Official Plan and Rezoning Application -
50 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)Application No. 197026 for Official Plan and Zoning By Law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit
Eight Townhouses Behind an Existing 19 Storey Apartment Building at 50 Prince Arthur Avenue be refused;
(2)the application to remove three trees situated at 50 Prince Arthur Avenue be refused; and
(3)the City Solicitor be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, both in support of the
refusal of Application No. 197026 and the Committee of Adjustment= s refusal of the application, and that
subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds which will be the subject of a further report to
Council, he be instructed to retain outside planning advice, if necessary.
The above recommendations were carried on the following division of votes:
Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Fotinos, Jakobek, McConnell, Miller, Pantalone, Walker - 11
Nays:Councillors Disero, Korwin-Kuczynski, Silva - 3
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To recommend refusal of this application in its current form, and to request the applicant to submit a revised
application which responds to the planning issues and concerns outlined in this report and provides an adequately
increased separation distance between the proposed new development and existing low density residential development
adjacent to the westerly edge of No. 50 Prince Arthur Avenue.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable
Recommendations:
(1)That this application be refused in its current form.
(2)That the applicant be requested to revise his current application to respond to the concerns outlined in Section 6.0
of this report.
History:
On March 1, 1968, Council of the former City of Toronto passed site specific By-law 64-68 to permit the existing
apartment building on the subject site.
On April 15, 1979, the City expropriated certain lands to the north of the apartment site for purposes of creating a
public park, known since then as Taddle Creek Park.
Last fall, the applicant sought minor variances from the Committee of Adjustment to permit a similar development
proposal to that which is the subject of this report. At the time, the Committee of Adjustment refused the application
on the basis that Athis proposal exemplifies a significant departure from the original concept that was developed
approximately thirty years ago and that the proposed development is excessive and would have significant impact on
the surrounding neighbourhood@. The applicant has appealed the Committee=s refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
To date, no hearing has been scheduled. In the interim, the applicant has filed the current application for amendments
to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
On February 19, 1998, the Toronto Community Council adopted my Preliminary Report (dated February 18, 1998) and
requested at the same time, that Athe owner be advised of the Toronto Community Council=s serious concerns
respecting the setbacks of the two most westerly townhouse units to the existing Lowther Mews, and the proximity and
potential effects of the overall development on Taddle Creek Park@.
A public meeting was held on May 4, 1998, notes of which are attached as Appendix A. The majority of those in
attendance opposed any additional development on this site.
On May 27, 1998, Toronto Community Council deferred the applicant=s request to permit removal of three mature
trees from the subject site to facilitate the proposed infill project, until such time as the development application has
been dealt with by City Council.
Background:
1.Application
As shown on the attached Map 1, the applicant proposes to build eight, 3-storey (9.3 metre high) townhouses on what
is now a landscaped open space and a private 36 space surface parking lot serving the tenants of the existing 19-storey
rental apartment building on the lot . To compensate for the loss of surface parking, it is proposed that 12 below grade
parking spaces be added to the existing 163 spaces in the 2-level below grade parking garage on the lot.
Features of the project are shown on Map 1 and include:
-a 6 m building setback from the northerly property line adjacent to Taddle Creek Park;
-a 5.5 m building setback from the westerly property line adjacent to the Lowther Mews;
-a 0.78 m building setback from the westerly property line adjacent to 64 Prince Arthur Avenue where currently exists
a two-and-a-half storey office building; and
-vehicular access from Prince Arthur Avenue and pedestrian walkways through the site from Bedford Road as well as
from Prince Arthur Avenue.
The townhouses will require removal of three mature trees. The proposal is for improved landscaping of the entire site,
including new tree planting and creation of pedestrian short-cuts and visual connections through the site.
2. Public Meeting
On May 4, 1998, a public meeting was held which was attended by approximately 35 members of the public, who
-with only one exception- expressed their opposition to the proposed infilling project. Major concerns centred around:
-the loss of private open space between the apartment building and Taddle Creek Park;
-the loss of all surface parking for the existing apartment building;
-the lack of street frontage or Aaddress@ for the new development:
-the proposed development=s proximity to existing houses to the west as well as to Taddle Creek Park;
-the requested increase in building coverage and density; and
-the lack of perceived public benefits resulting from the proposal.
Notes of the Public Meeting are attached as Appendix A.
3.Site and Surrounding Area
The site is located in the Annex, on the north-west corner of Prince Arthur Avenue and Bedford Road and contains a
19-storey, 150 rental unit apartment building, constructed in 1968, pursuant to site-specific By-law 64-68.
To the north is Taddle Creek Park. To the west is a three storey townhouse development known as the Lowther Mews,
and to the south a 2.5-storey commercial building at 64 Prince Arthur Avenue. This property has a site specific by-law
which would permit a building of about 9 storeys in height. On the south side of Prince Arthur Avenue is a 12-storey
condominium at 55 Prince Arthur. On the east side of the street, at 25 Bedford Road, an 8 storey rental apartment
building is located.
4.Planning Controls:
4.1Official Plan:
The Annex Part II Official Plan designates the southerly portion of the site where the apartment building is located, as
AMedium Density Residence Area >A=@ permitting residential development at a maximum density of 2 times the lot
area. The northerly portion of the site where the new town houses are proposed, is designated ALow Density Residence
Area@permitting residential development at a maximum density of 1 times.
4.2Zoning By-law:
By-law 438-86 , as amended, zones the southerly portion of the site R2Z2.0 permitting residential development at a
maximum density of 2 times the lot area, whereas the northerly portion is zoned R2Z1.0 where residential density is
limited to 1 times the lot area.
The site is also subject to site-specific By-law 64-68 which permits the apartment building at a density of 2.7 times the
entire lot area.
4.3Site Plan Control:
This application is subject to site plan control. The applicant has applied for Site Plan Approval.
Comments
5.0Reasons for this Application:
The application requires amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law because the proposed residential density
for the apartment portion of the site is 3.53 x, and 1.72 x for the townhouse portion of the lot, which exceed the
densities permitted in both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
6.0Reasons not to Approve this Application in its current form:
From a land use planning and urban design perspective, the proposed 0.78 m and 5.5 m building setbacks from the
westerly lot line are insufficient The relationship of the proposed new development to the existing homes in the
Lowther Mews ought to be improved. This may be achieved by providing a building setback from the westerly lot line
equal to the approximately 11 metre building setback of the existing Lowther Mews. Such increased building setback
would improve the distance separation between the existing and proposed development and increase the amount of sky
light available to the Lowther Mews townhouses.
Contact Name:
Feodora Steppat
City Planning Division, North Section
Telephone:392-7740
Fax:392-1330
E-mailfsteppat@city.toronto.on.ca
CCCC
Appendix A
Notes of Public Meeting
Subject:50 Prince Arthur
Date of meeting:May 4, 1998
Time:7:00 - 9:00 pm
Location:Huron Street Public School
Attendance:Michael Mizzi (City Planning Department)
Mal Williams(City Planning Department)
Feodora Steppat (City Planning Department)
Leo de Sorcy (City Planning Department)
John Adams (Ward Councillor)
Ila Bossons (Ward Councillor)
representatives of the Applicant including his architect and landscape architect
approximately 35 members of the public
Michael Mizzi introduced the purpose of the meeting. Subsequently, the applicant=s representatives outlined the details
of the application
Generally, the development proposal was received by the audience with a great deal of scepticism and, with one
exception, there was no expression of support. Numerous concerns were raised with the proposal including the loss of
the existing private open space between the apartment building and Taddle Creek Park, elimination of all surface
parking for the existing apartment building, the lack of street frontage or Aaddress@ for the new development, the
proposed development=s proximity to existing housing to the west as well as to Taddle Creek Park, the requested
increase in building coverage and density, and the perceived lack of public benefit resulting from the proposal.
Loss of Private Open Space and Surface Parking Lot:
Many in the audience were concerned that the proposal would not only replace surface parking but all of the private
open space, including a number of mature trees north of the apartment building. It was noted that, albeit in private
ownership, this open space visually complements and forms part of the L-shaped public open space of Taddle Creek
Park. It was also noted that provision of this open space was a major condition for approving the original application to
permit the higher density of the apartment building. At the time, a deal was struck which should remain intact. The
proposal would result in apartment residents losing almost all of their open space amenity on site. Also seen as a
problem was the loss of surface parking for apartment residents, several of whom expressed a preference for surface as
compared to underground parking.
Lack of Street Frontage/Address:
Concerns were raised with the location of the proposed townhouses behind the existing apartment building, thereby
creating residential units without street frontage and an identifying street address. The proposed pedestrian access from
Bedford Road was seen as unsafe particularly at night time.
Setbacks:
The proposed setback for the townhouse units from the adjacent residential development to the west and from Taddle
Creek Park was seen as insufficient. Loss of privacy and view, as well as over-shadowing of the existing yards to the
west were seen as problematic. The proximity of the townhouses to the park was seen as an encroachment on the
public open space. The proposed gate allowing residents of the townhomes direct access to the park was seen as
diminishing the >publicness= of the park, turning it into the >backyard= of the townhouses.
Density:
It was pointed out by several members in the audience that the existing 2.7x density of the apartment building already
exceeds the 2x density generally permitted by the Official Plan in high density residence areas. The additional
development would exacerbate this non-conformity. Furthermore, if the townhouse units were to be severed from the
apartment lot, the resulting net densities for the townhouse development would be approximately 1.5x and for the
apartment building approximately 3.5x compared to existing as-of-right zoning permission of 1x and 2x, respectively.
Not only were the proposed net densities perceived as out of character with the prevailing densities in this area, but
also feared to set a precedent encouraging similar development on private open spaces surrounding tower-in-the-park
development elsewhere in the Annex.
The prevailing opinion among those in attendance was that the lot is not big enough to accommodate any additional
development, and that the existing private open space amenities should remain an integral part of the development as it
exists today.
Public Benefit:
Several members in the audience posed the question as to what public benefit might result from the proposal. The
applicant=s response was that the new homes would provide additional >eyes on the park=,which may be expected to
increase safety for park users. Members in the audience doubted the need for more >eyes on the park= pointing out that
more than half the apartments in the existing structure already face and overlook the park.
Taddle Creek:
Concerns were raised respecting the water table of Taddle Creek, the underground water course traversing this area.
The applicants assured those concerned that they had examined this matter and were confident that the new homes
would not be affected by the Creek=s water table.
CCCC
Application Data Sheet
Site Plan Approval: |
Y |
|
Application Number: |
197026 |
Rezoning: |
Y |
|
Application Date: |
November 19, 1997 |
O. P. A.: |
Y |
|
Date of Revision: |
|
Confirmed Municipal Address:50 Prince Arthur Avenue.
Nearest Intersection: |
Northwest corner of Prince Arthur Avenue and Bedford Road. |
|
|
Project Description: |
To construct 8 townhouses on the north end of the site. |
Applicant:
1213763 Ontario Inc.
625 Evans Ave., Suite 100
255-3451 |
Agent:
Peter Prattas (Miller Thomson)
20 Queen St. W., Suite 2500
595-2655 |
Architect:
Strasman Architects
1 Atlantic Ave., Suite 214
588-1800 |
Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)
Official Plan
Designation: |
Medium Density
Residence 'A' |
Site Specific
Provision: |
64-68 |
Zoning District: |
R2 Z2.0; R2 Z1.0 |
Historical Status: |
No |
Height Limit (m): |
14.0; 12.0 |
Site Plan Control: |
Yes |
Project Information
Site Area: |
6068.0 m2 |
|
Height: |
Storeys: |
3 |
Frontage: |
89.5 m |
|
|
Metres: |
9.50 |
Depth: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indoor |
Outdoor |
|
|
Ground Floor: |
798.3 m2 |
|
Parking
Spaces: |
175 |
|
|
|
Residential GFA: |
2353.1 m2 |
|
Loading
Docks: |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Non-Residential
GFA: |
|
|
(number, type) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total GFA: |
2353.1 m2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwelling Units |
|
Floor Area Breakdown |
Tenure: |
Private |
|
|
|
Land Use |
Above
Grade |
Below
Grade |
Total Units: |
8 |
|
|
|
Townhouses |
2353.1
m2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existing apartment bldg. |
16530.9
m2 |
|
Proposed Density |
|
|
Residential Density: 0.40 |
Non-Residential Density: |
Total Density: 0.40 |
Comments: |
Replaces Site Plan Approval application No. 397093. Application 197026 proposes to increase the
density across the whole site from 2.7 X to 3.1 X. Application eliminates 36 surface parking spaces and
adds 12 parking spaces to the existing underground garage. |
Status: |
Application received. |
Data valid: |
November 19,
1997 |
Section: |
CP North |
Phone: |
392-7333 |
Insert Table/Map No. 1
50 Prince Arthur
Insert Table/Map No. 2
50 Prince Arthur
Insert Table/Map No. 3
50 Prince Arthur
Insert Table/Map No. 4
50 Prince Arthur
Insert Table/Map No. 5
50 Prince Arthur
The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration
of the foregoing matter, the following communication, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:
-(June 25, 1998) from Ms. Esther Brooks and Mr. Ivan Feldman;
-(June 16, 1998) from Ms. Cynthia J. Goodchild, Chestnut Park;
-(June 17, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Jacot;
-(undated) from Ms. Beatrice Wittstock;
-(June 16, 1998) from Ms. Mary L. Flynn-Guglietti;
-(June 29, 1998) from Ms. Janice Shantz;
-(July 8, 1998) from Ms. Barbara D. Bruce;
-(undated) from M. McGuigan;
-(June 30, 1998) from M.J. Allen;
-(July 4, 1998) from Mr. Alan Wood;
-(July 4, 1998) from Mr. Tony Dyson;
-(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Frank Cunningham;
-(undated) from Ms. Marilyn Price;
-(undated) from Ms. Marni Price;
-(July 1, 1998) from Mr. Christopher Adamson;
-(July 3, 1998) from Ms. Nancy McDonald;
-(May 11, 1998) from A.G. Cefis and I. Santilli;
-(May 9, 1998) from Martin Betz and Linda Leviska-Betzi;
-(May 14, 1998) from Ms. Barbara A. Chisholm;
-(June 3, 1998) from Ms. Gordon Stewart;
-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. Tony Dyson;
-(July 3, 1998) from Mrs. J. M. Cottier;
-(July 5, 1998) from Dr. Ross McLean and Ms. Helen McLean;
-(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Janet Lewis forwarding petition with 31 signatures in opposition;
-(July 5, 1998) from Ms. Carol J. Swallow;
-(July 9, 1998) from Ms. Pandora D. Strasler;
-(July 8, 1998) from W.N. Horce;
-(June 3, 1998) from Ms. Barbara D. Bruce;
-(July 6, 1998) from Ms. Barbara A. Chisholm;
-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Beatrice Wittstock;
-(July 13, 1998) from Mr. Fred and Ms. Joy Cherry Weinberg;
-(July 11, 1998) from Mr. David Slabotsky;
-(July 2, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Atwood and Mr. Graeme Gibson;
-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Anne Valeri;
-(July 14, 1998) from Mr. Roger Jackson and Ms. Ida Jackson; and
-(July 17, 1998) from Mr. James Sherman, First Church of Christ, Scientist;
-(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Mary L. Flynn-Guglietti;
-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. James Botaitis and Ms. Carol Markusoff;
-(July 14, 1998) from Mrs. Margery Allen;
-(July 14, 1998) from Ms. Sandra Bartlett;
-(July 14, 1998) from Shafik Obrai;
-(July 10, 1998) from Ms. Suzanne Niwong;
-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Liz Radzick;
-(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Richard H. Brady;
-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Norman Crockan;
-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Joe Lewis and Ms. Janet Lewis;
-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. John McManus;
-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Harald Bohne and Ms. Jean Bohne;
-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Fanny Patterson;
-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Paul Martel;
-(July 21, 1998) from Luz Ruiz and Amarna Moscote;
-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Belinda Morris;
-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Eric Jackson; and
-(July 21, 1998) from N.N. Dainard and J.A. Dainard.
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Ivan Fleischmann, Miller Thomson, Barristers & Solicitors, on behalf of the Applicant;
-Mr. John Kerr, on behalf of the Annex Residents= Association;
-Ms. Mary Flynn-Guglietti, Goodman and Carr;
-Mr. Bill Hewick, Toronto, Ontario;
-Mr. Paul Martel, Paul Martel Architect;
-Mr. Mark McQueen, Toronto, Ontario;
-Ms. Barbara A. Chisholm, Toronto, Ontario;
-Mr. Eric Jackson, Elgin Lowther Association; and
-Ms. Nancy Jenter, Toronto, Ontario.
|