City of Toronto   *
HomeContact UsHow Do I...? Advanced search Go
Living in TorontoDoing businessVisiting TorontoAccessing City Hall
 
Accessing City Hall
Mayor
Councillors
Meeting Schedules
   
   
  City of Toronto Council and Committees
  All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
   

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 8

1 Community Festival Event - St. Bernard of Clairvaux Church - Annual Feast of St. Bernard - August 9, 1998 -1789 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Humber

2 Community Festival Event - York University - Calumet College Council, Stong College Student Government and Bethune College Council - Orientation Event -September 12, 1998 - 4700 Keele Street - Black Creek

3 Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals

4 Traffic Management Plan - St. Andrews Community - North York Centre South

5 Traffic Area Management Plan - Teddington Park/Wanless Park Area - North York Centre South

6 Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Richard Clark Drive -Black Creek

7 Parking Prohibitions - Alness Street - North York

8 Dedication of 0.3 Metre Reserve Across the Westerly Limit of John Best Avenue - Amendment Application UDOZ-96-035 and Subdivision Application UDSB-1225 - 1082907 Ontario Limited -40 Denison Road and 185 Wright Avenue - North York Humber

9 Final Payment Contract No. 971-030 - Reconstruction of Beveridge Drive, Draycott Drive, Mission Drive and Seneca Hill Drive - 1997 Supplementary Budget - Don Parkway

10 Roads - Ambrose Road from Maureen Drive toArrowstook Road - Seneca Heights

11 Sidewalks - Local Improvement Initiatives in the Approved 1998 Capital Budget - North York Spadina, North York Centre and North York Centre South

12 North York Local Improvements

13 Preliminary Evaluation Report - Principles of Land Use Report - Zoning Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application UDZ-97-36 and UDSB-1233 - Elderbrook Developments Ltd. - Northwest Corner of Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard - Black Creek

14 Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application UD52-97-04 and UDSP-98-13 - Shaftesbury Development Ltd. - 4935 - 4937 Yonge Street -North York Centre

15 Notice Provisions for Official Plan Amendments - UD03-HOP - All North York Community Council Wards

16 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-37 -Lopes Bros. Contracting - 1721 Jane Street - North York Humber

17 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-03 - Rowland Lincoln Mercury - South of Eglinton Avenue East and North of Jonesville Crescent - Don Parkway

18 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97- 48 -Har-Ru Holdings Limited - 1 Canyon Avenue - North York Centre South

19 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-96-30 - Harry Snoek - 15-19 Finch Avenue West and 7-11 Blakeley Road - North York Centre

20 Strategy for the Implementation of the North York Centre Plan Service Road - North York Centre

21 Evaluation of Unleashed Dog Area - Sherwood Park - North York Centre South9339

22 Refund of Reimbursement Paid for Damages to City Trees -105 Wigmore Drive - Don Parkway9340

23 Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue,Registered Plan M-108 - North York Centre South9343

24 Reallocation of Approved 1998 Capital Budget - Clanton Park - North York Spadina9347

25 Speed Humps - Newbury Lane Between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard - North York Centre South9350

26 Speed Humps - Raeburn Avenue from Bathurst Street to Armour BoulevardNorth York Centre South9350

27 Pay Parking - Civic Garden Centre9351

28 Downsview Area Secondary Plan - Official Plan Amendment No. 464 - North York Spadina9352

29 Interim Report - Zoning Framework -Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-28 -Heathmount A.E. Corporation (Destination Technodome) - North York Spadina9392

30 Other Items Considered by the Community Council9404



City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on July 22, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

1

Community Festival Event - St. Bernard of Clairvaux Church -

Annual Feast of St. Bernard - August 9, 1998 -

1789 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Humber

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the Annual Feast of St. Bernard being held by the St. Bernard of Clairvaux Church, be declared a community festival event.

The North York Community Council submits the following communication (July 6, 1998) from Ms. Sabina Farelli, St. Bernard of Clairvaux Church:

"I am writing to you on behalf of the St. Bernard of Clairvaux Fundraising Committee. On August9, 1998, we will be holding our annual Feast of St. Bernard. In order for us to proceed with the function and our preparations, we require a motion from council to obtain our Special Occasion Permit for the sale of alcohol. The festivities will take place from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. outdoors on the St. Bernard of Clairvaux property.

Attached please find a map of the enclosed area of the festival and a copy of the letter sent to the Fire, Police and Health Departments notifying them about the festival. Please contact me by telephone at (416) 695-3324 if there are any additional questions or concerns. Thank you for your assistance."

(A copy of the map and the letter sent to the Fire, Police and Health Departments referred to in the foregoing communication on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

2

Community Festival Event - York University -

Calumet College Council, Stong College Student Government

and Bethune College Council - Orientation Event -

September 12, 1998 - 4700 Keele Street - Black Creek

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the Orientation Event being held by York University be declared a community festival event.

The North York Community Council submits the following communication (July 8, 1998) from Mr. Norman D. Crandles, Director, Hospitality, Food and Beverage Services, York University:

"York University is applying for a temporary extension to their liquor licence. In order for us to obtain such an extension, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (previously Liquor Licence Board of Ontario) requires a letter from your department stating the municipality does not object to an orientation event taking place in an outdoor area. There will be three college councils - Calumet College Council, Stong College Student Government and Bethune College Council hosting this event to take place on Saturday, September 12, 1998, 8:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. There will be the sale of alcohol at this event.

Please accept this as a request for the above mentioned letter from your department. If you require further information I can be reached at 736-5518."

3

Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals

City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the Toronto Transit Commission for consideration at its first meeting in September; and the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, the Director of Planning, North York District, and the Chief Building Official, North York District, were requested to submit a joint report to such Commission meeting on all outstanding matters required to obtain the necessary building permits; and these City officials were requested to be in attendance at the aforementioned Commission meeting.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to:

(1)stop construction on the Sheppard Subway until such time as the necessary approvals and permits have been received from the appropriate City of Toronto departments and that the Executive Director of Building Services be instructed to issue stop work orders;

(2)obtain site plan approval prior to tendering contracts and that if the Toronto Transit Commission does not have the appropriate approvals in place stop work orders be issued by City staff;

(3)direct its staff to work with the local Councillors on the site plan applications in the project areas and on the emergency exits immediately.

The North York Community Council submits the following communication (June 19, 1998) from Mr. Vincent Rodo, General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting On Wednesday, June 17, 1998, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals."

The Commission received the foregoing report and requested that a copy be forwarded to the North York Community Council for information.

(Copy of Toronto Transit Commission

Report No. 30 dated June 17, 1998)

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Commission receive this report for information.

Funding

Funds for this Sheppard Subway project expenditure are included in the TTC 1998-2002 Capital Program (as set out on pages 695-705 - Sheppard Subway Category) as approved by City of Toronto Council on April 29, 1998. The project is currently forecast to over-run the project budget.

Background

At its meeting on May 20, 1998 the Commission received for information the report entitled "Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals." That report indicated that TTC requires site plan approval, foundation permits and building permits for each Sheppard Subway construction contract. The aim is to have site plan approval and building permits within six to eight weeks after award of each construction contract. To date, the schedule for approval of the necessary permits has not been achieved due, in large part, to the introduction of site plan conditions that are not within the scope of the project budget. Site plan approval is normally required prior to the issuance of foundation and/or building permits.

The Commission then approved that "staff report on the critical path for completion of the Sheppard Subway including tenders, site plan approvals, building permits, design work, tunnelling work and any other appropriate deadlines associated with the project." The report herein is staff's response to that approval.

Discussion

Exhibit 1 provides an overview of the project critical path, and Exhibit 2 tabulates the current status of the necessary permits and approvals for the Sheppard Subway station contracts. If any of the activities in the critical path sequence is delayed, the end date of the sequence will also be delayed by the same amount. It is therefore essential that the major permits and approvals required for each station construction contract are received in a timely manner. To date, in the absence of such permits, staff have reluctantly been proceeding with construction to avoid construction delays, schedule slippage and contractor claims. However, staff should not be put in the position of having to do this to mitigate potential impact on the project budget and schedule.

The critical path diagram shows a sequence of summary activities for the tunnels and stations. Those on the project critical path are black, meaning there is little or no "float" in each of them, i.e. a delay in any one will produce a like delay in project completion. The critical path diagram shows the dates on which we currently expect to receive these permits. Generally, site plan approval is assumed to be required six weeks after contract award, and building permit approval two weeks later. Of particular note:

(a)the building permit for the Twin Tunnels Emergency Exit Buildings (EEB's), submitted for approval in February, 1997, has not yet been approved;

(b)permits for Leslie and Don Mills Stations are overdue, as construction is well underway at both sites (foundation permits have been received); and

(c)permits for Yonge, Bayview and Bessarion Stations are all on the project critical path.

The critical permits and approvals that are still to be received (all except those for Bayview Station have been submitted for approval), and the dates by which they are required are as follows:

Yonge Station

(a)Site Plan Approval required by 16-Sep-98

(b)Building Permit required by 30-Sep-98

Bayview Station

(a)Tree Cutting Permit required immediately

(b)Site Plan Approval required 18-Nov-98

(c)Building Permit required 02-Dec-98

Bessarion Station

(a)Site Plan Approval required 26-Aug-98

(b)Building Permit required 09-Sep-98

Leslie Station

(a)Building Permit required immediately (construction is underway)

Don Mills Station

(a)Site Plan Approval required immediately (construction is underway)

(b)Building Permit required immediately (partial permit issued)

Twin Tunnels

(a)Building Permit for EEB's required immediately (construction is underway)

________

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, also having had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter a copy of a report (June 22, 1998) addressed to Councillor Shiner from the Acting Commissioner of Planning providing a chronology of events and status reports in connection with the Sheppard Subway Stations.

(A copy of the Exhibits referred to above was distributed with the agenda for the North York Community Council meeting held July 22, 1998 and is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

________

A recorded vote on the adoption of the foregoing recommendations were as follows:

Recommendation No. 1 moved by Councillor Shiner:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillor Chong

ABSENT:Councillor Moscoe

Carried

Recommendation No. 2 moved by Councillor Shiner:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Gardner, Chong, King

ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Augimeri

Carried

Recommendation No. 3 moved by Councillor King:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:NIL

ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Augimeri

Carried

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 28, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission:

At the North York Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998, three recommendations were passed that if approved by City Council, would stop work on the Sheppard Subway project.

There are currently four active contracts underway, with a total value of about $350 million and a total monthly expenditure of about $13 million, which would be severely affected by any such stop work order. They are Yonge Station, Don Mills Station, Leslie Station and the Twin Tunnels. Should these four contractors be directed to stop work, staff estimate that the liability for damages claimed by the contractors would cost the project $6.7 million per month. Furthermore, additional direct costs of $1to2 million would be incurred every month the project is delayed, i.e. as a result of stop work orders or delays in tendering Bayview Station. The value of issues currently being reviewed by local Councillors is only a small fraction of the above construction costs. In fact, most of the issues have been resolved.

Recently, the Commission signed the Site Plan Agreement for Don Mills Station. As can be seen by the attached table, and further to my memo of July 23, 1998, all relevant applications have been made and are awaiting approvals. Staff understand that the quick approvals anticipated at the outset of the project have been slowed by the workload and lack of staff resources at the City and North York Fire Department who review and approve the applications. Nevertheless, good cooperation is being provided and real progress is being made.

It is our view that any stoppage in work or other obstructions to the progress of this project would impose further financial burden and delay the project without any real benefit to the City, the Commission or the project.

A copy of the minutes covering the status of permits and approvals is attached along with the table relating to this issue. This table is updated for the Commission on a regular basis.

(Communication dated July 23, 1998 addressed

to the Commissioners, Toronto Transit Commission,

from the Chief General Manager, headed "Status of Permits

and Approvals - Sheppard Subway)

The following responds to the Toronto Star article "Permit Snafus Plague Sheppard Subway". Contrary to the article, the approval process for the project is well in hand and is not expected to affect the cost and schedule of the project.

Yonge Station:

The Site Plan and Building Permit applications have been submitted for approval on February 27, 1998 and May 4, 1998, respectively. The only issue concerning the Site Plan is the architectural design of the Emergency Exit Building (EEB) that will be located on the southeast corner of the Yonge/Sheppard intersection. At a meeting with Councillor Filion on July 22, staff agreed to take a fresh look at the design of the EEB.

The review of the Building Permit application by the Building Department has been delayed due to their workload.

Bayview Station:

The Site Plan application was submitted on July 14, 1998 and a Building Permit application will be submitted by August 7, 1998.

Bessarion Station:

The Building Permit application was submitted on April 30, 1998. The Site Plan application was submitted on May 6, 1998. Staff have met with the Councillor Flint and the various minor concerns about the Site Plan are currently being addressed. Due to the delay in awarding Bessarion Station, North York staff have been requested to complete the review of Yonge Station prior to initiating their review of Bessarion Station.

Leslie Station:

The Site Plan agreement has been executed with a few minor conditions which are being addressed. The Building Department review of the Building Permit application has been completed (submitted May 26, 1997) and only the final approval of the North York Fire Department is required prior to the issuance of a full Building Permit which is anticipated mid-August.

Don Mills:

The Site Plan agreement has been finalized and sent to the Toronto Transit Commission for execution. The signature of the necessary agreements is expected shortly.

The Building Department review of the Building Permit application (submitted October 28, 1997) has been completed and only the final approval of the North York Fire Department, is required prior to the issuance of a full Building Permit, which is anticipated mid-August.

Twin Tunnels - Emergency Exit Buildings:

Site Plan Approvals and Building Permits are expected by the end of August.

In summary, TTC staff have made their best efforts to expedite the permits and approvals process and have worked closely with North York Planning staff, particularly Brian Tuckey to resolve problems and concerns. To my knowledge, North York staff are satisfied that the current process is working satisfactorily.

For your information.)

(A copy of the table, appended to the foregoing communication dated July 23, 1998 from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Traffic Management Plan - St. Andrews Community -

North York Centre South

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To install on a temporary basis, two sets of speed humps, stopping restrictions adjacent to speed cushions, and a 40 km/h zone on Upper Canada Drive. Installation of all way stop controls at the intersections of Fenn Avenue with Upper Highland Crescent and Aldershot Crescent with Yorkminster Road.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the speed humps, traffic control signing and the installation of the all way stop controls are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendations:

(1)that two sets of speed humps be installed on Upper Canada Drive, for a six month period;

(2)that By-law No. 31878, of the former City of North York be amended to designate Upper Canada Drive, from Lord Seaton Road (westerly limit) to the easterly limit of Upper Canada Drive as a 40 km/h zone;

(3)that Schedule IX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York be amended to install "No Stopping at Any Time" restrictions adjacent to the speed humps; and

(4)that Schedules XVII and XIX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York be amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersections of Fenn Avenue with Upper Highland Crescent and Aldershot Crescent with Yorkminster Road.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Transportation Division in accordance with the former City of North York Council Policy for Traffic Calming, has met with the residents of the community and Councillor Joanne Flint to address the concerns of the residents with respect to traffic related issues. A Traffic Work Group comprised of the residents of the area and staff was established to identify the specific concerns of the community and to develop a traffic management plan which will be considered appropriate and acceptable by the community.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Traffic Work Group, in conjunction with staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, have reviewed various locations throughout the community which were identified as problematic locations.

At a majority of the locations it was determined that the existing situations could be improved by either the installation of additional signing and or pavement markings. However at the intersections of Fenn Avenue with Upper Highland Crescent and Aldershot Crescent with Yorkminster Road it was determined that these intersections be considered for the installation of an all way stop control.

When examining an intersection for the feasibility of installing an all way stop control, consideration is given to the road classification and alignments (vertical and horizontal), vehicle and pedestrian volumes, delay to minor street traffic, collision history, vehicle and pedestrian sight lines, and existing pavement markings and signage.

A portion of the above information is then tabulated to determine if the technical warrant for the installation of an all way stop control is met. Notwithstanding, where existing geometric characteristics of the intersection or specific site conditions would support the installation of an all way stop control, consideration is given.

Therefore, in the instance of the intersections of Fenn Avenue with Upper Highland Crescent and Aldershot Crescent with Yorkminster Road it was determined that due to the alignment at these intersections an all way stop control be installed. Accordingly, the Traffic Work Group and Councillor Joanne Flint have obtained the endorsement of the community at a public meeting held in the community.

Twenty-four hour vehicle speed and volumes counts conducted on Upper Canada Drive have indicated that during the morning peak periods, vehicle speeds can be deemed excessive. The Traffic Work Group has examined various methods of improving the traffic situation on Upper Canada Drive, from the installation of all way stop controls to the installation of appropriate traffic calming measures.

The Work Group, with the endorsement of Councillor Flint and the residents in attendance at the public meeting held on June 22, 1998, have requested the installation of speed humps on Upper Canada Drive.

The speed humps that will be used at these locations are specially designed to minimize the impact on transit vehicles. These speed humps are called 'speed cushions' and occupy part of the traffic lane in which they are installed and are generally located in pairs. The height of the speed cushion is 7.5 centimetres. The intent of a speed cushion is to alter the driving behaviour of motorists, and not interfere or disrupt transit vehicle operations. This is achieved by designing the width of the speed cushion to accommodate a standard wheel base of a transit vehicle.

Operational characteristics of speed humps/cushions have been reviewed by the City's Emergency Services Departments, Road Maintenance Divisions, and the Toronto Transit Commission, resulting in a general approval of these measures as a speed control.

The Toronto Transit Commission, Ambulance Services, Fire Services and Police Services have been requested to provide this department with their comments on the installation of speed cushions on Upper Canada Drive so that any specific concerns may be addressed prior to installation.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, the Transportation Division supports the installation of the traffic calming measures proposed for Upper Canada Drive, and the installation of the all-way stop controls. In accordance with the former City of North York's Traffic Management Plan adopted by Council, that the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Division, will report back to Council in six months on the effectiveness of the traffic calming proposal.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, at 395-7484

5

Traffic Area Management Plan -

Teddington Park/Wanless Park Area -

North York Centre South

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To advise North York Community Council of a traffic plan being proposed in Ward 22 that may have an effect on the Lawrence Park Community in Ward 9.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendations:

(1)that the Traffic Area Management Plan being proposed by the Toronto District, for the Teddington Park/Wanless Park area, proceed as described in their attached report;

(2)that staff of the Transportation Division continue to monitoring the effect of the proposed traffic area plan on North York streets; and

(3)that staff of the North York District report back to the North York Community Council in six months upon completion of the test of the traffic area management plan.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration to Clause No. 61 contained in Report No. 5 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Traffic Area Management Plan for the Teddington Park/Wanless Park Area (North Toronto)".

Council deferred consideration of this Clause and requested the Ward Councillors to hold a public meeting in this regard, with representatives from the North York District.

Comments:

Councillors, community representatives and staff of the North York District met with Councillors, community representatives and staff of the Toronto District to discuss the proposed traffic area management plan and its possible implications on the North York community.

It was agreed after a lengthy discussion that the proposed right turn restrictions from Lawrence Avenue at Ronan Avenue and Ardrossan Place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and

3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays excepted, could proceed to Council for consideration.

The major concern of the Lawrence Park Community in North York is that the proposed restrictions could cause traffic to turn through the community from Lawrence Avenue at Mildenhall Road, the first street prior to the proposed turn restrictions. This would impact an already congested roadway, because of the parents who pick up and drop off their children at the Toronto French School, at No.101 Mildenhall Road.

Conclusions:

This proposal, if approved, will be monitored by staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department during the six month test. Communications with the area Councillors and community will be open through out the test and any variations in traffic volume will be reported. Upon completion of the six month test, based on the results of the traffic data, a decision will be made by all involved parties as to weather the restriction remain.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, at 395-7484.

(A copy of the Traffic Area Management Plan being proposed by the Toronto District, for the Teddington Park/Wanless Park area, referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

6

Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Richard Clark Drive -

Black Creek

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To prohibit parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on the both sides of Richard Clark Drive, from Smallwood Drive to the westerly limit of Richard Clark Drive.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking on both sides of Richard Clark Drive, from the westerly limit of Smallwood Drive to the westerly limit of Richard Clark Drive.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Richard Clark Drive.

Discussion:

Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has been advised by local residents that throughout the night vehicles are continually parked on both sides of the roadway, between Smallwood Drive and Heathrow Park, located at the westerly limit of Richard Clark Drive. Despite numerous requests to the Toronto Police Services for enforcement of three hour parking limit, the individual parking behaviours, have not changed. As identified in a petition, the majority of residents on this section of the roadway support the proposed parking restrictions.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this department supports amending the current parking regulations, as requested by the residents.

Contact Name:

Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484

7

Parking Prohibitions -

Alness Street - North York Spadina

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July9, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To prohibit parking on the west side of Alness Street, between Brisbane Road to Martin Ross Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at any time on the west side of Alness Street, from the northerly limit of Brisbane Road to the southerly limit of Martin Ross Avenue.

Background:

Currently, parking is permitted for a maximum of up to three hours on west side of Alness Street, between Brisbane Road and Martin Ross Avenue. On the east side of the street, parking is prohibited at any time for its entire length.

Staff have been advised by Councillor Howard Moscoe that due to parked vehicles on the west side of Alness Street, north of Brisbane Road, eastbound motorists exiting from Brisbane Road to Alness Street are experiencing difficulties viewing southbound traffic on Alness Street.

Discussions:

Investigations by staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department have verified that vehicles, particularly combination tractor trailer units, parked on the west side of Alness Street immediately north of Brisbane Road, are creating a sight obstruction for eastbound motorists to view southbound traffic at the intersection of Brisbane Road and Alness Street.

Conclusions:

To improve safety for all road users on Brisbane Road and Alness Street, the parking prohibitions should be implemented.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, at 395-7484.

8

Dedication of 0.3 Metre Reserve Across the

Westerly Limit of John Best Avenue -

Amendment Application UDOZ-96-035 and Subdivision

Application UDSB-1225 - 1082907 Ontario Limited -

40 Denison Road and 185 Wright Avenue - North York Humber

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July2,1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To dedicate a 0.3 metre reserve across the westerly limit of John Best Avenue for the extension of the road into a plan of subdivision consisting of 179 detached and semi-detached houses.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

(1)The existing 0.3 metre reserve at the westerly limit of John Best Avenue be dedicated to facilitate connection of the proposed roadway to the existing roadway.

Discussion:

Council on September 17, 1997 approved a plan of subdivision for the re-development of the property located on the north side of Denison Avenue, west of Jane Street. The subdivision is located on lands in both the former Cities of York and North York.

A 0.3 metre reserve was established across the westerly limit of John Best Avenue at the time of registration under Plan No. 3411, Instrument No. NY662217.

Conclusion:

Staff has reviewed the subdivision plan and draft agreement and recommends that the 0.3 metre reserve across John Best Avenue be dedicated as part of a public highway with the registration of the 'dedication' by-law.

Contact Name:

Colin Couper, Director of Transportation Planning,

Works and Emergency Services, Transportation, North York Office.

Telephone 395-7470, Fax 395-7482, email cwcouper@city.north-york.on.ca

9

Final Payment Contract No. 971-030 -

Reconstruction of Beveridge Drive, Draycott Drive,

Mission Drive and Seneca Hill Drive -

1997 Supplementary Budget - Don Parkway

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July7, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council's authorization to finalize the contract.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for the above project was provided in the 1997 Supplementary Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to finalize payment in the amount of $1,101,184.20 to Furfari Construction Co. Ltd.

Background:

Contract No. 971-030 was awarded to Furfari Construction Co. Limited on September 3, 1997 for the tendered amount of $966,683.48.

This work was for the reconstruction of the above streets including sidewalk repair. The design and contract administration of the project was assigned by the City to the consulting firm of Proctor and Redfern Limited.

The total cost of all work associated with this project, including consultant fees, is approximately $1,262.000.00. The breakdown is as follows:

  • Contract tender amount $1,101,184.20
  • Engineering Fee and Testing$ 160,828.15

There is sufficient funding available in the contract accounts for this project.

The final cost of the tendered items, as stated above, is $1,101,184.20 which exceeds the tendered amount by $134,500.72 or 13.91 percent. The former City of North York's Council policy required the Management Committee's approval for contract payments which exceeded the tendered amount by more than 5 percent.

The cost overrun in the value of the contract is attributed to the actual measured quantities exceeding the estimated tendered quantities in the following areas:

  • repair of concrete sidewalks;
  • removal of existing asphalt surface by grinding;
  • excavation of poor sub-base in the roadway;
  • supply of crushed limestone aggregates for the poor sub-base areas of the roadway;
  • supply of engineering fabric in the areas of poor sub-base; and
  • supply of base and surface asphalt.

Contact Name and Telephone Number.

Stan Bertoia, P.Eng.

Director of Engineering, North York District

Telephone: (416) 395-6235

Fax No. (416) 395-0349

E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca

10

Roads - Ambrose Road from Maureen Drive to

Arrowstook Road - Seneca Heights

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Ambrose Road from Maureen Drive to Arrowstook Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost of the sidewalk is $6,000.00 and is to be financed from available funds in the 1998 Capital Budget, North York - Sidewalks & Walkways.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)a sidewalk be constructed on the west side of Ambrose Road from Maureen Drive to Arrowstook Road; and

(2)the cost of the sidewalk estimated at $6,000.00 be financed from available funds in the 1998 Capital Budget, North York - Sidewalks & Walkways.

Council Reference/Background/History and

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Funds for the construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Ambrose Road from Protea Gardens to Maureen Drive were approved in the 1998 Capital Budget.

This Department received a request from Councillor Shiner to examine whether the sidewalk should be extended from Maureen Drive to Arrowstook Road.

There is a park on the west side of Ambrose Road between Maureen Drive and Arrowstook Road and there is a sidewalk on Arrowstook Road on the north side of the park. The extension of the sidewalk on Ambrose Road to connect with the existing sidewalk on Arrowstook Road would improve pedestrian safety and access to the park.

Conclusion:

It would be appropriate to extend the sidewalk on Ambrose Road to connect with the existing sidewalk system on Arrowstook Road.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stan Bertoia, P.Eng.

Director of Engineering, North York District

Tel: 416-395-6235

Fax: 416-395-0349

E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca

11

Sidewalks - Local Improvement Initiatives in the Approved

1998 Capital Budget - North York Spadina,

North York Centre and North York Centre South

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July9, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre, subject to the following amendments to Recommendation No. 1:

(1)that sidewalks be deleted from the Local improvement Initiative projects for Stafford Road, Alfred Avenue and Maplehurst Avenue;

(2)the installation of sidewalks on York Downs Drive from Almore Avenue to Yeomans Road be deferred sine die to permit the Ward Councillors to have some consultation thereon.

Purpose:

To obtain direction on the construction of sidewalks included in the 1998 Capital Budget, Local Improvement Initiatives.

Source of Funds:

From the 1998 Capital Budget Item for Local Improvements (North York)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)North York Community Council give direction on the construction of sidewalks on Local Improvement Initiative projects on York Downs Drive from Almore Avenue to Yeomans Road, Wimpole Drive from Bayview Avenue to Forest Heights Boulevard, Stafford Road from Betty Ann Drive to Ellerslie Avenue, Alfred Avenue from Dudley Avenue to 80m West, Maplehurst Avenue from Willowdale Avenue to West End, Greenfield Avenue from Dudley Avenue to 80m West and Fenn Avenue from York Road to South limit (subject to approval of the projects by residents through the Local Improvement Act process);

(2)that any funds made available by the cancellation of sidewalks be made available for other sidewalk works to be built in 1998 construction year under the North York Transportation Project Line 604, Sidewalks and Walkways; and

(3)The appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Background:

The following roads were included in the approved 1998 Capital Works Budget under the item for Local Improvements Initiatives.

The former City of North York Council Policy (Works Committee Report 19, Clause 8 of 1988, Resolution No. 188-18) requires that:

(a)road improvements done under the Local Improvement Act be conditional upon a sidewalk being installed in accordance with the approved City's standards and that the wording on a Local Improvement notice or petition indicate that a sidewalk "is recommended" for construction on one side of the street;

(b)each request for deletion of a sidewalk be considered by The Works Committee in terms of the relative Hazard Exposure Index reading as available and provided by the Commissioner of Traffic; and

(c)where objections to a proposed sidewalk have been received, the local Councillor may request the Works Committee, in writing, to conduct a poll of the affected property owners.

Hazard Exposure Index (H.E.I.) Studies have been performed by North York Transportation and the appropriate H.E.I. category is also listed below:

Estimated Cost of

StreetSidewalkCategory

York Downs Rd.3

(from Almore Ave. to Yeomans Rd.)$11,000.00(lowest priority)

Wimpole Drive$42,000.003

(from Bayview Ave.to Forest Heights Blvd)(lowest priority)

StreetSidewalkCategory

Stafford Road$12,000.003

(from Betty Ann Dr. to Ellerslie Ave.)(lowest priority)

Alfred Avenue $ 7,000.003

(from Dudley Ave. to West End)(lowest priority)

Greenfield Avenue$ 5,000.003

(from Dudley Ave. to 80m West)(lowest priority)

Maplehurst Avenue$ 20,000.002

(from Willowdale Ave. to West End)(middle priority)

Fenn Avenue$ 3,000.00(N/A)

(fromYork Road to South limit)

In accordance with the former City of North York Council Policy, sidewalks have been included with the Initiatives for Local Improvements.

Conclusion:

As per the former City of North York's Council Policy, sidewalks have been included with the Local Improvement projects. Hazard Exposure Index (H.E.I.) Studies performed indicate a low priority for sidewalk construction. Direction from North York Community Council is required to determine whether these sidewalks are to be included with the road work.

Contact Name and Address:

Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering

Tel. No. 416-395-6235

Fax.No. 416-395-0349

E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca

12

North York Local Improvements

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July9, 1998) from the Director of Engineering, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for changes with respect to works approved in the 1998 Capital Budget, North York Local Improvement Program.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The approval of the recommendations in this report will have no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the following projects be cancelled from the 1998 Local Improvement Program:

-Franklin Avenue from Walker Road to 55m east;

-Walker Road from Cameron Avenue to Franklin Avenue; and

-Walker Road from Stuart Avenue to 40m north; and

(2)Tregellis Road from Bombay Avenue to Sandringham Drive be added to the 1998 Local Improvement Program to replace the above noted cancelled projects.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The 1998 Capital Works Program included road improvements in Ward 10 under the Local Improvement Act Initiative Plan.

Under the Local Improvement Act Initiative Plan, it is required that the owners of properties abutting each project be notified by the City by public notice of the proposed project and advised that they may petition against the project. If the majority of the owners representing at least one-half of the value of the lots are dissatisfied with the project, the City may not proceed with the project.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Councillor Gardner and Councillor Filion have conducted informal surveys of the residents affected by the Local Improvements in Ward 10 and advise that they failed to get a response in favour of the improvements on the following streets:

-Franklin Avenue from Walker Road to 55m east;

-Walker Road from Cameron Avenue to Franklin Avenue; and

-Walker Road from Stuart Avenue to 40m north.

It appears that the residents of the above noted roads would petition against the improvement of the road and the improvements would then be cancelled.

This Department has received requests from the residents of Tregellis Road from Bombay Avenue to Sandringham Drive for the improvement of the road.

Tregellis Road is surface treated with no curbs or storm sewers. The road should be improved to urban standards and added to the 1998 Local Improvement Program to replace the projects recommended to be cancelled. The funds from the cancelled projects would be sufficient for the improvement of Tregellis Road.

Conclusion:

It would be appropriate to make the above noted changes to the 1998 North York Local Improvement Program in view of the requests of the affected residents through the local Councillors.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering, North York District

Tel: 416-395-6235, Fax: 416-395-0349

E-Mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca

13

Preliminary Evaluation Report - Principles of Land Use

Report - Zoning Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application

UDZ-97-36 and UDSB-1233 - Elderbrook Developments Ltd. -

Northwest Corner of Finch Avenue West and

York Gate Boulevard - Black Creek

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be adopted;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to:

(a)consult with the appropriate officials of the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources; the Ministry of Community and Social Services; and the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation; and the appropriate officials of the federal Ministry of Canadian Heritage/Parks Canada; and

(b)report back to the Community Council meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, on grants and programs which may be available through these agencies that would enable the acquisition of these lands for parks and community related purposes; and

(3)if this property is developed under any Arterial Corridor Area (ACA) designation, opportunities be provided for employment uses on the Finch frontage lands.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to establish principles of development which provide the basis for considering a rezoning application and re-subdivision of the lands at the northwest corner of Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard (Schedule "A"). The application as submitted, is to permit 220 freehold townhouse units and 775 condominium apartment units on the lands west of York Gate Boulevard near Jane Street between Finch Avenue and the hydro corridor. A new public street off York Gate Boulevard serves the townhouses.

Existing property rights have been previously established by the Official Plan but have only partially been implemented through zoning. In revising this development plan, the main objective of this report is to come forward with a strategy which:

(i)redistributes density in an appropriate built form in keeping with the low density neighbourhood to the north;

(ii)may provide for limited intensification along the Finch Avenue frontage; and

(iii)seeks to balance the development potential upon which investment has been made in the past with the development potential which realistically can be supported as good planning at the present time.

To achieve these objectives, it will be necessary to reduce the overall development level for the lands.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)development of the lands bounded by Finch Avenue West, Norfinch Drive, the hydro corridor and York Gate Boulevard be evaluated on the basis of the following principles of development:

Official Plan

(a)the RD4 designation of the site be amended based on the following:

(i)the entire site be redesignated to RD2 or RD3 with site specific densities which permit a wide variety of lower density freehold residential and institutional uses and community facilities; and

(ii)consideration be given to redesignate the lands along the Finch Avenue frontage to Arterial Corridor Area (ACA) to permit a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, medical and health care uses with a fall back base that would permit those uses in a RD2 or RD3 designation as above;

(b)the Official Plan be amended to delete site specific policy C.9.114 which permits 1,296 dwelling units on the site to be replaced with a policy with density provisions adequate to permit a wide variety of small lot single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings or multiple attached grade related dwellings;

Zoning By-law

(c)the zoning by-law and the zoning on the site be amended as follows:

(i)rezone the entire site including the Finch frontage lands to an RM1 exception zone to permit a broad mix and range of residential uses such as small lot single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and 2-3 storey townhouses or similar built form freehold units, and recreational uses and community facilities;

(ii)consideration be given to rezoning the lands along the Finch Avenue frontage to an ACA (Arterial Corridor Area) zone permitting a mix of residential, commercial, medical and health care related uses, recreational uses and community facilities with building heights of 3 to 6 storeys. The density should be regulated through a holding zone and base density permissions be included; and

(iii)The performance standards used in the zoning should provide maximum flexibility to develop the site with single detached, semi-detached and multiple attached built form within comparable building envelopes;

Urban Design

(d)development of the site be guided by the following urban design principles:

(i)a public road network should divide the site into smaller development blocks to accommodate freehold development and provide for street connectivity so as to increase accessibility and safety;

(ii)an articulated built form massed to support pedestrian scale development along Finch Avenue and other streets is encouraged;

(iii)there should be a variety of low density residential building types including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and 2 to 3 storey townhouses or similar multiple attached grade related dwelling units;

(iv)a variety of small lot configurations should be permitted, including wider lot frontages with shallower lot depths and/or narrower lot frontages with greater lot depth;

(v)there should be no parking in the front yard for development along Finch Avenue; parking should be provided underground or at the rear accessed from the internal street network;

(vi)development along the Finch Avenue frontage should complement and implement the Finch Avenue Streetscape Design Concept; and

(vii)along the Finch Avenue frontage, consideration should be given to the following additional guidelines for any ACA built form development:

(a)provide for maximum building heights of 6 storeys.

(b)encourage retail and commercial uses at grade to address the arterial road frontage and provide animation at the street level; and

(c)provide service access to development through a new public road;

General

(e)the joint venture public acquisition of lands for consolidated and shared community and recreational facilities and parkland between one or both school boards and the City is encouraged;

(f)a traffic impact study be required with terms of reference satisfactory to the Commissioner of Transportation taking into account an expanded Humber River Regional Hospital;

(g)the applicant consult with the Works and Emergency Services staff to prepare all necessary engineering and technical reports to support the application for draft plan of subdivision approval. At the time of the statutory public meeting on the subdivision, staff report on the status of sewer allocations within the Black Creek Drainage area as part of any report on the subdivision;

(2)the applicant update the information of the 1975 Klein and Sears study (A Review of Planning Policies re Lands bounded by Finch Avenue, Highway 400, the H.E.P.C. Right-of-Way and Jane Street), with terms of reference established by the Acting Commissioner of Planning. Further planning studies may be required as a consequence of this update at the discretion of the Acting Commissioner of Planning;

(3)staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, schedule a community consultation meeting; and

(4)staff prepare a final report evaluating a revised proposal and provide notice of the statutory public meeting at the appropriate time.

Council Reference/Background/History:

1.0Proposal:

The application is to amend the zoning by-law and re-subdivide the lands west of York Gate Boulevard between Finch Avenue and the hydro corridor to permit 220 freehold townhouse units and 775 condominium apartment units. A new public street off York Gate Boulevard would serve the townhouses (Schedule "C"). A statistical breakdown of the proposal is set out below:

Site Statistics

Site Area 82,250 square metres (8.225 ha)
Total Gross Floor Area 110,500 square metres (to be confirmed)
Total Number of Residential Units townhouses 220 units

apartments 775 units

Proposed Density 2.48 FSI for apartment area

0.65 FSI for townhouses

Total: 1.34 FSI

Parking Required townhouses: 440 spaces

apartments: 1,162 spaces

Total: 1,602 spaces

Building Height townhouses: 2 storeys

apartments: information not provided

2.0Location and Existing Site:

The site is located on the north side of Finch Avenue West between York Gate Boulevard and Norfinch Drive and is bounded on the north by a hydro corridor (Schedule "B"). The site is currently vacant land. To the north-west is Regina Pacis Catholic Secondary School. On the west side of Norfinch Drive are industrial lands developed with commercial uses. On the east side of York Gate Boulevard is York Gate Mall. Fronting on the south side of Finch Avenue is a 5 storey office-medical building and a 3 storey retirement home with semi-detached dwellings located at the corner of Elana Drive. At the south-west corner of Finch Avenue and Jane Street is a commercial plaza. Further west on the south side of Finch Avenue between Oakdale Road and Highway 400 is Humber River Regional Hospital.

3.0Previous Applications:

The site has been the subject of several previous applications, approvals and Ontario Municipal Board decisions dating back to 1975 which include the commercial lands east of York Gate Boulevard. A summary of the main applications relating to the site can be found in Appendix "A". While past applications have been for 1,296 residential units and school sites, Council and OMB decisions have only approved implementing zoning for 436 dwelling units and 2 school sites.

4.0Planning Controls:

4.1Official Plan:

The site is designated Residential Density 4 (RD4) which permits townhouses and high rise apartment buildings, public facilities and amenities, community institutions and minor commercial uses ancillary to or serving the local population. The maximum density is 1.5 FSI. The site is also subject to site specific policy Part C.9.114 which permits a total of 1,296 dwelling units on the lands between York Gate Boulevard and Norfinch Drive south of the hydro corridor (Schedule "A").

The lands east of York Gate Boulevard are generally designated Commercial and developed with a shopping centre. A portion of the land abutting the hydro corridor east of York Gate Boulevard is designated RD4 with a site specific policy C.9.111 permitting the land to also be used for non-required parking for the shopping centre on the adjacent lands and permitting community centre uses in the shopping centre. Both the RD4 and Commercial lands are identified as a sub-centre on Schedule "A".

4.2Zoning:

The lands adjacent to the hydro corridor and York Gate Boulevard are zoned RM6 while the remainder of the site is zoned RM2 (Schedule "B"). The site as well as the lands east of York Gate Boulevard are subject to By-law 30200 (as amended by by-law 32765). By-law 30200 as amended sets out the following for the site:

  • on the RM6 zoned lands, the only uses permitted are 2 apartment buildings of 26 and 29 storeys with 436 units, and a recreation centre, with a maximum gross floor area of 279% of RM6 land area.
  • the remainder of the site is zoned RM2. The RM2 zone permits single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings, recreational uses such as parks and community centres, and institutional uses such as schools and places of worship subject to the requirements of the RM2 zone.

By-law No. 30200 as amended, also applies to the lands east of York Gate Boulevard (see Appendix"B").

4.3Release of Part Lot Control

In 1981, Council passed By-law No. 28073 releasing part lot control on the site comprising Registered Plan M-1994. This enables the lots to be conveyed without obtaining land division approval from the City. Each new lot or block created would be required to comply with its zoning and to have frontage on a street. The land could be conveyed for single detached, semi-detached or duplex dwellings.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

5.0Other Department Comments:

Comments on the current development application have been received from a number of departments and agencies. A summary of the comments is attached as Appendix "C". Generally, there are transportation, community facility and school services matters that should be addressed. We anticipate receiving further comments from these departments and agencies based on a revised development concept for this site.

6.0Planning Issues:

6.1Previous Planning Study

In 1975, the City retained the firm of Klein and Sears to undertake a review of the planning policies for the site. The major findings of the study were as follows:

  • The area has experienced a high rate of growth, however, public facilities and services have not developed at the same rate as the population has increased.
  • The park provisions do not meet the recreation needs of the area and there is a lack of commercial recreation facilities in the area.
  • There is a need for additional school facilities in the area and a park should be located adjacent to the proposed school facilities.
  • The proposal for 1,296 residential units would severely overload the major road intersections along Finch Avenue in the vicinity of the site The study also concluded that intensive redevelopment of the site would require major improvements to Highway 400 such as additional interchanges. The study concluded that "the traffic conditions in the area are serious enough to require major traffic improvements before major development could take place on the lands".

In order to provide for a suitable gradation between the existing low rise residential area to the north, the study suggested that high rise condominium development be located along the Finch Avenue portion of the site and low rise row housing adjacent to the hydro corridor. This would provide a better physical relationship with the housing to the north and provide an opportunity for integrating the family portion of the development with the residential neighbourhood to the north. This would also help link the parts of the community divided by the hydro corridor providing for a visual link to the north.

The study concluded that while residential development on the lands is desirable and should be encouraged, no intensive development should occur until major improvements are made to the traffic, school and recreation situations in the area.

Development of the site has not proceeded and these findings have not been revisited for 23 years.

In 1986, the City entered into an agreement with Elderbrook Developments Ltd. which states that the City is to undertake a planning study prior to the approval of any new development beyond the 436 dwelling units. The study is to review the land use policies in the area and compare the results with the 1975 Klein and Sears study. An independent City Planning Department study of this area is not a current budget item. So as to enable a development proposal to be reviewed at this time, it is important that the applicant update the information of the 1975 Klein and Sears study (dealing with such areas as development and population growth, schools, social services, recreation and traffic) with terms of reference established by the Acting Commissioner of Planning. Any further analysis which the update recommends, should be done at the discretion of the Planning Department as may be required for a final report.

6.2Land Use and Density:

It is now 23 years since the first application was submitted for the lands for residential development. Since that time, a number of changes have occurred in the planning context for the area. Part of the site was sold to the Metro Separate School Board and developed with a secondary school. Commercial uses including an office building and hotels have developed to the west along Norfinch Drive. The lands to the east between York Gate Boulevard and Jane Street have developed with a shopping centre. The lands at the four corners of Jane Street and Finch Avenue are designated as a Sub-Centre. It is appropriate to review the planning policies for this site.

While the Official Plan policy permits a total of 1,296 dwelling units, the as-of-right zoning only permits 436 dwelling units. The proposal for 995 dwelling units is less than the 1,296 dwelling units permitted under the Official Plan, but is a significant increase above the existing zoning permission. The development proposal is for an overall density of 1.34 FSI which is within the general limit of 1.5 FSI permitted by a RD4 designation.

Since the adoption of the site specific policy for this property, the City has adopted new housing policies in its Official Plan. The Official Plan includes housing objectives for the development of residential areas:

  • intensified development should occur where it can be accommodated by hard and soft services and should be compatible with surrounding development.
  • new housing should achieve a high standard of urban design and enhancement of streetscape through the avoidance of excessive size, scale or mass.
  • the scale and density of new development should be contingent upon the physical capability of the lands to support the development and on the impact upon transportation and community services and facilities and the establishment of satisfactory physical and functional relationships with adjacent land uses.

While past plans for these lands proposed six high rise apartment buildings, the 1979 OMB decision provided an opportunity to weigh the success of the first intensification proposal as built before further rezonings are considered. Since no development of the lands has occurred, the appropriate tests to apply are the current housing policies of Part C.4 of the Official Plan.

The Official Plan acknowledges that it is desirable to encourage a shift from high rise towers to a more balanced mix of housing types. The Plan directs major residential development to those areas in the City identified as potential reurbanization areas. This site is not identified as a potential reurbanization area.

The site is located in the Black Creek Residential Community. On the north side of the hydro corridor is a low density residential neighbourhood comprised of single detached and semi-detached dwellings and low rise apartments. This provides a context which works well in which to reconsider the residential extension to this site.

The type of housing appropriate for this site should be reconsidered. This report recommends lower density residential development which can be pre-zoned to an appropriate exception zone to permit a broad range of housing. This could complement the low density residential community to the north and knit the lands north and south of the hydro corridor together.

The zoning should provide certainty that the development is low density built form but provide flexibility to respond to the market demand for privately owned single detached, semi-detached or townhouse development. Similar zoning strategies have recently been approved on the Wittington site along Avondale Avenue frontage. The City recently also approved zoning for small lot residential development on the old Bridgehome site providing for lot frontages of 7 metres (23 ft.) for semi-detached and townhouse units, and 9 metres (30 ft.) for detached homes, as well as shallower lot depths of about 23 metres (75 ft.). A similar approach can be designed with the applicant for this site.

Finch Avenue is a major arterial road with lands at the intersection of Jane and Finch designated as a sub-centre for a mix of uses. Redevelopment of the Finch Avenue frontage with a broader range of uses including medium rise apartments, commercial uses, medical and health care related uses would support a pedestrian environment along the street, would be in keeping with the mixed use nature of the lands in the vicinity of the site, and capitalize on the reinvestment potential that will accompany the expansion of the Humber River Regional Hospital. A mix of uses along Finch Avenue would promote animation and vitality in the area providing places for people to live and work. Under this option, the Finch Avenue frontage would be designated Arterial Corridor Area and pre-zoned with holding zone regulations as set out in the official plan.

Community facilities are an integral part of a successful residential area. Past studies have noted the need for additional community facilities. With the potential for residential infill of this large site, it is appropriate to encourage the provision of public and private community facility uses. This could be oriented along the Finch Avenue frontage or incorporated within a new residential subdivision.

Encouraging a mix of low rise residential and community uses will result in a lower number of dwelling units than the 1,296 units permitted by the Official Plan.

6.3Built Form:

A reduction in the number of dwelling units will enable a reduction in the height of buildings to a more desirable level. It provides for a pedestrian scale of development along Finch Avenue. The heights of two permitted residential buildings of 26 and 29 storeys is the product of a suburban style of towers in the field reflecting a different time and context. Today, it is recognized that a more ground oriented built form along public roads with a more sensitive pedestrian scale is safer, and more attractive. When combined with pedestrian intensive uses on the ground floor along main streets, this form results in an enriched public realm.

For these reasons, a maximum height of 2 storeys for single detached and semi-detached dwellings and 2 to 3 storeys for townhouses or other multiple attached grade related units should apply across the site. If an Arterial Corridor Area option is selected for the Finch frontage, a maximum height of 6 storeys should apply to the frontage lands in keeping with the Arterial Corridor Area policies of the Official Plan.

6.4Jane and Finch Streetscape Design

In June 1997, Council adopted in principle the Jane and Finch streetscape preliminary design concept. The streetscape design pertains to the public boulevards along Finch Avenue West adjacent to this site. The proposed streetscape design includes elements that would break the monotony of the large flat surfaces and provide some vertical features that will give the area a stronger edge. Tree planting, wider and decorative sidewalks, seating areas and pedestrian lights are elements that are proposed for the public space. A consultant is to be hired this fall to develop an implementation strategy, do a detailed design, and produce drawings of the streetscape design. Any development along the Finch Avenue frontage of this site should complement and support the streetscape design concept.

6.5Transportation

A traffic impact study is required which accounts for:

  • traffic operations at the major road intersections in the area;
  • traffic operations along Finch Avenue, York Gate Boulevard and Norfinch Drive;
  • the requirements of access to the site in the context of the arterial road network;
  • traffic operations of any new streets proposed to serve the development; and
  • the traffic generated by future development within the area including the implications of the Humber River Regional Hospital expansion along Finch Avenue.

The applicant is encouraged to meet with transportation staff prior to commencement of the study to determine the terms of reference of the traffic impact study.

6.6Community Services and Facilities:

The Official Plan includes policies encouraging residential intensification provided there are community services and facilities to support the development. In the past, a concern raised with the proposal for 1,296 dwelling units on this site was the lack of sufficient community services, school and recreational facilities. The development proposal once revised will be assessed to determine its impact on existing community facilities including parkland, schools, libraries, emergency services, child care and recreational facilities. A change in the type of residential development proposed for this area to low rise residential units could affect the demands placed for additional community services and facilities.

The Toronto Catholic School Board has indicated that they would like to acquire additional lands for Regina Pacis School for outdoor play space. There may be opportunities for public acquisition of lands which encourage consolidated and shared community and recreational facilities and parkland between one or both school boards and the City.

Staff will work with the Parks and Recreation staff, the School Boards and other community agencies to develop ways in which to address community facility and school desires.

6.7Development Principles:

Based on the above discussion, the following urban design principles should be applied in guiding any new development of these lands:

(i)a public road network should divide the site into smaller development blocks to accommodate freehold development and provide for street connectivity so as to increase accessibility and safety;

(ii)an articulated built form massed to support pedestrian scale development along Finch Avenue and other streets is encouraged;

(iii)there should be a variety of low density residential building types including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and 2 to 3 storey townhouses or similar multiple attached grade related dwelling units;

(iv)a variety of small lot configurations should be permitted, including wider lot frontages with shallower lot depths and/or narrower lot frontages with greater lot depth;

(v)there should be no parking in the front yard for development along Finch Avenue; parking should be provided underground or at the rear accessed from the internal street network;

(vi)development along the Finch Avenue frontage should complement and implement the Finch Avenue Streetscape Design Concept;

(vii)along the Finch Avenue frontage, consideration should be given to the following additional guidelines for any ACA built form development:

(a)provide for maximum building heights of 6 storeys;

(b)encourage retail and commercial uses at grade to address the arterial road frontage and provide animation at the street level;

(c)Provide service access to development through a new public road.

7.0Community Consultation

Staff are committed to working with the community in an effort to resolve issues related to redevelopment of this site. Plans for community consultation are being coordinated with the two local Councillors with the community consultation meeting to be held in the fall prior to a final recommendation report. In 1987, Council approved a motion that a 1,000 ft. notice circulation area be used for any future rezoning of the RM2 lands. Based on this Council approved motion, rather than use the standard 400 feet notice area, we will use the 1000 ft. radius for any notices relating to this application.

Conclusions:

This report recommends principles to guide the development of the lands at Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard based on low density residential uses including small lot single detached and semi-detached dwellings and townhouses with possible consideration for a broader range of uses and intensified development along the Finch Avenue frontage. The principles of development for this site should be agreed upon now to set the stage for a more detailed development application recommendation report. The applicant should revise their proposal so that it implements the principles set out in this report. Community consultation will be coordinated with the two local Councillors prior to a final report.

Contact Name:

Nimrod Salamon, Senior Planner

Phone: 395-7134Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the schedules, appendices, draft official plan amendment, draft zoning by-law amendment and site plan referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

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

(i)(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Lindsay Dale-Harris, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant requesting the Community Council to direct that no further studies will be required, provided that the total number of units does not exceed 436; and

(ii)(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Ruth Morris, Executive Director, Black Creek Focus, advising of her concerns with the proposed application.

Ms. Lindsay Dale-Harris, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

14

Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment and

Site Plan Application UD52-97-04 and UDSP-98-13 -

Shaftesbury Development Ltd. - 4935 - 4937 Yonge Street -

North York Centre

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend refusal of this application to amend the zoning by-law and receive site plan approval. The applicant is requesting approval of a temporary use by-law in order to permit the existing parking lot to remain until they are ready to proceed with their approved development.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)The application be refused.

Background:

1.0Proposal:

The application proposes an amendment to the zoning by-law and requests site plan approval for a 3-year temporary use by-law to permit the existing parking lot to remain on the site, as shown on attached Schedule C. The applicant advises that they are not ready to proceed with the approved office tower development at this time, and as such in the interim, wish to make use of the property in this way.

Pertinent site statistics are set out below:
Site Area 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres)
Number of Parking Spaces 368
Proposed Surface Finish crushed stone

2.0Location and Existing Site:

The site is located on the east side of Yonge Street, between Hollywood Avenue and Spring Garden Avenue (Schedule B). The northwest and southwest corners of the block are developed with one-storey retail establishments, including a Hertz car rental, 2 restaurants, a clothing store, and a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, which abut the site. Immediately east of the property is a site owned by the North York Board of Education, containing the Claude Watson School for the Arts and its associated portables and playing field.

The site is operating as an unpaved, public parking lot. Approximately 30 parking spaces at the northwest corner of the lot are leased by Hertz Car Rental. An additional number of spaces at the southwest corner of the lot are used by the adjacent Royal Canadian Legion building.

3.0Planning Controls:

3.1Official Plan:

Amendment 447 - North York Centre Secondary Plan, designates the Yonge Street-fronting portion of the site as Downtown Mixed Use - One (DMU-1), and the remainder of the site as Downtown Mixed Use - Three (DMU-3). Both of these designations permit a mix of uses on the property, including commercial, institutional, park and recreational uses, to a maximum density of 4.5 FSI (exclusive of transfers and incentives). The DMU-3 designation also permits residential uses. Commercial parking lots are not permitted by Amendment 447.

It is noted that at the time of submission of this application, the Downtown Secondary Plan contained a provision permitting parking lots as a temporary use on sites where development is approved but not yet constructed. Amendment 447 was approved by Council approximately 3 months later, specifically prohibiting such uses. As such, no Official Plan amendment application was required upon submission.

3.2Zoning:

The site, subject of previous Official Plan and zoning amendment applications (OZ-86-84 and UDZ-94-15), is currently zoned C1(42) which permits a 28-storey office building containing ground floor retail uses, a 2-storey community centre (Legion Hall), and a 3-storey live theatre. A public parking lot is not permitted.

Comments and Discussion:

4.0Other Department Comments:

The Transportation division of the Works and Emergency Services Department advises that they cannot support the temporary private parking lot given that several policy objectives in the Official Plan related to transit modal split and reduced auto use are compromised. Further, Section 4.6.3 of Amendment 447 clearly prohibits commercial parking lots within the North York Centre and encourages transit supportive development. They also note that the surface of the lot must be finished with asphalt, concrete or interlocking stone. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing crushed stone finish (Schedule D).

The Public Works division of the Works and Emergency Services Department advises, among other things, that they will require a grading and drainage plan to be submitted (Schedule E).

The By-law Enforcement section of the Municipal Standards division recommends that should the request be approved, that the property be graded and drained to prevent excessive ponding of water, and that the lot be paved and marked. Past enforcement actions are noted in Section 5.1 below.

5.0Planning Issues:

5.1History of Use

Based on a review of By-law Enforcement Section records for this site and earlier air photos, it appears that the site has operated as a parking lot for a number of years. In 1988, the buildings on site were demolished, and parking was operating on the former C1 portion of the site (Yonge Street fronting lands). After 1992, when the applicant received approval for a high density mixed use development, it appears that this parking lot expanded to incorporate the entire site, notwithstanding that the new commercial zoning prohibited public parking lots. Only the parking on the former C1 portion of the site, ie. the Yonge-fronting lands (approximately 75 spaces), may have been a permitted use at some time.

A complaint was received by the City in 1995. The applicant, as well as Hertz and the parking lot operator, were charged and convicted in September 1997 of permitting and operating an illegal public parking lot. Around the time of the conviction, the applicant agreed to submit the subject application in order to attempt to have the use legalized temporarily.

5.2Urban Design

The applicant has submitted a site plan indicating a total of 368 parking spaces on a surface finish of crushed stone. As some of these parking spaces are shown in the place of existing trees, the applicant has indicated that the supply could be reduced to preserve the trees on site, thus reducing the parking spaces to a maximum of 364.

On the Yonge Street frontage, a 9.14 m (30 ft.) landscaped strip consisting of sodding and benches is proposed. This strip exists presently. A 1.2 m (4 ft.) high wood fence is proposed along the Hollywood and Spring Garden Avenue frontages. An existing chain link fence is located along the east property line. The only access to the parking lot would be from Hollywood Avenue where it is presently taken.

5.3Land Use

A commercial parking lot is not permitted under the existing C1(42) zoning or the Downtown Mixed Use designations of the property. The C1(42) zone was approved by Council to specifically permit a mixed use development on the site. There are numerous policies in the Official Plan which provide support for increased transit usage and discourage excess parking in inappropriate locations. For example, the North York Centre Secondary Plan (Amendment 447) contains a number of policies which focus specifically on the issue of parking supply. As a general objective, Section 1.13 - Transit Modal Split and Capacity of Infrastructure, notes that: "It is an objective of this Secondary Plan to work towards reducing the reliance on the use of the automobile and attaining a high transit modal split, and to ensure that development levels do not exceed the capacity of the infrastructure serving the North York Centre."

Under Section 4 - Transportation, Subsection 4.6.1 - Provisions for Parking Supply (a) and (b) note

that: "Council shall strictly regulate the supply of parking in the North York Centre so as to attain an overall average auto driver modal split of no more than 33% (in the p.m. peak hour) for all new development in the Centre... To achieve its goal, Council has established a parking policy for the North York Centre which is included in Appendix 6 of the Official Plan...". Appendix 6 sets out minimum and maximum parking standards for residential, commercial and mixed use projects. The parking provisions in By-law C1(42) pertaining to this site, conform to these standards.

In addition, Subsection 4.6.3 Other Parking Operators, makes clear the intent of the Plan: "Council shall not permit private commercial parking lots for non-accessory parking, either interim or temporary, within the North York Centre as such use is contrary to the objectives of the plan to attain a high transit modal split associated with the development of the Centre."

In summary, the short and long-term objectives of the Official Plan are to promote a high transit modal split and discourage stand-alone parking within the North York Centre. These objectives lend themselves to development levels which are supportable by existing infrastructure capacity, to more efficient use of transit systems in place, and to environmentally advantageous means of commuting generally.

Conclusions:

The proposal to zone the existing parking lot by approving a temporary use by-law on the site is not appropriate. A parking lot use is contrary to the land use principles and objectives established in the Official Plan and specifically the North York Centre Secondary Plan, which promote and encourage increased use of rapid transit and discourage excess parking within this area.

Contact Name:

Malini Rawal, Planner

Phone: 395-7100Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the schedules, draft official plan amendment and draft zoning by-law amendment referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

15

Notice Provisions for Official Plan Amendments -

UD03-HOP - All North York Community Council Wards

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council after considering the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, recommends the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 462 attached as Appendix 3 to the report.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July 22, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend that a minimum of twenty days notice be given for all public meetings to consider official plan amendments. The alternative notice procedure in the Official Plan should be amended to permit a notice period of twenty days for "old" Planning Act applications, and to permit current applications submitted under Bill 20 to proceed with the statutory twenty day notice period.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)that notice be given for a statutory public meeting to consider an amendment to the Official Plan to revise the Alternative Notice Procedure as described in this report.

Discussion:

The minimum notice period for public meetings to consider official plan amendments has been shortened from thirty days to twenty days under the new Planning Act (the Land Use Planning and Protection Act, 1996, or Bill 20). This change in the legislation allows official plan amendments and associated zoning by-laws to be dealt with concurrently with twenty days notice.

The number of active applications on file for official plan amendments, and the minimum notice periods under the three versions of the Planning Act are shown in the following table:

Table 1Minimum Notice Periods for North York Official Plan Amendment Applications
Planning Act

Version

No. of Official Plan Amendment Applications on file Minimum Notice Period

for OPA's

Minimum Notice Period for associated Zoning By-laws
"old Act" (a) 12 28 days 20 days
(b)

2

30 days 20 days
Bill 163 0 30 days 20 days
Bill 20 22 20 days 20 days

The "old" Planning Act required a minimum of thirty days notice for public meetings to consider official plan amendments. North York adopted an Alternative Notice Procedure under the "old" Act, requiring (a) a minimum of twenty-eight days notice for most applications, and (b) a minimum of thirty days notice in the case of secondary plans, major amendments or applications, and Downtown/Uptown applications (refer to Appendix 1).

A number of changes in recent years support revising the alternative notice procedure to allow for twenty days notice as set out in the new Planning Act. There have been significant changes in the way we do our business. Preconsultation, community consultation meetings and preliminary evaluation reports have become the norm for processing amendments. This provides ample opportunity for the public to be notified and to participate in the review of an application before a statutory public meeting is held.

The North York Planning Committee met every two weeks. The present Community Council operates on a four week meeting cycle which does not work well with a thirty day notice requirement. A twenty day notice period, consistent with the new Planning Act, meshes well with the new meeting cycle and contributes to on-going streamlining efforts.

Three of the former cities in Toronto have alternative notice provisions in their official plans (refer to Appendix 2). The North York and Etobicoke policies require more notice than the twenty days prescribed by the current Planning Act; East York requires twenty days notice. The other three former cities give notice in accordance with the applicable version of the Planning Act. Amending the Alternative Notice Procedure in the North York Official Plan to permit a notice period of twenty days in accordance with the current Planning Act will allow us to harmonize our normal practice for new applications with that used by four of the other five former cities.

Conclusions:

Extensive preconsultation takes place before public meetings are held to consider official plan amendments. It is recommended that Part A, Section 5, Alternative Notice Procedure, of the North York Official Plan be amended to permit a twenty day notice period for public meetings for all official plan amendments regardless of which Planning Act governs their processing (refer to Appendix 3). This notice period reflects the statutory requirement in the new Planning Act, complements the meeting cycle of the Community Council, and is consistent with the general practice throughout the rest of the new City of Toronto. The establishment of a consistent twenty day Alternative Notice Procedure in no way limits the Community Council's ability to require an extended notice period under special circumstances where this is warranted.

Contact Name:

Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner

Phone:395-7110

Fax:395-7155

________

No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

16

Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-37 -

Lopes Bros. Contracting - 1721 Jane Street -

North York Humber

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by Lopes Bros. Contracting regarding Zoning Amendment Application for 1721 Jane Street, be approved subject to the recommendations contained in the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning.

The North York Community Council reports having held a further statutory public meeting on July22, 1998, in order to provide all owners and tenants who may not have received the notice for the previous meeting an opportunity to submit their comments, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend a zoning by-law amendment to allow the existing one storey commercial building and parking lot which fronts onto Jane Street, to be maintained and to develop the eastern portion of the property which fronts onto Hearne Avenue, with 2 semi-detached dwellings (4 units). The site plan and elevation drawings are attached as schedule "C" and "D".

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application be approved and the site be rezoned to C1 Exception on the Jane Street frontage and RM2 Exception on the Hearne Avenue frontage subject to the following:

C1 Exception Zone:

(a)the existing retail store shall provide a minimum of:

(i)20 parking spaces; and

(ii)a courier loading space having dimensions of 6m long and 3.6m wide; and

(b)there shall be no front yard setback, rear yard setback, lot area and lot depth requirements;

RM2 Exception Zone

(a)the minimum lot area shall be 276mē for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 550mē for each semi-detached dwelling;

(b)the minimum lot frontage shall be 8.0m for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 16.0m for each semi-detached dwelling;

(c)the minimum side yard setback shall be 1.2m; and

(d)the maximum lot coverage shall be 34 percent;

(2)that prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Hearne Street site, the applicant shall submit a grading and drainage plan, which is satisfactory to the Chief Building Official and which shall be registered on title as part of the release of part lot control agreement. The grading plan will ensure that surface drainage is directed towards Hearne Avenue; and

(3)prior to the enactment of the amending by-law, the applicant will submit payment-in-lieu of parking for one parking space at the rate of $7,500.00 as per Council policy.

Background:

Proposal:

The applicant proposes to retain the commercial operation fronting onto Jane Street (The Dollar Joint) and construct 2 semi-detached dwellings (4 units) fronting onto Hearne Avenue. On the Jane Street site, the applicant proposes to demolish approximately 4 metres of the rear portion of the commercial building to allow unobstructed access from the right-of-way to the parking lot. Each semi-detached dwelling unit will have a gross floor area of 190mē which represents a lot coverage of 34 percent. The proposed lots are to be created through a Part Lot Control Exemption Application.

Location:

The development site is located on the east side of Jane Street in the area north of Lawrence Avenue West and is currently occupied by a retail establishment and associated parking lot. Properties fronting onto Jane Street are primarily developed with retail commercial uses. Properties on Hearne Avenue are primarily developed with low density residential uses. There is a 6m wide right-of-way in the rear yards of the proposed residential properties which is in favour of the Jane Street properties. The right-of-way provides car access to the abutting commercial and residential properties and runs the full length of this block. Semi-detached dwellings are located immediately to the south of the subject lands at 10, 12, 16 and 18 Hearne Avenue (which were approved under applications UDOZ-93-09 and UDOZ-96-11 respectively) and further east on Everglades Drive (refer to schedule"B").

Official Plan:

The western portion of the property, fronting onto Jane Street, is designated Arterial Corridor Area (ACA) which permits a mixture of residential and commercial uses generally up to a Floor Space Index of 2.0. The eastern portion of the property, fronting onto Hearne Avenue, is designated Commercial (COM) with a site specific policy (C.9.58) which permits, among other uses, single and semi-detached dwellings at a maximum density of 39 units per hectare. The proposed development represents a density of 36 units per hectare. No Official Plan amendment is required (refer to schedule "A").

Zoning:

The lands fronting onto Jane Street are zoned C1 which permits a wide range of retail and service commercial uses. A rezoning to C1 exception for the Jane Street property is required to recognize the reduced size of the site and a parking deficiency. The portion of the property which is zoned R4 permits one single family residential dwelling. A rezoning to RM2 is required to permit the proposed semi-detached dwellings (refer to schedule "B").

Comments:

A summary of the relevant comments received is outlined below.

The Transportation Department (North York Office - schedule "E") advise that 21 parking spaces are required for the commercial building. There are 20 parking spaces on site. The one space deficiency in parking is supported subject to payment in-lieu-of parking being applied.

The Public Works Department (North York Office - schedule "F") advise that existing drainage patterns on adjacent properties and the right-of-way shall not be altered.

Discussion:

The proposed semi-detached dwellings are similar to those approved and built on the lots to the south with the exception of the proposed front yard setback and building height. The applicant has proposed a 6m front yard setback and a building height of 10.36m and 3 storeys. This portion of Hearne Avenue is primarily built with a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres. The semi-detached dwellings in the area are 2 storeys and a maximum of 9.2m in height. To ensure development is compatible with the adjacent buildings, it is recommended the proposed semi-detached dwellings comply with the front yard and building height requirements of the zoning by-law. A table which compares the proposed semi-detached dwellings with the approved semi-detached dwellings to the south and the standard requirements of the RM2 zone is attached as schedule "G".

The Commercial Building

On the Jane Street frontage a C1 exception zoning is recommended to recognize the existing commercial property and to ensure a minimum parking supply is provided for the existing retail store with adequate loading facilities. There are 20 parking spaces provided on site at 1721 Jane Street, which is sufficient to accommodate the existing retail store. The remaining properties provide on site parking for the commercial activities along Jane Street, between Lawrence Avenue West and Marshlynn Avenue.

Lot Drainage

Issues relating to grade and drainage were raised by the owners of the adjacent commercial buildings located on Jane Street. Similar issues were raised when considering the previous applications (UDOZ-93-09 and UDOZ-96-11) for the semi-detached dwellings located to the south. In order to ensure drainage problems do not occur as a result of the current proposal, it is recommended that the applicant submit a grading and drainage plan which would be registered on title as part of the release of part lot control agreement.

Conclusions:

Semi-detached residential buildings along the eastern portion of the subject property are appropriate as they will enhance the stability of the neighbourhood by helping to separate the existing commercial uses fronting on Jane Street from the residential uses along Hearne Avenue. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions contained within the report.

Contact Name:

Anthony Rossi, Planner Phone: 395-7114Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the schedules, draft zoning by-law amendment and site plan referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

Mr. Peter Cheatley Planning Consultant, appeared before the North York Community Council on behalf of the applicant in connection with the foregoing matter and indicated that the applicant concurred with the staff recommendations.

17

Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-03 -

Rowland Lincoln Mercury - South of Eglinton Avenue East

and North of Jonesville Crescent - Don Parkway

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause to provide that the approval of this application in no way sets a precedent for the use of Ontario Hydro Corridor lands. )

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (June 22, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that:

(1)the application submitted by Rowland Lincoln Mercury regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application for south of Eglinton Avenue East and north of Jonesville Crescent, be approved; and

(2)the following report (June 22, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be adopted subject to Recommendation No. (2)(ii) contained therein being amended to read as follows:

"(2)(ii)Maximum gross floor area: 2,200 square metres."

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July 22, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (June 22, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

This report recommends the approval of the application to permit the construction of a motor vehicle dealership and a restaurant within the Ontario Hydro corridor that is located south of Eglinton Avenue East and north of Jonesville Crescent.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

(1)the PUT official plan designation be amended to permit motor vehicle dealerships and restaurants;

(2)the zoning be amended to MC(H) (Industrial-Commercial Holding Zone) with the following exceptions:

(i)permitted uses are: motor vehicle dealerships and restaurants;

(ii)maximum gross floor area: 2,000 square metres; and

(iii)landscaping, fencing and temporary outside sales and display area performance standards need not apply for motor vehicle dealerships and restaurants;

(3)the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, as a condition of site plan approval, to protect for a 10m (33 ft) wide open space link through the lands. The preferred location for the open space link is adjacent to the Jonesville Crescent frontage. The open space link should ensure that any future bicycle and pedestrian trail that traverses this section of the Gatineau hydro corridor will be uninterrupted;

(4)prior to final site plan approval, the applicant shall submit, or agree to submit prior to the issuance of a building permit, a record of site condition that is acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and Energy; and

(5)the site plan review and approval shall achieve the urban design objectives discussed in this report.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Proposal:

The application proposes official plan and zoning by-law amendments in order to permit the construction of a motor vehicle dealership and a restaurant within the Ontario Hydro corridor that is located south of Eglinton Avenue East and north of Jonesville Crescent (Schedule C). Ontario Hydro will retain ownership of the site, leasing the lands to Rowland Lincoln Mercury and, potentially, Tim Hortons. Rowland Lincoln Mercury wishes to relocate to the site from its present location at 1800 O'Connor Drive as shown at the bottom right-hand corner of Schedule B. A future car compound area for the dealership and a driveway access from Jonesville Crescent for the restaurant are also proposed and shown on Schedule C. The pertinent statistics are as follows:

Site Statistics

Motor Vehicle Dealership Restaurant Total
Land Area 4.1 acres (including a 1.1 acre car compound area) 1.7 acres 5.8 acres
Gross Floor Area 1,670 sq.m. 280 sq.m. 1,950 sq.m.

Location and Existing Site:

The site consists of a triangular-shaped parcel of land that is located within the Ontario hydro corridor south of Eglinton Avenue East and north of Jonesville Crescent. The site forms part of the Gatineau transmission right-of-way and contains three hydro towers which are used for distribution of electricity.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan:

Public Utility (PUT) which permits utility and outdoor recreational uses (Schedule A).

Zoning:

Semi-public Open Space (O3) which permits public uses (Schedule B).

Trail Study Within Rail and Hydro Corridors:

On June 15, 1998 the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) recommended that Council endorse, in principle, developing trails in active and abandoned rail and hydro corridors subject to a multi-year implementation plan. UEDC also recommended that Council authorize the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to protect opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian trails in rail and hydro corridors wherever possible through the development approval process.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Other Department Comments:

The following section summarizes the comments received from the departments and agencies circulated.

The Transportation Department reports that the surrounding road network can accommodate the traffic that will be generated by the proposal (Schedule F).

The Public Works Department describes the servicing parameters that are available and necessary to accommodate the proposal (Schedule G).

The Public Health Department has no objection to the proposal. The department has reviewed reports dealing with soil condition and electromagnetic field (EMF) matters and generally concurs with the consultant findings (Schedules H1 and H2).

The Parks and Recreation Department reports that the proposal will be subject to the City's cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirement (Schedule I).

Community Consultation:

A community consultation meeting was held on March 26, 1998. Traffic, noise and lighting infiltration into the adjacent residential neighbourhood are amongst the issues raised by residents. The issues are summarized in Schedule D and discussed in this report in the following sections and in Schedule E. Submissions that have been received from the community are also attached.

Planning Issues:

(a)Land Use:

The proposal to construct the motor vehicle dealership and restaurant along the Eglinton Avenue portion of the Gatineau hydro corridor illustrates how Ontario Hydro have been investigating opportunities to make better use of its hydro corridors. Hydro corridors offer an opportunity to achieve uninterrupted outdoor linkages and may be able to accommodate limited development provided it is compatible with adjacent land uses.

In principle, the proposal appears to be capable of achieving these opportunities given that the site has an arterial road frontage and is located in an area where a mix of uses cohabitate: light industrial, live-work, retail-commercial, recreational, institutional and low scale residential uses. The introduction of the dealership and restaurant uses along Eglinton Avenue is appropriate and should integrate in a compatible manner with the existing mix of surrounding land uses.

In order to enhance opportunities for uninterrupted outdoor linkages through the hydro corridor, such as a bicycle and pedestrian trail, it is recommended that the applicant enter into an agreement with the City, as a condition of site plan approval, to protect for a 10m (33 ft) wide open space link through the site. The open space link should ensure that any future trail that traverses this section of the Gatineau hydro corridor will be uninterrupted. This is consistent with the railway and hydro corridor trail study the City has undertaken which includes these lands within the inventory of potential trail sections.

The preferred location for the 10m wide trail is adjacent to the Jonesville Crescent frontage of the site. Locating the trail adjacent to Jonesville Crescent will introduce a significant landscape feature which will function as a prominent open space buffer for the adjacent residential area, particularly when combined with the Jonesville Crescent boulevard. The preferred location will also minimize the potential for conflict between trail users and vehicles travelling on the site because: it optimizes the separation between the open space function and the site development; and, it will direct trail users to an existing intersection.

(b)Urban Design:

The restaurant and motor vehicle dealership buildings are centrally located on the site with parking spaces and vehicle display areas being provided along the Eglinton Avenue frontage (Schedule C). To enhance the relationship of the buildings to Eglinton Avenue the applicant proposes landscaping, pedestrian connections and a decoratively paved court along the Eglinton Avenue frontage. The site plan should be refined in order to provide for an architectural element along the Eglinton Avenue frontage as well as a perimeter landscape treatment which includes an area of landscape emphasis at the northeast corner of the site (i.e., at the intersection of Eglinton and Jonesville). Opportunities will be investigated through the site plan approval process to encourage and achieve the following objectives:

(i)an architectural treatment which provides a strong streetscape definition, particularly along Eglinton Avenue;

(ii)an enhanced landscape buffer along the east periphery of the site including landscaped islands within the east periphery of the parking lot which fronts onto Jonesville Crescent. Particular attention should be given to incorporating a 10m wide open space link along the Jonesville Crescent frontage;

(iii)a site landscape treatment which achieves a continuous landscape treatment along the street frontages to screen the asphalt areas from the street and adjacent areas;

(iv)investigating opportunities to achieve an area of landscape emphasis (i.e., trees, shrubs, ground covers) at the corner of Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent;

(v)a site and landscape treatment for the site and appropriate landscape treatment along the Eglinton Avenue and Jonesville Crescent frontages;

(vi)minimum dimensions of parking aisles, driveway and parking stalls in order to maximize landscape opportunities; and

(vii)the technical requirements of the commenting departments and agencies.

(c)Environment:

The applicant has submitted environmental site assessments which assess the proposal in the context of the soil condition and electromagnetic field (EMF) environment. The site assessments conclude that the site will be suitable for the proposed land use. A record of site condition that attests to the suitability of the site to accommodate the proposal should be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.

(d)Transportation and Access:

Access to the site will be from Eglinton Avenue and Jonesville Crescent. While the traffic that will be generated from the proposal can be accommodated on the surrounding road network, some residents have raised the issue of traffic infiltration into the community, specifically relating to the test-driving of vehicles associated with the automobile dealership. As noted by the applicant (Schedule E), the proposal generates low volumes of traffic and includes the relocation of an existing dealership from 1800 O'Connor Drive which is located generally in the same neighbourhood as the site (bottom right-hand corner of Schedule B).

Conclusions:

The proposal to permit the construction of a motor vehicle dealership and restaurant within the hydro corridor is appropriate. The objective of an open space linkage (i.e., pedestrian and bicycle trail) through the corridor will be secured through the site plan process.

Contact Name:

Franco Romano, Senior Planner

Phone: 395-7119Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules, draft official plan amendment and draft zoning by-law amendment 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 Franco Romano, Senior Planner, Planning Department, North York Civic Centre.

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

(i)(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Ron Hart and Ms. Helen Hansen, North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, expressing their concerns with the application;

(ii)(July 8, 1998) from Chris and Danny Papagiannis advising of their opposition to the application;

(iii)(July 7, 1998) from Mr. Michael Tappenden, President, Paul Willison Limited, in support of the application;

(iv)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Michael Martan, President, Don Valley Volkswagen Ltd., in support of the application;

(v)(July 6, 1998) from Ms. Anne L. Andrew, expressing her concerns with the proposed application, together with a petition signed by 9 area residents; and

(vi)(June 29, 1998) from Mr. Bryndon Davies, Vice-president, Parkway Honda, in support of the application.

________

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

-Ms. Linda Kaye, PMB, Planning Consultant, on behalf of the applicant, Rowland Lincoln Mercury, who commented on the merits of the application and the concerns raised by the area residents. She also indicated that the applicant concurred with the staff recommendations with the exception of Recommendation 2(ii). She requested that this recommendation be amended to reflect a maximum gross floor area of 2,200 square metres in order to include the mezzanine area which was excluded from the calculation.

-Ms. Helen Hansen, on behalf of the North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, who filed a written submission, expressed the Committee's concerns with the proposed vehicle dealership and restaurant replacing public utility land and space which could be used for a future trailway and park. The Committee was also concerned about the precedent setting nature of the application because it could encourage others to file similar proposals thereby creating a corridor which is inappropriate and unusable for recreational and transportation purposes. She also indicated that commercial uses will restrict opportunities for full development of a trail and park system.

-Ms. Amy Baker, who filed a written submission, commented in opposition to the application. Her primary objections were with respect to increased traffic, and the negative impact on the surrounding residential area from the noise generated by the test driving of vehicles, the intercom, car alarms and automobile repair operations.

18

Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-48 -

Har-Ru Holdings Limited -

1 Canyon Avenue - North York Centre South

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by Har-Ru Holdings Limited regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application for 1 Canyon Avenue, be approved, as set out in the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning and subject to:

(1)Recommendation No. 3(a)(ii) contained in the following report from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be deleted and replaced with the following:

" (3)(a)(ii)an undertaking from the owner that arrangements will be made, upon consultation with the tenants of the existing rental building, to create in the B1 level of the existing rental building, meeting and recreational facilities occupying, in the aggregate, approximately 150 square metres, within such location or locations as the owner shall designate.";

(2)that the undertaking referred to in Recommendation No. (1) be subject to the approval of the North York Community Council through the site plan process;

(3)not less than $50,000.00 be spent on the recreational facilities; and that the $50,000.00 be secured by a letter of credit, such letter of credit to be received prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law; and that the facility be built within one year of the enactment of the by-law; and

(4)there be, as a condition of approval, safe access and egress to this condominium from Sheppard Avenue West and that this be worked out in connection with the site plan process and at the expense of the applicant.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July 22, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning by-law to permit the development of an underutilized portion of an existing rental building site with a new eleven storey apartment building subject to conditions. The proposal conforms with Part C.4 official plan policies for the intensification of an existing apartment site. This report addresses:

  • the preservation of the existing rental housing stock through an agreement under section 37 of the Planning Act in the absence of the Rental Housing Protection Act;
  • the appropriateness of any intensification at this location; and
  • the conveyance of valley lands below the top of bank to the Toronto Conservation Authority for nominal sum.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following:

Official Plan Amendment

(1)the Official Plan be amended:

(a)to redesignate the lands below the stable top of bank to VOS Valley Open Space; and

(b)to redesignate the remainder of the lands forming the net site to RD5 Residential Density Five with a Site Specific C.9 policy:

(i)which recognizes the existing rental apartment house building; and

(ii)which permits the addition of a new 11 storey, 9,550 mē apartment housing building;

Zoning By-law

(2)Zoning By-law 7625 be amended:

(a)to repeal the existing Site Specific By-law No. 18112;

(b)to rezone the lands below the stable top of bank from RM6 to Open Space O1;

(c)subject to the final technical refinement of the site plan, to rezone the table lands RM6 (exception) to recognize the existing apartment house dwelling with respect to the maximum existing gross floor area, number of units, new yards, building height, and a minimum landscaped area of 3,000 mē; and

to permit an additional apartment house dwelling of 11 storeys with a maximum gross floor area of 9,550 mē of 100 units;

General Conditions

(3)prior to the enactment of any zoning by-law:

(a)the applicant enter into an agreement under section 37 of the Planning Act which will permit the construction of an additional 11 storey, 100 unit apartment house building provided that through this agreement the City secures the following considerations:

(i)an undertaking from the owner that for a period of fifteen years the existing rental apartment housing building will be preserved as rental housing stock; no application for condominium conversion or for demolition to construct anything other than rental housing units will be made by the owner during this period of time; and

(ii)an undertaking from the owner that arrangements will be made to secure access to common recreational facilities and amenities of the new condominium building by the tenants of the existing rental building under fair and reasonable terms and such arrangements will be properly reflected in the condominium declaration governing the new building;

(b)submission of reference plan of survey which describes the lands below the stable top of bank, Site A and Site B as shown on Schedule "C";

(c)site plan approval be granted to achieve good linkages between the buildings with the maximization of landscaping throughout the site, and pedestrian and vehicular site circulation improvements for both the existing and new building;

(4)conveyance to Toronto & Region Conservation Authority of all lands below the stable top of bank for nominal sum;

(5)prior to any building permit the applicant shall:

(i)obtain all easements or consents necessary to achieve the site plan as approved;

(ii)obtain all permits and permission required under Ontario Regulation 158; and

(iii)provide a Record of Site Condition in accordance with the MOEE Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites (1996);

(6)the conditions of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as set out in Schedule "E" be complied with;

(7)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Service Department as set out in Schedule "F" be complied with;

(8)the conditions of the Parks and Recreation Department as set out in Schedule "H" be complied with;

(9)the conditions of the Fire Department as set out in Schedule "I" be complied with; and

(10)the conditions of the Transportation Department as set out in Schedule "L" be complied with.

Background:

1.0Proposal

The applicant is proposing residential intensification of 1 Canyon Avenue with an 11 storey, 100 unit residential apartment building. The site is occupied by a 17 storey, 202 unit apartment building which will remain. The new building will be located to the east of the existing building with frontage on Sheppard Avenue West with access from Canyon Avenue. The statistics are listed below.

Proposed Building

(Site A)

Existing Building

(Site B)

Total
Site Area* 0.47 ha 0.83 ha 1.3 ha
Gross Floor Area 9,550 m2 22,027 m2 31,577 m2
Floor Space Index 2.04 2.66 2.43
Units 100 202 302
Parking Provided 150 230 342

* this includes lands below the stable top of bank

2.0Location and Existing Site:

The site is located at the north east corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Canyon Avenue east of Bathurst Street. The new building site is tableland adjacent to a natural valley slope of the Don River. Two 20 storey apartment buildings (15 and 25 Canyon Avenue) containing approximately 233 units are to the north. A small retail strip plaza which fronts on Sheppard Avenue is west of the site across Canyon Avenue. A 14 storey apartment building is located north of this plaza. There are 3 apartment buildings which vary in height from 12 to 13 storeys across Sheppard Avenue to the south. See Schedule "C2" Context Plan.

Canyon Avenue is developed with high rise apartment buildings and a private school located at the north end of the street. The area was originally developed in the mid 1960s.

3.0Planning Controls

3.1Official Plan

The site is designated Residential Density Four (RD4) which permits residential uses at a density of 1.5 FSI with a very small portion of the lands being designated Valley Open Space at the eastern end of the property as shown on Schedule "A". The eastern portion of the lands fall within the Valley Impact Zone (VIZ). Part C.4 (Housing Policies) establishes the general development policies and criteria for the intensification of existing apartment sites to accommodate additional density. These polices are attached as Appendix "C".

3.2Zoning:

The site is zoned RM6 (Multiple Family Dwellings Sixth Density Zone) and is subject to site specific By-law 18112 which permits a maximum height of 800 feet above sea level allowing for the existing 17 storey building. The existing gross floor area represents FSI 1.5 based on the entire site.

Discussion:

4.0Other Department Comments:

The following section summarizes significant comments received from the departments and agencies circulated:

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staked the stable top of bank and established a development limit and reviewed a geotechnical report. The conservation authority has no objection provided a minimum setback of 1 to 2 metres from the stable top of bank is provided. The TRCA identified the valley lands as appropriate for public acquisition. Their comments are attached as Schedule "E".

The Works and Emergency Service Department indicated structures will not be permitted to encroach on a sewer easement on site. The waste collection arrangements are not considered acceptable and must be settled at site plan approval. Their comments are attached as Schedule "F".

The Public Health Department reviewed the applicant's environmental reports and a subsequent peer review. They have no objections. Their comments are attached as Schedules "G" through "G3".

The Parks and Recreation Department indicate the development is subject to a 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland payment. The lands below the top of bank should be conveyed to the appropriate public body and designated and zoned as open space. Parks encourages the provision of landscaping and outdoor recreational space. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".

The Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic School Board indicate the proposed development will create accommodation pressures. Their comments are attached as Schedule "J" and Schedule "K".

The Fire Department have concerns regarding the fire route access which must be resolved as part of any approved site plan. Their comments are attached as Schedule "I".

The Transportation Department indicates the traffic generated by the proposed development will have minimal impact on the overall operations. Access onto Sheppard Avenue will not be permitted because of safety and operational concerns. The number of parking stalls proposed is adequate, however some modifications will be required to the location of some of the spaces. Their comments are attached as Schedule "L".

5.0Community Consultation

In March, there were three community meetings held in the immediate area. The issues raised by the residents were:

1)increased traffic generated from the new development and access onto Canyon Avenue rather than Sheppard Avenue West;

2)location of the building and the environmental impacts of construction at this location;

3)adequate parking on site in order to prevent overflow on street parking;

4)community benefits to residents in the existing building on site;

5)loss of open space; and

6)overview and shadow impact.

During the review period, the applicant and the transportation staff have endeavoured to resolve the resident concerns with respect to traffic impacts of this development. The recommendations of this report with respect to the conveyance of valley lands, the establishment of a minimum landscaped area on site and other recreational access conditions, respond to the concerns of the community with respect to the loss of open space. A follow up meeting was held with several of the residents in May.

6.0Planning Issues

6.1Redesignation of Residential Lands to a Higher Density

The official plan's housing policies state that in order to consider a site appropriate for intensification, at least one of the following criteria must be met:

"a)the area, which includes lands beyond a single development site, demonstrates a need for rejuvenation and reinvestment, or

b)existing land uses or buildings are considered to be obsolete or underutilized; or

c)land use conflict is occurring."

This proposal conforms to the official plan criteria. The area primarily consists of high rise rental apartment buildings developed in the 1960's which require reinvestment on an ongoing basis to preserve this valued rental housing stock. The existing building at 1 Canyon is currently undergoing a program of improvements. The residential land use itself cannot be considered obsolete or in conflict with other land uses, as the existing apartment building on site and other residential dwellings in the area appear to be occupied, well maintained and do not represent an area in transition.

There is an opportunity to more efficiently use the site and the surrounding community facilities, services and infrastructure. The existing apartment building being located towards the Canyon Avenue frontage, instead of centred in the middle of the site, provides a large amount of open area to the east of the building. The location and orientation of the existing apartment building provides the opportunity for redevelopment of the property. Any intensification of the site must demonstrate that the proposal can be accommodated from an urban design perspective on site and within the existing community. Further it must be demonstrated that there is available community facilities, services and infrastructure to serve the additional 100 apartment house units.

The following section of this report will review and assess the proposal's bearing on community services, transportation, its compatibility with the adjacent residential neighbourhood and its impact on the existing site.

6.2Land Use and Density

(a)Built Form Considerations:

This site is appropriate for residential intensification. The location takes advantage of physical infrastructure, existing community services and transportation facilities. It is located on an arterial road, well served by public transit and close to Earl Bales Park, Community Centres and the Don Valley.

This residential node contains several high rise apartment buildings. Its expansion is limited by the valley lands to the north and east. This site represents the only parcel above the top of bank capable of accommodating additional development here.

This proposal represents an appropriate scale of residential intensification. The building will be one of the smaller apartment buildings in the area. Its floor plate is square with an coverage of approximately 800 square metres giving the building a compact form. The building is smaller than the existing apartments to the north and the west. This provides an opportunity for existing views to be maintained for the surrounding apartments. The apartment buildings on the south side of Sheppard Avenue are 12 to 13 storeys with gross floor areas of approximately 8,600 mē to 14,900mē. This infill building is in keeping with this scale of the area and is reflective of the existing RM6 zone regulations with respect to building separation.

(b)Preservation of Rental Housing Stock:

The Rental Housing Protection Act repeal came into effect June 17, 1998. The city is reviewing its policies to establish a citywide strategy for the preservation of rental stock. This application, however, represents an opportunity to take action now with the full cooperation of the owner to ensure that the existing rental building remains and is integrated with the new condominium.

There is an ongoing program of reinvestment in the rental building including renovations to all balconies, common areas, roof, and the individual suites. Fire safety upgrades, lighting improvements, elevator modernization and new appliances and broadloom have been completed. This represents a substantial new investment in the existing rental apartment building. The maintenance of the rental building is strongly encouraged by Council. Rental accommodation is recognized as an essential form of housing tenure that is currently limited in supply.

To secure this rental stock, the applicant is prepared to enter into a section 37 agreement under the Planning Act ensuring that:

  • the existing rental apartment building remains as rental for a minimum period of fifteen years and there is agreement that no application for condominium conversion or application to demolish to construct anything other than a replacement rental housing building be permitted,
  • on site amenities in the new building will be accessible to the residents of the rental building under fair and reasonable terms which will need to be carried forward in the condominium declaration.

See the submission of the Owner attached as Appendix "A".

(c)Recognition of Existing Property Rights

The entire property to the bottom of the slope is designated RD4 and zoned RM6 as was the practice in the 1960's before the city had any Valley Open Space policies.

This application provides the opportunity to rezone the valley lands from RM6 to O1 Open Space which consolidates the existing official plan designation and zoning on the tablelands consistent with the current Official Plan policies. The net density on the tableland increases to approximately 3.0 FSI with the development of the new building. The removal of the valley lands from the RM6 zone also presents an opportunity for the long term preservation of the lands in public ownership and maintenance of the valley. The Valley Open Space designation and Valley Impact Zone (VIZ) will work together to manage the valley land uses. The policies are found in Appendix "B". In addition, redesignation of the lands below the stable top of bank to Valley Open Space and conveyance of these lands for a nominal sum to the TRCA is appropriate. The applicant and TRCA concur with this. This conveyance completes a cross section of land from crest to crest in public ownership.

(d)Common Amenities

This proposal also has the ability to provide a net benefit to the existing residents in terms of on-site facilities and improvements to amenities.

Significant shared outdoor amenity space is proposed by the applicant comprised of approximately 2,000 mē between the existing and proposed buildings. This will be landscaped to include a tot lot and/or passive park with walkways, a gazebo, benches and lawn areas. These outdoor amenity areas will be shared by the existing and the new building and are an improvement to the site. Currently, the area consists of natural field above the top of bank and a natural treed slope below with no formalized landscaped area.

The new building will be a condominium apartment rather than a rental apartment building. As all of the residential buildings in this node except for one are rental, the provision of a condominium building will help to provide variety in tenure in the area while preserving the existing rental building.

6.3Shadowing and Overview

There are substantial yard setbacks proposed for the new building from the existing buildings surrounding the site which will minimize the impact of both shadowing and overview. The proposed building is approximately 47 metres from the existing building of 1 Canyon Avenue and will be approximately 35 metres in height. The siting of the buildings will maintain many of the view corridors from the surrounding buildings to the valley lands.

6.4Community Services and Facilities

The site is well served by parks and community facilities. Located adjacent to the Don Valley System, it is within walking distance of Earl Bales Park which contains the Earl Bales Seniors Centre and the Earl Bales Community Centre. The John Bales House which is an historical land mark is also located within this 30 hectare park. The site is in close proximity is the North York Ski Centre as well. There are park facilities within walking distance of the site.

6.5Physical Feasibility of Development

6.5.1Geotechnical - Slope Stability

The applicant submitted a geotechnical report which assessed the stability of the slope. It concludes that there is no evidence of erosion and the slope is considered stable and will not be adversely affected by the construction of the proposed building. In order to maintain this stability, surface runoff from the top will not be allowed to run down the slopes and the vegetation on the face of the slope will be maintained and improved where possible. The TRCA reviewed these finding and have no objections provided a 1 to 2 metre yard setback is maintained for all structures including those underground. The construction is subject to TRCA permits.

6.5.2Soil Contamination

A storm sewer easement is located on a portion of the property. Due to the fill operations that were associated with the construction of the sewer, an environmental site assessment was submitted by the applicant in order to determine whether these operations resulted in any soil contamination. These studies were subject to peer review and comments from the Medical Officer of Health. The assessment suggests that residential use is appropriate. This conclusion must be verified by the submission of a record of site condition prior to the issuance of a building permit.

6.5.3Traffic and Parking

The Transportation Division is satisfied vehicular access to Canyon Avenue is feasible and has no adverse impacts on traffic operation. However, since the issue of access onto Canyon Avenue was raised at the community meetings, a review of the possibility of access onto Sheppard Avenue rather than Canyon Avenue was examined by the Transportation Department. Ideally direct access onto Sheppard Avenue would ensure there is no additional traffic on Canyon Avenue. However, access onto Sheppard Avenue is not recommended because of safety and operational concerns. There is inadequate stopping sight distances available due to the grade of the road at this location. The presence of a driveway on the south side of Sheppard Avenue could further present traffic conflicts for left turning vehicles and sightlines are reduced because of the steel beam guide rail along the north side of Sheppard Avenue.

The current volume and speed of traffic on Canyon Avenue was further investigated by the Traffic Investigation Section of the Transportation Department. A speed and volume study was carried out over a number of days in April of this year concluding there were no traffic operations or safety concerns on Canyon Avenue. A study was also undertaken by the former Metro Transportation Department in 1995 to investigate the issue of transient traffic on Canyon Avenue due to traffic using Canyon Avenue as a shortcut around the Bathurst Street and Sheppard Avenue intersection. This study concluded the absolute number of transient vehicles was relatively small and therefore did not significantly impact the safety and operations of Canyon Avenue.

Since both the existing and proposed building will share driveway access onto Canyon Avenue, the granting of reciprocal easements rights of way across the property may be needed or alternative arrangements can be made to have a condominium description include all lands necessary to provide direct access.

The applicant originally proposed 112 new parking spaces for the 100 units. In light of the residents' issue with regard to adequate parking on site, and to avoid on street parking of visitors, the applicant revised their plans to include 3 levels of underground parking rather than 2 levels and a total of 150 parking spaces (125 for residents and 25 for visitors). This complies with with the parking rate for new apartment house dwellings as set out in zoning By-law 7625. There have been improvements to the existing apartment building parking supply as well.

6.6Urban Design

A site plan application has been filed by the applicant. In order to achieve an optimal development, a number of urban design principles will guide the site plan application:

  • edge treatment of all sides of the site which includes substantially treed edges;
  • extensive landscape screening of the existing raised parking structure from Sheppard and from the new landscaped area to the north and the proposed building to the east;
  • east edge needs to include the integration of buildings and structures into the natural landscape and screen with plantings any exposed concrete;
  • clear linkages to the shared landscaped space located between the existing building and the proposed building must be present for both buildings;
  • a well articulated pedestrian entrance should be present along Sheppard Avenue; and
  • the existing pedestrian entrance at the Canyon Avenue frontage needs to be substantially improved in terms of landscaping including the walkway.

Additional principles may be defined to further improve the existing building and proposed new building.

Conclusions:

The proposed new apartment house dwelling at this site is appropriate as it meets the intent of the Official Plan policies for residential intensification. The site is located on an arterial road near a major intersection which gives the site the advantage of good transit. The traffic and parking impacts are minimal. The nearby park, open space and community centre facilities supports the intensification. It is appropriate the City secure the preservation of existing rental units through an Agreement under section 37 of the Planning Act. This development proposal presents an opportunity to preserve, improve and intensify a rental apartment site.

Contact Name:

Karen Whitney, Planner (North York District)

Phone: 395-7109Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules, Appendices, draft official plan amendment, draft zoning by-law amendment and site plan 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, Planning Department, North York Civic Centre.

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

(i)(July 20, 1998) from Teresa Hyatt, expressing her concerns with the application.

(i)(July 13, 1998) from Mr. Raymond H. Mikkola, Fraser & Beatty, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of the owner of the property;

(iii)(June 30, 1998) from Mr. Jerry Willer, advising of his concerns with the application; and

(iv)(June 25, 1998) from Ms. Rose Silverman, advising of her objection to the application.

________

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

-Mr. Raymond H. Mikkola, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, Har-ru Holdings Limited, who indicated that the applicant concurred with the staff recommendations and with North York Community Council Recommendation No. 2 that the undertaking referred to in Recommendation No. (1) be subject to the approval of the North York Community Council through the site plan process;

-Mr. Julian Jacobs, Architect on behalf of the applicant, who commented on the architectural aspects and the merits of the proposed apartment building. In his opinion, the proposal is appropriate as it meets the intent of the Official Plan policies for residential intensification.

-Mrs. Haneford, who spoke in opposition to the application. Her primary objections were with respect to increased traffic; insufficient parking for visitors; air and noise pollution; overview and shadow impact.

-Mr. Joseph Spring, who spoke in opposition to the application. He was primarily concerned with the intensification of this site and the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development.

-Ms. Teresa Hyatt, who outlined her opposition to the application. She was concerned about increased population and the impact on existing retail services in the area; the integrity of the valley being jeopardized by the proposed apartment building; and increased pedestrian and commuter congestion.

-Ms. Debbie Edelist, who expressed her opposition to the location of the proposed entrance to the apartment building and its proximity to the existing apartment building at 15 Canyon Avenue.

-Mr. George Jolson, who expressed concern with the parking being proposed for the new apartment building.

________

The motions and recorded votes on this issue were as follows:

A.Councillor Berger, North York Centre South, moved that the report from the Acting Commissioner of Planning dated June 24, 1998, be adopted and the application UD0Z-97-48 - Har-ru Holdings Limited, be approved as set out in the report (June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning subject to the following:

(i)Recommendation No. 3 (a)(ii) be deleted and replaced with the following:

"an undertaking from the owner that arrangements will be made, upon consultation with the tenants of the existing rental building, to create in the B1 level of the existing rental building, meeting and recreational facilities occupying, in the aggregate, approximately 150 square metres, within such location or locations as the owner shall designate"; and

(ii)that this undertaking be subject to the approval of the North York Community Council through he site plan process.

B.Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, moved that the foregoing motion A moved by Councillor Berger, North York Centre South, be amended as follows:

(i)not less than $25,000.00 be spent on the recreational facilities;

(ii)there be, as a condition of approval, safe access and egress to this condominium from Sheppard Avenue West and that this be worked out in connection with the site plan process and at the expense of the applicant.

C.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that Part (i) of the foregoing motion B by Councillor Flint, North York Centre be amended by striking out the amount of $25,000.00 and inserting in lieu thereof the amount of $50,000.00.

D.Councillor Shiner, Seneca Heights, moved that the $50,000.00 be secured by letter of credit, such letter of credit to be received prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law; and further, that the facility be built within one year of the enactment of the by-law.

A recorded vote on the foregoing motion C. moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, LiPreti, Moscoe, Flint, Filion, Shiner, King, Augimeri

AGAINST:Councillors Berger, Feldman, Chong, Gardner, Minnan-Wong

Carried

A recorded vote on Part (ii) of the foregoing motion B. moved by Councillor Flint, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Sgro, LiPreti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillor Mammoliti

Carried

A recorded vote on the foregoing motion D. moved by Councillor Shiner, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, LiPreti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Flint, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong

Carried

A recorded vote on the foregoing motion A. by Councillor Berger, as amended, was as follows:

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

AGAINST:NIL

Carried

19

Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-96-30 - Harry Snoek -

15-19 Finch Avenue West and 7-11 Blakeley Road -

North York Centre

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendations of the North York Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that this Clause be received and that no action be taken at this time with respect to this zoning amendment application having regard that Section 37 of the Planning Act and Site Plan and Development Agreements have not been fully executed.")

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (March18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by Harry Snoek regarding Zoning Amendment for 15-19 Finch Avenue West and 7-11 Blakeley Road, be approved, subject to the recommendations contained in the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning and subject to the following amendment adopted by the North York Community Council on June 24, 1998:

(1)Recommendation No. 3(e) contained in the following report from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be amended to read as follows:

"(3)(e)the property identified municipally as 11 Blakeley Road described as Lot88, Registered Plan 3705 has been conveyed to the City, subject to the existing tenancy."

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to prepare for the North York Community Council, a transportation analysis for this development based on the 24 percent transit use noted in the report from the Toronto Transit Commission; and that such report include any transportation improvements that may be required to deal with traffic from this site.

The North York Community Council also reports having held the continuation of the statutory public meeting on July 22, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of this application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit two residential apartment buildings. The north tower is proposed to be 18 storeys high containing 112 units with first floor commercial space with frontage on Finch Avenue West. The south tower is proposed to be 18 storeys high containing 121 units with frontage on Lorraine Drive.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a public meeting be scheduled and appropriate notice be given;

(2)prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law, the Acting Commissioner of Planning shall have granted site plan approval with the conditions described in Appendix "B";

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

Zoning By-law

(a)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached as Schedule "E1" to this report has been perfected;

(b)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;

(c)a 10 metre strip at the south end of the site as shown on Schedule "C" has been conveyed to the City;

(d)a 2.76 metre widening along the Finch Avenue West frontage has been conveyed to the City; and

(e)the property identified municipally as 11 Blakeley Road described as Lot 88, Registered Plan 3705 has been conveyed to the City;

General

(f)a Section 37 agreement with the City shall have been executed to secure the items referred to as incentives and density transfers;

(g)the Owner has satisfied:

(i)the conditions of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department as set out in Schedule "F";

(ii)the conditions of the Parks and Recreation Department as set out in Schedules "G" and "H";

(iii)the conditions of the Transportation Department as set out in Schedules "J" and "J1";

(iv)the conditions of the Public Works Department as set out in Schedule "K";

(v)the conditions of the Fire Department as set out in Schedule "M";

(vi)the conditions as set out in the February 17, 1998 Wind, Snow and Sun/shade studies referred to in the Certification attached as Schedule "N"; and

(vii)the conditions as set out in the October 27, 1997 Traffic Impact Study referred to in the Traffic Certification attached as Schedule "O";

(h)the Owner has acknowledged and agreed that prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the following condition will be required to have been met:

(i)that they shall pay to the City in cash or certified cheque, on or before Building Permit issuance, the City-wide and Hydro Development Charges, the Sewer and Water Services Development Charge, and the Sheppard Subway Development Charge, in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time; and

(3)the Owner shall agree to develop the two residential towers as condominiums in accordance with Council policy.

Council Reference/Background/History:

1.0Proposal:

The applicant has proposed two residential towers for the site. The north tower fronting onto Finch Avenue West would contain ground floor commercial uses. The pertinent statistics are listed below.

North Tower

South Tower Total
Site Area for both buildings 4,091 mē
Gross Floor Area

(excluding incentives and transfers) for both buildings

19,583 mē

Incentive - Indoor Amenity Area 501 mē 62 mē 563 mē
Incentive - Bike Storage 64 mē 64 mē
Density Transfer - Service Road Lot 1,812 mē
Dwelling Units 112 units 121 units 233 units
Outdoor Recreational Amenity Area 332 mē 278 mē 610 mē
Height 18 storeys 18 storeys
Parking Proposed 256 spaces
Parking Required 253 to 300 spaces
Total Residential and Related Gross Floor Area 21,457 mē
Total Commercial Gross Floor Area 565 mē

2.0Location and Existing Site:

The site is on the south east corner of Finch Avenue West and Lorraine Drive and has an area of approximately 0.4 hectares. The site is made up of 6 lots that previously were occupied by single family homes. Part of the site is currently being used for a sales office for a residential tower approved to the south currently known as "Symphony Square".

By-law 33061 was passed on July 9, 1997 to implement a rezoning application immediately south of the site for a 20-storey, 305 unit residential building. Immediately to the east of the site is a North York Parking Authority parking lot and further to the east of the site towards Yonge Street are low rise retail commercial buildings. Across Lorraine Drive to the west are single family homes. To the north of the site across Finch Avenue is a three storey office complex fronting onto Duplex Avenue.

3.0Planning Controls:

3.1Official Plan:

The site is within the Uptown Secondary Plan. The northern five lots are designated Uptown Mixed Use One (UMU1) and the southern lot is designated Uptown Residential Two (UR2) as shown on Schedule "A". Specific Development Policy 6.3 of the Uptown Secondary Plan applies to the site which is outlined in Appendix "A".

3.2Zoning:

The three northerly lots of the site are zoned C1 (General Commercial) and the southerly three lots of the site are zoned R4 (One-Family Detached Dwelling, Fourth Density Zone) as shown on Schedule "B". The C1 zone permits a wide variety of commercial uses at a density of 1.0 FSI and also permits limited residential uses. The R4 zone generally permits single family homes. The applicant has requested a site specific RM6 (Multiple-Family Dwellings Sixth Density Zone) to permit the residential towers and the ground floor commercial in the north tower.

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. This includes all developments within the Uptown Plan. 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 Urban Design and Environmental objectives of the Uptown Plan. The Commissioner of Planning is delegated to approve plans and drawings and is prepared to do so with Community Council consideration of this report. The site plan considerations are outlined in Appendix "A" and the recommendations are in Appendix "B".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

4.0Other Department Comments:

The following section summarizes significant comments received from the departments and agencies circulated.

The former Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department requested that a Traffic Impact Study be submitted. This study has been completed and reviewed. A 2.76 m road widening along the Finch Avenue West frontage is required and a north bound left turn lane is required on Lorraine Drive at the intersection of Finch Avenue West and Lorraine Drive. This widening will be secured prior to enactment of the zoning by-law.

A number of criteria have been outlined for the design of the Finch Avenue West boulevard area. A number of permits are required which are outlined in the comments attached as Schedule "F". Further, since the site is located adjacent to the Yonge subway line, the developer should contact the TTC to address noise and vibration impacts from the subway to adjacent buildings and determine appropriate mitigation measures. It is also noted that the developer should investigate opportunities to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff and to improve the quality of stormwater discharge.

All access to the site will be from Lorraine Drive only with no direct access onto Finch Avenue West. The Traffic Impact Study which was reviewed and accepted by Metro Transportation indicated auto traffic resulting from occupancy of the proposed development will not significantly contribute to reducing the levels of service on nearby arterial roads and their intersections with local roads to below a generally acceptable level. This analysis included both the Finch/Lorraine intersection and the Finch/Yonge intersection.

The North York Parks and Recreation Department have discussed with the applicant opportunities to acquire land for parks, but will accept cash-in-lieu of parkland. The application originally included 12 Lorraine Drive, however the applicant revised their plans after the Parks and Recreation Department indicated that 12 Lorraine Drive was not acceptable for parkland. The applicant was unable to acquire other land for parks that were considered appropriate by the Parks Department. The provision of additional indoor and outdoor amenity space is encouraged. The comments are outlined in Schedules "G" and "H".

The Metropolitan Separate School Board advises that the Board objects to the rezoning application due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at Brebeuf College, Loretto Abbey and St. Joseph Morrow Park Catholic Secondary Schools. At the elementary level, St. Cyril Catholic School (JK-8) could accommodate additional enrollment in portable facilities. These comments are attached as Schedule "I".

The former North York Board of Education advised that this proposal will result in accommodation pressures at Yorkview Public School and that Churchill Public School will become the sole designated school. These comments are attached as Schedule "I2".

The North York Transportation Department has indicated that the proposed parking supply satisfies the City Centre Parking Policy requirements. There are several comments regarding site plan issues which are outlined in Schedule "J". It is also noted that Lorraine Drive will eventually be closed at Finch Avenue West and that future tenants and owners should be made aware that the driveways to Lorraine Drive may be altered to accommodate this future road design. The optimum driveway arrangement will be achieved through site plan approval. The November 3, 1997 comments attached as Schedule "J1" indicate that the department does not object to the proposal. No functional section of the Service Road is required as a result of this development. Future alterations to the site plan, that may result from the future closing of Lorraine Drive, will be dealt with through the Environmental Assessment process if necessary.

The North York Public Works Department has indicated that the waste collection arrangement shown on the October 11, 1996 plans is not acceptable. The applicant has been working with the Works Department to achieve an acceptable design. The Public Works Department has given direction to perfect the site circulation and driveway arrangement to allow for adequate garbage pick-up areas. With respect to sanitary sewer allocation, this application will form part of the allocation upon enactment of the zoning by-law. Additional comments are noted in Schedule "K".

The Fire Department had concerns with the fire route access. The applicant modified their plans in accordance with the Fire Department's direction and the access issue has been resolved. The comments are attached as Schedules "L" and "M".

5.0Community Consultation:

A community consultation meeting was held on February 16, 1998, attended by approximately 40 people. The key issues that arose from the meeting were:

  • Construction of service road is too uncertain. This development does not trigger a need for a functional section of the Service Road, however many people expressed the view that the Service Road should be built today.
  • Access onto Finch Avenue West from Lorraine Drive is an issue of the residents on Lorraine Drive within the Uptown development area. Several residents say that it is difficult to make a left or right turn from Lorraine Drive onto Finch Avenue West at the present time.
  • Traffic levels on Finch Avenue West and at the intersection of Yonge Street and Finch Avenue are heavy.
  • Comprehensive development on Lorraine Drive has not been achieved. Some residents from the remainder of the Lorraine Drive development block expressed the view that this proposal was not comprehensive in nature. The remainder of the block west of Lorraine Drive is not currently assembled with the ownership fragmented.

A further meeting was held with planning and transportation staff on March 11, 1998 to address the above concerns and to ensure a clear understanding by all. Key issues that were also addressed at that meeting, in addition to those expressed previously, were:

  • The provision of Service Road lots by developers was questioned. It was expressed that the two development applications already approved and proposed should both share equally the land acquisition for the Service Road.
  • The location of the temporary cul-de-sac on Lorraine was questioned. Several people expressed the view that the cul-de-sac that was approved as a result of the Ghods application (UDZ-95-31) on Lorraine be moved to allow the remaining residents to access the western portion of Lorraine or Blakeley Road.
  • There was also concern about emergency access onto Lorraine Drive caused by the temporary blocking off of Lorraine Drive at Blakeley Road. There is a concern that emergency vehicles may be delayed if they access the wrong portion of Lorraine Drive. There was also concern expressed about emergency vehicles being able to get quick access onto Finch Avenue West from Lorraine Drive because of heavy traffic.

The densities from the service road between Lorraine Drive and Finch Avenue West could be transferred to the remainder of the site west of Lorraine Drive to make a viable development site. There have been meetings over the years with the existing residents to help them appreciate the scope of an application to redevelop their block. The opportunity to pursue the development of these lands by the residents can be followed up with Planning Department.

With respect to the emergency access concern, Planning staff will be following up with the emergency service providers to ensure they are well aware of the access situation for properties on Lorraine Drive.

6.0Planning Issues:

6.1Land Use:

The proposed residential towers and the ground floor commercial uses are in keeping with the permitted uses of the Official Plan designations on the site.

6.2Density:

The maximum density assigned to the site, exclusive of incentives and transfers is a combination of 5.0 FSI on the 5 northern lots and 3.75 FSI on the southern lot. The Plan permits a density increase through incentives for the provision of specific uses and facilities and density transfers for the provision of land for public purposes such as roads.

6.2.1Incentives

The applicant has proposed to include indoor amenity space of 502 mē on the second floor in the north tower and indoor space of 62 mē in the south tower. A bicycle storage area is also proposed in the south tower of 64 mē. In accordance with the policies of the Uptown Plan, these areas qualify as incentives to a maximum of 1x the gross floor area of each facility. On a per unit basis, there is approximately 4.5 mē per unit of indoor recreational space proposed for the north tower and 0.5 mē per unit of indoor recreational space proposed for the south tower. This amounts to an aggregate of approximately 2.5 mē per unit or approximately 3% of the gross floor area.

A total of 627 mē of gross floor area can be exempted from the calculation of density.

6.2.2Transfers

The applicant will convey 11 Blakeley Road to the City in exchange for the density attributable to the site. The City will use 11 Blakeley for a portion of the Service Road and associated buffer area. The Uptown policies require that the developer provide land for the Service Road when the site abuts the Service Road or requires a functional section of the Service Road. The policies encourage the provision of such lands through density transfers.

In addition, the southern 10 metres of the site are to be conveyed to the City for future access to redevelopment on the Yonge Street frontage. The development to the south has contributed the southern 10 metres. All conveyances will be secured at this time. The applicant will provide for the maintenance of this land as a condition of site plan approval until it is required. A total density increase of 12.5 percent results from the combination of incentives and transfers.
DENSITY SUMMARY FSI Permitted Gross Floor Area
ASSIGNED DENSITY

15-19 Finch Avenue West & 7-9 Lorraine Drive

11 Lorraine Drive

5.0

3.75

16,966 mē

2,617 mē

19,583 mē

DENSITY INCENTIVES

Indoor Recreational Area

Bicycle Storage Area

1x

1x

563 mē

64 mē

DENSITY TRANSFERS

11 Blakeley Road

2.6 1,812 mē
PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA 22,021 mē
PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA 22,021 mē

6.3Comprehensive Development:

The development proposed does not cover the entire site specific policy area. It leaves adequate development sites on the west side of Lorraine Drive. An assessment of the Lorraine block was made during the review of rezoning application UDZ-95-31 at 15-25 Lorraine Drive by Ghods Developments. It was determined that a concept as outlined in Schedule "E" was achievable on the city block through this previous assessment. Residential development of 15-25 storeys was shown on the current site. The two proposed 18 storeys residential buildings are in keeping with this scenario, and provision for access between the development to south at 15-25 Lorraine Drive and the current proposal have been made in accordance with this concept plan.

The proposed development does not preclude development in the remainder of the block. Development parcels are of a sufficient size and have adequate density to support the development of the remainder of the block. Density from the remaining Service Road lands can be transferred to lands within the remainder of the block, including the Yonge Street fronting properties, in compliance with the Official Plan policies. It should be noted that if assembled as a whole, the density from the Service Road lots between Lorraine Drive and Finch Avenue West could all be transferred to the development lots of the west side of Lorraine Drive.

6.4Infrastructure and Service Road:

The Uptown Service Road is planned to accommodate the ultimate levels of development contemplated by the Uptown Plan. It is intended that the construction of the Service Road be paid for by private development, and therefore the timing of construction is dependent on the pace of growth within the Uptown. Any new development must demonstrate that the traffic generated by the development can be accommodated in the existing road network. If the traffic cannot be accommodated, a functional section of the Service Road is required. The Traffic Impact Study submitted by the applicant has been reviewed by the Transportation Department. It shows that the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing road network.

It should be noted that there was considerable concern from the community regarding the timing of the construction of the Service Road and the traffic in the area. Subsequent to the community meeting, and in response to these concerns, the applicant acquired 11 Blakeley Road for Service Road purposes. The applicant will convey this property to the City and the density attributable to that property will be transferred to the development site. Further, the applicant will be required to pay Yonge Centre Development Charges, which are intended to contribute specifically towards the hard and soft service requirements of the North York Centre. A portion of these contributions is specially allocated for the construction of the Service Road.

The applicant will also convey a 10 metre strip of land at the south end of the site which represents half of a future access. The development to the south also conveyed a 10 metre strip of land to make up the balance of the requirement. This future access is illustrated on the block concept plan in Schedule "E". Lands will be held by the City until such a time as the front part of the block is redeveloped.

The temporary cul-de-sac on Lorraine Drive prohibiting access onto Blakeley Road resulted from the Ghods rezoning application to the south of the site and the concerns of the residents of the Edithvale neighbourhood to the west of the Uptown. The temporary cul-de-sac is intended to prevent traffic infiltration into this stable residential neighbourhood to the west from new development. The accompanying landscaping around the cul-de-sac will form part of the permanent landscaping next to the Service Road when it is built. The construction of the cul-de-sac is a condition of approval for the Ghods development. Currently, Lorraine Drive is blocked off by concrete barriers but will be replaced by a properly constructed cul-de-sac this year. The Fire Department has been made aware of the emergency access concerns of the residents of Lorraine Drive. The concerns can be further addressed through signs at the Finch Avenue West and Lorraine Drive intersections.

In the long term, Lorraine Drive will be closed at Finch Avenue West when the Service Road is constructed as a new point of access to Finch Avenue West and the temporary cul-de-sac at Lorraine Drive and Blakeley Road removed. Approvals for any necessary road closing and the opening of the Service Road will be coordinated to ensure ongoing access to Finch Avenue West for all residents on the block.

6.4.1Traffic Certification

It is the policy of Council not to approve a rezoning for a development having more than 5,000 mē of total floor space unless a traffic certification is completed and acceptable to Council and in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan. It must be shown that:

  • traffic resulting from the development will not significantly contribute to reducing the level of service on nearby arterial roads and their intersections with local and collector roads to below a generally acceptable level;
  • the project can be accommodated by the existing and planned transportation infrastructure;
  • the project will not increase local residential road traffic significantly;
  • the project provides enough parking so that occupants and visitors will be unlikely to disrupt off-site roadways and unaffiliated parking areas, but does not provide so much parking as to discourage achievement of the transit modal split targets of this plan; and
  • the site layout provides adequately for the movement needs of visiting pedestrians, automobiles and commercial vehicles without disrupting bordering streets and properties.

Traffic certification has been provided by the applicant and is attached as Schedule "O". The Transportation Department has reviewed the Traffic Impact Studies which accompanies this certification and has no objections.

6.5Community Services and Facilities

6.5.1 Parkland

The applicant had originally proposed that 12 Lorraine Drive be used for parks purposes. The Parks and Recreation Department determined that the conveyance of 12 Lorraine Drive was not acceptable because it represents an isolated parcel of land which is far removed from any existing parkland in the area and is of little practical use for parkland development. The Parks and Recreation Department subsequently advised that a parcel of land in the vicinity of 29 or 31 Lorraine Drive would be more appropriate as they had been identified as potential parkland sites abutting St. Cyril Separate School in the Parkland Acquisition Strategy. The City has since purchased 29 Lorraine Drive.

The development will also be subject to 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland.

6.5.2Private Amenity Space

The applicant has proposed private indoor recreational uses in both the north and south towers as discussed in the section regarding incentives. This type of space in encouraged by both the policies of the Uptown Plan and Official Plan Amendment 447.

The applicant has also proposed some outdoor recreational space. A pre-school playground of 278mē has been proposed next to the south tower at the southeast corner. A second floor outdoor terrace of 332 mē is proposed on the north tower. Minimum indoor and outdoor amenity space requirements are reflected in the draft zoning by-law.

6.5.3School Facilities

The Metropolitan Separate School Board objects to the rezoning application due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at Brebeuf College, Loretto Abbey and St. Joseph Morrow Park Catholic Secondary Schools. The Board has not identified required lands or facilities to address this situation. It should be noted that the western portion of St. Cyril's Separate School is required for a portion of the Service Road in this general location.

The North York Board of Education has indicated accommodation pressures on their facilities will result from this proposal being built, but have not objected to the application.

Conclusions:

The proposal to develop the Finch Avenue West and Lorraine Drive site with two 18 storey residential towers is appropriate development which is consistent with the policies of the Uptown Plan. The applicant is contributing lands for the future Service Road and associated buffer area as well as land for an access to service the Lorraine Drive block. This will assist the City in achieving the infrastructure and open space objectives of the Secondary Plan. The development is consistent with both the Uptown Plan policies and the policies in Official Plan Amendment 447 known as the North York Centre Secondary Plan.

In accordance with Council policy, a Site Plan application has been processed concurrently with the rezoning application. The applicant has provided detailed plans and drawings that demonstrate the proposal satisfies the urban design objectives of the Uptown Plan.

Contact Name:

Karen Whitney, Planner

Phone: 395-7109Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the schedules, appendices, draft zoning by-law amendment and site plan 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, Planning Department, North York Civic Centre.

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

(i)(July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services regarding a strategy for the implementation of the North York Centre Plan Service Road, in response to North York Community Council's requests at its meetings of May 6, 1998 and June 24, 1998;

(ii)(July 10, 1998) from the Toronto Transit Commission reporting on the estimation of the percentage of transit versus auto use at this location both with and without a direct subway connection, in response to North York Community Council's request at its meeting of May6, 1998;

________

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

-Ms. Kim Kovar, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant, Harry Snoek, who indicated that this development does not trigger the need to build the functional section of the service road but the applicant has acquired 11 Blakeley Road so that it can be used for the future service road. She also agreed with the recommendations contained in the joint report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services regarding a strategy for the implementation of the North York Centre Plan service road. Insofar as this development was concerned, it does comply with both the Uptown Plan policies and the policies in Official Plan Amendment 447. She concluded by requesting the Community Council to approve the application.

-Mr. Peter Cheatley, Planning Consultant, on behalf of the 15 property owners on Lorraine Drive, who indicated that these residents wish to reserve their right to file an appeal. He further indicated that these property owners will be filing a rezoning application for the lands on the west side of Lorraine Drive and east of Blakeley. Mr. Harry Snoek is also one of the owners of property within that block and the residents would be discussing with him the possibility of joining their group for the rezoning of those lands. The residents will be working on the submission of their own rezoning application but wish to reserve their right to appeal at a later date regarding any amending by-law for this site.

________

The motions and recorded votes on this issue were as follows:

A.Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, moved that the report (March 18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, be adopted; and that application UDZ-96-30 - Harry Snoek, be approved as set out in the foregoing report.

B.Councillor Filion, North York Centre, moved that:

(i)the application be approved in principle;

(ii)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to prepare for the North York Community Council, a transportation analysis for this development based on the 24 percent transit use noted in the report from the Toronto Transit Commission; and that such report include any transportation improvements that may be required to deal with traffic from this site;

(iii)the by-law not be enacted until such time as Council has dealt with this report.

Part (i) of the foregoing motion by Councillor Filion was ruled by the Chair to be out of order.

A recorded vote on Part (ii) of the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Filion, was as follows:

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

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Feldman

ABSENT:Councillor Shiner

Carried

A recorded vote on Part (iii) of the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Filion was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Flint, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, King

ABSENT:Councillor Shiner

Lost

A recorded vote on the foregoing motion A. moved by Councillor Gardner, as amended, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Filion

ABSENT:Councillor Shiner

Carried

20

Strategy for the Implementation of the North York Centre Plan

Service Road - North York Centre

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the joint report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Financial Officer to consider, as part of her current review of the development charges by-law for the City of Toronto, the land acquisition cost required for implementation of the North York Centre Plan service road..

The North York Community Council submits the following joint report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

1.0Purpose

This report is in response to North York Community Council's request at its meeting of May 6, 1998, for a number of reports, including a report on:

"The Works and Emergency Services Department comment on the request of Councillor Gardner that funding be included in the 1999 Capital Budget for the purpose of acquiring land to build the Service Road."

Further, North York Community Council at its meeting of June 24, 1998, requested that the subject report also include a plan and timetable for the implementation of the Service Road:

"That the staff of the Transportation Division, North York Civic Centre, bring forward to the North York Community Council, a plan and a timetable for the completion of the Service Road for its meeting of July 22, 1998."

2.0Funding

Funds be made available from:

a)the Yonge Centre Development Charges, for the acquisition of property for the implementation of the Service Road for the years 1999, and 2000; and,

b)the Capital Budget, in the amount of $1.5 million commencing in the year 2001 and continue as an annual commitment until such time as the Service Road is substantially complete or Council directs otherwise.

3.0Recommendations

In order to provide opportunities for ongoing development of the North York Centre area, as well as providing an early resolution to recent traffic concerns expressed by the residential communities adjacent to the redevelopment area, it is recommended that:

i)appropriate funds be provided from the Yonge Centre Development Charges for the acquisition of lands for the implementation of the Service Road for the years 1999, and 2000;

ii)a property acquisition strategy and reporting mechanism be developed to ensure a continuance of a program to initiate the construction of the Service Road in stages and that the matter be referred to the Property Division of the Corporate Services Department for implementation;

iii)the property acquisition strategy include the powers granted to the City under the Expropriations Act to ensure that contiguous land assemblies are successfully acquired in a reasonable time frame to enable the annual road construction program to be implemented;

iv)the property acquisition be focused in those areas as outlined in the schedule in this report wherein the road network will achieve the most effective results for the connecting links or extensions to the Service Road in phases;

v)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to implement an annual construction program for the construction of the Service Road in keeping with the land assembly through the property acquisition strategy in ii) above; and

vi)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to include funds in the annual Capital Budget commencing in the year 2001 to be continued as an annual commitment until such time as the Service Road is substantially complete or Council directs otherwise.

4.0Discussion

The intent of the Service Road is to facilitate new development in the North York Centre by establishing a collector 'ring road' to integrate with the surrounding road network hierarchy which also includes other collector, minor arterial and arterial roads. Also, the Service Road is to provide in part, physical separation from the local road network of the adjacent stable residential community. While the Service Road concept was approved in support of the development levels, its construction was based on the requirements of development as it occurred. As a result, the road has not been constructed in a continuous manner.

Consequently, its lack of continuity, external influencing factors such as the Sheppard Subway construction and the uncertainty in the timing of complete construction of the road are placing a burden on the adjacent road network and are raising a number of traffic related concerns and issues from residents both outside and inside the North York Centre planning area.

4.1Service Road Status

4.1.1The Downtown Service Road

For the purpose of this report, the Downtown Service Road may be considered to be complete. The Environmental Study Report for the "Downtown Service Road and Associated Road Network" was approved on August 12, 1991, and the majority of the road is in place.

To the east, the road has been constructed from Sheppard Avenue in the south to Norton Avenue in the north. South of Sheppard Avenue the Service Road has been assessed to reflect the recent Ontario Municipal Board decision of September 29, 1997, with regards to Official Plan Amendment No. 393. To the west, the Service Road has been constructed from Poyntz Avenue in the south to Ellerslie Avenue in the north.

The construction of the 'Downtown' Service Road was aided by the fact that 88% of the alignment was located along then existing roads and roads rights-of-way (Beecroft Road and Doris Avenue). 46 percent of the existing roads had to be widened with the majority of that property acquired from development through conditions of approval. Likewise, the property required for the road where a road right-of-way was not existing (12 percent) was also acquired through development as conditions of approval. In the Downtown, the City only contributed towards the acquisition of one property for the Service Road and the cost of such was charged against development levies, now collected as development charges.

4.1.2The Uptown Service Road

The Uptown Service Road implementation has not been as successful as the Downtown Service Road due to the Plan's boundary. The majority of the road could not be placed to take advantage of existing road rights-of-way. The planning of the Uptown Plan was premised upon the earlier economic conditions which assumed that comprehensive development would occur in a similar manner as the Downtown Plan thereby the Service Road, in particular the property acquisition, would be provided by the development industry. The Environmental Study Report for the "Uptown Service Road and Associated Road Network" which was approved on December 14, 1993.

At present, there is only limited amount of Service Road actually constructed within the Uptown and even with that, there are still, in certain locations, additional improvements required along those sections.

4.1.3 Pressures of Implementation

The policies for the implementation of the Service Road in the Official Plan are still appropriate, whereby development must provide the necessary road improvements in support of site specific application. The need for functional sections of the Service Road are determined through the required Traffic Certification policy of the Official Plan. Over time, changes in the economy, market conditions as well as other outside influences have, by default, placed pressure on the adjacent road system.

Generally, the recent market conditions have resulted in smaller scale development rather than the larger comprehensive block development which occurred during the earlier development of the Centre. This trend is continuing and consequently, the acquisition of functional sections of the Service Road in the Uptown Plan has not taken place and is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future. The high cost of providing sections of Service Road may discourage desirable, more comprehensive development proposals. The ability on the part of the more modest developer to finance acquisition and construction of any required section of the Service Road is onerous and is not always realistic in terms of cost benefit. This may be viewed as counterproductive to meeting the long term planning objectives of the North York Centre plan, and not enhance the road network now being demonstrated as important for the surrounding communities, as it is for the development within the North York Centre Plan.

It must be reiterated that the present scale of development which is proceeding does not diminish the need for the eventual completion of the Service Road as the cumulative traffic impact from all development is the driving factor.

4.1.3.1Use of Other Roads

With the current trend of development, and in the absence of key sections of the Service Road, more emphasis is being placed upon the surrounding collector roads to carry traffic flows which, although form part of the overall network, were not intended to replace the need for the Service Road.

While the east Service Road connecting Sheppard Avenue to Finch Avenue will alleviate some of the pressure, it should be noted that the current traffic impacts on other roads such as Kenneth Avenue or Empress Avenue are not solely as a result of new or recent redevelopment within the North York Centre. The Sheppard Subway construction has disrupted established traffic flows in the greater area and as a result drivers have found alternate routings using the collector grid system to the east and west of Yonge Street.

4.1.3.2Circulation and Access

Improvements to the road network with the introduction of key sections of the Service Road and the associated roads within the 'plan' boundary will facilitate development by improving access and circulation. However, the connection and completion of Service Road links will also greatly improve mobility, access and circulation for those residents in the adjacent communities who have a need to access the North York Centre to take advantage of the many public facilities and services now established along many sections of the Yonge Street frontage.

4.1.3.3Parties Affected within the Plan

More recently, residents who are located within the Centre and are directly impacted by either the alignment of the Service Road or the buffer areas adjacent to the Service Road are similarly concerned that with the current market conditions, the development trends are of such a nature that the smaller developers will not be able to entertain development prospects if significant property acquisition is associated with the prospective development to satisfy the Service Road requirements. A number of these residents have expressed concern with the policies of the Plan and their ability to provide certainty for the future of their properties as their homes can no longer be considered, for sales purposes, single family residences, and any benefit accrued by the designation of density within the 'plan' may never be realized if the constraints for the cost of implementing the Service Road are not adequately addressed.

The areas most affected in the Uptown Plan are, in the east, between Byng Avenue and Olive Avenue, and in the west, between the south side of Churchill Avenue to the south side of Finch Avenue. North of Finch Avenue, there are a number of different issues to be addressed, some of which are associated with how the Service Road is established through the Hydro corridor and the impacts on the commuter parking lots.

4.1.3.4Developers Responsibilities

As identified earlier in this section, the approved development to date has provided the property for the Service Road, and the road construction has been incorporated into and funded through the Yonge Centre Development Charges. Should sections of the Service Road be constructed in advance of development, such a strategic approach should be viewed as complementary to the established policies of the Official Plan and in no way lessen the ultimate responsibilities of the developer who will be benefitting from the development potential which the North York Centre Plan offers. In particular, if a development proposal is of a certain size and in a location where through traffic certification, it is demonstrated that a functional section of the Service Road is required in support of the proposal, then it will be the responsibility of the developer to provide that section of Service Road.

In order to rationalize the construction of the road in advance of development, it is first necessary to recognize that the Service Road provides a greater function than that of facilitating new development. The Service Road must be seen as a benefit to the overall road network and that, should the City proceed with a property acquisition and construction program, a portion of the funds for property acquisition will continue to be collected through development charges.

5.0 Phasing Plan and Costs

Acknowledging that the Service Road implementation would be an ongoing for a number of years, then this report addresses a short to interim schedule which can initiate the project in 1999. Staff will have the opportunity to review the benefits of those links or improvements which would be put in place, and report in the annual monitoring program of the Centre and make the appropriate recommendations for the next stages or phases.

The missing links of the Service Road in the Uptown Plan, in particular to the east of Yonge Street, should be viewed as the highest priority as they would develop a parallel road to Yonge Street connecting Sheppard Avenue with Finch Avenue, increasing circulation and providing a more direct access to the Centre. As an alternate route, it will free up capacity on a number of roads in the area.

In this regard, the following property acquisition and construction schedule is proposed over the next three years.

Uptown Plan

East Service RoadFromToAcq'n. Year.Cons't. Year

Norton Church 1998/99 1999

ChurchByng 1999/2000 End of 2000

Byng Finch 1999 End of 2001

As a result of the road alignment, the property acquisition from Byng Avenue to Olive Avenue is seen to be difficult from a prospective developers point of view, and therefore it would appear appropriate that the City embark on this area first recognizing the benefit to the road network. It must also be recognized that the property for the Service Road between Church Avenue and Byng Avenue is to be conveyed to the City by Tridel from the Nortown site, and the property for the Service Road between Olive Avenue and Finch Avenue is to be conveyed to the City from the Harry Snoek east site. The time frame for design, construction and opening as a dedicated public road is premised upon tentative schedules associated with the property transfers from those particular developments.

5.1Property Costs

To provide an estimate for the overall property cost with any amount of accuracy is an extensive undertaking which may take months of market research and comparison evaluation. For the purpose of this report, that type of accuracy may not be necessary recognizing that actual property values will vary based upon lot size, permitted land uses (which can be mixed in some locations) and densities.

Values will also vary as to property location, past and present property sales in the area, and the time period at which the property would be acquired. For the purpose of establishing an estimate of property acquisition costs for this report, an average value was allocated for property within the alignment of the Service Road which allowed the magnitude of the project to be determined.

East Side - Uptown Service Road$ 8.0M

West Side - Uptown Service Road minimum to provide a network$ 15.2M

Buffer $ 4.4M

full road configuration $ 8.0M

Based upon the estimated values, the total cost to provide the property for a linked road network for the Uptown area, along the alignment of the Service Road is in a range of $ 36M.

The Service Road in the South Downtown, which is still the subject of review through the Environmental Assessment process, would increase the above costs by approximately $18M.

Consequently, it is obvious that regardless of the accuracy of the property value estimates, the total cost implies a significant capital investment for property acquisition and therefore the City should not embark on such a complex and costly undertaking as a single project. However, it does not preclude the City by proceeding with a program by engaging in a strategy for the Service Road property acquisition in phases. The strategy should strive to implement those key sections of Service Road which best benefit the overall road network and the area community.

The cost for property acquisition for the Uptown Service Road, east of Yonge Street, seen as the road link with the highest priority, is estimated to be approximately $8.0 million exclusive of the lands to be conveyed by current development.

5.2Construction Costs

The cost of Service Road construction as well as reconstruction of the internal road network of the Plan is collected through the Yonge Centre Development Charges. It is anticipated the pace of development and the collection of development charges will provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of road construction and installation of municipal services.

6.0Funding Sources

6.1Development Charges

The use of development charges for property acquisition is applicable, but at this time, the estimated costs are not covered in the relevant account. The Yonge Centre Development Charges were established to provide the following services for development within the North York Centre Plan:

Roads and curbs;

Road widenings;

Local storm sewers;

Local sanitary sewers;

Local water mains;

Sidewalks;

Street Lighting; and,

Land Acquisition for roads and streetscaping.

As identified earlier, the cost for property acquisition for the Uptown Service Road (east) is estimated to be approximately $8.0 million, a significant portion of that will become available from the Yonge Centre Development Charges. It has been determined that there are presently over $6M in the Yonge Centre Development Charge of which approximately $3.6M can be used for land acquisition. Consequently, there is enough 'seed' money to initiate this property acquisition program with additional funds coming to development charges as building permits are issued with the Centre. Funds collected through development charges will be monitored for the purpose of advising Council as to the adequacy of those funds to singularly provide the property requirements of the service road.

If all of the funds are not readily available from development charges, it may be necessary to provide funds from the annual Capital Budget to supplement any shortage.

6.2Capital Budget

In keeping with Councillor Gardner's original motion, funds in the Capital Budget could be dedicated for property acquisition. In order to provide a commitment in support of the Service Road construction and should funds be required, then funds should be dedicated in the Capital Budget to supplement those funds collected though development charges for land acquisition. A figure in the range of $1.5 million per annum would in all likelihood be sufficient to complement those funds from development charges to ensure that a if a section, a connecting link of the Service Road is started, it can be completed. That figure may have to be adjusted depending on the time and extent of negotiations being carried out at a given time.

6.3Recovery of Funds

Development is presently occurring within the Centre and over time, new development will contribute to the Yonge Centre Development Charges with specific funds dedicated towards property acquisition and road construction. As contributions into the development charges are ongoing, funds spent for property acquisition will therefore be replenished.

Another factor to be considered is that when the City acquires property in the North York Centre Plan, the density assigned to that particular property can be 'banked' and sold to other development sites in the area.. The financial return from that sale should also be used as a source to regenerate the property acquisition funds in the development charges.

7.0PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION

7.1East Side

Section 5.0 outlines property acquisition/construction schedule which staff are recommending for the sections of Service Road which will deliver the best value from a roads operation point of view at this time. However, the City should not limit itself to this initial phase, if in fact funds and/or opportunities for further property acquisition become available allowing thereby other links in the Service Road to be established.

This section of the Service Road in the Uptown would provide the greatest initial benefit. On the east side of Yonge Street, significant sections of the road are complete and property for major additional sections have already been allocated by development. It is for these reasons, that the property acquisition phasing in Section 5.0 has been suggested.

7.2West Side

The next section for consideration should be in the south west quadrant of Yonge Street and Finch Avenue. In this area, it might be feasible to initially provide a road link between Lorraine Avenue and Kempford Boulevard, in the alignment of the Service Road, but without the need to construct the full Service Road up to Finch Avenue. This type of road connection would provide circulation and relief to those residents residing in the single family homes in that quadrant, who have expressed concern with respect to access.

7.3General

Phasing and construction of links or sections of the Service Road initiated by the City are not the result of any requirement of development. The construction initiatives are for those sections which may be difficult to provide through development. Therefore the initiatives must be considered from the point of view of providing certain road links in a timely fashion for the improvement of the current traffic operations and which compliment the roads that are required to be provided by development.

8.0Conclusion

There are many advantages for the City to proceed with a property acquisition strategy and road construction program for the North York Centre Service Road . Only when missing links in the Service Road are constructed will the overall road network receive true value. Prioritizing sections and developing construction phases must be endorsed by Council to address effective road network improvements and not to accommodate special interest groups or developers. The current policies of the Official Plan as they relate to the implementation of the Service Road are still valid and must be adhered to therefore, development still has a responsibility to provide functional sections of the Service Road and/or a property contributions towards the future extensions of the Service Road.

In summary, the City has the funds collected for the purpose of property acquisition which will allow the City to commence with a program which will have little or no impact on the capital budget. The approach outlined in this report will encourage development, but more importantly provide ongoing improvement and expansion to the roads infrastructure as a commitment to the adjacent stable residential communities, encourage growth in the North York Centre and support the City's objective of intensification.

________

The motions and recorded vote on this issue were as follows:

A.Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, moved that the joint report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

B.Councillor Filion, North York Centre, moved that the Chief Financial Officer be requested to consider, as part of her current review of the development charges by-law for the City of Toronto, the land acquisition cost required for implementation of the North York Centre Plan service road.

A recorded vote on the foregoing motions A. and B. was as follows:

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

AGAINST:NIL

ABSENT:Councillor Shiner

Carried

21

Evaluation of Unleashed Dog Area -

Sherwood Park - North York Centre South

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, and that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to report thereon to the North York Community Council:

WHEREAS dogs in the unleashed area of Sherwood Park continue to run out of control; and

WHEREAS unleashed dogs are causing long-term damage to the undergrowth of the forest area; and

WHEREAS unleashed dogs frequently run onto private property, destroying gardens and frightening residents, including young children; and

WHEREAS professional dog walkers, who walk up to a dozen dogs each, are increasing users of the park; and

WHEREAS many local residents no longer use their neighbourhood park, preferring to go elsewhere so as to avoid unleashed dogs; and

WHEREAS there have been many reports from joggers of menacing dogs, and at least one biting incident that resulted in a muzzling order; and

WHEREAS there is increased public anxiety about uncontrolled dogs due to reports in the media about vicious attacks; and

WHEREAS local residents who have volunteered many hours planting new trees, flowers and shrubs are discouraged because unleashed dogs have destroyed much of their work; and

WHEREAS measures taken last year to protect the forest undergrowth have resulted in more damage to unprotected areas; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the evaluation of the unleashed dog area in Sherwood Park scheduled for September 1998 be commenced immediately; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the results of the evaluation be referred to the North York Community Council and the User Fee Committee for consideration.

22

Refund of Reimbursement Paid for Damages to City Trees -

105 Wigmore Drive - Don Parkway

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide information to the North York Community Council in response to a request from Mr. and Mrs. Camilleri, 105 Wigmore Drive, that they be refunded a $500.00 damage reimbursement which they paid to the City for two City trees in front of their house (Appendix I).

Source of Funds:

With the exception of the $500 in question, there are no City funds required with respect to this matter.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)this reimbursement be retained by the City and applied towards the costs for City arborists to perform remedial pruning to rectify damage caused by the unauthorized and improper pruning of two trees in front of 105 Wigmore Drive.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The residents of 105 Wigmore Drive have requested, through Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, the refund of a damage reimbursement which they paid to the Parks and Recreation Division, Urban Forestry Section (Appendix I). This sum of $500.00 is intended to be used to partially offset the costs for Urban Forestry Field Services staff to perform remedial pruning work on two City trees that were improperly pruned by a contractor hired by the residents, Mr. and Mrs. Camilleri. This pruning had been done in contravention of North York By-law No. 31729 which states that, " No person shall without the prior written authorization of the Commissioner, do or cause, or permit to be done, any of the following: spray, fertilize, prune, trim, disturb, or alter a tree or any part of a tree." Under the by-law, "tree" refers to a tree growing on the road allowance.

On March 24, 1998, Urban Forestry Inspectors noted that two City trees had been severely pruned at 105 Wigmore Drive (Appendix II). Our records indicated that no authorization had been given to do this work. The two (2) trees in question, a 72 cm (28 inch) Northern Catalpa and a 59 cm (23 inch) Silver Maple had been pollarded, a destructive practice whereby the branches of a tree are excessively cut back to abrupt, thick stubs. At the very least, the appearance of these trees has been destroyed and it will require time and money for several years of pruning to even partially restore them.

In addition, the trees are now much more likely to become safety hazards. New bark will be unable to grow over the end of the stubs. The bark of a tree is its first line of defense against attack by insects or disease pathogens and the stubs of these pollarded trees will now remain potential sites of entry for damaging insects or diseases and the resultant decline and death of the trees. The severe cutting back of much of the trees' branches will also result in the proliferation of many quickly growing, upright branches, called "water sprouts", to compensate. Water sprouts are unlike other branches in that they are poorly attached to the tree and if left to grow will become hazards. These branches, as well as the hazards created by the "stubbed" branches as they die back, will require monitoring and action by City staff to maintain safety. This necessary remedial work, as well as pruning to correct the unsightliness of these trees, will have to be spread over several years and will cost at least $1,300.00 in staff and equipment time over this period. This figure does not include the loss of value in the trees due to poor pruning which has left them with an unnatural, displeasing appearance.

The Camilleris have agreed with Urban Forestry staff that the trees were "butchered" by their contractor. They maintain that they were unaware of existing tree protection by-laws and they had been advised that trimming these trees was their responsibility. We are unaware as to who would have told them this because it has never been our policy to place the responsibility of City tree care on adjacent residents. We are certain that the Camilleris have not been directed to perform this work by Parks and Recreation staff. The Urban Forestry section records all inspection requests and work activities on City trees by municipal address on our computerized "Tree Management Information System (TMIS)". These records indicate that no Urban Forestry staff have visited this address since the system was brought on-line in 1990.

The Parks and Recreation Division (North York Region) has communicated our tree policy to all North York residents. Our bi-annual (formerly quarterly) newsletter of Programs and Services which is delivered to all North York households has always included a section on City Street Trees advising residents that it is illegal to prune or interfere with a tree growing on City property. The phone number of the City Forestry desk, which residents are directed to call for assistance, is also included.

One recourse which staff may take in response to heavy tree damages like those at 105 Wigmore is to lay charges under the by-law. The by-law carries a maximum fine of $5,000. In addition, compensatory damages may also be awarded. However, based on a number of discussions with the Camilleris, it was agreed that no action would be taken if the residents agreed to pay a portion of the costs for remedial work. The figure was set at $500.00 and the Camilleris sent a cheque to the City.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under the North York Street Tree By-law No. 31729 and its predecessor By-law No. 30022, care of the City's street trees is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation or his or her designate. It is illegal under the by-law to do anything to a City tree without the prior authorization of the Commissioner.

The City employs trained Urban Forestry staff who apply their knowledge and experience to prune, remove and treat disease or insect problems on the City's trees. This expertise is essential in ensuring that trees do not become safety hazards, or that their appearance does not become a detriment to the neighbourhood. Provincial Offenses Officers in the Parks and Recreation Division enforce the North York Street By-law No. 31729 employing firmness, fairness, and consistency in their dealings to ensure that unauthorized practices are not undertaken on City trees that result in unsafe or unsightly trees.

Where damage to City trees results from unauthorized work to the trees or in their vicinity, By-law Officers may consider laying charges to serve as a deterrent to similar occurrences and to recoup damages. Where possible and in order to maintain goodwill between residents and the City, court action will be avoided if a reasonable compromise can be reached between parties. We believe that such a compromise had been agreed to as a result of our discussions with the Camilleris and as a result did not pursue court action to recoup the City's losses, which were substantially more than $500.00.

Conclusions:

The unauthorized and improper pruning of these trees has created a situation whereby the City is obligated to correct bad work at an expense to the City. It is reasonable to require that the resident accept responsibility and pay at least partial compensation for remedial work.

Contact Name:

Bob Crump

Supervisor of Urban Forestry and Environmental Services

Tel. No.: 416-395-7991

Fax. No.: 416-395-7937

E-mail:bcrump@city.north-york.on.ca

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

23

Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue,

Registered Plan M-108 - North York Centre South

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (May 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services embodied in the following Clause No. 28 of Report No. 7 of the Corporate Services Committee:

(Clause No. 28 of Report No. 7 of The Corporate Services Committee,

headed "Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue,

Registered Plan M-108 - North York Centre South")

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the North York Community Council for further consideration.

Council also adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Ward Councillors be notified of all real estate related requests in their Wards and be kept informed of all ongoing negotiations;

(2)Ward Councillors be advised of the details prior to the final conclusion of any transactions and before any reports are signed or the matter is considered by the Corporate Services Committee/Council; and

(3)the following motion be referred to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee to be held on June 22, 1998, for consideration with the report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services on the processing of real estate transactions:

Moved by Councillor Flint:

'It is recommended that:

(1)real estate matters under $500,000.00, that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at that Councillor's request;

(2)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;

(3)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services Committee; and

(4)the Council Procedural By-law be amended accordingly.' ")

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report (May4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded a copy of the aforementioned report to the North York Community Council for comment thereon to the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998.

The Corporate Services Committee submits the following report (May4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain Council approval for the sale of the subject property to the abutting property owner at 530Woburn Avenue.

Financial Implications:

The sale of the subject property will generate funds in the amount of $100,000.00 to be deposited in the Land Acquisition Account No. 007-430-0000-8340.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City accept the offer to purchase for the subject property, made by the abutting property owner at 530 Woburn Avenue, Boaz Feiner, for the appraised value of $100,000.00;

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the offer to purchase and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing of the transaction of otherwise;

(3)the proceeds from the sale be credited to Account No. 007-430-000-8340; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary.

Background:

The former City of North York acquired the subject vacant residential property through a Certificate of Tax Arrears on November 20, 1939. The property has frontage of 6.1 m (20 ft) by a depth of 36.57 m (120 ft) and an area of 239.7 mē (2,400 square ft.). This property has always been considered to have only contributory value with abutting lands.

However, in 1996, a number of similar size properties in the surrounding area received Committee of Adjustment approval of variances to the minimum lot frontage and coverage provisions and thereby establishing them as viable building parcels. In view of these recent approvals, staff determined that there was a reasonable chance that the Committee of Adjustment would also approve an application to establish the subject property as a viable (R6) residential building lot. On April 17, 1996, staff received approval from the former City of North York Council to make such an application to the Committee of Adjustment.

The application to establish the subject property as a viable building lot was heard by the North York Committee of Adjustment on June 13, 1996. The Committee stated that if approval was granted to this application there could be a proliferation of 6.1 m (20 ft) lots in the area. It was moved by the Committee that the application be deferred sine die with the understanding that City staff attempt to negotiate the sale of the subject property with the owner of 530 Woburn Avenue.

The Committee of Adjustment in making their decision was aware that the new owner of 530Woburn Avenue had contacted City staff to inquire about purchasing the subject City property. It was his intention to assemble a large enough site for a possible land severance. The Committee concluded that such an assembly may provide them with the opportunity to consider land severances at that location with frontages in excess of 6.1 m (20 ft).

Former North York Council on December 11, 1996, by Resolution No. 96-18 declared the subject lands as surplus. Staff entered into prolonged negotiations with the owner of 530 Woburn Avenue for the sale of the subject property. As the result of this action a settlement has now been secured. The financial consideration is $100,000.00 and is based on the appraised value according to an independent appraisal prepared by Royal LePage for the former City of North York.

Conclusion:

The financial terms are considered to be fair and equitable and the sale being recommended for approval addresses the concerns of the former North York Committee of Adjustment.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Wayne O'Brien, Telephone No. (416)395-6847, Fax No. (416)395-6703, (cs98060.wpd)

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, agenda of the Corporate Services Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 28, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations :

The North York Community Council on May 27, 1998, recommended to City Council that:

(1)the report (May 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services regarding Woburn Avenue - Proposed Sale of Lot 198, Registered Plan M-108 (Ward 9 - North York Centre South) be referred to the North York Community Council for consideration;

(2)real estate matters under $500,000.00, that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at that Councillor's request;

(3)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;

(4)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services Committee; and

(5)the Council Procedure By-law be amended accordingly.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to:

(a)notify all Councillors of all real estate related requests in their Wards and keep them informed of all ongoing negotiations; and

(b)advise Councillors of the details prior to the final conclusion of any transactions and before any reports are signed or the matter is considered by the Corporate Services Committee/Council.

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it a communication (May 26, 1998) from the City Clerk regarding Woburn Avenue - Proposed Sale of Lot 198, Registered Plan M-108.)

--------

The North York Community Council had before it a communication (June 8, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred back to the North York Community Council for further consideration Clause No. 28 of Report No.7 of The Corporate Services Committee, headed "Proposed Sale of Lot 198 - Woburn Avenue, Registered Plan M-108 - North York Centre South".

24

Reallocation of Approved 1998 Capital Budget -

Clanton Park - North York Spadina

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to reallocate approved capital funding of $780,000 from facility improvement initiatives at Clanton Park to required artificial ice rink maintenance at the Glen Long and Irving W. Chapley Rinks.

Source of Funds:

New funding would not be required as only approved/existing capital funds would be utilized.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the approved capital funding for facility improvements at Clanton Park (98 Project No. 697 - $780,000.00) and the multi sport pads at the Glen Long (96 Project No. 007 - $100,000.00) and Irving W. Chapley Rinks (98 Project No. 699 - $100,000.00) be utilized as follows:

(i)Upgrade the existing building at Clanton Park$100,000.00;

(ii)Redevelop the Glen Long A.I.R.$468,000.00;

(iii)Redevelop the Irving W. Chapley A.I.R.$310,000.00;

(iv)Additional amenities at the two A.I.R.'s$102,000.00; and

(2)the appropriate City officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Glen Long and Irving W. Chapley artificial outdoor ice rinks in Ward 8 have recently experienced serious mechanical difficulties. Both rinks are at the end of their life cycle being some thirty years old and now require substantial maintenance if they are to open this coming winter. Total redevelopment costs estimated at $468,000.00 at Glen Long and $310,000.00 at Irving W. Chapley reflect the following:

The Situation

-Glen Long A.I.R. has been operating for 35 years.

-Chapley A.I.R. has been operating for 30 years.

-The expected life cycle of these installations is 25 years.

-At Glen Long the pad and board system are in very bad shape and need complete replacements. The refrigeration plant has had some repairs and is functioning well.

-At Chapley the pad is in good shape but the boards and refrigeration plant must be replaced.

The Replacement Costs

GLEN LONG
Component Cost
Rink Pad

$160,000.00

Rink Boards and Glass $150,000.00
Header $20,000.00
Evaporative Chiller $38,000.00
Brine Pump $10,000.00
Compressor No. 1 $25,000.00
Piping / Valves $30,000.00
Electrical Switching Equipment $35,000.00
Total $468,000.00
IRVING W. CHAPLEY
Component Cost
Piping / Valves

$30,000.00

Compressor No. 1 $25,000.00
Evaporative Chiller $38,000.00
Rink Boards and Glass $150,000.00
Header $22,000.00
Electrical Switching Equipment $35,000.00
Brine Pump $10,000.00
Total $310,000.00

Comments/Discussions/Justification

Due to the immediate attention that must now be paid to these two A.I.R.'s, it was necessary to re-examine and if possible, re-prioritize approved capital budget initiatives. Discussions were held with the Ward Councillors Feldman and Moscoe and with local residents through two public meetings. As a result of these, a recommendation came forth to re-allocate the approved capital funding for Clanton Park ($780,000.00) and the multi sport pads at the Glen Long and Irving W. Chapley Rinks ($200,000.00) as follows:

(i)upgrade the existing building at Clanton Park$100,000.00

(ii)redevelop the Glen Long A.I.R.$468,000.00

(iii)redevelop the Irving W. Chapley A.I.R.$310,000.00

(iv)additional amenities at the two A.I.R.'s$102,000.00

Having considered a number of options the Division supports this recommendation.

Conclusions

The Division recommends that approval be given to proceed to reallocate the existing approved Capital funds as noted above.

Contact Name:

Gary W. Stoner

Deputy Commissioner, Parks and Recreation

Telephone: 395-6190Fax: 395-0105

E-mail: gwstoner@city.north-york.on.ca

25

Speed Humps -

Newbury Lane between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard -

North York Centre South

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:

WHEREAS Newbury Lane from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard is scheduled for resurfacing later this summer; and

WHEREAS this block of Newbury Lane is used by many transient motorists as a "cut-off" from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard; and

WHEREAS residents, by petition, have requested the installation of speed humps to slow down vehicles on their block; and

WHEREAS all residents of the affected block of Newbury Lane have been made aware of the opportunity for speed humps by letter, survey and public meeting; and

WHEREAS more than the required 66 percent of residents have indicated their desire for speed humps; and

WHEREAS staff have determined and residents have agreed on the most suitable location for speed humps; and

WHEREAS speed humps can be installed in connection with the road resurfacing at no extra cost;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT two speed humps of standard City design be installed on Newbury Lane between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard at suitable locations identified by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and Transportation Services, in connection with the 1998 road reconstruction.

26

Speed Humps -

Raeburn Avenue from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard

North York Centre South

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:

WHEREAS Raeburn Avenue from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard is scheduled for resurfacing later this Summer; and

WHEREAS this block of Raeburn Avenue is used by many transient motorists as a "cutoff" from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard; and

WHEREAS residents, by petition, have requested the installation of speed humps to slow down vehicles on their block; and

WHEREAS all residents of the affected block of Raeburn Avenue have been made aware of the opportunity for speed humps by letter, survey and public meeting; and

WHEREAS 16 surveys were mailed out; 12 returned of which 10 indicated their desire for speed humps; and

WHEREAS staff have determined - and residents have agreed - on the most suitable location for speed humps; and

WHEREAS speed humps can be installed in connection with the road resurfacing at no extra cost;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT two (2) speed humps of standard City design be installed on Raeburn Avenue between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard at suitable locations identified by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and Transportation Services, in connection with the 1998 road reconstruction.

27

Pay Parking - Civic Garden Centre

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:

WHEREAS last year the Civic Garden Centre was identified by Metro Council as a location for pay parking; and

WHEREAS parking revenue from the Civic Garden Centre was included in the 1998 Toronto City budget; and

WHEREAS there are 42 volunteer groups with well over 1,000 active volunteers and even more members associated with the Civic Garden Centre (including 3 "resident" groups: Toronto Garden Club, Milne Garden Club and the Civic Garden Centre); and

WHEREAS a fully accessible teaching garden was recently opened at this location; and

WHEREAS the Civic Garden Centre is comparable to a community centre; and

WHEREAS there is no commuter parking problem at this time; and

WHEREAS pay parking will legitimize and increase the use by commuters; and

WHEREAS one meeting has been held between Parks Department staff, local Councillors and major stakeholders, at which it was agreed that more information was needed before any specific proposals for relief or exemption from parking fees could be recommended; and

WHEREAS August 1st, 1998 is the date targeted for the installation of pay parking;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that pay parking not be implemented at this time; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff be directed to continue discussions with volunteer groups, nearby community associations, Civic Garden Centre staff and local Councillors, in an effort to determine appropriate recommendations regarding the pay parking initiative; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Councillors report back through the Community Council to Toronto City Council no later than October 1998.

28

Downsview Area Secondary Plan -

Official Plan Amendment No. 464 - North York Spadina

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)amending Recommendation No. (1) of the North York Community Council to provide that the Official Plan Amendment No. 464 be amended by incorporating the following clause at the beginning of Section 7 - Transportation and Circulation Policies:

"All developments within the area covered by this Official Plan Amendment must conform with the requirements of the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, as approved by City Council, which is an integral part of, and has the same force and effect as, this OPA.";

(2)amending Recommendation No.(1)(g)(i) of the North York Community Council by deleting the following words:

"and replacing it with the following:

'(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, no direct access shall be permitted from lands in the Secondary Plan area to Wilson Avenue through the Mt. Sinai Cemetery.' "; and

(3)adding thereto the following new Recommendation No. (1)(h) as follows:

"(h)no direct access shall be permitted from lands in the Secondary Plan to Wilson Avenue through the Mt. Sinai Cemetery.";

(4)renumbering the Recommendations of the North York Community Council accordingly; and

(5)adding thereto the following:

(a)"WHEREAS the Guiding Principles for the development of the Downsview Lands include the following transportation and traffic principles:

-'the development of the Downsview Lands should not negatively impact operations on the surrounding transportation network'; and

-'the fundamental premise/principle behind the mobility servicing plans for development on the Downsview Lands should be that the adjacent communities (individual, residential, commercial) should not be impacted from a traffic infiltration or spillover parking perspective'; and

WHEREAS the traffic situation at the Allen Expressway and Eglinton Avenue West, already impossible, may be aggravated by any development along the Allen Expressway;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to examine means, including the use of outside consultants, to alleviate this further aggravation, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:

(i)use of City of Toronto development charges to help finance additional ramps on Allen Road, between Eglinton Avenue West and Lawrence Avenue West;

(ii)capital improvements to the Eglinton Avenue/Allen Road intersection; and

(iii)provision of additional parking lots around Eglinton Avenue/Allen Road;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT all local area Councillors, along the Allen Expressway, and the Mayor's Office, be included in the aforementioned studies as they progress."; and

(b)that City staff involved with this project as it develops, and the developers, be requested to pursue:

(i)high levels of energy efficiency; and

(ii)parking minimization strategies;

(c)that the developer be urged to consider district energy options for heating and cooling their facilities;

(d)that the Toronto District Heating Corporation be given the opportunity to make a proposal to that effect; and

(e)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Toronto Transit Commission and City Transportation staff, be directed to revise the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, incorporating specific initiatives which would achieve a more transit-oriented, less auto-reliant development at Downsview, and to present this revised Plan for City Council approval in October, 1998.)

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the by-law attached to the July 17, 1998, report of the Acting Commissioner of Planning to adopt the final draft of Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, be enacted subject to the following amendments to Official Plan Amendment No. 464:

(a)Section 5.2, Public Art, by deleting from sub-section (b) (ii) the words:

"as a guideline";

(b)Section 7.1, Transportation and Circulation Policies - General, by adding thereto the following:

"(d)Transportation infrastructure facilities shall have as a first priority the intent to mitigate impact on the surrounding residential community.";

(c)Section 7.4, Transportation and Circulation Policies - Parking, by adding thereto the following:

"Council shall, in co-operation with the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Parking Authority, undertake a review of provisions for commuter parking in relation to the Wilson and Downsview stations."

(d)Section 9, Municipal Servicing, by deleting sub-section (b) which reads:

"Council encourages the provision of conduits and associated infrastructure within the municipal road allowance to support the future installation of telecommunications networks.

and replacing it with the following:

"Conduits and associated infrastructure to support the installation of future telecommunications networks within the road allowance shall be provided.";

(e)Section 10.1.2 (b), Parks and Open Space - Land Use and Density, by deleting the word "restaurants" and replacing it with:

"food service outlets to serve park patrons";

(f)Section 10.1.3 (b), Parks and Open Space - Development Policies, by deleting the word "restaurants" and replacing it with:

"food service outlets to serve park patrons";

(g)Section 10.2.3, Residential Density One (RD1) - Development Policies, by:

(i)deleting the following subsection (d):

"(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, Council will secure a linear open space incorporating a pedestrian walkway that connects the Park and Open Space lands to Mt. Sinai Cemetery and Wilson Avenue."

and replacing it with the following:

"(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, no direct access shall be permitted from lands in the Secondary Plan area to Wilson Avenue through the Mt. Sinai Cemetery."; and

(ii)deleting the following sub-section (g):

"The public park on RD1 lands east of the Allen Road should be part of a recreational trail connecting the parkland, activity plaza and walkway west of the Allen Road, the pedestrian and trail linkage on the lands designated Mixed Commercial Residential, and the City's trail system east of Wilson Heights Boulevard.";

(h)Section 10.3.2 (c), Research-Technology Park (RTP) - Land Use and Density, be amended to read as follows:

"It is intended that the lands designated Research-Technology Park be developed up to a maximum gross floor area of 278,700 sq. m. (3,000,000sq. ft.). The development will be limited to a maximum gross floor area of 92,900 sq. m. (1,000,000 sq. ft.) until such time as detailed transportation and parking studies demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that this level of development can be supported.";

(i)Section 10.5.2. (a), Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Land Use and Density, by adding the words "excluding gambling casinos" to the end of the sentence;

(j)Section 10.4.2 (c), Cultural Campus (CC) - Land Use and Density, be corrected to read "35 acres" instead of "25 acres";

(k)Section 10.5.2 (b) - Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Land Use and Density - by deleting "1.0 FSI" and replacing it with ".875 FSI";

(l)Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, by adding:

(i)to sub-section (c) the following:

"Guidelines for the nature and form of the activity plaza shall be determined during the zoning process in consultation with the neighbouring community.";

(m)Section 10.8.3, Mixed Commercial Residential (MCR) - Development Policies, by deleting the following sub-section:

"(c)A pedestrian and trail linkage should be provided to connect the public park and recreational train on RD1 lands south of Reiner Road to the parkland, activity plaza and walkway located west of the Allen Road.";

(n)Section 11.3.1(e), Transportation Master Plan, be amended by deleting "Grandravine Drive" and replacing it with "Finch Avenue", so that it now reads:

"(e)a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Wilson Avenue to Finch Avenue";

(o)Section 11.8 (a), Future Studies, be amended to provide that the second sentence read as follows:

"A study will be undertaken by Canada Lands Co. Ltd., in consultation with the City and other stakeholders, to identify the purpose and function of the park and open space area and may include other parts of the Secondary Plan area.";

(p)the addition of the following General Provisions:

"(i)Density Transfer

No density transfer between or among land use districts within the Secondary Plan area shall be permitted.

(ii)Toronto Lands

Council defer consideration of the designation of "Toronto Lands", being those lands east of Allen Road, until such time as the agreed upon discussions with federal officials have been reported to the North York Community Council.

That staff use as guidelines for these discussions the principles established by the proposed Secondary Plan.";

(iii)School Board Submissions

As per the request of the Toronto District School Board, new policies to identify an elementary school site in the Downsview Secondary Plan be added, before it is approved, and that policies requiring a site specific per residential unit educational levy be established to ensure that the necessary school facilities are available to service future residents of the Downsview lands.;

(2)the Downsview Urban Design Study attached to the July 7, 1998, report of the Acting Commissioner of Planning be adopted as an appendix to Official Plan Amendment No.464, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, to provide urban design guidelines for development in the Secondary Plan Area;

(3)the Transportation Master Plan attached to the July 7, 1998, report of the Acting Commissioner of Planning be adopted which will satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment and be used as a basis for future environmental assessment studies that will be required for specific transportation projects subject to the following amendments;

(a)Section 2.1.1, Principles (p. I-4), by adding to principle No. 6 (Protection of Rail Corridor) the following:

"Canada Lands shall bear the primary responsibility for protecting this rail corridor.";

(b)Section 2.1.1, Principles (p. I-4), by adding to principle No. 9 in the last line the words "proposed and" so that it reads:

"9.The provision of parking on developments within the Downsview Lands must recognize the potential for spillover into the adjacent residential and industrial communities and districts. Measures to control parking demand and protect sensitive areas abutting the Downsview Lands must be thoroughly addressed in the context of proposed and future development."

(c)Section 2.1.1, Objectives (p. I-5), by replacing the following sentence in item 5:

"Consideration will be given to the specific needs of the mobility challenged."

with the following:

"All transportation facilities shall be designed to provide full accessibility to citizens with disabilities. In that regard, every proposed land use application shall be required to provide for the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Environment and Development an 'access for disabled citizens' plan.";

(d)Wilson Avenue

(i)Provision for the widening of Wilson Avenue which was inserted into the official plan of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto by amending a map - be deleted;

(ii)Alternatively the "Wilson Avenue Revitalization Study" include the necessary transportation improvements to Wilson Avenue from the western boundary of the Ministry of Transportation and Communication lands (west of Keele Street) to Avenue Road, and the study be considered in conjunction with a review of:

(a)present and future land use;

(b)parking requirements;

(c)upgrades to streetscape amenities; and

(d)public policy with respect to future road widening;

(iii)Particular attention be given to developing a public strategy to mitigate the deteriorating condition of strip plazas including the legislative, planning, and traffic management tools available and those required to effect improvements;

(e)Section 2.2.1, Objectives (pI-4), by adding to Item No. 8 the following:

"The land surface devoted to parking shall be minimized.";

(f)Section 2.2.1, Objectives (p. I-7), by adding to Item No. 9 the following:

"Parking facilities shall be designed to preclude reliance on off site parking."

(g)Section 4.2.2, Transit Facilities (p. I-21), be amended to provide that staff report further on the following statement in section A) T.T.C. Subway Facilities:

"It has been concluded that there is justification to revisit the alignment for the Yonge - Spadina loop with consideration to extend to Sheppard and Spadina subways lines parallel to Sheppard Avenue."

(h)Section 4.3, Constraints and Issues (p. I-23), be amended to provide that the original wording in the first draft of the Transportation Master Plan for the second point on page I-23 be restored so that it reads:

"There are two subway stations in the immediate vicinity of the Downsview Lands, namely the Wilson and Downsview stations. Methods to accommodate additional person carrying capacity from either of these subway stations and/or through a potential extension of either the Spadina or Sheppard subway lines must be explored to ensure that the ultimate developments as proposed in the Secondary Plan can be achieved.";

(i)Section 3.5, Other Area Roadways (p. II-12), be amended by deleting the specific example:

"such as Dufferin Street north of Finch Avenue";

(j)Section 3.5, Other Area Roadways - Recommended Road Widenings (p. II-12), be amended to further clarify its intent by adding:

"between Dufferin Street and Transit Road."

so that it reads:

"Implement widening on Wilson Avenue between Dufferin Street and Transit Road as part of the development of the Commercial Retail land use district in conjunction with the extension of Transit Road south of Wilson Avenue to Dufferin Street."

(k)Section 2, Managing Transportation Supply (p. III-9), by adding:

"Additional monitoring be undertaken at the intersection of Wilson Heights and Wilson Avenue to review the measures that may be required to reduce infiltration of traffic into local neighbourhoods."

(l)Section 2.0, Managing Transportation Supply, Exhibit 8, 2011 Planning Horizon Road Modifications, be amended by:

(i)Extending the proposed deletion of the HOV lanes on the Allen Road from Transit Road to Sheppard as far north as Finch Avenue;

(ii)Consideration be given to establishing exclusive bus lanes where appropriate; and

(iii)The recently opened one-way entrance to Old Dufferin Street north of Sheppard for inbound vehicles be reviewed for possible closure to protect this neighbourhood from itinerant parking;

(m)Section 2.1 (b), Guiding Principles, Commitments and Future Study Requirements - General Principles - Parking, by adding the following additional sub-section:

"2.1.25All parking areas in all land use districts shall be hard-surfaced and built to municipal standards.";

(n)Section 2.2, Interim Planning Horizon, be amended as follows:

(i)add to Item (d), Intersection Improvements (page III-10), the following:

"Initiate expansion of the City's SCOOT traffic adaptive system to serve the Downsview lands linked to the major intersections within the secondary plan."; and

(ii)amend Item (e), Property Protection (page II1-10), by clarifying this statement to indicate that it specifically refers to Chesswood Avenue;

(o)Section 2.3 (a), Transportation and Traffic, which reads:

"Adjacent residential and industrial communities and districts will not be negatively impacted by traffic infiltration and spillover parking."

be amended by adding thereto the following:

"and in that regard parking pricing policy shall be designed to discourage spillover parking."; and

(p)the Transportation Master Plan be further amended to provide that:

(i)a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Wilson Avenue to Grandravine Drive be entirely constructed in the Interim Planning Horizon;

(ii)a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Grandravine Drive to Finch Avenue be constructed as part of the 2011 Planning Horizon.";

(iii)to state that there will be no extension of either Grandravine Drive, nor of Whitburn Crescent, east of Keele Street;

(4)prior to any decision being made to extend either the Spadina subway line north, or the Sheppard subway line west, a full process of public consultation be undertaken beginning with a public meeting on the issue; and

(5)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:

(a)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(i)to undertake a plan review for the northwest and northeast quadrants of the Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue and that staff be requested to facilitate that review as expeditiously as possible and that it be done in conjunction with the Allen\Sheppard Urban Design Study incorporated in the current Urban Planning and Development Services Department's work program;

(ii)in cooperation with Canada Lands Co. Ltd., to develop a plan for staging the removal of existing chain link fencing with a view to making the area as open as possible; and

(iii)to review the present use of barbed wire in relation to each land use district, and make specific recommendations with respect to its conformity with the by-laws of the municipality and its retention only where deemed appropriate;

(b)requested that the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) continue to meet to review zoning applications and related studies to make recommendations thereon to staff and Council;

(c)deferred the following motions by Councillor Moscoe and directed that these matters be brought forward at the time the zoning by-law amendment for Destination Technodome is considered by the North York Community Council:

(i)the Official Plan Amendment No. 464 be amended by adding to Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, the following additional sub-section(e):

"(e)To discourage off site parking, charges for long term parking shall be built into the price of admission to venues with rebates or discounts to encourage the use of public transit.

Charges will be permitted for short term parking and preferred parking located in close proximity to the facility.";

(ii)the Transportation Master Plan be amended by adding to Section 2.1 (b), Guiding Principles, Commitments and Future Study Requirements - General Principles - Parking, the following sub-section:

"2.1.26To ensure protection for the environment, parking surfaces shall be limited to no more than 50% of the land area of any given site exclusive of landscaped areas, but in no case shall parking surfaces in a land use district exceed more than 30 acres.";

(d)referred the following motion by Councillor Augimeri to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

"That City staff prepare a Secondary Plan for the entire Sheppard Avenue and Allen Road intersection which includes both land parcels to the south and to the north, and that this Secondary Plan be approved before any zoning applications are dealt with by Council within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan."

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July 22, 1998, with appropriate notice of meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (July 17, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning:

Purpose:

This report is further to my report of July 7, 1998. Its purpose is to:

(i)bring forward a final draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA No. 464), for adoption;

(ii)highlight changes recommended by the Downsview Community Advisory Panel and Canada Lands Company Limited that are supported by staff and which have been incorporated into the revised Secondary Plan; and

(iii)to identify changes suggested by the Community Advisory Panel that staff are unable to support and the reasons why these changes have not been incorporated into this revised Secondary Plan.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Recommendations (1) and (3) of the report dated July 7, 1998 be deleted and replaced with the following:

(a)the attached by-law to adopt the final draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan, OPA No. 464, be enacted; and

(b)the Downsview Urban Design Study attached to the report dated July 7, 1997, be adopted as an appendix to Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, to provide urban design guidelines for development in the Secondary Plan area; and

(2)Recommendations (1) and (3) above, and (2) and (4) of the report dated July 7, 1998, be adopted.

Background:

Over the past few weeks, staff have met with various community representatives including the Downsview Community Advisory Panel (CAP), the applicant, Canada Lands Company Limited, and the various development proponents to discuss the draft Secondary Plan. In addition, the Downsview Lands Community Voice Association has submitted written comments on the "Development Concept for Downsview". CAP specifically requested a number of changes to the draft Secondary Plan (see Appendix "A" to this report). The nature and extent of these changes recommended by CAP are discussed in the following section.

A revised Secondary Plan is attached to this report and incorporates text and map changes resulting from meetings with the applicant, development proponents and community representatives and changes recommended by CAP. Revised text which has been added or re-located from other sections of the document is shaded, while text which has been deleted has been struck out as indicated in the revised draft Secondary Plan attached to this report.

Discussion:

1.0Text Changes Incorporated into the Revised Secondary Plan

Throughout meetings with CAP and other community representatives, no issue has been raised with the fundamental principles of development nor the land uses permitted by the draft Secondary Plan. CAP and others generally support the overall development framework and land use strategy of OPA 464. Comments received relate to the community's need for certainty and predictability as development occurs. Many of the suggestions made by CAP in their submission are intended to clarify the document. For example, CAP requested clarification and further detail respecting:

  • intent of the proposed Sport, Entertainment & Recreation land use; since this use relates to commercial recreation and not public recreational uses, the word "recreation" should be removed;
  • restaurants in the Park and Open Space; wording should be added to limit restaurants to those which "serve park patrons" only; and
  • the status of the DownsView Urban Design Study; it should form an Appendix to the Secondary Plan
  • Staff support these, and similar changes designed to strike an improved balance between the need to achieve certainty for the community and the need to set out a general development framework to guide future development. The draft Secondary Plan has been revised to incorporate changes designed to clarify the document.

CAP also recommended changes that are more substantive in nature. These changes, noted below, clarify Council's intent for the lands and have been incorporated into the revised Secondary Plan:

(1)Applying an Institutional Designation to Military Lands

The revised draft Secondary Plan designates lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, "General Institutional (G-INS)" to recognize their continued use for the Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) and to accommodate a future armoury and military administrative building complex southeast of the Chesswood/Sheppard intersection. Future proposals to expand the Sport and Entertainment area to incorporate the military lands will require an amendment to the Secondary Plan and be subject to an extensive public review process.

(2)Applying a Residential Designation to City-owned Lands

The lands on the southeast corner of W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue are intended to be developed with low density housing. CAP has recommended that these lands be designated Residential Density One (RD-1). The draft Secondary Plan has been amended to reflect this change.

(3)Limiting Retail and Restaurants in the Research-Technology Park

CAP has recommended that retail uses and restaurants in the Research-Technology Park be subject to a provision to limit where they can be located. CAP has agreed that the Secondary Plan be revised such that retail, services commercial uses and restaurants would be required to locate on the ground floor and must front onto Carl Hall Road.

2.0Outstanding Matters

The Community Advisory Panel has recommended the following changes to the draft Secondary Plan that, in the opinion of staff, are not appropriate or supportable as they are either beyond the scope of the document or jurisdiction of the City, or are not consistent with the intent of the Secondary Plan or the orderly development of the lands. The following matters remain outstanding:

(1)Regulating Competition Between Commercial Uses

It was proposed that the draft Secondary Plan be amended to require that new commercial uses that duplicate existing facilities in adjacent areas not be permitted unless a market impact study demonstrates sufficient market support is available for both new and existing facilities. This proposed change exceeds the City's jurisdiction. As established by the Ontario Municipal Board, the role of a municipality in competition matters is limited to ensuring that the planned commercial function of lands is maintained, that an adequate range of commercial services is conveniently available to meet the needs of consumers, and that "blight" is prevented.

(2)Improving Servicing in Adjacent Residential Communities

While new development will be required to provide needed infrastructure, it was proposed that new development also be required to address existing low water pressure, rusty water and basement flooding problems in adjacent residential communities. Staff have clarified with CAP members that new development can not make existing problems worse. A new policy has been added to the draft Secondary Plan stating that Council will explore opportunities to enhance the levels of service provided in adjacent areas during the review of studies and designs for development-related engineering works and modifications and may, where appropriate and feasible, seek to improve services in the context of the proposed development-related engineering works.However, staff are not able to support the request from CAP that new development be obligated to correct existing deficiencies.

(3)Density & Parking in the Sport & Entertainment District

CAP recommends that the maximum permitted density on lands in the Sport and Entertainment district be consistent with the Destination: Technodome application, thereby ensuring that future expansions to the Technodome would be subject to an Official Plan amendment and rezoning process.

The revised draft Secondary Plan continues to recommend that the maximum permitted density for development in the Sport and Entertainment District be 1.0 FSI. This density is equal to the 1.0 FSI permitted on the Industrial lands on the opposite side of Sheppard Avenue, and the 1.0 FSI generally permitted on Commercial lands throughout North York. A 1.0 FSI is below the permitted density on lands in the North York Centre and the Sheppard East Corridor that are also close to subway stations and which have access to arterial roads connecting with Highway 401. The Official Plan is a policy document and should not be used as a regulatory tool. Implementing by-laws would regulate the appropriate density limits for any proposal in this District and a rezoning would be required for any future expansion.

CAP also recommends that a large portion of the parking in the Sport and Entertainment area should be located in structures, as required of development in the Research-Technology Park (RTP). Development in the RTP is intended to occur in a park-like setting and be compatible with the adjacent major public park. Unless parking is provided in structures, development in the RTP area cannot reach its full potential. On the other hand, the Sport and Entertainment District is separated from the major park by the airport runway. While development in this District will contribute to the park-like character, surface parking lots are acceptable if they meet the landscape requirements and guidelines in the DownsView Urban Design Study.

(4)Deletion of Restaurants and Supermarkets in the Commercial Retail District

CAP has recommended that restaurants be deleted as a permitted use on lands designated Commercial Retail due to the existing number of restaurants along Wilson Avenue. As it is beyond the City's jurisdiction to restrict land use based upon competition, this change has not been incorporated into the revised Secondary Plan.

CAP also requested that supermarkets be deleted as a permitted use on the basis that supermarkets would add an unduly amount of traffic into the area. A new policy has been added to the draft Secondary Plan that requires traffic studies and analyses to consider the impacts of mixing the uses permitted in the Commercial Retail District and that Council may, on the basis of such analyses, limit the size or range of uses permitted in an implementing by-law. This measure would ensure the impacts of any uses, including supermarkets will be assessed and dealt with through the review of appropriate transportation studies.

(5)Apartment Building on Northeast Corner of Keele and Sheppard

Community residents have indicated that they would support the use of the lands at Keele Street and Sheppard Avenue for a seniors' apartment building. However, they are not supportive of such higher density uses if this site is not restricted for "seniors' only". The use of the site for higher density uses was brought forward at the outset of the DownsView study, and until very recently, little or no objection was raised with the proposed use for this site. While there are good planning reasons for such a use at this site, the City is not able to restrict its eventual development as a site for seniors' housing. The revised draft Secondary Plan continues to permit this building because it would be appropriate for the physical context of the site, it would increase the range of housing types available on lands to be developed for residential purposes. Restrictions on the occupants of a building would exceed the City's authority under the Planning Act to regulate land use.

Conclusion:

The community has proposed modifications which improve the clarity and intent of the Secondary Plan. The DownsView Community Advisory Panel, in particular, has recommended a large number of these changes that have been incorporated into the revised Secondary Plan. However, there are a number of changes requested by CAP that are beyond the scope of the planning document and the jurisdiction of the City and for these reasons, have not been incorporated into the revised Secondary Plan.

Contact Name:

Tom Keefe, Manager (DownsView), tel.: 395-7170.

---------------

Staff presentations were made by Tom Keefe, Manager (Downsview), Planning Department, North York Civic Centre and Roberto Stopnicki, Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre.

The North York Community Council also submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

As directed by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on May 27, 1998, and confirmed by Toronto City Council on June 3, 1998, this report brings forward the draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan for adoption by North York Community Council as part of a package of documents setting out the planning framework for future development of the Downsview area. This report also responds to North York Community Council's motions at its meeting on May 27, 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the attached by-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the DownsView Area Secondary Plan, be enacted;

(2)the Transportation Master Plan be adopted which will satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment and be used as a basis for future environmental assessment studies that will be required for specific transportation projects;

(3)the DownsView Urban Design Study be adopted as urban design guidelines for development in the Secondary Plan area; and

(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On May 27, 1998, North York Community Council endorsed public circulation of the Development Concept for the DownsView Area as the basis for preparing a draft Secondary Plan and directed:

(i)that the draft Secondary Plan be brought forward for a statutory meeting after additional public consultation;

(ii)that a Transportation Master Plan be prepared, and

(iii)that the draft DownsView Urban Design Study be refined based on public and stakeholder feedback and be incorporated as part of the draft Secondary Plan.

North York Community Council also directed that staff examine a number of matters related to the DownsView Area Secondary Plan, including transportation and parking, servicing, public art, and the park and open space area. The North York Community Council's recommendations were adopted by City Council on June 3, 1998. This report tables the draft Secondary Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, the revised Urban Design Study and responds to the matters raised. Reports on applications in the Secondary Plan area will be brought forward separately at the appropriate time.

Discussion:

(1)Public Consultation on the Development Concept:

The fundamental objectives and principles of the Development Concept were confirmed as a result of public input at three open houses attended by approximately 350 people at Wm. Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute on June 1, at Downsview Secondary School on June 9, and at C. W. Jefferys Secondary School on June 11, as well as at additional public information meetings attended by City staff.

Many written submissions and speakers at the open houses commented favourably on the Development Concept and the emerging vision for Downsview, including support for:

  • provision of bicycle and pedestrian trails as part of the overall transportation plan for the Secondary Plan area;
  • creation of a major public park which should be green, natural and with limited roadways or parking areas; and
  • inclusion of employment uses and the creation of job opportunities.

Questions were raised about specific aspects of the Development Concept, particularly traffic and transportation matters such as:

  • the effect of traffic from specific developments on adjacent arterial roads;
  • traffic infiltration and spillover parking in adjacent residential areas;
  • the nature and timing of proposed road improvements;
  • whether proposed road improvements would be sufficient to accommodate the transportation demands of specific proposed developments and whether additional improvements should be provided; and
  • measures to ensure that required infrastructure is in place prior to development opening to the public.

Other comments received at the public open houses included observations that:

  • financial arrangements to build infrastructure required for development should not create any future public liability for their completion;
  • large parking areas should be avoided and measures taken to ensure that parking lots have an attractive appearance; and
  • low water pressure in surrounding residential areas should be addressed.

Public feedback on the Development Concept was generally supportive, asking for additional detailed information about the Development Concept, proposed developments, proposed transportation infrastructure, and the secondary plan process. No position emerged that contradicted the fundamental principles or objectives of the Development Concept nor its planning policies. Accordingly, it is appropriate to proceed with the draft Secondary Plan based on the principles of the Development Concept.

(2)Draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan:

The draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan, draft OPA No. 464, is based on the Development Concept and Council's major goals for the Secondary Plan area and sets out a comprehensive development framework which is the foundation of this major City-building exercise. This development framework provides direction for the overall structure, form and physical development of the Secondary Plan area, including how a park-like character of the public realm will be created and extended throughout the area. The draft Secondary Plan specifically provides for a major park on the east side of Keele Street, new low-density residential neighbourhoods, a full range of employment uses, a cultural focus celebrating the area's military and aviation history, provision for a continued military presence, and attractive and generously proportioned park, trail and pedestrian linkages.

The draft Secondary Plan creates six new land use districts that set out the role, function, permitted density, and specific development requirements for individual parts of the Secondary Plan area. The new land use districts ensure that specific development and land use objectives for the DownsView area will be achieved. These districts include:

  • Park and Open Space, which is to have a minimum area of 88 ha. (218 acres), and include a major public park consistent with the Federal government's objective for creating a unique urban recreational greenspace;
  • Research-Technology Park, is intended as a business park with a high-technology focus accommodating office, research, technology and related uses in a park-like setting;
  • Cultural Campus, in the centre of the Secondary Plan area, where a fine-grained, urban, pedestrian-oriented area with a festive atmosphere celebrating the military and cultural history of the area is to emerge; and
  • Sport, Entertainment and Recreation, located opposite the DownsView subway station and adjacent to the Allen Road, accommodating high intensity sport, entertainment, recreation and related uses near high capacity transportation infrastructure.

Other districts accommodate new low-density residential neighbourhoods, commercial retail uses, mixed commercial residential development on City-owned lands at the Allen/Sheppard intersection and support the continued operations of Bombardier Aerospace (de Havilland) and the Toronto Transit Commission's Wilson subway station and related yards and commuter parking lots.

The draft Secondary Plan also establishes heritage, public art, and transportation policies, including required transportation facilities. Finally, the draft Secondary Plan contains a strong and innovative implementation framework which provides for design review of low density housing, requires development plans that will ensure the orderly and co-ordinated development of areas expected to develop incrementally, monitors the impact of development on transportation and servicing infrastructure to ensure that the capacity of infrastructure keeps pace with development and to ensure that new infrastructure required for development will be available when needed.

The Transportation Master Plan attached to this report satisfies Phases 1 and 2 of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects and forms the basis for future environmental assessment studies that will be required for specific transportation works. The Plan identifies a number of new transportation facilities, as well as improvements to the existing road network, in order to support the levels and types of development contemplated by the draft Secondary Plan.

The DownsView Urban Design Study is attached, but does not form part of the draft Secondary Plan. This study sets out urban design guidelines, illustrative examples and design options showing how fundamental design principles will shape development, including criteria that should be considered for the design of the park.

Together, these three documents set out the City's development vision, detailed analysis and environmental review for required transportation infrastructure, and the urban design framework to ensure that development will achieve the City's objectives of a major public park and a balanced mix of land uses which integrate these lands into the urban fabric.

(3)Public Submissions on the Draft Secondary Plan:

A number of public submissions and agency comments have been received in response to circulation of the draft Secondary Plan and publication of the notice of the Statutory Public Meeting, and additional comments are expected. In particular, staff is meeting with the Downsview Community Advisory Panel to discuss their comments on the draft Secondary Plan. While CAP continues to express support for the fundamental objectives, principles and structure of the draft Secondary Plan, specific issues have been raised concerning certain land use districts and specific policy requirements which require further discussion and consideration. These further public and agency comments, and recommended refinements to the draft Secondary Plan, will be addressed in a supplementary report to be tabled at the July 22nd meeting of the North York Community Council.

(4)Other Matters Raised by North York Community Council:

North York Community Council's decision of May 27, 1998, identified a number of traffic and parking, land use and urban design, public art and open space and servicing matters to be addressed in preparing the draft Secondary Plan. Most of these matters had already been identified by staff and have either been completed, and/or included in the draft Secondary Plan. Those outstanding matters will be addressed through the review and processing of specific development applications. The related extract from the minutes of the North York Community Council, as adopted by Toronto City Council, is attached for reference.

Traffic, Transportation and Parking:

(a)Comprehensive review of all parking on the Downsview lands and inclusion of an overall parking plan in the draft Secondary Plan

Parking policies in the draft Secondary Plan set the stage for implementation of an overall parking plan as development occurs. Policies encourage use of public transit and other modes of transportation which will reduce vehicle use and the number of parking spaces required. Increasing the use of public transit and reducing the need for parking will be achieved through the co-ordinated management of parking supply and demand, shared parking, reduced parking standards in proximity to transit facilities, the application of minimum and maximum parking standards, and strategy for the implementation of travel demand measures to be applied through the review of specific development applications.

(b)Feasibility of accepting responsibility for building and managing all parking for both public and private recreational uses on the Downsview lands and applying parking revenues to public purposes

The Toronto Parking Authority has begun a review of this matter, has held preliminary discussions with the Planning Division, and expects to report to North York Community Council in September.

(c)Proposed Transit Road extension and specific matters related to TTC operations

The recommended road network shown in the Downsview Lands Master Plan Transportation Study, Technical Status Report No. 2, which was before North York Community Council on May 27, was developed in consultation with planning staff at the Toronto Transit Commission. Commission staff will further examine details of this facility relative to existing TTC operations, the Wilson Yards present and future, and the Transit Road extension, and will provide comments as part of the Transportation Master Plan process.

(d)Local traffic management study to develop a plan to prevent traffic infiltration into residential neighbourhoods east of the W. R. Allen Road

A local traffic management study to identify means of preventing traffic infiltration into the residential neighbourhoods east of the W. R. Allen Road has been started. Data collection in the form of automatic traffic counts, manual turning movement counts, and review of accident data will be initiated in the near future. This data will establish existing conditions which can be compared with traffic volumes associated with future development. As part of the ongoing transportation monitoring which will be undertaken by the City, there will be a requirement that development applications contribute additional funds to develop traffic management plans.

(e)Review of the Official Plan designations of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Faywood Boulevard

The Official Plan designations of Faywood Boulevard and Wilson Heights Boulevards were reviewed in terms of the former City of North York road classification. The draft Secondary Plan redesignates Faywood Boulevard from a Minor Arterial to a Collector, and redesignates Wilson Heights Boulevard from a Collector to a Minor Arterial. The draft Secondary Plan also redesignates Wilmington Avenue, which is the northerly extension of Faywood Boulevard north from Sheppard Avenue to Finch Avenue, from a Minor Arterial to a Collector. Minor amendments to the zoning by-law will also be required to implement these changes.

(f)Maximizing the capacity of the road network serving the Technodome by installation of an area-wide SCOOT system provided as a requirement of development approval

The Transportation Master Plan has identified the SCOOT traffic adaptive system as an improvement which could be implemented by conditions of approval for development in the Secondary Plan area, subject to other traffic-related operations, and could be part of a traffic management strategy for the surrounding road network.

(g)Study of how de Havilland traffic will be redirected to the edges of the community, including a revised parking lot structure.

A study of de Havilland's traffic operations was undertaken as part of the transportation review for the draft Secondary Plan and will be appended to the Transportation Master Plan. The draft Secondary Plan encourages the provision of a new parking facility north of de Havilland's existing manufacturing plant with a driveway connecting north to Carl Hall Road.

(h)Explore the possibility of a three million square foot research-technology park which operates on a 24 hour cycle, 7 days a week

The Transportation Master Plan will discuss the impacts of non-traditional office park users, such as 24-hour cycle, 7 day a week operations. This evaluation will explore methods and incentives to reduce auto usage during the morning and afternoon peak hours and to increase transit modal split and vehicle occupancy, as well as to promote the implementation of flexible work hours, shift work and/or 24-hour operations and work-at-home positions. This evaluation will explore transportation management options to help achieve the maximum of 278,700 sm. (3,000,000 sq. ft.) of research-technology uses permitted in the Research-Technology Park by the draft Secondary Plan.

Land Use and Urban Design:

(a)Development of commercial retail uses on Wilson Avenue and enhancement of the Wilson Avenue streetscape

The draft Secondary Plan requires that development on the Commercial Retail lands on the south side of Wilson Avenue contribute to an appropriate streetscape by siting commercial uses along street frontages and encouraging the provision of small retail stores with direct pedestrian access to Wilson Avenue.

The draft Secondary Plan designates the south Wilson subway station commuter parking lot Commercial Retail which will facilitate inclusion of these lands in the development site of application UDOZ-97-41 (Price-Costco Canada Inc.).

Relocating commuter parking from the TTC's Wilson subway station to the Downsview subway station, and gaining contributions from project developers for improvement of the Wilson Avenue streetscape, will be addressed through the processing of application UDOZ-97-41.

(b)Encouraging contributions from major commercial recreational developers toward the enhancement of the Wilson Avenue streetscape

Discussions on this matter are underway with the local councillor and the developer. This matter will be addressed through the processing of the specific development application.

(c)Mt. Sinai Cemetery - Pedestrian Access

Staff met with representatives of Mt. Sinai Cemetery in February, 1998. Cemetery representatives expressed interest in providing access for pedestrians and bicycles through the cemetery to Wilson Avenue. Staff will be meeting with the area councillor and representatives of Mt. Sinai to further discuss the proposal as outlined in the draft Secondary Plan.

(d)Discussions between the Member of Parliament for the area, City Councillors and a representative from the Mayor's Office on the release of restrictive covenants affecting City-owned lands at the Allen/Sheppard intersection

Two restrictive covenants in favour of the Federal government affect the City's Allen/Sheppard lands. One covenant restricts the use of these lands to industrial purposes only, while the other limits the maximum height of buildings and structures in relation to de Havilland's non-operating east-west runway. These covenants must be addressed prior to the City proceeding with the proposed mixed use development of its lands as shown in the draft Secondary Plan.

City and Federal staff have begun discussions on these matters, which are co-ordinated by the Commissioner of Corporate Services. In addition to the covenants, the opportunity for the City to deal with other matters, including ownership of the lands upon which the Allen Road is built and use of the City's land for proposed transportation infrastructure improvements, must be resolved.

Public Art, Park and Open Space:

(a)Incorporating public art into major projects and incorporating public art requirements into planning reports on all major projects

The former City of Toronto administers a public art program that secures a 1% contribution for public art through the processing of major development applications, such as the Skydome, BCE Place and Metro Hall. Staff of both the former City of Toronto Urban Development Services Department and the former Metro Cultural Affairs Division have assisted in developing the public art policy included in the draft Secondary Plan, which requires that public art contributions be secured at the time major development applications are processed. The draft Secondary Plan also encourages the Downsview Trust to develop a District Public Art Plan for all lands under its jurisdiction to ensure that public art is provided in a co-ordinated manner.

(b)Providing a major park facility on the City-owned lands on the southeast corner of the W.R.Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue

The draft Secondary Plan requires that a neighbourhood park having a minimum area of 1.6 ha. (four acres) be provided on the City lands. A detailed assessment of the future park will be undertaken as part of the Allen/Sheppard Urban Design study included in the Planning Division's 1998 Work Program.

(c)Feasibility of an "Arts Park" for Downsview

The feasibility of developing an "Arts Park" project for the Federal lands at Downsview will be assessed as part of the park design process, which will be jointly managed by the City and Canada Lands, as a design and programming option within the park rather than as a policy in the draft Secondary Plan. This process will determine the program requirements and overall design for the Park and assess opportunities to enhance and extend other public art components on the Downsview lands. Development of a District Public Art Plan by the Downsview Trust as encouraged by the draft Secondary Plan will help to ensure that public art, such as an "Arts Park", is provided in a co-ordinated manner. Staff will be meeting with the Downsview Community Arts Project and will report back further on these matters and on securing the participation of developers in the studio and Arts Park project.

(d)Limits on the area of roads and parking lots in the Downsview Park

The draft Secondary Plan permits up to 5% of the lands designated Park and Open Space to be used for buildings and structures to ensure that a major open space and parkland area will be established and to control the number of large scale recreational facilities, but does not set out a maximum for roadways and parking areas.

Data collected on other major parks in the City indicates that road and parking areas vary from 5.7 percent to 18.6 percent. The wide range in the area used for roadways and parking reflects the unique balance in each park between the conflicting demands of maintaining open spaces, providing recreational and service facilities, and accommodating visitor facilities.

It is noted that the Downsview Park is intended to be a "unique urban recreational greenspace" which meets a balance of both local and regional park and recreational needs that have not been determined. Retaining large areas of open space is a major objective for the park. However, adequate facilities for all visitors, infrastructure for bus routes, roadways, parking areas, cycling and hiking trails must also be provided.

The amount and type of facilities needed in the Downsview Park will depend on a number of factors and will be determined through the park design process. This joint City-Canada Lands process will allow the City to determine which facilities should be provided, the public demand which may be expected, and the resultant need for roadways and parking areas. As part of the City's review of Canada Land's proposals, a number of measures have been identified which could limit the impact of roads and parking areas. These measures include pick-up, drop-off and small parking areas that could be located at entrances and along boundary roads and which could be well landscaped and designed to integrate with the park landscape. Once the park design process is complete, limits on the amount of land used for roads and parking areas may be determined.

Servicing:

(a)Comprehensive plan to deal with low water pressure in Downsview as part of the redevelopment of the Downsview Base lands

A water needs study to determine existing conditions and the impact of various development scenarios on water flows and pressures in the general area surrounding the Base lands has been started. Water flow and pressure tests to determine existing conditions have also been started, and should be completed within the next two months. It is a principle of development for the Secondary Plan area that no negative impact will be created and that, where feasible, new infrastructure should improve existing conditions.

(b)Plan to manage stormwater on parking lots

On-site stormwater management controls have been required for the Heathmount and Price-Costco developments to deal with the stormwater quantity and quality issues associated with those developments in general and with their large parking lots in particular. An overall stormwater management study, co-ordinated with the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and Canada Lands Co. Ltd. to deal with the stormwater runoff quantity and quality issues for the remainder of the Downsview base lands, has also been started.

Conclusion:

The planning framework for the Downsview area is contained in the draft Secondary Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, and Downsview Urban Design Study attached to this report. The draft Secondary Plan sets out a land use policy framework that will achieve a major public open space and create a mix of residential, cultural, employment and recreational uses that will knit these lands into the fabric of the Downsview community. The Transportation Master Plan provides the fundamental basis for the environmental assessment of transportation infrastructure required to support the draft Secondary Plan. The Downsview Urban Design Study elaborates and refines the draft Secondary Plan by providing illustrative examples and design options to ensure that development occurs within and extends a park-like character throughout the Secondary Plan area. Consultation with the community and stakeholders is continuing with respect to the draft Official Plan Amendment and the results of these discussions will be reported on in a supplementary report to the July 22nd meeting of the North York Community Council.

Contact Name:

Tom Keefe, Manager (DownsView) tel.: 395-7170

--------------

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

(i)(July 22, 1998) from Mr. Steven A. Zakem, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Loblaw Properties Limited, expressing concerns and comments with regard to O.P.A. No. 464;

(ii)(July 22, 1998) from Ms. Helen Mills, Chair, Lost Rivers Project, The North Toronto Green Community, expressing her concerns on the overall environmental impact of the proposed development;

(iii)Fax communication dated July 22, 1998, from The Honourable Arthur C. Eggleton, Minister of National Defence, confirming the establishment of CLC Downsview Inc. under the Canada Business Corporation Act which now formally establishes the entity to mange the lands and develop the parkland and other uses; and stating that the balance of the provisions will be in place by the end of September in time to meet the stated requirement prior to the issue of any building permits;

(iv)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hansen, advising of their objections to the proposed development;

(v)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Paul P. Ginou, Fraser and Beatty, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Canada Lands Company CLC Limited, requesting that the Official Plan not be referred back to staff as requested by the Toronto District School Board;

(vi)(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Christine M. Silversides, Shibley Righton, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of the Toronto District School Board, requesting that the draft OPA No. 464 be referred back to City staff for a further discussion with representatives of the Toronto District School Board;

(vii)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Paul P. Ginou, Fraser & Beatty, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Canada Lands Company CLC Limited, requesting that the recommendations contained in the report (July 17, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be adopted;

(viii)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Stephen H. Diamond, McCarthy Tétrault, Solicitor on behalf of Destination Technodome, expressing strong support for the general thrust of the proposed OPA 464 and raising a number of concerns, particularly with regard to public art, the designation of parkland within Downsview and to sub-section 11.4(a)(iv) which refers to price;

(ix)(July 19, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. A. Gartner, expressing their opposition with the proposed development and stating that this land should be used for low density housing and park land only;

(x)(July 15, 1998) from Mr. James Purnell and Dr. Ruth-Burnice McKay advising of their concerns with the Downsview plans and with regard to the timing of the public hearing thereon;

(xi)(July 13, 1998) from Ms. Karen Fraser, Planner, CN Engineering Services, recommending polices she would like included in the Secondary Plan;

(xii)(July 10, 1998) from Mr. Michael Bowman, Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of Bombardier Inc., owner of the Bombardier Aerospace (deHavilland) aircraft manufacturing facility; and

(xiii)(July 4, 1998) from Mr. Jim Purnell forwarding his deputation and requesting deferral of the item in order to receive further public input.

(A copy of Downsview Area Secondary Plan, OPA No. 464, Appendix "A", the Transportation Master Plan, the Downsview Urban Design Study and the extract from the minutes of the North York Community Council, as adopted by Toronto City Council, referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

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

-Mr. Arnold Tenney, President and CEO of Arc International Corporation, on behalf of Chesswood Arena;

-Ms. Jan Kuzina, who also filed a written submission;

-Ms. Chaya Levinson, on behalf of Mr. Joseph Winter, who also filed Mr. Winter's written submission;

-Mr. Jay Peterson, Business Representative, Toronto Central Ontario Building Trades Council;

-Mr. Vince Lombardi;

-Mr. Jim Purvis;

-Ann Hershtal, who also filed a written submission ;

-Mrs. Chaya Levinson;

-Mr. Toni Varone, Balmoral Homeowners' Association;

-Mr. Jeff Chelin, on behalf of the Tudor Chesswood Business Association;

-Mr. Norman Winter, who also filed a written submission;

Mr. Richard Gilbert, on behalf of the Tudor Chesswood Business Association;

-Ms. Eve Jesin;

-Mr. Massimo Dante;

-Mr. Gerrit de Boer on behalf of Idomo Furniture;

-Mr. Andy Doudoumis;

-Mrs. Miriam Sweet-Goldstein, who also filed a written submission;

-Mr. David Birnbaum;

-Mr. Jeffrey Dorfman;

-Ms. Christine Silversides, Solicitor on behalf of the Toronto District School Board and Trustee Sheine Mankofsky, North York Spadina;

-Ms. Natalie Litwin, who also filed a written submission;

-Mr. Marvin Sigler, on behalf of the Clanton Park Synagogue, the Chevra Mishnais Congregation and on his own behalf and filed a copy of a submission by Dr. George Rothenstein, President, Clanton Park Synagogue;

-Mrs. Rebecca Birnbaum;

-Professor Eleazar Birnbaum;

-Ms. Gemma Connolly;

-Mr. Stewart Richardson, who filed a copy of his submission and a petition signed by approximately 100 residents in opposition to the development of high density residential and commercial properties within 200 metres (approximately) of Banting Avenue, Reiner Road, Findlay Boulevard and Sheppard Avenue West;

-Ms. Rina Camarra;

-Mr. Michael Homsi and Mr. Scott Cavalier on behalf of DownsView International Centre for Technology;

-Mr. Keith Cooper on behalf of LIUNA Local No. 183:

-Mr. Joe Riggillo;

-Ms. Diana Iorio;

-Mr. Carmine Casciato;

-Mr. Jim Wega;

-Ms. Jackie Albani;

-Ms. Maurice Coulter;

-Mr. Anthony Perruzza;

-Mr. Paul Ginou, Solicitor, who filed a written submission, and Mr. David Sadowski on behalf of Canada Lands; and

-Mr. Albert Krivickas, who filed a written submission.

The issues rasied by the residents who addressed the North York Community Council related to:

-traffic;

-overflow parking in adjacent neighbourhoods;

-expediency of the approval process;

-market impact analysis;

-environmental impacts related to air quality, health and noise;

-identification of a school site; and

-creation of new jobs.

Councillor Li Preti declared his interest in this matter, as it relates to the city-owned lands at the southeast corner of Sheppard Avenue West and the William R. Allen Road, in that he owns a property in the vicinity.

________

The following are the motions and recorded votes on this issue:

Councillor Augimeri moved that this Public Hearing on the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, Official Plan Amendment No. 464, continue on September 16, 1998, at 8:00 p.m. during the next meeting of the North York Community Council.

A recorded vote on the foregoing motion by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Augimeri, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:NIL

Lost

________

A.Councillor Feldman, North York Spadina, moved that:

(1)the by-law attached to the July 17, 1998, report of the Acting Commissioner of Planning to adopt the final draft of Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, be enacted;

(2)the Downsview Urban Design Study attached to the July 7, 1998, report of the Acting Commissioner of Planning be adopted as an appendix to Official Plan Amendment No. 464, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, to provide urban design guidelines for development in the Secondary Plan Area;

(3)the Transportation Master Plan attached to the July 7, 1998, report of the Acting Commissioner of Planning be adopted which will satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment and be used as a basis for future environmental assessment studies that will be required for specific transportation projects; and

(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

B.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that:

I.the Transportation Master Plan be amended as follows:

(1)Section 2.1.1, Principles (p. I-4), by adding to principle No. 6 (Protection of Rail Corridor) the following:

"Canada Lands shall bear the primary responsibility for protecting this rail corridor.";

(2)Section 2.1.1, Principles (p. I-4), by adding to principle No. 9 in the last line the words "proposed and" so that it reads:

"9.The provision of parking on developments within the Downsview Lands must recognize the potential for spillover into the adjacent residential and industrial communities and districts. Measures to control parking demand and protect sensitive areas abutting the Downsview Lands must be thoroughly addressed in the context of proposed and future development."

(3)Section 2.1.1, Objectives (p. I-5), by replacing the following sentence in item5:

"Consideration will be given to the specific needs of the mobility challenged."

with the following:

"All transportation facilities shall be designed to provide full accessibility to citizens with disabilities. In that regard, every proposed land use application shall be required to provide for the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Environment and Development an 'access for disabled citizens' plan.";

(4)Wilson Avenue

(i)Provision for the widening of Wilson Avenue which was inserted into the official plan of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto by amending a map - be deleted;

(ii)Alternatively the "Wilson Avenue Revitalization Study" include the necessary transportation improvements to Wilson Avenue from the western boundary of the Ministry of Transportation and Communication lands (west of Keele Street) to Avenue Road, and the study be considered in conjunction with a review of:

(a)present and future land use;

(b)parking requirements;

(c)upgrades to streetscape amenities; and

(d)public policy with respect to future road widening;

(iii)Particular attention be given to developing a public strategy to mitigate the deteriorating condition of strip plazas including the legislative, planning, and traffic management tools available and those required to effect improvements;

(5)Section 2.2.1, Objectives (pI-4), by adding to Item No. 8 the following:

"The land surface devoted to parking shall be minimized.";

(6)Section 2.2.1, Objectives (p. I-7), by adding to Item No. 9 the following:

"Parking facilities shall be designed to preclude reliance on off site parking."

(7)Section 4.2.2, Transit Facilities (p. I-21), be amended to provide that staff report further on the following statement in section A) T.T.C. Subway Facilities:

"It has been concluded that there is justification to revisit the alignment for the Yonge - Spadina loop with consideration to extend to Sheppard and Spadina subways lines parallel to Sheppard Avenue."

(8)Section 4.3, Constraints and Issues (p. I-23), be amended to provide that the original wording in the first draft of the Transportation Master Plan for the second point on page I-23 be restored so that it reads:

"There are two subway stations in the immediate vicinity of the Downsview Lands, namely the Wilson and Downsview stations. Methods to accommodate additional person carrying capacity from either of these subway stations and/or through a potential extension of either the Spadina or Sheppard subway lines must be explored to ensure that the ultimate developments as proposed in the Secondary Plan can be achieved.";

(9)Section 3.5, Other Area Roadways (p. II-12), be amended by deleting the specific example:

"such as Dufferin Street north of Finch Avenue";

(10)Section 3.5, Other Area Roadways - Recommended Road Widenings (p.II-12), be amended to further clarify its intent by adding:

"between Dufferin Street and Transit Road."

so that it reads:

"Implement widening on Wilson Avenue between Dufferin Street and Transit Road as part of the development of the Commercial Retail land use district in conjunction with the extension of Transit Road south of Wilson Avenue to Dufferin Street."

(11)Section 2, Managing Transportation Supply (p. III-9), by adding:

"Additional monitoring be undertaken at the intersection of Wilson Heights and Wilson Avenue to review the measures that may be required to reduce infiltration of traffic into local neighbourhoods."

(12)Section 2.0, Managing Transportation Supply, Exhibit 8, 2011 Planning Horizon Road Modifications, be amended by:

(i)Extending the proposed deletion of the HOV lanes on the Allen Road from Transit Road to Sheppard as far north as Finch Avenue,

(ii)Consideration be given to establishing exclusive bus lanes where appropriate; and

(iii)The recently opened one-way entrance to Old Dufferin Street north of Sheppard for inbound vehicles be reviewed for possible closure to protect this neighbourhood from itinerant parking;

(13)Section 2.2, Interim Planning Horizon, be amended as follows:

(i)add to Item (d), Intersection Improvements (page III-10), the following:

"Initiate expansion of the City's SCOOT traffic adaptive system to serve the Downsview lands linked to the major intersections within the secondary plan."; and

(ii)amend Item (e), Property Protection (page II1-10), by clarifying this statement to indicate that it specifically refers to Chesswood Avenue;

(14)Section 2.1 (b), Guiding Principles, Commitments and Future Study Requirements

(i)General Principles - Parking, be amended by adding the following additional sub-sections:

"2.1.25All parking areas in all land use districts shall be hard-surfaced and built to municipal standards."; and

2.1.26To ensure protection for the environment parking surfaces shall be limited to no more than 50% of the land area of any given site exclusive of landscaped areas, but in no case shall parking surfaces in a land use district exceed more than 30 acres.";

(ii)Section 2.3 (a), Transportation and Traffic, which reads:

"Adjacent residential and industrial communities and districts will not be negatively impacted by traffic infiltration and spillover parking."

be amended by adding thereto the following:

"and in that regard parking pricing policy shall be designed to discourage spillover parking."; and

II.Downsview Area Secondary Plan, Official Plan Amendment No. 464:

(15)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested:

(i)in cooperation with Canada Lands Co. Ltd., to develop a plan for staging the removal of existing chain link fencing with a view to making the area as open as possible; and

(ii)to review the present use of barbed wire in relation to each land use district, and make specific recommendations with respect to its conformity with the by-laws of the municipality and its retention only where deemed appropriate;

(16)(i)Section 5.2, Public Art, by deleting from sub-section (b) (ii) the words:

"as a guideline"; and

(ii)Section 7.1, Transportation and Circulation Policies - General, by adding thereto the following:

"(d)Transportation infrastructure facilities shall have as a first priority the intent to mitigate impact on the surrounding residential community.";

(iii)Section 7.4, Transportation and Circulation Policies - Parking, by adding thereto the following:

"Council shall, in co-operation with the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Parking Authority, undertake a review of provisions for commuter parking in relation to the Wilson and Downsview stations."

(iv)Section 10.1.2 (b), Parks and Open Space - Land Use and Density, by deleting the word "restaurants" and replacing it with:

"food service outlets to serve park patrons";

(v)Section 10.1.3 (b), Parks and Open Space - Development Policies, by deleting the word "restaurants" and replacing it with:

"food service outlets to serve park patrons";

(17)Section 10.2.3, Residential Density One (RD1) - Development Policies, by deleting the following sub-section (g):

"The public park on RD1 lands east of the Allen Road should be part of a recreational trail connecting the parkland, activity plaza and walkway west of the Allen Road, the pedestrian and trail linkage on the lands designated Mixed Commercial Residential, and the City's trail system east of Wilson Heights Boulevard.";

(18)(i)Section 10.5.2 - Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Land Use and Density - by deleting "1.0 FSI" and replacing it with ".875 FSI";

(ii)Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, by addingto sub-section (c) the following:

"Guidelines for the nature and form of the activity plaza shall be determined during the zoning process in consultation with the neighbouring community."; and

(iii)Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, by adding the following additional sub-section (e):

"(e)To discourage off site parking, charges for long term parking shall be built into the price of admission to venues with rebates or discounts to encourage the use of public transit.

Charges will be permitted for short term parking and preferred parking located in close proximity to the facility.";

(19)Section 10.8.3, Mixed Commercial Residential (MCR) - Development Policies, by deleting the following sub-section:

"(c)A pedestrian and trail linkage should be provided to connect the public park and recreational train on RD1 lands south of Reiner Road to the parkland, activity plaza and walkway located west of the Allen Road.";

III.General Provisions

(20)Density Transfer

No density transfer between or among land use districts within the Secondary Plan area shall be permitted.

(21)Toronto Lands

Council defer consideration of the designation of "Toronto Lands", being those lands east of Allen Road, until such time as the agreed upon discussions with federal officials have been reported to the North York Community Council.

That staff use as guidelines for these discussions the principles established by the proposed secondary Plan.";

(22)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to undertake a plan review for the northwest and northeast quadrants of the Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue and that staff be requested to facilitate that review as expeditiously as possible and that it be done in conjunction with the Allen\Sheppard Urban Design Study incorporated in the current Urban Planning and Development Services Department's work program;

(23)School Board Submissions

As per the request of the Toronto District School Board, new policies to identify an elementary school site in the Downsview Secondary Plan be added, before it is approved, and that policies requiring a site specific per residential unit educational levy be established to ensure that the necessary school facilities are available to service future residents of the Downsview lands.;

(24)Secondary Plan

Section 9, Municipal Servicing, by deleting sub-section (b) which reads:

"Council encourages the provision of conduits and associated infrastructure within the municipal road allowance to support the future installation of telecommunications networks.

and replacing it with the following:

"Conduits and associated infrastructure to support the installation of future telecommunications networks within the road allowance shall be provided.";

(25)Section 10.2.3, Residential Density One (RD1) - Development Policies, bydeleting the following subsection (d):

"(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, Council will secure a linear open space incorporating a pedestrian walkway that connects the Park and Open Space lands to Mt. Sinai Cemetery and Wilson Avenue."

and replacing it with the following:

"(d)When approving development in the south neighbourhood, no direct access shall be permitted from lands in the Secondary Plan area to Wilson Avenue through the Mt. Sinai Cemetery."; and

(26)the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) continue to meet to review zoning applications and related studies to make recommendations thereon to staff and Council;

Councillor Moscoe requested that the following parts of his motion be deferred and be brought forward at the time the zoning by-law amendment for Destination Technodome is considered by the:

(14)(i)the Transportation Master Plan be amended by adding to Section 2.1 (b), Guiding Principles, Commitments and Future Study Requirements - General Principles - Parking, the following sub-section:

"2.1.26To ensure protection for the environment, parking surfaces shall be limited to no more than 50% of the land area of any given site exclusive of landscaped areas, but in no case shall parking surfaces in a land use district exceed more than 30 acres.";

(18)(iii)Section 10.5.3, Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Development Policies, of OPA No. 464 be amended by adding the following additional sub-section (e):

"(e)To discourage off site parking, charges for long term parking shall be built into the price of admission to venues with rebates or discounts to encourage the use of public transit.

Charges will be permitted for short term parking and preferred parking located in close proximity to the facility."

C.Councillor Augimeri, Black Creek, moved that:

(1)(a)Section 11.3.1, Transportation Master Plan, Item (e) of the OPA be amended by deleting "Grandravine Drive" and replacing it with "Finch Avenue", so that it now reads:

"(e)a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Wilson Avenue to Finch Avenue";

(b)the Transportation Master Plan be amended to provide that a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Wilson Avenue to Grandravine Drive be entirely constructed in the Interim Planning Horizon; and

(2)the Transportation Master be amended to provide that a centre turn lane on Keele Street from Grandravine Drive to Finch Avenue be constructed as part of the 2011 Planning Horizon.";

(3)the Transportation Master Plan be amended to state that there will be no extension of either Grandravine Drive, nor of Whitburn Crescent, east of Keele Street;

(4)Section 10.3.2 (c), Research-Technology Park (RTP) - Land Use and Density, be amended to read as follows:

"It is intended that the lands designated Research-Technology Park be developed up to a maximum gross floor area of 278,700 sq. m. (3,000,000sq.ft.). The development will be limited to a maximum gross floor area of 92,900 sq. m. (1,000,000 sq. ft..) until such time as detailed transportation and parking studies demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that this level of development can be supported.";

(5)Section 10.5.2. (a), Sport and Entertainment (SE) - Land Use and Density, by adding the words "excluding gambling casinos" to the end of the sentence;

(6)Section 10.7.2 (a) (i), Commercial Retail - Land Use and Density, be amended by deleting "supermarkets" as a permitted use;

(7)Section 10.4.2 (c), Cultural Campus (CC) - Land Use and Density, be corrected to read "35 acres" instead of 25 acres.

(8)Section 11.8 (a), Future Studies, be amended to provide that the second sentence read as follows:

"A study will be undertaken by Canada Lands Co. Ltd., in consultation with the City and other stakeholders, to identify the purpose and function of the park and open space area and may include other parts of the Secondary Plan area.";

(9)no site specific zoning be approved by the City until financial securing of the construction and maintenance costs of the Park and Public Facilities is in place or a letter of credit is obtained by the City from the federal government;

(10)the park be opened, and related programs established, at the same time as Destination: Technodome;

(11)a report be conducted on the highest and best use of public lands in the Downsview Secondary Plan Area by a land economist to determine if the value of the lands has been maximized;

(12)prior to adoption of the Secondary Plan, a cost/benefit analysis of the lands be made available to the community for review;

(13)prior to any decision being made to extend either the Spadina subway line north, or the Sheppard subway line west, a full process of public consultation be undertaken beginning with a public meeting on the issue;

(14)the following be referred to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

"That City staff prepare a Secondary Plan for the entire Sheppard Avenue and Allen Road intersection which includes both land parcels to the south and to the north, and that this Secondary Plan be approved before any zoning applications are dealt with by Council within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan."

A recorded vote on Parts (1) to (4) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Flint, Filion, King

AGAINST:Councillors Berger, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

ABSENT:NIL

Carried

A recorded vote on Part (5) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Flint, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Berger, Gardner, Chong

ABSENT:NIL

Carried

A recorded vote on Part (6) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Augimeri, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:NIL

Lost

A recorded vote on Part (7) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Berger, Chong

ABSENT:NIL

Carried

A recorded vote on Part (8) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, King

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

ABSENT:NIL

Carried

A recorded vote on Part (9) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:NIL

Lost

A recorded vote on Part (10) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Augimeri, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:NIL

Lost

A recorded vote on Part (11) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

FOR:Councillor Augimeri

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:NIL

Lost

A recorded vote on Part (12) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:NIL

Lost

A recorded vote on Part (13) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was as follows:

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

AGAINST:Councillor Flint

ABSENT:NIL

Carried

Part (14) of the foregoing motion C. by Councillor Augimeri was carried.

A recorded vote on the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Moscoe, save and except Parts (17) and (21), and including the deferral of parts 14(i) and 18(iii), was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:NIL

ABSENT:NIL

Carried

A recorded vote on Parts (17) and (21) of the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

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

AGAINST:NIL

ABSENT:Councillor Li Preti

(Councillor Li Preti, having previously declared his interest in this matter, refrained from voting on parts (17) and (21) of the foregoing motion B. by Councillor Moscoe.

A recorded vote on the foregoing motion A. moved by Councillor Feldman, as amended, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Augimeri, Filion

ABSENT:NIL

Carried

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications requesting City Council to defer a decision on the adoption of the Amendment to the Official Plan for the Downsview Lands until September 1998:

(i)(July 28, 1998) addressed to Councillor Norman Kelly, Scarborough Wexford, from the Downsview Lands Community Voice Association and the Tudor Chesswood Business Association of Downsview; and

(ii)(July 22, 1998) from Mr. Albert Krivickas.)

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to:

(i)the City-owned lands at the southeast corner of Sheppard Avenue West and the William R. Allen Road, in that his younger son lives in the area; and

(ii)as it relates to Block "H", in that the applicant's solicitor is a partner at the same law firm as his older son, who is not a real estate lawyer and does not personally act on this file.)

(Councillor Li Preti, at the meeting of City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the City-owned lands at the southeast corner of Sheppard Avenue West and the William R. Allen Road, in that he owns a property in the vicinity.)

29

Interim Report - Zoning Framework -

Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-28 -

Heathmount A.E. Corporation (Destination Technodome) -

North York Spadina

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the report (July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be received subject to the following amendments:

(i)Section 3.0 (i) be amended to provide for an independent review of all parking studies undertaken to date to be commissioned by the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services, and paid for by the applicant;

(ii)No individual venue shall be permitted to be of a size that will generate sufficient traffic to exceed the capacity of the road system; and in that regard staff, on the basis of a careful analysis, will recommend the maximum size of any particular venue, including the proposed 12,500 seat arena;

(iii)Staff address the issue of deliveries to the Technodome and report to Council through the zoning process; and

(iv)Notification of the public hearing on this matter to include a mail distribution to all residents and business in all areas bounded by Jane Street on the west, Finch Avenue on the north, Bathurst Street on the east, and Highway 401 on the south;

(2)the applicant and/or landowner be required to:

(i)submit a plan for the staging of construction and the routing of construction vehicles with particular emphasis on confining these vehicles to routes that will not impact on residential neighbourhoods, and have a minimum impact on neighbouring industrial and commercial zones, to the satisfaction of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services (North York);

(ii)undertake an environmental analysis to determine the level of air emissions which will result from the vehicles expected to be generated by the Technodome; and

(3)Canada Lands Co. Ltd. provide certification acceptable to City staff that all PCB's and munitions (other than those currently being utilized for military purposes) have been removed from the site.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to undertake the following studies to be considered with this zoning application:

(i)a review of parking requirements for stadia and theatres within the G.T.A., with particular attention to those associated with theme or amusement parks including but not limited to:

- Kingswood (Canada's Wonderland)

- Molson Amphitheatre (Ontario Place)

- Copp's Coliseum (Hamilton)

- Ford Centre (North York)

- Markham Centennial Arena

- Markham Theatre

- Ice Gardens - York University

- North York Centennial Arena

(ii)an examination of parking pricing, and pricing policies in the vicinity of, and/or associated with large stadia and other large volume traffic generating venues including but not limited to:

- Exhibition Place and The National Trade Centre;

- Woodbine Racetrack;

- T.T.C. Commuter Lots; and

- Skydome;

and that this study include both public and private lots;

(iii)a review of bus parking requirements and a comparison of bus parking provisions at a variety of similar venues including but not limited to:

- Skydome;

- Air Canada Centre (To Open February, 1999); and

- Canada's Wonderland;

(iv)a review of parking requirements for employees in comparison with parking provisions for employees at a variety of similar venues and the incorporation of employee parking assumptions into previous parking and transportation studies;

(2)deferred the following motion by Councillor Moscoe for consideration with the zoning application:

"That until such time as the appropriate studies are completed a cap of 4,000 seats shall be established."; and

(3)referred the following motion by Councillor Augimeri to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for a report thereon to the Community Council:

"That the Section 37 Agreement include a clause which mandates the developer to provide a market impact study for any future use which is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The study would be required for any use over 50,000 sq. ft. and shall have an impact area of a 2 km. radius."

The North York Community Council submits the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to:

  • provide an update on the Destination: Technodome application;
  • illustrate, for the information of Council and the community, a zoning framework, as set out in Appendix 1 of this report, that could be applied to the Destination: Technodome proposal, based upon the draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan. This framework will assist Council, applicants and the community to understand how the Secondary Plan will be implemented for this significant proposal and provide certainty for all parties with respect to the implementation process; and
  • to identify matters that are outstanding and must be addressed by the landowner and/or applicant prior to the enactment of a Zoning By-law to permit Destination: Technodome.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)This report be received as information.

Background:

Proposal

Heathmount A.E. Corporation is seeking an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit "Destination Technodome", a 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.), year-round sport and entertainment facility (See Schedules A - H). Destination: Technodome provides opportunities for residents and visitors to the Toronto area to enjoy and participate in a variety of activities such as downhill skiing, snowboarding, hockey, tennis, basketball, volleyball, swimming, canoeing and kayaking. It features interactive and virtual reality attractions and rides, an IMAX theatre, a rainforest, cinemas, themed retail stores, restaurants, a 12,500 seat, multi-function arena and three hockey arenas that would provide a venue for the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League, which has been incorporated into the proposal. Destination: Technodome will have a maximum height of 42 metres (138 ft.) at its highest point, adjacent to the W.R. Allen Road/Sheppard Avenue intersection. As proposed, the Destination: Technodome would have a footprint approximately 15% larger than the Skydome.

Destination: Technodome would be located on an approximate 30ha (75.8ac) parcel of land at the south-west corner of Sheppard Avenue and the W.R. Allen Road. The site has direct access to Sheppard Avenue and W.R.Allen Road and can be linked to Highway 401 via the W.R. Allen Road. The site is also adjacent to the Downsview Subway Station. To the north and east the lands are designated Industrial (IND) and to the north-east the lands are designated Sheppard West Commercial (SW-COM) (See Schedule "A").

Destination:Technodome will complement and enhance the Federal Government's initiatives and the City's interest to create a unique mixed use, urban park and open space on the lands in the Downsview Secondary Plan area. Destination Technodome will also assist in achieving a number of economic benefits including the creation of construction jobs, opportunities for permanent, high-tech, management and service employment, additional tax revenue, and the expansion of tourist attractions in the Toronto area.

North York Official Plan

Destination Technodome is consistent with the North York Official Plan. The site forms part of a larger area at the Sheppard Avenue/W.R. Allen intersection that has been identified as a proposed sub-centre by North York's Urban Structure Map A-2 (Potential Reurbanization Areas). The proposal is consistent with the City's reurbanization policies which support efforts to direct more intensified land uses, such as Destination: Technodome, to centres, nodes and arterial corridor areas that are well served by transportation facilities.

Downsview Area Secondary Plan

Destination: Technodome would occupy two-thirds of an approximate 45ha (112 acre) parcel of land to be designated for sport and entertainment purposes by the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (See Schedule "B"). This designation provides for a range of sport and entertainment uses and intends that those uses, which generate the highest volume of visitors and traffic, be located in close proximity to high volume roads and the City's subway system. The proposed Destination: Technodome is consistent with these policies since:

  • it would be located immediately adjacent to Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road, arterial roads that are designed to carry high volumes of vehicles;
  • Destination: Technodome would be located in close proximity to Highway 401 and a direct route to Highway 401 can be provided; and
  • Destination: Technodome would be located near the Downsview TTC Station, a transfer point for TTC buses and the subway system. A direct connection to the subway station would be provided.

The Secondary Plan provides for a maximum density of 1.0 FSI, which is approximately 306,790m2 (3,302,368sq.ft.) on the Destination: Technodome site. The applicant's proposal has a density of approximately 0.8 FSI which is approximately 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.). The remaining 0.2 FSI or approximately 70,489m2 (758,762sq.ft.), could be achieved through a re-zoning, subject to meeting all of the provisions of the Plan regarding transportation, municipal servicing and parking impacts, and in light of the results of the monitoring program.

Community Consultation

Detailed analysis of the Destination: Technodome proposal by City staff and the community has been undertaken as part of the review of development plans for the Downsview area and in conjunction with the preparation of OPA 464. The Destination: Technodome proposal has been discussed at many of the weekly meetings of the Downsview Community Advisory Panel. Plans for Destination: Technodome have also been reviewed by the public at community consultation meetings held in August, 1997 and February, May and June, 1998. Appendix 2 provides an overview of the comments received from the public concerning Destination: Technodome.

As a result of the community consultation to date, a clearer picture of the development standards to be established through any zoning by-law amendment, the design elements to be achieved through site plan approval and the matters to be secured through agreements between the City and the landowner and/or applicant has emerged. Further, outstanding matters that need to be addressed by the applicant and/or landowner can now be identified.

Discussion:

1.0Zoning Framework

The intent of the zoning is to implement the Downsview Area Secondary Plan to permit sport and entertainment uses on lands shown on Schedule "B". A site-specific amendment to Zoning By-law 7625 for the Destination: Technodome lands would :

    • establish permitted uses on the lands that are contemplated for sport and entertainment purposes and restrict certain uses;
    • limit the size of specific uses;
    • establish development standards including maximum gross floor area, height, amount of vehicular and bus parking and yard setbacks.

On lands proposed for Destination Technodome as shown on Schedule "D", it is appropriate to delete the existing "Airport Hazard (A)"zone which permits uses associated with the Department of National Defence, and add a new zone category. On all remaining lands designated for sport and entertainment purposes, the existing zoning would be amended to limit the use to existing uses and to permit a park and open spaces. Appendix 1 sets out a framework for the zoning to be applied to the Destination: Technodome. The uses to be permitted and the standards to be established are described below:

1.1Permitted Uses

I)On lands proposed for Destination Technodome the new zone category would permit sport and entertainment uses and accessory uses including administration offices

ii)Specific retail uses will be restricted based upon the findings of the City's review of a market impact analysis. The retail component of Destination: Technodome would be restricted to exclude supermarkets, department stores, department store outlets and clearance centres, household furnishing stores other than accessory and/or theme-related or recreational and entertainment oriented merchandising, automotive parts and service related stores and home improvement outlets.

1.2Gross Floor Area (GFA)

The applicant has proposed a gross floor area of 205,626m2 (2,213,416sq.ft.) devoted to sport and entertainment uses, retail and restaurants, administration, servicing and circulation. This GFA has been used as the basis for the City's transportation analysis and the applicant's Traffic Impact Study. The approximate 30,675m2 (330,195 sq.ft.) devoted to mechanical and loading areas, does not generate traffic and is necessary to service the proposal.

Total Gross Floor Area
Sports & Entertainment171,253m2 (1,843,416sq.ft.)

Admin/Circ./Servicing 6,503m2 (70,000sq.ft.)

177,756m2 (1,913,416sq.ft.)

Themed Retail & Restaurants 27,870m2 (300,000sq.ft.)

205,626m2 (2,213,416sq.ft.)

Mechanical/Loading 30,675m2 (330,195sq.ft.)

Total GFA 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.)

i)The zoning by-law would limit the total gross floor area on the site to approximately 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.) and specifically limit the total GFA for the sport and entertainment uses and the administration/servicing uses to approximately 177,756m2 (1,913,416sq.ft.). The themed retail and restaurants would be limited to an approximate maximum GFA of 27,870m2 (300,000 sq.ft).

ii)Based upon a Traffic Impact Study, the size of the proposed multi-function arena will be limited to a maximum seating capacity. (a 12,500 seat arena has been proposed and is being reviewed)

iii)Any increase above the maximum GFA will require an amendment to the Zoning By-law. Council may require that appropriate transportation impact studies be undertaken by the proponent to ensure that additional development can be accommodated by the existing regional transportation system or feasible and desirable improvements to it.

iv)Gross floor area will be defined as the total area of all the floors in a building above or below grade, measured from the outside of the exterior wall but excluding car parking areas within the building.

1.3Height

The maximum height of all buildings and structures, including mechanical, on lands designated for sport and entertainment purposes can not exceed the height limitations based on Transport Canada criteria for the Downsview Airport. The Destination: Technodome building has been designed and located to meet the Federal requirements. It is below the maximum height restriction as shown on Schedule "E". Destination: Technodome would have a maximum height of 42 metres (138 ft), approximately 12 storeys, at the Sheppard Avenue/W.R.Allen intersection.

1.4Parking

Approximately 5,000 automobile and 75 bus parking spaces have been proposed. The total amount of required vehicular and bus parking spaces will be determined, based in part, upon the applicant's site-specific Parking Demand Study completed to the satisfaction of the City. This study must demonstrate that sufficient parking can be accommodated. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study for Destination: Technodome. A full review of the parking demand study is required prior to the application being considered by Council.

In keeping with Council's motion of May 27, 1998, the Toronto Parking Authority is to review and report on the feasibility of building and managing parking for both private and public recreational uses on the Downsview lands. Further discussions between the City, landowner and the applicant are necessary.

2.0Matters to be Finalized Before A Zoning By-law is Enacted

While the zoning by-law would set out the permitted use on the lands and the development standards to apply, other important planning matters will need to be finalized before a zoning by-law for Destination: Technodome will be enacted. These matters included:

2.1Urban Design

Destination: Technodome must be consistent with the Downsview Urban Design Guidelines. Sufficient detail regarding the proposed Destination: Technodome is required to ensure these guidelines can be met. Appendix 2 sets out matters to be addressed. An understanding of how the urban design elements are incorporated into the proposal is required prior to the enactment of a zoning by-law, with further detailed review of the urban design matters undertaken at the time of site plan approval. A Section 41 agreement would ensure these matters are incorporated into the development.

2.3Road Network and Transportation Facilities

The impact of traffic upon the road network must be known. The City has developed a transportation network in support of the draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan which accounts for existing traffic flows and accommodates the traffic generated from new developments including Destination: Technodome. New roads and infrastructure improvements would be provided, including, but are not limited to:

    • a new interchange and directional ramp on W.R. Allen Road., south of Sheppard Ave to provide direct vehicular access to the Technodome site;
    • a new road that extends from the Transit Road/W.R.Allen Road intersection to Chesswood Avenue;
    • a direct, grade-separated pedestrian connection to the Downsview Subway Station; and
    • intersection improvements at Sheppard Avenue and W.R.Allen Road including signalized entrance/exit points on Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road.

A Traffic Impact Study is required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, that the proposal can be accommodated within the proposed road network and the feasible and desirable improvements identified by the City. A full review of the Traffic Impact Study, submitted by the applicant, including the impacts on the road network, must be completed prior to the application being considered by Council.

The landowner will be required to provide the necessary roads and infrastructure improvements. A Section 37 agreement(s) will secure the provision of new roads to City standards, the required street landscaping and furnishings, the timing for the construction of the roads and road improvements and the implementation of parking and traffic management. Details respecting specific matters to be addressed by agreements with the City will be detailed in a final Recommendations Report. The Destination: Technodome proposal relies upon road improvements that require further environmental assessment, currently underway.

2.4Servicing

The impact upon municipal servicing facilities and storm water management must be known. Desirable and feasible improvements to municipal servicing infrastructure have been identified in support of the draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan. The applicant has submitted preliminary engineering studies to demonstrate that the proposal can be accommodated through existing and proposed improvements to municipal water distribution, sanitary sewer infrastructure and storm water management facilities. A complete review of the applicant's engineering reports is necessary before the application can be considered by Council.

All works, modifications and required infrastructure will be required to be located, designed and constructed to the City's satisfaction and conveyed to the City free of encumbrances and at no cost to the City, prior to the occupancy of the development. Storm water management facilities must be provided to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The provision for, and the timing of delivery for new infrastructure, improvements and storm water management facilities and easements for such facilities and services will be secured, through Section 37 agreement(s) with the City. Details respecting specific matters to be addressed by agreements with the City will be detailed in a final Recommendations Report.

2.5Other matters

Agreement(s) under Section 37 must also be executed to secure the provision of public art, the enhancement of the Wilson Avenue streetscape and the timing for the occupancy of the building. Details respecting specific matters to be addressed by agreements with the City will be detailed in a final Recommendations Report.

3.0Next Steps

The residents and business community have taken an active interest in Destination: Technodome and contributed to the principles established in this zoning framework which has been put forward at this time to clarify for all parties how the Secondary Plan will be implemented through zoning. This framework will be further refined over the next few months and the following matters will need to be addressed by the landowner and applicant before the proposal is considered by Council:

i)Submission of additional information required for a complete review and assessment of both the Traffic Impact Study and Parking Demand Study;

ii)Confirmation from the Ministry of Transportation on the required road network improvements and traffic movements relative to Highway 401;

iii)A complete review and assessment of the findings of preliminary engineering reports;

iv)Toronto Transit Commission agreement, in principle, to the proposed grade-separated pedestrian link to the Downsview Subway Station and concurrence with the proposed road network required for the build-out of the Downsview Secondary Plan area;

v)Approval in principle by the Works and Emergency Services Department of the encroachment of the grade-separated pedestrian link on W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue and confirmation by the Department of National Defence, owner of the W.R. Allen Road;

vi)Submission of a plan for zoning purposes that indicates the total land area and size, the building setbacks, easements, access points, number of parking spaces, parking layout, location of pedestrian routes, loading facilities, and general consistency with the Downsview Urban Design Guidelines; and

Conclusions:

This report illustrates for the information of Council and the community, a zoning framework that could be applied to the proposed Destination: Technodome, based upon draft Official Plan Amendment 464 (Downsview Area Secondary Plan). This report also identifies matters that must be addressed prior to a final Recommendations Report on Destination: Technodome including matters that must be finalized before a zoning by-law can be enacted.

Contact Name:

Russell Crooks, Planner tel.: 395-7108

________

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

(i)(July 22, 1998) from Ms. Helen Mills, Chair, Lost Rivers Project, The North Toronto Green Community, expressing her concerns with the proposed development;

(ii)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hansen, advising of their objections to the proposed development; and

(iii)(July 20, 1998) from A. Milliken Heisey, Kerzner, Papazian, MacDermind, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitors on behalf of 584952 Ontario Limited (Idomo lands).

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

________

The motions and recorded vote on this matter were as follows:

A.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to undertake the following studies to be considered with this zoning application:

(i)a review of parking requirements for stadia and theatres within the G.T.A., with particular attention to those associated with theme or amusement parks including but not limited to:

- Kingswood (Canada's Wonderland)

- Molson Amphitheatre (Ontario Place)

- Copp's Coliseum (Hamilton)

- Ford Centre (North York)

- Markham Centennial Arena

- Markham Theatre

- Ice Gardens - York University

- North York Centennial Arena

(ii)an examination of parking pricing, and pricing policies in the vicinity of, and/or associated with large stadia and other large volume traffic generating venues including but not limited to:

- Exhibition Place and The National Trade Centre;

- Woodbine Racetrack;

- T.T.C. Commuter Lots; and

- Skydome;

and that this study include both public and private lots;

(iii)a review of bus parking requirements and a comparison of bus parking provisions at a variety of similar venues including but not limited to:

- Skydome;

- Air Canada Centre (To Open February, 1999); and

- Canada's Wonderland;

(iv)a review of parking requirements for employees in comparison with parking provisions for employees at a variety of similar venues and the incorporation of employee parking assumptions into previous parking and transportation studies;

(2)the applicant and/or landowner be required to submit a plan for the staging of construction and the routing of construction vehicles with particular emphasis on confining these vehicles to routes that will not impact on residential neighbourhoods, and have a minimum impact on neighbouring industrial and commercial zones, to the satisfaction of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services (North York);

(3)the report (July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be received subject to the following:

(i)Section 3.0 (i) be amended to provide for an independent review of all parking studies undertaken to date to be commissioned by the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services, and paid for by the applicant; and

(ii)Notification of the public hearing on this matter to include a mail distribution to all residents and business in all areas bounded by Jane Street on the west, Finch Avenue on the north, Bathurst Street on the east, and Highway 401 on the south;

(iii)Size of Venue

(a)No individual venue shall be permitted to be of a size that will generate sufficient traffic to exceed the capacity of the road system; and in that regard staff, on the basis of a careful analysis, will recommend the maximum size of any particular venue, including the proposed 12,500 seat arena; and

(b)the following be deferred for consideration with the zoning application:

"That until such time as the appropriate studies are completed a cap of 4,000 seats shall be established.;

(iv)Staff address the issue of deliveries to the Technodome and report to Council through the zoning process; and

(4)the applicant and/or landowner be required to undertake an environmental analysis to determine the level of air emissions which will result from the vehicles expected to be generated by the Technodome; and

(5)Canada Lands Co. Ltd. provide certification acceptable to City staff that all PCB's and munitions (other than those currently being utilized for military purposes) have been removed from the site.

B.Councillor Augimeri, Black Creek, moved that the following be referred to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for a report thereon to the Community Council:

"That the Section 37 Agreement include a clause which mandates the developer to provide a market impact study for any future use which is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The study would be required for any use over 50,000 sq. ft. and shall have an impact area of a 2 km. radius."

A recorded vote on the foregoing motions A. and B. was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:NIL

ABSENT:NIL

30

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)2008 Toronto Olympic Bid - Public Consultation.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, outlining the public consultation process related to Toronto's bid to host the 2008 Olympics; setting out the details of Phase I of the process; and advising that a presentation will be made to the North York Community Council at a public meeting to be held on October 21, 1998 at 7:30 p.m.

(b)Street Vending Permit Application No. 97 - The Donway East - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998:

(i)Report (July 10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, recommending that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to issue a permit for the sale of hot dogs and sausages within the municipal boulevard adjacent to Don Mills Collegiate Institute; and

(ii)Communication (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Sunny Chhabra, Barrister and Solicitor, expressing his opposition to the manner in which this matter has been dealt with by the City of Toronto.

(c)Modifications to the Intersection of Pembury Avenue with the Bayview Avenue Access Ramp - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its meeting scheduled for October 14, 1998:

(July 10, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, recommending that Pembury Avenue, at the intersection with the ramp from Lawrence Avenue East to southbound Bayview Avenue, be redesigned to discourage the high speed access to Pembury Avenue from the ramp while maintaining access to/from the greater community to the west of Bayview Avenue and south of Lawrence Avenue East.

(d)Post Road Allowance East of Bridle Heath Gate - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998:

(June 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, recommending that:

(1)the unimproved portion of the Post Road road allowance which extends east of Bridle Heath Gate be legally closed and dedicated as parkland; and

(2)the closure be subject to the provision of utility easements as required.

(e)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application UDZ-98-13 and UDSB-1238 - Glenarda Properties Ltd. - 20 Bond Sreet - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law and approve a plan of subdivision to permit a mixed use development consisting of detached houses, townhouses, office and park land uses, and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(f)Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-11 - Sanmal Investments Limited - 699 Sheppard Avenue East - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having referred the following report back to the Acting Commissioner of Planning to be brought forward after further consultation with the community in conjunction with the local Councillors:

(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit development of this site in two phases; firstly to convert the existing one storey post office to a retail building and subsequently to develop the site with a 5 storey, commercial building at 2.0 F.S.I., and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(g)Preliminary Report - Zoning Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application UDZ-97-43 and UDSB-1237 - 295151 Ontario Limited - 65, 69, 71, 75, 81 and83 Drewry Avenue and 55 and 57 Fairchild Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 9, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law and approve a plan of subdivision to permit 32 three storey townhouses on a new public road connected to Drewry Avenue and 3 new small lot single family dwellings with frontage on Fairchild Avenue, and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(h)Preliminary Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-12 -Tak On Developments Ltd. - 221 Finch Avenue East - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit redevelopment of the site with a 3-storey semi-detached dwelling, and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(i)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-95-21 - Dangreen Properties Inc. - Northeast Corner of Bayview Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East - Seneca Heights.

The North York Community Council reports having referred the following report back to the Acting Commissioner of Planning to be brought forward after further consultation with the community in conjunction with the local Councillors:

(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit mixed use development at the corner of Bayview Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East in the context of a comprehensive development plan for the Dangreen Properties Inc./Bayview Village Shopping Centre (Orlando Corporation) block and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(j)Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application UDZ-97-12 and UDSP-97-042 - Edilcan Development Corporation - 16, 18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and having authorized staff to schedule a public meeting:

(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit one 14 storey residential apartment building with 136 units having frontage on Byng Avenue, and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(k)Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment Application and Site Plan Application UDZ-98-04 and UDSP-98-015 - Oxford Hills Developments (Horsham) Inc. - 24, 26, 36, 38 and 44 Horsham Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and having authorized staff to schedule a public meeting on October 14, 1998:

(July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law and site plan application to permit a 16 unit 3 storey freehold townhouse development, and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(l)Site Specific By-laws Study UD43-SSB - All North York Community Council Wards.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and having requested the Acting Commissioner of Planning to consult with each Councillor before releasing the list of sites in each particular ward:

(July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on progress in the Site Specific By-law Study, and to obtain Community Council's concurrence on the planning principles that are to be applied to the study.

(m)Claim - Reimbursement for Damages during the Bridle Path Area Road Reconstruction - 77 The Bridle Path - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following memorandum to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998:

(May 19, 1998) from Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, forwarding a request from the owner of 77 The Bridle Path for compensation for costs incurred as a result of damage to his sprinkler system by the contractor during the local improvements to The Bridle Path area last year.

(n)Proposed Amendment to Low Lot By-law No. 7273 - Lots 799 and 800, Plan M-108 (Between 446 and 466 Bedford Park Avenue) - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the draft by-law to amend the City of North York By-law No. 7273, as amended, to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998.

(i)Draft by-law to amend the City of North York By-law No. 7273, as amended; and

(ii)Communication (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Alan S. Lam, M. Eng., P. Eng., Principal, Greenland Engineering Group, requesting a deferral on behalf of the applicant.

(o)Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-27 - Zoning By-law No. 331-1998 - Shell Canada Limited - 2831 Bayview Avenue - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication and having advised the Ontario Municipal Board accordingly:

(July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, advising that two objections have been received to Zoning By-law No. 331-1998; recommending that the report be received for information purposes; and that the Ontario Municipal Board be advised accordingly.

(p)Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-88-40 - Zoning By-law No. 330-1998 - R. G. Thwaites - 15 Cameron Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication and having advised the Ontario Municipal Board accordingly:

(July 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, advising that one objection has been received to Zoning By-Law No. 330-1998; recommending that the report be received for information purposes; and that the Ontario Municipal Board be advised accordingly

(q)Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests in Planning Matters.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication for information:

(July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on July 13, 1998, approved Recommendation No. (3) of the report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, regarding guidelines for determining City-wide interests in planning matters, and requesting that any comments from Community Councils be forwarded directly to the July29, 1998, City Council meeting.

(r)Applications - Officials Plans and Re-zoning Matters.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following Resolution to its next meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998:

(July 22, 1998) from Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, recommending that the Planning Department inform local Councillors about all Official Plan and re-zoning applications immediately upon their receipt by means of a consent FYI item on the Community Council agenda; and that this consist of a photocopy of the application form, area map and accompanying letter from the applicant.

Respectfully submitted,

MILTON BERGER,

Chair

Toronto, July 27, 1998

(Report No. 8 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998.)

 

   
Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

 

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links
© City of Toronto 1998-2005