(from its meeting on January 20, 1999,

1

Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits: Rabbit Lane

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme on Rabbit Lane between West Deane Park Drive and Sedgebrook Crescent.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Background:

In September 1998, the Transportation Services Division received correspondence from Mr. J. Stewart West, 65 Rabbit Lane, (Attachment No. 3) requesting the introduction of a parking prohibition for both sides of Rabbit Lane. In a subsequent request, Mr. Patrick Morris, 74 Rabbit Lane contacted Councillor Doug Holyday (Attachment No. 4) regarding the feasibility of permit parking for Rabbit Lane.

Discussion:

Frequently the Transportation Services Division - District 2 (Etobicoke) and the local Councillors receive requests from the residents of Rabbit Lane inquiring about the feasibility of parking permits for this street. In response to these requests, staff polled the eighty-two (82) affected residents of Rabbit Lane to solicit public opinion on this matter (Attachment No. 5). There were twelve (12) respondents to the poll. Eight (8) respondents were in favour of introducing the on-street permit parking programme onto the west side of Rabbit Lane between West Deane Park Drive and Sedgebrook Crescent, and prohibiting parking on the east side of the street. A map of the area is (Attachment No. 6).

Conclusions:

The On-Street Parking Programme provides an excellent alternative source of parking for those residents who do not have, or cannot provide, adequate parking facilities on their property. This programme continues to meet with the approval of those residents directly affected by it and the programme should continue to be introduced through the public consultative process.

Based on the staff investigation of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents of Rabbit Lane between West Deane Park Drive and Sedgebrook Crescent, Council’s endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-Ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-6, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Littoral Place

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Littoral Place between Scarlett Road and the west limit of the road.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the Transportation Services Division’s Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

Background:

In October 1998, the Transportation Services Division, received a request (Attachment No. 2) forwarded on behalf of the residents of Littoral Place requesting the introduction of a parking prohibition for both sides of Littoral Place between Scarlett Road and the west limit of the road.

In response to this request, staff polled the thirteen (13) affected residents of Littoral Place, to obtain their opinion on the proposal outlined in the request (Attachment No. 3). There were eleven (11) respondents to the poll: nine (9) were in favour of the proposal and two (2) opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Comments:

Littoral Place is a two-lane roadway; parking is permitted on both sides of the street from Scarlett Road to the west limit of the road for a maximum period of three hours.

The high incidence of on-street parking on Littoral Place can be attributed to this street’s close proximity to the medium density housing on the east side of Scarlett Road. Residents of these complexes frequently park on Littoral Place, often in excess of the three hour limitation. Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem. A staff review of the parking supply at these buildings clearly indicates that adequate parking facilities have been provided on the premises of 1/27/49 Scarlettwood Court, and at 58 Waterton Road.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents, Council’s endorsement of this matter would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

(416)394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January, 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

3

Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Kingsview Boulevard

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition for both sides of Kingsview Boulevard between Islington Avenue and Lanni Court.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the introduction of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the Transportation Services Division’s Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(3) the appropriate by-law (Attachment No.1) be amended accordingly.

Background:

In October 1998, Mr. Angelo Colacci forwarded a petition on behalf of the residents of Kingsview Boulevard between Islington Avenue and Lanni Court to Councillor Mario Giansante (Attachment No. 2) requesting a change to the current parking by-law.

In response to this request, staff polled the eleven (11) affected residents of Kingsview Boulevard between Islington Avenue and Lanni Court, to obtain their opinion on the proposal outlined in the petition (Attachment No. 3). There were eight (8) respondents to the poll: seven (7) were in favour of the proposal and one (1) opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Comments:

Kingsview Boulevard between Islington Avenue and Lanni Court is a two-lane roadway; parking is prohibited on both sides of the street between the hours of 8:00 am. to 4:00 pm., Monday to Friday, between Islington Avenue and Royal York Road. Parking is permitted at all other times for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential.

The primary factor contributing to the high incidence of on-street parking on Kingsview Boulevard is the close proximity of this street to the high density housing complexes located on the east side of Islington Avenue. The residents of these buildings are parking on Kingsview Boulevard rather than using the parking facilities on-site. At many times, both sides of Kingsview Boulevard between Islington Avenue and Lanni Court are being utilized, normally in excess of the three hour maximum limitation. A staff review of the parking supply at these buildings clearly indicates that adequate parking facilities have been provided on-site at #2063 Islington Avenue. Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents, Council’s endorsement of the recommendation contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

(416)394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Meadowvale Drive

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Meadowvale Drive between Gardenvale Road and the east limit of the road.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are allocated in the Transportation Services Division’s Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Background:

The Transportation Services Division - District 2, received a request from Elizabeth Hoyle, 93 Meadowvale Drive, inquiring about the feasibility of a "No Parking" prohibition for Meadowvale Drive between Gardenvale Road and the east limit of the road (Attachment No. 2).

In response to this request, staff polled the sixteen affected residents of Meadowvale Drive between Gardenvale Road and the east limit of the road, to solicit public opinion on this matter (Attachment No. 3). There were ten respondents to the poll; four respondents were in favour of a "No Parking Anytime" prohibition; five respondents were in favour of a "No Parking, 8:00 am. to 5:00 pm., Monday to Friday " prohibition; and one opposed the introduction of any type of parking prohibition. A map of the area is (Attachment No. 4.)

Comments:

Meadowvale Drive is a two-lane roadway; parking is prohibited on both sides of the street between Islington Avenue and Gardenvale Road. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street between Gardenvale Road and the east limit of the road for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate area is predominantly residential.

The primary factor contributing to the high incidence of on-street parking on Meadowvale Drive is the close proximity of these streets to the commercial establishments on Bloor Street West, and the commuter traffic utilizing the T.T.C. At most times, any weekday, both sides of Meadowvale Drive between Gardenvale Drive and the east limit of the road is being utilized, normally in excess of the three hour maximum limitation.

Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents, Council’s endorsement of the recommendation contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

(416)394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachments Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Removal of Parking Prohibition: Evernby Boulevard

Purpose:

To propose the removal of the parking prohibition from both sides of Evernby Boulevard between St. Andrews Boulevard and St. Georges Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the removal of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the Transportation Services Division’s Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Background:

In September 1998, the Transportation Services Division, received a petition (Attachment No. 2) from Mr. Jagpal Guram forwarded on behalf of the residents of Evernby Boulevard requesting that the parking prohibition currently in effect on both sides of Evernby Boulevard be amended to allow short term on-street parking.

In response to this request, staff polled the twenty-three (23) affected residents of Evernby Boulevard, to obtain their opinion on the proposal outlined in the petition (Attachment No. 3). There were ten (10) respondents to the poll: eight (8) were in favour of the proposal and two (2) opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Comments:

Evernby Boulevard is a two-lane roadway; parking is prohibited on both sides of the street from St. Andrews Boulevard to St. Georges Boulevard.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents, Council’s endorsement of this matter would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

(416)394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

6

School Zone Safety: Wilgar Road (Kingsway-Humber)

Purpose:

To introduce by-law amendments to improve traffic conditions within the school zone on Wilgar Road.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the Transportation Services Division’s Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Background:

Concerns have been raised by the Principal and the Parents Advisory Committee of Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic School, 32 Montgomery Road, (Attachment No. 2) regarding the traffic congestion during the commencement and dismissal of classes each day. It has been proposed that the existing "No Parking, 10:00 am. to 5:00 pm., Monday to Friday" prohibition on both sides of Wilgar Road between Montgomery Road and Upland Road, be changed to a "No Parking, 8:00 am. to 5:00 pm., Monday to Friday" prohibition. The thirteen (13) affected residents of Wilgar Road were polled by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 3). There were seven (7) respondents to the poll; all in favour of the outlined proposal. A map of the area is (Attachment No. 4.)

Discussion:

Wilgar Road is a two-lane roadway; parking is prohibited on both sides of the street between Montgomery Road and Royal York Road, between 10:00 am. to 5:00 pm., Monday to Friday. At all other times, parking is permitted for a maximum of three hours. Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic School is located on the west side of Montgomery Road opposite Wilgar Road. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential.

This proposed change will discourage short-term parking during the commencement and dismissal of classes each day, and will improve pedestrian safety.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable support of Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic School Parents Advisory Committee, Council’s endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, CET, Parking Co-Ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.

7

Payment in Lieu of Parking, Bank of Nova Scotia

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, to:

Purpose:

The subject of this report is to seek Council’s approval to exempt the applicant from the Etobicoke Zoning Code requirement of five additional vehicle parking stalls.

Funding Sources:

Councils’ approval of this application will provide the City with a $10,000.00 payment-in-lieu of parking and a $200.00 application processing fee.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council approve the Bank of Nova Scotia’s application for a $10,000.00

payment-in-lieu of parking.

Background:

The applicant owns an existing commercial/residential building located on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Wendover Road and Grenview Boulevard North (Attachment No. 1). The site is currently occupied by a 367 m² National Trust on the first floor, and a second storey residential apartment. The applicant proposes to convert the building into a two-storey Scotiabank with a commercial floor area of 547 m².

Comments:

The Urban Planning and Development Services Department informed the applicant that the proposed bank requires five additional vehicle parking stalls. The site cannot accommodate the five parking stalls, and the applicant has formally requested an exemption from the parking provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, under the terms and conditions of Etobicoke’s payment-in-lieu of parking policy (Attachment No. 2).

Transportation Planning staff advised the applicant that we could not technically support a parking variance at this location, and that the only reasonable recourse was through an application to Council requesting consideration under the terms and conditions of Etobicoke’s payment-in-lieu of parking policy.

In correspondence dated December 2, 1998, the President of the Kingsway Business Improvement Area expressed his organization’s support for the above-noted application (Attachment No. 3).

Conclusions:

It is staff’s opinion that the request for exemption to the provision of five additional vehicle parking stalls is acceptable. The five stall parking shortfall will not have a significant impact on parking conditions in the immediate area; therefore, staff is of the opinion that Council can grant the requested exemption, subject to the usual conditions.

Council has the authority under Section 40 of The Planning Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, Chapter 13, to require the payment of monies by an applicant where it is considered appropriate to exempt a project from all, or part, of the Etobicoke Zoning Code parking requirements.

Should Council concur with the application of the policy at this location, we will require that the applicant make a payment of $10,000.00 for the five stall parking shortfall before issuance of a building permit.

Contact Name:

A. Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/Right-of-Way Management.

(416)394-8412; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Society of Franciscan

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

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a proposal to amend the Zoning Code to permit a place of worship with accessory uses and a nursing home containing 90 beds on lands at 3700 and 3750 Bloor Street West.

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 the Society of Franciscan Fathers of Ontario (Lithuanian)

for amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit a place of worship with accessory uses and a nursing home containing a maximum of 90 beds, be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

The site is located at the edge of a 6 hectare (15 ac) area of vacant land which formerly contained the Michael Power and St. Joseph’s High Schools (See Exhibit No. 1). The schools were relocated to a new facility at Renforth Drive and Eringate Drive a number of years ago. The adjacent lands are still owned by the Sisters of St. Joseph (St. Joseph site) and the Basilian Fathers (Michael Power site), although the lands have been for sale for some time. The site also falls within the Kipling/Islington Secondary Plan area and is subject to site specific development policy 13.3.8 (See Exhibit No. 5).

On November 13, 1997, the applicant received approval from the Committee of Adjustment to sever a portion of land from the former St. Joseph’s High School site to permit a place of worship. However, the applicant was later approached by the Labdara Foundation Inc. to develop a nursing home in conjunction with the Church on the same site. In order to accommodate both uses on the same site, the applicant submitted a second application to the Committee of Adjustment to create a larger parcel. This application was approved on October 15, 1998, including approval for a 99 year lease between the proposed nursing home operator and the applicant.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The 1 hectare (2.5 acre) site is relatively flat and featureless. The property has approximately 121 metres (400 feet) of frontage on Bloor Street West beginning at the existing signal lights, located opposite the 22 Division Police station, and stretching east towards the railway overpass (Exhibit No. 1). The site has excellent transit access and is located approximately 500 metres (450 yards) away from the Bloor/Islington subway station.

The subject site is surrounded to the west, north and east by lands which formerly contained the St. Joseph’s and Michael Power High Schools. The site and surrounding lands have been identified by the Kipling/Islington Secondary Plan as having significant residential redevelopment potential. The former high school properties are currently for sale. The lands are zoned Limited Commercial (CL) along the Dundas Street West and Bloor Street West frontages and Third Density residential (R3) within the interior.

To the south of the site, across Bloor Street West, are lands zoned Class One Industrial (I.C1) containing the 22 Division Police station and the former Westwood Theatre site.

Proposal:

The site plan, dated October 19, 1998, indicates that the proposed two-storey place of worship with bell tower would be located at the southwest corner of the site which would be known as 3700 Bloor Street West (Exhibit No. 2). This facility is designed as a multi-functional parish complex for the Roman Catholic Church of the Resurrection. Church facilities would include a religious sanctuary, chapel, monastic quarters, multi functional auditorium, classroom, community office, meeting rooms, exhibition space, parish credit union, kitchen facilities, cafe, lounge and patio area. Ninety-one parking spaces are proposed for this facility based on the 450 person capacity of the auditorium.

The proposed three storey nursing home would be located at the north end of the site (3750 Bloor Street West) opposite a central access driveway. The nursing home would be owned and operated by the Labdara Foundation Inc., a non-profit Lithuanian organization, by way of a 99 year lease with the Resurrection Parish. The Labdara Foundation has received approvals from the Ministry of Health for a capital cost construction grant and 60 licensed, fully subsidized care beds. The proposed three storey facility would contain 54 one-bedroom units and 18 two-bedroom units for a total of 90 beds. Each room would contain one or two beds and private washroom facilities. All three floors would contain dining facilities, food preparation area, nursing stations, medication room, treatment room and amenity areas, including activity rooms, lounges and outdoor patio/deck space. Twenty-three parking spaces would be provided for the nursing home use.

Access to the parish complex would be provided via a temporary private driveway from Bloor Street West at the location of the existing signals. When the remaining school lands are redeveloped, the private driveway and other lands will likely be dedicated to the City for the construction of a new public road running north-south from Bloor Street to Dundas Street.

The site plan and preliminary elevations for the project are attached as Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, and 4.

The following is a summary of information relevant to this application:

Official Plan

Existing Mixed Use, Residential Preferred (Kipling/Islington Secondary Plan)

Zoning

Existing Limited Commercial (CL) and Third First Density Residential (R3)

Proposed Limited Commercial (CL) Site Specific

Floor Space Index 0.67

Proposed G.F.A.

Nursing Home 3 901 m² (41,991 sq.ft.)

Total G.F.A. 6 824 m² (73,455 sq.ft.)

No. of Beds

Nursing Home 90 beds

Monastic Quarters 6 beds

96 beds

Building Height:

Church 2 storeys 12.5 m (41 ft.)

Church Bell tower 21.5 m (71 ft.)

Nursing Home 3 storeys 19.5 m (41 ft)

Combined Building coverage 3 328 m² (35,823 sq.ft.) 33%

Parking Required:

Nursing Home 23 spaces (@ 1 space/ 4 beds)

Church 91 spaces (@ 1 space/ 5 person capacity of largest assembly area)

Total 114 spaces

Parking Provided: 114 spaces (including 4 handicapped spaces)

Comments:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Mixed Use, Residential Preferred in the Kipling/Islington Secondary Plan. Permitted uses within this designation includes residential, retail, office, institutional and cultural uses, situated in individual buildings or combined in structures with appropriate internal separation.

The site is also subject to Site Specific Development Policy 13.3.8, which dealt with the former Michael Power/St. Joseph’s High School properties (Exhibit No. 5). The development policy envisioned the lands to be developed as a mixed use project containing primarily medium scale residential development incorporating retail and office uses along Dundas Street West, a major public park component and possibly, major institutional and cultural uses. Additional development density would also be possible if a direct access to the nearby Bloor-Danforth Subway line was provided. Urban design guidelines were also created for this site which recommended that buildings be located close to the street edge, a height limit of 8-storeys and a new north-south and east- west road system connecting Bloor Street West to Dundas Street West at existing signalized locations.

Although the proposed project complies with the uses permitted in the Mixed Use designation, the magnitude of development is considerably less than that envisioned by the Secondary Plan. In addition, it is difficult to assess the project’s compatibility with future adjacent developments due to an absence of proposals for the entire holding. However, the proposed project does not preclude the redevelopment of the remainder of the vacant lands formerly containing the high school sites from being redeveloped for residential and commercial uses. The parcel configuration also allows for the development of a public road system (Exhibit No. 2) and a park dedication with the redevelopment of the remaining lands in the future. The design of the proposal has also been revised, as a result of staff comments, to address the urban design criteria contained in the Secondary Plan regarding street relationship and pedestrian-oriented environment.

Zoning Code:

The site is now zoned Limited Commercial (CL) along the frontage to a depth of 30 metres (100 ft) and Third Density Residential (R3) to the rear (Exhibit No. 1). Both of the these zones, would permit the place of worship use. However, the nursing home, which is a traditional institutional use, is not permitted in these zones. As such, the zoning of the property must be amended to recognize the proposed nursing home and to exempt the church from setback regulations contained in the Supplementary Regulations for Places of Worship which would prevent the development from achieving desired urban design goals.

As the proposed project also contains uses which are not traditionally found in Institutional uses, such as a credit union, cafe and pharmaceutical dispensary, staff recommend that the property be rezoned to a Limited Commercial zone with site specific provisions to permit the proposed uses, with some flexibility in accommodating possible future commercial uses, and to allow the setbacks as proposed.

Comment:

Site and Building Design Considerations:

The design and placement of the proposed buildings would be consistent with the urban design criteria contained in the Secondary Plan. The orientation of the proposed church addresses the Bloor Street intersection; however, staff will require a prominent pedestrian entrance on the south elevation of the facility which addresses the street. The proposed nursing home has been aligned with the future road orientation through the site and has been designed with a pedestrian entrance on the north side of the building.

Parking for these uses has been appropriately located on the east side of the property. This area is not exposed from Bloor Street as a result of the steep slope which exists at the east portion of the site due to the railway overpass. Landscaping opportunities exist around the perimeter of the site; however, staff note that any landscaping features including garden walls and hard surfaced pedestrian connections to the street, which encroach on the public boulevard, may require encroachment agreements.

Noise/Vibration from Rail Operations:

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has advised that the site is adjacent to the Bloor Subway line and as such, site and foundation plans must be approved by the TTC prior to the issuance of a building permit. The TTC has also advised that due to the proximity of the Bloor subway line, noise and vibration attenuation measures should be included in the design of the development. Warning clauses should be included in purchase or rental agreements advising of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such effects (Exhibit No. 6). These requirements have been incorporated into the conditions to approval.

The Canadian Pacific Railway has indicated that it is not in favour of Residential/institutional developments adjacent or near their right-of-way, as such uses are not compatible with railway operations (Exhibit No. 7). However, they further indicate that should the application be approved, the following conditions be imposed:

1. A noise study shall be carried out and any mitigating measures shall be implemented.

2. Noise warnings shall be registered on title and on all lease agreements.

These conditions shall be incorporated within the required Development/Servicing Agreement.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by the Fire Department, Health Department, GO Transit, Realty Services, and the former Metro Planning Department.

Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro have no objection to the development subject to their listed conditions of approval (Exhibit Nos. 8 and 9).

Comments from the Transportation Planning section of the Works and Emergency Services Department are attached as Exhibit No. 10. Transportation staff are satisfied with the Site Access study submitted by the applicant’s traffic consultant, the driveway and access road location, the traffic circulation layout and the parking supply proposed by the applicant.

Transportation staff have also identified that the following requirements: the proposed access road must comply with the design standards of the division; modifications will be required to the signalized intersection in regard to the traffic signals; a separate eastbound left-turn storage lane must be provided; amendments to on-site curb corner radii will be required; and, the length of the church layby must be reduced. The cost of these requirements are the applicant’s responsibility. The applicant will also be required to submit a tree audit, as the proposed driveway will require the removal of some trees on the public boulevard. These concerns should be addressed at the site plan review stage. Garbage containment facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Coordinator of Waste Management.

The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that storm and sanitary sewers are available on Bloor Street; however, sewage capacity for the proposed nursing home may not exist (Exhibit No. 11). As such, staff recommend a holding provision be attached to the proposed zoning by-law to prevent the development of the Nursing Home until such time that servicing issues can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Works and Emergency Services Department. They also advise that storm water management, incorporating quantity and quality control measures, will be a requirement for the development of the site and details will be required at the Site Plan review stage.

Community Planning staff note that, the applicant would be required to provide details of handicapped accessibility, lighting and on-site security and safety features during the Site Plan Approval process. A screen fence shall be required along the easterly property line. The project would be subject to the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permits.

Parks and Recreation Services (Exhibit No. 12) has indicated that the proposed church is exempt from parkland dedication requirements. However, the parkland dedication requirement for the nursing home development should be based on 5 percent and taken as cash-in-lieu. They further advise that a detailed landscape plan shall be provided at the site plan stage which is to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and that boulevard tree planting shall be to the satisfaction of the Forestry Section of Parks and Recreation Services.

Community Consultation:

A community meeting was held on November 19, 1998, and approximately 20 residents attended. The residents requested information on the operation of the nursing home; registration requirements; they indicated there was a need for nursing home and retirement facilities; and, they wanted to know how long construction would take due to dust concerns.

Conclusions:

The subject application has been evaluated within the context of the policies contained within the Kipling/Islington Secondary Plan. Urban Development staff are of the opinion that the proposal would be permitted by the Secondary Plan policies, that the lands are appropriate for the institutional uses proposed, and that the proposal would generally comply with the urban design criteria contained in the Secondary Plan. However, staff would recommend that any implementing by-law permitting the proposal contain a holding provision on the nursing home component to prevent such development until servicing matters are addressed to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services. The subsequent application to remove the holding provision on the proposed by-law would also provide staff with an opportunity to ensure the project is compatible with future applications on abutting vacant lands.

This application is a site specific zoning amendment and there are no City-wide issues.

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

Conditions to Approval:

Contact Name:

Paul Zuliani, MCIP, RPP, Area Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel: (416)394-8230, Fax: (416)394-6063

(Copies of Exhibit Nos.1-12, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Insert Exhibit No. 1

Insert Exhibit No. 2

9

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that legal and staff representation be provided for the appeal regarding Application No. A-290/98ET, 830 Burnhamthorpe Road, and not be provided for the appeals regarding Application Nos. B-52/98ET, A-317/98ET, and A-318/98ET, 64 Twenty Ninth Street and the appeal regarding Application Nos. B-25/98ET, A-186/98ET and A-187/98ET, 16 &18 Racine Road.

Comments:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(iii) Address: 16 & 18 Racine Road

Applicant: 425124 Ontario Ltd. & 426228 Ontario Ltd.

Appellant: 425124 Ontario Ltd. & 426228 Ontario Ltd.

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Conclusion:

Staff are of the opinion that the appeal regarding 830 Burnhamthorpe Road involves substantive planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is warranted.

As the appeals for 64 Twenty Ninth Street and 16 & 18 Racine Road do not involve substantive planning issues, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is not warranted.

Contact Name:

Allen Appleby, Manager, Tel: (416)394-8216

David Oikawa, Manager, Tel: (416)394-8219

Community Planning, West District, Fax: (416)394-6063

10

Claireville Land Use Study - Terms of Reference

Purpose:

To provide Terms of Reference for the preparation of a Land Use Study for the Claireville area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications, at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Terms of Reference for a Claireville Land Use Study be approved, in principle, subject to further consultation with residents, land owners, and other interested parties. In the event that no changes are required, the attached Terms of Reference (Exhibit No. 1) would form the basis for undertaking this review.

Background:

In 1986, staff prepared a land use report to assist in determining appropriate future land use designations for the Claireville area. While Planning staff were in favour of commercial/industrial uses for these lands, area residents indicated their support for mixed/residential uses, a position supported by Etobicoke Council. Staff were directed to request the Minister to remove these lands from the Parkway Belt West Plan, and, upon their removal, to prepare the necessary amendments to the Official Plan.

In 1989, Etobicoke Council requested, on behalf of residents and other land owners, including Metropolitan Toronto, that the Claireville lands be deleted from the Parkway Belt West Plan. These lands included the actual Village of Claireville; four parcels of land owned by Metropolitan Toronto to the south and east of the Village; and the Alcide Street road allowance and adjacent lands owned by the City of Etobicoke.

On April 24, 1995, following the conclusion of a Parkway Belt Hearing on the matter, the Minister of Municipal Affairs approved the City’s request. Notwithstanding their deletion from the Parkway Belt West Plan, development of the study lands will continue to be regulated by Provincial Parkway Belt Land Use Regulations until such time as the City re-introduces appropriate Official Plan and zoning designations. It is therefore important to bring these matters under Municipal control.

Review Area:

In a regional context, the subject lands are located in the extreme north-west corner of the City of Toronto, bounded by the City of Vaughan in York Region to the north, and the City of Brampton in Peel Region to the west (Exhibit No. 2). In a local context, the study area generally consists of 12 ha (30 acres) of land bounded by Steeles Avenue to the north, lands owned by the Signet Development Corporation to the east, and Albion Road to the south and west; there are two City-owned parcels located on the south side of Albion Road at the closed Indian Line road allowance (Exhibit No. 3).

The subject lands are comprised of twenty-four (24) parcels ranging in size from 0.05 ha (0.13 ac) to 1.8 ha (4.46 ac). Twelve (12) of these parcels are occupied by residential dwellings, some of which have established ancillary outside storage uses. Other development consists of a place of worship (2107 Codlin Crescent), a hub cap sales business (ancillary to residential dwelling at 2103 Codlin Crescent), and a garden centre (the owners of which reside in the adjacent residential dwelling known municipally as 2117 Codlin Crescent). A truck driving/fork lift school is being operated from the residential dwelling at 2158 Codlin Crescent. The remaining land in the area is either undeveloped and/or occupied by numerous accessory structures, such as sheds and garages. Many of these properties are encumbered by debris and derelict vehicles. None of the existing development is considered to be historically significant.

Comment:

Since 1986, the residential character of the Village of Claireville has been diminished; historical buildings have been demolished; a number of the original property owners have sold; and, a number of illegal business uses are currently being conducted.

In 1990, two parcels of land owned by Signet Development Corporation, located immediately to the east of the subject lands (Exhibit No. 3), were released from the Parkway Belt West Plan on the basis of a site specific application to the Province. On May 1, 1995, Etobicoke Council conditionally approved an application by Signet Development Corporation to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the lands to be developed for retail warehousing or prestige industrial/office uses, in the absence of any retail warehouse development.

The amalgamation of the former municipalities has resulted in a significant portion of lands in the Claireville area now being owned by the new City of Toronto (i.e. former Metro and Etobicoke lands - Exhibit No. 3).

Taking into consideration recent changes in the character of the Claireville area; changes in ownership; and, recent land use approvals for adjacent properties, staff are of the opinion that a land use study is warranted, prior to introducing new land use designations for this area.

Timing:

Community Planning staff intend to consult with the Ward Councillors, area residents, land owners, and other interested parties within the first quarter of 1999, prior to preparing the land use study. It is anticipated that the full process, including public consultation, will be completed within the third quarter of 1999.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the Terms of Reference (Exhibit No. 1) for the Claireville Land Use Study be approved as the basis for undertaking this review.

Contact Name:

Brian van den Brink, Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel: (416) 394-8239, Fax: (416) 394-6063

_____

Exhibit No. 1

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 2-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of January 20, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Public Art Reserve Fund Allocation

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1999) from the Chair, Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission:

Purpose:

This report is to make allocations from the Public Art Reserve Fund to complete three projects.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding is available from the Public Art Reserve Fund. No new funds are required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council approve the use of $36,000.00 from the public art reserve fund for the following projects:

Council Reference/Background/History:

The former Etobicoke Council, by Resolution Number 102, April 18, 1994, approved a recommendation that capital budget funds be allocated to a public art program each year. In accordance with the report, public art projects proposed from the reserve fund would be presented to Council.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Lakeshore Grounds:

On October 6, 1997, former Etobicoke Council approved a report from the Municipal Arts Commission, recommending an allocation of $60,000.00 from the Public Art Reserve Fund for an entrance feature for the Lakeshore Grounds at Kipling Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard West. The report also stated that former Metro Parks & Culture had committed a contribution of $25,000.00. At this time, due to budget cuts, the $25,000.00 is no longer available. The request for funds is to make up this shortfall.

519 Church Street Community Centre:

The project is to replace a mural on the south side of this city-owned building. The Centre is seeking to raise $20,000.00. One half of this amount has already been raised from the private sector. Toronto Council received a report dated September 28, 1998 from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services informing Council of the project and supporting the initiative.

Sir Adam Beck Community Centre:

On October 6, 1997, former Etobicoke Council approved a report from the Municipal Arts Commission, recommending an allocation of $5,000.00 for banners on Brown’s Line in Alderwood. The project is no longer viable due to restrictions by Hydro. The Etobicoke Public Art Advisory Committee has recommended transferring this allocation to another project in Alderwood, the Sir Adam Beck Community Centre, which is currently under construction. The additional $6,000.00 requested in this report will provide a total of $11,000.00 for a public art project.

The Etobicoke Public Art Advisory Committee endorsed these expenditures at its meeting of October 15, 1998.

Contact Names:

Terry Nicholson, Culture Division, Metro Hall Office

Phone: 392-4166; Fax: 392-3355

Thelma Amos, Culture Division, Etobicoke Office

Phone: 394-8390; Fax: 394-8935

_____

A motion to adopt the recommendation in the foregoing staff report carried on the following recorded vote:

Yeas: E. Brown, M. Giansante, B. Kinahan, G. Lindsay Luby, B. Sinclair - 5

Not Present: I. Jones

12

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

_____

_____

(2) Toronto School of Business, 5353 Dundas Street West.

_____

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH BROWN,

Chair

Toronto, January 20, 1999