Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code

Fieldgate Apartments, 2 Triburnham Place - File No. Z-2255

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and for the reason that the proposed amendment is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Fieldgate Apartments for an amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of 14, two-storey condominium townhouse units to be developed in conjunction with an existing 10-storey rental apartment building municipally known as 2 Triburnham Place, be refused:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October14,1998, in accordance with Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act, at which time the Etobicoke Community Council recommended to City Council that the application for amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan to correct a technical mapping error that occurred during the drafting of maps associated with the review of the Official Plan, be approved; deferred consideration of the application for amendment to the Zoning Code; and requested the Director of Community Planning, West District to submit a further report to a continuation of the public meeting on November12,1998, with respect to the staff reports and an Ontario Municipal Board Decision made in 1965 regarding the subject property.

The Etobicoke Community Council continued the public meeting and had for consideration a report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District(September 16,1998) and a supplementary report of the Director of Community Planning, West District (November 12, 1998).

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit the development of 14, two-storey condominium townhouse units to be developed in conjunction with an existing 10-storey rental apartment building municipally known as 2 Triburnham Place. An amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan has also been requested in order to correct a technical mapping error that occurred during the drafting of maps associated with the review of Etobicoke's Official Plan.

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 Fieldgate Apartments be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

The subject property was rezoned from Second Density Residential (R2) to Fourth Density Residential (R4) in 1966 by Zoning By-law 14,915. A 10-storey, rental apartment building (2Triburnham Place), containing 137 units, was constructed in 1967.

On June 25, 1997, the applicant notified Council that the existing apartment building property was designated as "Medium Density Residential" on Map 4, Land Use, of the Official Plan. Staff reviewed this matter and confirmed that the previous Consolidated Official Plan had designated this property as Residential High Density, and that a 'technical' error occurred as part of the 1990 Official Plan review process, which resulted in the site's current designation as Medium Density Residential. In the absence of a formal development proposal by the applicant, Council at its meeting of October 6, 1997, decided that no action be taken.

In December, 1997, an application for an amendment to the Zoning Code was received requesting permission to develop 14, two-storey condominium townhouses on the northerly portion of the property. An amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan has also been applied for order to correct the technical mapping error.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The total site is approximately 1.54 ha (3.80 acres) in size with frontage on two roadways; Burnhamthorpe Road and Triburnham Place (Exhibit No. 1). Access to the property is taken off Triburnham Place. A water feature and circular drive are located at the front of the existing 10-storey, 137 unit rental building, south of which is an above ground swimming pool, located at the southeast corner of the property.

Parking is located in an underground garage accessed by one ramp and on surface parking areas towards the north end of the site directly behind the existing building. The site contains a considerable amount of landscaped open space (62%) and a number of mature trees.

Surrounding zoning categories and land uses are as follows:

North:Second Density Residential (R2) - single detached dwellings

South:Planned Commercial Local (CPL) - local shopping plaza on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Road

East:Second Density Residential (R2) and Planned Commercial Local (CPL) - single detached dwellings and automobile service station

West:Third Density Residential (R3) and Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) - Elmcrest Creek and townhouses beyond.

Proposal:

Fieldgate Apartments are proposing to amend the Zoning Code to permit the development of fourteen condominium townhouse units, 2 storeys in height, to be developed in conjunction with an existing 10-storey, 137 unit rental apartment building for a combined total of 151 units. The applicants propose to sever a portion of the existing apartment site (Block A) to create a smaller development parcel to the north (Block B), adjacent to the neighbouring single detached housing.

Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of the site and elevation plans submitted by the applicant. A summary of site statistics is provided in Table 1. The proposed condominium townhouses would be located at the north end of the property accessed off of Triburnham Place. Each of the townhouses would contain three bedrooms and would be approximately 6 m (20 ft.) in width and 143.5 m² (l, 544.7 sq. ft.) in size. Two blocks of townhouses are proposed: one block of nine units and one block of five units.

Access to the townhouse parking spaces would occur via a new 7.0 m (23 ft.) wide driveway off the Triburnham Place right-of-way. Two parking spaces would be provided for every townhouse, one in the garage and one on the driveway. An additional 5 visitor parking spaces will be provided at-grade near the entrance to the development.

The proposed development of Block B would cause the displacement of some landscape open space and a number of surface visitor parking spaces currently utilized by the existing 10storey apartment building. The applicant proposes to relocate the visitor parking spaces around the driveway system at the front of the building on Block A. A 1.8 m (6 ft.) wood screen fence will be installed along the north property line which would limit the impact on privacy and views for the adjacent residential properties.

Comment:

Official Plan:

The site is designated as "Medium Density Residential" on Map 4, Land Use, of the (1990) OfficialPlan. Staff have reviewed this matter and confirm that the previous Consolidated Official Plan had designated this property as Residential High Density, and, that a 'technical' error occurred as part of the 1990 Official Plan review process, which resulted in the site's current designation as MediumDensity Residential.

As there was no intention to down-designate this property, it is suggested that an amendment to the Official Plan be initiated to restore its rightful designation as High Density Residential which generally permits multiple unit housing of all types to be developed within the range of 70-185uph (28-75 upa) to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. A draft of Parts 1 and 2 of a proposed Official Plan Amendment to rectify this 'technical' error is attached (Exhibit No. 11).

The existing apartment site at 2 Triburnham has been developed at a density of 89 uph (36 upa) with a corresponding FSI of 0.98. As a result of the proposed condominium townhouse development and associated realignment of property boundaries, BlockA would exhibit a density of 119 uph (48 upa) and a FSI of 1.32. A density and FSI of 36 uph (15 upa) and 0.52, respectively, would be provided on Block B. The proposal would comply with the low end of the density provisions contained within the Official Plan for Residential High Density.

Residential Intensification Policies:

Section 4.2.17 of the Official Plan provides for the intensification of High Density Residential designations through the provision of additional residential units on apartment sites, provided that the level of development is within the density limits of the Plan. The townhouses would be located on a vacant portion of the site between the existing 10-storey apartment building and the low density residential neighbourhood to the north with sufficient separation from adjacent buildings and surrounding land uses. The project would provide an appropriate transition between the Low Density Residential community to the north and the existing 10-storey building (Exhibit No. 3).

Section 4.2.18 of the Official Plan recognizes the potential for additional residential development at higher densities. Proposals to amend the Official Plan or Zoning Code for these purposes shall be subject to the criteria outlined in Section 4.2.19. Staff have evaluated the proposal within the context of these criteria which have been appended as Exhibit No.4.

Based on this review, staff are satisfied from a land use point of view that the proposal meets the criteria for High Density Residential Development and Housing Intensification. The site is directly adjacent to an arterial roadway with sufficient capacity to support the proposed development. In terms of height, density, floor space index and landscape open space, the project could be accommodated on the site with limited impact on the existing apartment building and surrounding developments. Residents of the proposed development would have access to local social services, retail facilities and parks.

Zoning Code:

The application would require the repeal of Site Specific Zoning By-law 14,915, as it applies to the subject lands, and the introduction of a new site specific zoning by-law. This by-law should provide the necessary exemptions to reflect both the existing and the proposed developments, as well as take into consideration the anticipated land severance application.

Landscape Open Space and Recreational Amenities:

The proposed site plan would allow for 53 percent of Block A and 45 percent of Block B to be devoted to landscape open space, with an average of 51 percent over the combined site. This would be consistent with the landscape percentages associated with other recent approvals for housing intensification. The applicant is proposing to refurbish areas surrounding the existing swimming pool, patio area, and provide a new passive recreation area for the residents of the existing apartment building. Intensified landscaping is also proposed in certain areas around the existing building and water feature.

Notwithstanding these percentage figures, the amount of useable on-site landscape space and recreational amenities on Block A would be only marginally reduced for residents of the existing building. Each Block would be self sufficient in terms of its provision of landscape open space and recreational amenities.

The proposed rear yards of the townhouses would be generally 7.5 m (25 ft.) in depth, with the exception of those units backing onto Elmcrest Creek, where the rear yards would be 10 m (33 ft.) in depth, measured to the long-term stable slope line. (This matter is discussed further in the ValleyImpact Zone Section of this report.)

As the site contains a significant number of mature trees, the applicant will be required to submit a tree survey during the Site Plan review process, in the event of approval. The survey shall identify the size, species and health of each tree and indicate which trees are to be preserved, relocated or removed. Tree protection and preservation details will also be required.

Parking and Traffic:

The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has advised that due to the modest scale and limited trip generating potential of the development, a traffic impact study is not required. Transportation staff are satisfied with the driveway layout, traffic circulation and parking supply proposed by the applicant (Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6).

Transportation staff are also satisfied with the location of the proposed driveway which gains access via the northerly end of Triburnham Place, subject to the submission of a report to the satisfaction of the Division regarding the condition of the below grade parking structure and its ability to accommodate the added weight of the roadway and vehicle traffic.

Valley Impact Zone:

Section 6.1.2 of the Official Plan establishes a Valley Impact Zone which includes all land within a valley, from top-of-bank to top-of-bank and all lands in between. In accordance with these policies, all structures, including paved surfaces, are to be located 10 m (33 ft.) from the long term stable slope line.

Toronto Region Conservation Authority staff have concluded that the location of the proposed townhouse units flanking Elmcrest Creek is acceptable, provided that a survey is submitted which identifies the top-of-bank limit and that the site specific by-law prohibits any principal structures within the 10 m (33 ft.) setback and restricts the use of the lands below the top-of-bank to passive recreational (Exhibit No. 7).

TRCA and Parks staff recommend that lands beyond this limit be conveyed to the appropriate public authority, and that such conveyance would not be eligible to offset credit against the associated parkland dedication requirement. Such lands should also be rezoned to Public Open Space (OS), consistent with the valleyland acquisition policy set out in Section 6.1.12 of the Official Plan.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, the former Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, Fire Department, Realty Services and Canada Post Corporation, have expressed no objections.

Comments from Parks and Recreation Services, Toronto Hydro, Toronto Police Department and BellCanada remain outstanding.

The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that there are existing watermains, storm and sanitary sewers available on Triburnham Place (Exhibit No. 8). Storm water management shall be to the satisfaction of the Works Department.

The Toronto District School Board has advised that the students anticipated from the proposed development can be accommodated at Mill Valley Junior School, Bloordale Middle School, and Silverthorn Collegiate Institute, but the Board may be required to make alternative accommodation arrangements for some or all of these students once the local schools reach their capacity (ExhibitNo.9). The Toronto Catholic School Board has objected to the proposal due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at Nativity Catholic School (Exhibit No.10). Staff note that neither Board has adopted a Development Charges By-Law on which to base such contributions. In accordance with the practise adopted in the rest of the City, Planning staff do not recommend that such a condition be imposed.

The project would be subject to the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permits, as well as a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution.

Community Meeting:

On February 16, 1998, approximately 40 people attended a community meeting to review the subject proposal. Concerns expressed by area residents related to loss of trees and landscape open space, lack of parking, traffic generation, density, loss of views and privacy, loss of wildlife, and cost of townhouse units.

The concerns related to planning matters have been discussed in this report.

Conclusions:

The subject application has been evaluated within the context of the housing intensification and High Density Residential provisions of the Official Plan. Urban Development staff are of the opinion the proposed development is within the density limits of the Official Plan and would comply with the criteria for housing intensification. In the event of approval, it would be appropriate to incorporate development standards with respect to height, floor space index and density into the amending by-law.

The proposed development would have limited impact on surrounding developments and would provide an appropriate transition between the Low Density Residential community to the north and the existing apartment building. Recreational facilities will be improved for the existing apartment building while the proposed townhouses will enjoy private amenity spaces.

In the event of approval, the following conditions should apply:

Conditions to Approval:

l.Fulfillment of the following conditions by the applicant prior to the enactment of an amendment to the Official Plan and amending by-law:

(i)The submission of a survey which identifies the top-of-bank limit to the satisfaction of the TRCA, Parks and Recreation Services and Urban Development Department. Lands beyond this limit are to be conveyed to the appropriate public authority.

(ii)The submission of a report, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division, on the condition of the below-grade parking structure and its ability to accommodate the added weight of the roadway and vehicle traffic.

(iii) The signing of a Development Agreement and/or Servicing Agreement and payment of the necessary fees, if required.

(iv)Receipt of comments from, and subject to any requirements of Parks and Recreation Services, Toronto Hydro, Toronto Police Department and Bell Canada .

2.The amending by-law shall provide the appropriate exemptions from, or repeal of, site specific by-laws, and incorporate the following provisions inter alia:

(i)Development of Block A shall be limited to one apartment building with a maximum height of 10-storeys, 137 units, a floor space index of 1.33 and a minimum landscape open space of 53 percent.

(ii)Development of Block B shall be limited to a maximum of fourteen condominium townhouse units, with a building height of 2-storeys, a floor space index of 0.53, and a minimum landscape open space of 45 percent.

(iii)Development standards for Blocks A and B to reflect above and below grade building setbacks and parking requirements.

(iv)Conveyed below-top-of bank lands be rezoned to Public Open Space (OS).

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

(i)Signing of a Site Control Agreement, and payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and registration of same.

(ii)Submission of site and landscaping plans detailing fencing, curbing, grading, upgrading recreational facilities for Block A, planting and tree preservation to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and the posting of an appropriate financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans.

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

(iv)Submission of a parking and construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Works Department.

(v)Submission of necessary legal agreements, maintenance, encroachment or otherwise between the existing rental apartment building and the proposed condominium complex regarding the proposed location of surface parking and circulation for the condominium complex on top of the existing below-grade parking structure to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

(vi)The developer will be required to pay the prevailing development charges and parkland dedication requirements in effect at the time of the issuance of building permit.

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP, Planner - Central District, Development and Design

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-11 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

________

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on October 14, 1998 with respect to the foregoing:

-Mr. J. Dawson, Solicitor for Fieldgate Apartments;

-Mrs. J. Beames, Etobicoke, totally opposed to any development on the subject lands, which she and her neighbours conveyed to the original developer with the understanding that it would not be developed with anything other than the existing apartment building and would be maintained as a buffer zone; noting the major impact on their residences by a road realignment; the negative impact on the value and the reduction in enjoyment of their properties;

-Mr. S. Kleynhans, Etobicoke, opposed to the application and development on the greenspace backing onto his property, which he was assured would remain when he purchased his house;

-Ms. V. Anderson, Etobicoke, opposed to the application, noting that the history of the property dates back to 1965; citing the loss of greenspace and wildlife, increase in traffic, loss of property value, etc;

-Mr. D. Zeraldo, Etobicoke, who stated that in 1965 the abutting owners each sold a portion of their land to the developer of the apartment building, to be retained as green space, pointing out that they would never have done so had they thought it would be used for future development; and

-Mr. I. Noble, asking that the proposal be refused, noting the impact of recent developments on the Etobicoke Creek and the resulting loss of wildlife.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following communication:

-(October 1, 1998) from Ms. M. Copes, Etobicoke, objecting to the proposal because it would cause terrible density in the neighbourhood.

The Etobicoke Community Council further submits the following report (November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To respond to requests from Etobicoke Community Council for additional information regarding the rezoning application by Fieldgate Apartments.

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 this report be received for information, and that the conditions to approval outlined in the staff report dated September 16, 1998, be adopted.

Background:

Following a Public Meeting, held on October 14, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council recommended approval of the requested Official Plan Amendment to correct a technical mapping error in the Official Plan. The Community Council deferred consideration of the rezoning application until the reconvening of the Public Meeting on November 12, 1998. Community Council requested staff to bring forward a supplementary report, outlining the site's development history including Etobicoke Council's original consideration of the existing apartment development in 1965, specifically detailing landscape open space provisions, and any Ontario Municipal Board decisions pursuant thereto.

Comment:

Staff have reviewed the municipal historical records, and Ontario Municipal Board files, and submit the following chronology:

June 12, 1964Application submitted by D. R. Dyke Ltd. for amendment to the Zoning By-law to rezone said lands from Residential Second Density (R2) to Residential Fourth Density (R4) to permit the development of two, 10-storey apartment buildings containing 140 units.

February 16, 1965Planning staff report noted that the subject property formed part of a larger assembly which ultimately developed as a plan of subdivision (single family dwellings on Old Burnhamthorpe Road and the east side of Triburnham Place). The staff report further noted that the single family dwellings on the east side of Triburnham Place would form a buffer for the existing (R2) lands to the east. A similar buffer was not proposed at the rear of the existing (R2) properties on the Old Burnhamthorpe Road, instead the proposal included a 36 m (120ft.) wide landscape open space separation. The report goes on to state that residents of the Old Burnhamthorpe Road block have consented to the project (ExhibitNo. 1, original staff report map, 1965).

March 16, 1965A Public Meeting was convened to discuss the application. Planning Board approved an amended application which included, among other matters, that the site specific by-law provide for one, 10-storey apartment building, and a 36 m (120 ft.) landscaped area along the rear lot line of the lots fronting onto Old Burnhamthorpe Road. No objections were recorded.

May 18, 1965Planning Board was in receipt of a letter of objection submitted by the Bloordale Gardens Homeowners Association. The objection related to the prematurity of the zoning by-law being approved in advance of the approval of the comprehensive review and enactment of the ElmcrestNeighbourhood Official Plan (No. 162) of which these lands form a part.

June 7, 1965Site Specific By-law No. 14,915 passed by Council.

October 15, 1965Ontario Municipal Board Hearing is held, presumably the Board agreed with the objection of prematurity and By-law No. 14,915 is dismissed.

January 17, 1966Planning Board does the following:

1)approves Elmcrest Neighbourhood Official Plan Amendment No.162; and

2)reaffirms its approval of the subject application and directs the Clerk to submit an application to the Ontario Municipal Board.

June 8, 1966A second Ontario Municipal Board Hearing is held, at which time By-lawNo.14, 915 is approved as originally proposed at the Public Meeting of March 16, 1965.

Conclusion:

From the available information on file, it is evident that a landscape open space separation between the existing residences on Old Burnhamthorpe Road to the north of the subject lands and the apartment development, was a component of the approval of the original apartment development. This separation was provided for in the Site Specific Zoning By-law, but was not secured in any other manner to staff's knowledge.

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP, Planner, West District

Tel: (416) 394-6004; Fax: (416) 394-6063

(Copy of Exhibit No. 1 referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to the Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, and copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (November3,1998) from the Anderson Family, Etobicoke:

We are writing to voice our concern over the application by Fieldgate Developments to build 14 townhouses on a small parcel of land directly north of the apartment building on Triburnham Place. This issue will be voted on at the Council meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 12 and we would like you support to defeat the application to build on this greenbelt.

We have lived on Triburnham Place for 14 years and most of the other homeowners have been there longer. Triburnham Place is only about 120 metres long with about 11 houses on the east side and the apartment building, parking lot and green area on the west. The green area behind 2 Triburnham Place was purchased from the homeowners on Old Burnhamthorpe to allow the apartment to be built and the intention was to keep this as a buffer between the large building and the smaller homes. It has been a play area for the children and a diversion from the sight of the apartment and surface parking lot. If this property were to be developed, the closest play area will be south of Burnhamthorpe and the north of Old Burnhamthorpe. Burnhamthorpe is fast becoming one of the busiest east/west routes in Etobicoke and the number of accidents in our area is increasing year by year. These areas have been known to be hangouts for teens and other non-locals and are too far away to allow children to go unattended. The proposed redevelopment of a "passive amenity" area at the front of the apartment will be of no benefit for the residents.

The report from the Planning Dept. did conclude that, subject to a list of conditions, the townhouses could be built. There were a number of important areas that we believe were not adequately considered. Some examples are:

-the length of the proposed townhouse driveways is only 85% of the applicable standards and there is also a need to increase the proposed size of the guest parking spaces to meet the minimum standard. In other words, the property is too small to accommodate this development;

-the fact that this development would add an additional 33 vehicles to a dead end street that is only 120 metres long and already accommodates about 230 vehicles with the only outlet onto Burnhamthorpe;

-the Toronto Separate School Board objects to the proposal; and

-the residents object to the proposal.

We are a small pocket of residents that do not want the city to allow development for development sake. There was a clear understanding that in order to have enough property to allow the apartment to be built, the green area to the north was to be left in tact as a permanent buffer. Otherwise the homeowners would not have sold this piece of their property. We must protect the green areas in Etobicoke as they are becoming extinct.

We have just lost a small green area at the end of the street by Burnhamthorpe due to the recent construction of a mega service station which has also increased traffic flow.

We would like your support on November 12 to defeat the application. If you have not had an opportunity to see the site we would be happy to meet with you to give you a brief 10 minute tour and explain our concerns in more detail. Please contact us to arrange a tour at your convenience.

________

The following person appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on November 12, 1998:

-Mr. D. Zeraldo, Etobicoke, who provided the Etobicoke Community Council with a copy of an Offer to Purchase, dated May 27, 1964, which indicates that "the Vendor is to receive a covenant and the restrictive covenant is to be recorded in the deed, setting out that the Vendor must approve the plans of any building to be built on the said lands, and such building must be a detached single family dwelling", the vendor in this case being Mr. Zeraldo.