station impede with our privacy. In fact, when the gas station was closed, Petro-Canada planted new trees as a result of our complaints.

In our opinion, the proposed development is of such high density and crowded (note the set backs from the property lines) that it materially alters the nature of the existing residential development. We note that other homes to the north of the Property are single family residential homes on large lots. Ultimately, the proposed development in its present form, if permitted, will have an adverse effect on our property value.

The Developer has acknowledge my concerns. He has verbally agreed to plant mature trees, the size and type to be specified by the adjacent property owners, to provide sufficient privacy. The Developer has also agreed to relocate the windows on the third level of the town homes so that the resulting view is not directly towards our homes. We would ask that the Developer agree in writing to said concessions as a condition to the Application. We would be grateful if you could attend to the necessary paper work, so that these conditions can be implemented. We would also like the opportunity to review and receive copies of all documentation in this regard.

We appreciate and thank you for your co-operation and assistance with this matter.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 25, 1998) from Ms. J. Covello and Mr. G. Arrizza:

I am writing in regards to the Scarlett Gate Development at 542 Scarlett Road.

 Unfortunately I have not been able to attend any of the meetings thus far. Although I have signed the petition, I feel it is imperative that you know that there is great concern about this development.

These units will increase the already burdened community. Apartments in this area, once occupied by adults only, are now being occupied by families. This has caused an increase in traffic, noise level and demands on community facilities especially Westmount School. This new development will only increase the burden! Scarlett Gate Development will benefit greatly from our well-maintained, exclusive cul-de-sac lots. We will only be taxed with burden from them, especially de-evaluation of our properties.

 Specific changes must be made in regards to this development. The units should be displaced at least 3.5 metres eastward from the existing single dwelling homes. The development should be decreased from twelve to ten units. And, it is imperative that a binding agreement, in writing, is given that will commit the developers to plant mature trees and maintain them until they are established.

 As proud owners and residents of Etobicoke for the past twenty-five (25) years, we are confident that you will be sympathetic to our concerns and agree that these changes are necessary.

 The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 25, 1998) from Mr. H. von Schober:

 I attended yesterday's Council meeting in regard to the above-mentioned new development and here is my additional response to this project. As a builder and next-door property owner I value the proposal as it has been presented by the new owners to build 12 freehold units. The proper market price and the nearby neighbourhood consisting largely of Polish and Ukrainian background will create the proper atmosphere for professional investors to settle.

 I have given my support to the builder as I feel that his project with a high class approach will keep the riff-raff and the freeloaders at bay. As I have said before I am the next-door neighbour, the very next door neighbour, and I am the only one to feel the impact from this property (limited daylight etc.) Nobody else really could say or complain about this development. Also my real estate value could be affected.

 I even have committed myself to buy one unit for my family. Coming back to Scarlett Gate, I feel very strongly that you members should do your utmost and to give this venture the property attention it deserves.

 The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 25, 1998) from Mr. P. Bottoni:

 Please accept my comments regarding this development:

 (1)Too high a density for the given lot size.

 (2)Location of the back section too close to existing houses.

_____

 The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on behalf of Scarlett Gate Developments with respect to the foregoing matter:

 -Mr. M. Perrira;

 -Mr. E. Estreuker; and

 -Mr. T. Chlebowski.

 The following persons also appeared before the Etobicoke Community with respect to the foregoing matter:

 -Mrs. L. Vairo, who was concerned about the setback of the units and the limited room for the backyard area, the placement of windows overlooking her property and consequent lack of privacy, and asked that mature trees be planted to protect that privacy;

 -Mr. O. Boni, who was in favour of the proposal;

 -Mr. H. von Schober, who was in favour of the proposal.

 (Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-6, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting June 24, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)