STAFF REPORT

November 10, 1999

To: Toronto Community Council

From: Angie Antoniou, 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 for a Second Parking Space at 292 Woodbine Avenue

(East Toronto)

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 a second parking space at 292 Woodbine Avenue, which does not meet the requirements of the Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking for a second parking space at 292 Woodbine Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(2) City Council approve front yard parking for a second space at 292 Woodbine Avenue, notwithstanding that it does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Councillor Tom Jakobek, in his communication dated July 16, 1999, together with a communication dated July 14, 1999 from Ms. Loretta Tuchscherer, owner of 292 Woodbine Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4L 3P4, requested me to report on the owners appeal to obtain front yard parking for a second parking space for this location.

Comments:

The subject property was licensed for front yard parking in May 1989 for one parking space.

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) limits the number of licensed parking spaces to one;

(b) requires that the parking area be located no closer than 0.3 m to the rear edge of the sidewalk or to any portion of the building;

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

(d) requires a minimum of 50% of the area on private property fronting the building to be landscaped open space, and a minimum of 15% of the area to be soft landscaping; and

(e) requires that the applicant fund the planting of a tree on the City boulevard, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture.

We have investigated the feasibility of front yard parking for a second vehicle at 292 Woodbine Avenue and determined the following:

The front porch of the subject property measures 3.63 m in width by 2.57 m in length, which leaves between the front porch and the south property line only 3.67 m for parking. This allows 1.83 m in width for each vehicle to park. Average width of vehicles is 1.72 m to 2.0 m.

Given the narrow width (1.83 m per vehicle) of the proposed parking pad, the driver of the vehicle parked closer to the south property line would only be able to exit the vehicle by encroaching onto the neighbouring property.

We have also investigated the feasibility of a vehicle parking in front of the front porch by reconfiguring the front steps. However, even with the reconfiguration of the front steps, there is insufficient depth to accommodate a vehicle without encroaching onto the City sidewalk (3.2 m in depth). A legal parking pad is 2.6 m in width by 5.9 m in length.

Furthermore, the property does not meet the 50 % landscaped open space requirement of the Code, as the existing paved area is 56% of the front yard (property licensed in 1989).

The subject property is within permit parking area 9C, where as of November 5, 1999, 5489 permits have been issued, against a total of 5256 spaces (10% over-allocation). In addition, a permit has been issued to a resident of 292 Woodbine Avenue.

The subject property does not meet with the provisions of the Municipal Code because:

(1) the proposal is for a second car;

(2) there is insufficient space to accommodate the parking of two vehicles; and

(3) the property does not meet the landscaped open space requirement.

Given the above, approval for a second space at 292 Woodbine Avenue is not recommended.

Conclusions:

As the property is already licensed for one parking space, and the property is not eligible for a second parking space, under the criteria set out in Chapter 400, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the request for a second parking space should be denied by Council.

Contact:

Nino Pellegrini, Senior By-law Officer, Off Street Parking

Telephone: 392-7768, Fax: 392-1058, E-mail: npellegr@toronto.ca

Manager

NP

(p:\1999\ug\cws\bae\to991164.bae) - gp