TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 10

1Stopping Prohibition: Evans Avenue, West of Kipling Avenue

2Stopping Prohibition: Rathburn Road, East of the West Mall

3Left Turn Prohibition: North Queen Street, North of the Queensway

4Dead Sod Replacement - 1995-1996 Road Construction Projects

5Tree Roots - 44 MacDonald Street

6Curb Cut and Parking Pad - 68 Lake Crescent

7Pedestrian Crossover Investigation - The East Mall South of Yarn Road

8Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision

9Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code Home Depot Canada, Kipling Avenue at Bethridge Road File No. Z-2272

10Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments1407 Royal York Road - File No. Z-2249

11Fire Route Designation - 44 and 50 Montgomery Road (Memorial Pool and Health Club and Central Arena)

12Kingsway Park Heritage Conservation District

13Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code Fieldgate Apartments, 2 Triburnham Place - File No. Z-2255

14Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 10

OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on October 14 and 15, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

1

Stopping Prohibition: Evans Avenue, West of Kipling Avenue

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose a No Stopping Prohibition on the south side of Evans Avenue, from a point 50 metres west of Kipling Avenue to a point 158 metres west thereof.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of regulatory signs are contained in the Transportation Service Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a No Stopping Prohibition be introduced on the south side of Evans Avenue, from a point 50metres west of Kipling Avenue to a point 158 metres west thereof; and

(2)the attached by-laws (Attachments No. 1 and No. 2) receive Council approval.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division, District 2, has received numerous complaints regarding trucks stopping for long periods of time on the south side of Evans Avenue in front of #386, west of Kipling Avenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

A No Stopping Prohibition exists on the north side of Evans Avenue from Kipling Avenue to a point 135metres thereof. A No Parking Anytime Prohibition exists on the south side of Evans Avenue. A bus stop is located on south side at the south-west corner of Evans Avenue and Kipling Avenue.

Comments:

A site investigation by staff revealed that the majority of the drivers are parking their trucks on the south side of Evans Avenue in this area of #386 to frequent the local coffee shops/restaurants. These parked vehicles are impeding the eastbound traffic flow on Evans Avenue and are restricting the drivers view of the traffic on Evans Avenue when exiting the driveways of the commercial properties in this area.

Conclusions:

The introduction of a No Stopping Prohibition on the south side of Evans Avenue, from a point 50metres west of Kipling Avenue to a point 158 metres west thereof, will improve the eastbound traffic flow on Evans Avenue and the site lines at the driveways in this area.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Traffic Co-ordinator - Transportation and Engineering Planning.

(416)394-8453; Fax (416)394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Stopping Prohibition: Rathburn Road, East of the West Mall

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose a No Stopping Prohibition on the south side of Rathburn Road, from The West Mall to a point 203 metres east thereof.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of regulatory signs are contained in the Transportation Service Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a No Stopping Prohibition be introduced on the south side of Rathburn Road, from The West Mall to a point 203 metres east thereof; and

(2)the attached by-laws (Attachments No. 1 and No. 2) receive Council approval.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division, District 2, has been requested by Councillor Dick O'Brien, Markland-Centennial, to investigate the feasibility of introducing a No Stopping Prohibition on the south side of Rathburn Road, from The West Mall to a point 203metres east thereof. This request is a result of the concerns expressed by Mr. D. Kosonic, 623Rathburn Road, Unit-41, regarding the on-going problem of motorists stopping their vehicles for excessive periods of time near the townhouse complex located on the south-east corner of Rathburn Road and The West Mall. A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

Comments:

A site investigation by staff revealed stopped vehicles on the south side of Rathburn Road, east of The West Mall. Given the right (curb) lane on Rathburn Road provides access to the Highway427South on-ramp, the presence of these vehicles affects the eastbound traffic flow on Rathburn Road. Motorists who are in the curb lane at the west approach to the intersection of Rathburn Road and The West Mall and wanting to proceed east through the intersection are forced to make a lane change in the intersection. Also, the northbound right turn movement at this intersection is affected by these stopped vehicles.

Conclusions:

The introduction of a No Stopping Prohibition on the south side of Rathburn Road, from The West Mall to a point 203 metres east thereof, will improve the traffic flow through the intersection of Rathburn Road and The West Mall, thus increasing traffic safety in this area.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Traffic Co-ordinator - Transportation and Engineering Planning.

(416)394-8453; Fax (416)394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

3

Left Turn Prohibition: North Queen Street, North of the Queensway

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To prohibit southbound left turns from entering and westbound left turns from exiting the first driveway on North Queen Street north of The Queensway.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signs are allocated in the 1998Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) a left turn prohibition be introduced on North Queen Street at the first driveway north of TheQueensway for southbound traffic;

(2)a left turn prohibition be introduced for westbound traffic from the first driveway north of TheQueensway at North Queen Street; and

(3) the associated by-laws (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

A requirement of the development proposal for the site located on the northeast corner of The Queensway and North Queen Street was to provide an in-right/out-right access to North Queen Street, approximately 100 m north of The Queensway. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2 and No. 3.

Comments:

The first driveway north of The Queensway at North Queen Street was designed as an in-right/out-right, however, it is operating as a full movement access (all turning movements) resulting in southbound vehicles queuing on the travelled portion of the roadway. The left turn prohibitions will legislatively preclude any such traffic movements at this intersection, therefore reducing the potential for accidents.

Conclusions:

The left turn prohibitions on North Queen Street at the first driveway north of The Queensway will effectively manage traffic at this location.

Contact Name:

Kevin Akins, Traffic Technologist - Transportation and Engineering Planning Division.

(416) 394-6046; Fax 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Dead Sod Replacement - 1995-1996 Road Construction Projects

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose greening of the boulevards to replace dead sod following road reconstruction.

Funding Sources:

The cost of the programme in the amount of $15,000.00 to be charged against Order No. 10015.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.a one time programme of boulevard dead sod replacement by dethatching, top dressing and overseeding be provided for those streets reconstructed in 1995 and 1996; and

2.the owners/occupants of properties be so notified and further advised in the care and maintenance of the new seeded lawn.

Background:

In 1995 and 1996, a number of streets in the Alderwood area bounded by Brown's Line, Horner Avenue, Etobicoke Creek and Evans Avenue and Westhampton, Windsor and York Streets were reconstructed. These streets and limits of construction are listed on Attachment No. 1. All disturbed boulevards were sodded between the curb and sidewalk or property line and generally were done in the fall of the year of the project.

The year following the road construction, any call reporting damaged or dead sod was dealt with by having the contractor replace the sod under the one year maintenance period.

Last fall (1997), the City received calls reporting dissatisfaction with the sod placed in 1995. This spring, the number of complaints on dead or poor sod placed in the 1995 and 1996 projects increased. Our investigation confirmed the complaints, but at the same time also found that sod placed along neighbouring properties was flourishing.

Opinion was solicited from the City's Parks Department and recommendations were received from Dennis McQuestion, Manager of Forestry and Horticulture, as outlined in his memorandum dated April 27, 1998, Attachment No. 2.

Soil samples taken from various locations where sod placed had perished were tested for Atrozine and other contaminants at the Pesticides & Trace Contaminants Laboratory of the University of Guelph and the reports indicate "not detected", in other words the topsoil placed met with City's specifications.

It appears that sod laid in these contracts could have survived with normal watering and fertilizing as illustrated by other properties in the area.

As the complaints being addressed, were received after the expiry of the maintenance period, prior to which the sod work was inspected and accepted, we have no recourse to go after the contractor.

Any consideration to re-establish greening the boulevards can be carried out on a one time bases at City's cost by dethatching, top dressing and overseeding the areas of poor or dead sod as recommended by Parks Department.

Conclusions:

Based on the above, it is respectfully recommended that, in order to re-establish greening the boulevards, the area of poor or dead sod be dethatched, top dressed and overseeded on a one time basis only at City's cost and that the property owners/occupants be advised accordingly as well as communicated with on the care and maintenance of the new seeded areas

Contact Name:

T. Ellerbusch, P.Eng., Director of Engineering, Design and Construction.

(416) 394-8399; Fax (416) 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

5

Tree Roots - 44 MacDonald Street

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October1, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To report on the request of Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore - Queensway, on the foundation damage of 44 MacDonald Street apparently caused by the City tree roots.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that no further action be taken by the City on this matter.

Background:

Councillor Irene Jones approached the Works and Emergency Services Department with a request to investigate the alleged damages caused to the foundations of Mr. W. Tiefenbacher's home at 44MacDonald Street apparently by the roots of the City tree.

We wish to report that Mr. Tiefenbacher's claim has been reviewed by City's insurance adjusters, Acclaim Adjusting Services Inc., and his claim was denied as outlined in their letter dated July21,1998 (Attachment No. 1).

We have further contacted former area municipalities as to their actions with respect to similar claims and it is our understanding that none of the former Cities have accepted any claims as to the damages to the basement walls or foundations caused by the City's tree roots.

We have also reviewed this case with City's solicitors and they have advised that since this claim has been investigated by City's insurers and denied in full, no further action by the City at this time is warranted. Mr. Tiefenbacher may, if he so chooses, to commence with legal proceedings against the City to claim his damages.

Conclusions:

Based on the above, it is respectfully recommended that no further action be taken by the City on this matter.

Contact Name:

T. Ellerbusch, P.Eng.,

Director of Engineering, Design and Construction.

(416) 394-8399; Fax (416) 394-8942

(Copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

________

Mr. W. Tiefenbacher appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

6

Curb Cut and Parking Pad - 68 Lake Crescent

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1)when the uniform by-law for front yard parking comes into effect and if permit fees are required, this application be subject to payment of such fees;

(2)this requirement be applicable to all other similar situations; and

(3)the following report (October9, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, be adopted.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, to submit a further report to the Etobicoke Community Council reviewing the history of Minor Encroachment Agreements pertaining to developers and whether this policy should be extended to non-developers on a general basis.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (October 9, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To review the Minor Encroachment Agreement and curb cut request granted to the owners of 68Lake Crescent to facilitate the installation of a proposed front yard parking pad which will encroach onto the public road allowance.

Financial Implications:

The applicant has made payment of the non-refundable $200.00 application fee for the Encroachment Agreement and paid the $112.35 refundable cost for the curb cut. The applicant has also provided the required proof of insurance listing the City of Toronto as an additional insured on their homeowners' insurance policy for $2,000,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Etobicoke Community Council confirm the decision to grant the Minor Encroachment Agreement; and

(2)City staff be instructed to proceed with the necessary curb cut.

Background:

In 1995 the former City of Etobicoke received a request for a curb cut from a previous owner of 68Lake Crescent to facilitate a proposed front yard parking pad. The request was denied when it was discovered that there was insufficient space to allow the parking pad to be installed completely on private property.

In 1997 the City of Etobicoke began granting Minor Encroachment Agreements for front yard parking spaces to developers of several new townhouse complexes to facilitate a reduction in the normal 19.7 foot (6 metre) front yard setback. The reduced setback caused the front yard parking spaces, a standard size of 19.7 feet by 9.8 feet (6 metres by 3 metres) and located in each unit's driveway, to encroach onto the adjacent public right-of-way. Minor Encroachment Agreements have since also been issued to individual homeowners who request permission to install front yard parking pads which encroach on the public road allowance provided that each proposal complies with the Zoning Code and other by-laws and poses no obstruction to municipal operations. One hundred and ninety (190) Minor Encroachment Agreements have been granted since 1997 for front yard parking spaces, 49 others are pending at this time and 298 new applications are expected within the next few months.

In April 1998 the applicants purchased 68 Lake Crescent and in July, 1998 they requested a Minor Encroachment Agreement and 8.2 foot (2.5 metre) curb cut to allow a proposed front yard parking pad (Attachment No. 1 - Drawing). The proposal complies with the former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code (Attachment No. 2) and the Road Allowance Control Section, Traffic Section and Road Operations Section of the Transportation Division have approved the application. A Minor Encroachment Agreement (Attachment No. 1) was executed in August,1998 in accordance with the former City of Etobicoke Road Allowance Encroachment Policy and the curb cut application was then processed.

After the curb was marked for a curb cut, a number of complaints were received from neighbouring residents and the cut was postponed to provide the complainants with an opportunity to address Etobicoke Community Council on the matter (Attachment No. 3).

Comments:

The one-block section of Lake Crescent where this property is situated is a one-way street running east from Dwight Avenue to Royal York Road (Attachment No. 4). The majority of the 81 properties fronting on this section are less than 30 feet (9.1 metres) wide (Attachment No. 4). A total of 36 of these properties on both sides of the street use front yard parking spaces all of which appear to encroach on public road allowance without authorization. In some cases driveways accessing a garage or rear yard parking space have been widened to accommodate parking of an extra vehicle in the front yard while, in others, parking pads have been installed where no other vehicle access to the property exists. The lot frontage at 68LakeCrescent is 18.3 feet (5.6 metres), the dwelling is semi-detached and no other vehicle access to the property exists. Permit parking became available on the street on September1,1998. Similar front yard parking spaces are common throughout the Mimico area.

Conclusions:

Given that large numbers of similar properties in the Mimico area utilize front yard parking spaces like the one proposed, the vast majority without authorization, it would be inconsistent for the City to refuse permission to this applicant who has willingly followed due process and abided by the City's policies and by-laws.

Contact Name:

D. Robertson, Budget/Road Allowance Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division.

Tel: (416)394-8360; Fax: 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

________

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

-(September 17, 1998) from Mr. R. Burns, and others, expressing concern regarding the application for curb cut and parking pad in the front yard area at 68 Lake Crescent; and

-(October 9, 1998) from Mr. J. Codispodi, responding to the concerns regarding the application.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing:

-Mr. R. Burns, Etobicoke;

-Mr. G. Baltazar, Etobicoke;

-Mr. D. MacDonald, Etobicoke; and

-Mr. J. Codispodi, Etobicoke.

7

Pedestrian Crossover Investigation - The East Mall

South of Yarn Road

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:

Purpose:

To evaluate a request for the installation of a pedestrian crossover on The East Mall, south of YarnRoad, in front of Cloverdale Mall.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of pedestrian crossovers are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a pedestrian crossover not be erected on The East Mall, south of Yarn Road, in front of Cloverdale Mall.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division has received a request from Councillor Irene Jones (Lakeshore-Queensway) to determine the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossover on The East Mall, south of Yarn Road, in front of Cloverdale Mall. This request was in response to correspondence (Attachment No. 1) received from Mr. Brian Hayworth, 28GlenellenDrive E. proposing a pedestrian crossover at this location. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Comments:

The East Mall, at the subject location, is a four lane secondary arterial roadway having a posted limit of 40 km/h. The average annual daily traffic is approximately 15,100 vehicles. The Toronto Transit Commission has bus stops, including bus bays, located on both sides of The East Mall, south of Yarn Road. The west side bus stop coincides with the main pedestrian access into Cloverdale Mall. The east side bus stop is directly opposite the west side stop.

Prior to 1992, numerous investigations/studies were conducted at this location to address the issue of pedestrian safety and two reports (Attachments No. 3 and No. 4) were presented to the former City of Etobicoke Works and Environment Committee in 1988 and 1993. It was concluded in both reports that although the volume of pedestrians crossing The East Mall in front of Cloverdale Mall is relatively high, the installation of a pedestrian crossover could not be recommended due to the proximity of the traffic control signals located at the intersection of The East Mall and East Mall Crescent. This intersection is approximately 110 metres south of the crossing area, however, a pedestrian crossover cannot be located less than 215 metres from traffic control signals or another pedestrian crossover. Installing a pedestrian crossover at a point greater than 215 metres north of East Mall Crescent would not achieve the desired results since pedestrians would elect to cross The East Mall at the aforementioned bus stops.

In the fall of 1992, a pedestrian refuge island was constructed on The East Mall, south of Yarn Road which significantly improved the safety of pedestrians crossing in this area. Recent observation studies during peak traffic periods revealed no potential vehicle and pedestrian conflicts.

A collision analysis for the last five years has revealed one pedestrian related accident in this area. It occurred on December 12, 1996, at 3.48 p.m. when a sixty-five year old woman, crossing The East Mall 15 metres south of Yarn Road, was struck by a vehicle in the northbound passing lane. This pedestrian was running eastbound to catch the northbound bus. Weather and road surface conditions were factors in this collision as it was raining at the time of the accident. No charges were laid.

Conclusions:

The distance between the traffic control signals at the intersection of The East Mall and East Mall Crescent and the focal point for pedestrians crossing south of Yarn Road, directly in front of the main pedestrian access to Cloverdale Mall, is short of the minimum requirements for the installation of a pedestrian crossover. The installation of a pedestrian crossover on this section of The East Mall would have adverse traffic/pedestrian conflicts in that there would be a high probability of rear end type collisions and non-compliance of this traffic control device by motorists, thus decreasing driver and pedestrian safety on this section of The East Mall.

The pedestrian related accident that did occur at this location was the result of pedestrian error and weather and road surface conditions.

The existing refuge island provides adequate protection for pedestrians attempting to cross one direction of traffic at a time therefore no additional traffic control changes are recommended.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Traffic Co-ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning.

(416)394-8453; Fax: (416)394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October14, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To advise Toronto Council of a Committee of Adjustment Decision which has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and to recommend whether legal and staff representation is warranted.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There will be no financial costs associated with the appeal as no legal representation is recommended.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeal regarding Application No. A-269/98ET, 52 Radwinter Drive.

Comment:

The application and appeal is summarized as follows:

Address: 52 Radwinter Drive

Applicants:Balbit Saini, Saranjit Saini and Indira Saini

Appellants:Balbit Saini, Saranjit Saini and Indira Saini

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:The site is occupied by a one-storey, semi-detached dwelling and a detached single car garage. The applicants have constructed an enclosed front porch without a building permit. The applicants seek to legalize and maintain the enclosed front porch which was built at the northwest corner of the dwelling, 5.85 m from the north front lot line, while a minimum 7.68 m distance is required by the Zoning Code.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Conclusion:

The subject appeal was reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that it does not involve substantive planning issues, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is therefore not warranted.

Contact Name:

Lorna Hahn, MCIP, OPP, Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8232; Fax: (416)394-6063

9

Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code

Home Depot Canada, Kipling Avenue at Bethridge Road

File No. Z-2272

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (October 14,1998) of the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:

(1)the application by Home Depot Canada for amendments to the Industrial designation of the Etobicoke Official Plan and the Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) provisions of the ZoningCode to permit a Home Depot retail warehouse outlet in addition to the permitted industrial uses on a vacant site at Kipling Avenue and Bethridge Road, be approved; and

(2)the report of the Director of Community Planning, West District (October 14, 1998) be adopted, as amended by the inclusion of the following conditions 4(x), (xi) and (xii):

4.(x)That the applicant enter into a legal agreement with the City with respect to a public right-of-way eastward from Kipling Avenue over Part6 of the site;

(xi)Details of a proposed public art feature to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Art Advisory Committee, along with a suitable financial guarantee to ensure installation; and

(xii) Inclusion, at the site plan stage, of a provision for tree planting in the parking areas.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October14,1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder:

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (October 14, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider an application by Home Depot Canada to amend the Industrial designation of the OfficialPlan, and the Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) zoning of a vacant site at KiplingAvenue and BethridgeRoad, to permit a Home Depot retail warehouse outlet in addition to the permitted industrial uses.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. here are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Home Depot Canada for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Code be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties be held and, if approved, the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

On June 27, 1998, Home Depot Canada applied for amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit a home improvement warehouse retail facility in addition to the permitted industrial uses. At its meeting of July 29, 1998 City Council received a preliminary report on the application. (Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2)

Home Depot Canada has also applied for site plan control approval for this proposal.

Proposal:

Home Depot Canada is seeking to construct a home improvement warehouse retail facility, consisting of a 10 498 m² (113,000 sq. ft.) building and a 1 715 mē (18,460 sq. ft.) outdoor seasonal garden centre. The building is to be located on a vacant parcel fronting on Kipling Avenue immediately north of the CNR track and Highway 409. However, due to a significant grade differential between Kipling Avenue and that parcel, access is proposed from a second parcel fronting on Kipling Avenue, opposite Bethridge Road. The driveway would then cross the adjacent Hydro corridor to connect with the building site. The proposed building will contain a retail area; a receiving area; administrative offices; a tool rental area; and a utility area. A Harvey's/Second Cup restaurant is to be included in the retail area.

The site is adjacent to industrial warehouse uses on the north and east sides, Kipling Avenue and industrial uses to the west, and the CN Rail tracks to the south.

Site Data

Official PlanIndustrial

ZoningClass 1 Industrial (I.C1)

Site Area (2 parcels) 4.975 ha.(12.25 ac.)

Gross Floor Area10 498 ha.(113,000 sq.ft.)

Coverage10 498 ha.(113,000 sq.ft.)21.2%

Landscape Area 9 836 m²(105,879 sq.ft.)19.8%

Paved Area29 236 m²(314,705 sq.ft.)58.9%

Parking Required @ 3/100 m²315 spaces

Parking provided545 spaces

Surplus230 spaces

Comments:

Official Plan:

The Etobicoke Official Plan designates the site Industrial. A home improvement warehouse retail facility is not a permitted use in the Industrial designation, therefore an amendment is required.

The Official Plan supports the retention of industrial lands for industrial uses and also accommodates the need for a more diverse range of business activities and employment generating uses in the City's industrial areas. This proposal meets the intent of the Plan by retaining the potential for industrial uses and introducing a new employment generating commercial use that is not likely to cause negative impacts on surrounding industrial uses, or, as determined through a Traffic Impact Study, on the area road network.

The Official Plan provides for the submission of a market impact evaluation of the potential impact of new retail uses over 69 677 m² (75,000 sq. ft.) on existing retail designations. A Market Feasibility and Impact Study, prepared by John Winter Associates Limited, submitted in support of this proposal, concludes that this development will not detrimentally impact the planned retail function within Etobicoke and will not cause adverse fiscal impact on the City of Toronto.

Zoning Code:

The Etobicoke Zoning Code zones the site Industrial Class 1 (I.C1), and the Hydro corridor, through which the access road crosses, is zoned Utilities (U), neither of these zoning categories permits a home improvement warehouse retail facility, therefore an amendment is required.

Agency Comments:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed. However, some agencies require certain matters to be addressed.

Ontario Hydro indicates agreement in principle to granting Home Depot a dedicated right-of-way across the Hydro corridor. The City will require Home Depot to enter an access easement and maintenance agreement with Ontario Hydro, to secure access in perpetuity from KiplingAvenue.

Canadian National Railways requests that Home Depot do an analysis of noise and vibration, identify adverse impacts, if any, and specify appropriate mitigation measures. Those measures should include a minimum 30 m setback from the CN property plus an earth berm. Any drainage changes affecting CN lands has to be approved by CN. CN also requests Home Depot to install a 1.83 m chain link fence along the property boundary.

The Works Department requires a peer review of submitted environmental information to establish that the site is acceptable for the use. Works also indicates that the area sewer system is theoretically at capacity and is being monitored to confirm if there is capacity for this development. Rezoning should be conditional on the results of that monitoring. A servicing agreement will be required and storm water quantity and quality requirements will apply to this site.

The Transportation Planning section of the Works Department accepts the conclusions of the traffic impact report that the proposal will not reduce the level of service on the area road network. At the applicant's cost, road and signalization modifications will be required at the KiplingAvenue/BethridgeRoad intersection to accommodate traffic to this development.

Most of the above-noted matters can be addressed through Site Plan Control approval, at the same time as other site design details are being reviewed.

Conclusions:

This proposal has been evaluated within the context of the Etobicoke Official Plan. It meets the intent of that Plan by adding an alternate employment generating use to this industrial site, while maintaining the potential for the continuation of industrial uses and without causing unacceptable impacts on surrounding industrial uses and other areas designated for retail uses.

Staff recommend proceeding to a public meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if the application is approved, the following conditions should apply.

Conditions to Approval:

1.Enactment of an Official Plan Amendment confirming the Industrial designation on the site with a Site Specific Policy to permit a home improvement warehouse retail facility.

2.Enactment of an amending by-law affirming the Industrial Class 1 (I.C1) zoning of the site and permitting a home improvement warehouse retail facility and an access road for that facility across the adjacent Utilities (U) zone.

3.Prior to the enactment of the amending by-law, the Works Department shall confirm that the peer review of the environmental information concludes that the site is appropriate for the proposed development and the sewer capacity monitoring shows that capacity exists for this development.

4.Further detailed consideration of the proposal under the Site Plan Control approval process to include the following:

(i)Submission of a detailed site plan addressing, among other matters, the issues raised by CN Rail.

(ii)Submission of a landscape plan indicating proposed plant material, fencing, lighting and street tree requirements to the satisfaction of the Urban Development Department and Parks and Recreation Services

(iii)Confirmation that the applicant has obtained the necessary agreement (s) with OntarioHydro.

(iv)Confirmation that the Transportation Planning section of the Works Department is satisfied with the site plan, access road design and arrangements for road and intersection improvements at Kipling Avenue and Bethridge Road.

(v)Provision of services, signing of agreements and posting of financial guarantees as required by the Works Department.

(vi)Address storm water management requirements related to both quality and quantity control to the satisfaction of the Works Department.

(vii)Address waste storage and handling, including recycling, to the satisfaction of the Works Department.

(viii)Payment of 2% cash-in lieu of parkland.

(ix)Provision of barrier free access.

Contact Name:

Ed Murphy, Area Planner, Development Division

Tel: (416) 394-8234, Fax: (416) 394-6063

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-2 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code

Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments

1407 Royal York Road - File No. Z-2249

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District(April1,1998) and the supplementary report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May 6, 1998) and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that

(1)the application submitted by Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, regarding an amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and the Zoning Code to permit the development of two condominium apartment buildings, 10 and 15 storeys in height, containing a total of 219 units, to be developed in conjunction with an existing 12-storey rental apartment building at 1407 Royal York Road, be approved;

(2)the following report (i) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (April 1, 1998) with respect to the application be adopted, as amended by inclusion of the following:

1.(iv)prior to the enactment of an amending by-law, an amenities agreement shall be entered into, to ensure that separate outdoor pools are provided for both the existing and proposed developments and that details and stepping of the building elevations are addressed;

2.(iv)the amending by-law shall include a minimum unit size of 84 m² (900sq.ft.) for the proposed building;

3.(i)add:as well as the incorporation of any noise and vibration attenuation measures within the project;

(viii)details of the proposed public art feature to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Art Advisory Committee, along with a suitable financial guarantee to ensure installation;

(ix)resolution of financial contributions towards the provisions of school services, including the signing and registration of any necessary agreements with the Boards of Education.

(3)within six months of the completion of the project, a further traffic study be done, at the expense of the applicant and, if necessary, staff come forward with recommendations to rectify any concerns that may have arisen;

(4)advance green traffic signals be installed for east-bound traffic turning north onto Royal York Road;

(5)no work time extensions be allowed;

(6)the following supplementary report (ii) from the Director of Community Planning, West District (September 16, 1998) be received for information; and further

(7)whereas the applicants have agreed to obtain acceptance of a reduction in the available density at 45 La Rose Avenue from 90 apartment units (as approved by OntarioMunicipal Board Order No. 0787) to a proposed 25-unit townhouse development, subject to any conditional approval; and

whereas an application for rezoning of the lands at 45 La Rose Avenue is required in order to allow for the suggested 25 townhouse units;

City Council agree to waive the application fee for rezoning to accommodate the townhouse development, subject to the receipt of a formal rezoning application for 45La Rose Avenue within four weeks of the date of any conditional approval of 219 units at the north-east corner of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue (FileNo.Z-2249), with the amending by-laws for both projects to be presented concurrently to City Council:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having scheduled a statutory public meeting on May6,1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder; at which time the Etobicoke Community Council:

(1) deferred consideration of the following reports (i) and (ii) until the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council for a continuation of the statutory public meeting;

(2)requested the applicant and representatives of the community to meet prior to that time in an attempt to achieve a resolution of the issues; namely, square footage of the units, landscaping, density, driveway locations, traffic, building height, etc.;

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, to conduct a traffic study in the area, to be a minimum of three days, to verify the numbers given in the staff report; and

(4)requested the applicant to enter into discussions with the Toronto School Board with respect to appropriate contributions toward their needs and a report back to the Community Council from either the applicant or the School Board.

The Etobicoke Community Council further reports, at its meeting of May 27, 1998, having deferred the continuation of the public meeting regarding the application by Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments for amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan, pending the outcome of a meeting(s) between the applicant, interested residents and the local Councillors.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To review a proposal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the development of two condominium apartment buildings, 10 and 15 storeys in height, containing a total of 219 units, to be developed in conjunction with an existing 12 storey rental apartment building municipally known as 1407 Royal York Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Tanana Investment and Royal Gate Apartments be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled and Special Site Policy No. 20 be deleted.

Background:

The subject site consists of two abutting properties (Exhibit No. 1). The northerly property at 1407Royal York Road, located at the southeast corner of Royal York Road and La Rose Avenue, is owned by Royal Gate Apartments and was rezoned in 1964 by By-law Number 14,455, from Second Density Residential (R2) to Fourth Density Residential (R4) to permit apartment houses. In 1965, the existing 12 storey apartment building was constructed with 150 units. In 1991, the Committee of Adjustment approved the creation of 12 additional units through the conversion of several three bedroom units into one and two bedroom units for a total of 162 units.

The abutting property to the south, situated at the northeast corner of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue, is vacant and is owned by Tanana Investments. The property was originally designated as part of the Transportation Corridor to accommodate the expansion of the Richview Expressway. The boundary of the corridor was subsequently refined by Metropolitan Toronto and these lands were redesignated for High Density Residential development under Official Plan Amendment C-36-84 in 1985.

In August, 1997, an application for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Code was received requesting permission to develop two, 12 and 15 storey condominium apartment buildings containing a total of 214 units on the southerly portion of the property. In response to preliminary comments from staff, a revised plan for two, 10 and 15 storey condominium buildings, containing 219 units was presented at a community meeting held on February 16, 1998. Details of the community meeting are found in the 'Community Meeting' section of this report. The revised plan is the subject of this report.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The total site is approximately 2.4 ha (5.9 acres) in size with frontage on three roadways; La Rose Avenue, Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue (Exhibit No. 1). An above ground swimming pool is located on the south side of the existing 162 unit rental apartment building, with surface parking located along the easterly property line.

Surrounding zoning categories and land uses are as follows:

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

South:Fifth Density Residential (R5) and Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) - townhouses

East:Sixth Density Residential (R6) - apartment buildings ranging in height from 11 storeys to 13storeys

West:Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) - townhouses at the southwest corner of Royal York Road and La Rose Avenue, and vacant lands within the Eglinton Avenue Transportation Corridor

Proposal:

Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments are proposing to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the development of two, 10- and 15-storey condominium buildings containing 219 units in conjunction with the existing 12-storey, 162-unit apartment building for a combined total of 381 units. The applicants propose to sever a portion of the existing apartment site (Block A) to create a larger development parcel to the south (Block B), adjacent to Eglinton Avenue.

Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of the site and elevation plans submitted by the applicant. A summary of site statistics is provided in Table 1.

The proposed condominium development would consist of two buildings connected by a single storey lobby area. The westerly 10-storey building, containing 102 units, would be oriented towards the intersection of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. The easterly 15 storey building, containing 117 units would be situated parallel to Eglinton Avenue (Exhibit No. 2). Units in the proposed buildings would vary in size from an average of 76.6 m² (825 sq. ft.) for a one bedroom unit to 133m² (1,437.5 sq. ft.) and 157.9 m² (1,700 sq. ft.) for two and three bedroom units, respectively.

A new driveway would be constructed at the northerly limit of Block B to provide vehicular access to the proposed buildings via Royal York Road. A limited number of parking spaces would be provided at-grade for visitors with tenant spaces provided within a two storey underground garage.

The proposed configuration of Block B would cause the displacement of a swimming pool, landscape open space area and a number of surface visitor parking spaces currently utilized by the existing 12-storey apartment building. The applicant proposes to relocate the visitor parking spaces around the driveway system at the front of the building on Block A. A new swimming pool and children's play area, to be utilized as shared recreation facilities between both developments would be introduced in the north east corner of Block B.

Comment:

Official Plan:

The combined site is designated High Density Residential in the Official Plan which generally permits multiple unit housing of all types to be developed within the range of 70-185uph (28-75 upa) to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. The vacant property to the south, however, is also affected by Special Site Policy No. 20 in the Official Plan which limits development to a maximum density of 136 uph (55 upa) a FSI of 1.5 and a building height of 15 storeys.

In 1984, when the site was redesignated from Transportation Corridor to High Density Residential and the Special Site Policy was introduced, the density and floor space index restrictions were consistent with the density and height profiles of apartment structures in the area at that time. Subsequently, the City undertook a comprehensive review of the Official Plan and established policies which support housing intensification in residential, retail and institutional areas, particularly in locations with high accessibility to existing or future transit intensification. The Plan now provides for densities of up to 185 uph (75 upa) in High Density Residential designations. The overall density and FSI of the combined site would be 158.7 uph (64 upa) and 1.8, respectively.

The existing apartment site at 1407 Royal York Road has been developed at a density of 93.3 uph (37.7 upa) with a corresponding FSI of 1.10. As a result of the proposed condominium apartment development and associated realignment of property boundaries, Block A would exhibit a density of 147 uph (60 upa) and a FSI of 1.68. A density and FSI of 182.5 uph (74 upa) and 1.97, respectively, would be provided on Block B. Although the proposed development of Block B would comply with the 15 storey height limit outlined in Special Site Policy No. 20, the density and floor space index restrictions would be exceeded. Notwithstanding that the density would be consistent with current Official Plan provisions, an amendment is required to Special Site Policy No. 20.

Residential Intensification Policies

Section 4.2.17 of the Official Plan provides for the intensification of High Density Residential designations through the provision of additional residential units on apartment sites, provided that the level of development is within the density limits of the Plan. This section also supports the definition of the street edge through the use of additional low rise, street related building forms, where appropriate. The majority of the built form would be located on the vacant property, between the existing 12-storey apartment building and the Eglinton Avenue Transit Corridor. Notwithstanding the fact that the property would also be suitable for a grade related form, the proposed apartment buildings would relate well with the surrounding developments and would be consistent with the form of development that was contemplated by the policies of the Plan and Special Site Policy No. 20.

Section 4.2.18 of the Official Plan identifies that there are numerous sites with the potential for additional residential development at higher densities. Proposals to amend the Official Plan or ZoningCode for these purposes shall be subject to the criteria outlined in Section 4.2.19. Staff have evaluated the proposal within the context of these criteria which have been appended as ExhibitNo.4.

Based on this review staff are satisfied from a land use point of view that the proposal would meet the criteria for High Density Residential Development and Housing Intensification. The site is directly adjacent to the Eglinton Avenue Transportation Corridor and two arterial roadways with sufficient capacity to support the proposed development. In terms of height, density, floor space index and landscape open space, the project could be accommodated on the site with limited impact on the existing apartment building and surrounding developments. Residents of the proposed development would have access to local social services, retail facilities and parks. Notwithstanding the general compliance with the Official Plan, however, staff have concerns with the loss of on-site recreational amenities for the existing building and the relationship of the proposed development to Royal York Road, as discussed in the following section, Site and Building Design Considerations. In the event of approval, Special Site Policy No. 20 should be repealed and appropriate development standards, including a height, floor space and density restrictions be incorporated into an amending by-law. A draft of the amendment is attached as Exhibit No. 5.

Zoning Code:

Site specific By-law Number 14,455 limits development of the property at 1407 Royal York Road to the existing 12 storey apartment development. The vacant lands adjacent to Eglinton Avenue are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) which would only permit single detached dwellings. In the event of approval, the amending by-law should repeal the site specific by-law and rezone the combined site to Sixth Density Residential (R6) with development standards to reflect both the existing and proposed developments.

Site and Building Design Considerations:

The proposed condominium buildings would be sited around the southerly perimeter of Block B to allow for a separation from adjacent buildings and surrounding land uses. In particular, the project would be separated from the Low Density Residential community on the north side of La Rose Avenue by the existing 12-storey building.

The proposed buildings would be located approximately 50 m (164 ft.) to 70 m (230ft.) from adjacent apartment buildings to the north and east, and the townhouses located on the west side of Royal York Road which would limit the impact on privacy and views for all buildings. The northerly elevation, of the westerly 10-storey building, would be situated approximately 25 m (82 ft.) from the existing building to the north. This separation distance would be acceptable as the affected elevations of both buildings would be end wall conditions with no impact on the views from principle living spaces.

Shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that there would be no significant impact on principle living spaces of the adjacent buildings during the spring, summer and fall months. During the winter months, shadowing on the townhouse development to the west would occur for limited periods in the morning hours. Winter shadows on the principle living areas in the existing apartment building would occur from between approximately 12 noon and 3 p.m., and from approximately 1p.m. until the end of the day for the adjacent apartment building to the east.

The proposed 10-storey building would be located approximately 11 m (36 ft.) from the Royal York Road property line. Although this would be closer to the street line than the existing apartment building, the reduced setback of the proposed condominium would provide an improved relationship to the street. The applicant is proposing to step the end walls of the building at the eighth and ninth floors to reduce the bulk of the structure. Staff also suggest that an additional step be provided at the third level, across the face of the building, to encourage the development of a pedestrian oriented environment.

The grade of the property slopes downwards from La Rose Avenue to Eglinton Avenue. As a result, the proposed underground garage for the new buildings, situated immediately adjacent to the westerly lot line, would become exposed up to 3.0 m (9.8 ft.) above grade at the intersection of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. Staff recommend that the garage be lowered to follow the natural grade of the land and improve the relationship of the structure to the street, particularly as it relates to the pedestrian environment of Royal York Road.

The depth of the Eglinton Avenue right-of-way precludes the opportunity for development on the other three corners of the intersection at Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. Any future development in the immediate area is likely to occur to the east of the site. In response to this situation, and comments from staff, the applicants have located the 15 storey building away from the intersection and approximately 20 m (65.6 ft.) from the Eglinton Avenue property line, 27 m (88.5ft.) from the adjacent sidewalk. The building would be stepped at the thirteenth and fourteenth storeys. The proposed setback is considered appropriate for the context of the site and vehicular environment of Eglinton Avenue at this location.

Landscape Open Space and Recreational Amenities:

The proposed site plan would allow for 53 percent of Block A and 60 percent of Block B to be devoted to landscape open space, with an average of 56.5 percent over the combined site. This would be consistent with the landscape percentages associated with other recent approvals for housing intensification. The applicants are proposing to locate a swimming pool, patio area, changing facilities and children's play area in the northeast corner of Block B to operate as shared facilities between existing residents and future residents of the condominium buildings.

Notwithstanding these percentage figures, the amount of useable on-site landscape space and recreational amenities on Block A would be reduced for residents of the existing building; staff have concerns regarding the practicality of shared facilities between rental and condominium properties. Each Block should be self sufficient in terms of its provision of landscape open space and recreational amenities. In the event of approval, staff recommend that revised plans be filed indicating sufficient on-site landscape open space and recreational facilities for each Block to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services and the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control. In the event of approval, the applicant should enter into an amenities agreement with the City to ensure the provision of recreational facilities and landscaping as indicated on the approved plans.

A tree survey conducted by The Tree Specialists Inc. indicates that there are 82 trees located on the combined site. All the trees listed in "good condition" would be preserved. Approximately 25 trees listed in fair to poor condition would be removed due to conflicts with the proposed development and or their hazardous condition. The applicant would be required to provide tree preservation details during the Site Plan Control Approval process.

Parking and Traffic:

The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has advised that a Traffic Impact Study, conducted by D.S. Lea Associates Ltd., concludes that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on the level of service on the adjacent roadway. Transportation staff concur with the conclusions of the study and are satisfied with the driveway layout, traffic circulation and parking supply proposed by the applicant (Exhibit No. 6).

Transportation staff are also satisfied with the location of the proposed driveway at the northerly end of Block B, subject to the construction of a left turn storage lane on Royal York Road. No concerns were identified with respect to the new driveway and the operation of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue and Royal York Road. Submission of a parking management plan, outlining the management of vehicle parking during construction would be required. In this regard, use of the abutting public roadways will not be permitted.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plan submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by the following departments:

-Fire Department; Toronto Hydro; Canada Post Corporation; and Bell Canada

Comments from The Toronto Catholic School Board, Parks and Recreation Services, and the Toronto Police Department remain outstanding.

The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that storm and sanitary sewers are not available from Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue (Exhibit No. 7). In the event of approval, the applicant would be required to provide a site servicing proposal prior to the passing of an amending by-law. In order to accommodate the sidewalk and drainage, a road widening would be required along the Royal York frontage from 3.0 m (9.8 ft.) in width at Eglinton Avenue, tapering down to 0.0 m towards La Rose Avenue.

The Metropolitan Planning Department has indicated that the Toronto Transit Commission recommends the incorporation of noise and vibration attenuation measures into the design of the project to mitigate any potential future impacts from transit facilities. In addition, the applicant should advise prospective purchasers and lessees of the possibility for such intrusions. A conveyance, approximately 6.5 m (21.3 ft.) to 9 m (29.5 ft.) in width, across the Eglinton Avenue frontage is required to secure the appropriate right-of-way (Exhibit No. 8). The plans submitted by the applicant indicate the required conveyance.

The Etobicoke Board of Education has advised that additional capacity would be required at Westmount Junior School and Scarlett Heights Collegiate to accommodate students from the proposed development. The applicant has been requested to make a contribution towards capital costs for facilities to the satisfaction of the Board of Education (Exhibit No. 9). Formal comments have not yet been received from the Toronto Catholic School Board. Neither Board has adopted a Development Charge By-Law on which to base such contributions. In accordance with the practise adopted in the rest of the City, Planning staff do not recommend that such a condition be imposed.

Urban Development staff note that, the applicant would be required to provide details of lighting and security and safety features on-site and within the underground garages during the site plan approval process. The project would be subject to the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permits, as well as a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution.

Community Meeting

On February 16, 1998, approximately 60 people attended a community meeting to review the proposal for the two, 10 and 15 storey condominium buildings. Concerns expressed by area residents related to loss of property values, safety of proposed driveway onto Royal York Road, lack of parking, traffic generation, lack of school facilities, loss of trees and landscape open space, density, loss of views, cost of units and concerns that units would be rented out.

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

Conclusions:

The subject application has been evaluated within the context of the housing intensification and High Density Residential provisions of the Official Plan. Urban Development staff are of the opinion that the requested amendments to the density and floor space index restrictions of Special Site Policy No.

20 proposal would be within the density limits of the Official Plan and would generally comply with the criteria for housing intensification. In addition, the project would result in a level of development consistent with the developments in the surrounding High Density Residential designations. In the event of approval, it would be appropriate to repeal Special Site Policy No. 20 and incorporate development standards with respect to height, floor space index and density into the amending by-law.

The proposed development, situated adjacent to Eglinton Avenue and Royal York Road, would have limited impact on surrounding developments and would be separated from the Low Density Residential community to the north by the existing apartment building. However, the concept of shared recreational facilities between buildings of rental and condominium tenure is inappropriate, and the applicants should submit revised plans indicating the provision of sufficient on-site recreational amenities and landscape open space for each Block and enter into an amenities agreement to ensure compliance with the approved details.

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

Conditions to Approval:

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

(i)Submission of a revised plan and details outlining an increased level of on-site recreational amenities and useable landscaping for both Blocks, lowering of the parking garage, surveillance of indoor public spaces on Block A, and the signing of an amenities agreement to ensure compliance with the approved details to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control, Parks and Recreation Services and the Solicitor for the Etobicoke Office.

(ii) Submission of a site servicing proposal to the satisfaction of the Works Department and the signing of a Development Agreement, to include the noise and vibration warning clauses if required, and/or Servicing Agreement and payment of the necessary fees, if required.

(iii)Receipt of comments from, and subject to any requirements of Parks and Recreation Services, Toronto Police Department, Development Engineering Section of the Works Department and the Toronto Separate School Board.

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

(i)Development of Block A shall be limited to one apartment building with a maximum height of 12 storeys, 162 units, a floor space index of 1.7 and a minimum landscape open space of 53 percent.

(ii)Development of Block B shall be limited to a maximum of two apartment building connected by a one storey lobby, with building heights of 10 and 15 storeys, 219units, a floor space index of 2.0, a minimum landscape open space of 60 percent.

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

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

(i)Signing of a Site Control Agreement, to include noise and vibration warning clauses if required and payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and registration of same.

(ii)Submission of garage and on-site security and illumination measures to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

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

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

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

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

Contact Name:

Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8229; Fax: (416)394-6063

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-9 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To respond to requests from Etobicoke Community Council for additional information regarding the rezoning application by Tanana Investment and Royal Gate Apartments.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information, and that the conditions to approval outlined in the staff report dated April 1, 1998, be amended to include the following condition:

3.(vii)Details of the proposed public art feature to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Art Advisory Committee, along with a suitable financial guarantee to ensure installation.

Background:

During the Community Council meeting held on April 1, 1998, additional information was requested regarding the potential of the subject property to support a public art component. In addition, a request was made to have the text of the Official Plan's Special Site Policy No. 20 available for consideration at the Public Meeting scheduled for May 6, 1998.

Comment:

Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, in conjunction with their requests for an Official Plan and By-law amendment, have identified an area for the introduction of a public art component at the southwest corner of their property, adjacent to the intersection of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. On December 22, 1997, the proposal was reviewed by the Public Art Advisory Committee (PAC) and it was determined at that the location for the proposed art feature was suitable and that additional details regarding the form of the art feature would be dealt with during the Site Plan Control Approval process, when detailed building elevations and building material could be identified. Consistent with current practices, a financial guarantee would be requested prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure compliance with the approved plans. In order to secure the installation of a public art feature, an additional site plan condition to approval could be added as follows:

3.(viii)Details of the proposed public art feature to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Art Advisory Committee, along with a suitable financial guarantee to ensure installation.

The second request was to provide the complete text of Special Site Policy No. 20 as stated in the Official Plan:

"No. 20Lands north of Eglinton Avenue, east of Royal York Road

Notwithstanding the density provisions for High Density Residential designations, development of these lands shall be permitted subject to:

i)maximum density not to exceed 136 units per hectare

ii)maximum height not to exceed 15 storeys

iii)maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) not to exceed 1.5."

The rationale for the Official Plan amendment to delete this policy is provided in the staff report on the above-noted application, dated April 1, 1998.

Staff have also advised the school boards that until such time as a development charges by-law is passed, requests for capital cost contributions will no longer be included as a condition to approval for residential development. However, staff will continue to include school board comments in staff reports for the information Council and interested parties.

Conclusion:

That this report be received for information and that the additional condition pertaining to the public art feature be adopted.

Contact Name:

Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8229; Fax: (416)394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (October14,1998) from Mr. R. Elliott, Solicitor for Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments:

I am instructed by H & R Developments, a participant in the partnership which owns 45LaRoseAvenue, to advise that the partnership is prepared to make an application to rezone the 45 La Rose property for 25 townhouses to replace the existing apartment permission for that property. This resolution has been discussed between you and a principal of H & R Developments and is conditional upon the concurrent adoption and expedition of necessary approvals and actions required for the Tanana Investments/Royal Gate Apartment project of 219 units proposed for the north east corner of Royal York and Eglinton Avenue West and that the City waive any application fee in respect to the La Rose rezoning.

The writer will appear before Community Council today to advise of this position and request Community Council's directions.

________

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on May 6, 1998 with respect to the foregoing matter:

-Mr. R. Elliott, Solicitor for Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, speaking in support of the application;

-Mr. W. Rutherdale, concerned about loss of view, green space, trees and birds which are a source of enjoyment for all residents, loss of the afternoon sun;

-Mr. J. Stasiuk, a member of the Humber Heights Ratepayers and the Westmount School Advisory Council, concerned about overcrowding in the schools, concerned that the infrastructure cannot accommodate extra children; that there is no contribution to the school boards, etc.;

-Mr. D. Scott, concerned about losing 33% of the land area; the impact of increased traffic and how carbon monoxide emissions will be monitored; and expressing the opinion that a traffic survey was not taken;

-Mr. R. Dugall, concerned about the higher than normal levels of traffic congestion and pollution; already overburdened schools and public facilities; the addition of another highrise development to a neighbourhood with more than is fair share of such buildings; loss of mature trees to accommodate the development;

-Mr. M. Walton, representing MTCC No. 1181, who explained the rationale of the special site policy, which was set in place in 1983 to restrict residential density in the area until there was an intensification of the transportation system, and expressed the opinion that it should not be set aside. Mr. Walton further expressed that opinion that if the applicant were allowed to erect a building within the special site policy the community would find it acceptable;

-Mr. G. Scott, expressed concern regarding the traffic impact study; that an advance green light is absolutely necessary for east bound traffic to turn left during rush hours; that the study has major flaws, in that it was done in July when there was no school and people were on vacation;

-Mr. R. Glover, representing the Board of Directors, YCC No. 193, whose recommendation was that Council reject the application in favour of a submission similar to those on the townhouses on the north-west corner; agreeing with the comments about the special site policy and the need to maintain it as there are presently 15 high rise buildings along the Eglinton/La Rose strip; concerned about the protection of investment for present owners who have invested a lot of money into high end residential units, the traffic study and the numbers that it presents; absentee landlords;

-Mr. D. Close, objecting to the application, stating that the allowance for development in the special site policy is sufficient, additional development will have a negative impact on property values and gave a comparison of property values on each corner; asked that a minimum level of square footage be set for the units if the development does proceed to achieve property values in keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood; requested that traffic studies be done at a time of year that would properly determine traffic flow; and

-Mrs. M. DiUlio, who stated that there are presently 9 apartment buildings, 2 churches, a school, and a busy plaza in close proximity, which does not leave much capacity on La Rose Avenue; on behalf of the residents of LaRose Avenue, speaking against the exiting of this project onto LaRose Avenue, and objecting to the change in the special site policy, which should remain at the present density.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council at the continuation of the public meeting on October 14, 1998:

-Mr. R. Elliott, Solicitor for Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, speaking in support of the application, highlighting revisions to the proposal as a result of the community consultation;

-Mr. M. Skorba, strongly opposed to the proposal, concerned about the traffic congestion and the road infrastructure in light of past meetings about Eglinton Avenue and the recently completed redevelopment of Royal York Road to the south;

-Mr. P. Jones, who asked that the special site policy not be deleted, that the number of units be reduced to 312 and that the project comply with the special site policy with regard to the Floor Space Index;

-Mr. R. Dunn, who questioned the rationale for recommending approval of the project;

-Ms. P. Clarke, concerned about the impact of the development on the already high noise level in the community;

-Mr. M. Walton, representing MTCC No. 1181, who expressed appreciation for that a series of community meetings with the Councillors which were successful in achieving a number of changes to the proposal; and

-Mr. L. O'Malley, who questioned the time frame of the traffic study, and noted the need for changes with respect to left-turn movements.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports have received the following communications expressing various concerns with respect to the application including increased traffic volume, density, loss of green space, impact on property values, etc.:

-(April 27, 1998) from Mr. M. J. Walton, Director, MTCC No. 1181;

-(April 26, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. F. Gooderham;

-(April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. C. Healy;

-(April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. I. Mcleod;

-(April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. A. Scolarlo;

-(April 27, 1998) from Mrs. M. Sayers;

-(April 25, 1998) from Ms. C. Smith;

-(April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. C. Weston;

-(April 26, 1998) from Mr. D. A. Ramsay;

-(April 27, 1998) from Ms. J. Kaif;

-(April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. L. O'Malley;

-(April 25, 1998) from Mr. P. Bowers;

-(April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. P. Jones;

-(April 26, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. D. Clark;

-(April 24, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. M. Lunel and others;

-(April 29, 1998) from Mr. G. Scott and family;

-(April 29, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. B. McGregor;

-(April 30, 1998) from Dr. and Mrs. M. Neweduk;

-(April 28, 1998) from Mr. B. Patterson;

-(April 30, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Curtis;

-(May 1, 1998) from Mr. A. C. Roberts; and

-(April 28, 1998) 58 identical letters signed by residents of 1407Royal York Road.

11

Fire Route Designation - 44 and 50 Montgomery Road (Memorial Pool

and Health Club and Central Arena)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October14, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To obtain Council approval for the enactment of the appropriate by-law to approve the final designation of a fire route to enable by-law enforcement officers to tag illegally parked vehicles within the designated fire route.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The property owner is required to pay the cost for the installation of the fire route signs, by the Works Department, in addition to any signs that may require replacing, in the future.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)the final designation of Fire Routes under Chapter 134 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be approved at the following location:

44 and 50 Montgomery Road (Memorial Pool and Health Club and Central Arena)

(2)the appropriate by-law be enacted by City Council.

Background:

On April 8, 1975 "An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke" received Royal Assent. A portion of the Act, Section 2, allows the Corporation to pass by-laws regulating and designating fire routes. Each property requires the enactment of two by-laws: (1) to allow the Works Department to install and maintain the required number of fire route signs on each property, and (2) to allow appropriate officials to tag and/or remove vehicles illegally parked within the designated fire route area.

In instances when changes have been made to a property, such as additions to existing buildings, the construction of additional new buildings on the site or revisions to the parking areas, it is necessary to amend the designating fire route by-law.

Comment:

It is appropriate for Etobicoke Community Council to authorize the enactment of this by-law. Similar By-laws will be presented to Community Council on an ongoing basis. As all former area municipalities have different procedures for processing fire routes, revisions to Etobicoke's existing procedures may be amended in the future.

Conclusion:

In keeping with the Fire Department's regulations, it is appropriate to enact this by-law to allow the By-law Enforcement Officers to tag vehicles that are illegally parked in fire route zones.

Contact Name:

Teresa Robillard, Clerk's Department; Tel: (416) 394-8081.

12

Kingsway Park Heritage Conservation District

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October7, 1998) from the Secretary, Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC:

Purpose:

To provide a recommendation with respect to a request by members of the Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. for expansion of the Study Area for the proposed Kingsway Park Heritage Conservation District.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

That the Kingsway Park Heritage Conservation District Study area not be expanded at the present time, and that the Study proceed in accordance with the recommendation adopted by the City of Etobicoke Council on July 11, 1997, based on the original Glebe Subdivision proposed by Robert Home Smith.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 11, 1997. the former City of Etobicoke Council adopted a recommendation contained in a report from the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC, approving the designation of an area generally known as Kingsway Park as a Heritage Conservation District, pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, and authorized the Urban Development Department to co-ordinate the background studies required for such designation.

As part of the study process Etobicoke Council, on October 6, 1997, approved the establishment of a Study Committee to assist in developing appropriate district planning guidelines. This Committee is comprised of City staff, Historical Board/LACAC members and residents of the area, including representatives of the Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. The Committee has been meeting on a regular basis, and the proposed boundaries of the study area have been the subject of considerable discussion, with the representatives of the Ratepayers Association favouring an expansion of the area to the north and south. In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, a letter was submitted by the Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. representatives to the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC, requesting that a recommendation be made accordingly. A copy of the letter is attached.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

At its meeting of September 24, 1998, the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC considered the Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. request. The Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC maintains its position that the present study area should be restricted to the original Glebe subdivision envisioned by Robert Home Smith, an area extensively researched by the Board's Chairman, Elizabeth Ingolfsrud in her publication "Kingsway Park, Triumph in Design", and upon which the Board/LACAC based its initial recommendation for designation.

This does not, of course, preclude a Phase 2 Study Area, upon successful completion of the designation process for Phase 1.

Conclusions:

The Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC recommends to the Etobicoke Community Council and City Council that the original boundaries as identified in "Kingsway Park, Triumph in Design", be confirmed as the boundaries for the Kingsway Park Heritage Conservation District.

Contact Name:

Molly Sutherland, Clerk's Department, Etobicoke District

(416) 394-8078

(A copy of the attachment, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to the Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998 and copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

13

Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code

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

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on November 25, 1998.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, recommends as follows:

(1)the application for amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan to correct a technical mapping error that occurred during the drafting of maps associated with the review of the Official Plan, be approved; and

(2)the report of the Director of Community Planning (September 16, 1998) pertaining to the proposed Official Plan Amendment, be adopted:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Etobicoke Community Council further reports have deferred consideration of the application for amendment to the Zoning Code and requested the Director of Community Planning, West District to submit a further report to a continuation of the public meeting on November 12, 1998, with respect to the staff reports and an Ontario Municipal Board Decision made in 1965 regarding the subject property.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

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

Background:

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

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

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

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

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

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

Surrounding zoning categories and land uses are as follows:

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

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

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

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

Proposal:

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

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

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

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

Comment:

Official Plan:

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

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

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

Residential Intensification Policies:

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

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

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

Zoning Code:

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

Landscape Open Space and Recreational Amenities:

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

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

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

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

Parking and Traffic:

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

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

Valley Impact Zone:

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

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

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

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

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

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

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

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

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

Community Meeting:

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

Conditions to Approval:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Name:

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

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

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-11 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

________

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the foregoing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Introduction of One-hour Parking Restriction - Royal York Court.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report (i) to the December meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council, pending the results of a survey, to be drafted by Transportation and Engineering Planning staff, and to be conducted in consultation with the Tenants' Association, with respect to the parking situation on Royal York Court; and

(2)received the following communication (ii):

(i)(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning, to propose the introduction of a one hour parking restriction on the north side of Royal York Court between Royal York Road and the east limit of the road; and

(ii)(September 30, 1998) from N. Percival, President, Royal York Gardens Tenants Association, requesting that the issue of a one-hour parking restriction on RoyalYorkCourt not be considered until the views of all of the Royal York Gardens tenants have been obtained as a result of a poll to be filed at the Tenant Association's annual general meeting in January 1999.

________

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing:

-Mr. M. Collins, Etobicoke;

-Ms. S. Stubbs, Etobicoke;

-Ms. N. Gruetzner, Etobicoke; and

-Ms. B. Hogg.

(b)Request for Curb Cut - 17 Mervyn Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(September23,1998) from Mr. V. Kostic requesting further consideration of an application, refused by staff, for a curb cut to facilitate the widening of the driveway at 17MervynAvenue.

(c)Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission - Requirement for Quorum.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Municipal Arts Committee to maintain the number of members required for a quorum at four, pending resolution of the issue of Boards and Committees by City Council;

(2)directed that the minutes of the various Etobicoke committees that are continuing to meet be submitted to the Etobicoke Community Council for information and recommendation, if required; and

(3)received the following report:

(September 14, 1998) from the Secretary, Municipal Arts Commission, requesting authorization to reduce the number of members required for a quorum from four to three.

(d)Variances to the Etobicoke Sign by-law.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 29, 1998) from the Secretary, Sign Variance Advisory Committee, advising of the decisions of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee with respect to the following applications for variance to the Etobicoke Sign By-law:

(1)Gino's Pizza Inc., 557 Dixon Road;

(2)Red Devil Barbeque & Tavern, 199 North Queen Street;

(3)Mediacom, 156 Evans Avenue and 33 Wickman Road;

(4)Richview Square Plaza, 250 Wincott Drive; and

(5)Alcan Foil Products, 191 Evans Avenue.

Councillor Irene Jones and Councillor Blake Kinahan were recorded as being opposed to Item(3).

(e)New Development Applications for Etobicoke District.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to submit reports to the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the Site Plan applications for 505The West Mall and 1025 The Queensway; and

(2)received the following reports (i) and (ii) for information:

(i)(October 14, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District, providing a summary of development applications received since the last report was presented to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council; and

(ii)(October 14, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, advising of an application for site plan approval received since preparation of the New Development Applications report for the October 14 meeting.

(f)Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - 297506 Ontario Ltd. (Millington & Associates), 1558 Kipling Avenue. - File No. Z-2247.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be held to consider the following report:

(October 14, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, regarding an application for amendment to Etobicoke By-law No. 14,834 and the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit a commercial development, consisting of a financial institution and professional offices, at the north-west corner of Kipling Avenue and Clement Road.

(g)Westway Plaza, 1735 Kipling Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to ensure that the metal truck barriers, to replace the existing chain barriers, at the Northcrest Road access points to the Westway Plaza are placed at the same height as an underground parking barrier;

(2)requested the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, to install a "No Trucks" sign on the south side of Northcrest Road: and

(3)received the following communications (i) and (ii):

(i)(undated) from Mr. and Mrs. J. Oke, Etobicoke, expressing concern that certain conditions imposed with respect to the upgrading of the Westway Plaza have not been observed; and

(ii)(October 13, 1998) from Westway Plaza Incorporated, advising of action to be taken by Westway Plaza in response to the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Oke.

(h)Order to Comply - 48 Bywood Drive.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(September 23, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, advising that a motion for leave to appeal brought about by the owner of 48 Bywood Drive on September 22, 1998, respecting a cost order in the sum of $2,500.00, was dismissed without costs.

(i)Mimico GO Station Parking.

Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the appropriate staff of the Facilities and Real Estate Division to proceed immediately to take whatever steps are necessary to implement the expansion of the parking facilities at the Mimico GO Station, in consultation with GO Transit and the Toronto Parking Authority, subject to a report back to the Etobicoke Community Council with recommended conditions and lease arrangements with GO Transit; and

(2)received the following communication:

(October 7, 1998) from M. Anderson, President, Toronto Parking Authority, advising of favourable discussions with GO Transit regarding the expansion of parking spaces at the Mimico GO Station.

(j)Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)held a public meeting with respect to the draft By-law respecting Animals and the Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks and

(2) endorsed the following proposals of the Toronto Humane Society with respect to the draft animal care and control legislation that Toronto City Council:

(i)adopt a policy whereby all animals that are adopted from municipal pounds are micro-chipped;

(ii)adopt a policy whereby guard dogs and personal assistance dogs are micro-chipped; and

(iii)consult with a micro-chip company on the means to administer such a system;

(3)strongly supported the introduction of leash-free areas in City Parks and endorsed the Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks;

(4)endorsed the recommendations of the Animal Alliance of Canada, the Animal Protection Institute, the Canadian Alliance for Furbearing Animals and Zoocheck Canada Inc. for amendments to the draft animal care and control legislation;

(5)endorsed the Stoop and Scoop Provision of the proposed by-law and its appropriate enforcement;

(6)referred the foregoing comments to the Board of Health for the City of Toronto Health Unit and to the Economic Development Committee; and

(7)received the following report (i) and communication (ii):

(i)(September 1, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health outlining further policy directions for harmonizing animal care and control legislation, and a joint report (August 26, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health and the City Solicitor, submitting a draft By-law respecting Animals; and

(ii)(August 28, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 7 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, headed "Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July29,30and31, 1998, for consideration in conjunction with the foregoing matter.

________

The Etobicoke Community Council also had before it the following communications with respect to the foregoing:

-(August 13, 1998) from Mr. G. Evens, Managing Director, CLAW, regarding animal rights legislation;

-(October 8, 1998) from Mr. A. Rodrigues, supporting a policy for leashed dogs;

-(October 8, 1998) from Mr. M. Huminilowycz, supporting the policy for designated off-leash areas in certain parks;

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. P. Lewis, opposed to dogs running off-leash in parks, dogs defecating in park areas, and seeking a review of the dog licensing fees;

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. L. White, Animal Alliance of Canada, commenting on the policy directions of the harmonized animal care and control legislation and making specific recommendation for improvement of the by-law;

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. B. Boyd, supporting the implementation of measures to curtail problems with trespassing cats;

-(October 15, 1998) from Ms. M. Clifton, submitting a petition in opposition to a requested leash-free area in Princess Anne Park;

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. N. Karvonen, Executive Director, Toronto Wildlife Centre, asking that the Toronto Wildlife Centre be added to the list of organizations exempt from keeping prohibited animals in the City, and in support of the recommendations from Animal Alliance of Canada et al;

-(October 15, 1998) from Ms. N. Mueller, Chair of the Community Standards Committee, Crime S.C.O.P.E., submitting recommendations for amendments to the draft legislation and stressing zero tolerance and increased fines.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the foregoing matters:

-Ms. L. White, Animal Alliance of Canada;

-Ms. N. Karvonen, Toronto Wildlife Centre;

-Mr. R. Summers, Etobicoke;

-Ms. N. Mueller, Community Standards, Crime S.C.O.P.E.;

-Ms. J. Durst, Etobicoke;

-Mr. P. Adomaitis, Etobicoke;

-Ms. D. Quaglia, Toronto Humane Society;

-Mr. K. Woodley, Etobicoke;

-Ms. C. Lan, Etobicoke;

-Ms. J. Hunter, Etobicoke;

-Mr. J. Ramsay, Etobicoke;

-Ms. C. McCauley, Etobicoke; and

-Mr. P. Cavett, Etobicoke.

(Councillor Miller, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in Item (j), headed "Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he has a financial interest in a company that does business with the Toronto Humane Society.)

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH BROWN,

Chair

Toronto, October 14 and 15, 1998

(Report No. 10 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including an addition thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998.)