September 27, 1999

To:Toronto Community Council

From:Angie Antoniou, Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1

Subject:Request for an exemption from Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit front yard parking at 356 Spadina Road (Midtown)

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit front yard parking, which does not meet the requirements of the Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 356 Spadina Road, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

AND

(2)(a) City Council approve driveway widening at 356 Spadina Road; and

(b) the parking area being paved with semi-permeable paving materials, i.e. ecostone pavers or approved and equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

OR

(3) (a) Should Toronto Community Council consider front yard parking at 356 Spadina Road, this request be deferred to the December 2, 1999 meeting, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report at that time on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations; and

(b) after the hearing of deputations, should City Council approve front yard parking at 356 Spadina Road, the existing paving fronting 356 Spadina Road be replaced with a permeable material such as ecostone or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Councillor Ila Bossons, in her communication dated September 22, 1999, together with a communication dated September 21, 1999 from Mr. Jonathan Weaver, owner of 356 Spadina Road, Toronto, Ontario M5P 2V4, requested me to report on the owner's appeal to obtain front yard parking for this location.

Comments:

This property is serviced by a 2.5 m wide mutual driveway leading to a garage at the rear. Given that there is an existing driveway at this location, this property would normally be processed as a driveway widening application.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code:

(a)permits the widening of the mutual driveway to a maximum width of 2.6 m, as measured from the limit of the right of way; and

(b)permits the widening of a mutual driveway if the existing mutual driveway has a width of less than 2.6 m.

As indicated above, the property has a 2.5 m wide mutual driveway to the south of the property. Since the driveway is less than 2.6 m in width, it can be widened to a maximum width of 2.6 m and can be licensed to park one vehicle adjacent to the mutual driveway fronting the property.

The approval of the driveway widening space would require that the planting area and the concrete steps situated adjacent to the mutual driveway be removed to accommodate the parking space.

The owner does not wish to proceed with this configuration, but would rather have approval for one parking space on the existing paved area on the north part of the property. This paved area is currently paved in brick pavers, the area measures 5.2 m from the back of the sidewalk, and 5.5 m in width measured from the north property line.

As the proposed parking space will not be situated adjacent to the mutual driveway, this parking configuration would constitute front yard parking.

Front yard parking is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria of the Code:

(a)does not permit front yard parking if the property has an existing driveway which has a width of less that 2.6 m and which could be widened to that width;

(b)requires that the parking area be paved in semi-permeable paving materials, i.e. ecostone pavers or approved equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(c)requires that on the City boulevard, a minimum of 15% of the area must be soft landscaping and all other areas other than the walkway and the parking pad must be soft landscaping.

The owner is willing to meet the requirements of the permeable paving and also to remove the excessive paving and restore the area to soft landscaping, i.e. a planting area or sod.

We have investigated the feasibility of front yard parking at this location as per Mr. Weaver's proposal and have determined that it does not meet the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, in that the property can be approved for driveway widening in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 248.

I note that the owner has not submitted an application to this department for the licensing of the parking space.

Notwithstanding that the criteria of the Code does not permit the licensing of this property for front yard parking, the property could meet the other physical requirements of the Municipal Code, (i.e. landscaping requirements), subject to the excessive paving being removed and a permeable surface being used.

Conclusions:

Since the proposal does not meet the criteria of the Code for front yard parking as the property can be approved for parking adjacent to the mutual driveway in accordance with the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7768

     Manager

NP/np

(p:\1999\ug\cws\bae\to991136.bae) - np