|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on December 16 and 17, 1998
NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 15
1 Traffic Management Plan - Bradstock Road and Habitant Drive - North York Humber
2 Amendment of Parking Prohibitions - Tothill Road - North York Humber
3 Traffic Management Plan - Wendell Avenue, Gary Drive and Yelland Street - North York Humber
4 All Way Stop Control - Maniza Road and Plewes Road - School Bus Loading Zone - Plewes Road -
North York Spadina
5 Grant of Easement - 115 Gordon Baker Road - Seneca Heights
6 Parking Prohibitions - Ambrose Road - Seneca Heights
7 All Way Stop Control - Peckham Avenue and Greenwin Village Road - North York Centre
8 Parking Prohibitions - Canarctic Drive - North York Spadina
9 School Bus Loading Zone - Yatescastle Drive - North York Black Creek
10 School Bus Loading Zone - Lamberton Boulevard -Black Creek
11 School Bus Loading Zone - Daystrom Drive - North York Humber
12 All Way Stop Control - Ellerslie Avenueat Stafford Road - North York Centre
13 All Way Stop Control - Glengrove Avenue and West Grove Crescent - North York Centre South
14 Parking/Stopping Prohibitions - Duckworth Street and Thurodale Avenue - North York Humber
15 All Way Stop Control - Flindon Road at Acacia Avenue/Flaxman Road - North York Humber
16 Traffic Calming - Norelco Drive - North York Humber
17 Sign By-law Variance Request - Billboard Roof Sign - Leroy Cassanova - 4140 Bathurst Street - North York
Spadina
18 Feasibility Study - Yorkwoods Community Centre - Black Creek
19 1998 Proposed Additions to the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties, North York District -
Black Creek, North York Spadina, North York Centre South and Don Parkway
20 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-24 - City of Toronto -29 Lorraine Drive - North
York Centre
21 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-21 - Idels Architect Inc. - 129 Finch Avenue East - North York
Centre
22 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-22 - Idels Architect Inc. - 135 Finch Avenue East - North York
Centre
23 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application and Draft Plan of Subdivision UDOZ-98-14 and
UDSB-1239 - Bearpoint Group Inc. - 50 and 60 Oak Street - North York Humber
24 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-28 - Destination Technodome - Heathmount
A.E. Corp. - West of W.R. Allen Road, South of Sheppard Avenue West - North York Spadina
25 Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan - Armour Boulevard and Bombay Avenue - North York Centre
South
26 Review of Water Pressure - Area Bounded by Highway 401 on the South, Steeles Avenue on the North,
Keele Street on the West and Bathurst Street on the East - North York Spadina
27 Speed Humps (3) - Lyonsgate Drive between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard - North York Centre
South
28 Other Items Considered by the Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 15
OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on December 9, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on December 16 and 17, 1998
1
Traffic Management Plan -
Bradstock Road and Habitant Drive -
North York Humber
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, subject to adding a new Recommendation (2) and renumbering
Recommendation (2) to No. (3), viz:
(1)that the two gateway narrowings and pinch point on Bradstock Road between Rivalda Road and Samba Drive,
and the four sets of pinch points on Habitant Drive, between Bradstock Road and Imogene Avenue be approved for
permanent installations;
(2)that staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Technical Division, be directed to consult with all
the residents on Bradstock Road to ensure that all their concerns have been resolved to the extent possible and any
changes as a result of the discussions with the residents be included in the final design of the traffic calming
measures; and
(3)that staff of the Works and Emergency Services and Technical Services Department be directed to design, tender
and construct the traffic calming measures as detailed in this report, subject to their approval in the 1999 Capital
Budget.
Purpose:
To address the effect that the temporary traffic calming measures, on Bradstock Road and Habitant Drive have had on the
communities' concerns with regard to the rate of speed of motor vehicles on both roadways, and the volume of heavy truck
traffic on Bradstock Road and if the above measures should be made permanent.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the permanent traffic calming measures (pinch points, gateway narrowings)
should be considered within the 1999 Capital Budget item for Road Alterations and Traffic Calming.
Recommendations:
(1)that the two gateway narrowings and pinch point on Bradstock Road between Rivalda Road and Samba Drive, and the
four sets of pinch points on Habitant Drive, between Bradstock Road and Imogene Avenue be approved for permanent
installations; and
(2)that staff of the Works and Emergency Services and Technical Services Department be directed to design, tender and
construct the traffic calming measures as detailed in this report, subject to their approval in the 1999 Capital Budget.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The former City of North York Council recommended that the Transportation Department implement, for a six month trial
period, traffic calming measures on Bradstock Road and Habitant Drive.
This request for the traffic calming measures was the result of concerns from residents of the community that Police
enforcement of the regulatory speed limit and posted heavy truck restriction was ineffective in improving the situation.
Consideration was given to reduce the speed limit from 50 km/h to 40 km/h. Notwithstanding that such a reduction would
not conform to the current policy on 40 km/h speed limits, it was determined that signage alone would have only minimal
effect on changing motorists' driving behaviour.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The traffic calming measures were installed in July of 1997. Throughout the test period, vehicle volume, speed and
classification counts were completed. The results of the studies have indicated that 85th percentile vehicle speeds have
decreased on both roadways. The volume of heavy truck traffic has also decreased.
Nearing the completion of the monitoring process, a questionnaire was forwarded to the residents on Habitant Drive and
Bradstock Road canvassing their comments\impressions on the effects the temporary traffic calming measures have had on
the community and whether they would support the permanent installation of the traffic calming measures.
A community meeting was held on May 25 to discuss the future of the traffic calming measures installed on the roadways.
At this point in time this division had received 46 responses, of which 70 percent supported the installation of the calming
measures. The residents in attendance at the meeting agreed to defer a final decision on this matter until such time as
Councillor Mammoliti and representatives of the Ratepayers Association had the opportunity to discuss the traffic calming
measures with each of the affected residents. It was also agreed that an additional pinch point be installed on Bradstock
Road, in the vicinity of 35/36 Bradstock Road, for the remainder of the monitoring process.
Councillor Mammoliti's office has since advised staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation
Services Division, that approximately 65 percent of the residents surveyed remain in favour of the traffic calming measures
being installed on a permanent basis.
In view of the above, Councillor Mammoliti has advised this division that he supports the permanent installation of the
existing traffic calming measures.
Conclusions:
As the traffic calming measures have improved traffic conditions, and the majority of the affected residents are in support,
this division is requesting the approval of the permanent installation of the traffic calming measures on Bradstock Road
and Habitant Drive.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone); 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
2
Amendment of Parking Prohibitions -
Tothill Road - North York Humber
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To amend the existing parking prohibitions on Tothill Road.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at any time on
the north side of Tothill Road, from Apted Avenue to a point 90 metres west and on the south side from a point 90 metres
west of Apted Avenue to the west limit of Tothill Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Tothill Road.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
A petition from the residents on Tothill Road was received by staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and
Emergency Services Department. In the petition, the residents requested that parking be prohibited on alternating sides of
the roadway, in order to address a long standing concern for parked vehicles.
As a result of our investigation, staff have confirmed the residents' concern that vehicles are being parked for extended
periods of time. A review of our location files indicates that there have been numerous requests for parking enforcement.
Despite the inference by the Toronto Police Services, Parking Enforcement Unit, it would appear that enforcement of the
three hour parking limit is not effective in reducing the long term parking activities.
Conclusions:
As the proposed parking restrictions are supported by the majority of the residents of Tothill Road, this department
supports their implementation.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)
3
Traffic Management Plan - Wendell Avenue,
Gary Drive and Yelland Street -
North York Humber
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, subject to adding Recommendations No. 2. and No. 3., and
renumbering Recommendation No. (2) to No. 3, viz:
1.that the two gateway narrowings, median and pinch points on Wendell Avenue between Gary Drive and Pellatt
Road, the traffic circle at the intersection of Gary Drive and Wendell Avenue, and the two gateway narrowings at
the intersection of Gary Drive and Yelland Street be approved for permanent installation;
2.a Working Committee of six residents be formed to work with the existing work group and staff of the Technical
Services Division on the final design of the traffic calming measures;
3.the six residents forming the Working Committee must agree with the mandate of designing the permanent traffic
calming devices and should they not be in agreement, must resign their position on the Working Committee; and
4.that Staff of the Works and Emergency Services and Technical Services Department be directed to design, tender
and construct the traffic calming measures as detailed in this report, subject to their approval in the 1999 Capital
Budget.
A recorded vote on the adoption of Recommendation No. 3. was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong
AGAINST:Councillors Moscoe, King
ABSENT:Councillor Augimeri, Shiner
Carried
A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Sgro that no member of City staff, either full time or part time, be
permitted to be a voting member on the Working Committee, was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Berger, Flint, Chong, King
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Feldman, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong
ABSENT:Councillors Augimeri, Shiner
The motion moved by Councillor Sgro was declared by the Chair to be lost on a tie vote.
A recorded vote on the adoption of Recommendation No. 2, was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, King
AGAINST:Councillors Flint, King
ABSENT:Councillors Augimeri, Shiner
Carried
The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To address the effect that the temporary traffic calming measures, on Wendell Avenue, Gary Drive and Yelland Street have
had on the communities concerns with regard to the rate of speed of motor vehicles on the roadways, and the volume of
heavy truck traffic infiltrating the residential community and if the above measures should be made permanent.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the permanent traffic calming measures (traffic circle, pinch points, median
gateway narrowing) should be considered within the 1999 Capital Budget item for Road Improvements and Traffic
Calming.
Recommendations:
(1)that the two gateway narrowings, median and pinch points on Wendell Avenue between Gary Drive and Pellatt Road,
traffic circle at the intersection of Gary Drive and Wendell Avenue, the two gateway narrowings at the intersection of Gary
Drive and Yelland Street be approved for permanent installation; and
(2)that Staff of the Works and Emergency Services and Technical Services Department be directed to design, tender and
construct the traffic calming measures as detailed in this report, subject to their approval in the 1999 Capital Budget.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Toronto Council, at its meeting of April 15, 1998, approved a recommendation from the Transportation Services Division
of the Works and Emergency Services Department to implement a six month trial period of traffic calming measures on
Wendell Avenue, Gary Drive and Yelland Street.
For quite some time, the residents of Wendell Avenue and Gary Drive had a concern with respect to vehicle speeds,
transient traffic and the large number of combination tractor trailers using the residential roadways. Residents were of the
opinion that Police enforcement of the heavy truck restriction had been ineffective in improving the situation.
As a result, a request for the installation of the temporary traffic calming measures was put forward at a meeting between
staff, Councillor Mammoliti and the Wendell Avenue\Gary Drive working group, which consisted of residents of the local
Community.
The proposal, which was endorsed by the working group and the local Councillors, called for the following test
installations:
(1)intersection dividers on the south approach to the Wendell Avenue\Pellatt Avenue intersection and the south and east
approaches to the Gary Drive\Yelland Street intersection;
(2)a series of : "Pinch Points" and median on Wendell Avenue, between Pellatt Avenue and Gary Drive; and
(3)a traffic circle at the intersection of Wendell Avenue with Gary Drive.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The temporary traffic calming measures were installed in June of 1998. Throughout the test period, vehicle volumes, speed
and classification counts\studies were completed.
The results of the vehicle volume and classification counts, conducted both before and after the installation of the
temporary traffic calming measures, does not indicate that there has been a reassignment of traffic to the adjacent road
network. Although traffic volumes on Wendell Avenue and Gary Drive remained consistent throughout the test period,
there was a significant decrease in the number of heavy vehicles (tractor trailer units). Heavy truck traffic decreased from
approximately 35 vehicles per day to 5.
A further review of vehicle operating speeds on Wendell Avenue revealed that with the installation of the measures, the
85th percentile speed of northbound and southbound traffic decreased by 8 km/h to 12 km/h, respectively, from those
recorded prior to the installation of the traffic calming measures.
In addition to the above, a questionnaire was circulated to the residents of the affected roadways to solicit their
comments/impression of what effect the traffic calming measures have had on the their lives and the overall safety of the
community. Based upon the responses, the following table has been compiled so that a clearer understanding of the
community's views can be seen, on a street by street basis.
| |
Total
Surveys |
Total
Surveys |
Support Permanent Installation
(percent) |
| Location |
Distributed |
Returned |
Yes |
No |
| Wendell Avenue |
61 |
40 |
63 |
33 |
| Yelland Street |
15 |
8 |
88 |
13 |
| Howbert Drive |
45 |
22 |
59 |
41 |
| Pellatt Avenue |
14 |
9 |
67 |
33 |
| Academy Road |
26 |
13 |
39 |
46 |
| Gary Drive |
33 |
14 |
36 |
64 |
| Chantilly
Gardens |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Limerick Avenue |
2 |
2 |
0 |
100 |
| Galewood Drive |
2 |
1 |
100 |
0 |
| Overall |
200 |
110 |
56 |
40 |
Of the 200 questionnaires which were sent out to the registered home owners, a total of 110 (55 percent) were returned.
This is a very good response rate.
The overall results indicate that approximately 56 percent of the respondents support the permanent installation of the
traffic calming measures on Gary Drive, Wendell Avenue and Yelland Street.
A community meeting was held on November 19, to allow staff to present the results of the monitoring process and for the
residents to discuss the future of the traffic calming measures.
The residents in attendance at the meeting generally supported the permanent installation of the traffic calming measures.
To address the long term needs of the community, the residents on Academy Road and Howbert Drive requested that a
supplementary working group be established to develop additions to the Wendell Avenue\Gary Drive Traffic Management
Plan.
Both Councillor George Mammoliti and Councillor Judy Sgro have indicated their support of the permanent installation of
the traffic calming measures.
Conclusions:
Accordingly, this division is requesting the approval of Council to proceed with the permanent installation of the traffic
calming measures on Wendell Avenue, Gary Drive and Yelland Street.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone), 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)
________
The North York Community Council also had before it a communication (December 2, 1998) from Councillor Sgro, North
York Humber, together with a letter sent to the community on this issue.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Alan Coulter;
-Ms. Gillian Zidner;
-Mr. Ken Park;
-Mr. Fulvio Sansone; and
-Mr. James Zidner.
4
All Way Stop Control -
Maniza Road and Plewes Road -
School Bus Loading Zone - Plewes Road -
North York Spadina
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out Recommendation No. (3) embodied in
the report dated November 23, 1998, from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, and inserting in lieu thereof
the following new Recommendation No. (3):
"(3)that By-law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the existing school bus loading zone
on the south side of Plewes Road, such that the school bus loading zone will be on the south side of Plewes Road from a
point 17 metres west of the westerly limit of Maniza Road to a point 50 metres westerly thereof.")
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 23, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control at the Maniza Road/Plewes Road intersection, prohibit parking on the north side of
Plewes Road and to relocate the existing school bus loading zone on Plewes Road, to improve the level of safety for
pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the area of the St. Norbert Separate School.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control, parking prohibitions and relocation of the loading zone
are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1)that Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to
stop on all approaches to the Maniza Road/Plewes Road intersection;
(2)that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking on the north
side of Plewes Road, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from Maniza Road to a point 30
metres west; and
(3)that By-Law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the existing school bus loading zone
on the south side of Plewes Road, westerly.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Northbound and southbound traffic on Maniza Road is required to stop at Plewes Road. There are school bus loading
zones on the west side of Maniza Road and south side of Plewes Road. The loading zone on Plewes Road begins at a point
less than nine metres west of Maniza Road.
In addition to the loading zones, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the north side of Plewes Road,
west of Maniza Road.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
At the request of Ms. Joanne Fi Vito and Ms. Gail Rosetti, Principal, St. Norbert Separate School, staff of the
Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department reviewed traffic operations in the
vicinity of the Plewes Road/Maniza Road intersection.
The results of our investigation concluded the following:
(1)school buses, when stopped legally within the loading zone on Plewes Road, create an obstruction for eastbound and
northbound motorists;
(2)vehicles parked on the north side of Plewes Road, within 30 metres of Maniza Road, restrict the flow of westbound
traffic on Plewes Road, which in terms affects traffic traveling through the intersection of Maniza and Plewes Roads; and
(3)the installation of an all way stop control at the Maniza Road/Plewes Road intersection, would significantly improve the
level of safety for pedestrian traffic.
Conclusions:
In order to improve safety, this department supports the relocation of the existing School Bus Loading Zone on Plewes
Road, the installation of parking restrictions on Plewes Road and the installation of an all way stop control at the Maniza
Road/Plewes Road intersection.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone), 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
5
Grant of Easement - 115 Gordon Baker Road -
Seneca Heights
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 17, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
Grant of Easement over a 0.3 metre reserve located at the access of 115 Gordon Baker Road.
Funding Sources:
There are no financial implications to the City.
Recommendation:
The applicant enter into a right-of-way agreement with the City to cross the 0.3 metre reserve to formalize the access
arrangement of the existing driveway.
Background:
Osmington Inc., acquired in February, 1997, the Phase II and III office buildings and the Phase IV lands of the project
known as 'Cosmopolitan Corporate Centre', (municipally known as 111, 115 and 101 Gordon Baker Road respectively).
Cosmopolitan Corporate Centre had been developed by the former Inducon Development Corporation and had been under
the control and management of the receiver since the time of Inducon's demise in 1992. 115 Gordon Baker Road was then
under construction and had remained in a partially finished state through to the time of Osmington's acquisition.
Construction of the building was completed by Osmington in the spring of 1998 upon the leasing of the building to Sony of
Canada.
Discussion:
Osmington Inc. has deposited Reference Plan 64R-15857, registered on April 3, 1998 with the City which identifies the
exact location of the existing driveway as it crosses the 0.3 metre reserve as detailed on the reference plan as Part 6 of
Block E, Plan 9518.
Staff have no objections to the formal approval of the access by permitting the crossing of the 0.3 metre reserve at the
location of the existing subject driveway to Gordon Baker Road.
Conclusions:
The applicant enter into a right-of-way agreement with the City to accommodate the existing driveway which will enable
the City to revoke the terms of the agreement with thirty (30) days notice in the event that the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services identifies that the operation of the driveway is unsafe and warrants such action.
Contact Name:
Pascoal D'Souza, Manager Transportation Planning
Works and Emergency Services, Transportation, North York Office
Telephone 395-7458, Fax 395-7482, e-mail pdsouza@city.north-york.on.ca
6
Parking Prohibitions - Ambrose Road -
Seneca Heights
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 18, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install parking prohibitions on both sides of Ambrose Road, from Sheppard Avenue East to Maureen Drive.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at any time on
both sides of Ambrose Road, from the northerly limit of Sheppard Avenue East to the southerly limit of Maureen Drive.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Ambrose Road. Ambrose Road, as part
of the Bayview Village Traffic Calming Plan, was recently narrowed to 6.0 metres, immediately north of Eunice Road.
Discussion:
With the recent narrowing of the pavement width on Ambrose Road, any vehicles parked on the roadway would restrict the
flow of two way traffic. As this is a primary access to the greater residential community, restricted access would have an
impact on traffic operations on Ambrose Road and at the intersection with Sheppard Avenue East.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this department supports amending the parking restrictions on both sides of Ambrose Road, between
Sheppard Avenue East and Maureen Drive.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone), 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
7
All Way Stop Control -
Peckham Avenue and Greenwin Village Road -
North York Centre
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 16, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control at the intersection of Peckham Avenue and Greenwin Village Road.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule XVIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to stop on all
approaches to the intersection of Peckham Avenue and Greenwin Village Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, eastbound motorists on Greenwin Village Road are required to stop at Peckham Avenue. Peckham Avenue
traffic travels unrestricted between Cactus Avenue and Pleasant Avenue.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services has reviewed a request from Councillor Norman
Gardner to install an all way stop control at the intersection of Peckham Avenue and Greenwin Village Road.
The results of an all way stop study concluded that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control
have been satisfied.
Conclusions:
This division supports the installation of all way stop control at the intersection of Peckham Avenue and Greenwin Village
Road.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
8
Parking Prohibitions - Canarctic Drive -
North York Spadina
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 12, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install parking prohibitions on the east side of Canarctic Drive.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at any time on
the east side of Canarctic Drive, from the southerly limit of Wildcat Road to a point 270.0 metres south.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited at anytime on the north and west sides of Canarctic Drive, from Keele Street to the easterly
intersection with Wildcat Road, and on the south side, between Keele Street and Petrolia Road. Parking is permitted for up
to a maximum of three hours on the remaining south and east portions of Canarctic Drive.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Staff of the Roads and Sidewalk Operations Section have indicated that vehicles, when parked on the east side of Canarctic
Drive, are creating an impediment for the many tractor trailers making deliveries to the industrial properties on Canarctic
Drive. As a result of the impediments, the tractor trailers are continually mounting and damaging the municipal boulevards.
Maintenance records support the concern as on numerous occasions the municipal boulevard has been repaired. Currently,
the boulevard shows signs of damage.
Conclusions:
In order to reduce the continuous maintenance and damage to the boulevards on Canarctic Drive, this division supports the
implementation of parking restrictions along the entire east portion of Canarctic Drive.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigation
395-7463 (telephone) 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca. (E.Mail)
9
School Bus Loading Zone - Yatescastle Drive -
North York Black Creek
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 9, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install a school bus loading zone on Yatescastle Drive, adjacent to the Blessed Margherita Catholic School.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the loading zone are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That By-law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended to install a school bus loading zone on the east side
of Yatescastle Drive, from a point 39 metres north of Spenvalley Drive to a point 30 metres northerly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, stopping is prohibited on the east side of Yatescastle Drive, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday,
adjacent to Blessed Margherita Catholic School. Parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the west side
of the street.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department are in receipt of a request
from Mr. Mario B. Pasta, Principal, Blessed Margherita Catholic School, to install a school bus loading zone on the east
side of Yatescastle Drive, adjacent the school.
Mr. Pasta has indicated that the loading zone is required to provide for the drop off and pick up of physically challenged
students. Currently, the bus operators must activate the flashing beacons, thereby stopping traffic in both directions on
Yatescastle Drive.
Conclusions:
In order to accommodate Mr. Pasta's request and to reduce traffic delays in the area, this division would support the
installation of the school bus loading zone on the east side of Yatescastle Drive, adjacent to the Blessed Margherita
Catholic School.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
10
School Bus Loading Zone -
Lamberton Boulevard - Black Creek
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 10, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install a school bus loading zone on Lamberton Boulevard, adjacent to the Lamberton Public School.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the loading zone are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That By-law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended to install a school bus loading zone on the south
side of Lamberton Boulevard, from a point 85 metres west of Clayhall Crescent to a point 40 metres westerly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, stopping is prohibited on the south side of Lamberton Boulevard, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to
Friday, adjacent to Lamberton Public School. Parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the north side of
the street.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department are in receipt of a request
from Bill Zumpano, Manager of Transportation Services, Toronto District School Board, to install a school bus loading
zone adjacent the Lamberton Public School.
Mr. Zumpano has indicated that the school bus loading zone is required to accommodate the loading and unloading of
three large school buses, which provide transportation services to the Lamberton Public and surrounding schools.
Currently, based upon provincial requirements, bus operators must activate the flashing beacons, thereby stopping traffic in
both directions on Lamberton Boulevard.
Conclusions:
In order to accommodate Mr. Zumpano's request and to reduce traffic delays on Lamberton Boulevard, this division would
support the installation of the school bus loading zone on the south side of Lamberton Boulevard, adjacent to the
Lamberton Public School.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
11
School Bus Loading Zone -
Daystrom Drive - North York Humber
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 2, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install a school bus loading zone on Daystrom Drive, adjacent to the Daystrom Public School.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the loading zone are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That By-law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended to install a school bus loading zone on the west side
of Daystrom Drive, from a point 42 metres south of Lindylou Road to a point 94 metres south of Lindylou Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Formerly, a school bus loading zone existed at this location, adjacent the Daystrom Public School. At the request of the
principal, the loading zone was removed.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The Toronto District School Board recently contacted staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and
Emergency Services Department requesting that with the changes in transportation requirements and, as school buses now
transport students to the school, the loading zone is required.
Conclusions:
This department would support the installation of the school bus loading zone on the west side of Daystrom Drive.
Contact Name:
Alan Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone), 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
12
All Way Stop Control - Ellerslie Avenue
at Stafford Road - North York Centre
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 2, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control to improve pedestrian and motorists safety, at the intersection of Ellerslie Avenue at
Stafford Road.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to
stop on all approaches to the intersection of Ellerslie Avenue at Stafford Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, northbound and southbound motorists on Stafford Road are required to stop at Ellerslie Avenue. Ellerslie
Avenue traffic travels unrestricted from Bathurst Street to Senlac Road.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services has reviewed a request from Councillor Norman
Gardner to install an all way stop control at the intersection of Ellerslie Avenue and Stafford Road.
The results of the most recent all way stop study concluded that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way
stop control have been satisfied at the intersection of Ellerslie Avenue at Stafford Road.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Ellerslie Avenue
and Stafford Road.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone), 395-7482(facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-Mail)
13
All Way Stop Control - Glengrove Avenue and
West Grove Crescent - North York Centre South
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control, to improve pedestrian and motorists safety, at the intersection of Glengrove Avenue and
West Grove Crescent.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to
stop at all approaches to the intersection of West Grove Crescent at Glengrove Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, northbound and southbound motorists on West Grove Crescent are required to stop at Glengrove Avenue.
Observations by staff have indicated that the majority of motorists approaching the intersection are hesitant, as traditionally
vehicles on a major street are not required to relinquish right-of-way to vehicles on a minor approach. Although eastbound
and westbound motorists on Glengrove Avenue have the right-of-way, they are at times yielding to traffic on West Grove
Crescent, which may ultimately increase the potential for collisions. This activity is creating a dangerous situation for both
motorist and pedestrians entering this intersection.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
As a result of our investigations, it has been observed that motorists on Glengrove Avenue, although they have the right of
way, are often yielding to traffic on West Grove Crescent. This condition creates confusion and may be the cause for the
collisions which have occurred at the intersection.
Due to the confusion and number of potential conflicts for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic, the Transportation Division
supports the installation of an all way stop control, to increase the level of safety for both motorists and pedestrians.
Conclusions:
This department supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Glengrove Avenue at West Grove
Crescent.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)
14
Parking/Stopping Prohibitions - Duckworth Street
and Thurodale Avenue - North York Humber
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out Recommendation No. (2) embodied in
the report dated October 21, 1998, from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, and inserting in lieu thereof the
following new Recommendation No. (2):
"(2)that parking be prohibited at anytime, Monday to Friday, on the north side of Thurodale Avenue, between Martini
Drive to Renfield Street and on the south side between Tedder Street to Renfield Street;".)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 21, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To amend the current parking/stopping prohibitions on Duckworth Street and Thurodale Avenue, adjacent to St. Bernard
Separate School.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking/stopping restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Schedules VIII and IX By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended as
follows:
(1)that parking be prohibited at anytime, Monday to Friday, on both sides of Duckworth Street, between Lawrence Avenue
West and Thurodale Avenue;
(2)that parking be prohibited at anytime, Monday to Friday, on both sides of Thurodale Avenue, between Martin Drive to
Renfield Street;
(3)that stopping be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of Duckworth Street,
between Lawrence Avenue West and Thurodale Avenue; and
(4)that stopping be prohibited, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south side of Thurodale Avenue,
between Tedder Street and Renfield Street.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, on the west side of Duckworth Street and the north side of Thurodale Avenue adjacent to the St. Bernard
Separate School, parking is prohibited at any time and stopping is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m,
Monday to Friday. Parking is permitted for maximum periods of up to three hours on the east side of Duckworth Street and
the south side of Thurodale Avenue, opposite the school.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
As a result of the parking/stopping activities associated with the St. Bernard Separate School, residents of Thurodale
Avenue and Duckworth Street are concerned that two way traffic is not being maintained and that residential driveway
access is restricted.
To address this concern, they have requested amendments to the current on street parking/stopping restrictions.
Conclusions:
To maintain two way traffic flow and residential property access, staff of the Transportation Services Division of the
Works and Emergency Services Department, would support an amendment to the parking/stopping regulations, as per the
residents' request.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone); 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)
15
All Way Stop Control - Flindon Road at
Acacia Avenue/Flaxman Road - North York Humber
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting from the recommendation embodied in the
report dated October 19, 1998, from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, the numeral "XIV" and inserting in
lieu thereof the numeral "XIX", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to stop on
all approaches to the Flindon Road/Acacia Avenue/Flaxman Road intersection.")
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 19, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
North York Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, to review the
issue of left turns (northbound) off Weston Road onto Flindon Road and report to the January 20, 1999 meeting of the
North York Community Council on what actions are required to address this situation.
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control at the Flindon Road/Acacia Avenue/Flaxman Road intersection.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendations:
Schedules XVIII and XIV of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to stop on
all approaches to the Flindon Road/Acacia Avenue/Flaxman Road intersection.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, northbound and southbound traffic on Acacia Avenue and Flaxman Road are required to stop at Flindon Road.
Flindon Road, to the west of Acacia Avenue/Flaxman Road, provides access to both residential properties and to the
Flindon Park.
Discussion:
Residents within the greater community, particularly pedestrians, have recently identified their concern for safety within
the intersection. Residents believe that due to the alignment of the intersection, motorists on Acacia Avenue may have
restricted visibility of eastbound traffic on Flindon Road.
Staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services, have confirmed that sight lines for
motorists on Acacia Avenue are restricted by both amenities located entirely on the private property at the southwest corner
of the intersection and the skewed alignment at the intersection of Acacia Avenue with Flindon Road.
As Acacia Avenue intersects with Flindon Road approximately at a 45E angle and the volume of eastbound traffic on
Flindon Road is relatively low, motorists on Acacia Avenue may not be maintaining an appropriate level of attention to
ensure that the right of way is being provided. This becomes a point of grave concern as the majority of traffic on Flindon
Road would be pedestrian, generated from the Flindon Park.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, I would support the installation of an all way stop control as it would improve safety within the
intersection and would not result in a redistribution of traffic to other adjacent roadways.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone, 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca(E-Mail)
16
Traffic Calming - Norelco Drive - North York Humber
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 23, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To provide information regarding the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures on Norelco Drive.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the traffic calming measures are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That the existing traffic calming measures, as approved on September 17, 1997, by Council for the former City of North
York, be maintained permanently.
Reference/Background/History:
In August of 1997, staff of the Transportation Department of the former City of North York, was requested by the Toronto
Police Services, 31 Division, to assist them in determining alternative measures to halt the on street drag racing which was
occurring on Norelco Drive.
For many years, individuals operating businesses on Norelco Drive had been dealing with late night drag racing along the
frontage of their properties. The road's isolation has attracted upwards of 200 spectators, and the business owners expressed
concerns for the safety of their employees.
Police staff advised that due to limited available resources and the high level of organization by the individuals involved in
the racing activities, who were using police scanners and spotters, made it difficult for the Police to resolve situation by
surveillance methods alone. In association with other police agencies, the Toronto Police Services developed a more
aggressive program to deal with both the participants and the spectators associated with the racing activities. This,
however, required a large deployment of staff dedicated to address these racing activities.
To ensure a more permanent impact, staff, with the approval of Council, installed five chicanes along Norelco Drive, to
break up the road into sections of approximately 200 metres. The chicanes consisted of curb stones and planters along the
side of the roadway reducing the pavement width to 7.25 metres.
Discussion:
Staff of the Toronto Police Service, 31 Division, have indicated that the chicanes have eliminated the drag racing activities
on Norelco Drive. Area business owners generally support the measures as they have eliminated the drag racing and do not
impede their business activities.
In view of the effect that the chicanes and the police enforcement have had on the drag racing activities, these measures
should remain on Norelco Drive.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations
395-7463 (telephone); 395-7482 (fascimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E.-mail)
17
Sign By-law Variance Request -
Billboard Roof Sign - Leroy Cassanova -
4140 Bathurst Street - North York Spadina
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 27, 1998) from the
Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:
Purpose:
Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Mr. Leroy Cassanova, for a variance from the Sign By-law to
permit the erection of an illuminated 10 foot by 20 foot billboard sign on the roof of an existing 3 storey residential and
commercial building.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request for a variance from the sign by-law be refused.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The building on which the sign is proposed is located in a residential zone (RM4) (see attached site plan). The building
fronts onto Bathurst Street and the proposed sign would face north and south along Bathurst Street. The subject building is
not only located in a residential zone it also abuts single family dwellings (R4) on York Downs Drive, and the area
surrounding the proposed sign on the west side of Bathurst Street is primarily residential.
Section 5.1 of the sign by-law does not permit the erection of roof signs in a residential zone. Considering this building is
clearly located in a residential zone and is in close proximity to residential areas, the intent of the sign by-law to protect
residential areas from signage would be compromised. In addition, the height of the proposed sign approximately 52 feet
above grade would make it clearly visible for a significant distance into the surrounding residential streets. The Ward
Councillors have been notified of this request and provided with a copy of the report and attached plans, drawings or
pictures.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of this department that:
(1)the proposed sign would have a negative impact on the surrounding residential area;
(2)the proposed sign does not meet the intent of the sign by-law to protect residential areas from signage; and
(3)the proposed variance for the sign is not minor in nature.
________
The North York Community Council on November 12, 1998, deferred this matter sine die.
18
Feasibility Study -
Yorkwoods Community Centre - Black Creek
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the report (November 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, not be adopted and that:
(1)the City retain the building and open space pending further study of community needs;
(2)the two local Councillors, York University, North York Committee on Community Race and Ethnic Relations
and other interested parties be requested to assist in the development of the terms of reference for an internal
study; and
(3)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to North York Community Council
by February 1999.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
This report will provide the North York Community Council with an update on the progress of the Yorkwoods project and
request approval to proceed with an outside feasibility study. The study, to be conducted by the North York Race and
Ethnic Relations Committee, will determine alternatives for the property at a cost of $30,000.00.
Source of Funds:
As previously reported to the North York Community Council in October 1998, Council at its meeting on July 8 - 10, 1998
gave approval to release $30,000.00 from an allocation of $80,000.00 in the 1998 Capital Budget for demolition and park
development on the Yorkwoods site. These monies would not be released by the Treasurer until after consultation with the
local councillors and community to endorse the study. This consultation has now been completed.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)approval be given to spend $30,000.00 for an outside feasibility study to be conducted by the North York Race and
Ethnic Relations Committee, to determine the possible use of this property by the community;
(2)this be a status report on the activities that have taken place to date. This update will be in addition to the report
previously placed before North York Community Council October 14, 1998; and
(3)terms of reference be developed by staff in conjunction with the Ward Councillors.
Comments:
On November 11, 1998, a meeting was convened at the Yorkwoods Gate to make presentation to the community and
agencies/user groups on the possibility of conducting a feasibility study in the Yorkwoods area to determine the future
viability/use of this property.
Those in attendance were as follows: Councillor Peter Li Preti; Executive Assistant to Councillor Maria Augimeri; Rick
Morrelli; M.P.P Mario Sergio; staff from North District Parks and Recreation; representatives from several community
permit user groups; community agency staff; and residents of the local community. Presentations were made by staff with
regards to the current physical plant and it was reported that to keep the building operational, a figure of $131,000.00
would need to be budgeted to complete repairs to the building in 1999. Councillor Li Preti also made presentation with
regards to the fact that there is still insufficient community space in this area, and he had requested that $30,000.00 of the
$80,000 that had been set aside for demolition and creating a new park area be reallocated to conducting a feasibility study
on the future of this property.
A motion was made to conduct a feasibility study and the motion carried in favour by a vote of 26 - 1 with 12 participants
abstaining from the vote.
Conclusions:
Based on the results of this public meeting, it is recommended that the $30,000.00 be released for an outside feasibility
study to be undertaken by the North York Race and Ethnic Relations Committee.
Contact Name:
Jim Bradley,
Director of Parks and Recreation - North District
Telephone: 395-6054Fax: 395-0105,
E-mail: jbradley@city.north-york.on.ca
19
1998 Proposed Additions to the City of Toronto's
Inventory of Heritage Properties, North York District -
Black Creek, North York Spadina,
North York Centre South and Don Parkway
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 24, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
The Inventory of Heritage Properties for the North York district, is a compilation that recognizes the architectural and
historical value of buildings, structures and properties that are unique and significant in our community. North York's
current Inventory was approved by North York City Council in the late 1970s. In 1997, thirty-eight (38) properties were
added by North York Council. The North York Heritage Committee/Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee has been reviewing additional properties within the North York area that should be listed on the Inventory. It is
the recommendation of the North York Heritage Committee that the twenty-six (26) properties reviewed in the attached
report be added to the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties for the North York district.
Source of Funds:
N/A
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the twenty-six (26) properties outlined in Appendix "A" be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties for the North
York district, as per the recommendations of the North York Heritage Committee (Local Architectural Conservation
Advisory Committee); and
(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
An important task in documenting and preserving a community's history is to identify, catalogue and maintain an
inventory, or listing of significant heritage properties on an ongoing basis. In the late 1970s, an Inventory of Heritage
Buildings was created for the North York area and approved by North York Council. At the time, the Inventory identified a
number of properties considered to be significant in some way to North York's 19th and early 20th century history. In 1997,
the North York Heritage Committee and North York City Council approved thirty-eight (38) additional properties which
included examples of North York's recent heritage and the Modern Movement of Architecture.
To date, there are 127 properties listed on the Inventory, with 19 properties designated under part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990). However, this small number of properties represents only a partial inventory of the area and
efforts to expand the Inventory continue.
The purpose of this report is to present another group of significant properties representing a broad range of architectural
styles, historical themes and urban development in the North York area. A total of 26 properties (shown in Appendix "A"
of this report) have been identified and are proposed for inclusion in the Inventory of Heritage Properties for North York.
Discussion:
The Inventory of Heritage Properties is a compilation that recognizes the architectural and historic value of properties that
are unique and significant in the North York community. Listing, unlike designation under part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act, places no legal restriction on a property. The Inventory is intended to be an up-to-date record containing significant
buildings, structures and sites. As a research and planning tool, acknowledging these properties through the Inventory helps
to provide the City's residents with an understanding and appreciation of place, while helping to preserve the City's unique
built heritage for the enjoyment of future generations.
This new group of properties deals with a number of architectural, functional, social, and contextual themes spanning
North York's history from the middle of the 19th century to the closing decades of the 20th century. Specifically, these deal
with "Historic Revivalism" in early 20th century housing design, industrial heritage, gates and physical barriers of
architectural significance, and historic burial grounds.
City staff and the North York Heritage Committee have recently begun to study, document and commemorate buildings
and structures representing North York's recent heritage and the Modern Movement of Architecture. Modernism was an
international movement that revolutionized the approach to the design of buildings, structures and urban planning. It had
considerable impact on North American culture, attitudes and lifestyles and it is a period in the history of architecture that
is being recognized, reviewed and carefully documented by several leading communities and cities across Canada.
Last year, North York Council approved 16 examples representing this style for inclusion in the Inventory of Heritage
Properties. Several more examples have been identified within the group of new properties, some of which are from the
study entitled "North York's Modernist Architecture" - a publication undertaken jointly by the former North York Planning
Department's Urban Design Division, and the Culture Branch, Parks and Recreation Department, in 1997. These properties
are also contained in Appendix "A".
Listing on the Inventory of Heritage Properties for North York places no legal restriction on a property, nor does it impose
obligations on a property owner or affect property rights. Listing does not affect legal title or sale, restrict the legal use of a
property, prohibit development, building alterations or additions. With this in mind, and with the advice of the City's Legal
Department, the City is not obligated to obtain the consent of a property owner for listing their property on the Inventory of
Heritage Properties.
At its meeting of October 27, 1998, the North York Heritage Committee/Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee reviewed twenty-six properties for inclusion in the Inventory of Heritage Properties for the City's North York
district and adopted the following staff recommendations:
(a)that the North York Heritage Committee/LACAC approve the properties identified in Appendix 'A' for inclusion in the
Inventory of Heritage Properties in the North York district.
(b)that this report and North York LACAC's recommendation be forwarded to City Council through the North York
Community Council for consideration; and
(c)that Council for the City of Toronto be asked to add these properties to the Inventory of Heritage Properties for North
York.
It should be noted that each of the following properties has been well researched and measured against the "Guidelines for
Evaluating Heritage Property" adopted by the former North York Council in February 1996. The approved criteria, which
examine the architectural merit, historic associations and urban context of a property, not only provide a framework within
which properties are considered, but also provide Council with the assurance of a reasoned, well-considered process for the
listing of heritage properties. The Criteria are attached as Appendix "B".
Conclusion:
The Inventory of Heritage Properties is a useful tool for the research and preservation of the City's heritage, serving as it
does to identify properties of historical and/or architectural significance to the North York district. The properties herein
recommended for inclusion in the Inventory are appropriate additions and add to our understanding of the built heritage of
the North York district of the City of Toronto.
Contact:
Beth Hanna, Manager, Culture Division - North York
(416) 395-7415 or (416) 392-5225; Fax: (416) 395-7886
________
The North York Community Council had before it a report (October 19, 1998) from the Manager, Culture Division,
addressed to the North York Heritage Committee/Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC)
presenting an additional group of significant properties for inclusion in the Inventory of Heritage Properties in the North
York region.
"Appendix A"
(1) No. 21 Alexandra Wood (Ward 9) - Thomas and Dorothy Deacon Residence;
(2) No. 23 Alexandra Wood (Ward 9) - N.R. Firstbrook Residence;
(3) No. 2365 Bayview Avenue (Ward 9) - F.P. Woods Estate, Log Cabin Retreat;
(4) No. 2275 Bayview Avenue (Ward 9) - Glendon Hall Gatehouse;
(5) No. 2275 Bayview Avenue (Ward 9) - Gates of Glendon Hall;
(6) NO. 29 Beechwood Avenue (Ward 9) - Whealy Residence;
(7) No. 30 Beechwood Avenue (Ward 9) - Salmund Residence;
(8) No. 21 Devere Gardens (Ward 9) - Residence of Harland Steele;
(9) No. 20 Hedgewood Road (Ward 9) - Pinewood/Jarvis Residence;
(10) No. 49 Highland Crescent (Ward 9) - Residence of Jacobine Jones;
(11) No. 79 Highland Crescent (Ward 9) - The Birches, Orval D. Vaughan Residence;
(12) No. 4700 Keele Street (Ward 7) - Jacob Stong's Barn (York University);
(13) No. 33 Old Yonge Street (Ward 9) - Residence of Walter Seymour Allward;
(14) No. 12 Sunnydene Crescent (Ward 9) - E.H. Watt Residence;
(15) No. 134 Sandringham Drive (Ward 9) - Penryth/Rogers' Residence;
(16) No. 215 Yonge Boulevard (Ward 9) - Gates of Glenalton/Strathrobyn;
(17) No. 106 York Mills Road (Ward 9) - The Manse, Historic York Mills Baptist Church;
(18) No. 55 Ameer Avenue (Ward 9) - Baycrest Terrace and Wagman Centre;
(19) Citadel Village at Valley Woods Road (Ward 11);
(20) Canadian Forces Base, Downsview, Plant No. 1 (Ward 8);
(21) Canadian Forces Base, Downsview, Plant No. 2 (Ward 8);
(22) Canadian Forces Base, Downsview, Garage No. 55, Base Transportation Garage (Ward 8);
(23) Canadian Forces Base, Downsview, Workshop Building No. 58 (Ward 8);
(24) 140 Sylvan Valleyway, Bedford Glen (Ward 9); and
(25) Townline Church Cemetery, Kaiserville, Black Creek Pioneer Village (Ward 7); and
(26) York Mills Baptist Church, Old Yonge Street/York Mills Road, Historical Burial Grounds (Ward 9).
(A copy of Appendix "B" referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
20
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment
Application UDOZ-98-24 - City of Toronto -
29 Lorraine Drive - North York Centre
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the report (November 6, 1998) from the Director, Community
Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that
the application submitted by the City of Toronto regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment for 29 Lorraine
Drive, be approved.
The North York Community Council further reports having directed the Director, Community Planning, North District, to
prepare:
(a)an implementing Official Plan amendment which generally complies with the draft Official Plan Amendment attached
as Schedule "D" to the report dated November 6, 1998; and
(b)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached as Schedule "E" to the report
dated November 6, 1998.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December 9, 1998, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 6, 1998) from the Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend the approval of a proposal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to
remove all attributable density and recognize the use of City owned lands at 29 Lorraine Drive as a public park. The
density of the site has been transferred through a Committee of Adjustment approval to the adjacent development site at
15-27 Lorraine Drive.
Financial Implications:
At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, City of Toronto Council approved the sale of the density (1,826 square metres)
from 29 Lorraine Drive to Symphony Square Ltd. (15-27 Lorraine Drive) for the sum of $400,000 (Appendix A). The City
has received the funds from the sale of the density.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the application be approved and staff be directed to prepare:
(a)an implementing Official Plan amendment which generally complies with the draft Official Plan amendment attached as
Schedule "D" to this report; and
(b)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached as Schedule "E" to this report.
Background:
1.0History:
In July 1997, North York Council approved a zoning by-law amendment for 15-27 Lorraine Drive (UDZ-95-31 known as
Royal Mansions Inc.) to permit a 304 unit, 20 storey apartment building. This development, approved in accordance with
the Uptown Secondary Plan, achieved additional density through density incentives and transfers. A total gross floor area
of 29,885 square metres (321,690 sq.ft.) is permitted by the RM6(73) zoning on the site (Appendix B).
In August 1998, the Committee of Adjustment approved a variance request by the applicant (known then as Symphony
Square) to increase the maximum permitted gross floor area for the site at 15 - 27 Lorraine Drive (Appendix C). No
appeals were received. The approval was based on a Council decision of July 29, 1998 to approve the sale of density from
the City owned site at 29 Lorraine Drive to the Symphony Square lands (Appendix A). The City has received the funds
from this sale. The amount of density sold from 29 Lorraine Drive (1,826 square metres) is identical to the gross floor area
increase approved by the Committee of Adjustment.
2.0 Proposal:
The application advanced by the City of Toronto in this report proposes a technical change to the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law to recognize the transfer of all density from the site to lands at 15-27 Lorraine Drive. This property will be
developed as part of a public park. A statistical breakdown of the site is set out below:
| Site Statistics |
| Site Area |
703 square metres (.07 ha) |
| Maximum Density Allowed |
2.6 FSI |
| Gross Floor Area allowed by Official Plan |
1,827.8 square metres |
3.0 Location and Existing Site:
The site is located on the south side of Lorraine Drive east of Blakeley Road. There is an existing dwelling on the site
which will be demolished. On the abutting lands to the east is a 7.5 m strip of land zoned O1(14) to be used for park
purposes. The subject parcel would adjoin this 7.5 m. strip creating a parkette. To the north and west of the site are
detached homes also located within the Uptown area. A zoning amendment application has been received for
redevelopment of all of these remaining lands east of Blakeley Road (UDZ-98-19).
4.0Planning Controls:
4.1Official Plan:
The site is located within the Uptown of the North York Centre. The site is designated Uptown Residential 2 which permits
residential, recreational and institutional uses and parks at a maximum density of 2.6 FSI as shown on Schedule "A". While
the UR2 designation permits public parks, it has been the practice of the former North York Council that lands used as
public parkland be designated as public parks in the Official Plan (Appendix D). The proposal is to change the Official
Plan designation to Local Open Space (LOS) which would only permit public parks, recreational uses, community centres
and libraries, and some essential services and public utilities. The proposed use of the site for a public park would conform
with this designation.
4.2Zoning:
The site is zoned R4 (One Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone) which generally permits single detached
dwellings as shown on Schedule "B". The proposal is to rezone the site to O1(14) (Open Space Zone) with a site specific
exception indicating that the only permitted use shall be a public park, public playground and a play lot with 0 square
metres of gross floor area. The O1(14) zoning currently applies to the 7.5 metre strip of land abutting the east side of this
site.
Discussion:
5.0Other Department Comments:
Comments received from the departments and agencies to which the application was circulated indicate no concerns (see
Schedules "F" to "K").
6.0Community Consultation
Given the technical nature of this application, a community consultation meeting has not been required.
7.0Planning Issues:
7.1Density Transfer:
Section 3.4 of Official Plan Amendment 447 (North York Centre Secondary Plan) permits the transfer of density from land
owned by the City. Density transfers are to be implemented by rezoning the donor site and the receiving site and a record of
the density transfer is to be kept as an appendix to the Official Plan.
This application implements the density transfer by rezoning the subject parcel to recognize its use for parks purposes only,
and to remove its density. A record of this density transfer will be kept in Appendix 11 to the Official Plan (Monitoring of
Transferred Density in the Uptown Area).
Given Council approval of the sale of density from 29 Lorraine Drive and the Committee of Adjustment approval for an
increase in the gross floor area for 15-27 Lorraine Drive, the proposed Official Plan and zoning change to 29 Lorraine
Drive is a technical change which further implements these approvals.
7.2Parks Use:
The City purchased 29 Lorraine Drive with the intent of developing it for parks purposes, along with the westerly portion
of 27 Lorraine Drive. This area was targeted for parkland at the time of review of the Royal Mansions application (File No.
UDZ-95-31) at 15-27 Lorraine Drive. As a condition of the sale, the existing tenant is permitted to remain in the dwelling
at 29 Lorraine Drive until their current rental lease expires in January 1999. Lease extension options may be possible.
Conclusions:
This proposal by the City is for a technical amendment to the Official Plan and zoning by-law to remove all attributable
density and recognize the use of City owned lands as a public park. This implements recent City Council and Committee of
Adjustment approvals for the sale and transfer of density from this site to the adjacent development site at 15-27 Lorraine
Drive.
Contact Name:
Nimrod Salamon; Telephone: (416) 395-7134
(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North
York Civic Centre.)
________
No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
21
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-21 -
Idels Architect Inc. - 129 Finch Avenue East -
North York Centre
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the report (November 17, 1998) from the Director, Community
Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that
the application submitted by Idels Architect Inc. regarding Zoning Amendment for 129 Finch Avenue East, be
approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December 9, 1998, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of an application to permit a redevelopment of the site with a
3-storey semi-detached dwelling.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this application be approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1)the R6 zoning of the property be amended to RM2 (19);
(2)the RM2 (19) zoning exception be amended to permit, for the property at 129 Finch Avenue East:
(a)a maximum gross floor area of 620 m²; and
(b)a minimum lot frontage of 6.8 metres for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 13.7 metres for each semi-detached
dwelling;
Prior to the enactment of a Zoning By-law
(3)prior to the enactment of any zoning by-law, the applicant shall convey all required road widenings along Finch Avenue
East;
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit
(4)prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan satisfactory to the Director,
Community Planning, North District, specifically addressing site plan and streetscape improvements in accordance with
Secondary Plan guidelines, required Finch Avenue widening, and preservation of existing trees;
General Conditions
(5)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division as set out in
Schedule "E";
(6)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department as set out in Schedule "F"; and
(7)at the appropriate time, Council approve a by-law for exemption from part lot control in accordance with the conditions
and policies adopted for part lot control exemption. Prior to releasing part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have
submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land, the City will be advised in
order that the part lot control exempting by-law may be revoked.
Background:
Proposal:
The application proposes an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit development of the site with a 3-storey
semi-detached dwelling. Pertinent site statistics are shown below:
| NET SITE STATISTICS
(after road widening) |
PROPOSAL |
| Lot Area (gross site 668 m² prior to
conveyance) |
600 m² for the dwelling *
300 m² each unit * |
| Lot Frontage |
13.7 metres for the dwelling
6.8 metres each unit |
| Lot Coverage |
35 percent * |
| Gross Floor Area |
620 m² |
| Yard Setbacks
Front
Side
Rear |
2.7 metres *
1.2 metres
22.9 metres |
| Building Height |
10.6 metres/3 storeys |
*based on a Finch Avenue road widening of 4.9 metres
Location and Existing Site:
The site is located on the south side of Finch Avenue East, between Willowdale Avenue and Longmore Avenue. This
portion of Finch Avenue is developed predominately with single detached dwellings, including the immediately abutting
properties. There is a semi-detached dwelling at 145 Finch Avenue East, and another application (UDZ-98-22) for a
semi-detached dwelling at 135 Finch Avenue East, submitted by the same applicant. The Cat Hospital veterinary service is
located at the southeast corner of Finch and Willowdale Avenues.
Planning Controls:
Official Plan:
The site is designated Central Finch Residential One (CFR-1) within the Central Finch Secondary Plan, which permits
single and multiple-unit residential uses, in addition to parks uses and places of worship. The Central Finch Secondary Plan
encourages redevelopment and intensification of permitted uses in order to achieve a mixed use area between Bathurst
Street and Bayview Avenue. Along Finch Avenue East, the secondary plan particularly encourages small multiple-unit
residential buildings fronting onto Finch Avenue east of Willowdale Avenue. The maximum density permitted by the
CFR-1 designation for sites with a frontage of less than 30 metres is 1.0 FSI.
Zoning By-law:
The site is zoned One-Family Detached Dwellings, Sixth Density Zone (R6), which permits single detached dwellings.
There have been seven similar applications for semi-detached dwellings in the Central Finch Area from Willowdale
Avenue to Bayview Avenue. These applications include those listed in Appendix 1 to this report, and two recent
applications: UDZ-98-26 (162 Finch Avenue East) and UDZ-98-27 (204 Finch Avenue East). Council has approved three
of the applications to date. In October 1997, zoning exception RM2(19) was created in the context of the application for a
semi-detached dwelling at 142 Finch Avenue East. This exception (attached as Appendix 2) is intended to apply to
semi-detached and duplex dwelling redevelopment within the Central Finch area, with provisions set out for maximum for
gross floor area, building height, and lot coverage; and minimums for lot frontage, yard setbacks and parking. It is likely
that additional applications for semi-detached dwellings will be received for lands in the Central Finch Area which would
also be evaluated against the standards of the RM2 (19) exception zone.
Other Department Comments:
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that they have no
objection to the proposal provided the driveway is designed as a mutual driveway with a maximum combined curb cut of
6.0 metres, and the conveyance of a widening of 4.9 metres. Their comments are attached as Schedule "E".
The comments of the Works and Emergency Services Department are attached as Schedule "F".
The Municipal Standards Division has an active property standards file for this property which indicates the poor condition
of the partially enclosed patio structure attached to the rear of the existing dwelling. Their comments are attached as
Schedule "G".
The Public Health Division has indicated that there are no outstanding Public Health requirements pertaining to the soils
on the site. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".
The Parks and Recreation Planning Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has indicated
that they have no parkland dedication requirement with respect to this application. Their comments are attached as
Schedule "I ".
Community Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was not required for this application. Any community issues will be addressed through
the statutory public meeting of the Community Council.
Discussion:
Planning Issues:
Land Use and Density:
The proposed development meets the land use and density objectives of the Central Finch Secondary Plan.
Building Height:
The Central Finch Plan and the RM2 (19) zoning exception require an overall building height of the lesser of three storeys
or 10 metres, and requires that the height of any building shall not exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance separating
the new building from the nearest stable residential property line. With a proposed height of 3 storeys and 10.6 metres, and
a rear yard setback of 22.9 metres (75 feet), the proposal falls within the angular plane policies of the secondary plan, but
exceeds the maximum building height. The proposed height of 10.6 metres is not necessary since this is new construction
and the design of the building can be appropriately revised to reduce the height in compliance with the Official Plan policy
and RM6 (19) zoning standards.
Gross Floor Area:
The RM2 (19) provisions limit gross floor area to 521 m². This proposal is for a semi-detached dwelling with a gross floor
area of 620 m². This represents a density of 0.93 FSI (prior to the road conveyance) which is within the secondary plan
policy of a maximum density of 1.0 FSI.
Front Yard Setback:
The applicant has proposed a front yard setback of 2.7 metres. This would not provide sufficient room to park a vehicle in
the driveway beyond the Finch Avenue road allowance as widened. The RM2 (19) standards require a minimum of two
parking spaces per dwelling unit, and the general by-law provisions specify that a parking space have a minimum length of
5.5 metres. It is recommended that the proposed dwelling be required to be set back 24 metres from the centre line of Finch
Avenue in accordance with the RM2 (19) standards, which will provide for a 6 metre front yard setback and a parking
space in the front yard. The lot is sufficiently deep to allow the dwelling to be set back- the full 24 metres, resulting in a
rear yard of approximately 19 metres, while still meeting the angular plane provision.
Lot Frontage:
With a design modification to building height (reduced from 10.6 metres to 10 metres), and a revised front yard setback,
the subject property can meet the RM2 (19) provisions, with the exceptions of maximum gross floor area and minimum lot
frontage. With these exceptions, the applicant is proposing zoning standards which are consistent with those permitted and
proposed for recent semi-detached dwelling developments in the Central Finch Area (see Appendix 1).
Urban Design:
In order to ensure that the site plan and landscape treatment along Finch Avenue is implemented in accordance with the
provisions of the Central Finch Secondary Plan, it is appropriate to have the applicant submit a landscape plan to the
satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, North District, prior to the issuance of a building permit. This plan will
also reflect the required Finch Avenue conveyance, and should ensure the preservation of existing trees on the site as far as
possible.
Conclusions:
The proposal to permit a semi-detached dwelling on this site is consistent with the intent of the Central Finch Secondary
Plan and is recommended for approval.
Contact Name:
Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner
Telephone: (416) 395-7110Fax: (416) 395-7155
________
No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on filed in the office of the City Clerk,
North York Civic Centre.)
22
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-22 -
Idels Architect Inc. - 135 Finch Avenue East -
North York Centre
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the report (November 17, 1998) from the Director, Community
Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that
the application submitted by Idels Architect Inc. regarding Zoning Amendment for 135 Finch Avenue East, be
approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December 9, 1998, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of an application to permit a redevelopment of the site with a 3-storey semi-detached
dwelling.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this application be approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1)the R6 zoning of the property be amended to RM2 (19);
(2)the RM2 (19) zoning exception be amended to permit, for the property at 135 Finch Avenue East:
(a)a maximum gross floor area of 626 m²; and
(b)a minimum lot frontage of 6.9 metres for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 13.8 metres for each semi-detached
dwelling;
Prior to the enactment of a Zoning By-law
(3)prior to the enactment of any zoning by-law, the applicant shall convey all required road widenings along Finch Avenue
East;
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit
(4)prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan satisfactory to the Director,
Community Planning, North District, specifically addressing site plan and streetscape improvements in accordance with
Secondary Plan guidelines, required Finch Avenue widening, and preservation of existing trees;
General Conditions
(5)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division as set out in
Schedule "E";
(6)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department as set out in Schedule "F"; and
(7)at the appropriate time, Council approve a by-law for exemption from part lot control in accordance with the conditions
and policies adopted for part lot control exemption. Prior to releasing part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have
submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land, the City will be advised in
order that the part lot control exempting by-law may be revoked.
Background:
Proposal:
The application proposes an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit development of the site with a 3-storey
semi-detached dwelling. Pertinent site statistics are shown below:
| NET SITE STATISTICS
(after road widening) |
PROPOSAL |
| Lot Area (gross site 673 m² prior to conveyance) |
604 m² for the dwelling *
302 m² each unit * |
| Lot Frontage |
13.8 metres for the dwelling
6.9 metres each unit |
| Lot Coverage |
35 percent * |
| Gross Floor Area |
626 m² |
| Yard Setbacks
Front
Side
Rear |
2.8 metres *
1.2 metres
22.9 metres |
| Building Height |
10.6 metres/3 storeys |
*based on a Finch Avenue road widening of 4.8 metres
Location and Existing Site:
The site is located on the south side of Finch Avenue East, between Willowdale Avenue and Longmore Avenue. This
portion of Finch Avenue is developed predominately with single detached dwellings, including the immediately abutting
properties. There is a semi-detached dwelling at 145 Finch Avenue East, and another application (UDZ-98-21) for a
semi-detached dwelling at 129 Finch Avenue East, submitted by the same applicant. The Cat Hospital veterinary service is
located at the southeast corner of Finch and Willowdale Avenues.
Planning Controls:
Official Plan:
The site is designated Central Finch Residential One (CFR-1) within the Central Finch Secondary Plan, which permits
single and multiple-unit residential uses, in addition to parks uses and places of worship. The Central Finch Secondary Plan
encourages redevelopment and intensification of permitted uses in order to achieve a mixed use area between Bathurst
Street and Bayview Avenue. Along Finch Avenue East, the secondary plan particularly encourages small multiple-unit
residential buildings fronting onto Finch Avenue east of Willowdale Avenue. The maximum density permitted by the
CFR-1 designation for sites with a frontage of less than 30 metres is 1.0 FSI.
Zoning By-law:
The site is zoned One-Family Detached Dwellings, Sixth Density Zone (R6), which permits single detached dwellings.
There have been seven similar applications for semi-detached dwellings in the Central Finch Area from Willowdale
Avenue to Bayview Avenue. These applications include those listed in Appendix 1 to this report, and two recent
applications: UDZ-98-26 (162 Finch Avenue East) and UDZ-98-27 (204 Finch Avenue East). Council has approved three
of the applications to date. In October 1997, zoning exception RM2 (19) was created in the context of the application for a
semi-detached dwelling at 142 Finch Avenue East. This exception (attached as Appendix 2) is intended to apply to
semi-detached and duplex dwelling redevelopment within the Central Finch area, with provisions set out for maximum for
gross floor area, building height, and lot coverage; and minimums for lot frontage, yard setbacks and parking. It is likely
that additional applications for semi-detached dwellings will be received for lands in the Central Finch Area which would
also be evaluated against the standards of the RM2(19) exception zone.
Other Department Comments:
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that they have no
objection to the proposal provided the driveway is designed as a mutual driveway with a maximum combined curb cut of
6.0 metres, and the conveyance of a widening of 4.8 metres. Their comments are attached as Schedule "E".
The comments of the Works and Emergency Services Department are attached as Schedule "F".
The Public Health Division has indicated that there are no outstanding Public Health requirements pertaining to the soils
on the site. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".
The Parks and Recreation Planning Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has indicated
that they have no parkland dedication requirement with respect to this application. Their comments are attached as
Schedule "I ".
Community Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was not required for this application. Any community issues will be addressed through
the statutory public meeting of the Community Council.
Discussion:
Planning Issues:
Land Use and Density:
The proposed development meets the land use and density objectives of the Central Finch Secondary Plan.
Building Height:
The Central Finch Plan and the RM2 (19) zoning exception require an overall building height of the lesser of three storeys
or 10 metres, and requires that the height of any building shall not exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance separating
the new building from the nearest stable residential property line. With a proposed height of 3 storeys and 10.6 metres, and
a rear yard setback of 22.9 metres (75 feet), the proposal falls within the angular plane policies of the secondary plan, but
exceeds the maximum building height. The proposed height of 10.6 metres is not necessary since this is new construction
and the design of the building can be appropriately revised to reduce the height in compliance with the Official Plan policy
and RM6 (19) zoning standards.
Gross Floor Area:
The RM2 (19) provisions limit gross floor area to 521 m². This proposal is for a semi-detached dwelling with a gross floor
area of 626 m². This represents a density of 0.93 FSI (prior to the road conveyance) which is within the secondary plan
policy of a maximum density of 1.0 FSI.
Front Yard Setback:
The applicant has proposed a front yard setback of 2.8 metres. This would not provide sufficient room to park a vehicle in
the driveway beyond the Finch Avenue road allowance as widened. The RM2 (19) standards require a minimum of two
parking spaces per dwelling unit, and the general by-law provisions specify that a parking space have a minimum length of
5.5 metres. It is recommended that the proposed dwelling be required to be set back 24 metres from the centre line of Finch
Avenue in accordance with the RM2 (19) standards, which will provide for a 6 metre front yard setback and a parking
space in the front yard. The lot is sufficiently deep to allow the dwelling to be set back the full 24 metres, resulting in a rear
yard of approximately 19 metres, while still meeting the angular plane provision.
Lot Frontage:
With a design modification to building height (reduced from 10.6 metres to 10 metres), and a revised front yard setback,
the subject property can meet the RM2 (19) provisions, with the exceptions of maximum gross floor area and minimum lot
frontage. With these exceptions, the applicant is proposing zoning standards which are consistent with those permitted and
proposed for recent semi-detached dwelling developments in the Central Finch Area (see Appendix 1).
Urban Design:
In order to ensure that the site plan and landscape treatment along Finch Avenue is implemented in accordance with the
provisions of the Central Finch Secondary Plan, it is appropriate to have the applicant submit a landscape plan to the
satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, North District, prior to the issuance of a building permit. This plan will
also reflect the required Finch Avenue conveyance, and should ensure the preservation of existing trees on the site as far as
possible.
Conclusions:
The proposal to permit a semi-detached dwelling on this site is consistent with the intent of the Central Finch Secondary
Plan and is recommended for approval.
Contact Name:
Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner
Telephone: (416) 395-7110Fax: (416) 395-7155
________
No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on filed in the office of the City Clerk,
North York Civic Centre.)
23
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
and Draft Plan of Subdivision UDOZ-98-14 and
UDSB-1239 - Bearpoint Group Inc. -
50 and 60 Oak Street - North York Humber
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Community
Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that
the application submitted by Bearpoint Group Inc. regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment for 50 and 60
Oak Street, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to the following:
(1)that Recommendation (4) of the report (November 26, 1998) be amended to read as follows:
"The M2(56) exception zone be amended to M1 for lands shown on Block 84 on Schedule "C": and that the
following uses, "public self-storage", "place of worship", "club" and "automotive repair shops" be excluded from
the list of permitted uses outlined in Schedule "K";
(2)that Recommendation (1l) of the report (November 26, 1998) be amended to read as follows:
"That the application for draft plan approval of a plan of subdivision be revised and perfected in accordance with
the Principles of Development described in Appendix "A" to this report. One principle of development is that a
landscape plan for the entire plan of subdivision be submitted that includes such things as fencing, sidewalks,
landscaping and other buffer treatments, Also, a review of the location and design of the proposed townhouses and
industrial buildings be completed through the site plan approval process.";
(3)that the General Conditions section of the report (November 26, 1998) be amended by adding the following
recommendation:
(12)Prior to final approval of the plan of subdivision, the applicant shall be required to provide the City with the
necessary monies to construct two bocce courts in Pelmo Park. The cost of the construction of the two bocce courts
will be determined by the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and is in addition to the
statutory parkland dedication requirement; and
(4)that a further condition be imposed requiring the applicant to commit half of the funds required for the
installation of the permanent traffic calming measures on Wendell Avenue, Gary Drive and Yelland Street,
approved by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on December 9, 1998.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December 9, 1998, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a draft plan of
subdivision application at 50 and 60 Oak Street. The proposal is to permit the development of this 8.47 hectare (20.96
acres) site with 80 single detached dwellings, 62 freehold townhouse units and low impact industrial uses (Schedule "C").
The industrial component will be located along the Oak Street frontage and will consist of the full range of non-residential
uses and performance standards which have been established in the new M1 zone of the by-law. Notice for a public
meeting on the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments has been given for the December 9, 1998 Community Council
Meeting.
Secondly, the purpose of this report is to establish Principles of Development which clarify the way in which the official
plan and zoning amendment recommendations will now give direction to the review and subsequent evaluation of
appropriate conditions for draft plan approval of a subdivision of the property.
The report will settle the land use and zoning standards in the first instance and then require draft plan approval prior to the
actual enactment of the zoning by-law.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
Official Plan:
(1)the Official Plan designation of the site be amended from Industrial (IND) to Local Open Space (LOS) for any lands
conveyed for parkland purposes. The final location of parkland for the purposes of the Official Plan will be settled with the
draft plan of subdivision; and the Official Plan be further amended to Residential Density Two (RD2) for the Blocks and
Lots shown on Schedule "C", which are proposed for single family detached dwellings and townhouses;
(2)Map C.1.2 (Residential Communities) to the Official Plan be amended to expand the boundaries of the Pelmo Park
Community to include the residential and open space portions of the subject site;
Zoning By-law:
(3)the M2(56) exception zone be amended to O1 for any lands conveyed for parkland purposes;
(4)the M2(56) exception zone be amended to M1 for lands shown as Block 84 on Schedule "C";
(5)a non-development yard setback of 30 metres be established for any zone adjacent the railway right of way;
Single Family Dwellings:
(6)the M2(56) exception zone be amended to R7 for Lots 1 to 80 as shown on Schedule "C", inclusive with the following
exceptions:
(i)maximum building length of 16.5 metres;
(ii)maximum lot coverage of 40 percent for all buildings; and
(iii)the minimum yard setbacks shall be:
(a)front yard setback -4.5 metres to the main dwelling and 6 metres to the garage;
(b)rear yard setback - 7.5 metres; and
(c)side yard setback -0.6 metres one side and 1.2 metres the other side;
Multiple Attached Dwellings:
(7)the M2(56) exception zone be amended to RM1 for Blocks 81, 82 and 83 shown on Schedule "C", with the following
exceptions:
(i)the minimum lot area shall be 140 square metres for each dwelling unit;
(ii)maximum lot coverage of 40 percent for all buildings;
(iii)the minimum distance between buildings shall be 3 metres; and
(iv)the minimum yard setbacks shall be:
(a)front yard setback - 4.5 metres to the front face of the building and 6 metres to the face of the garage;
(b)side yard setback - 4.5 metres from all exterior walls and to any M zone and 1.5 metres from any interior walls; and
(c)rear yard setback -7.5 metres for Blocks 81 and 82
and 30 metres for Block 83 adjacent the rail line.
(8)Schedule "Q" to By-law No. 7625 be amended to include the residential and open space portions of the site within the
Pelmo Park neighbourhood;
General Conditions:
(9) prior to the adoption of the official plan amendment the location of the lands to be designated for Local Open Space
shall have been settled;
(10)prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law, the applicant shall obtain draft plan approval of a plan of subdivision for
the property; and
(11)that the application for draft plan approval of a plan of subdivision be revised and perfected in accordance with the
Principles of Development described in Appendix "A" to this report. One principle of development is that a landscape plan
for the entire plan of subdivision be submitted that includes such things as fencing, landscaping and other buffer
treatments. Also, a review of the location and design of the proposed townhouses and industrial buildings be completed
through the site plan approval process.
Background:
Proposal:
The subject property is currently occupied by the MacMillian Bloedel lumber yard which will be closing its operation in
1999. The proposal is to permit a plan of subdivision consisting of single detached dwellings, freehold townhouse units
and a full range of industrial, commercial, institutional and other uses which are permitted in the M1 zone.
The non-residential component will consist of uses which came out of the Industrial review (UD03-IRS and UD43-IND)
adopted by North York Council in 1997. The location of the various uses as proposed by the applicant is shown on
Schedule "C". The North York Council established a range of industrial uses and specific requirements, such as fencing
and setbacks, that are considered appropriate and compatible with adjacent residential uses. This application conforms to
these standards. The intent of the city's new M1 zone is to allow for future industrial uses along the "edge" of residential
uses while minimizing land use conflicts on neighbouring residential properties. A list of the uses permitted is attached as
schedule "K".
The pertinent statistics are as follows:
| Site Statistics |
|
| Site Area
- single detached dwellings
- multiple attached units
- industrial uses
- park
- parkette
- streets
Total |
2.87 ha (7.1ac)
1.94 ha (4.8ac)
1.56 ha (3.85ac)
0.21 ha (0.52 ac)
0.05 ha (0.12 ac)
1.85 ha (4.57 ac)
8.47 ha (20.9ac) |
| Number of Dwelling Units
- detached dwelling units
- multiple attached units
Total Number of Units |
80
62
142 |
| Proposed Park Area |
0.26 ha (0.64 acres) |
| Proposed Gross Floor Area for Industrial Buildings |
2,900m² |
Location and Existing Site:
The site is located south of Highway 401, on the north side of Oak Street, east of Weston Road between the Canadian
Pacific Railway line and Galewood Drive. The site is located in the Pellatt Avenue Business Park and is occupied by a
manufacturing operation, MacMillian Bloedel. Residential uses such as semi-detached dwellings and single family
dwellings are located to the east and southeast of the site. Pellatt Park is located to the north of the site.
There are existing industrial uses to the south and west. In particular, across the street is the Visioneering Corporation,
which is a stable and viable manufacturing operation.
Official Plan and Zoning:
The lands are designated Industrial (IND) and zoned M2(56)(Industrial Zone Two Exception (56)), permitting primarily
industrial employment uses.
This Official Plan amendment requests a redesignation of the lands from IND to Residential Density Two (RD2) for the
single detached and freehold townhouse portion of this proposal. An amendment to the Official Plan to Local Open Space
(LOS) is also recommended for the lands which will be conveyed for park purposes. The proposed industrial portion of the
site will retain an Industrial (IND) designation.
The zoning amendment application requests a change in zoning from M2(56) exception zone to an R7 exception zone for
the single family detached dwellings (Lots 1 to 80 inclusive), RM2 Exception Zone for the townhouses, O1 for the
proposed parks and M1 for the industrial uses.
The Official Plan designation and zoning of this site and surrounding land uses are shown on Schedules "A" and "B".
Comments:
Other Department Comments:
The following section summarizes the comments received from the departments and agencies circulated.
The Parks and Recreation Division advise that the applicant will be required to convey 5 percent parkland on site. The
location of the park will be determined through discussions with the applicant and the Parks and Recreation Division. The
principles for determining the location of the park are described in Appendix "A" to this report. The Department's
comments are attached as Schedule "F".
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department advise that they concur with the
findings of the traffic impact study submitted by Cole Sherman and Associates which concludes the proposal will not
significantly impact the existing road network. (Refer to Schedule "H").
Technical Services of the Works and Emergency Services Department advise that they will be comment with conditions of
draft plan approval. (Refer to Schedule "G").
Canadian Pacific Railway advise that the applicant is required to meet their standard requirements that apply to residential
developments that are adjacent to existing CPR lines. These requirements include a non-development zone of 30 metres
adjacent to their railway right-of-way which is included in the zoning recommendations (Refer to Schedule "I").
Community Consultation:
A community meeting was held on June 25, 1998 with the local councillors and a number of land owners from the area in
attendance. The main issue discussed was with regard to the road design. The local ratepayer association, Pelmo
Community Park Community Association, has stated in a letter to the applicant that they prefer a site design which does
not extend any new street through to Pellatt Avenue. The proposed road design that has been submitted with the applicant's
subdivision application does not extend Pellatt Avenue (Refer to Schedule "E").
Discussion:
Change in Land Use from Industrial to Residential:
Part C.4 - Housing Policies sets out criteria to guide the redesignation of non-residential lands to residential. Council may
consider applications to redesignate lands to residential within the broad context of the City's need for additional housing
and the provision of community services and facilities. Council may consider amendments that propose redesignation
when, in Council's opinion, community services and facilities are in place or can be provided to serve the population and
when the cumulative impact of the residential use does not have an undue negative impact on existing community services
and facilities.
Council may consider applications to redesignate non-residential to residential when
- there is a demonstrated need to improve or rejuvenate areas due to economic obsolescence or physical or economic
decline; or
- the introduction of residential land uses will not jeopardize the continued viability of commercial, industrial,
institutional and open space land uses.
These criteria are in addition to the general development criteria set out in Part C.4 of the Official Plan.
The proposed change in land use from industrial to residential to permit the residential component of the development is
consistent with recent Official Plan redesignations of comparable proposals. The redesignation will not jeopardize the
continued viability of this area. The boundaries for change are logical, form an extension of an existing residential
community to the east and can create a well defined edge between residential and non-residential uses. A similar
development was constructed to the south at Queenslea Avenue and Rosemount Avenue which consisted of single family
dwellings constructed on similar sized lots along the rail line next to a new townhouse development. Given the scale of the
project and the proposed expansion of Pellatt Park, the community service needs of the new residents can be met with
existing resources.
The proposed low impact industrial component of the development along the Oak Street frontage provides for a suitable
transition between the existing industrial uses across the street and the proposed residential development. The industrial
uses under the new M1 zone proposed for this site are designed to provide a compatible relationship with adjacent
residential uses as concluded in the recent industrial review.
The owner of 'Visioneering' a nearby manufacturer of lighting equipment at 35 Oak Street, has submitted a letter regarding
this application ( Refer to Schedule "J"). They have two general concerns, both of which are addressed in the Principles of
Development for Conditions of Draft Approval for this site. The first consideration is with the flow of residential and
non-residential traffic in this area. This is a site plan matter which will be addressed through site circulation, access and
egress controls associated with the new subdivision. The second general consideration is with limitations which could be
placed on Visioneering's operations as a result of more stringent vibration and noise controls. Noise and vibration
amelioration will be the responsibility of the applicant developer and the requirements for noise abatement and vibration
control will be secured through the execution of a subdivision agreement. There will be discussions with the
representatives of Visioneering and the applicant to ensure the approaches suggested address Visioneering's concerns.
During the processing of the recently approved subdivision at Queenslea and Rosemount Avenue, Visioneering had similar
concerns which were successfully addressed through the recommendations of a noise and vibration study and adjustments
to the plan of subdivision.
Built Form and Zoning:
To accommodate the proposed subdivision layout the applicant has requested amendments to the City's zoning provisions.
The requested performance standards are comparable with other infill residential proposals. The tables on Appendix "B"
compare the proposed zone standards with recently approved R7 and RM1 zone standards in this general area of the city. A
discussion on the proposed zoning for the single family detached dwellings, townhouses and industrial uses is set out
below.
Single Family Detached Dwellings
The proposed single family dwelling lots are similar in size with respect to lot frontage and lot area as the zoning
requirements for an R7 zone. Amendments to the R7 zone occur with respect to front yard setback, rear yard setback, side
yard setbacks and height and length of dwelling. The R7 by-law requirements and recent approvals for similar subdivision
applications and the applicants proposal are shown on Appendix "B".
The main portion of the dwelling will have a front yard setback of 4.5 metres. The garage portion will be setback 6 metres
from the front property line in order to accommodate a front yard parking space. The front yard setback reduction is minor.
On site parking is not affected and can be accommodated within the driveway. The reduced side yard setbacks and
increased lot coverage provisions are comparable with the recent approval of the subdivision at Queenslea and Rosemount
Avenues. This ensures similar sized houses, consistent with the residential neighbourhood to the east, all of which can be
accommodated on smaller lots.
The applicant has requested a dwelling height of 3 storeys and 12 metres. This height is not consistent with the maximum
heights of the existing dwellings to the east. A maximum building height of 8.8 metres and 2 storeys, as normally required
in the R7 zone, is in keeping with the character of the houses to the east while ensuring overview from new development
onto the existing properties is minimized. It is therefore recommended that the maximum building height for single family
detached dwellings be 8.8 metres and two storeys.
As part of the grading analysis of the draft plan of subdivision, the Department will review the single family lots on the
draft plan to the west of Street "A" as shown on Schedule "C" . These small lot singles are adjacent to proposed
townhouses which have a maximum building height of 3 storeys and 9.2 metres. The grading analysis will look at the
incorporation of below grade garages and the calculations of on the ground building height in real and in technical zoning
terms. If as a result of this analysis, there are additional built form considerations which could accommodate an increased
height for these homes, we will report further on these opportunities later.
The applicant has requested a rear yard setback of 6 metres and a building length of 17.5 metres. This is not consistent with
the R7 zone or with recent Council approvals for similar subdivision applications in this area. In addition, at the time of
construction for a majority of the existing homes to the east, the by-law rear yard requirement was 7.5 metres. Given the
existing built form in the area and the provision of a reduced front yard setback, it is recommended the minimum rear yard
setback of 7.5 metres be required. A maximum length of dwelling of 16.5 metres will ensure new development is
consistent with similar dwellings in the area.
Townhouses
The proposed townhouse dwellings have a similar lot frontage and building height as the zoning requirements for an RM1
zone. Amendments to the RM1 zone occur with respect to lot area, lot coverage, front, side and rear yard setbacks and
distance between buildings. The RM1 by-law requirements, recently approved for townhouses in a development at 665
Trethewey Drive and the applicant's zoning application proposal are compared in Appendix "B". The comparison is strong.
The proposed reductions to the lot area, front yard and side yard setbacks are consistent with the recently approved
townhouses. The garage portion of the building will be setback to 6 metres permitting parking in the front yard. The 40
percent coverage will be fitted into the lot through the site plan approval process. The reduction to the distance between
buildings requirement to 3 metres is minor. This results in a compact townhouse built form which will be subject to the full
array of site plan considerations and can accommodate a good living space within an economy of land.
The rear yard setbacks are recommended to be 7.5 metres, consistent with that recommended for the single family detached
dwellings.
Industrial Lands
The proposed industrial lands, which front onto Oak Street, are to be rezoned to the new M1 (Industrial Zone One) zoning
of the by-law. The range of uses permitted within the new M1 zone are the result of a city-wide review of industrial
standards and economic development considerations. The range of uses is broad enough to encourage full investment and
the industrial manufacturing uses are limited and restricted to those which can successfully abut a residential area. The
intent of the new zone is to stabilize these transition areas. Refer to Schedule "K" for the M1 zone uses and regulations.
The zone will act as an appropriate transition area between the existing industrial uses to the south and the new residential
development to the north.
Subdivision Design:
Attached to this report are Principles of Development which are appropriate to this site and which will be implemented
through specific conditions of draft plan approval. These give direction for the laying out of the subdivision, and the
various engineering, environmental and subdivision design requirements. They also speak to the need for on-site parkland
and further site analysis. All of these conditions can be perfected within the general context of this report's official plan and
zoning recommendations.
The applicant has requested a reduced road allowance of 18.5 metres for the proposed roads within the draft plan of
subdivision. Council policy requires a road allowance of 20 metres. The applicant's request will be reviewed with the
transportation, public works and utilities staff. The size of the road will be a condition approval. A full lot analysis of what
can be accommodated with the road network to be draft approved will be done prior to the enactment of any zoning by-law
for the various uses in the plan.
Urban Design:
The applicant has indicated that the proposed buildings are to be located in a manner which will provide a strong
streetscape presence along Oak Street as well as the proposed interior streets. Parkland is proposed both at the northwest
and southeast corners of the site respectively. The park will provide an extension to the existing park to the north. The park
located at the southeast periphery of the site will provide an alternate park opportunity which will also create an attractive
gateway entrance into the site.
To ensure that the development provides an appropriate relationship to the adjacent streets and land uses it is recommended
that prior to the registration of the Plan, the owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to submit a landscape plan to
the satisfaction of the Director of Community Planning for the entire site. The landscape plans will include, but not be
limited to, the site plan information as well as grading (including cross sections), plant materials, walkways, walls, fences
and the design of all site amenities. The landscape plan will include an appropriate buffer treatment along the east and west
peripheries of the site as well as the appropriate treatment of the existing and proposed street frontages.
Soil Condition:
The environmental site assessment reports that have been submitted in support of the application have been evaluated by a
peer review consultant retained by the City. The peer review report concurs that the site is suitable for the proposed mix of
uses. The suitability of the soil conditions to accommodate the proposed residential and park land uses should be verified
by a record of site condition at the appropriate time, and acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment prior to the
issuance of any building permit. Copies of the consultants reports are available within the Planning Department.
Conclusions:
The proposed mixed use development is an appropriate use of the lands. The boundaries for change are logical, form an
extension of an existing residential community and will create a well defined edge between residential and non-residential
uses. The residential development is similar to the recently approved and constructed subdivision to the south at Queenslea
and Rosemount Avenues. The recommended zoning standards ensure development remains consistent with existing land
uses in the area and recent Council approvals for similar developments.
The recommended M1 zone provides the appropriate transition between the existing industrial uses to the south and the
proposed residential development to the north. The recent industrial review has determined that the uses in the M1 zone are
compatible with adjacent residential uses.
Contact Name:
Randy Jones, Planner
Telephone: (416) 395-7137
(A copy of the Schedules, Appendices and Principles of Development referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the
office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
---------------
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:
(a)(November 23, 1998) from Mr. Paul Acerbi and family advising of their concerns with the application.
(b)(November 19, 1998) from Visoneering Corp., advising of their concerns with the application; and
(c)(December 2, 1998) from P. Anderson, President, Pelmo Park Senior's Club, advising that at an executive meeting held
on December 1, 1998, the Pelmo Park Senior's Club adopted a motion to approve in principle, the development proposed
for the subject lands.
A staff presentation was made by Mr. R. Jones, Planner, Community Planning, North District.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Robert Cover, who expressed concern with Pellat Avenue being extended and the existing cul-de-sac being opened to
vehicular traffic. He was also concerned with the adequacy of the existing infrastructure in light of the redevelopment
occurring in the area.
-Mr. David Zimmerman, Satin Finish Hardwood Flooring Ltd., who expressed concern with the proposed change in use
from industrial to residential and potential objections by future homeowners to existing industrial uses in the area. He
suggested that adequate buffering be provided between his site and the proposed development.
-Mr. Bill Wiener on behalf of Visioneering Corp., who expressed concern with the proposed changes to the Official Plan
and zoning of the subject property. During his submission he indicated that their plant was located in the former City of
Toronto and they were encouraged to relocate and move to their current location in North York. They were also assured at
that time that the zoning in this area would remain Industrial. Given the fact that they have encountered problems in the
past and have had to spend considerable money in order to alleviate the concerns of existing residents regarding noise and
vibration and in order to comply with the Ministry of the Environment standards, they were concerned that the proposed
residential development would restrict their ability to expand their manufacturing operation. The installation of any
additional equipment would mean incurring additional prohibitive costs in obtaining and installing vibration suppression
structures and equipment. In concluding he stated that unless the onus on them is removed, they would have to object to the
application.
-Mr. Pat Anderson, on behalf of the Pelmo Park Senior's Club, who spoke in support of the application. During his
submission he requested that a retaining wall and fence be provided next to his property by the applicant.
-Ms. Kris Menzies, on behalf of the applicant, Bearpoint Group Inc., who addressed the concerns raised. She indicated that
the applicant would be willing to continue discussions with Mr. Wiener, the property owner of 35 Oak Street. She also
commented on the request for a retaining wall and fencing.
24
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment
Application UDOZ-97-28 - Destination Technodome -
Heathmount A.E. Corp. - West of W.R. Allen Road,
South of Sheppard Avenue West - North York Spadina
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, and further that:
(1)the issue of the three arenas be referred to the Mayor, with a request that he meet with representatives of the Greater
Toronto Hockey League to discuss any potential locations in the City of Toronto; and
(2)the Toronto Transit Commission arrangements be endorsed and referred to the Environmental Task Force for
consideration as a precedent for new development in the City.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the following reports (October 22, 1998 and October 28, 1998) from
the Director, Community Planning, North District, Supplementary Report No. 2 (November 27, 1998) from the
Director, Community Planning, North District, and supplementary information report (November 26, 1998) from
the Director of Transportation Services, District No. 3, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use
of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Heathmount A.E. Corp. regarding Official Plan and
Zoning Amendment for the west side of W.R. Allen Road, south of Sheppard Avenue West, be approved, subject to
the conditions outlined in the aforementioned supplementary reports from the Director, Community Planning,
North District and Director of Transportation Services, District No. 3, and subject to the following amendments
and additional conditions:
(1)that the 2,500 seat arena, and the two 600 seat arenas be deleted;
(2)that there be a 10 percent reduction in the Gross Floor Area;
(3)that the applicant provide 7000 visitor parking spaces on-site, subject to the adjustments outlined in (5) to (11)
below;
(4)that the Applicant construct, at its expense, to T.T.C. standards, a 500 space commuter parking lot on T.T.C.
lands adjacent to the Downsview Subway Station on property to be identified by the T.T.C. In exchange,
Destination: Technodome patrons will be given available use of the lot during T.T.C. off-peak hours, and the 500
spaces shall be applied towards meeting the on-site parking requirements of the zoning by-law and as set out in (3)
above;
(5)that the Applicant's employees be granted access to available T.T.C. parking spaces at the Wilson commuter
parking lots during T.T.C. off-peak hours. For each space, the applicant will purchase an annual T.T.C. Metropass,
to be utilized by employees to access the transit system and convey employees to Destination: Technodome. Each
space purchased will be applied towards fulfilling the requirements of the zoning by-law as it pertains to employee
parking, but in no case shall fewer than 830 passes be purchased annually;
(6)additional T.T.C. off-peak parking spaces at the Wilson commuter lots for Destination: Technodome patrons
may be obtained annually from the T.T.C. by the applicant at a cost equivalent to the cost of a T.T.C. annual
Metropass per space to a maximum of 934 spaces and each space shall be counted towards meeting the
requirements of three-quarters of an on-site space, to a maximum of 700 on-site spaces;
(7)that the Applicant pay to the T.T.C. the transit fares for each Destination: Technodome or multi-functional
arena attendee travelling by transit "To The Dome And Home";
(8)that the T.T.C. and the applicant work together to develop a co-operative advertising program to promote the
use of transit for Destination: Technodome patrons;
(9)that for each one percent increase in the transit portion of the modal split over and above 12 percent, the
Applicant be permitted to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces by 50, to a maximum reduction of 500
spaces. Such adjustment will be determined by an assessment of the modal split conducted by the City, at the
Applicant's expense, during the last month of the deferral of the opening of the multi-functional arena, in
accordance with and in conjunction with section 5.1.4 of the Supplementary staff Report of November 26, 1998
from the Director of Transportation Services, and subject to the provisions of 5.1.3 of the same report as it applies
to weekend use only so that the multi-functional arena shall remain closed for every weekend for a period of four
months;
(10)that a parking analysis be developed by the City, at the Applicant's expense, with respect to section 5.1.4 of the
Supplementary staff Report of November 26, 1998 and the parking requirement shall be adjusted in accordance
with such analysis based on actual and projected use;
(11)Supplementary Report No. 2, Appendix A, Section 2.1 shall be amended by the deletion of everything following
"public highways" in line 4, and replaced with:
"but the Applicant will not be penalized in the way of density loss for such conveyance";
(12)that the 2 percent cash in lieu payment required under the agreement shall not be modified except to accept a
parkland dedication if the Applicant so chooses;
(13)there shall be no pedestrian access to Destination: Technodome from the North and East faces, save and except
access through the Downsview Subway station, subject to possible revision through the site plan process;
(14)the hours of operation of Destination: Technodome shall not extend beyond the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.;
(15)the developer shall agree to fund intersection improvements that may be required at Dufferin Street and Finch
Avenue;
(16)the widening of Chesswood Avenue be completed no later than the year 2004;
(17)pursuant to section 5.7.2 of the Supplementary Report dated November 26, 1998 from the Director of
Transportation Services, the developer provide the necessary transportation improvements as may be required by
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, including signalization;
(18)the Applicant shall agree to advertise all employment opportunities within Destination: Technodome by
door-to-door distribution within Toronto and a five kilometer radius of Destination: Technodome, at least three full
months in advance of advertising such positions in any other media;
(19)the setback requirement be reviewed for possible increase at the site plan stage, in consultation with the local
councillors; and
(20)the City establish neighbourhood advisory committees to review traffic and parking impacts that may result
from Destination: Technodome and such committees work with the local councillor(s) to recommend such traffic
and parking attenuation measures which may be required.
The North York Community Council also reports having requested staff to report directly to Council at its meeting
on December 16, 1998, on the adjustments to parking that would emanate from these amendments.
The North York Community Council reports having held the continuation of the statutory public meeting on December 9,
1998, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following Supplementary Report No. 2 (November 27, 1998) from
the Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to address the motions adopted by Council at the November 12, 1998 public meeting that are
required by Council for its consideration of the Destination: Technodome zoning application. This report also includes a
discussion of outstanding matters identified by the Community Advisory Panel and how these matters have been
addressed.
At the December 9, 1998 public meeting, the Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department will
report to Council concerning, and recommend options respecting, traffic and parking management for Destination:
Technodome. Consequently, this report is based upon Planning staff's assessment of the proposal to date, and does not
include a discussion of the traffic and parking management options to be provided by Transportation Services. Based upon
Council's consideration of the recommendations contained within this report, the Transportation Services report and the
October 22, 1998 Planning report, staff will provide a consolidated list of recommendations, including zoning provisions,
revised matters to be addressed under Section 37 agreements (Appendix "A") and the urban design objectives to be
achieved (Appendix "B") at the December 16, 1998 meeting of City Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the staff reports dated October 22 and 28, 1998, previously tabled with Council as modified in the attached Appendices
"1", "A" and "B" to this report, be adopted; and
(2)should Council, in keeping with the request made by the Community Advisory Panel, deem it appropriate to delete the
recommendation of the October 22, 1998 report respecting a cash contribution of $150,000.00 for the purposes of
streetscape improvements to the Wilson Avenue, Item 2(d)(i), and replace this recommendation with the following, the
recommendations set out in Appendix "1"- Revised Recommendations, should be amended as follows:
"2(d)(i)A cash contribution to the City of $500,000.00, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to be divided equally, for
the purposes of streetscape improvements to the Cestoid/Tudor Business Area and Wilson Avenue.
Background:
At a November 12, 1998 public meeting, Council deferred consideration of an application to permit "Destination:
Technodome", a 236,300m2 (2.5 million sq. ft.) indoor, sport and entertainment facility at the south-west corner of
Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road, directly west of the Downsview Subway and Transit Station. Two planning
reports were before Council. The October 28, 1998 report tabled community comments received at the October 27, 1998
community consultation meeting. The October 22, 1998 report set out recommendations respecting the planning controls,
including zoning provisions, Section 37 agreements to secure facilities, services and matters required for the development
to proceed (Appendix "A") and urban design objectives and requirements to be addressed at the time of site plan approval
(Appendix "B").
At the public meeting, Council adopted several motions respecting the development of the site and directed both
Community Planning and Transportation Services staff to provide supplementary reports on these motions at the
continuation of the public meeting on December 9, 1998.
Since that time, the Downsview Community Advisory Panel (CAP) has further reviewed the planning reports and are
recommending that Council delay final approval of the Destination: Technodome zoning application until the matters
identified by CAP have been addressed. This report highlights the outstanding matters identified by CAP and how these
matters have been addressed.
Council Motions of November 12/98:
1.0Council requested staff of Planning and Transportation Services to report further on its motions noted below.
1.1The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department has been asked to report on the following
Council motions:
a)a study by an independent transportation consultant to determine the impact of the parking supply requirements, on the
proposed zoning by-law provisions, if the transit modal split is increased;
b)a condition of the Section 37 Agreement which would delay the use of the 10,000 seat arena pending a study of the
parking requirements of Destination: Technodome by an independent transportation consultant;
c)the location and adequacy of drop-off/pick-up facilities for cars and buses;
d)the location and adequacy of taxi stands; and
e)the feasibility of widening the ramp from southbound Allen Road to westbound Highway 401;
The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department will report directly to Council at the December
9,1998 public meeting on the above matters and any necessary changes to the recommendations of the October 22, 1998
staff report as a result of their review of these matters. Following Council's consideration of the Planning and
Transportation Services reports, staff will provide consolidated recommendations, Section 37 and site plan matters
(Revised Appendices "1", "A" and "B") at the December 16, 1998 City Council meeting which will incorporate all
recommendations by the Planning and Transportation Services staff.
1.2Council motions adopted on November 12, 1998 addressed within this report are:
a)Conformity of the parking requirements set out in the October 22, 1998 report, i.e., Recommendations 1(f) and 1(g), with
the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464) and the Downsview Transportation Master Plan (TMP).
OPA 464 sets out guiding principles and objectives for transportation and parking to be achieved as development proceeds
within the Downsview Secondary Plan area. An important objective of the Secondary Plan is to reduce reliance on the
automobile and to increase the transit modal split through the maximization of transportation infrastructure and facilities,
the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and co-ordinated management of parking. The
recommendations of the staff report respecting the provision of new roads, road improvements and parking requirements
are consistent with the policies of the Secondary Plan.
The recommended zoning provisions provide for up to 7,000 parking spaces. Parking for 5,000 cars and 75 buses is to be
provided on-site to serve the activities of the Destination: Technodome. The report recommends that the 10,000 seat arena
only be permitted, if additional parking, for up to 2,000 spaces, is provided. This parking may be provided, on a temporary
basis, at an off-site location until such time as the operation of the Destination: Technodome and specifically the 10,000
seat arena, can be monitored over a period of one year, to determine whether permanent, on-site parking is necessary and
the exact amount of additional parking that would be needed. This temporary parking measure also allows time for the
applicant to continue negotiations with the T.T.C. to develop a transit incentive program that would result in an improved
transit modal split and which may negate the need for substantial parking on the site. If it is determined there is a need for
additional permanent parking spaces above the 5,000 vehicle spaces proposed on-site, the applicant will be required to
construct an on-site parking structure.
The TMP sets out a number of objectives respecting parking for developments within the Downsview Secondary Plan area
including the sharing of parking facilities, options to achieve a high level of non-auto usage and the minimization of
parking areas. In July, 1998 Council amended the objectives of the TMP to clarify that parking facilities should be
designed to preclude reliance upon off-site parking.
The intent of the parking objectives set out in the TMP is to enable Council to consider a number of options when
reviewing individual development proposals. Council's amendment clarifies that parking for the Destination: Technodome
be provided on-site but other viable options identified in the TMP, such as shared parking facilities would not be
precluded. The recommendations of the October 22, 1998 staff report requiring on-site parking and permitting temporary,
off-site parking are consistent with the objectives of the TMP. Upon completion of the monitoring program and the
determination of the number of parking spaces that may be reduced through the implementation of a transit incentive
program, parking required on a permanent basis will be located on-site. Therefore, the recommended zoning provisions
that would permit temporary parking prior to the final determination of on-site parking needs, are appropriate mechanisms
to ensure that the City's objectives to pursue and maintain an appropriate transit modal split are met and reliance on the
automobile is reduced.
b)Negotiations regarding community benefits.
Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League/International Sports Centre Inc.(MTHL/ISC), a not-for-profit corporation, in July,
1997, submitted an application to the former City of North York to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a
55,480m2 (597,200sq.ft.) multi-function arena facility containing four hockey arenas, two with 600 seats, one with 1,200
seats and one arena with 12,500 seats. The facility was proposed to be located on lands of the former Downsview Base, on
the south-east corner of Sheppard Avenue and Chesswood Drive.
In February, 1997 the Destination: Technodome proposal was amended to incorporate MTHL, now known as the Greater
Toronto Hockey League (GTHL). MTHL/ISC requested that their application be placed "on-hold" in consideration of the
incorporation of MTHL into Destination: Technodome. The current Destination: Technodome proposal includes a 10,000
seat, multi-function hockey arena and three smaller hockey arenas, one 2,500 seat and two 600 seat facilities which would
provide a venue for the MTHL.
In the course of the City's review of the original MTHL/ISC proposal, the former North York Parks and Recreation
Department, in August, 1997, advised that this application would be subject to a parkland dedication. Following
discussions with the former North York Parks and Recreation Department, MTHL/ISC, in April, 1997, offered to provide
ice use to the community during the daytime hours. As there was a surplus of daytime ice available at the time, MTHL/ISC
was requested to re-consider their proposal. A new proposal was not pursued by the applicant and consequently, there is no
agreement or proposal before the City for community use of the facility.
The Toronto Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks and Recreation) Department has advised that the
Destination: Technodome application is subject to a 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. The City has not
received a request from the applicant or landowner to satisfy this requirement through an alternative means, such as City
access to the ice facilities. However, by letter dated November 24, 1998 (see Appendix "2"), MTHL/ISC has advised the
applicant, Heathmount A.E. Corp. that it is prepared to provide community use of the ice facilities under the same terms as
offered in April, 1997 to the former North York Parks and Recreational Department.
c)Appropriate setbacks.
Council requested staff to review the setback requirements for Destination: Technodome as they relate to other properties
along W.R. Allen Road. Council also requested staff to address the need for appropriate setbacks with respect to:
i)Site-lines
The Urban Design and Landscape Submission for Destination: Technodome prepared by EDA Collaborative on behalf of
the applicant and the drawings submitted as part of the re-zoning application, propose landscape treatment and setbacks
along W.R. Allen Road. The landscape treatment and proposed setbacks meet the requirements of the Downsview Urban
Design Guidelines adopted by Council and form part of the recommended zoning provisions set out in the October 22,
1998 staff report.
The Destination: Technodome building would be set back 15 metres, at-grade, from the property line at W.R. Allen Road.
This at-grade setback is greater than the minimum setback of 10 metres required by Zoning By-law No. 7625 for the Idomo
property, west of W.R. Allen Road, north of Sheppard Avenue and more generous than the 7.5 metre setback required for
the industrial properties located north of the Idomo site, on the west side of W.R. Allen Road.
Above-grade, at a height of 14 metres (approximately 3 storeys), the building would project, in a curvilinear form, towards
W.R. Allen Road, such that its roof line would be set back 3 metres from the property line. At this height, the roofline
would project beyond the face of any other building permitted by the zoning by-law for properties north of Sheppard
Avenue. However, staff is of the opinion that the unique shape of the roof provides a positive and dramatic terminus to the
sky-line views as the W.R. Allen Road curves east and Sheppard Avenue curves south. The provisions of the zoning
by-law (see Appendix "1") would, therefore, permit the building to project up to 12 metres into the yard setback above a
minimum height of 14 metres.
The Downsview Subway Station is set back approximately 24 metres from the property line to the edge of the building.
Recognizing that the lands immediately adjacent to the Downsview Subway Station may be, in the future, be developed at
higher densities, it is a reasonable objective that such development would be "urban" in character and form. Consistent
with this intent, buildings would be located closer to the street so that an attractive streetscape could be developed.
ii)Provision of Landscaping
The proposed 15 metre, at-grade setback, together with a 6 metre boulevard area that is required within the W.R. Allen
right-of-way, would result in an at-grade setback of approximately 21 metres, providing ample opportunity for pedestrian
movement, substantial landscape treatment and generous sidewalks. Where heavy pedestrian activity is anticipated adjacent
to the building itself, these areas may be partially or entirely hard surfaced. Given the ample dimension between curb and
building face, a detailed landscape plan which optimizes pedestrian comfort and provides a strong, continuous, visually
appealing landscape for the W.R. Allan roadway, can be developed at the site plan review stage.
iii)Public Art
Within the setback areas along W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue and within the proposed activity plaza, there is
sufficient space to provide opportunities for public art as well as opportunities to incorporate the public art component as
part of the building and the pedestrian bridge.
iv)Other Matters Related to the Siting Including Entrances
Major entrances/exits to Destination: Technodome will be located adjacent to the north and south parking lots, at the
westerly end of the building. The south entrance provides major access to the larger of the two parking areas. The north
entrance provides access to the adjacent bus, car and taxi drop-off/pick-up areas and serves as an access point for the north
parking lot. An entrance, located at the Sheppard/Allen intersection provides access for visitors arriving by transit buses
along Sheppard Avenue and pedestrians from future development to the north and the City-owned lands east of W.R. Allen
Road. It will also serve as the primary entrance for visitors using the pedestrian bridge and subway. The detailed design for
the grade separated pedestrian link across W.R. Allen Road, in terms of its connection into the building, its relationship to
the entrance and the way in which it arrives at the south-west corner of the intersection will be examined at the site plan
review stage.
d)The feasibility of consolidating arena/stadium activities into one or two facilities.
Destination: Technodome proposes three sport pads (arenas) and one spectator facility (arena). Heathmount A.E. Corp., has
advised that the three smaller arenas will provide a venue for the MTHL. The spectator facility will also be used, on
occasion for MTHL functions such as tournaments, but will also be used for other sporting events such as exhibition
matches for world-ranked tennis professionals and staged events such as theatrical shows or concerts.
With respect to Council's request to examine the feasibility of consolidating the arenas into one or two facilities, the
Toronto Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks and Recreation) Department has provided comments
respecting the demand and supply for ice facilities within the City. Specifically, the Department's opinion is that four ice
sheets is generally, more efficient to operate than one. This is in keeping with current trends in the recreational facility field
such that arenas of less than four ice sheets, are not financially optimal. While an examination of the applicant's feasibility
study for the arenas would be necessary, the Department's opinion is that a single ice sheet facility, generally is not
profitable. Further, the Parks and Recreation Department comments that, despite the recent construction of a number of ice
facilities in the Greater Toronto Area, prime time ice is unavailable at a reasonable cost. There is more than sufficient
demand to rent all of the new facility's prime time ice to adult and minor hockey, however, the greater question is whether
there is demand for non-prime time ice. It is the latter that determines the feasibility of a facility. Since the MTHL operates
its own league, it would be able to rent its available ice time.
With respect to the demand for ice time, MTHL, by letter dated November 23, 1998 to the applicant (see Appendix "3"),
advises that in the 1996/97 minor hockey season, the MTHL Division scheduled in excess of 22,000 games, the North
York, Scarborough and Mississauga Hockey Leagues each scheduled approximately 6,400 games. This demand for
scheduled ice time is for game time only and does not include the demand for practice time which is the responsibility of
each team or association. Further, MTHL advises that the number of teams and players continues to increase yearly. MTHL
also advises that it is currently utilizing 54 arenas in the GTA, many of which operate on an ammonia system. Those arenas
which use ammonia must be converted or closed by the year 2000. Therefore, the supply of ice facilities may be reduced as
arenas may be closed rather than be retrofitted.
If the three smaller arenas were eliminated, the 10,000 seat arena could be used for concerts and trade shows. This would
generate the greatest revenue and would be more feasible than the three smaller arenas.
e)Appendix "A" of the October 22, 1998 report be amended to require the applicant to pay for the installation of a SCOOT
traffic adaptive system.
The wording suggested by Council in its motions of November 12, 1998 has been incorporated into the revised Appendix
"A"- Section 37 Agreement(s), attached to this report.
f)Recommendation 2(d)(ii) be amended by the addition of:
"and a cash contribution of $25,000.00 towards the establishment of a studio within the Downsview Collegiate Project."
This wording has been incorporated into the revised recommendations set out in Appendix "1"- Revised Recommendations
of this report.
2.0In addition to the motions adopted by Council, Planning staff were asked to comment on the following:
2.1The impact of the proposed Destination: Technodome on the City's water distribution, specific to water pressure
complaints received from residents in the surrounding neighbourhoods.
The Works and Emergency Services (Works) Department has provided comments on the existing water pressure
complaints (See Appendix "4"). The Works Division advises that there is sufficient water pressure within the City's
watermain system to accommodate the Destination: Technodome, without a negative impact upon the water pressure
within adjacent residential areas. While the City has received low water pressure complaints within adjacent residential
neighbourhoods, the Works Department has advised that these complaints are not related to the capacity of the City's
watermain network. Rather, the problem rests with the service connections that supply existing dwellings.
To investigate water pressure complaints, the City has undertaken extensive flow testing and where necessary, remedial
works have been constructed in order to maintain the necessary fire flow capacity. Similar to the general watermain
network, the capacity of the service connections between the watermain and the dwelling has decayed over time due to
internal mineral deposit buildup. Thus, while there is excess capacity in the watermain network under regular flow
conditions, there may be inadequate flow capacity within many of the pipes connecting the watermain to the dwelling.
The City has conducted flow tests within each of the complainant residences. Where flow capacity within the home is
inadequate, the City has attempted to improve capacity by flushing the service connection. In locations where flushing fails
to improve flow capacity to acceptable levels, the City will arrange to replace the portion of the service connection on the
road allowance as per Council's policy. This usually results in a significant improvement in the measured flow capacity
within the home. However, the maximum improvement will be achieved if the homeowner also arranges the replacement
of the portion of the service connection on private property.
The Downsview lands are located on a high point of land and improvements to the watermain system will be required to
ensure adequate service to these lands. The City is currently reviewing servicing options with the Canada Lands Company
Limited that will ensure adequate water service to these lands.
2.2The potential re-use of the Destination: Technodome site in the event the applicant does not proceed with the proposal
or the facility is forced to close.
Should Council enact a zoning by-law recommended by the October 22, 1998 staff report, a new zone category,
"Downsview Sport and Entertainment (DSE) Zone" will apply to the lands. This zone would permit sport, recreational and
entertainment uses including commercial recreational use, broadcasting and movie-production facilities, cinemas and
attractions. Retail uses, up to 27,870m2 (300,000 sq.ft) would be permitted but not as a stand alone use, but would be part
of a complex that contains primary sport, recreational and entertainment uses.
Destination: Technodome is to be built for a very specific purpose and its design does not lend itself for a variety of re-use
options. Should the present Destination: Technodome owners decide to cease operations of the facility, it is not
unreasonable that other parties would seek to operate the facility with similar venues.
2.3The ability of adjacent Highway 401 ramps to accommodate traffic generated from Destination: Technodome.
The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department will comment on this matter as part of its report
to Council at the December 9, 1998 public meeting.
3.0November 24, 1998 Submission by the Community Advisory Panel
Over the past four weeks, staff have met with the Community Advisory Panel to discuss the recommendations of the
October 22, 1998 report. In their comments dated November 24, 1998, (Appendix "5"), CAP recommends that Council
delay final approval of the zoning application until the matters noted below have been adequately addressed. Several of
these matters are contained in the November 12, 1998 motions adopted by Council and have been addressed in this report
or will be addressed by Transportation Services in their report to Council. Specifically, the matters addressed in Section 1.0
of this report include:
- Emergency Services (Item "D" - Appendix "5" (CAP Comments)
- Urban Design (Appropriate Setbacks) (Item "G" - Appendix "5")
Matters to be addressed by Transportation Services include:
- Parking (Item "A" - Appendix "5")
- Traffic Infiltration and Congestion (Item "B" - Appendix "5")
The remaining matters identified by CAP include:
3.1Item "C"Environmental Assessment
CAP requests that, prior to the enactment of a zoning by-law, a full environmental assessment under the Ontario
Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Act, be conducted for Destination: Technodome.
The Ontario E.A. Act applies to public undertakings, for example, the construction of roads and road improvements. It
does not extend to private projects such as the proposed Destination: Technodome.
The roads and road improvements necessary for the Destination: Technodome to proceed, and all roads projects identified
by the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) for the entire Downsview Secondary Plan area are subject to the E.A. Act and
must satisfy the requirements of a Class E.A. The City, acting as the proponent, has initiated the relevant Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment that will address, where necessary, the potential social economic and environmental effects of
these road projects and where necessary, the appropriate mitigation measures. Enactment of a zoning by-law would not
occur until completion and approval of the Class E.A.
With the closing and decommissioning of the former Downsview Base, the Federal Government intends to transfer or lease
lands to individual developers or, in the case of the new roads, convey lands to the City. Under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), all Federal lands intended to be conveyed or leased from the Federal Government
must be meet the requirements of CEAA. No transfer or lease to the applicant can occur until these requirements have been
met.
Canada Lands Company has advised that redevelopment of the Downsview Base does not warrant a comprehensive
assessment as described by CEAA but rather a screening is required to review the potential impacts on environmental,
social and economic factors. Canada Lands Company has retained Senes Consultants Ltd. to prepare the screening reports
as development proceeds on the lands.
3.2Item "E"Permitted Uses
CAP requests that uses be defined in the zoning by-law for Destination: Technodome and that the uses and space
utilization in the gated and ungated areas be defined to better understand traffic and parking demands.
The recommendations of the October 22, 1998 report set out the uses that could be permitted on the lands. The proposed
Destination: Technodome uses are either currently defined in Zoning By-law No. 7625 or will be defined as part of the site
specific zoning by-law for Destination: Technodome that will be brought forward for enactment by Council. As
recommended in the October 22, 1998 report, the gross floor area devoted to retail and restaurant use, to which the public
would have free access, i.e. no admission ticket is required, is restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 27,870m2
(300,000 sq. ft). Food and beverage uses within the gated sport and entertainment areas are accessory to the primary, sport
and entertainment uses. These uses are not freely accessible by the public and are not not unlike a food/beverage kiosk of a
cinema, where a ticket to the cinema must be purchased prior to a purchase at the kiosk.
The proposed uses (both gated and ungated) have been assessed by Transportation Services in its analysis of the demand
for, and supply of, parking and the impact of traffic generated from the Destination: Technodome on the existing and
proposed road network.
CAP requests that there be a ban on pyrotechnic displays from the exterior of the Destination: Technodome. Pyrotechnics
(fireworks) is not a land use matter that is regulated by the Planning Act. It is the responsibility of the Toronto Fire
Services to issue a permit and to determine the suitability of a site for a fireworks display.
3.3Item "F"Municipal Infrastructure
The Works and Emergency Services (Works) Department has provided comments on the proposed Destination:
Technodome. The Department advises that municipal services including sanitary sewer and water can be provided.
Improvements to existing facilities and storm water management facilities are to be at the expense of the
landowner/applicant. Provision for new infrastructure and improvements to existing infrastructure will be secured under
Section 37 Agreements (See Appendix "A") and where appropriate, at the time of Site Plan review (See Appendix "B"). In
conjunction with the proposed redevelopment of the Downsview Secondary Plan area, the Works Department is reviewing
studies related to storm water management, sanitary sewer flow monitoring, water network analysis and sanitary trunk
monitoring. All studies will be completed prior to the enactment of a zoning by-law for Destination: Technodome.
3.4Item "H"Business Associations
CAP requests that the recommendations of the October 22, 1998 report respecting the provision of a cash contribution by
the applicant for improvements to the Wilson Avenue streetscape [(recommendation 2(d)(i)], be deleted and replaced with
the following:
"2(d)(i)a cash contribution to the City of $500,000.00, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to be divided equally, for
the purposes of streetscape improvements to the Cestoid/Tudor Business Area and Wilson Avenue.
The October 22, 1998 report provides for Council, should it deem appropriate, to require the applicant to contribute
$150,000.00 for the purposes of streetscape improvements to Wilson Avenue. Should Council agree to CAP's request to
delete this requirement and to replace it with that requested by CAP, the recommendations set out in Appendix "1" -
Revised Recommendations, should be amended and provision for this contribution should be secured through a Section 37
Agreement.
3.5Item "I"Heritage
The existing warehouse buildings (known as Buildings 55 and 58) on the Destination: Technodome site were listed as
"recognized" by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office (FHBRO) in 1990. FHBRO is a non-regulatory body. The
Department of National Defence, as the landowner, decides whether the buildings are demolished and has informed
FHBRO of its intent to dispose of the buildings. FHBRO may ask for the buildings to be photographed or a plaque
provided on site to commemorate the buildings. Canada Lands Company's "Heritage Conservation Study (April, 1998)"
concludes the buildings are not significant to warrant preservation.
Contact Name:
Russell Crooks
Telephone: (416)-395-7108
---------------
The North York Community Council submits the following supplementary information report (November 26, 1998)
from the Director of Transportation Services, District No. 3:
1.0Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide additional information and address the transportation related issues as requested by
North York Community Council at its meeting of November 12, 1998.
2.0 Funding
N/A
3.0Recommendations
The following conditions are recommended to be included in the approval of Destination: Technodome as a result of the
subsequent review. These conditions are supplementary to the recommendations as contained in my memorandum to the
Director of Community Planing, North District dated October 20, 1998. Where appropriate, the previous recommendations
as related to the parking supply are to be amended.
3.1Site Specific Zoning By-law
That the site specific zoning by-law be amended to include:
a)the provision of parking be based on the options detailed in the parking strategy described in this report, namely:
- the provision of 7,000 spaces on site; or
- the provision of 6,200 spaces on site, if appropriate arrangements can be secured to provide remote employee parking; or
-the provision of 6,000 spaces on site, if appropriate arrangements can be secured to provide remote employee parking and
to increase the visitor non-auto modal split by at least 5 percent;
b)700 metres of curb space to be provided to accommodate the drop-off and pick-up facilities for 100 vehicles;
c)180 metres of curb space to be provided to accommodate drop-off and pick-up for 15 buses; and
d)140 metres of curb space to be provided to accommodate 20 taxi stand spaces.
3.2Emergency Services
That the comments as contained within the responses from the Emergency Service as attached to this report as Appendices
'A', 'B', and 'C' be incorporated into the conditions of approval.
3.3 Dillon Consulting Limited
That the conclusions of Dillon Consulting Ltd. in Appendix 'D', be received as the foregoing recommendations have taken
into account the findings of the consultant's study.
3.4Idomo Furniture
That the report of Tedesco Engineering prepared on behalf of Idomo Furniture dated November 1998, be received for
information, as concerns raised in this report have been considered in the proposed parking strategy.
4.0Background:
4.1Community Council Motions
On November 12, 1998, Community Council, in its consideration of the application by Heathmount A. E. Corporation to
amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to construct a multi-use entertainment and sports complex known as
Destination: Technodome recommended a continuation of the Public Meeting on December 9, 1998. As part of the
recommendation, there were a number of motions requiring supplementary information to be brought forward. The North
York Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:
(1)report on drop-off and pick-up facilities for both cars and buses, as to capacity requirements and locations;
(2)determine the number of taxi stand spaces required to service Destination: Technodome, and the appropriate location(s);
(3)review and report on the feasibility of widening the ramp from southbound Allen Road to Highway 401; and
(4)report on the provision of emergency services to the facility and community surrounding Destination: Technodome.
The North York Community Council also requested that a study be undertaken by the City's independent transportation
consultant to determine the following:
(a)the impact on the parking supply requirements if the transit modal split for Destination:Technodome is increased;
(b)the impact of providing free transit passes to all Destination:Technodome employees; and
(c)the ability to provide all necessary parking on site.
Dillon Consulting Ltd., the consultant retained by the City to undertake work earlier on with respect to
Destination:Technodome, undertook the additional evaluation requested.
Further, Community Council requested comments on the submission by Idomo Furniture. The traffic related issues were
presented in a report prepared by Tedesco Engineering dated November 12, 1998.
5.0Discussion
5.1Parking
The necessary parking supply on site, has become one of the principal issues raised through public consultation. It is an
important and sensitive component of the development proposal which has been the focus of much of the direction to the
City's transportation consultant.
5.1.1Proposed Parking Strategy
Some concerns expressed with regards to parking were related to the amount of parking provided on site, and that such
parking might not be sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demand. Two principal factors in the determination of
parking supply are the length of stay or duration of visitors to the facility and the accumulation of parking throughout the
day.
The calculations conducted to determine the parking supply as indicated in previous reports, were based on assumptions of
4 to 5 hours visitor lengths of stay, and an accumulation of 39 percent being the daily peak hour factor of visitation to the
facility.
Tedesco Engineering suggests that a parking accumulation of at least 50 percent should be utilized to reflect similar venues
at other entertainment parks. An analysis of parking activities at large theme parks such as Disneyland indicates that
accumulations of parking can reach between 50 percent and 55 percent. However it is important to note that this demand is
associated with visitor stays of between 8 and 10 hours, which are unlikely to occur at Destination:Technodome, given the
compact nature of this facility when compared to large land-consuming theme parks such as Disneyland.
In reviewing the data presented, a parking accumulation of 45 percent was deemed to be reasonable for
Destination:Technodome. The difference between a 40 percent and a 45 percent parking accumulation, would equate to
about 500 spaces.
The original parking supply recommended by the applicant's consultant was 6,500 parking spaces to accommodate the
demands associated with Destination:Technodome, including employee parking and parking related to any special events
in the 10,000 seat arena. The City's consultant had recommended a total of 6,850 spaces while the staff report requires the
provision of 7,000 parking spaces.
The difference between the applicant's parking proposal and that recommended by staff accounts for variations which
could occur in some of the base assumptions, such as parking accumulation. It is staff's opinion that the parking
recommended continues to have the flexibility necessary to satisfy the concerns that overflow parking does not occur on
adjacent land uses.
5.1.2.Employee Parking
The provision of employee parking, creates a significant demand for land immediately adjacent to the facility.
One of the objectives in the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, states that the appropriate levels of parking must
be supplied to preclude spillover opportunities and that parking should be controlled or managed to support a high level of
non-auto use. Further, the Plan suggests that parking for facilities should be shared, to minimize the provision of excess
parking. In view of these criteria, it is suggested that employee parking not be provided adjacent to the facility to reduce the
demand for prime parking areas. Further, it is suggested that consideration be given to the provision of remote employee
parking. This is a common method of operation in many facilities, such as shopping centres, arenas, theme parks, casinos,
etc.
The estimated demand for employee parking is 830 spaces. The City's consultant has concluded that the provision of
employee-oriented transit incentives could result in a decrease of 280 spaces, or a total demand of 550 spaces for
employees.
In view of the above, it is suggested that the relocation of parking for employees can be considered in one of two options as
follows:
(i)The provision of a remote employee parking facility, which would accommodate 830 parking spaces if no employee
transit-oriented initiatives are offered, or 550 spaces if they are. This parking area would be connected to the main facility
with a specially dedicated van/bus service.
(ii)The provision of remote employee parking during those periods of high Destination: Technodome demand such as
weekends. For example an arrangement could be made with the T.T.C., to make use of an appropriate section of their
facilities (such as the Wilson Station commuter parking lots) for employee parking when the demand for these public
parking facilities is the lowest. Employees would not be allowed to park on site but could easily reach the facility either by
subway or a van/bus link as described above.
In either case, the employee parking operation would be similar to those of many existing venues and therefore all
employee parking should be removed from the on site parking supply during the highest peak periods particularly for
special events.
5.1.3Visitor Parking
As in the case of employee parking, it is important to note the potential benefits in the overall transportation system for
Destination:Technodome, that can be derived from the proximity of the Downsview Station on the Spadina Subway line.
The City's consultant has advised that a potential 50 parking spaces can be reduced for each 1 percent increase in non-auto
modal split that can be achieved.
As a significant proportion of parking demand is related to events in the 10,000 seat multi-functional arena, it is important
to capture the potential of transit use related to these events in an attempt to reduce the on-site parking supply.
Given that the current plans only allow for 5,000 spaces, then any additional parking would have to be provided on site in a
structure. Therefore, it is suggested that visitor parking be provided in one of the options described below. Options i) and
ii), assume that employee parking is provided off site.
i) Provide 6,000 spaces for visitors on site in a structure that is adjacent to the venue in the proposed south parking lot. The
applicant would have to enter into an agreement with the TTC to develop appropriate mechanisms to support special events
at the 10,000 seat arena, such as:
- TTC pricing programs
- Destination-Technodome admission pricing programs
- Parking pricing programs
- Transit advertising programs, etc.
These programs would collectively achieve an increase in non-auto modal split of not less than 5 percent and would be
made available and promoted in conjunction with the special events at the multi-function arena.
ii)Should an agreement not be reached with the T.T.C., then the applicant would have to provide all 6,200 visitor parking
spaces on site, which would require a parking structure in the south parking lot that is adjacent to the venue.
iii)Should no satisfactory arrangement be concluded with regards to the provision of adequate off-site employee parking,
then a total on site parking supply of 7,000 spaces would have to be provided.
5.1.4Multi-Functional Arena
The deferral of the opening of the 10,000 seat multi-functional arena for a period of four months after the opening of
Destination:Technodome would allow the initial parking demand for the principal functions of the complex to stabilize,
and that through the monitoring process, the total parking demand for the facility can be determined.
5.2Drop-off and Pick-up
5.2.1Private Automobiles
Destination: Technodome will require ample facilities to accommodate the drop-off and pick-up of passengers to the site.
The facility should accommodate a minimum of 100 vehicles or 700 metres of curb space. Each drop-off procedure will
likely take on average 1 to 2 minutes, while the pick-up process may take longer as drivers wait for their passengers.
Experience at airports has shown that vehicles picking up passengers, have an average dwell time of about 5 minutes.
Assuming this conservative dwell time for all activities in the pick-up/drop-off facility, then the theoretical capacity for
drop-off would be 1,200 vehicles an hour if required. The design and location of the facilities can be refined at the site plan
approval stage, but should be readily accessible to the main entrances. The drop-off and pick-up facility should be
distinctly separated from other on-site traffic and be designed to enable a vehicle to proceed on its way once the drop-off or
pick-up procedure has been completed. The operation of these facilities should be supervised by Destination:Technodome
staff to ensure that illegal parking does not occur on these facilities. Shelters should also be provided for visitors waiting to
be picked-up.
5.2.2Buses
The drop-off and pick-up area for buses should accommodate at least 15 buses in180 metres of curb space. Similar to the
automobile operations, the drop-off at the bus facility is more efficient in terms of disembarking than in boarding. It is
recommended that in order to maintain an efficient operation of the facility, then the pick-up area should be managed by
Destination: Technodome staff such that buses should only leave from the bus marshalling area when their passengers are
ready for boarding. This will minimize the length of time buses are required to wait for passengers. Bus companies have
been contacted to determine typical dwell times for loading and unloading of buses. School buses, are typically loaded on
an average of 5 minutes. Typical dwell time for buses at airports are in the order of 10 minutes. In allowing on average 10
minutes for each operation, the proposed bus loading area could accommodate 90 buses an hour. The design should enable
buses to leave the area when ready and bus traffic should be separated from other on-site traffic. The exact location and
design will be determined at the site plan approval stage.
The number of auto pick-ups will likely increase at the end of the operating day. At that time, the bus pick-up area could
also be used for automobile pick-up operations. This would increase the facilities to accommodate approximately 125
vehicles.
5.3Taxi Stands
It is suggested that taxis be allowed to only drop off passengers in the drop off/pick up area defined above. The taxi stand
area should accommodate 20 vehicles or 140 metres of curb space. The design of the facility should provide for stacking to
enable the pick-up of passengers and departure in succession. A protective platform should also be provided to shelter
patrons waiting for taxi service.
5.4Ramp Improvements - W.R. Allen Road to Hwy 401
The ramp operations along Highway 401 at the interchanges with Keele Street, Dufferin Street, the W.R. Allen Road and
Bathurst Street were evaluated through the transportation assessment of the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan.
The traffic generated from the proposed development was included.
The provision of an additional southbound ramp lane to accommodate the future traffic volumes along with improvements
such as a widening at this location are feasible and have been explored at preliminary design level with the Ministry of
Transportation. These improvements have been included in the recommendation with my October 20, 1998 memorandum.
5.5Emergency Services
The comments as related to the Emergency Services are attached as Appendix 'A', 'B' and 'C ' to this report.
Recommendation 3.2 of this report addresses their requirements.
5.6Dillon Consulting Ltd.
Comments from Dillon Consulting Ltd. are attached as Appendix 'D' and have been taken into consideration in the
recommendations of this report.
5.7Idomo Furniture - Tedesco Engineering
Idomo Furniture retained the services of Tedesco Engineering to undertake a study to address the transportation impacts
affecting the Idomo Furniture lands on the north west corner of the W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue intersection.
This report has been submitted as Report No. 1 dated November 1998.
5.7.1.Parking
The principal concern expressed in the Tedesco Engineering report is that the parking supply based on the accumulation
may be deficient. The concerns have been taken into account in the sensitivity analysis used as the basis for establishing the
parking strategy outlined in this report.
5.7.2 Traffic Impact
Through the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan all lands within the study area, including those known as the
former Metro Lands, were analyzed with respect to traffic impact to determine the overall infrastructure requirements.
Subsequent discussions with Tedesco Engineering were beneficial in that the methodology used by the City in its
evaluation was explained.
Concern was also expressed by Tedesco Engineering that traffic which is destined to and approaching Idomo Furniture
from the south via the Allen Road, in particular the north bound left turn at the intersection of the W.R. Allen Road and
Sheppard Avenue would be affected. This movement is particularly important as it leads to the principal access to the
Idomo site, from Sheppard Avenue. Tedesco Engineering has suggested a secondary access on the W.R. Allen Road north
of Sheppard Avenue and that such access be signalized. Staff concur with this issue and are presently discussing the details
of this request with Tedesco Engineering.
The consultant was further informed that as development proposals are submitted to the City, site specific traffic impact
studies will be required to determine the specific traffic improvements required in the context of the Transportation Master
Plan.
5.7.3 Pedestrian Link.
The applicant has proposed a bridge connection from Downsview Station as a viable pedestrian link between Destination:
Technodome and the Spadina Subway. The City has agreed with this connection as a requirement to achieve the assumed
non-auto modal splits. Tedesco Engineering has identified a preference for an underground connection. The rationale has
not been provided to warrant a tunnel connection as opposed to a bridge connection with the Downsview Station.
It has also been noted that as part of the Tedesco Engineering report, Idomo Furniture would like a future connection from
its site to the Downsview Station.
5.8Community Advisory Panel of Downsview (Cap)
A written submission has been forwarded by CAP dated November 24, 1998 outlining several transportation concerns
similar in nature to concerns raised in the Tedesco Engineering report. Inasmuch as this report has taken into consideration
those concerns raised, modifications have been applied particularly with respect to the parking supply. The other issues
have been considered in the preparation of this report.
5.9 Toronto Transit Commission
In a letter from Mr. Mitch Stambler, Manager - Service Planning, dated November 25, 1998, the Toronto Transit
Commission has identified a number of concerns. In general the T.T.C. comments relate to the protection of the movement
of transit vehicles on roads, the protection of T.T.C. property, etc., and are usually included in standard conditions of
approval. The T.T.C. comments will be included in their preparation. In addition there are other matters in the letter
forwarded by the T.T.C., that will be specifically addressed by staff.
The T.T.C. request to have the opportunity to comment in the design of roadways as the Downsview Lands progress,
specifically the extension of Transit road and access to Yukon Crescent.
The protection of adequate access to the Wilson Complex and the Wilson Station Passenger Pick-up and Drop-off facility.
T.T.C.'s comments are attached in Appendix 'E'.
6.0Conclusion
The parking supply has become the most important issue and was premised upon an annual visitation estimated at 11
million persons. Incorporated into the visitation are special events to be held within the 10,000 seat multi-function arena
and the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League facilities.
The parking supply has taken into consideration mixed use parking, peak accumulation based upon duration per visitation
and the impact of introducing a parking strategy which in part requires an initiative for increased transit modal split.
he consultant for the City has assessed that for every 1 percent increase in visitor non-auto modal split, 50 less spaces are
required, that by providing transit passes to employees one can reduce the parking requirement by 280 spaces, and that with
the construction of a structure, all parking can be provided on-site.
The City's parking strategy allows for options to be introduced into the employee parking requirements, as well as options
which can reduce the visitor parking supply, by the introduction of T.T.C. initiatives to facilitate transit use during the
periods of highest demand, which occur during special events at the multi-function sports arena. A balance in trip making
between public transit and the private automobile is an important objective for this application. In this regard, the options
which encourage TTC ridership are feasible and should be promoted for those events that would result in the highest
demand for parking.
---------------
The North York Community Council submits the following Supplementary Report No. 1 (October 28, 1998) from
the Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is table, for Council's information, comments (Appendix "A") received from a second
community consultation meeting held October 27, 1998 on the Destination: Technodome proposal and to provide revised
comments received from the Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) Department (Appendix "B").
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this information be received as information.
Discussion:
1.0Community Consultation
The applicant's proposal was presented to the community at a community consultation meeting on October 7, 1998. A
second community meeting was held on Tuesday, October 27, 1998 to provide an additional opportunity for residents of
the Clanton Park and Bathurst Manor neighbourhoods to learn more about the Destination: Technodome proposal and
provide comments to the City.
At the October 27, 1998 meeting, the applicant presented his proposal, followed by a question and answer period. In
general, matters raised by the community focussed on:
Traffic and Parking Management
- measures should be taken to mitigate any traffic congestion on the City's adjacent roads;
- visitors to the Destination: Technodome must not park on local roads within neighbourhoods and commercial areas;
- the number of parking spaces must be sufficient to meet the needs of expected visitors to the Destination: Technodome;
and
- transit usage should be encouraged.
Copies of the written comments received at the October 27, 1998 community meeting are attached. (See Appendix "A").
The staff report dated October 22, 1998 sets out recommendations respecting the provision of new roads, transportation
improvements and measures to manage traffic and the parking necessary for the development of the Destination:
Technodome. The report sets out the matters to be secured through Section 37 Agreements such as the provision for a
transit incentive program. Further, the report identifies the objectives to be achieved through site plan approval.
2.0Public Health Comments
The staff report dated October 22, 1998, included comments from the Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public
Health) Department respecting the applicant's Noise and Air Quality studies. As indicated in the report, Public Health
advised (verbally) that the Noise and Air Quality studies satisfies its concerns. The report also incorporated Public Health's
request that the applicant provide a noise assessment report, at the time of site plan approval. Public Health has now
provided written comments which mirror its verbal comments. (See Appendix "B").
Contact Name:
Russell Crooks
Telephone: (416)-395-7108
---------------
The North York Community Council submits the following report (October 22, 1998) from the Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of a zoning amendment application to permit "Destination:
Technodome", a 236,300m2 (2.5 million sq. ft.) indoor, sport and entertainment facility. New zoning standards, as set out
in the recommendations of this report, will be applied to the site. Facilities, services and matters, identified in Appendices
"A" and "B", will be secured through Section 37 and 41 Agreements between the applicant/landowner and the City.
The recommendations of this report represent further refinement of an interim report which recommended zoning standards
for Destination: Technodome including permitted uses, gross floor area, height, parking and yards. The report, received as
information at the July 29, 1998 meeting of Council also identified matters to be addressed before the proposal is
considered by Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following:
(1)the zoning for the site be amended to establish a new zone category, "Downsview Sport and Entertainment Zone
(DSE)", with the following provisions:
(a)Definitions:
"Sport, Leisure and Entertainment Use" means a building or part thereof used primarily for commercial recreation
including spectator activities, sports, both participatory and passive (spectator) including computer assisted or enhanced
activities, entertainment activities and events, amusement rides and simulation rides or a combination of both as well as
adventure activities including but not limited to scuba-diving and rock climbing;
(b)Permitted Uses
the following uses shall be permitted:
Art Gallery, Artist Studio, Banquet Hall, Bandstand, Billiard Parlour, Bowling Alley, Commercial Gallery, Commercial
Recreation, Communications and Broadcasting, Community Centre, Custom Workshop, Day Nursery, Fitness Centre,
Museum, Outdoor Cafe, Park and Open Space, Personal Service Shop, Pinball and Video Games Arcade, Retail Store,
Restaurant, Service Shop, Showroom, Sport, Leisure and Entertainment Use, Take-out Restaurant, Theatre;
(c)Use Qualifications
(i)the majority of gross floor area devoted to retail stores shall be related to, or oriented towards, sport, leisure, recreational
and entertainment uses or shall be ancillary thereto. Retail stores shall not include an adult entertainment parlour,
supermarkets, department stores, department store outlets and clearance centres, automotive parts and service related
stores, home improvement outlets and household furnishing stores other than accessory or related to recreational and
entertainment oriented merchandising;
(ii)a maximum of four arenas may be provided;
(iii)no more than 2 arenas may have seating in excess of 600 seats each;
(iv)for any arena in excess of 600 seats the following shall apply:
(I)one arena may have a maximum of 2,500 seats; and
(II)any arena in excess of 600 seats, but not exceeding 2,500 seats, the parking requirement shall be deemed to be satisfied
with the 5,000 parking spaces as set out in (f) below;
(v)where an arena is proposed in excess of 2,500 seats, up to a maximum of 10,000 seats can be provided and up to a
maximum of 7,000 parking spaces, may be required as set out in (g) below;
(vi)an outdoor cafe is permitted whether or not it is in conjunction with, or adjoining, a restaurant, provided that the
outdoor cafe is located within an area adjacent to the building and not within an area used for required parking;
(vii)a custom workshop includes making articles or products to be sold on the premises; and
(viii)a restaurant does not include a nightclub;
(d)Gross Floor Area
the total gross floor area permitted on the lands shall not exceed 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.) of which not more than
27,870m2 (300,000 sq.ft) of the total gross floor area shall be used for retail and restaurant use;
(e)Building Height
the maximum height shall be as shown on Schedule "E2" and shall not exceed 238.8 metres above sea level (ASL);
(f)Parking
parking for 5,000 vehicles will be provided on site, of which:
(i)a minimum of 75 bus parking spaces shall be provided on site;
(ii)a maximum of 4,500 parking spaces for vehicles shall be provided as surface parking on site; and
(iii)a minimum of 500 parking spaces for vehicles may be provided below grade;
(g)Temporary Parking
in addition to the 5,000 on-site parking spaces, a maximum of 2,000 parking spaces, shall be provided as a temporary
measure at an off-site location. Prior to the opening of the facility, the applicant shall apply for, and receive approval of a
Temporary Use By-law if required, to permit the parking area which shall be located on lands in close proximity to the
Destination: Technodome and within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, excluding lands designated "Park and Open
Space (POS)" and "Residential Density One (RD-1)";
(h)Yard Setbacks
subject to technical changes which may occur at Site Plan Approval, the minimum yard setbacks shall be as shown on
Schedule "E3";
(i)Loading Spaces
a minimum of 10 parking spaces, 11 metres in length, 3.6 metres in width and a vertical clearance of 4.2 metres each, shall
be provided;
(j)Pedestrian Walkway
a minimum 20 metre wide, landscaped, pedestrian walkway, to be located generally as shown on Schedule "D2" and
extends from the pedestrian bridge and the Sheppard Avenue/W.R. Allen intersection to the Transit Road extension shall
be provided;
(k)Activity Plaza
a minimum of 1.5ha (3.7ac) shall be provided as an outdoor activity plaza located generally as shown on Schedule "D2"
and shall, without limiting its design, include active and passive recreational activities, formal plantings, lighting, seating
and public art;
(l)Landscaping
a landscaped strip consisting of a minimum 3 metre width along all lot lines abutting a public or private street shall be
provided;
(m)Other Regulations
outside display is limited to the temporary keeping of equipment, goods, materials, and products outside a building and
used by, associated with, or promoted by the primary use and may include the display of one or more new vehicles for
promotional purposes but does not include a motor vehicle dealership; and
(n)notwithstanding any severance, partition or division of the site, the provisions shall apply to the whole of the site as if no
severance, partition or division has occurred;
(2)staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any zoning by-law the following
conditions have been satisfied:
(a)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the recommended zoning provisions noted above, has
been perfected;
(b)the applicant/landowner submit to the Director, Community Planning, North District, a Reference Plan of Survey
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor which delineates the lands subject to this application and any rights-of ways and
easements appurtenant thereto;
(c)Section 37 Agreement(s)
the applicant/owner enter into an Agreement(s) with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990,
c.P.13, as amended, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Director, Community Planning,
North District, to secure the facilities, services and matters noted in Appendix "A" to this report;
(d)should Council deem appropriate, the applicant shall provide a cash contribution to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape and
Arts Park projects. The process to be followed and the timing of contributions, are to be reported on, prior to enactment of
the zoning by-law. Such contributions shall be secured through a Section 37 Agreement(s) and include:
i)a cash contribution to the City of $150,000.00 for the purposes of streetscape improvements to Wilson Avenue; and
ii)a cash contribution to the City of $25,000.00 towards the development of an Arts Park project within the Downsview
Park.
(3)Site Plan Approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Director, Community Planning, North District, shall have granted site plan
approval which satisfactorily addresses the technical requirements of City departments and commenting agencies and the
site plan objectives outlined in Appendix "B"; and
(4)prior to the opening of the facility, the applicant shall apply for, and receive approval of a Temporary Use By-law, if
required, to permit the temporary overflow parking area for a minimum of 1,500 parking spaces and a maximum of 2,000
parking spaces for vehicles on lands in close proximity to the Destination: Technodome and on lands within the
Downsview Area Secondary Plan, excluding lands designated "Park and Open Space (POS)" and "Residential Density One
(RD-1)";
Background:
1.0Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application:
Heathmount A. E. Corp. has applied for an amendment to North York Official Plan and the Zoning By-law to permit
"Destination: Technodome". At its meeting of July 29, 1998 Council adopted OPA 464 ( Downsview Area Secondary
Plan) which specifies land use and development policies for the subject site.
2.0Destination: Technodome - Interim Report (July, 1998)
An interim report, tabled with Council on July 29, 1998, assessed the Destination: Technodome proposal within the
context of the policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. The report illustrated for Council and the community, a
zoning framework for the proposal that would implement the policies of OPA 464. Further, the report, as amended,
identified for Council's information zoning standards including permitted uses, gross floor area, height, parking and yards
for the proposed Destination: Technodome.
3.0Council Directives (July, 1998)
In its consideration of OPA 464 and the interim report on Destination: Technodome, Council adopted motions respecting
the future development of the site. With respect to the official plan policies, Council directed that the landowner and
applicant:
- pursue high levels of energy efficiency and parking minimization strategies;
- be urged to consider district heating options for heating and cooling facilities and that the Toronto District Heating be
given an opportunity to make a proposal to that effect; and
- provide guidelines for the nature and form of the activity plaza, to be determined through the zoning process.
With respect to the future zoning of the site, Council requested the applicant and landowner to:
- provide and pay for an independent review of all parking studies;
- submit a plan, to the satisfaction of City officials, for the staging of construction and the routing of construction; and
- undertake an environmental analysis to determine the level of air emissions which will result from vehicles generated
from Destination: Technodome.
Council also directed that:
- staff address the issue of deliveries to Destination: Technodome;
- no individual venue be permitted of a size that generates sufficient traffic that exceeds the capacity of the road system
and that the Works and Emergency Services Department (Transportation Services) recommend the maximum size of
any particular venue;
- notice of the public meeting include a mail distribution to all residents and business in all areas bounded by Jane Street
on the west, Finch Avenue on the north, Bathurst Street on the east and Highway 401 on the south; and
- Canada Lands Company Limited provide certification acceptable to the City that all PCB's and munitions (other than
those currently being utilized for military purposes) have been removed from the site.
4.0Community Consultation
The applicant's proposal has been presented to the community at open houses and community meetings held in 1997 and
1998 during the preparation of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. In addition, the proposal has been discussed at
numerous weekly meetings of the Downsview Community Advisory Panel (CAP) over the last 15 months. The
Community Advisory Panel has been instrumental in articulating the community's comments respecting this proposal and
has met with the applicant to discuss planning and transportation issues and identify measures to resolve these matters.
A community consultation meeting, specifically on Destination: Technodome was held on October 7, 1998, with
approximately 180 persons attending. The applicant's presentation of the proposal was followed by a question and answer
period. In general, the matters raised by the community focussed on:
Traffic:The proposal may cause traffic congestion on the City's adjacent roads and visitors may park on local roads within
neighbourhoods and commercial areas.
Parking:That the number of parking spaces will be sufficient and that large parking lots will be necessary and may create a
"sea of asphalt" which would be unsightly for the local neighbourhoods.
Transit:The proposed development should encourage greater transit ridership.
Copies of the written comments received at the community meeting are attached. (See Appendix "I")
A second community meeting on the proposed "Destination: Technodome" has been scheduled for October 27, 1998. A
supplemental report will be tabled to advise Council on the matters raised at this meeting.
5.0Proposal
Destination: Technodome is a 236,300m2 (2.5 million sq. ft.) sport and entertainment facility that is proposed to be
constructed on lands that form a part of the former CFB - Toronto (Downsview) military base. The site is owned by the
Federal Government and would be leased to the applicant. Destination: Technodome is to be located at the south-west
corner of Sheppard Avenue West and W.R. Allen Road, adjacent to the existing Defence and Civil Institute of
Environmental Medicine (DCIEM). (See Schedule "D1").
| Site Statistics |
| Site Area 31ha (76acre)
Proposed Density0.765 FSI
Permitted Density (OPA 464) 0.875 FSI
Proposed Parking Spaces (on-site) min. 5,000 (vehicles)
and 75 (buses)
Overflow Parking (off-site) Requested1,500 vehicles
Proposed Max. Height42 m. (138ft)
Arenas1 - 10,000 seats
1 - 2,500 seats
2 - 600 seats (each) |
|
Gross Floor Area |
| Sports and Entertainment171,253m2 (1,843,416sq.ft.)
Admin/Circ./Servicing 6,503m2 (70,000sq.ft.)
177,756m2 (1,913,416sq.ft.)
Themed Retail and Restaurants 27,870m2 (300,000sq.ft.)
205,626m2 (2,213,416sq.ft.)
Mechanical/Loading 30,675m2 (330,195sq.ft.)
Total GFA 236,301m2 (2,543,611sq.ft.) |
The Destination: Technodome proposal would provide a variety of indoor sport and entertainment activities such as
downhill skiing, snowboarding, hockey, tennis, basketball, volleyball, swimming, canoeing and kayaking. It features
interactive and virtual reality attractions and rides, an IMAX theatre, cinemas, themed retail stores, restaurants, a 10,000
seat, multi-function hockey arena and three smaller hockey arenas that would provide a venue for the Metropolitan Toronto
Hockey League. (MTHL/International Sports Centre (ISC) Inc., in July, 1997, made an application to amend the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law the City to permit a 55,480m2 (597,200sq.ft.) multi-function arena facility containing four hockey
arenas, two with 600 seats, one with 1,200 seats and one arena with 12,500 seats. In June, 1998 MTHL/ISC advised the
City that it wished to place its amendment application on hold (See Appendix "D"). Since that time, the applicant for the
Destination: Technodome has advised that a venue for MTHL has been incorporated into its facility. MTHL/ISC, by letter
dated September 28, 1998 (See Appendix "D"), advised the City that it has not yet finalized its agreement with the
applicant, but that it has no objection to, and supports, the Destination: Technodome application.
Following discussions with the City, the applicant has agreed to create a major pedestrian entrance to the Downsview Park
on the subject site. A 20metre (66 ft) landscaped pedestrian walkway that connects with the pedestrian bridge will be
provided. (See Schedules "D1" and "D2") The City also requested, that the Destination: Technodome proposal animate and
enliven the outdoor areas adjacent to the building, specifically the area adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. The applicant
has agreed to incorporate an "Activity Plaza", adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. This activity plaza that would be
designed to reinforce the expression of this area as an entrance to the park. It would contain trees, formal plantings,
lighting, seating, public art and other public features.
Destination: Technodome meets Transport Canada's height limitations for the Downsview Airport. The proposed building
ranges in height from 5.5m (18 ft) to a maximum height of 42 metres (138 ft.) at its highest point. (See Schedule "E2"). The
facility would be approximately 15 percent larger in area, than the Toronto Skydome. Unlike Skydome however, 30
percent of the building would be below grade and the facility will be connected directly to the Downsview Subway Station
by an above-grade, pedestrian bridge at the intersection of W.R. Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue.
On-site parking for 5,000 vehicles and 75 buses is proposed. Two parking areas would be provided. One area, located to
the south of the building, would accommodate 2,760 vehicles and be connected to the building by a landscaped pedestrian
walkway. (See Schedules "D1" and "D2") A second parking area, located to the north of the DCIEM building, would
provide parking for 1705 vehicles and 75 buses. This area would be connected to the building by a landscaped walkway
adjacent to Sheppard Avenue. Below grade parking for 535 vehicles will be provided to the rear of the building. Access to
Destination: Technodome would be provided by an extension of Transit Road from Wilson Avenue, north to Chesswood
Drive including a new direction ramp over W. R. Allen Road. Intersection improvements to Sheppard Avenue, traffic
signalization at key access points and a direct connection to the subway would be required to manage traffic generated
from the proposal and provide direct and easy access to, and from, the facility.
Destination: Technodome will complement and enhance the Federal Government's and the City's initiatives to create a
unique mixed use, urban park and open space on the former military lands. Destination: Technodome will achieve
economic benefits including the creation of construction jobs, opportunities for permanent, high-tech, management and
service employment, tax revenue, and expand Toronto's tourist attractions.
6.0Existing Planning Controls
6.1Official Plan Policies
This amendment application proposes development on lands designated "Sport and Entertainment" by OPA 464
(Downsview Area Secondary Plan) (See Schedule "B"), adopted by City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 1998. As a
result, the applicant's request for a site-specific amendment has been dealt with by OPA 464 and is not required.
In conjunction with the Secondary Plan, Council also approved a Transportation Master Plan which identifies and
incorporates transportation improvements required in part to support the Destination: Technodome proposal. The applicant
has appealed OPA 464 stating that the Transportation Master Plan, as an integral a part of the Secondary Plan, restricts
Heathmount A.E. Corp.'s options respecting traffic and parking management. The applicant has also appealed the permitted
density for the lands, the public art policy and the failure of the OPA to recognize lands designated Park and Open Space
(POS) as parkland contributions.
6.2Current Zoning
The site is currently zoned "Airport Hazard (A)" (Schedule "C") which permits uses associated with the Department of
National Defence. A site-specific by-law is required to delete the existing Airport (A) zone on the subject site and apply
development standards required by the Downsview Area Secondary Plan.
Discussion:
7.0 Planning Considerations:
The July 29, 1998 interim report on Destination: Technodome reviewed the proposal within the context of the land use
policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. As noted in that report, Destination: Technodome is consistent with the
land use and development policies of OPA 464 which permit sport, entertainment and commercial recreational activities
and events on lands designated "Sport and Entertainment".
The Destination: Technodome proposal has been further refined and additional work has been completed by the applicant.
Updated transportation and parking studies have been submitted, as well as an urban design framework for the site. These
matters have now been reviewed by the City and, with the input of area residents, a clear understanding of community
interests and resolution of the planning considerations can be brought forward.
7.1Urban Design Including Landscape Treatment
The Downsview Area Secondary Plan sets out design matters to be achieved. The applicant has retained EDA
Collaborative Inc., a landscape architect and urban design consulting firm. EDA has submitted an "Urban Design and
Landscape Submission" for the site that demonstrates how the Destination: Technodome proposal meets the design
objectives of the Secondary Plan by:
- integrating the proposed development into the framework of the Downsview lands;
- creating a pedestrian friendly and safe environment at the Sheppard Avenue and W.R. Allen Road intersection;
- extending the public circulation system of Destination: Technodome so that it links with the Downsview Subway
Station and the Downsview park and open spaces;
- establishing a strong pedestrian entrance to the Downsview park; and
- incorporating measures to mitigate the visual impact of parking areas, ensure pedestrian safety within these facilities and
to enhance the park-like character of the area.
Further review of the applicant's urban design and landscaping submission and the objectives to be achieved, as noted in
Appendix "B", will be detailed as the proposal proceeds through site plan approval and secured, as required, through a
Section 41 Agreement with the City.
7.2Programming for the Activity Plaza
Council, in its consideration of OPA 464, requested the applicant to provide guidelines for the programming and design of
the proposed activity plaza to be located adjacent to the Destination: Technodome building and the pedestrian walkway. In
response, the applicant's Urban Design and Landscape Submission, prepared by EDA Collaborative Inc., includes an urban
design framework for the plaza, with particular emphasis on its intended programming. EDA identifies two distinct
functional areas of the activity plaza. The "Multi-Use Activity Area" would be located between the Technodome building
and the existing Defence and Civil Institute for Environmental Medicine (DCIEM) building.(See Schedule "D2") This area
will accommodate a significant amount of pedestrian activity and will include bus and car drop-off areas, access to the
building entrances/exits and at-grade and spill out activities from Destination: Technodome. The "Program Use Area" is
located adjacent to the pedestrian walkway (See Schedule "D2") so that events that require access control, visual and noise
buffering can be easily provided. Program uses could include small venue plays, performances by community or
professional groups, displays, exhibits, trade shows, product launches, and art shows. Its location at the extreme west of the
site and the use of design features such as berms, landscaping, walls and baffles will mitigate noise associated with these
uses.
Further refinement of the design elements to be applied will occur as the proposal proceeds through site plan approval and
will be secured, as required, through a Section 41 (site plan) agreement with the City.
7.3Examination of the Potential for an Impact on Local Retail
The applicant advises that the area within Destination: Technodome devoted to retail is intended to be themed oriented,
highly specialized in nature and therefore would not compete with the local retail area for the daily and weekly shopping
needs of the surrounding community. The City requested the applicant to retain a market consultant to evaluate the
Destination: Technodome retail component. Malone Given Parsons Ltd. (MGP) was retained by the applicant to determine
whether the retail component would have any impact upon established retail commercial facilities and shopping centres in
the local area. MGP concluded that the retail would not have an impact upon local businesses and this conclusion was
confirmed by Robin Dee and Associates, acting on behalf of the City. (Appendix "C" provides details respecting these
studies.)
7.4Expected Attendance:
One of key interests of the community relates to the expected visitors to Destination: Technodome and whether the
assumptions respecting the attendance figures are valid. The study prepared by Malone Given Parsons (MGP) provides an
analysis of the attendance and visitors origins for Destination: Technodome. The study concludes that the facility will serve
a broad geographic area that extends beyond the Greater Toronto Area. The study indicates that Destination: Technodome
is expected to generate approximately 11 million (primary) visits and provides a break-down of these visits by venue.
Robin Dee and Associates on behalf of the City, was asked to verify the attendance and visitor origin for the Destination:
Technodome and concluded that the methodology and assumptions were valid and that the 11 million visits to the site is a
realistic assumption. (See Appendix "C").
7.5Transportation Considerations:
The Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) Department has reviewed the Transportation Impact Study and
Parking Demand Study prepared by Read, Voorhees and Associates, an behalf of the applicant. These studies have been
further reviewed by an independent transportation consultant, MM Dillon Consulting Limited which has verified the
methodology, assumptions and forecasts and concurred with the applicant's studies. (See Appendix 1 of the Works and
Emergency Services (Transportation Services) Department memorandum dated October 20, 1998).
Transportation Services has also undertaken its own examination of the Destination: Technodome proposal within the
context of the transportation policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, endorsed
by Council. In its analysis, Transportation Services evaluated a typical day of operation along with the worst case scenario
to determine the ultimate requirements of the future road network, adequacy of the parking supply and the resulting impact
of the Destination: Technodome on the transportation network.
One of the key objectives of the Transportation Services analysis is that traffic generated from the Destination:
Technodome proposal not rely upon the local road network. Specifically, all traffic generated from the Destination:
Technodome proposal would only be permitted to rely upon existing and future arterial and collector roads.
Parking demand and supply has been examined by Transportation Services within the context of creating a balance
between an under-supply of parking that might threaten private property and the public road system and an over-supply of
parking which is counter-productive in reaching and maintaining an appropriate transit modal split. In addition to the
provision for 5,000 parking spaces on the site, Transportation Services recommends that a minimum of 1,500 parking
spaces, up to a maximum of 2,000 parking spaces be available, on a daily basis, for a period of 12 months. During this
period, the applicant will determine whether this additional parking will be required on a regular basis.
The applicant has advised that he is currently negotiating with the Toronto Transit Commission to develop a transit
incentive program that would result in an improved transit modal split and which may negate the need for substantial
parking. The zoning provisions recommended in this report provide for a temporary parking area for up to 2,000 vehicles.
The applicant will be required to obtain a temporary use by-law to permit any additional parking. Should the
implementation of the transit incentive program result in an improved transit modal split, the number of parking spaces
may be reduced.
The recommendations and conclusions of the Transportation Services are set out in their memorandum dated October 21,
1998. (See Appendix "E"). Transportation Services has recommended a number of road and transportation related
improvements that are consistent with the Downsview Area Secondary Plan and the Transportation Master Plan, approved
by Council. All roads and improvements will be constructed to the satisfaction of the City and the costs of acquisition and
construction will be the responsibility of the applicant/landowner and will be secured through appropriate Section 37 and
41 Agreements. The roads, improvements to facilities and measures to address parking and traffic management that will be
secured through a Section 37 Agreement are illustrated in Appendix "A" and include a provision that the building will not
be open for operation until the necessary infrastructure is in place. Transportation matters to be addressed at the time of site
plan approval are detailed in Appendix "B".
7.6Loading Facilities:
The applicant proposes that loading and servicing areas for Destination: Technodome would be located on the west side of
the building, in a below grade, enclosed loading facility that will be accessed from the new collector road. The applicant
has advised that all deliveries would occur at the loading area and that 10 loading spaces would be provided.
Transportation Services has advised that a minimum of 10 loading spaces is required.
7.7Frequency of Truck Deliveries and Delivery Routes:
Council requested the applicant to provide details respecting truck deliveries to the site and the potential impact upon the
existing road network. The applicant's transportation consultant, Read, Voorhees and Associates Ltd., has advised that the
peak hour for truck deliveries occurs between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., during which there would be 40 trips associated
with trucks entering and exiting the facility. Truck volumes during the remainder of the day would be lower.
Read, Voorhees and Associates further advises that there are several routes to serve the Destination: Technodome which
would provide delivery access including Sheppard Avenue (east and west), W.R. Allen Road, Cestoid Drive and the new
collector road. The consultant also advises that most of the truck activity will relate to commercial deliveries to retail stores
and restaurants. However, some of the trucks associated with the entertainment activities will stay on site all day. Read,
Voorhees and Associates concludes that, with 20 trucks (40 trips) spread over the available routes, the hourly load on any
one section of a road or intersection in the vicinity of Destination: Technodome, will be nominal. Transportation Services
has advised that these trip movements can be accommodated on the road network as they will not conflict with either the
road peak or the facility peak periods.
7.8Soils Review and On-site PCB storage
The landowner has submitted a soil's investigation report prepared by Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited
(DCS), dated July, 1998 which concludes that the site is suited for the proposed Destination: Technodome. This report
identifies that the environmental liabilities associated with the site are relatively minor and can be readily managed. A peer
review of this report and a Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment is required. The
peer review will be paid for by the applicant and secured through the Section 37 Agreement(s). The City will select the
consultant to undertake the peer review which will be required prior to site plan approval.
At its July meeting, Council requested that Canada Lands Company CLC Limited provide certification acceptable to the
City that all PCB's and munitions, other than those currently being utilized for military purposes, have been removed from
the Destination : Technodome site. In a letter dated July 20, 1998, (Appendix "F" Canada Lands advised that, with the
closure of the Base, the Department of National Defence was required to formally decommission all operations associated
with the Base which included the investigation, identification and removal/remediation of any contaminants and hazardous
substances. Further, Environment Canada, has provided a letter indicating that PCB's formerly stored at Downsview were
removed in 1996. (See Appendix "F")
As part of its soils review, DCS Limited undertook an audit of each building on the site and determined that the current
inventory of PCB's is composed of 20mg of test fluid housed in a storage compound and that the only other know sources
of PCB containing materials are found in fluorescent light ballasts and electrical transformers which are to be removed as
part of building demolition.
7.9Staging of Construction:
Council requested the applicant to provide a plan for the staging of construction and the routing of construction vehicles
with particular emphasis on confining these vehicles to routes that will not impact on adjacent residential neighbourhoods
and nearby commercial and industrial areas. The Section 37 Agreement will require the applicant to provide such a plan to
the satisfaction of City officials prior to the issuance of a building permit (see Appendix "A"). Further, this agreement will
provide for the details of the plan to be provided at the time of site plan approval.
7.10Public Art Contribution
OPA 464 requires that the applicant provide one percent of the gross building construction costs for public art on
publicly-accessible or publicly-visible portions of the lands including abutting City-owned lands. Such contribution, its
maintenance, the selection criteria and process is to be reported on and finalized prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Provision for the public art contribution will be secured through the Section 37 Agreement (see Appendix "A")
7.11Energy Conservation/Efficiency
Council requested the developers to pursue high levels of energy efficiency in the redevelopment of the Downsview area.
The applicant has advised that its consultants, Yolles Strategic Engineering Consultants Ltd. and Proctor and Redfern are
examining a number of options to achieve greater energy efficiency within the Destination: Technodome proposal (see
Appendix "G"). Options being explored include alternative sewage treatment measures, water conservation methods
including storm water storage and re-use, innovative building materials to minimize heating and cooling requirements and
high efficiency mechanical equipment to achieve maximum output. These and other measures will be further developed as
the project is further refined. A report on this matter will be brought forward for Council's consideration, prior to site plan
approval.
7.12District Heating
Council has requested that Toronto District Heating Corporation be given an opportunity to bid on any future district
energy system on the Downsview lands. Canada Lands Company CLC Limited, by letter dated October 9, 1998 (see
Appendix "H") has advised that it is currently investigating the potential for a district heating system to serve developments
on the former Base lands. Canada Lands has indicated that it is its intent to initiate a proposal call for a district energy
system. Once the proposal process has been established, Toronto District Heating could submit a proposal call along with
other interested parties.
7.13Noise Impact
The applicant retained Valcoustics Canada Ltd., to evaluate the potential impact of noise resulting from traffic generated
from the Destination: Technodome proposal. This preliminary study concluded that there would be no adverse noise
impacts on residential areas. The Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) Department has requested that
the applicant provide a noise assessment of on-site equipment such as outdoor mechanical equipment (see Appendix "J ").
The applicant will be required to provide this study at the time of site plan approval.
7.14Air Quality
Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin Inc. (RWDI), on behalf of the applicant, provided an analysis of impact of vehicular
traffic generated from Destination: Technodome upon air quality. RWDI concludes that there will be no exceedence of
Provincial air quality respecting carbon monoxide or nitrogen dioxide. Further, that there will be no exceedence of
Provincial criteria respecting suspended particulate (TSP) and inhalable particulate matter (PM10). Public Health has
advised that it concurs with the findings of this study and that its concerns respecting long term and site-specific
monitoring are satisfied (see Appendix "J").
7.15Contributions for Wilson Avenue Streetscape Improvement and Arts Park
Council, at its July 29, 1998 meeting, adopted motions that require developers within the Downsview Secondary Plan area
to provide cash contributions to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape program and the future Arts Park project for Downsview.
In keeping with Council's direction, the applicant has proposed a contribution of $150,000.00 to the Wilson Avenue
Streetscape and $25,000.00 to the Arts Park project. Should Council agree with these proposed contributions, the provision
of the funds and the parameters of how the funds will be used will be secured by the Section 37 Agreement(s).
7.16Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication
The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation) Department has advised that this application is
subject to a 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7.17Notice for the Statutory Public Meeting
A public meeting on the Destination: Technodome proposal is targeted for the November 12,1998 meeting of Council. In
accordance with Council's direction, notice has been given by mail distribution to all residence and businesses within the
area bounded by Jane Street, on the west, Finch Avenue on the north, Bathurst Street on the east and Highway 401 on the
south.
8.0Planning Controls to be Applied
8.1Zoning By-law:
This report refines the July, 1998 zoning framework which identified zoning standards for the site such as permitted uses,
gross floor area, height, parking and yards. Following review of the applicant's proposal and refinement of the development
standards to be applied to the site, it is now appropriate to recommend site-specific zoning for the lands. The
recommendations of this report include zoning provisions that would implement the policies of OPA 464, establish
development standards as required by the Secondary Plan and contain conditions of approval designed to address planning,
transportation, urban design issues, community interests and Council directives.
8.2Section 37 Agreement(s)
The Downsview Area Secondary Plan contains provisions for the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure services,
facilities and matters, required for the desirable development of the lands and to meet the objectives set out in the Plan. In
consideration of the necessary roads, transportation improvements and municipal infrastructure requirements for the
Destination: Technodome proposal to proceed to development, new off-site transportation improvements are required as
well as improvements to existing municipal servicing. To secure transportation and parking management measures, urban
design features and public benefits such as public art as set out in Appendix "A", the applicant/ land owner is required to
enter into a Section 37 Agreement(s). Further discussions on the parameters and mechanisms of implementation are
required for the matters to be included in the Section 37 Agreement(s) between the City and the applicant/landowner. If the
City Solicitor determines that further clarification or direction on matters set out in Appendix "A" is required, he will
report back to Council.
8.3Site Plan Agreement(s)
The Destination: Technodome proposal has been reviewed within the context of the Downsview Urban Design Guidelines.
During the site plan approval process, the urban design objectives, as generally set out in Appendix "B", will be achieved
and secured in the development through a Section 41 Agreement(s) with the City.
8.4Temporary Use By-law
The recommendations of this report require the applicant to provide an overflow parking area to a maximum of 2,000
vehicles for scheduled special events in the proposed 10,000 seat arena. Therefore, it is appropriate for the City to require
that the lands to be used for an overflow parking area be subject to a Temporary Use By-law for a maximum period of
three years, with further extensions subject to Council approval.
Should traffic monitoring and/or the implementation of a transit incentive program determine that additional on-site
parking is required, provisions for permanent on-site parking facilities would be necessary and an extension of the
Temporary Use By-law would not be required. The location of the overflow parking area is limited to lands within the
Downsview Secondary Plan area excluding lands designated for park, open space and residential use.
8.5Environmental Assessment
The Downsview Transportation Master Plan identified specific road projects required for both an interim and the year 2011
planning horizons for the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. Review of the Destination: Technodome proposal by the
Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) Department has determined the specific road requirements and
transportation improvements necessary for the Destination: Technodome development to proceed.
The location and design of all new public roads, road improvements and intersection improvements for the Downsview
Secondary plan area must satisfy the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road projects.
The City has initiated the relevant Environmental Studies that will address, where necessary, the potential social, economic
and environmental effects of specific projects and mitigation measures, where appropriate. While the specific road projects
are being processed by the City, the transfer of the lands required for road right-of-way and construction costs are the
responsibility of the landowner.
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, consulting engineers, has been retained by the City to assist with the study of the road
projects necessary for the interim planning horizon including the following roads and improvements required for the
Destination: Technodome.
8.6Next Steps
- Prior to enactment of any zoning by-law, a Section 37 Agreement(s) between the applicant/landowner and the City must
be executed, incorporating the matters set out, generally, in Appendix "A". As noted above, these matters will be
reported on to Council following further discussions with the applicant/landowner and City officials.
- The applicant must apply for and receive site plan approval. Objectives to be achieved are set out in Appendix "B" and
will be further refined during the site plan approval process.
- Completion of, and approval of the relevant Environment Studies and Class Environmental Assessment associated with
the required roads and improvements necessary for the Destination: Technodome. This process is concurrent with
planning approvals.
Conclusion:
This report recommends approval, subject to conditions, of Destination: Technodome, a multi-function, sport, commercial
recreational and entertainment facility on lands within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464). The proposal is
consistent with the land use and development policies of OPA 464, adopted by Council on July 29, 1998 and is in keeping
with the City's reurbanization policies which support efforts to direct more intensified land uses, such as Destination:
Technodome, to areas that are well served by transportation facilities. Planning and transportation issues can be resolved
using the planning controls such as the zoning provisions set out in the recommendations of this report. The necessary road
infrastructure and other transportation requirements, the provision of public art, a pedestrian bridge to the Downsview
Subway Station and the public walkway through the site will be secured through Section 37 and Section 41 Agreements.
The community and specifically the Downsview Community Advisory Panel, has made an invaluable contribution to the
review of this application, especially in identifying community interests. Approval of the recommendations of this report
will be a first step to ensuring their interests are met.
Contact Name:
Russell Crooks; Telephone: (416)-395-7108
(A copy of the Appendices and Schedules referred to in the foregoing reports and Supplementary Report No. 1 is on file in
the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
-------------
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:
(a)(December 9, 1998) from Ms. Pamela Shapiro, North York Chamber of Commerce, advising of the Chamber of
Commerce's endorsement of the application;
(b)(December 9, 1998) from Mr. Stewart Richardson, advising of his concerns with the application;
(c)(December 9, 1998) from Mr. Hamish Wilson, advising of his concerns with the application;
(d)(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Robert Melanize, Deputy Chief, North West Field Command, Toronto Police Service,
forwarding a preliminary report dealing with concerns and requirements requested by the North York Community Council
at its meeting held on November 12, 1998;
(e)(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Jim Purnell, advising of his concerns with the application;
(f)(December 8, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, requesting that consideration of the
supplementary information report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, be deferred
in order to give T.T.C. staff an opportunity to review the analysis done by the City's consultant with respect to the forecast
transit mode split to the Technodome, and the associated amount of parking required to accommodate expected visitor and
employee traffic;
(g)(December 8, 1998) from Ms. Helen Mills, forwarding her comments on the application;
(h)(December 7, 1998) from Mr. Frank de Jog, Leader, Green Party of Ontario, expressing opposition to the application;
(i)(December 7, 1998) from Mr. David Birnbaum, President, Friends of the Downsview Lands, forwarding the
organization's submission on the proposal;
(j)(November 23, 1998) from Mr. Stewart Richards, advising of his concerns with the application;
(k)(November 12, 1998) from Mr. Bruce H. Engell, Weir and Foulds, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitors on behalf of
81956 Ontario Limited, area property owners, advising of their client's objection to the proposed zoning;
(l)(November 10, 1998) from Mr. Ian James Lord, Weir and Foulds, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitors on behalf of ARC
International Corporation, owner of Chesswood Arenas, advising of their client's objection to the proposal; and
(m)(undated) from Mr. Stewart Richards advising of his concerns with the proposed application.
------------
Mr. Stephen Diamond, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant, Destination: Technodome - Heathmount A.E. Corp., appeared
before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and commented on the merits of the
application; the benefits to the community as well as the entire City of Toronto due to increased tax revenue and job
opportunities; and the changes to the proposal as result of concerns expressed by the residents.
The following persons also appeared before the North York Community Council and spoke in support of the application
because of its positive impact and benefits to the community; job creation and increased tourism:
-Mr. Don Farkas;
-Mr. Forrest Todd;
-Mr. Bill Robinson on behalf of the International Brotherhood, Local 353;
-Ms. Loriann Henderson;
-Ms. Anna D'Allessandro;
-Mr. John Cartwright;
-Ms. Karen Fallata;
-Mr. David Chusie;
-Mr. Ron Smith, Business Manager and Financial Secretary, Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada;
-Mr. Gary Sloane;
-Mr. Gary White on behalf of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers - Toronto;
-Mr. Ucla Powell on behalf of the Central Ontario Regional Council of Carpenters, Drywall and Applied Workers;
-Mr. Victor Ferreira;
-Mr. Chaim Weinman;
-Mr. Erez Karps;
-Mr.Steve Hewitt;
-Ms. Franca Mercuri;
-Mr. Phillip Newman;
-Mr. Peter Wilson, Director on behalf of the North York Chamber of Commerce;
-Mr. Eugene Hiscock;
-Mr. Keith Cooper;
-Mr. Zvi Brown;
-Mr. Joe Fasacia on behalf of Mr. Bob Gill;
-Mr. Sid Hernick;
-Mr. Yanki Walkenstein;
-Mr. Mitch Shore; and
-Mr. Joe McPhail, Union Representative for the Sheet Metal Workers.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and
spoke in opposition to the application. Their primary objections were with respect to the size of the proposed Technodome;
traffic infiltration into the residential neighbourhood; insufficient parking in light of the number of visitors that would be
visiting the Technodome; overflow parking onto the residential streets; noise pollution; the inadequacy of the existing
infrastructure to accommodate a project of this magnitude; and the negative impact on the environment, the surrounding
communities and the residents' quality of life:
-Mr. Alan Heisey, Solicitor on behalf of Mr. Garrit DeBoer, owner of Idomo Furniture;
-Mr. Jim Purnell;
-Ms. Rebecca Birnbaum;
-Mr. Zan Molko;
-Mrs. Ann Winter;
-Mr. David Birenbaum;
-Ms. Elaine Muskat;
-Mr. Reiter Moshe;
-Mr. Albert Krivickas; (also filed a written submission)
-Ms. Cheryl Persad;
-Ms. Gemma Connolly;
-Mr. Joel Cohen;
-Mr. Michael Tedesco, Tedesco Engineering, on behalf of Mr. Garrit DeBoer, owner of Idomo Furniture;
-Ms. Maxine Povering;
-Mr. Jeff Chelin;
-Mr. Arthur Herzig;
-Mr. Andy Doudoumis on behalf of the Community Advisory Panel of Downsview; and
-Mr. Robert Shour.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council and expressed concern with certain aspects of
the proposal; safety issues and the need to increase emergency and police services in the area; environmental issues; the
political and planning process followed to date; and the conflicting information contained in the various transportation
studies and reports. Some of these individuals were also of the opinion however that the notice of motion put forward by
Councillor Moscoe goes a long way in alleviating some of the concerns expressed by the residents:
-Mr. Stewart Richardson, (also filed a written submission);
-Ms. Helen Mills;
-Mr. Alan Kauffman;
-Mr. Tony Varone;
-Mr. Vince Lombardi;
-Mr. Jefffrey Dorfman;
Mr. Michael Flynn, also addressed the North York Community Council on behalf of the M.T.H.L. and expressed concern
with the recommendation put forward by Councillor Moscoe that the 2,500 seat arena and the two 600 seat arenas be
deleted. He indicated that the M.T.H.L. has been working on this for the past 10 years. In light of this specific
recommendation, he requested that consideration of this application be deferred in order to allow the M.T.H.L. to study this
issue further.
A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor King, Seneca Heights, to refer Recommendation (1) back to staff for
further consideration, was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Flint, Filion, Shiner, King
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Minnan-Wong.
ABSENT:Councillor Chong
The motion moved by Councillor King, was declared by the Chair to be lost.
A recorded vote on the adoption of Recommendation (1), was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong
AGAINST:Councillors Flint, Shiner, King
ABSENT:Councillor Chong
Carried
A recorded vote on the adoption of Recommendations (2) to (20), was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner,
King
AGAINST:Councillor Flint
ABSENT:Councillor Chong
Carried
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide City Council with a consolidated list of recommendations arising from the North
York Community Council's consideration of this application.
At the December 9, 1998 meeting Community Council requested Works and Emergency Services (Transportation)
Department to report on adjustments to the parking supply by:
(i)deleting the 2,500 seat arena and the two 600 seat arenas; and by
(ii)reducing the gross floor area of the building by 10 percent.
Transportation Services is reporting directly to City Council on this matter.
Should City Council wish to amend the parking requirements for Destination: Technodome, two recommendations of the
attached Consolidated Recommendations need to be finalized:
(a)Recommendation (1)(f) - Parking Provisions; and
(b)Section 2.2 - Parking (Appendix "A" Revised Section 37 Agreements)
By adopting Community Council's December 9, 1998 resolutions and incorporating any further changes to the parking
requirements, City Council is approving the application as set out in the Consolidated Recommendations attached to this
report.)
(Consolidated Recommendations
Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-28
Destination: Technodome (Heathmount A.E. Corp.)
[revisions shown in italics])
(1)The zoning for the site be amended to establish a new zone category, "Downsview Sport and Entertainment Zone
(DSE)," with the following provisions:
(a)Definitions:
"Sport, Leisure and Entertainment Use" means a building or part thereof used primarily for commercial recreation
including spectator activities, sports, both participatory and passive (spectator) including computer assisted or enhanced
activities, entertainment activities and events, amusement rides and simulation rides or a combination of both as well as
adventure activities including but not limited to scuba-diving and rock climbing.
(b)Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted:
Art Gallery, Artist Studio, Banquet Hall, Bandstand, Billiard Parlour, Bowling Alley, Commercial Gallery, Commercial
Recreation, Communications and Broadcasting, Community Centre, Custom Workshop, Day Nursery, Fitness Centre,
Museum, Outdoor Café, Park and Open Space, Personal Service Shop, Pinball and Video Games Arcade, Retail Store,
Restaurant, Service Shop, Showroom, Sport, Leisure and Entertainment Use, Take-out Restaurant, Theatre.
(c)Use Qualifications
(i)The majority of gross floor area devoted to retail stores shall be related to, or oriented toward, sport, leisure,
recreational and entertainment uses or shall be ancillary thereto. Retails stores shall not include an adult entertainment
parlour, supermarkets, department stores, department store outlets and clearance centres, automotive parts and service
related stores, home improvement outlets and household furnishing stores other than accessory or related to recreational
and entertainment oriented merchandising.
(ii)A multi-use spectator arena, up to a maximum of 10,000 seats is permitted.
(iii)An outdoor café is permitted whether or not it is in conjunction with, or adjoining, a restaurant, provided that the
outdoor café is located within an area adjacent to the building and not within an area used for required parking.
(iv)A custom workshop includes making articles or products to be sold on the premises.
(v)A restaurant does not include a nightclub.
(d)Gross Floor Area
The total gross floor area permitted on the lands shall not exceed 212,671m2 (2,289,246 sq.ft.) of which not more than
27,870m2 (300,000 sq.ft) of the total gross floor area shall be used for retail and restaurant use.
(e)Building Height
The maximum height shall be as shown on Schedule "E2" and shall not exceed 238.8 metres above sea level (ASL).
(f)Parking
| Note:Parking for the development shall be provided in accordance with appropriate by-law
provisions or in accordance with an enforceable agreement in accordance with the following
requirements. |
Parking for 7,000 vehicles and 75 bus parking spaces shall be provided on site.
(I)The number of vehicle parking spaces may br reduced using any or all of the following mechanisms:
(i)To reduce the vehicle parking by 500 spaces:
The applicant construct, at its expense, and to the satisfaction of the TTC, a 500 space commuter parking lot on the TTC
lands adjacent to the Downsview Subway Station. In exchange, Destination: Technodome patrons will be given available
use of the lot during TTC off-peak hours, and the 500 spaces shall be applied towards meeting the on-site parking
requirements of the zoning bylaw.
(ii)To reduce the vehicle parking by 830 spaces:
The applicant enter into agreement with the TTC such that employees of Destination: Technodome be granted access to
available TTC parking spaces at the Wilson commuter parking lots during TTC off-peak hours, in exchange for the
applicant purchasing, for each space, an annual TTC. Metropass, to be utilized by employees to access the transit system
and conveyed to the employees. Each space purchased shall be applied towards fulfilling the requirements of the zoning
bylaw as it pertains to parking, but in no case shall fewer than 830 passes be purchased annually.
(iii)To reduce the vehicle parking by 700 spaces:
The applicant obtain from the TTC, additional off-peak parking spaces at the Wilson commuter lots for Destination:
Technodome patrons, on an annual basis, at a cost equivalent to the cost of a TTC annual Metropass per space to a
maximum of 934 spaces and each space shall be counted towards meeting the requirements of three-quarters of an on-site
space, to a maximum of 700 on-site spaces.
(iv)To reduce the vehicle parking by 500 spaces:
The applicant, at its expense, implement a transit incentive program, to the satisfaction of the Toronto Transit Commission
and the Commissioner of the Works and Emergency Services, that increases the transit modal split over and above 12%.
For each one percent increase in the transit portion of the modal split over and above 12%, the vehicle parking may be
reduced by 50 spaces, to a maximum reduction of 500 spaces.
(II) Location of Parking
(i)a minimum of 75 spaces shall be provided on site for bus parking;
(ii)a maximum of 4,500 parking spaces for vehicles shall be provided as surface parking on site;
(iii)a minimum of 500 parking spaces for vehicles shall be provided below grade.
(g)Yard Setbacks
The minimum yard setbacks shall be as shown on Schedule "E3".
(h)Loading Spaces
A minimum of 10 parking spaces, 11 metres in length, 3.6 metres in width and a vertical clearance of 4.2 metres each,
shall be provided.
(i)Pedestrian Walkway
A minimum 20 metre wide, landscaped, pedestrian walkway, to be located generally as shown on Schedule "D2" and
extends from the pedestrian bridge and the Sheppard Avenue/W.R. Allen intersection to the Transit Road extension shall be
provided.
(j)Activity Plaza
A minimum of 1.5ha (3.7ac) shall be provided as an outdoor activity plaza located generally as shown on Schedule "D2"
and shall, without limiting its design, include active and passive recreational activities, formal plantings, lighting, seating
and public art.
(k)Landscaping
A landscaped strip consisting of a minimum 3 metre width along all lot lines abutting a public or private street shall be
provided.
(l)Other Regulations
Outside display is limited to the temporary keeping of equipment, goods, materials, and products outside a building and
used by, associated with, or promoted by the primary use and may include the display of one or more new vehicles for
promotional purposes but does not include a motor vehicle dealership.
(m)Notwithstanding any severance, partition or division of the site, the provisions shall apply to the whole of the site as if
no severance, partition or division has occurred.
(2)Staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any zoning by-law the following
conditions have been satisfied:
(a)An implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the recommended zoning provisions noted above, has
been perfected;
(b)The applicant/landowner submit to the Director, Community Planning, North District, a Reference Plan of Survey
prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor which delineates the lands subject to this application and any right-of ways and
easements appurtenant thereto.
(c)Section 37 Agreement(s)
The applicant/owner enter into an Agreement(s) with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990,
c.P.13, as amended, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Director, Community
Planning, North District, to secure the facilities, services and matters noted in Appendix "A" to this report.
(d)Should Council deem appropriate, the applicant shall provide a cash contribution to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape and
Arts Park projects. The process to be followed and the timing of contributions, are to be reported on, prior to enactment of
the zoning by-law. Such contributions shall secured through a Section 37 Agreement(s) and include:
i)A cash contribution to the City of $500,000.00, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to be divided equally, for the
purposes of streetscape improvements to the Chesswood/Tudor Business Area and Wilson Avenue.
ii)A cash contribution to the City of $25,000.00 towards the development of an Arts Park project within the Downsview
Park and a cash contribution of $25,000.00 towards the establishment of a studio within the Downsview Collegiate
Project.
(3)Site Plan Approval
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Director, Community Planning, North District, shall have granted site plan
approval which satisfactorily addresses the technical requirements of City departments and commenting agencies and the
site plan objectives outlined in Appendix "B".
(4)The City establish neighbourhood advisory committees to review traffic and parking impacts that may result from
Destination: Technodome and such committees work with the local councillor(s) to recommend such traffic and parking
attenuation measures which may be required.)
(A copy of each of Appendices A and B, appended to the foregoing report from the Director, Community Planning, North
District, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (December 11, 1998)
from the Director of Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide additional information on the parking supply at Destination: Technodome, as a
result of motions adopted by North York Community Council at its meeting of December 9, 1998.
Funding Sources, Financial Implication:
N/A
Recommendations:
That the following be received for information:
(a)if the 2500-seat hockey arena and the two 600-seat hockey arenas are deleted from this proposal, the on-site visitor
parking supply could be reduced by 200 spaces;
(b)if the proposed gross floor area of the facility is reduced by 10 percent, the reduction in on-site visitor parking would be
between 370 and 600 spaces; and
(c)the final number of on-site visitor parking spaces will be determined after staff have had an opportunity to review the
impact of the 10 percent Gross Floor Area reduction on annual visitation.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On December 9, 1998, North York Community Council, in its consideration of the application by Heathmount A. E.
Corporation to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law to construct a multi-use entertainment and sports complex
known as Destination: Technodome, adopted a number of motions which addressed the on-site parking supply. Staff were
requested to comment specifically on the parking adjustments that would be applicable as a result of the following two
motions:
(1)the deletion of the 2500-seat hockey arena and the two 600-seat hockey arenas;
(2)a 10 percent reduction in the Gross Floor Area.
Comments and/or discussion and/or justification:
(1)Deletion of Hockey Arenas:
Our previous reports recommended that 200 spaces be provided for the exclusive use of MTHL patrons using these arenas.
This parking supply was based on an estimate of the opportunities for shared parking that would be available on site.
Therefore, the deletion of the three arenas would result in a reduction of 200 parking spaces from the on-site visitor
parking supply.
(2)10 percent Reduction in the Gross Floor Area
The total gross floor area proposed for the Destination Technodome is 2,543,611 sq. ft. A reduction of 10 percent in the
gross floor area would therefore result in a decrease of approximately 250,000 sq. ft.
All estimates of visitor parking supply for this facility, were based on annual visitation forecasts of 11 million. Since the
applicant has not yet had an opportunity to assess the impact of the proposed reduction in GFA on annual visitations, and
staff has not been able to review these assessments, a comparable estimate of the reduction in parking supply cannot be
fully determined .
Notwithstanding the above, in order to provide an estimate of the order of magnitude of the reduction in parking supply
that could be anticipated as a result of the proposed reduction in GFA, staff undertook an estimate based on two
approaches : (a) a 10 percent reduction in the total GFA translated as a ratio of the total visitor parking supply, and (b) a
10 percent reduction in the GFA of the individual components proposed for Destination: Technodome and the resulting
individual reductions in parking.
(a)A reduction in the total gross floor area of 10 percent results in an estimated 600 space reduction in visitor parking;
(b)A reduction of 10 percent in the individual components of Destination: Technodome, results in an estimated 370 space
reduction in visitor parking.
As indicated above, the noted parking reductions are estimates that will have to be reviewed, after the applicant and staff
have had an opportunity to determine the impact of the proposed 10 percent reduction in the facility's GFA, on annual
visitation. At that time, staff will be able to undertake an evaluation of the potential parking reductions, which will be
based on the same parameters that were used in the earlier analyses.
Conclusions:
The elimination of the three proposed hockey arenas from Destination: Technodome and a 10 percent reduction in the
proposed GFA of the facility, would result in reductions to the total on-site visitor parking supply. The elimination of the
hockey arenas would result in a reduction of 200 spaces. The reduction in on-site visitor parking as a result of the
reduction in GFA has been estimated, preliminarily, to be between 370 and 600 spaces. However, an estimate of the
reduction in the parking supply that is comparable to that of previous calculations, can only be made after the annual
number of visitors to the reduced facility has been determined through an appropriate market analysis.
Contact Name:
Pascoal D'Souza, Manager, Traffic Planning/Right of Way Management - District 3
Telephone: 395-7458, Fax: 395-7482)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (undated)
from Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto, Ward 22:
Further to the recent reports in the press on the Technodome, I attach some questions that may be worth asking at the
Toronto City Council if not already addressed at the North York Community Council.
Of special interest is whether Heathmount has given or is prepared to give its assurance that the Technodome facility will
not be used in whole or in part, now or in the future, by Heathmount or any successor, as a casino or similar facility. Also,
if the neighbouring proposed research facility portion of the Technodome does not succeed (and it may be difficult to
successfully develop and operate a think tank or similar operation beside an airport taxiway and a theme park), could
there be a request to make that structure into a casino or a permanent charity casino?
If a casino is envisaged by Heathmount, is it not better to be open about it and to put the cards on the table rather than to
say it is just an indoor theme park and then come back later and ask for permission to put a casino into the site? The same
applies for the Euromart "research facility". Being open on the issue would let Toronto debate it properly.
Given the effects of casinos, especially large casinos, on neighbourhoods and the tendency of casinos to "tax the poor", I
would hope a casino is not part of the Heathmount agenda.
Can Toronto City Council ensure that the Technodome facility does not become a combination of the West Edmonton Mall
and Casino Niagara?
Further Technodome Questions
1.DeHavilland Operations - Will this project impact on the ability of DeHavilland to operate their facility at Downsview.
The Technodome will be a 14 storey facility adjacent to the taxiway and the main north-south runway at the site.
2.Tourism Infrastructure vs. Aviation Sector - Why are we looking at tourism infrastructure rather than building on
existing neighbourhood strength in the aviation sector? Canada is a world leader in aviation and is a major participant in
this sector. Have we fully explored ways to attract aviation investment and employment rather than the Technodome with
low-skilled jobs as pool attendants, etc.
3.Attendance Projections - The projected attendance figures seem to be very optimistic - 11,000,000 annually or over
30,500 visitors on average per day. Are these projections reasonable given:
- Toronto has only four million visitors (both for business and pleasure) annually;
- The attraction of indoor kayaking (and similar activities) may be limited in the summer months when most tourists are
here;
- The school year may limit weekday attendance by locals except for Christmas and the March Break;
- Oil cost is less that US$10 per barrel now; will such a large glass-roofed facility be feasible to heat/cool if oil goes to
$20 per barrel or higher and could Toronto end up with a "glass elephant"?;
- What will be the impact of competition from Ontario Place, the Ontario Science Centre, Metro Zoo and Canada's
Wonderland?
4.Possible Use as a Casino or Charity Casino - If the rides and other features do not provide the desired attendance, will
we have a giant casino, or a "permanent" charity casino being dropped into this suburban area? Has Heathmount given a
blanket provision that the lands and facility are not to be used for any "casino", "game of chance", or "gaming event" as
defined under the Gaming Control Act, 1992 (RSO 1992, chapter 24)?
5.Research Institute or Other Use - What market studies support establishing a 1,000,000 square foot research facility in
the former Defence Canada building beside the proposed Technodome? We should determine:
- Who is Euromart, the promoter of this "research facility"?
- Is there any connection, director or indirect between Heathmount and Euromart (perhaps through a European
"cut-out", i.e. nominee shareholders, a bearer share company in Luxembourg or some other special entity?)
- Who are the principals of Euromart?
- Would "possible" tenants IBM, Hewlett Packard and other really want to share facilities with their competitors in such
a confidential area, research?
- Would IBM and others want to relocate existing research and high-tech operations to a windowless industrial building
between an airport taxiway and a theme park?
- Could the "research institute be transformed into a casino at some point in the future? Can Council ensure that the
project will not be turned into a casino without proper applications and approvals?
6.Possible Level of Technodome Employment - The Heathmount project is for 3,600 full time job equivalents for the
Technodome. The 3,600 positions is equal to 72 million persons hours assuming a 2,000 hour employment year (40 hours
per week X 50 weeks). Is this employment level in line with other facilities like Canada's Wonderland, Ontario Place so
on? My understanding is that theme parks loom, for a 30:1 ratio or higher (visitors to employees). The only similar
employment ratios appear to be in casinos. It may be worthwhile to re-examine the employment forecast.
7.Type of Technodome Employment - Has a profile on the types of projected Technodome jobs been released? Will the
majority of the jobs be lifeguards, locker room attendances and concession workers?)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in support of
the construction of Destination: Technodome:
(i)(December 9, 1998) from Ms. Susan R. Macarz, Associate Broker, Re/Max Ultimate Realty Inc., Realtor; and
(ii)(December 15, 1998) from Ms. Mary L. Flynn-Guglietti, Goodman and Carr Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of the
Greater Toronto Hockey League., and attaching various communications.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition
to the construction of the Destination: Technodome:
(i)(December 7, 1988) from Mr. Jim Purnell, Toronto; and
(ii)(December 14, 1998) from the We the People, Residents and Businesses of Downsview.)
25
Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan -
Armour Boulevard and Bombay Avenue -
North York Centre South
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following:
(a)report (November 17, 998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3; and
(b)Resolution (December 9, 1998) moved by Councillor Flint:
The North York Community Council submits the following Resolution (December 9, 1998) from Councillor Flint,
North York Centre South:
WHEREAS a proposed traffic calming pilot project for the Summit Heights neighbourhood includes speed humps,
gateway features and additional stop signs on Bombay Avenue and Armour Boulevard; and
WHEREAS many residents on the streets adjoining Bombay Avenue and Armour Boulevard are concerned that traffic on
their streets will increase as drivers attempt to circumvent Bombay Avenue and Armour Boulevard in order to avoid traffic
calming measures; and
WHEREAS concerns are greatest on streets nearest the Avenue Road/Bombay Avenue intersection;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT vehicle counts be taken on side streets before and within two weeks after
the traffic calming project is undertaken; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, if volume on the side streets increases by 7 percent or more after the installation of
temporary traffic calming measures, staff, in consultation with the Councillors and community representatives, be directed
to investigate and propose measures to diminish this impact; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a community meeting with affected residents be called, at which time staff will
present these proposed measures and seek support to instigate additional traffic calming control measures as soon as
possible for the duration of the Armour Boulevard/Bombay pilot.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
This report will detail the installation of temporary traffic calming measures on Armour Boulevard and Bombay Avenue,
requested by residents, to address issues of traffic safety and speeding, in accordance with the former City of North York's
Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy. In addition, the report will identify intersection improvements which would
supplement the Traffic Management Plan to increase motorist/pedestrian safety.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the temporary Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan are included within
the 1998 Capital Budget. Costs for improvements to specific intersections would be considered as part of the 1999 Capital
Budget.
Recommendations:
(1)that the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan, as described in this report and in accordance with policy, be
approved for installation as a temporary six month test;
(2)that the installation of the speed humps be deferred until the Spring of 1999, or until such time as a report, identifying
the impact speed humps have on emergency response times for fire and ambulance vehicles, has been received by North
York Community Council from the Ambulance and Fire Services Division of the Works and Emergency Service
Department;
(3)that the estimated cost of $185,000.00, for improvements at the Armour Boulevard/Bombay Avenue, Armour
Boulevard/Lyonsgate Drive and Armour Boulevard/York Downs Drive intersections, be included for consideration as part
of the 1999 Capital Budget item for Road Alterations;
(4)that Transportation Services staff report back to North York Community Council upon the completion of the six month
test, in accordance with policy, regarding the effectiveness of the measures and a recommendation as to whether the plan
be made permanent, including costs and budgeting; and
(5)that By-Law No. 31878, of the former City of North York, be amended to reduce the speed limit on Armour Boulevard,
York Downs Drive to Bombay Avenue, and Bombay Avenue, Armour Boulevard to Bideford Avenue to 40 k/h.
Council Reference/Background/History:
As a result of concerns from residents within the Armour Boulevard/Bombay Avenue, local residents were invited to a
community meeting.
In accordance with the Traffic Calming Policy, staff were directed to work with a Traffic Work Group, made up of
residents who live on Armour Boulevard and Bombay Avenue, in an effort to address their traffic concerns. After several
traffic work group meetings and one meeting with the community, a plan has been developed to address their concerns,
through the implementation of several different traffic calming measures. The Traffic Work Group has submitted a request
that this matter be brought forward to the North York Community Council for consideration of the proposed temporary
plan.
To address more specific concerns for vehicle speeds in the area, Council had approved the installation of speed humps on
Newbury Lane, Romney Road and Raeburn Avenue. These speed humps, located between Bathurst Street and Armour
Boulevard, have been installed.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
While traffic volumes are within acceptable limits for a collector roadway, residents are concerned that traffic patterns are
unacceptable.
The general location of the traffic calming measures proposed to address the residents concerns of safety and off peak
speeding, which consist of "pinch points", "intersection dividers", " sidewalk extensions" and "speed humps", are attached
as Schedule "A". This was agreed to, in principle, for a six month test by the affected residents. The Avenue Road/Bideford
Avenue/Bombay Avenue intersection may require further review to accommodate Toronto Transit Commission bus
operations and also to deter any further traffic filtration through the community to the north of Bombay Avenue.
Due to limitations associated with the weather and construction activities, the installation of the speed humps and
reconstruction of the intersections must be deferred until the Spring of 1999.
Conclusions:
The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has been active for numerous years,
responding to concerns of vehicle speed, volume and traffic safety. Past studies confirm that traditional methods in
controlling traffic have had only limited and short term effect. Legislated traffic controls or police enforcement have not
been effective in addressing driver behaviour to date. The physical measures which are being proposed have shown success
in addressing concerns of speeding in other areas. Staff will continue to work with the residents through to the final phases
of the design and installation process.
All City departments and emergency services have been contacted for comments pertaining to the installation of the traffic
calming measures. With the exception of the Fire Services, we have received no objections.
In general, the emergency services supported measures that can be taken to improve safety on our streets, however, they
expressed concern that when they encounter severe restrictions, emergency services vehicles will be delayed when
responding to calls.
Staff of the Toronto Ambulance and Fire Services have advised that it should be realized that when they do encounter such
road restrictions as speed humps, bumps, swells or dips, that the response of an emergency vehicle may be delayed. With
respect to this particular proposal, they would anticipate delays only at locations where speed humps were installed. All
other measures only introduce horizontal changes and therefore would not require a reduction in the speed of the response
vehicle.
To address emergency service concerns, the North York Community Council has requested that the Emergency Services
Division submit a report identifying the impacts speed humps have on emergency service response times. As a result of the
request for the report and the fast approaching cold weather, the installation of the proposed speed humps must be deferred
until the Spring. This deferral would also allow staff to assess the benefits associated with the installation of the remaining
traffic calming measures. Should it be substantiated that the residents' concerns have been met without the speed humps,
their installation could be reconsidered, and if removed from the traffic calming plan, would address the Ambulance and
Fire Services concerns for delayed response times. This division considers the proposed traffic calming plan to be
functional in addressing driver behaviour, managing vehicle speeds and increasing traffic/pedestrian safety.
Funds exist in the current operating budget to install the temporary traffic calming features for a six month test. The final
submission, which would detail the features to be included in the permanent installation of a Traffic Management Plan on
Armour Boulevard and Bombay Avenue, would include a cost estimate for the entire project.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone); 395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca. (e-mail)
________
(A copy of Schedule A referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
26
Review of Water Pressure -
Area Bounded by Highway 401 on the South,
Steeles Avenue on the North, Keele Street on the West
and Bathurst Street on the East - North York Spadina
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor
Moscoe, North York Spadina:
WHEREAS residents in the Wilson Heights and Dufferin Street area (north of Highway 401) have been complaining about
water pressure problems in this area for many years; and
WHEREAS a recent T.T.C. report dated November 18, 1998, indicates that the T.T.C. must spend an additional
$110,299.64 due to the fact that the "low static pressure of the water supply to the [Wilson yard] carhouse cannot
adequately supply fire protection at a level required by the Commission's Underwriters; and
WHEREAS the proposed developments on the Downsview Lands will put additional stress on the same water system;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
(1)the City commission a review of the water pressure within the area bounded by Highway 401 on the south, Steeles
Avenue on the north, Keele Street on the west, and Bathurst Street on the east, to determine the cause of low water pressure
in this area and make recommendations in that regard; and
(2)a review be undertaken to ensure that the Destination Technodome rezoning proposal is developed in a manner that does
not further impact on water pressure in the area.
Councillor Li Preti declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that he lives in the vicinity of the subject lands.
27
Speed Humps (3) - Lyonsgate Drive between
Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard -
North York Centre South
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution (December 9, 1998)
from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:
WHEREAS the residents on Lyonsgate Drive between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard have signed a petition
requesting speed humps on their block; and
WHEREAS meetings between residents and the transportation staff have been held in accordance with the traffic calming
policy; and
WHEREAS it has been determined that three speed humps properly distanced are required for maximum traffic speed
efficiency; and
WHEREAS the design and location of these humps have met with the approval of local residents; and
WHEREAS Lyonsgate Drive is the next street to Raeburn, Romney, Newbury Lane, where recently installed humps have
proved valuable in reduced speed of traffic; and
WHEREAS it is necessary and appropriate that the request for Lyonsgate Drive be considered in 1998 - the same year as
other streets in the neighbourhood; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT three speed humps be constructed on Lyonsgate Drive in accordance with
drawings prepared by the Transportation Department in co-operation with residents; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a maximum of $1,000.00 per hump be allocated for the traffic calming budget for
this purpose.
28
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)Committees - Committee of Adjustment - Appeal by Custodia Rizzo - 31 Kirby Road - Ontario Municipal Board
Decision - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(October 2, 1998) from the City Solicitor, recommending that the report be received as information.
(b)Sign By-law Variance Request - Billboard Roof Sign - Raffaella Russo - 373 Wilson Avenue - North York Centre
South.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for
January 20, 1999:
(October 27, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official recommending that the request for a minor
variance from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit the erection of a billboard roof sign be refused.
(c)St. Basil's Community Centre Project - Status Report.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(November 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, recommending that:
(1)the report be received as information; and
(2)a further report be submitted in January 1999 recommending a specific course of action.
(d)Appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 467 - Rescinding Specific Development Policy C.9.140, UDOP-381 -
88-102 Ellerslie Avenue - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(November 5, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on notices of appeal which have
been filed objecting to Official Plan No. 467, adopted by Council on October 1, 1998; and recommending that the report be
received for information.
(e)Referral of Application for Official Plan Amendment - Appeal of Application for Zoning By-law Amendment,
Referral of Application for Approval of Plan of Subdivision - Greatwise Developments Corporation - 305-308
Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue, UDOZ-95-19 and UDSB-1224 - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report (November 5, 1998) from the
Director, Community Planning, North District:
(November 5, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on appeals of official plan and
zoning by-law amendment application UD0Z-95-19 and subdivision application UDSB-1224 filed by the solicitor for the
applicant; and recommending that the report be received for information.
(f)Proposed Zoning By-law - 130 Industry Street - UD03-ISS - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report (November 16, 1998) from the
Director, Community Planning, North District, and authorized staff to schedule a public meeting:
(November 16, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on a request by the North York
Community Council to review in conjunction with the Black Creek Task Force (now known as the Black Creek Business
Area Association), the appropriateness of the industrial zoning adjacent to the R. DiBattista lands at 665 Trethewey Drive
and recommending that the report be received and staff be authorized to schedule a public meeting.
(g)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-26 - Esfandiar Aghaei - 162 Finch
Avenue East - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(November 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an application to amend the
Zoning By-law to permit the redevelopment of the site with a three storey, semi-detached dwelling; and recommending that
staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.
(h)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-27 - Esfandiar Aghaei - 204 Finch
Avenue East - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(November 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an application to amend the
Zoning By-law to permit the redevelopment of the site with a three storey, semi-detached dwelling. and recommending that
staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.
(i)York University Scholarship Award Winner.
Councillor Berger welcomed Nadine Stolpner, the 1998 recipient of the York University Scholarship Award, which is
given to the person who best meets the required criteria of excellent academic achievements, has a genuine need for
financial assistance, and an interest in urban studies.
The scholarship also requires the student to be involved with working in the community. Nadine has demonstrated that she
has all the qualifications needed to be awarded the scholarship.
Councillor Berger, assisted by Councillor Sgro and Councillor Moscoe, on behalf of the Members of Council and the
citizens of the former City of North York, presented Nadine with the Scholarship Award and wished her every success in
the future.
(j)Street Vending Permit Application No. 111 - Marisabel Gedina Ravelo - 15 Wallingford Road - Appeal of
Refused Application - Don Parkway.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for
January 20, 1999:
(November 24, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, recommending that the report be received and
the appeal of the decision to refuse the application not be supported.
(k)Parks and Recreation User Fees.
The North York Community Council reports having referred this matter and the following motions to the Chief
Administrative Officer to establish a broad priority setting exercise including user fees and all other fees so that Council
can collectively arrive at a decision on its priorities:
(1)Councillor Filion moved that Community Councils be allocated a per capita budget to set priorities on such areas as
Parks and Recreation user fees, snow removal and garbage pick-up;
(2)Councillor King moved that:
(a)the North York Community Council supports in principle that the harmonization of user fees for Parks and Recreation
programs should be revenue neutral; and
(b)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to develop a clear policy for the
subsidization of programs; and
(3)Councillor Shiner moved that the North York Community Council supports in principle the charging of user fees for
Parks and Recreation programs, except for public skating and outdoor swimming pools, and that the user fee policy also
facilitate the needs of those who cannot afford such programs.
A recorded vote on the recommendation of the North York Community Council to refer this matter and the motions moved
to the Chief Administrative Officer was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Sgro, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, King
AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Minnan-Wong, Shiner
ABSENT:Councillor Augimeri
Carried
(November 24, 1998) from the Director of Parks and Recreation, North District, providing the outline for the staff
presentation on the 'User Fee Issue" which was considered by the other Community Councils on November 12, 1998.
A staff presentation was made by Jane Ellis, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council with respect to this matter:
-Mr. Luigi Fracassi; and
-Mr. Julius Deutsch.
(l)Statutory Public Meeting - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-09 - Peter Roh - 85 Steeles Avenue East -
North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next
regular meeting scheduled for January 20, 1999 in order to allow for a continuation of the public meeting at 2:00
p.m. on that date and that no further notice be provided:
The North York Community Council reports having had before it the following communications and report:
(a)(December 5, 1998) from Ms. Mary McCoy, advising of her objection to the application;
(b)(December 2, 1998) from Mr. Peter Roh, requesting a deferral until the next meeting of the North York Community
Council;
(c)(November 30, 1998) from Mrs. Betty Moore, advising of her opposition to the application; and
(d)(November 18, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, forwarding recommendations with
respect to the subject application to permit an accounting business as a home occupation within an existing one-family
detached dwelling.
________
No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
________
(m)Curb Cut - 67 Claver Avenue - North York Spadina.
The North York Community Council reports having referred this matter back to the Director, Transportation
Services, District 3, for further discussion with the two local Councillors:
(December 4, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, recommending that no immediate action be
taken as the resident has the maximum driveway width permitted.
(n)New Garbage Receptacles - OMG Advertising.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following communication to its next meeting
scheduled for January 20, 1999:
The North York Community Council reports having requested the General Manager, Solid Management Waste Services,
Works and Emergency Services Department, to provide a report to the January 20, 1999 North York Community Council
meeting on this matter.
(December 3, 1998) from Councillor Disero, Davenport, advising of a pilot project to replace all existing garbage
containers with cans that have advertising on them and requesting comments from North York Community Council on
whether or not they wish to participate in the project.
(o)Presentation to Mr. Adrian D'Orazio.
Councillor Berger welcomed Mr. Adrian D'Orazio who gave unselfishly to improve the living conditions and quality of life
to a little boy named Steven Patterson and his family.
Steven suffers from Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a form of autism, and because there is no Canadian program
available for children with this disorder, Steven was attending a language cognitive development centre in Boston,
Massachusetts.
When Mr. D'Orazio heard that the Pattersons had to withdraw Steven from school because of the high costs involved,
together with the help of many volunteers and corporate people, he set about raising awareness and funds to help the
family. To date, Adrian has single-handedly raised $5,000.00, but a lot more funding is needed to reach the goal of
$12,000.00.
Councillor Berger, on behalf of the Members of Council and the citizens of the former City of North York, presented Mr.
D'Orazio with a scroll in recognition of his tremendous achievements to help Steven Patterson.
(p)1999-2003 Capital Budget Review.
The North York Community Council on December 3, 1998, reports having, recommended to the Budget Committee
that:
(1)the tree planting program initiated in the former City of North York continue in 1999 and that funds in the amount of
$50,000.00 be allocated to the 1999 Parks and Recreation Capital Budget;
(2)$100,000.00 be included in the 1999 Parks and Recreation Capital Budget for the Cummer Community Centre;
(3)in 1999, at least two playgrounds per ward be refurbished and, if necessary, brought up to CSA standards; such
playgrounds to be determined in consultation with the Ward Councillors;
(4)in order to take advantage of a cost sharing opportunity with B'nai Brith for the York Mills Baseball Diamond Lighting
Project, the 1999 Parks and Recreation Capital Budget be increased by $50,000.00 and that $50,000.00 be deleted from the
year 2000 budget forecast;
(5)$150,000.00 be allocated in the 1999 Economic Development Capital Budget for Industrial Area Revitalization Project
No. 0004 - Black Creek Business Corridor;
(6)in order for the Avenue Road improvements to be continued in 1999, the $50,000.00 budget allocation be deleted from
the year 2000 and added to the 1999 Capital Budget;
(7)the traffic calming budget be increased by $500,000.00;
(8)the Forest Heights Boulevard/Harrison Road/Vyner Road road improvements be deleted from the 1999 Transportation
Capital Works Program and replaced with the local improvement initiative on Arjay Crescent; and
(9)its previous decision regarding the Jane/Finch streetscape project approved by North York Community Council on
November 12, 1998 be reaffirmed and that the funds for Phase 1 be allocated in the 1999 Urban Planning Capital Budget.
The North York Community Council reports having requested:
(a)the Toronto Atmospheric Fund to fund the cost of the trees for the tree planting program referred to in the foregoing
Recommendation 1.;
(b)the Chief Financial Officer to provide a report to the December 11, 1998 Budget Committee meeting on the unfair
distribution of funding to the former City of North York as set out in Appendix A of the 1999 - 2003 Parks and Recreation
Capital Works Program; such report to also include the gross and net expenditures on a per Community Council basis;
(c)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report to the December 11, 1998 meeting of the
Budget Committee in the event that the St, Basil's community for this project (for which funding in the amount of
$950,000.00 was previously approved by North York Council in 1997 and City Council in 1998) does not proceed, on
other ways to mitigate the impact on the community; and that both Ward Councillors supply a list of priorities to the report
being drafted; and
(d)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:
(1)provide a progress report to the North York Community Council meeting in January on the land acquisition and
construction scheduling for the City Centre service road and that the financing needs be incorporated in the five year
capital plan; and
(2)provide a report to the wrap-up meetings of the Budget Committee on the progress being made for the York Mills Road
reconstruction project which was scheduled for 1999 and for which an engineering budget was protected in 1998.
The North York Community Council reports having had before it the following:
(i)(December 1, 1998) from Councillor King, requesting that consideration be given for an allocation of $100,000 for the
Cummer Community Centre;
(ii)(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Ella Jackson, Chair, Black Creek Business Area Association, expressing concerns on
funding cuts;
(iii)(November 25, 1998) from Mr. Vincent Baldassarra, Vice President and member of the Steering Committee,
Humberlea Community Ratepayers, expressing their concerns;
(iv)(November 19, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, attaching a detailed listing of
transportation projects in the 1999 Capital Works Program for Transportation District No. 3, (North York);
(v)(November 11, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, forwarding a preliminary capital financing plan
for the 1999-2003 capital program and recommending the financial strategies proposed be adopted in principle for
consideration with the 1999 operating budget; and
(vi)(November 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, forwarding the 1999-2003 Capital Works Program for the
City of Toronto and recommending approval of projects and cash flow for 1999.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the Black Creek Business
Corridor:
-Ms. Ella Jackson; and
-Mr. Lorne Berg.
Respectfully submitted,
MILTON BERGER,
Chair
Toronto, December 9, 1998
(Report No. 15 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City
Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)
|
