Request to Amend Conditions to Approval Tanana Investments Limited and Royal Gate Apartments, 1407 Royal York Road File No. Z-2249 (Kingsway-Humber)

Transcription

1 Request to Amend Conditions to Approval Tanana Investments Limited and Royal Gate Apartments, 1407 Royal York Road File No. Z-2249 (Kingsway-Humber) (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings held on October 6, 2000, October 10 and 11, 2000, and October 12, 2000, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that: (1) Condition 3.(ix) contained in the Conditions to Approval embodied in Clause No. 10 of Report No. 10 of The Etobicoke Community Council, headed Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code; Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments; 1407 Royal York Road File No. Z-2249, which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, be renumbered to Condition 1.(v), having the effect of making such Condition a requirement to be fulfilled by the applicant prior to the enactment of an amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and an amending zoning by-law to the Etobicoke Zoning Code, rather than as a condition of site plan approval, viz.: 1.(v) resolution of financial contributions towards the provision of school services, including the signing and registration of any necessary agreements with the Boards of Education. ; and (2) in the event that the applicant appeals City Council s refusal to amend the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code, the City Solicitor and appropriate staff, as well as any necessary consultants, be instructed to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the City s position. The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (August 9, 2000) from Ms. Roslyn Houser, Goodman Phillips & Vineberg: We have recently been retained by Tanana Investments Limited, the owner of a 2.8 acre vacant property at the north-east corner of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. In October 1998, City of Toronto Council endorsed our client s application to amend the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the development of two condominium apartment buildings having a total of 219 units. In response to the circulation of our client s application, the public and separate school boards have requested that the developer provide a contribution toward the capital costs for school facilities. Neither school board has adopted a development charge by-law. Although City staff recommended against any condition requiring a financial contribution, Etobicoke Community Council amended the conditions proposed by City staff to require financial contributions satisfactory to the school boards as a condition of site plan approval. It

2 was anticipated that there would be a further report back to Community Council from either the applicant or the school boards on their discussions regarding a appropriate contributions. City of Toronto Council endorsed the recommendations of Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting of October 28 30, Since that time, there have been a number of discussions between our client and the school boards regarding the size of the monetary contribution being sought by the boards. However, our client does not believe as a matter of principle that it should be required to make any contribution of this nature. The purpose of this letter is to request that Community Council reconsider the requirement for a financial contribution by the developer for school facilities. The Ontario Municipal Board has consistently held that the planning process may not be used to secure funding for school facilities. It is the Development Charges Act that establishes the mechanism for school boards to secure funding for capital purposes. We note that there are at least two OMB Decisions in which the Board has rejected a condition analogous to that requested by the school boards in this case. Copies of those decisions are enclosed. We therefore wish to request that Community Council recommend the deletion of the condition that would require a financial contribution to school facilities (condition (2)3(ix) in the minutes from the October 28, 1998 meeting). We would appreciate the opportunity to make a deputation on this matter at the next Community Council meeting. (Clause No. 10 contained in Report No. 10 of The Etobicoke Community Council) The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (April 1, 1998) and the supplementary report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May 6, 1998) and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that (1) the application submitted by Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, regarding an amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and the Zoning Code to permit the development of two condominium apartment buildings, 10 and 15 storeys in height, containing a total of 219 units, to be developed in conjunction with an existing 12-storey rental apartment building at 1407 Royal York Road, be approved; (2) the following report (i) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (April 1, 1998) with respect to the application be adopted, as amended by inclusion of the following: 1.(iv) prior to the enactment of an amending by-law, an amenities agreement shall be entered into, to ensure that separate outdoor pools are provided for both the existing and proposed developments and that details and stepping of the building elevations are addressed;

3 2.(iv) the amending by-law shall include a minimum unit size of 84 m 2 (900 sq. ft.) for the proposed building; 3.(1) add: as well as the incorporation of any noise and vibration attenuation measures within the project; 3.(viii) details of the proposed public art feature to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Art Advisory Committee, along with a suitable financial guarantee to ensure installation; 3.(ix) resolution of financial contributions towards the provisions of school services, including the signing and registration of any necessary agreements with the Boards of Education. (3) within six months of the completion of the project, a further traffic study be done, at the expense of the applicant and, if necessary, staff come forward with recommendations to rectify any concerns that may have arisen; (4) advance green traffic signals be installed for east-bound traffic turning north onto Royal York Road; (5) no work time extensions be allowed; (6) the following supplementary report (ii) from the Director of Community Planning, West District (September 16, 1998) be received for information; and further (7) WHEREAS the applicants have agreed to obtain acceptance of a reduction in the available density at 45 La Rose Avenue from 90 apartment units (as approved by Ontario Municipal Board Order No. 0787) to a proposed 25-unit townhouse development, subject to any conditional approval; and WHEREAS an application for rezoning of the lands at 45 La Rose Avenue is required in order to allow for the suggested 25 townhouse units; City Council agree to waive the application fee for rezoning to accommodate the townhouse development, subject to the receipt of a formal rezoning application for 45 La Rose Avenue within four weeks of the date of any conditional approval of 219 units at the north-east corner of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue (File No. Z-2249), with the amending by-laws for both projects to be presented concurrently to City Council: The Etobicoke Community Council reports having scheduled a statutory public meeting on May 6, 1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder; at which time the Etobicoke Community Council:

4 (1) deferred consideration of the following reports (i) and (ii) until the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council for a continuation of the statutory public meeting; (2) requested the applicant and representatives of the community to meet prior to that time in an attempt to achieve a resolution of the issues; namely, square footage of the units, landscaping, density, driveway locations, traffic, building height, etc.; (3) requested the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, to conduct a traffic study in the area, to be a minimum of three days, to verify the numbers given in the staff report; and (4) requested the applicant to enter into discussions with the Toronto School Board with respect to appropriate contributions toward their needs and a report back to the Community Council from either the applicant or the School Board. The Etobicoke Community Council further reports, at its meeting of May 27, 1998, having deferred the continuation of the public meeting regarding the application by Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments for amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan, pending the outcome of a meeting(s) between the applicant, interested residents and the local Councillors. The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District: Purpose: To review a proposal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the development of two condominium apartment buildings, 10 and 15 storeys in height, containing a total of 219 units, to be developed in conjunction with an existing 12 storey rental apartment building municipally known as 1407 Royal York Road. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets. Recommendation: It is recommended that the application by Tanana Investment and Royal Gate Apartments be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled and Special Site Policy No. 20 be deleted. Background: The subject site consists of two abutting properties (Exhibit No. 1). The northerly property at 1407 Royal York Road, located at the southeast corner of Royal York Road and La Rose Avenue, is owned by Royal Gate Apartments and was rezoned in 1964 by By-law Number 14,455, from Second Density Residential (R2) to Fourth Density Residential (R4) to permit apartment houses. In 1965, the existing 12 storey apartment building was constructed

5 with 150 units. In 1991, the Committee of Adjustment approved the creation of 12 additional units through the conversion of several three bedroom units into one and two bedroom units for a total of 162 units. The abutting property to the south, situated at the north-east corner of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue, is vacant and is owned by Tanana Investments. The property was originally designated as part of the Transportation Corridor to accommodate the expansion of the Richview Expressway. The boundary of the corridor was subsequently refined by Metropolitan Toronto and these lands were redesignated for High Density Residential development under Official Plan Amendment C in In August, 1997, an application for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Code was received requesting permission to develop two, 12 and 15 storey condominium apartment buildings containing a total of 214 units on the southerly portion of the property. In response to preliminary comments from staff, a revised plan for two, 10 and 15 storey condominium buildings, containing 219 units was presented at a community meeting held on February 16, Details of the community meeting are found in the Community Meeting section of this report. The revised plan is the subject of this report. Site Description and Surrounding Uses: The total site is approximately 2.4 ha (5.9 acres) in size with frontage on three roadways; La Rose Avenue, Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue (Exhibit No. 1). An above ground swimming pool is located on the south side of the existing 162 unit rental apartment building, with surface parking located along the easterly property line. Surrounding zoning categories and land uses are as follows: North: Second Density Residential (R2) - single detached dwellings South: Fifth Density Residential (R5) and Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G)-townhouses East: West: Sixth Density Residential (R6) - apartment buildings ranging in height from 11 storeys to 13 storeys Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) - townhouses at the southwest corner of Royal York Road and La Rose Avenue, and vacant lands within the Eglinton Avenue Transportation Corridor Proposal: Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments are proposing to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the development of two, 10- and 15-storey condominium buildings containing 219 units in conjunction with the existing 12-storey, 162-unit apartment building for a combined total of 381 units. The applicants propose to sever a portion of the existing apartment

6 site (Block A) to create a larger development parcel to the south (Block B), adjacent to Eglinton Avenue. Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of the site and elevation plans submitted by the applicant. A summary of site statistics is provided in Table 1. The proposed condominium development would consist of two buildings connected by a single storey lobby area. The westerly 10-storey building, containing 102 units, would be oriented towards the intersection of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. The easterly 15 storey building, containing 117 units would be situated parallel to Eglinton Avenue (Exhibit No. 2). Units in the proposed buildings would vary in size from an average of 76.6 m 2 (825 sq. ft.) for a one bedroom unit to 133 m 2 (1,437.5 sq. ft.) and m 2 (1,700 sq. ft.) for two and three bedroom units, respectively. A new driveway would be constructed at the northerly limit of Block B to provide vehicular access to the proposed buildings via Royal York Road. A limited number of parking spaces would be provided at-grade for visitors with tenant spaces provided within a two storey underground garage. The proposed configuration of Block B would cause the displacement of a swimming pool, landscape open space area and a number of surface visitor parking spaces currently utilized by the existing 12- storey apartment building. The applicant proposes to relocate the visitor parking spaces around the driveway system at the front of the building on Block A. A new swimming pool and children s play area, to be utilized as shared recreation facilities between both developments would be introduced in the north east corner of Block B. Comment: Official Plan: The combined site is designated High Density Residential in the Official Plan which generally permits multiple unit housing of all types to be developed within the range of uph (28-75 upa) to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. The vacant property to the south, however, is also affected by Special Site Policy No. 20 in the Official Plan which limits development to a maximum density of 136 uph (55 upa) a FSI of 1.5 and a building height of 15 storeys. In 1984, when the site was redesignated from Transportation Corridor to High Density Residential and the Special Site Policy was introduced, the density and floor space index restrictions were consistent with the density and height profiles of apartment structures in the area at that time. Subsequently, the City undertook a comprehensive review of the Official Plan and established policies which support housing intensification in residential, retail and institutional areas, particularly in locations with high accessibility to existing or future transit intensification. The Plan now provides for densities of up to 185 uph (75 upa) in High Density

7 Residential designations. The overall density and FSI of the combined site would be uph (64 upa) and 1.8, respectively. The existing apartment site at 1407 Royal York Road has been developed at a density of 93.3 uph (37.7 upa) with a corresponding FSI of As a result of the proposed condominium apartment development and associated realignment of property boundaries, Block A would exhibit a density of 147 uph (60 upa) and a FSI of A density and FSI of uph (74 upa) and 1.97, respectively, would be provided on Block B. Although the proposed development of Block B would comply with the 15 storey height limit outlined in Special Site Policy No. 20, the density and floor space index restrictions would be exceeded. Notwithstanding that the density would be consistent with current Official Plan provisions, an amendment is required to Special Site Policy No. 20. Residential Intensification Policies: Section of the Official Plan provides for the intensification of High Density Residential designations through the provision of additional residential units on apartment sites, provided that the level of development is within the density limits of the Plan. This section also supports the definition of the street edge through the use of additional low rise, street related building forms, where appropriate. The majority of the built form would be located on the vacant property, between the existing 12-storey apartment building and the Eglinton Avenue Transit Corridor. Notwithstanding the fact that the property would also be suitable for a grade related form, the proposed apartment buildings would relate well with the surrounding developments and would be consistent with the form of development that was contemplated by the policies of the Plan and Special Site Policy No. 20. Section of the Official Plan identifies that there are numerous sites with the potential for additional residential development at higher densities. Proposals to amend the Official Plan or Zoning Code for these purposes shall be subject to the criteria outlined in Section Staff have evaluated the proposal within the context of these criteria which have been appended as Exhibit No. 4. Based on this review staff are satisfied from a land use point of view that the proposal would meet the criteria for High Density Residential Development and Housing Intensification. The site is directly adjacent to the Eglinton Avenue Transportation Corridor and two arterial roadways with sufficient capacity to support the proposed development. In terms of height, density, floor space index and landscape open space, the project could be accommodated on the site with limited impact on the existing apartment building and surrounding developments. Residents of the proposed development would have access to local social services, retail facilities and parks. Notwithstanding the general compliance with the Official Plan, however, staff have concerns with the loss of on-site recreational amenities for the existing building and the relationship of the proposed development to Royal York Road, as discussed in the following section, Site and Building Design Considerations. In the event of approval, Special Site Policy No. 20 should be repealed and appropriate development standards, including a height, floor space and density restrictions be incorporated into an amending by-law. A draft of the amendment is attached as Exhibit No. 5.

8 Zoning Code: Site specific By-law Number 14,455 limits development of the property at 1407 Royal York Road to the existing 12 storey apartment development. The vacant lands adjacent to Eglinton Avenue are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) which would only permit single detached dwellings. In the event of approval, the amending by-law should repeal the site specific by-law and rezone the combined site to Sixth Density Residential (R6) with development standards to reflect both the existing and proposed developments. Site and Building Design Considerations: The proposed condominium buildings would be sited around the southerly perimeter of Block B to allow for a separation from adjacent buildings and surrounding land uses. In particular, the project would be separated from the Low Density Residential community on the north side of La Rose Avenue by the existing 12-storey building. The proposed buildings would be located approximately 50 m (164 ft.) to 70 m (230 ft.) from adjacent apartment buildings to the north and east, and the townhouses located on the west side of Royal York Road which would limit the impact on privacy and views for all buildings. The northerly elevation, of the westerly 10-storey building, would be situated approximately 25 m (82 ft.) from the existing building to the north. This separation distance would be acceptable as the affected elevations of both buildings would be end wall conditions with no impact on the views from principle living spaces. Shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that there would be no significant impact on principle living spaces of the adjacent buildings during the spring, summer and fall months. During the winter months, shadowing on the townhouse development to the west would occur for limited periods in the morning hours. Winter shadows on the principle living areas in the existing apartment building would occur from between approximately 12:00 noon and 3:00 p.m., and from approximately 1:00 p.m. until the end of the day for the adjacent apartment building to the east. The proposed 10-storey building would be located approximately 11 m (36 ft.) from the Royal York Road property line. Although this would be closer to the street line than the existing apartment building, the reduced setback of the proposed condominium would provide an improved relationship to the street. The applicant is proposing to step the end walls of the building at the eighth and ninth floors to reduce the bulk of the structure. Staff also suggest that an additional step be provided at the third level, across the face of the building, to encourage the development of a pedestrian oriented environment. The grade of the property slopes downwards from La Rose Avenue to Eglinton Avenue. As a result, the proposed underground garage for the new buildings, situated immediately adjacent to the westerly lot line, would become exposed up to 3.0 m (9.8 ft.) above grade at the intersection of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. Staff recommend that the garage be lowered to

9 follow the natural grade of the land and improve the relationship of the structure to the street, particularly as it relates to the pedestrian environment of Royal York Road. The depth of the Eglinton Avenue right-of-way precludes the opportunity for development on the other three corners of the intersection at Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. Any future development in the immediate area is likely to occur to the east of the site. In response to this situation, and comments from staff, the applicants have located the 15-storey building away from the intersection and approximately 20 m (65.6 ft.) from the Eglinton Avenue property line, 27 m (88.5 ft.) from the adjacent sidewalk. The building would be stepped at the thirteenth and fourteenth storeys. The proposed setback is considered appropriate for the context of the site and vehicular environment of Eglinton Avenue at this location. Landscape Open Space and Recreational Amenities: The proposed site plan would allow for 53 percent of Block A and 60 percent of Block B to be devoted to landscape open space, with an average of 56.5 percent over the combined site. This would be consistent with the landscape percentages associated with other recent approvals for housing intensification. The applicants are proposing to locate a swimming pool, patio area, changing facilities and children s play area in the northeast corner of Block B to operate as shared facilities between existing residents and future residents of the condominium buildings. Notwithstanding these percentage figures, the amount of useable on-site landscape space and recreational amenities on Block A would be reduced for residents of the existing building; staff have concerns regarding the practicality of shared facilities between rental and condominium properties. Each Block should be self sufficient in terms of its provision of landscape open space and recreational amenities. In the event of approval, staff recommend that revised plans be filed indicating sufficient on-site landscape open space and recreational facilities for each Block to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services and the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control. In the event of approval, the applicant should enter into an amenities agreement with the City to ensure the provision of recreational facilities and landscaping as indicated on the approved plans. A tree survey conducted by The Tree Specialists Inc. indicates that there are 82 trees located on the combined site. All the trees listed in good condition would be preserved. Approximately 25 trees listed in fair to poor condition would be removed due to conflicts with the proposed development and or their hazardous condition. The applicant would be required to provide tree preservation details during the Site Plan Control Approval process. Parking and Traffic: The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has advised that a Traffic Impact Study, conducted by D.S. Lea Associates Ltd., conclude that the proposed development would not have a significant impact on the level of service on the adjacent roadway. Transportation staff concur with the conclusions of the study and are satisfied with the driveway layout, traffic circulation and parking supply proposed by the applicant (Exhibit No. 6).

10 Transportation staff are also satisfied with the location of the proposed driveway at the northerly end of Block B, subject to the construction of a left turn storage lane on Royal York Road. No concerns were identified with respect to the new driveway and the operation of the intersection of Eglinton Avenue and Royal York Road. Submission of a parking management plan, outlining the management of vehicle parking during construction would be required. In this regard, use of the abutting public roadways will not be permitted. Agency Comments/Department Circulation: In response to the circulation of plan submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by the following departments: - Fire Department; Toronto Hydro; Canada Post Corporation; and Bell Canada. Comments from the Toronto Catholic School Board, Parks and Recreation Services, and the Toronto Police Department remain outstanding. The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that storm and sanitary sewers are not available from Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue (Exhibit No. 7). In the event of approval, the applicant would be required to provide a site servicing proposal prior to the passing of an amending by-law. In order to accommodate the sidewalk and drainage, a road widening would be required along the Royal York frontage from 3.0 m (9.8 ft.) in width at Eglinton Avenue, tapering down to 0.0 m towards La Rose Avenue. The Metropolitan Planning Department has indicated that the Toronto Transit Commission recommends the incorporation of noise and vibration attenuation measures into the design of the project to mitigate any potential future impacts from transit facilities. In addition, the applicant should advise prospective purchasers and lessees of the possibility for such intrusions. A conveyance, approximately 6.5 m (21.3 ft.) to 9 m (29.5 ft.) in width, across the Eglinton Avenue frontage is required to secure the appropriate right-of-way (Exhibit No. 8). The plans submitted by the applicant indicate the required conveyance. The Etobicoke Board of Education has advised that additional capacity would be required at Westmount Junior School and Scarlett Heights Collegiate to accommodate students from the proposed development. The applicant has been requested to make a contribution towards capital costs for facilities to the satisfaction of the Board of Education (Exhibit No. 9). Formal comments have not yet been received from the Toronto Catholic School Board. Neither Board has adopted a Development Charge By-law on which to base such contributions. In accordance with the practice adopted in the rest of the City, Planning staff do not recommend that such a condition be imposed. Urban Development staff note that, the applicant would be required to provide details of lighting and security and safety features on-site and within the underground garages during the site plan approval process. The project would be subject to the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permits, as well as a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution.

11 Community Meeting: On February 16, 1998, approximately 60 people attended a community meeting to review the proposal for the two, 10 and 15 storey condominium buildings. Concerns expressed by area residents related to loss of property values, safety of proposed driveway onto Royal York Road, lack of parking, traffic generation, lack of school facilities, loss of trees and landscape open space, density, loss of views, cost of units and concerns that units would be rented out. The concerns related to planning matters have been discussed in this report. Conclusions: The subject application has been evaluated within the context of the housing intensification and High Density Residential provisions of the Official Plan. Urban Development staff are of the opinion that the requested amendments to the density and floor space index restrictions of Special Site Policy No. 20 proposal would be within the density limits of the Official Plan and would generally comply with the criteria for housing intensification. In addition, the project would result in a level of development consistent with the developments in the surrounding High Density Residential designations. In the event of approval, it would be appropriate to repeal Special Site Policy No. 20 and incorporate development standards with respect to height, floor space index and density into the amending by-law. The proposed development, situated adjacent to Eglinton Avenue and Royal York Road, would have limited impact on surrounding developments and would be separated from the Low Density Residential community to the north by the existing apartment building. However, the concept of shared recreational facilities between buildings of rental and condominium tenure is inappropriate, and the applicants should submit revised plans indicating the provision of sufficient on-site recreational amenities and landscape open space for each Block and enter into an amenities agreement to ensure compliance with the approved details. In the event of approval, the following conditions should apply: Conditions to Approval: l. Fulfillment of the following conditions by the applicant prior to the enactment of an amendment to the Official Plan and amending by-law: (i) (ii) Submission of a revised plan and details outlining an increased level of on-site recreational amenities and useable landscaping for both Blocks, lowering of the parking garage, surveillance of indoor public spaces on Block A, and the signing of an amenities agreement to ensure compliance with the approved details to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control, Parks and Recreation Services and the Solicitor for the Etobicoke Office. Submission of a site servicing proposal to the satisfaction of the Works Department and the signing of a Development Agreement, to include the noise and vibration warning clauses if required, and/or Servicing Agreement and payment of the necessary fees, if required.

12 (iii) Receipt of comments from, and subject to any requirements of Parks and Recreation Services, Toronto Police Department, Development Engineering Section of the Works Department and the Toronto Separate School Board. 2. The amend ing by-law shall provide the appropriate exemptions from, or repeal of, site specific by-laws, and incorporate the following provisions inter alia: (i) (ii) (iii) Development of Block A shall be limited to one apartment building with a maximum height of 12 storeys, 162 units, a floor space index of 1.7 and a minimum landscape open space of 53 percent. Development of Block B shall be limited to a maximum of two apartment building connected by a one storey lobby, with building heights of 10 and 15 storeys, 219 units, a floor space index of 2.0, a minimum landscape open space of 60 percent. Development standards for Blocks A and B to reflect above and below grade building setbacks and parking requirements. 3. Further detailed consideration of the proposal under the Site Plan Control provisions to include inter alia: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) Signing of a Site Control Agreement, to include noise and vibration warning clauses if required and payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and registration of same. Submission of garage and on-site security and illumination measures to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control. Submission of site and landscaping plans detailing fencing, curbing, grading, upgrading recreational facilities for Block A, planting and tree preservation to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and the posting of an appropriate financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans. Provision of on-site facilities for storage and collection of waste and recyclable materials, the provision of stormwater management facilities or cash-in-lieu payment, the signing of agreements, and the posting of financial guarantees, if required by the Works Department. Submission of a parking and construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Works Department. The developer will be required to pay the prevailing development charges and parkland dedication requirements in effect at the time of the issuance of building permit.

13 Contact Name: Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design Tel: (416) ; Fax: (416) (Copies of Exhibits Nos. 1-9 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.) The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District: Purpose: To respond to requests from Etobicoke Community Council for additional information regarding the rezoning application by Tanana Investment and Royal Gate Apartments. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets. Recommendation: It is recommended that this report be received for information, and that the conditions to approval outlined in the staff report dated April 1, 1998, be amended to include the following condition: 3. (vii) Details of the proposed public art feature to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Art Advisory Committee, along with a suitable financial guarantee to ensure installation. Background: During the Community Council meeting held on April 1, 1998, additional information was requested regarding the potential of the subject property to support a public art component. In addition, a request was made to have the text of the Official Plan s Special Site Policy No. 20 available for consideration at the Public Meeting scheduled for May 6, Comment: Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, in conjunction with their requests for an Official Plan and By-law amendment, have identified an area for the introduction of a public art component at the southwest corner of their property, adjacent to the intersection of Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue. On December 22, 1997, the proposal was reviewed by the Public Art Advisory Committee (PAC) and it was determined at that the location for the proposed art feature was suitable and that additional details regarding the form of the art feature would be

14 dealt with during the Site Plan Control Approval process, when detailed building elevations and building material could be identified. Consistent with current practices, a financial guarantee would be requested prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure compliance with the approved plans. In order to secure the installation of a public art feature, an additional site plan condition to approval could be added as follows: 3. (viii) Details of the proposed public art feature to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Art Advisory Committee, along with a suitable financial guarantee to ensure installation. The second request was to provide the complete text of Special Site Policy No. 20 as stated in the Official Plan: No. 20 Lands north of Eglinton Avenue, east of Royal York Road Notwithstanding the density provisions for High Density Residential designations, development of these lands shall be permitted subject to: (i) maximum density not to exceed 136 units per hectare (ii) maximum height not to exceed 15 storeys (iii) maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) not to exceed 1.5. The rationale for the Official Plan amendment to delete this policy is provided in the staff report on the above-noted application, dated April 1, Staff have also advised the school boards that until such time as a development charges by-law is passed, requests for capital cost contributions will no longer be included as a condition to approval for residential development. However, staff will continue to include school board comments in staff reports for the information Council and interested parties. Conclusion: That this report be received for information and that the additional condition pertaining to the public art feature be adopted. Contact Name: Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design Tel: (416) ; Fax: (416) The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (October 14, 1998) from Mr. R. Elliott, Solicitor for Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments: I am instructed by H & R Developments, a participant in the partnership which owns 45 La Rose Avenue, to advise that the partnership is prepared to make an application to rezone

15 the 45 La Rose property for 25 townhouses to replace the existing apartment permission for that property. This resolution has been discussed between you and a principal of H & R Developments and is conditional upon the concurrent adoption and expedition of necessary approvals and actions required for the Tanana Investments/Royal Gate Apartment project of 219 units proposed for the north east corner of Royal York and Eglinton Avenue West and that the City waive any application fee in respect to the La Rose rezoning. The writer will appear before Community Council today to advise of this position and request Community Council s directions. The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on May 6, 1998, with respect to the foregoing matter: - Mr. R. Elliott, Solicitor for Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, speaking in support of the application; - Mr. W. Rutherdale, concerned about loss of view, green space, trees and birds which are a source of enjoyment for all residents, loss of the afternoon sun; - Mr. J. Stasiuk, a member of the Humber Heights Ratepayers and the Westmount School Advisory Council, concerned about overcrowding in the schools, concerned that the infrastructure cannot accommodate extra children; that there is no contribution to the school boards, etc.; - Mr. D. Scott, concerned about losing 33 percent of the land area; the impact of increased traffic and how carbon monoxide emissions will be monitored; and expressing the opinion that a traffic survey was not taken; - Mr. R. Dugall, concerned about the higher than normal levels of traffic congestion and pollution; already overburdened schools and public facilities; the addition of another highrise development to a neighbourhood with more than is fair share of such buildings; loss of mature trees to accommodate the development; - Mr. M. Walton, representing MTCC No. 1181, who explained the rationale of the special site policy, which was set in place in 1983 to restrict residential density in the area until there was an intensification of the transportation system, and expressed the opinion that it should not be set aside. Mr. Walton further expressed that opinion that if the applicant were allowed to erect a building within the special site policy the community would find it acceptable; - Mr. G. Scott, expressed concern regarding the traffic impact study; that an advance green light is absolutely necessary for east bound traffic to turn left during rush hours; that the study has major flaws, in that it was done in July when there was no school and people were on vacation;

16 - Mr. R. Glover, representing the Board of Directors, YCC No. 193, whose recommendation was that Council reject the application in favour of a submission similar to those on the townhouses on the north-west corner; agreeing with the comments about the special site policy and the need to maintain it as there are presently 15 high rise buildings along the Eglinton/La Rose strip; concerned about the protection of investment for present owners who have invested a lot of money into high end residential units, the traffic study and the numbers that it presents; absentee landlords; - Mr. D. Close, objecting to the application, stating that the allowance for development in the special site policy is sufficient, additional development will have a negative impact on property values and gave a comparison of property values on each corner; asked that a minimum level of square footage be set for the units if the development does proceed to achieve property values in keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood; requested that traffic studies be done at a time of year that would properly determine traffic flow; and - Mrs. M. DiUlio, who stated that there are presently 9 apartment buildings, 2 churches, a school, and a busy plaza in close proximity, which does not leave much capacity on La Rose Avenue; on behalf of the residents of La Rose Avenue, speaking against the exiting of this project onto La Rose Avenue, and objecting to the change in the special site policy, which should remain at the present density. The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council at the continuation of the public meeting on October 14, 1998: - Mr. R. Elliott, Solicitor for Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, speaking in support of the application, highlighting revisions to the proposal as a result of the community consultation; - Mr. M. Skorba, strongly opposed to the proposal, concerned about the traffic congestion and the road infrastructure in light of past meetings about Eglinton Avenue and the recently completed redevelopment of Royal York Road to the south; - Mr. P. Jones, who asked that the special site policy not be deleted, that the number of units be reduced to 312 and that the project comply with the special site policy with regard to the Floor Space Index; - Mr. R. Dunn, who questioned the rationale for recommending approval of the project; - Ms. P. Clarke, concerned about the impact of the development on the already high noise level in the community; - Mr. M. Walton, representing MTCC No. 1181, who expressed appreciation for that a series of community meetings with the Councillors which were successful in achieving a number of changes to the proposal; and - Mr. L. O Malley, who questioned the time frame of the traffic study, and noted the need for changes with respect to left-turn movements.

17 The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communications expressing various concerns with respect to the application including increased traffic volume, density, loss of green space, impact on property values, etc.: - (April 27, 1998) from Mr. M. J. Walton, Director, MTCC No. 1181; - (April 26, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. F. Gooderham; - (April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. C. Healy; - (April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. I. Mcleod; - (April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. A. Scolarlo; - (April 27, 1998) from Mrs. M. Sayers; - (April 25, 1998) from Ms. C. Smith; - (April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. C. Weston; - (April 26, 1998) from Mr. D. A. Ramsay; - (April 27, 1998) from Ms. J. Kaif; - (April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. L. O Malley; - (April 25, 1998) from Mr. P. Bowers; - (April 27, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. P. Jones; - (April 26, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. D. Clark; - (April 24, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. M. Lunel and others; - (April 29, 1998) from Mr. G. Scott and family; - (April 29, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. B. McGregor; - (April 30, 1998) from Dr. and Mrs. M. Neweduk; - (April 28, 1998) from Mr. B. Patterson; - (April 30, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Curtis; - (May 1, 1998) from Mr. A. C. Roberts; and - (April 28, 1998) 58 identical letters signed by residents of 1407 Royal York Road. The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it, during consideration of this matter at its meeting on September 19 and 20, 2000, the following communications: (i) (ii) (August 11, 2000) from Mr. Brian M. Dourley, Miller Thomson, submitting comments regarding the communication from Ms. Roslyn Houser, on behalf of the Toronto Catholic District School Board; and requesting, for the reasons outlined in the communication, that the Condition to Approval requiring a financial contribution to be made to school facilities not be deleted; (September 18, 2000) from Mr. Brian M. Dourley, Miller Thomson, advising that he is unable to appear on behalf of the Toronto Catholic District School Board; that the School Board s position is set out in his letter of August 11, 2000; and, once again, respectfully requesting that the condition regarding a financial contribution to school facilities not be deleted; and

18 (iii) (September 19, 2000) from Mr. Brad Teichman, McCarthy Tetrault, submitting comments, on behalf of the Toronto District School Board, in support of the submissions by Mr. Brian Dourley, set out in his communications dated August 11, 2000, and September 18, 2000; and requesting that the condition relating to a financial contribution for the provision of school services not be deleted. The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter: - Ms. Roslyn Houser, Goodman Phillips & Vineberg, on behalf of the applicant; and - Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, Etobicoke.