Final Report - Application to Amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code Princess Garden Management, 1137-1141 Royal York Road File No

CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 2 of the Etobicoke Community Council, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on April 14, 15 and 16, 2003.

Final Report - Application to Amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code Princess Garden Management, 1137-1141 Royal York Road File No. TA ZBL 2001 0002 (Ward 4 - Etobicoke Centre)

(City Council on April 14, 15 and 16, 2003, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of the Etobicoke Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

“It is recommended that Council adopt the following Motion:

“WHEREAS City staff recommended that the application be approved with either a 17-storey height limit stepping down to 11 storeys, or a 14-storey height limit stepping down to 10 storeys (Option ‘C’); and

WHEREAS Etobicoke Community Council approved the application with the building footprint shown as Option ‘C’, but with a 10-storey height limit; and

WHEREAS the proposal for a 14-storey building, stepping down to a height of 10 storeys shown as Option ‘C’ is an appropriate use of the land;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopt the recommendations embodied in the staff report dated February 24, 2003, from the Director, Community Planning, West District, to approve the development of a 14-storey building, stepping down to 10 storeys, using the footprint shown as Option ‘C’, subject to the following:

(a) that all greenspace on the site be accessible to the residents of both the existing building and the new building;

(b) before introducing the necessary Bills in Council for enactment, the City Solicitor shall be satisfied that the owner has provided a Letter of Understanding confirming the provision to the tenants of window coverings, and that there will be no flow through rent increases; and

(c) before introducing the necessary Bills in Council for enactment, the Owner shall be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto, respecting transportation improvements on Royal York Road and Royal York Court, a sidewalk on Royal York Court, and any other services deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; Toronto City Council 2 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the following reports be received:

(i) (December 18, 2002) from the Director, Community Planning, West District;

(ii) (February 11, 2003) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2; and

(iii) (April 8, 2003) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.”)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1) Option ‘C’, appended to the report dated February 24, 2003, from the Director, Community Planning, West District, be approved, with a maximum height of 10 storeys;

(2) all greenspace on site be accessible to the residents of both the existing building and the new building; and

(3) the reports dated December 18, 2002, from the Director, Community Planning, West District, and February 11, 2003, from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, be received.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director, Community Planning, West District, to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter, on technical amendments and conditions to give effect to Recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 above.

The Etobicoke Community Council held a continuation of the statutory Public Meeting commenced on January 21, 2003.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (February 24, 2003) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to discuss further refinements to the draft bill and responds to Community Council’s request to examine the impact of reducing the height of the proposed building to 10 or 14 storeys.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report. Toronto City Council 3 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1) request the Director of Community Planning, West District to finalize amendments to the Zoning Code for the former City of Etobicoke that either enacts the recommendations of the December 18, 2002 staff report, or enables Option C as attached to this report, if Council determines that a lower building height is desirable;

(2) before introducing the necessary Bill to City Council for enactment, require the owner to enter into an agreement with the City respecting transportation improvements on Royal York Road and Royal York Court, a sidewalk on Royal York Court, and any other services deemed necessary by Works and Emergency Services; and

(3) before introducing the necessary Bill to City Council for enactment, require the owner to enter into an agreement with the tenants with respect to window coverings, use of new amenity space, use of the internal open space area, and rent increases.

Background:

At its meeting of January 21, 2003, Etobicoke Community Council had two reports before it regarding the Final Rezoning Report for 1137-1141 Royal York Road. The first, dated December 18, 2002, recommended that a by-law be approved for the addition of a 17-storey apartment building on a site occupied by a 10-storey apartment building, a Section 37 agreement be enacted and agreements entered into prior to the enactment of the bill. The second, dated January 17, 2003, advised that the bill required changes before being enacted and the Director of Community Planning West District would report further on this during the April 2, 2003 Community Council Meeting.

Etobicoke Community Council required the continuation of the Public Meeting on March 3, 2003, and requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to submit a report on further refinement of the draft bill and the impact of reducing the height of the proposed building to 10 or 14 storeys. Toronto City Council 4 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Comments:

(1) 10 and 14-Storey Options

The applicant prepared five 10 and 14-storey options attached to this report as Attachments Nos. 1-10 (Site Plans SP-A to SP-E and Elevations Options A-E), with the same number of units as the proposal described in earlier reports, to demonstrate the impacts on the site and surrounding area. SP-A and Option A show the current proposal at 19-storeys. The December 18, 2003 report recommended a reduction to17-storeys. This option has the smallest foot print and the most landscaped open space.

SP-B and Option B show a 10-storey slab building that removes much of the central open space currently occupied by mature landscaping and a significant grove of trees that are important to the tenants in the existing rental building.

The other three site plan and elevation options (C, D and E) show 14-storey options with varying degrees of encroachment into the central green space and successive widening of the 10-storey portion of the building immediately adjacent to Royal York Road. This presents a more prominent façade to Royal York but starts to impact views from the existing building to the southwest.

The applicant has indicated that SP-A and Option A, the current proposal, is his preferred option. City staff have reviewed the various options and determined that each has a different impact on the site and the existing apartment building. The planning and design principles used when reviewing the current proposal are as follows:

(a) save as much of the mature vegetation and green space as possible;

(b) place the proposed building away from the existing rental building to reduce shadow impact and pedestrian level wind impact;

(d) reduce the height to minimize view, shadow and wind impacts.

The new options vary in how they compare to the current option, but at least one of the principles described above is made worse in each case:

(i) Option B takes away the central green space but will be only 10 storeys;

(ii) Option C reduces the maximum height to 14 storeys, but blocks southerly views from some units in the existing apartment and encroaches into the central green space;

(iii) Option D reduces the maximum height to 14 storeys, but widens the 10 storey portion along Royal York Road and starts to block views from the existing apartment to the west and is also blocking some views to the south; and Toronto City Council 5 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

(iv) Option E reduces the maximum height to 14 storeys, but widens the Royal York frontage further and increases the views blocked to the west.

Of the options that reduce the building height to 14 storeys, staff prefer Option “C”, which has a minimal impact on the internal green space area, while retaining the same building footprint on Royal York Road as the original proposal.

(2) Apartment Neighbourhood at Anglesey Boulevard and the Kingsway

At the January 21, 2003 Public Meeting, a deputant asked if the approval of the current proposal would set a precedent for the High Density Residential Area at Anglesey Boulevard and the Kingsway. Both the Etobicoke Official Plan and the new Toronto Official Plan set out criteria for intensification of existing apartment sites that must be followed.

The Etobicoke Official Plan criteria include: proximity to retail facilities or other high density designations; adequacy of local social and educational services; proximity to collector roads and level of accessibility; the suitability of the site to accommodate the proposed density; on-site parking, landscaping and recreational facilities; the desire to provide a range of dwelling types and building heights; the effect of increased traffic; no adverse impacts in terms of overshadowing or loss of amenity; the relationship to nearby lower density residential uses; and proximity to significant open space.

The new Toronto Official Plan sets out development criteria in Apartment Neighbourhoods. These include locating and massing new buildings to provide a transition between areas; minimizing shadow impacts on lower scale neighbourhoods; framing the edges of streets and parks; include sufficient parking on site; locate and screen service areas away from adjacent streets and residences; provide recreation space; create a community benefit for existing residents on site; provide adequate space between the buildings; and preserve or replace landscape features and recreational space.

The current proposal was evaluated using the criteria, and any new development proposal will be evaluated using the criteria to establish the merit of the application. In addition, the existing rental buildings on these sites are protected through policies in both Plans so that there will not be a loss of affordable rental buildings in order to build new condominium buildings.

(3) By-law Refinements

The draft by-law will be further refined to eliminate the provision for a temporary sales office, describe both the existing and the proposed buildings, identify parking ratios for both buildings, and identify the green space for both buildings.

The December 18, 2002 report identifies Section 37 requirements. It has been determined that a Section 37 Agreement is not necessary and the elements identified in that report will be secured as follows: Toronto City Council 6 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

(4) Site Plan Agreement

The site plan process will secure the noise abatement issues such as warning clauses, masonry, windows, and central air conditioning.

(5) Tenant-Owner Agreement

The owner is required to execute an agreement with the tenants in the existing building, prior to the bill being enacted, to ensure that: there will be an allowance for window coverings; rents will not increase as a result of improvements to the site; and the existing tenants will have use of the proposed building’s amenity space and open space areas.

Conclusions:

The 10 and 14-storey options have advantages and disadvantages over the current plan. If Community Council supports a lower building height, staff recommend that Option “C” be considered because it provides the best compromise between a lower building height and other site objectives. The draft by-law will be forwarded to Council if Community Council decides whether the proposed 17- storey building or one of the other options should be supported and the applicant fulfils the conditions of approval.

Contact:

Wendy Johncox, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Community Planning, West District Telephone: (416) 394-8227; Fax: (416) 394-6063 E-mail: [email protected]

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (January 17, 2003) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To inform Community Council that changes may be required to the draft by-law attached to the Final Report on 1137-1141 Royal York Court.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report. Toronto City Council 7 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Recommendation:

That the Director of Community Planning, West District, report to the April 2, 2003 Etobicoke Community Council, on further refinement of the draft bill, that the April 2, 2003 meeting be a continuation of the January 21, 2003 statutory public meeting and that the Etobicoke Community Council set a specific time for the continuation of the public meeting.

Background:

The Etobicoke Community Council is scheduled to hold a Planning Act Public Meeting for the subject on January 21, 2003.

Comments:

Staff from the City’s Legal Division are reviewing the draft by-law attached to the Final Report and have determined that the by-law may require changes before being enacted. Their review is not yet complete.

The changes required to the by-law include: the insertion of revised plans showing the tiered building in order to establish setbacks; the securing of benefits and the method for securing them; and the removal of the provision to allow a temporary condominium sales office.

Conclusions:

Planning Staff will report back to April 2, 2003, Etobicoke Community Council with the changes required to the draft bill.

Contact:

Wendy Johncox, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Tel: (416) 394- 8227 Fax: (416) 394-6063 E-mail: [email protected]

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (December 18, 2002) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

This report reviews and recommends approval of an application to amend the Zoning Code to allow an infill 17 storey terraced apartment building at 1137-1141 Royal York Court. Toronto City Council 8 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1) amend the Zoning Code for the former City of Etobicoke substantially in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Attachment No. 5;

(2) authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as may be required; and

(3) before introducing the necessary Bills to City Council for enactment, require the owner to enter into a Section 37 agreement to ensure that: rental increases in the existing rental building will not be for the improvements to the lands or construction of the new building; tenants facing the new building will be given an allowance to purchase window coverings for privacy purposes; warning clauses regarding noise will be inserted in purchase and sale agreements and rental agreements; and the tenants in the existing rental building will have access to the ground floor amenity space of the proposed building should it be rental tenancy; and

(4) before introducing the necessary Bills to City Council for enactment, require the owner to enter into an agreement with the City respecting transportation improvements on Royal York Road and Royal York Court, and a sidewalk on Royal York Court, and any other services deemed necessary by Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

(1) Proposal

The applicant originally proposed to build a 21-storey apartment building located on the same lot as an existing 301 unit, 10-storey, rental apartment building and later revised this to 19-storeys. City Planning staff requested that the proposed building be reduced to a 17-storey terraced apartment building. The owner has agreed to this but new plans have not been submitted (see Attachments 1 and 2 – Site Plan and Elevations). Parking for the proposed building will be located underneath that building. Toronto City Council 9 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

TABLE 1: PROJECT STATISTICS

Description Original Proposal Revised (Agreed to) Proposal

Lot Area 8 344.1 m2 8,344.1 m2 Gross Floor Area 20 860 m2 19,220 m2 Floor Space Index 2.5 2.3 Units per Hectare 270 230 Number of Units 224 191 Tenant Parking Spaces 321 268 Visitor Parking Spaces 45 40 Height 19 storeys 17 storeys

(2) Site History

Two site specific by-laws govern the site. The first allowed the original development of a 288 unit, 10-storey, apartment building on site. The second allowed the number of units to be increased to the existing 301units. The existing buildings were constructed in the early 1960’s.

(3) Site and Surrounding Area

The site is north of Dundas Street west, on the east side of Royal York Road, accessed by Royal York Court. The curved 10-storey rental apartment building is situated on the north side of the lot. Above grade parking garages abut the south lot line, adjacent to a Canadian Pacific Railway line. A circular swimming pool is near the east side of the lot and a number of informal trails lead into the Humber River valley. The rest of the site is covered with mature trees and landscaping.

The site is surrounded by the following uses:

North: detached 2-storey houses on the north side of the existing 10-storey apartment buildings

South: elevated CPR rail line

East: Humber River Valley

West: detached 2 storey houses with rear yards and mature landscaping backing onto Royal York Road

(4) Official Plan

(4.1) Existing Official Plan

The in-force Etobicoke Official Plan designates the site as “High Density Residential” with a maximum floor space index of 2.5 and net density between 70 and 185 units per hectare. The combined floor space index of both existing and proposed buildings is 1.58. The proposal on its Toronto City Council 10 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11 own will have a floor space index of 2.28. The combined units per hectare is 147 for both proposed and existing buildings. If the site were severed the density would be 230 units per hectare which is over the maximum allowed in the Plan. The use and the density comply with the Official Plan as long as the proposed building area is not severed. A number of criteria outlined in Section 4.2.19 are used to evaluate intensification in High Density Residential Areas that exceed the maximum densities set out in the Zoning Code. These are discussed in the Appendix 6 of this report.

(4.2) New Official Plan

The new Toronto Official Plan that was adopted by Council on November 28, 2002, is not yet in full force and effect, however the policies of this Plan must also be considered. The site is designated as an Apartment Neighbourhood area. Permitted uses include: apartment buildings, parks, local institutions, cultural and recreational facilities, and small scale commercial uses that serve the needs of area residents.

The proposal conforms with Section 4.2.2 in the Land Use Chapter of the new Plan by stepping down the building towards a lower scale neighbourhood, minimizing shadow impacts, framing the edge of the street, having comfortable wind conditions, and meeting the infill policies in Section 4.2.3. The proposal also conforms to the Tall Buildings polices in Chapter 3, (Section 3.1.3) of the new Plan.

The site is beside the Natural Heritage area of the Humber River. The proposal meets the policies of the Natural Environment Section of the Plan and will be further implemented at the site plan approval stage.

(5) Zoning Code

The existing Site Specific by-laws allow the existing uses, density, number of units, location of buildings and parking garages on site. The proposed development is located on an area designated for parking and accessory uses, and will exceed the maximum density, therefore it requires a rezoning.

(6) Site Plan Control

A Site Plan Control application is required but has not yet been submitted. Planning issues that will be resolved at the Site Plan Control stage are discussed in the Comments section of this report.

(7) Reasons for Application

The site specific by-laws limit development on the site to the existing buildings and parking garages. These zoning by-laws must be amended to allow the construction of the proposed 17- storey apartment building. Toronto City Council 11 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

(8) Community Consultation

A Community Consultation meeting was held on May 23, 2001. Due to the interest shown by the tenants, and the number of issues presented, a Working Committee was established that reviewed the proposal in greater detail and made suggestions for improvement. Four Working Committee meetings were held on June 13, 2001, July 3, 2001, July 23, 2001 and May 15, 2002. The issues centred on increased traffic and safety, parking, better landscaping, tree preservation, impacts on tenants and the surrounding community, shadowing on existing building, pedestrian level wind study, noise from the rail line, increased rents, and benefits to tenants.

(9) Agency Circulation

The application was circulated to all appropriate agencies and City Departments. Responses received have been used to assist in evaluating the application and to formulate appropriate by-law standards.

Comments:

(10) Height and Density

The original proposal was for a 21-storey tiered building. Through community consultation and meetings with the Working Committee, the proposed building was considered too high and overwhelmed the existing 10-storey building. The higher building also created more shadow and uncomfortable pedestrian level wind conditions than a lower building. The developer has now proposed a 17-storey stepped back building on the same footprint.

The revised proposal eliminates the shadowing on the existing building during the spring and fall equinoxes. It is further improved by tiering the building from the 11-storey level and reducing the height to 17-storeys.

The density has been reduced slightly with the reduction of height. The number of units has been reduced from 224 to 191 and the number of required parking spaces has also decreased.

(11) Traffic Volume and Safety

This issue was of prime consideration to the tenants of the existing rental building on site. The largest concern was safety at the intersection and timing to turn left onto Royal York Road from Royal York Crescent during morning rush hour and turns during other peak times. A traffic light was suggested as a solution by the residents, however, Works and Emergency Services – Traffic Planning/R-O-W Management suggested several intersection improvements that would aid traffic flow and safety.

A southbound left turn storage lane on Royal York Road at Royal York Court and a separate westbound right and left turn storage lanes on Royal York Court were the main components required by Traffic Planning. Prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law, the owner is required to enter into an agreement with the City respecting these improvements and service connections Toronto City Council 12 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

A number of other improvements to curbs, sidewalks, and vehicle circulation were listed and stormwater and solid waste management studies were also required at the site plan approval stage.

(12) Landscaping and Site Planning

Improved walkways, lighting and a construction management plan will be required at Site Plan Approval stage. The preferences of the Working Committee participants have been noted.

Additional surface parking is proposed on the east boundary, adjacent to the Humber River valley. The valley slope is steep at this point and has already suffered some erosion. In order to minimize surface run-off from additional pavement so close to the valley, planning staff is recommending that the parking not be expanded in this area. The 11 parking spaces proposed for this area can be accommodated in the new above-grade or underground garages.

(13) Noise and Vibration

The proposed apartment building is located 48 metres north of the Canadian Pacific Rail line. There are high speed switches on the railway line directly south of the proposed site. Currently the volume of rail traffic is 17 freight and 10 passenger cars per day, and 30 freight cars at night. This totals 57 trains per day. These volumes are expected to increase to 69 trains per day by 2011. The sounding of train whistles is restricted through this area.

Road traffic was also considered, and when combined with rail traffic, the noise levels exceed the Ministry of Environment Guidelines by 35 percent during the day and 87 percent overnight. The biggest noise problem is from the rail traffic. The Noise and Vibration Impact Study recommends the following to reduce noise levels inside the proposed apartment building:

(a) central air conditioning;

(b) brick or masonry cladding on building exterior;

(d) warning Clauses are recommended to inform future tenants of the residual sound level excesses.

These measures will be required as part of the Section 37 agreement that will be registered on title. Section 37 of the Planning Act allows the City to ask for increased facilities, services, community benefits, or other matters in exchange for increased height or density that is greater than the zoning by-law would permit.

The owner will also be required to inform the residents of the new building of the warning clauses. Toronto City Council 13 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

(14) Preserving Existing Rental Units

The existing 301 rental units on site will remain rental. There was some concern that the improvements to the landscaping and construction of the new building would result in rent increases to the existing units. The new Official Plan Section 5.b requires that with significant new development on sites where existing rental units will be kept, any needed improvements and renovations to the existing rental housing will have no pass-through of such costs in the rents to the tenants.

Existing rental units on the south side of the building currently do not have other tall buildings near them and, as a result, many of the tenants have not put up privacy curtains. The owner has agreed to provide an allowance for window coverings so that the tenants do not have all of this expen se arising from the development of the new building.

The above will be implemented through a Section 37 agreement.

(15) Public Benefits

An attempt was made to find additional amenity space or other public benefit for the tenants in the existing rental building. Currently the only amenity spaces are outdoors and there is no other area in the building to create new amenity space. There will be improvements to the existing landscaping but no significant change. The proposed new building will have indoor amenity space and this was offered as space that the rental tenants could also use. The Section 37 agreement will secure this benefit for the rental tenants.

Conclusions:

The revised plans address the issues raised by the community and planning staff. The infill development of a 17-storey apartment tower is an appropriate development for the site and meets the policies of the in-force and new Official Plans. A Section 37 agreement will secure the on-site amenities for existing residents, warn new residents of noise from the rail line, and ensure that the rental tenants are not paying for the proposed improvements to the site. The details of landscaping, intersection improvements, etc. will be further refined at Site Plan Approval stage. Staff recommend that the zoning by-law amendment be approved.

Contact:

K. Wendy Johncox, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Tel: (416) 394-8227; Fax: (416) 394-6063 E-mail: [email protected] Toronto City Council 14 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (February 11, 2003) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To advise Etobicoke Community Council of the site access impacts associated with a proposed 224 unit high-rise residential apartment building proposed at 1137-1141 Royal York Road, and traffic operations issues relating to the section of Royal York Road, beneath Dundas Street West/Canadian Pacific Railway.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of January 21, 2003, Etobicoke Community Council requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council, for consideration on this matter, on proposed traffic improvements suggested as part of the proposal as well as any other additional changes that could be undertaken to the right-of-way on Royal York Road in the vicinity of Royal York Court and the grade separation, specifically looking at reducing the pavement cross-section.

Comments:

Princess Management proposes to construct a 224 unit high-rise residential apartment building (“Royal York Gardens”) at the south-east corner of Royal York Road/Royal York Court (Attachment No.1). At the request of this Division, the applicant submitted a site access/traffic impact study, dated February 2001, prepared by Cansult Limited, a traffic engineering consultant.

An existing 301 unit, ten-storey residential apartment building is located on the north side of Royal York Court.

Site Access Impacts – Royal York Gardens

Royal York Road is classified as a minor arterial road. The section of Royal York Road, adjacent Royal York Court and beneath Dundas Street West/Canadian Pacific Railway, has a six-lane pavement cross-section that carries approximately 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day. Royal York Court is a two-lane local road that carries approximately 1,800 vehicles per day. The speed limit on Royal York Road and Royal York Court is 50 km/h. Toronto City Council 15 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

The left turn movement from southbound Royal York Road to Royal York Court is made from a shared through/left turn lane. The westbound left and right turns from Royal York Court to Royal York Road are made from a single shared lane.

A review of collision records for the period 1995-2000 shows that there have been seven collisions reported at the intersection of Royal York Road/Royal York Court.

Critical weekday morning and afternoon peak hour turning movement volumes are identified in Table 1.

Table 1 Weekday Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts Royal York Road/Royal York Court September 2000

Direction a.m. Peak Hour p.m. Peak Hour Southbound Through 1315 1205 Southbound Left Turn 5 20 Westbound Right Turn 25 10 Westbound Left Turn 25 2 Northbound Right Turn 10 25 Northbound Through 985 1265

To calculate the available capacity of the outbound left and right turns from Royal York Court, Cansult Limited measured the number and duration of usable ‘gaps’ between vehicles on Royal York Road. Cansult Limited found that the left and right turn movements from Royal York Court to Royal York Road are operating at less than 10 percent of their available capacity during the critical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods. The average delay to vehicles exiting Royal York Court, and entering Royal York Court from southbound Royal York Road, does not exceed 24 and 13 seconds per vehicle, respectively, during critical weekday peak hour periods.

Vehicle traffic generation for this proposed development, calculated from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data measured at similar residential developments in Canada and the United States, estimate that this proposed apartment building will generate the following traffic volumes during critical weekday peak hour periods.

Table 2 Vehicle Traffic Generation Number of Vehicles Weekday a.m. and p.m. Peak Hours

a.m. Peak Hour p.m. Peak Hour Enter 14 53 Exit 62 32 Total 76 85 Toronto City Council 16 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Distributing the vehicle traffic described in Table 2 to the forecast 2005 background traffic results in the total future intersection turning movement volumes that are described in Table 3.

Table 3 Weekday Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts Royal York Road/Royal York Court Total Future Traffic 2005

Direction a.m. Peak Hour p.m. Peak Hour Southbound Through 1,350 1,235 Southbound Left Turn 15 40 Westbound Right Turn 50 30 Westbound Left Turn 50 5 Northbound Right Turn 15 50 Northbound Through 1,010 1,300

Both existing and total future traffic volumes at the intersection of Royal York Road/Royal York Court do not warrant the installation of traffic control signals.

While intersection volumes will rise as a result of this development, the increased demand results in only minor increases in queuing and average vehicle delay. We agree with Cansult Limited’s conclusion that the additional vehicle traffic generated by this development will have minimal impact on future intersection operations.

To accommodate the additional traffic generated by this development, the developer will be required, at their expense, to introduce the following intersection improvements:

(1) Redesign and reconstruct the east approach to the intersection of Royal York Road /Royal York Court to provide separate left and right turn lanes.

(2) Design and construct a separate southbound left turn storage lane on the north approach to the intersection of Royal York Road/Royal York Court. This left turn lane will provide a generous departure taper that has the added benefit of providing a refuge for motorists making the left turn manoeuvre from Royal York Court to southbound Royal York Road.

It is emphasised that introducing the southbound left turn storage lane, while technically warranted under Ministry of Transportation Ontario guidelines but arguably of limited value in view of the intersection’s already low collision experience, requires a significant redesign of the pavement cross-section along this segment of Royal York Road. The northbound lanes must be shifted to the east near the intersection. The westbound Dundas Street West to northbound Royal York Road speed change lane, which presently acts as a de facto right turn lane at Royal York Court/Canadian Pacific Railway, must be terminated south of the intersection.

At the public meeting of January 2003, members of the public identified a number of issues regarding vehicle speeds and associated safety concerns on the section of Royal York Road beneath Dundas Street West. These concerns are addressed as follows. Toronto City Council 17 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Existing Road Conditions

South of Usher Road, Royal York Road is constructed with a two-lane pavement cross-section providing one through lane in each direction. Royal York Road widens to provide three northbound and southbound lanes north of Usher Road and south of Royal York Court.

While the Royal York Road pavement cross-section beneath Dundas Street West /Canadian Pacific Railway creates the impression of three lanes in each direction, it is emphasised that there is actually just two continuous through lanes in each direction. The curb lanes beneath Dundas Street West are speed change lanes to and from the ramps accessing Dundas Street West.

Vehicle Speeds

RADAR speed studies conducted in July 2001 for the section of Royal York Road south of Lambeth Road shows 85th percentile vehicle operating speeds of 60 km/h. The 10 km/h pace, that is, the 10 km/h range encompassing the greatest percentage of all the measured speeds, is 51 km/h-60 km/h. Similar to other locations, police enforcement in this area has successfully reduced operating speeds, but only for a brief period during and after enforcement.

We emphasise that while non-compliance with the speed limit is prevalent, these operating speeds are similar to other arterial roads with 50 km/h speed limits. We have sent a copy of our survey results to 22 Division of the Toronto Police Service, with a request for continued speed limit enforcement.

Collision Experience

Between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, there were a total of 19 vehicle collisions reported on the section of Royal York Road, between Royal York Court and Valiant Road. Eleven of these collisions were ‘rear end’ types occurring on the ramps to northbound Royal York Road from Dundas Street West. The eight remaining collisions involved six southbound motorists and two northbound motorists. These collisions did not involve cyclists or pedestrians.

While the reports are not detailed in this regard, it appears that these eight collisions involved lane changes from the speed change lanes. The collision reports did not identify “speeding” as a contributing factor.

The annual average collision rate on this section of Royal York Road is 127 collisions per 100 million vehicle kilometres of travel. In comparison, the annual average collision rate on Dundas Street West, between Prince Edward Drive and Royal York Road, where vehicle operating speeds are lower, is 236 collisions per 100 million vehicle kilometres of travel. It is apparent that despite the higher operating speeds, a motorist is less likely to be involved in a vehicle collision on this section of roadway than they are on most arterial roads. This reduced collision experience appears to be the result of a combination of controlled access, generous acceleration/deceleration distances and pavement cross-section. Toronto City Council 18 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Lane Reductions

There appears to be little benefit to reducing the pavement cross-section on this section of Royal York Road. Operating speeds are not inconsistent with most other free-flow arterial roads, and are not associated with a high collision rate. Similar to most other interchanges, the collisions that do occur appear to be related to merge/diverge conflicts, not speed per se.

Reducing the number of lanes will necessitate limiting the length of the speed change lanes, lowering the speed at which merging vehicles must enter or exit the adjacent through traffic stream. This will significantly increase the differential in roadway operating speeds, resulting in an increase in vehicle collisions.

Lane reductions may reduce speed, but it increases the volume in the remaining through lanes, decreasing headway between vehicles and the number of gaps available to motorists entering Royal York Road from adjacent side streets and intersections. This will increase, rather than decrease, side street vehicle delay and vehicle emissions.

Traffic Calming

Royal York Road is an important route for emergency vehicles and the TTC, and due to its classification as a minor arterial road, it does not qualify for physical traffic calming features under the City of Toronto’s approved traffic calming policy.

We have considered requests to install ‘rumble strips’ in this area; however, these strips are more appropriately used to provide an audible warning to motorists of a change in road or pavement conditions. While effective at notifying motorists of approaching traffic control devices and changes in road geometry, they are a concern for cyclists and generate a great deal of noise that makes them inappropriate in residential areas.

Conclusions:

The proposal to construct a 224 unit high-rise residential building at the southeast corner of Royal York Road/Royal York Court has no significant impact on roadway levels-of-service.

While speed studies on the section of Royal York Road beneath Dundas Street West show vehicle speeds in excess of the 50 km/h speed limit, these speeds are similar to other arterial roads with 50 km/h speed limits. Police speed enforcement can reduce motorists’ speed, and we have requested continued speed enforcement in this area.

The perception that this section of Royal York Road is ‘unsafe’ due to the existing operating speeds is not justified. It is, in fact, much safer than most other arterial roads. While reducing lanes may have the effect of reducing speed, it will provide very little benefit at a great deal of cost. Put another way, it appears to be an expensive solution in search of a problem. Toronto City Council 19 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Contact:

Dominic Gulli, Manager, Traffic Operations, District 2 Tel: (416) 394-8409; Fax: (416) 394-8942 E-mail: [email protected]

Allan Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/Right-of-Way Management, District 2 Tel: (416) 394-8412; Fax: (416) 394-8942 E-mail: [email protected]

______

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it, during consideration of the foregoing matter at its meeting on March 3, 2003, the following communication (February 17, 2003) from the City Clerk, Etobicoke Community Council:

The Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting held on January 21, 2003, had before it the following reports from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

(i) (December 18, 2002) respecting an application by Princess Garden Management to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of an infill 17-storey terraced apartment building on lands known municipally as 1137-1141 Royal York Court, located north of Dundas Street West, on the east side of Royal York Road, accessed by Royal York Court; and recommending that City Council:

(1) amend the Zoning Code for the former City of Etobicoke substantially in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment appended to the report as Attachment No. 5;

(2) authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as may be required;

(3) before introducing the necessary Bills to City Council for enactment, require the owner to enter into a Section 37 agreement to ensure that: rental increases in the existing rental building will not be for the improvements to the lands or construction of the new building; tenants facing the new building will be given an allowance to purchase window coverings for privacy purposes; warning clauses regarding noise will be inserted in purchase and sale agreements and rental agreements and the tenants in the existing rental building will have access to the ground floor amenity space of the proposed building; and

(ii) (January 17, 2003) advising that changes to the draft by-law may be required before the by-law is enacted; and recommending that:

(1) the Director, Community Planning, West District, report to the Etobicoke Community Council meeting scheduled to be held on April 2, 2003, on further refinement of the draft bill;

(2) the meeting on April 2, 2003, be a continuation of the January 21, 2003 statutory public meeting; and

(3) the Etobicoke Community Council set a specific time for the continuation of the public meeting.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting on January 21, 2003, in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Paul Rycroft, Agent on behalf of the owner and applicant;

- John McColl, Humber Valley Village Residents Association;

- John Wiktorczyk, Humber Valley Village Residents Association;

- Dean Fulford;

- Peter Chisholm;

- Stan Tweedie;

- Andrea M. Hault;

- Donna Quance; and

- Glen Wilson.

The Etobicoke Community Council:

(1) deferred consideration of this matter to a continuation of the Public Meeting at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 3, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.;

(2) directed that no further notice of the continuation of the Public Meeting be provided;

(3) requested the Director, Community Planning, West District, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council on:

(a) further refinement of the draft bill; and Toronto City Council 21 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

(b) the impact of reducing the height of the proposed building to a 10-storey or 14-storey building; and

(4) requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council, for consideration with this matter, on proposed traffic improvements suggested as part of the proposal as well as any other additional changes that could be undertaken to the right-of-way on Royal York Road in the vicinity of Royal York Court and the grade separation, specifically looking at reducing the pavement cross-section.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council also having had before it, during consideration of the foregoing matter on March 3, 2003, the following communications:

(i) (February 28, 2003) from Sal and Mary Merenda; and

(ii) (undated) petition forwarded by S. Merenda containing 49 signatures from area residents in opposition to the proposed development at 1137-1141 Royal York Road.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting on March 3, 2003, in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Paul Rycroft, on behalf of the applicant;

- Stephen Thiele, and filed a submission;

- Stan Tweedie;

- Sal Merenda;

- Steven Church;

- John Wiktorczyk, Humber Valley Village Residents’ Association, and filed a petition;

- John Lynskey, Royal York Garden’s Tenant Association; and

- Donna Quance.

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1 to 10, referred to in the foregoing report dated February 24, 2003, from the Director, Community Planning, West District, was forwarded to all Members of the Etobicoke Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on March 3, 2003, and a copy of each is on file in the City Clerk’s Office, Etobicoke Civic Centre.) Toronto City Council 22 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1 to 4, and No. 6, and Schedules A and B to Attachment No. 5 (Draft Zoning By-law Amendment) referred to in the foregoing report dated December 18, 2002, from the Director, Community Planning, West District, was forwarded to all Members of the Etobicoke Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on January 21, 2003, and a copy of each is on file in the City Clerk’s Office, Etobicoke Civic Centre.)

(A copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report dated February 11, 2003, from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, was forwarded to all Members of the Etobicoke Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on March 3, 2003, and a copy is on file in the City Clerk’s Office, Etobicoke Civic Centre.)

(City Council, at its meeting on April 14, 15 and 16, 2003, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 8, 2003) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

To discuss technical amendments and conditions to the proposed development at 1137-1141 Royal York Road, as recommended by Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting of March 3, 2003.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) in the event that City Council determines to enact by-laws for a 10-storey building, and before introducing the necessary Bills to City Council, the owner is required to submit plans for Option C with a maximum height of 10-storeys;

(2) before introducing the necessary Bills to City Council for enactment the City Solicitor shall be satisfied that the owner has provided a Letter of Understanding confirming the provision to the tenants of window coverings and that there will be no flow through rent increases;

(3) before introducing the necessary Bill to City Council for enactment, the owner is required to enter into an agreement with the City respecting transportation improvements on Royal York Road and Royal York Court, a sidewalk on Royal York Court, and any other services deemed necessary by Works and Emergency Services; and

(4) in the event that City Council chooses a 10-storey solution, City Council determines that no further public notice is required pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act. Toronto City Council 23 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

Background:

At its meeting of March 3, 2003, Etobicoke Community Council had before it two reports dated December 18, 2002 and February 11, 2003 on the subject development proposal. The first report that was at Community Council on January 21, 2003 recommended approval of a 17-storey apartment building. Community Council requested Community Planning – West District to report to the March 3, 2003 meeting on 10-storey and 14-storey options. The second report discussed these options and indicated that Option C, a 14-storey option, was acceptable to the Department.

Community Council recommended that the footprint shown on Option C be approved as a 10-storey building and the green space on the site be accessible to the residents of both the existing building and proposed new building. The Director of Community Planning, West District was requested to submit a report directly to Council on technical amendments and conditions to give effect to its recommendations.

Comments:

(1) By-law Requirements

The applicant has declined to provide plans for Option C at a 10-storey height, therefore statistics are not available and a draft by-law is not attached to this report. Technical amendments should not be made to the draft by-law until plans are submitted to establish the height, setbacks, density, parking spaces, gross floor area, the use of amenity and green spaces by the existing and proposed buildings, etc. in the by-law. This report recommends that prior to the enactment of the bills the applicant must submit these plans.

(2) Letter of Understanding

In previous reports, staff recommended that some amenities be secured by way of an agreement between the developer and the tenants of the existing rental building. The City Solicitor should be satisfied that the owner has provided a Letter of Understanding to these tenants to provide window coverings in the rental building and prevent flow through rent increases as a result of the new development.

Previous reports also recommended that the owner enter into an agreement with the City respecting transportation improvements on Royal York Road and Royal York Court, a sidewalk on Royal York Court, and any other services deemed necessary by Works and Emergency Services. This is required prior to the enactment of the bills as it cannot be secured in the Zoning By-law Amendment.

Conclusions:

A bill enacting a 10-storey building based on Option C outlined in my January 17, 2003 report cannot be brought forward until revised plans have been received, the outlined agreements have been prepared and executed, and until the City Solicitor is satisfied that the owner has provided a Letter of Understanding confirming the provision to the tenants of window coverings and that Toronto City Council 24 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11 there will be no flow through of rent increases as a result of improvements and changes to the site due to the development.

Contact:

K. Wendy Johncox, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Community Planning – West District Tel: (416) 394-8227; Fax: (416) 394-6063 E-mail: [email protected]

List of Attachments:

Attachment 1: Proposed Site Plan Attachment 2: Option C Site Plan) Toronto City Council 25 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11 Toronto City Council 26 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11 Toronto City Council 27 Etobicoke Community Council April 14, 15 and 16, 2003 Report No. 2, Clause No. 11

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(a) (April 2, 2003) from John A. McColl, Director, Humber Valley Village Residents Association; and (b) (April 4, 2003) from P. Chisholm and J. Lynskey, Co-Chairs, Royal York Gardens Tenants’ Association, submitted by Councillor Lindsay Luby, Etobicoke Centre.)