Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code

Adanac Realty Limited, North Side of Bell Manor Drive, north of

Berry Road, west of Stephen Drive - File No. Z-2284

(Lakeshore-Queensway)

The Etobicoke Community Council after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and the report (May 12,1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:

(1)Condition 1(iii) of the following report (May 12, 1999) be amended by inserting the words "to a limit of $4,000 for Parks and Recreation Services and the community, if they so desire, to try", after the word "funding"so that Condition 1(iii) reads as follows:

1(iii)The developer provide funding to a limit of $4,000 for Parks & Recreation Services and the community, if they so desire, to try to re-establish a stand of sassafras trees within the immediate neighbourhood, to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services;

(2)Condition 1(iv) be added as follows:

1(iv)If legally possible, granting of an easement to provide for a public walkway across the property to provide access to the abutting plaza;

(3)Condition 3(iv) be amended by adding the words "if required upon review of previous contributions", so that Condition 3(iv) reads as follows:

3(iv)The developer to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits and any outstanding cash-in-lieu of parkland contributions or dedications, if required upon review of previous contributions; and

(4)the application by Adanac Realty Limited to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code from Fifth Density Residential (R5) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the development of eight, freehold townhouse units on a vacant parcel of land, located on the north side of Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road and west of StephenDrive, be approved; and

5.the following report (May 17, 1999) from the Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards Division, regarding complains of litter and broken trees on the facant property on the north side of Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road, be received:

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

The Etobicoke Community Council further reports, for the information of City Council, having requested the City Solicitor to report back to Community Council on:

(i)whether a public easement would exist across the property and the process for registering same on title;

(ii)the mechanism for obtaining an easement across the property to the north to connect to a public walkway on the site; or whether a public easement would exist across the northern property and the process for registering same on title.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 12,1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a proposal to rezone the 1 504 m² (0.37 acre) vacant parcel of land, located on the north side of Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road and west of Stephen Drive from Fifth Density Residential (R5) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the development of eight, freehold townhouse units.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Adanac Realty Limited be approved subject to a public meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions to approval outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

On January 19, 1999, Adanac Realty Limited submitted a rezoning application to permit the development of eight, freehold townhouse units on the subject site. Etobicoke Community Council, on February 17, 1999, received a Preliminary Report in connection with this proposal and requested that the Director of Community Planning, West District, address issues with respect to whether the subject property should be considered environmentally significant within the context of the Etobicoke Official Plan due to the existence of sassafras trees on the property and to review the potential for an easement across the property for the benefit of local residents for access to StonegatePlaza. These matters are discussed later in the report.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

This remnant 1 504 m² (0.37 acre) vacant parcel of land is located on the north side of BellManorDrive, north of Berry Road and west of Stephen Drive (Exhibit No. 1). The site is steeply sloped with the toe of the slope along Bell Manor Drive. The top of the slope abuts a paved driveway associated with an existing apartment building which fronts onto Crown Hill Place. The east and west sides of the parcel comprise built-up areas of asphalt pavements, including a partial retaining wall at the east end of the site.

The surrounding land uses are as follows:

North:Beyond the crest of the slope, lands are zoned Fifth Density Residential (R5) and are occupied by low-rise apartment buildings which front onto a local street Crown Hill Place.

South:Across Bell Manor Drive, an Etobicoke collector road, lands are zoned Fifth Density Residential (R5) and occupied low-rise apartment buildings with at-grade parking areas fronting onto Bell Manor Drive.

West:Fronting onto Bell Manor Drive, lands are zoned Fifth Density Residential (R5) and are occupied by low-rise apartment buildings with associated at-grade parking areas.

East:Fronting onto Bell Manor Drive and Stephen Drive lands are zoned Planned Commercial Local (CPL) and occupied by a neighbourhood retail plaza (Stonegate Plaza).

Proposal:

Adanac Realty Limited has requested a rezoning of the subject lands from Fifth Density Residential (R5) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the development of eight, freehold townhouse units.

Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of the site plan and building elevations. A summary of the site statistics provided by the applicant is as follows:

Site Area:1 504 m²16, 189 ft²

Gross Floor Area:1 156 m²12, 448 ft²

Number of Units:8

Floor Space Index:0.77

Density:53 uph21 upa

Height:13 m43 ft.(three storeys)

Coverage:493 m²5, 310 ft² 33 %

Landscaped Area:874 m²9, 410 ft²58 %

Paved Area:137 m²1, 475 ft² 9 %

Parking Required:13 spaces (as per Zoning Code requirements of 1.6 spaces per unit)

Parking Provided:16 spaces (including eight spaces on individual driveways)

The proposal consists of eight grade-related townhouse units oriented towards Bell Manor Drive. The units would be typically three storeys high with a maximum roof height of 13 m (43 ft.). The units would contain three bedrooms with an average unit size of 143 m² (1, 541 sq.ft.). The width of the proposed units would be 5.2 m (17.3 ft.). The majority of units would have a 7.0 m (23 ft.) rear yard and a frontyard setback of 5.5 m (18 ft.). In addition a 7.8 m (25.5 ft.) landscape buffer would extend beyond the private rear yard amenity space of the individual units at the top of the proposed retaining wall. A 1.8 m (6 ft.) wood screen fence will be installed along the north property line which would limit the impact on privacy and views. Residential parking would be provided with parking for two cars; one in a single car garage and one parked on the driveway. Landscaping would be provided in individual rear and front yards and within the public boulevard.

Comment:

Official Plan and Zoning Code:

The site is designated High Density Residential in the Official Plan, which generally permits multiple unit housing of all types to be developed within the range of 70-185uph (28-75 upa) to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. The proposed density of the project would be 53 uph (21upa) with a corresponding FSI of 0.77, which falls well below the density limits of the Plan. The site is zoned Fifth Density Residential (R5) which permits among other uses apartment houses. The current zoning could permit a 4-storey, 27 unit apartment building. However, given the site constraints, the applicant has requested that the site be downzoned to permit a street related form of development. Proposals to amend the Zoning Code, for these purposes are subject to the criteria outlined in Section 4.2.19 of the Official Plan. Staff have evaluated the proposal within the context of these criteria which have been appended as Exhibit No.4.

Planning staff are generally satisfied that the proposal would meet the criteria for High and Medium Density residential development as outlined in Section 4.2.19 of the Plan. The proposal would be compatible with the adjacent low-rise apartment developments to the east, north and south and would provide for a greater range of housing types in the area. There is sufficient capacity on the adjacent roadways to support the development, and hard and soft services can be provided. The site is located in an area with access to Berry Road and to Parklawn Road, both of which have been identified as Etobicoke Arterial Roadways in the Etobicoke Official Plan. Public transit is available on Stephen Drive and Park Lawn Road. Commercial shops and services are in close proximity at Stonegate Plaza adjacent to the site. In addition, recreation facilities are available locally at BellManor Park to the west of the site.

Subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, staff recommend that the site be rezoned to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) with development standards to reflect the approved project.

Land Use and Site Design Considerations:

While the proposed residential development would be compatible with the neighbourhood to the east, south and north, as proposed, it would place residential development in close proximity to the retail plaza's (Stonegate Plaza) service driveway and refuse storage area, located to the west of the proposal.

Staff reviewed the land use compatibility of the proposal within this context and requested the applicant to provide an adequate buffer and/or separation distance between the easterly boundary of this proposed development, and the service area of the existing neighbourhood plaza use which it abuts. Staff note that the subject lands and Stonegate Plaza property are under the same ownership.

In response to staff's request, the applicant has proposed a buffer which includes a 3.0 to 3.5 m (10to 11 ft.) sideyard setback; intensified landscaping within the sideyard; and, a 1.8 m (6 ft.) high wood screen fence. In addition to these provisions, the applicant will also provide an updated service plan for the Plaza, which would detail the service requirements of the Plaza, including delivery, refuse storage and removal. The adequacy of the proposed service plan, should be finalized to the satisfaction of the Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services Departments prior to Council's consideration of an amending by-law. The approved Servicing Plan will be secured through an appropriate agreement(s).

If the separation and/or buffer between the two uses and the new Servicing Plan proposed by the applicant is implemented, potential land use conflicts between the existing commercial use and proposed residential development should be minimized.

Community Council Requests:

As noted above, on February 17, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council received a Preliminary Report in connection with this proposal and requested that the Director of Community Planning, West District, address issues with respect to whether the subject property should be considered environmentally significant within the context of the Etobicoke Official Plan due to the existence of sassafras trees on the property. This is a species of tree that is rare to the Toronto area. The Director was also requested to review the potential for an easement across the property for the benefit of local residents for access to Stonegate Plaza. These matters were also referred to the Environmental Task Force for their review and comment.

Planning Staff have reviewed the relevant policies of the Etobicoke Official Plan - Environmentally Significant Areas Section 6.4 with respect to designating the subject site as environmentally significant. The Official Plan has identified nine Environmentally Significant Areas within the former City and are outlined on Map 6 of the Plan which include areas that provide a natural habitat for rare indigenous species. Other areas may also be identified over time and incorporated into the Plan if deemed appropriate with the assistance of agencies such as the Toronto Region Conservation Authority or Parks and Recreation Services.

Parks and Recreation Services staff advise that although the site is home to a rare stand of sassafras trees, the site's topography (steeply sloped), soil condition (sand and gravel) and tree condition (pedestrian trampling of root structures for years) is such that preserving or relocating the trees would not succeed.

The applicant also submitted an Arborist Report, prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited, which concluded that the presence of the sassafras on the site is of some significance. However, due to the poor condition of the site and its relative isolation with no linkages to other natural areas, the preservation of these trees would be of little value in their present location. The report recommends that were possible, existing trees outside of the building envelope should be preserved and that other species of trees, including the large oaks that exist on the property, be preserved as they are in excellent condition. These preservation methods would be reviewed in more detail in conjunction with an application for site plan control approval.

The applicant and Parks and Recreation staff have consulted a number of tree contractors who concur that relocating the trees would not be successful. This matter has been reported on separately by Parks and Recreation Services to Community Council on April 28, 1999. The Environmental Task Force concurs with these recommendations.

With respect to the request of Community Council to consider the provision of an easement across the site for the benefit of local residents to access Stonegate Plaza, staff note that the property has been used by local residents from Hill Heights Drive and Crown Hill Place to access the Plaza for a number of years without the permission of the owner(s). Staff further note that there is an intervening parcel of land located to the north of the subject site which separates the subject property from those residents on Hill Heights Drive and Crown Hill Place. The owner of the intervening property (5 and 6 Crown Hill Place) advised Community Council in a letter dated March 8, 1999, that they are opposed to the provision of an easement on the subject site as it would further encourage trespassing, littering, noise and vandalism on their property (Exhibit No. 5).

Staff note that the neighbourhood has an established public network of roads and sidewalks, and that access to the Plaza for those residents on Hill Heights Drive and Crown Hill Place exists by way of a Public Lane that connects Crown Hill Place to Riverwood Parkway and Stephen Drive.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by the Fire Department, Realty Services, Toronto Hydro and Canada Post.

The Transportation Planning Section of City Works Services recommends that the proposed paired driveway width be reduced from 6.5 m in width to a smaller to a range between 5.5 m to 5.8 m in width and that the driveway length be increased from 5.5 m to 6 m in accordance with Zoning Code standards (Exhibit No. 6).

The Waste Management Division will provide curb-side waste and recycling collection for the project.

The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that there are existing watermains, storm and sanitary sewers available on Bell Manor Drive. Storm water management and grading (including proposed retaining wall) shall be to the satisfaction of the Works Department. (Exhibit No. 7).

As noted above, Parks and Recreation staff have reported on the sassafras trees under separate cover. Parks staff have concluded that no preservation measures be taken for the sassafras trees. In compensation for the loss, Parks and Recreation staff have recommended that an intensified planting of shrubs and trees be provided above the proposed retaining wall, the existing asphalt boulevard be rehabilitated to grass, and street trees be planted. On April 28, 1999, Community Council endorsed the recommendations in the report and further moved that the developer provide funding to re-establish a stand of sassafras trees within the immediate neighbourhood to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services and Works and Emergency Services. The subject proposal would also be subject to a 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication.

The Toronto District School Board has advised that the students anticipated from the proposed development cannot be accommodated at Park Lawn Junior-Middle School and Etobicoke Collegiate, and the Board will be required to make alternative accommodation arrangements (ExhibitNo. 8). The Toronto District Catholic School Board have no objection to the application. They have however expressed their concern regarding overcrowding and the lack of permanent facilities at Bishop Allen Catholic School. Junior grade students can be accommodated at St.MarkCatholic School (Exhibit No. 9).

Further Planning Approvals and Agreements:

As the lands are subject to Site Plan Control, the applicant would also be required to submit detailed site plans for review and approval including a tree preservation and replanting plan.

The applicant is requesting freehold tenure with the sale of individual lots to be facilitated through the consent process and/or the lifting of part-lot control. No application to either the Committee of Adjustment or the lifting of part-lot control has been received.

Community Meeting:

A community meeting was held on March 31, 1999, at which time approximately six area residents reviewed and commented on the proposed application. Residents expressed concerns regarding the significance of the sassafras trees located on the site, existing commercial traffic and noise from the servicing of Stonegate Plaza and the need for additional forms of affordable housing.

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

Conclusion:

The subject application has been evaluated within the context High Density Residential provisions of the Official Plan. Community Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed development is well below the density limits of the Official Plan and would comply with the criteria for considering developments within High Density residential designations. In the event of approval, it would be appropriate to incorporate development standards with respect to height, floor space index and density into the amending by-law.

The proposal would be compatible with the adjacent low-rise apartment developments to the east, north and south and would provide for a greater range of housing types in the area. Notwithstanding the project's general compliance with the Official Plan criteria, the rezoning could result in land use compatibility concerns with respect to the servicing of the neighbourhood retail plaza to the east. A separation and/or buffer between the two uses, and the securing of a Servicing Plan for the Stonegate Plaza should minimize potential land use conflicts between the existing commercial use and proposed residential development.

In is recommended that the application be approved, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:

Conditions to Approval:

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

(i)Submission of plans and information to address the requirements of Traffic Planning and Development Engineering Sections of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

(ii)Submission of a Service Plan for Stonegate Plaza, which shall address servicing requirements for delivery and refuse storage to the satisfaction of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services including the signing of any necessary agreements and the posting of a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plan.

(iii)The developer provide funding to re-establish a stand of sassafras trees within the immediate neighbourhood to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services.

2.The amending by-law shall provide for the following:

(i)Rezoning of the site from Residential Fifth Density (R5) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G). The site specific by-law shall provide standards for units, floor space index, height, setbacks, coverage, landscaped open space, fencing and parking.

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

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

(ii)Submission of landscape plans detailing fencing, curbing, grading, retaining walls, street trees, planting and tree preservation methods for trees (including abutting properties), to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and the posting of a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans.

(iii)Provision of on-site services, including the provision of storm water management facilities or cash-in-lieu payment, the signing of agreements, and the posting of financial guarantees, if required, by Works and Emergency Services.

(iv)The developer to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits and any outstanding cash-in-lieu of parkland contributions or dedications.

(v)A construction site management plan shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPPTel: (416) 394-6004

Community Planning, West DistrictFax: (416) 394-6063

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-9, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (May 17, 1999) from the Director of Municipal Licensing & Standards:

Purpose:

Staff has been requested to report to the Etobicoke Community Council regarding complaints of litter and broken trees on the subject property.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The property in question has been the subject of two previous reports. The report from the Director of Community Planning, West District dated May 12, 1999, addresses the proposal to develop the lands concerned with eight, freehold townhouse units. The second report dated April 7, 1999, is from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and it addresses the stand of Sassafras trees on the property.

In the report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, it was noted that the site is steeply sloped and is subject to heavy traffic from children playing. Consequently, the potential for small trees to flourish has been diminished. Furthermore, the site is prone to an accumulation of litter; both wind blown and from pedestrian traffic crossing the property.

Currently, there are no complaints on file with Municipal Licensing and Standards with respect to the condition of the property. The last complaint was in 1998 and it related to litter.

Subsequently, our staff arranged to have the owner of the property clean up the site. An inspection of the property on May 17, 1999, confirms that litter is again accumulating on the site and that the potential for growth of small trees is in fact hampered by pedestrian traffic.

Municipal Licensing and Standards is prepared to insure that litter on the property is cleaned up however, finding a permanent solution to the problem of litter is certainly preferable. With respect to protecting tress on the property, should the site remain vacant, the property owner would have to secure the site from access by pedestrians in order to prevent further damage to the trees. To the best of our knowledge, there is no authority to require the site to be fenced off although, the property owner might find that securing the property from public access may be preferable to constantly having to clean up the site.

Conclusions:

Should the proposal to develop the subject property with eight townhouse units be approved, Municipal Licensing and Standards would support a buffer being provided (consisting of landscaping and a 1.8m fence) between the plaza and the lands concerned. Furthermore, we support a service/maintenance plan for the plaza being implemented. Both the buffer and service plan for the plaza were addressed earlier in the report dated May 12, 1999, from the Director of Community Planning.

In the event the proposed development of the property is not approved, your Municipal Licensing and Standards staff will meet with the property owner to discuss implementation of a pro-active maintenance program for the property.

Contact Name:

David Roberts, C.P.S.O.,

District Manager, West District,

Telephone: (416) 394-2532; Fax: (416) 394-2904

_____

Mr. K. K. Dewaele, DD Consulting, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on behalf of Adanac Realty Limited, with respect to the foregoing matter.