Zoning Amendment Application and Draft Plan of

Subdivision Application UDZ-97-43 and UDSB-1237 -

295151 Ontario Limited - 65, 69, 71, 75, 81 and 83 Drewry Avenue

and 53, 55 and 57 Fairchild Avenue - North York Centre

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (August 27, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by 295151 Ontario Limited regarding Zoning Amendment Application and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application for 65, 69, 71, 75, 81 and 83 Drewry Avenue and 53, 55 and 57 Fairchild Avenue, be approved.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director, Community Planning, North District, to respond to the traffic concerns raised by the Silverview Homeowners Association in their submission dated September 16, 1998.

The North York Community Council also reports having held a statutory public meeting on September 16, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 27, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of an application to permit the residential development of the lands with thirty-two (32) townhouse units on a new public road and five (5) one family detached dwellings fronting Fairchild Avenue.

Financial Implications:

All financial requirements will be secured through the execution of a subdivision agreement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application for plan of subdivision of 65, 69, 71, 75, and 81 Drewry Avenue and 53, 55 and 57 Fairchild Avenue be draft approved, subject to the conditions in Appendix "C";

(2)the zoning be amended in accordance with an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached as Schedule "G" and the by-law be perfected prior to enactment;

(3)prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law, site plan approval be granted generally in accordance with the conditions described in Appendix "B"; and

(4)staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any zoning by-law, the following condition has been satisfied:

(i)the Owner has paid to the City in cash or certified cheque, the Yonge Centre Development Charges in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time.

Background:

1.0 Proposal

The applicant proposes a new street connected to Drewry Avenue with a total of 32 townhouse units. Five one family detached dwellings are also proposed with frontage onto Fairchild Avenue and with a parkland conveyance at the southern end of the site. The pertinent statistics are listed below:

2.0Location and Existing Site

The site is located on the south side of Drewry Avenue and on the east side of Fairchild Avenue. Five one family detached dwellings fronting Drewry Avenue and three one family detached dwellings fronting Fairchild Avenue currently occupy the site. There are three one family detached dwellings east of the site. A 6 storey 55 unit residential apartment building has been approved at 43 Drewry Avenue. One family detached dwellings are to the south of the site. The corner lot known municipally as 85 Drewry Avenue is also occupied by a single family home. The applicant has an interest in the house at 83 Drewry Avenue, but has not included it in this development application.

3.0Planning Controls:

3.1Official Plan:

The site is designated Uptown Residential Density Two (UR2) which permits residential uses. A density of 1.5 FSI has been assigned to the site with a height limit of 18 m on most of the townhouse portion and a height limit of 11 m on the single family house portion.

3.2Zoning:

The site is currently zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone (R4) which permits one family detached dwellings.

3.3Site Plan

The Site Plan approval process is required by Council to proceed concurrently with the rezoning process for the City Centre development applications. The applicant submitted a site plan application which has been processed with the rezoning application and has provided detailed drawings to enable evaluation of the application in the context of the environment and urban design objectives of OPA 447. The approval of site plans has been delegated and approval can be granted upon Community Council consideration of this report. Urban design considerations are outlined in Appendix "A" and the recommended conditions of Site Plan approval are listed in Appendix "B".

4.0Other Department Comments:

The Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that a reduced right-of-way of 18.5 m and a turning radius in the cul-de-sac of 15.25 m is acceptable provided letters of approval are received from Bell Canada, Consumers' Gas, Rogers Cablesystems and Toronto Hydro. A stormwater management plan is also required to be submitted by the applicant's consulting engineers for City approval. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".

The Parks and Recreation Division has indicated that land rather than cash-in-lieu of parkland is required as the City Centre residential community has a parkland deficit. The applicant has included a park land dedication in their plan. Their comments are attached as Schedule "I".

The Public Health Division has indicated that they have no outstanding Public Health requirements pertaining to soils on the site. Their comments are attached as Schedule "J".

The Fire Department has indicated that water supply must be within 90 metres of the buildings. Their comments are attached as Schedule "K".

The Transportation Division has indicated that the proposed development will not generate significant traffic and concur with the findings of the traffic impact study submitted by the applicant. Their comments are attached as Schedule "L".

5.0Community Consultation:

A community consultation meeting was held on June 25, 1998. A number of issues were raised by the residents:

• the new park is not needed;
• the size of the single family detached lots on Fairchild Avenue is small;
• there have been basement flooding problems in the area; and
• traffic congestion on Drewry Avenue needs to be assessed.

Each of these issues is addressed in this report in the appropriate section.

Discussion:

6.0Planning Issues:

6.1Land Use:

The proposed residential townhouses and detached dwellings conform with the permitted uses of the Official Plan designation on this site. In order to achieve street related townhouses, the applicant submitted a plan of subdivision application containing a new street connected to Drewry Avenue. This new street also provides a finer grain road grid pattern promoted by the Plan. The plan of subdivision is illustrated in Schedule "E". This plan of subdivision also includes the creation of new one family detached dwelling lots fronting Fairchild Avenue. The provision of a similar built form next to the stable residential neighbourhood to the west allows for an appropriate interface between the North York Centre lands and the adjoining residential neighbourhood as intended by the Plan. Park land has also been provided at the south end of the proposal in accordance with Official Plan policies.

In order to achieve an appropriate subdivision of lands on Fairchild Avenue, it is recommended that the plan of subdivision be revised so that all of the proposed lots fronting Fairchild Avenue have a similar lot frontage of 8.2 m and the rear portion of lot 5 which the applicant had proposed be reserved as a future development block be included as part of the park land conveyance as illustrated in Schedule "E1". The resulting lot widths of 8.2 m are wider than the original proposal presented at the community consultation meeting of 6.8 m which responds to the community consultation concerns regarding lot size.

6.2Density

The maximum density assigned to this site, exclusive of incentives and transfers, is 1.5 FSI. The proposed development is below this maximum at a proposed density of 0.8 FSI and a net FSI of 1.0 excluding the new road allowance. This development does not maximize the density potential, but it does provide an appropriate housing form compatible with the stable residential neighbourhood to the west of the site.

6.3Comprehensive Development

The applicant has added a number of properties to the original application that was submitted in the fall of 1997 in order to achieve a more comprehensive development proposal. The original proposal was for 15 townhouses on part of a new street intersecting Drewry Avenue. The applicant has since added property to achieve a full road allowance with townhouses on both sides and single family lots and park space with access to Fairchild Avenue.

The broader block from Fairchild to the future Uptown Service Road location and from Drewry Avenue to Inez Court has also been examined conceptually to determine how the larger block could develop. The block concept plan is illustrated in Schedule "F". This concept includes the division of the larger block by an extension of the new street which creates a finer grain road grid system. This in turn creates smaller development parcels on the balance of the block.

Under this concept, the proposed new street intersecting Drewry Avenue would eventually connect with Inez Court. Inez Court will no longer have access onto Fairchild Avenue once the Service Road is constructed. Townhouses could continue south of the proposal on this new street. This is an appropriate built form near the stable residential neighbourhood to the west, but does not maximize the density allowed by the plan. The sites to the east of the site have the potential to utilize their density more fully and include the density attributable to the service road with mid-size residential apartment buildings. The property at the corner of Fairchild Avenue and Drewry Avenue has the potential to be developed in the future with low density housing such as small lot single family homes as proposed by this applicant.

The assumptions used to develop this concept are outlined on Appendix "E". Different assumptions of land assemblies, distribution of density or built form could produce a different scenario. This is for illustrative purposes only.

6.4Infrastructure

6.4.1Traffic and Parking

The proposed development generally is composed of two parts which are not reliant upon each other in order to function from an access or built form perspective. The detached single family homes fronting onto Fairchild Avenue will have access from Fairchild Avenue and will not generate a significant amount of vehicular traffic. The townhouses will be accessed from the new proposed road and will have no direct connection to Fairchild Avenue. Both parts of this application generate an insignificant amount of traffic with a minimal impact to the surrounding roadway network. This proposal does not generate a significant increase of traffic on Drewry Avenue. This development is not dependant on the service road.

The applicant has proposed parking be provided for each townhouse unit in single car garages and driveways associated with each individual unit. This will provide 2 spaces per unit. The lots at the southern end of the proposed road next to the cul-de-sac will require an encroachment agreement with the City to permit parking on the driveway within the road allowance. This encroachment will not be required once the proposed street is extended through to Inez Court since the cul-de-sac would be removed in favour of a 18.5 m wide road allowance. Parking for the single family homes will be provided in double car garages and driveways at grade on each individual lot.

6.4.2Sewers

The new development is required to provide a new sanitary sewer which is oversized and more than adequate. Basement flooding that has occurred in the area during wet weather will not increase due to the new development and should decrease due to the extra capacity provided in the new oversized sanitary sewer and storm water management plans.

A stormwater management plan is required to be provided by the owner's consulting engineers in order in ensure that there are no storm water flows originating from the development onto adjacent properties and that stormwater is managed in an appropriate manner.

6.5Parkland

The Official Plan recognizes that additional parkland and open space areas are needed to serve residential growth in the North York Centre. The applicant has included a parcel for parkland in the proposal fronting on Fairchild Avenue. When Inez Court is closed at Fairchild Avenue with construction of the service road, this closed road allowance can be made available for additional park if Council desires. The proposed park land conveyance helps achieve the consolidation of park land in this area as shown in the concept plan in Schedule "F".

Conclusions:

This residential development is appropriate. It provides an appropriate interface between the stable residential neighbourhood to the west and the Uptown development area. It also provides the opportunity to create a fine grain road grid pattern leaving parcels which are likely to be developed.

Contact Name:

Karen Whitney

Telephone: 395-7109

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

________

A staff presentation was made by Karen Whitney, Planner, City Planning Division, North District.

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:

(i)(September 1, 1998) from Karl and Miriam Knavery, advising of their opposition to the application;

(ii)(September 8, 1998) from Mr. Glen Rowatt, in support of the application;

(iii)(September 9, 1998) from Mr. John Limeina, advising of his concerns with the application;

(iv)(undated) from L. Lehman, advising of her concerns with the application;

(v)(September 16, 1998) from Mr. William West, President, Silverview Homeowners' Association, outlining the Association's concerns with respect to the traffic situation in the Cummer/Drewry/Yonge Street area; and

(vi)(undated) from Joe Martin, outlining his support for the proposal.

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

-Mr. Dominic Campione, who commented in opposition to the application. His primary concerns were with respect to increased traffic congestion and basement flooding in the area.

-Mr. Joseph Porco, who outlined his concerns with the proposal and in particular, the traffic congestion on Drewry Avenue. In his opinion, the traffic congestion in the area should be assessed and measures should be taken to alleviate the situation.

-Mr. Frank Reiss, on behalf of the applicant, who addressed the concerns raised. During his submission he indicated that a traffic impact study has been conducted by a transportation consultant, which study concludes that the development would generate a small amount of traffic with minimal impact to the surrounding roadway network. After reviewing this study, the Transportation Division has indicated that it concurs with this finding. Insofar as drainage was concerned, he indicated that drainage will be directed in such a manner to ensure that no drainage problems are created on adjacent lands. In addition, the new dwellings would be connected to the storm sewer and not the sanitary sewer as is the case with many of the dwellings in the area and which may be causing the flooding problems.

Mr. Reiss concluded by stating that he concurred with the recommendations outlined in the staff report.

-Mr. Goldthorpe, who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary objections were respect to drainage; increased traffic and density.

-Mr. Glen Rowatt, on behalf of the property owner of 65 Drewry Avenue, who spoke in support of the application. In his opinion, the proposed development conforms with the Uptown Plan and it enhances the area.

_________

A recorded vote on the recommendation was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, King

AGAINST:Councillor Flint

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Shiner

Carried