1 Traffic Concerns: Judson Street Between Islington Avenue and Royal York Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)

2 Pedestrian Crossing Concerns: Horner Avenue at Beta Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

3 Introduction of Parking Prohibitions: Allenby Avenue (Rexdale-Thistletown)

4 Removal of Parking Prohibition: Royalavon Crescent (Kingsway-Humber)

5 Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Brownridge Crescent (Rexdale-Thistletown)

6 On-Street Parking Permits: The Kingsway; Anglesey Boulevard; Bexhill Court (Kingsway-Humber)

7 Payment in Lieu of Parking: Dr. J. P. Bulger, 3034-3036 Bloor Street West (Kingsway-Humber)

8 Request for Endorsement of Event for Liquor Licensing Purposes

9 Fire Route Designation: 95 Melbert Road (Markland-Centennial)

10 Fire Routes - Various Locations

11 Municipal By-law Enforcement for the Etobicoke District

12 Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Adanac Realty Limited, North Side of Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road, west of Stephen Drive - File No. Z-2284 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

13 Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Queenscorp (33rd Avenue) Inc. 3531-3533 and 3535-3543 Lake Shore Boulevard West File No. Z-2288 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

14 Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Andrei Verbitsky, 10 Fairfield Avenue File No. Z-2275 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

15 Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Government Road Road Allowance (Kingsway-Humber)

16 Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Lane West of Cordova Avenue between Parts 1 and 2, Plan 64R-7692 (Kingsway-Humber)

17 Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Mill Road Road Allowance (Markland-Centennial)

18 Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board - Nazeer S. Bishay 22 Kingsview Boulevard - File No. Z-2252 (Kingsway-Humber)

19 Urban Planning and Development Services Department
Staff Resources

20 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having:

(i) requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, to ask the Toronto Police Service to enforce zero tolerance for speeding along the section of Judson Street from Islington Avenue to Royal York Road; and further to request their support in sending out a notice to residents in the area bounded by Islington Avenue and Royal York Road, south of the Gardiner Expressway to the CN railway line, advising them of the zero tolerance enforcement and requesting their observance of the speed limit; and

(ii) referred the matter to the Forestry Division, Parks and Recreation Services, West District, with a request that they examine the road condition to determine whether suitable tree plantings can be made to provide a narrowing effect, as a long term solution.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To address the concerns of area residents with respect to the speed and volume of vehicular traffic on Judson Street between Islington Avenue and Royal York Road.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of a solid painted centreline are contained in the Transportation Service Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) all-way stop controls not be installed at the intersection of Judson Street and Harold Street;

(2) all-way stop controls not be installed at the intersection of Judson Street and St. George Street;

(3) The Toronto Police Service be requested to enforce the 50 km/h speed limit on Judson Street, between Royal York Road and Islington Avenue; and

(4) that a solid centreline replace the broken centreline on Judson Street between Royal York Road and Islington Avenue.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division - District 2 received correspondence (Attachment No. 1) from Councillor Blake Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway forwarding the concerns of Mr. David Cortellessa and area residents with respect to vehicular speeds on Judson Street between Royal York Road and Islington Avenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Comments:

To assess traffic conditions on Judson Street, the following information was obtained:

(1) manual approach counts conducted at the intersection of Judson Street and St. George Street;

(2) automatic approach counts conducted at the intersection of Judson Street and Harold Street;

(3) radar speed studies conducted on Judson Street near St. George Street;

(4) review of the three year collision history; and

(5) intersection description, including parking restrictions, sidewalks and land use.

The following warrants need to be met in order to justify the installation of all-way stop controls on roads and streets considered to be neither arterial nor major collector streets:

- (a) total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches must exceed 350 for the highest hour recorded; and

- (b) a volume split should not exceed 75/25 for a three-way control.

(1) Manual Turning Movement Count

Intersection: Judson Street and St. George Street

Count Type: Manual Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999

(2) Automatic Approach Count

Intersection: Judson Street and St. George Street

Count Type: Automatic Date: Wednesday March 24, 1999

The following observations and analysis were derived from the traffic counts:

(a) The balance of flow for the highest hour recorded is 98/2 at the intersection of Judson Street and St. George Street and 97/3 for the intersection of Judson Street and Harold Street. These splits exceeds the maximum allowable 75/25 volume split for three-way control.

(b) The highest hourly volumes recorded at the intersections of Judson Street and St. George Street; and, Judson Street and Harold Street, were 410 and 406 vehicles respectively. These volumes satisfy the minimum vehicular volume requirement of 350 vehicles necessary to fully satisfy the volume warrant. However, both the volume split and volume warrants must be satisfied to warrant the installation of all-way stop controls.

(3) Radar Speed Studies

The results of the radar speed studies conducted on Judson Street near St. George Street on March 26, 1999, between the hours of 7-8 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., indicate an 85th percentile speed of 60 km/h. This speed indicates that police enforcement on Judson Street between Royal York Road and Islington Avenue is required.

(4) Collision Review

A review of the collision history on Judson Street at the intersections of St. George Street and Judson Street and Harold Street revealed that there have been no reportable collisions at these intersections.

(5) Road Description

Road Classification: Judson Street, between Islington Avenue and Royal York Road, is classified as an Etobicoke Collector roadway;

Harold Street and St. George Street are designated local roadways.

Parking Regulations: Judson Street, no parking anytime, Royal York Road and a point 97.5 metres west thereof;

Judson Street, no parking anytime, St. George Street, to the west limit of the road;

St. George Street, three hour maximum;

Harold Street, three hour maximum.

Lane Configuration: Pavement width of 9.7 m consisting of one lane in each direction. A painted centreline is broken from O'Donnell Avenue to midblock between Willowbrook Road and Ourland Ave.

Speed Limit: 50 km/h on Judson Street;

50 km/h on St. George Street;

50 km/h on Harold Street.

Sidewalks: Judson Street, north side;

St. George Street, both sides;

Harold Street, both sides.

Land Use: north side, residential;

south side, industrial/commercial.

Conclusions:

Traffic conditions at the intersections of Judson Street and Harold Street and, Judson Street and St. George Street, do not warrant the installation of all-way stop controls. The results of the speed studies indicate that a speeding problem is evident on Judson Street near St. George Street, and that police enforcement is warranted. The collision review for the aforementioned intersections revealed no reportable collisions.

Based on all of the foregoing, staff will be requesting Toronto Police Service for enforcement on Judson Street. In order to assist in the directional flow of traffic, staff has also concluded that a solid centreline on Judson Street between Royal York Road and Islington Avenue would be desirable, and is therefore being recommended in this report.

Contact Name:

Kevin Akins, Traffic Technologist, - Transportation Services - District 2

(416) 394-6046; Fax (416) 394-8942

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Mr. David Cortellessa appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

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

(i) ensure that the existing 40 km/h signs on Horner Avenue are not obscured and the necessary tree pruning is undertaken;

(ii) install "seniors crossing" signs at an appropriate location on Horner Avenue;

(iii) ask the Toronto Police Service for enforcement of of the speed limit; and

(iv) to review the situation in one year's time and submit a report to Community Council.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To evaluate the request of the members of the Franklin Horner Community Centre to have a pedestrian crossover installed on Horner Avenue at Beta Street in conjunction with the reinstatement of the 50 km/h speed limit on the section of Horner Avenue between Beta Street and Gamma Street.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) a pedestrian crossover not be installed on Horner Avenue at Beta Street; and

(2) the existing 40 km/h speed limit on Horner Avenue along the frontage of the community centre be retained.

Background:

Correspondence/petition (Attachment No. 1) was forwarded from Councillor Irene Jones regarding a request from the members of the Franklin Horner Community Centre to have a pedestrian crossover installed on Horner Avenue at Beta Street and to have the current 40 km/h speed limit increased to 50 km/h. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

The Franklin Horner Community Centre, formerly an elementary school, is located on the north side of Horner Avenue between Beta Street and Gamma Street.

Horner Avenue, in the area of the community centre, is a four lane collector roadway with an average daily traffic volume of 12,000 vehicles.

Discussion:

To qualify the request for a pedestrian crossover an evaluation was completed for Horner Avenue in the area of Beta Street based on pedestrian and vehicular volumes and pedestrian delay warrants.

To determine the pedestrian crossing demand, pedestrian classification counts were conducted on Horner Avenue between Aldercrest Road and Gamma Street.

The volume warrant utilizes twelve-hour vehicle volumes and eight-hour pedestrian crossing volumes as criteria for the evaluation. The studies revealed an average eight-hour volume of 82 pedestrians crossing Horner Avenue (without difficulty), in the vicinity of Beta Street. Based on the existing twelve-hour vehicular volume of 9,075, a net eight-hour pedestrian volume of 260 would be required to fully satisfy the warrant. Therefore, the recorded vehicular and pedestrian volumes fail to satisfy the volume warrant by 68%.

In terms of the delay warrant, the percent compliance could not be determined since the minimum eight-hour pedestrian volume of 200 required for the evaluation was not recorded. A pedestrian volume of less than 200 does not normally require a pedestrian crossover.

The 40 km/h speed limit should be retained given that the request for the increase in the speed limit was in conjunction with the installation of a pedestrian crossover.

Conclusions:

The results of the pedestrian crossover evaluation revealed that the pedestrian volume and crossing delay in the vicinity of the subject location are well below the minimum requirements for the consideration of this traffic control device.

Given the request for the increase in the speed limit to 50 km/h was in conjunction with the installation of a pedestrian crossover the 40 km/h speed limit should be retained.

Contact Name:

Kevin Akins, Traffic Technologist, - Transportation Services - District 2

(416) 394-6046; Fax (416) 394-8942

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Mr. George Ropchan, Franklin Horner Community Centre, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a "No Parking Anytime" prohibition for the south side of Allenby Avenue between Islington Avenue and the east limit of the road.

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:

(1) parking be prohibited at all times on the south side of Allenby Avenue between Burrard Road and Grierson Road; and

(2) the associated by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

In October, 1998, correspondence was received from Councillor Elizabeth Brown (Attachment No. 2) on behalf of Mr. Massey, 49 Allenby Avenue, who had contacted MPP John Hastings inquiring about the feasibility of a parking prohibition on Allenby Avenue.

In response to this request, staff polled the one hundred and twenty-nine (129) residents of Allenby Avenue by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 3). There were forty-six (46) respondents to the poll; twenty-eight (28) were in favour of prohibiting parking on one side of Allenby Avenue and eighteen (18) were opposed to prohibiting parking on Allenby Avenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

Allenby Avenue is a two-lane roadway, with sidewalks on both sides of the street. Parking is currently prohibited on the south side of the street from Islington Avenue to Burrard Road; and from Grierson Road to the east limit of the street. Parking is permitted on the north side of the street for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential.

The majority of the respondents favoured prohibiting parking on the north side of Allenby Avenue. However, for continuity purposes parking should be prohibited on the south side of Allenby Avenue.

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 (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the removal of the "No Parking, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday" prohibition from both sides of Royalavon Crescent from Tyre Avenue to Holloway Road.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the current No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on both sides of Royalavon Crescent regulation be removed to allow on-street parking from Tyre Avenue to Holloway Road; and

(2) the associated by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

In November, 1998, Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby's forwarded a request (Attachment No. 2) to the Transportation Services Division requesting that the "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on both sides of Royalavon Crescent be amended to allow for short-erm on-street parking.

In response to this request, staff polled the thirty-three (33) affected residents of Royalavon Crescent between Tyre Avenue and Holloway Road by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 3). There were twenty-one (21) respondents to the poll: thirteen (13) were in favour of the proposal and eight (8) were opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

Royalavon Crescent is a two-lane roadway between Burnhamthorpe Road and Dundas Street West. A sidewalk exists on the west side of the street between Dundas Street West and Mattice Avenue. Parking is prohibited at all times on both sides of Royalavon Crescent between Dundas Street West and Tyre Avenue; parking is prohibited on both sides of Royalavon Crescent between Tyre Avenue and Holloway Road between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Throughout all other sections on the street, parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential.

In 1980, the Traffic Section of the Engineering Department of the former Borough of Etobicoke, received a request from the residents of Royalavon Crescent for the implementation of a daytime parking restriction on Royalavon Crescent between Tyre Avenue and Holloway Road. This was the result of several complaints from residents about vehicles being left on the street during the daytime by students of Michael Power/St. Joseph's High School. At that time a total of thirty (30) letters were delivered to the residents who reside on this section of Royalavon Crescent, proposing the introduction of a "No Parking, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday" prohibition. Twenty-five (25) responses were received, of which, eighteen (18) were in favour of the proposal.

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 (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition for the south, west and north sides of Brownridge Crescent..

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:

(1) parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south, west and north sides of Brownridge Crescent; and

(2) the associated by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

In January, 1999, correspondence was received from Kamaljit Jawanda, 3 Brownridge Crescent (Attachment No. 2) inquiring about the feasibility of prohibiting parking 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Brownridge Crescent.

In response to this request, staff polled the thirty-two (32) affected residents of Brownridge Crescent by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 3). There were fourteen (14) respondents to the poll: ten (10) were in favour of the proposal and four (4) were opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

Brownridge Crescent is a two-lane roadway, with a sidewalk on the north, east, and south sides of the street. Parking is currently permitted on the south, west, and north sides of the street for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential.

Council for the former City of Etobicoke, at its meeting held on September 6, 1994, approved By-Law No. 1994-148 to prohibit parking on the north, east, and south sides of Brownridge Crescent. This was the result of a concern expressed from staff of the Waste Management Division regarding vehicles parking on both sides of the street in such a manner that waste collection trucks were often obstructed and could not collect waste effectively. The introduction of this parking restriction made waste collection much more efficient.

There are a number of factors that contribute to the high incidence of on-street parking in this area. Approximately ten years ago, daytime parking regulations were introduced on the residential street on the west side of Highway 27, in the immediate area around Humber College, North Campus. Students of the college parked their vehicles on these street throughout the day to avoid paying parking fees on campus. This problem has now moved to the residential streets on the east side of Highway 27, compounding an ongoing parking problem in the area caused by patients and visitors to Etobicoke General Hospital and the Medical Centre on Westmore Drive; drivers are attempting to avoid parking fees at these medical facilities by parking on the streets. A staff review of this issue clearly indicates that daytime parking on Brownridge Crescent is a problem. Enforcement by the Toronto Police Service, Parking Enforcement Unit, has been ineffective.

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 (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of Recommendations (1), (2) and (3) contained in the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having deferred consideration of Recommendation (4) to allow for consultation with affected residents.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To inform Etobicoke Community Council of the results of a public opinion survey regarding on-street parking permits in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court area, and to recommend that the Toronto Parking Authority install additional metered parking stalls on the east side of The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation and maintenance of metered parking is contained in the operating budget of the Toronto Parking Authority.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) on-street parking permits not be introduced on Anglesey Boulevard, The Kingsway, or Bexhill Court;

(2) the Toronto Parking Authority repair and/or replace the existing non-functioning parking meters on Anglesey Boulevard, The Kingsway, and Bexhill Court;

(3) the Toronto Parking Authority review the rate structure and permitted times for metered parking in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court area; and

(4) the Toronto Parking Authority install additional metered parking stalls on the east side of The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard, and that Schedule C of Section 187(11) and Schedule VIII of Chapter 240 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be amended accordingly, and as described in the attached by-laws.

Council Reference:

In October 1998, Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby asked that staff investigate the possibility of introducing additional metered parking stalls in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard area (Attachment No. 1). In January 1999, Councillor Lindsay Luby wrote to us requesting that we undertake ". . . the necessary studies to see if [on-street] permit parking could be a viable option to this problem [the lack of on-street metered parking]" (Attachment No. 2).

Medium density rental apartment buildings dominate the area of The Kingsway, Anglesey Boulevard, and Bexhill Court (Attachment No. 3). These apartment buildings were constructed in the early 1950s, predating current Etobicoke Zoning Code parking standards. Our survey of apartment owners in the area found that for a total of 714 occupied apartment units there was a total of 404 on-site parking spaces, or 0.57 parking spaces per dwelling unit.

Discussion:

A. Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits

In 1982, Council for the former City of Etobicoke proposed issuing overnight parking permits to apartment residents in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court area; however, it was rejected when survey results failed to find popular consensus for such a proposal.

In 1996, staff again surveyed area residents to obtain their opinion toward on-street parking permits. While many residents who responded to the survey said that they were concerned with a lack of visitor parking, there was no popular support for on-street parking permits, and staff did not pursue the proposal.

In response to Councillor Lindsay Luby's request, staff sent survey questionnaires, by first class mail, to the 843 residential apartment units in the area (Attachment No. 4). The questionnaires provided information on the on-street parking permit program described in the Etobicoke Municipal Code, and asked if residents were in favour of it. Of the 136 responses that we received, 68 percent opposed on-street parking permits.

To examine the adequacy of visitor parking that area residents had previously identified as an issue, staff conducted a parking occupancy study of all metered parking stalls in the study area. Visitor parking demand is typically at its peak on Saturday evening, and the study was done Saturday, February 27, 1999, between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. The study showed that 209 of the 215 existing metered parking stalls were occupied. This is equivalent to an occupancy rate of 97 percent; however, license plate traces showed that nearly one-half of all vehicles parked at the meters were registered to owners who did not reside in the study area.

B. Introduction of Additional Metered Parking

Responding to concerns from area residents regarding a lack of on-site and on-street parking, the City of Etobicoke introduced metered parking stalls on Anglesey Boulevard, Bexhill Court, and The Kingsway in 1989. The meters allow parking for a maximum of nine hours between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., seven days a week, and at a cost of $0.50 per night. At all other times, the maximum three hour parking limit applies.

At present, most of the parking meters are broken. We relaxed parking enforcement in the area to avoid penalizing residents who have no other option but to park in the metered stalls. The Toronto Parking Authority advises that they will replace the parking meters following the fall 1999 reconstruction of this section of Anglesey Boulevard.

In 1989, the City of Etobicoke maximized the on-street parking supply in the study area by redesigning the parking stalls on the north side of Anglesey Boulevard from parallel to angle. In connection with the reconstruction of Anglesey Boulevard that will be completed in the fall of 1999, we will convert the parallel stalls on the south side of Anglesey Boulevard, between Royal York Road and The Kingsway, to angle parking. This will increase the number of metered parking stalls on the south side of Anglesey Boulevard from 29 to 50.

We would like to point out that from a traffic operations perspective, angled on-street parking stalls can restrict sight lines for motorists when they back out of the stalls; however, in this area, the median-divided traffic flow on Anglesey Boulevard, combined with low traffic volumes and reduced parking stall turnover resulting from the residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood, keeps this conflict to a minimum. A description of the number and location of metered parking stalls in the area is described in the following table:

At the request of Councillor Lindsay Luby, we examined the possibility of installing additional metered parking on the east side of The Kingsway, north of the existing limit of the metered parking stalls, and adjacent the west side of Humber Valley Park. This will provide approximately 18 additional metered parking stalls, but requires that the existing daytime parking prohibition (from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) extending across the frontage of Humber Valley Park, on the east side of The Kingsway, from Hartfield Road to a point 134 m south, be removed (Attachment No. 5).

Conclusions:

The introduction of on-street parking permits in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court would eliminate visitor use of most of the on-street parking stalls. In view of the substantial amount of visitor parking that occurs during peak periods, Etobicoke's on-street parking permit program does not appear to be a realistic parking strategy for this area.

Our parking surveys also show that visitor parking appears to generate a significant demand for the existing supply of on-street metered parking stalls on The Kingsway, Anglesey Boulevard, and Bexhill Court. This suggests that parking generated by residents may be overestimated. These observations suggest that if we are to use the metered parking stalls to their maximum potential, the study area requires a complete review of the parking meter rates and permitted times.

Converting the parallel parking stalls on the south side of Anglesey Boulevard to an angle pattern will add 21 additional metered stalls. Approximately 18 metered parking stalls can be installed on the east side of The Kingsway, north of the existing limit of the on-street parking meters, and across the frontage of Humber Valley Park. In total, these revisions increase the area's supply of on-street metered parking by 18 percent; from 215 stalls to 254.

Contact Name:

Allan Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/R-O-W Management

Tel: (416)394-8412; Fax (416) 394-8942

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-5, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

The subject of this report is to seek Council's approval to exempt Dr. J. P. Bulger, DDS, of 3034-3036 Bloor Street West, from the Etobicoke Zoning Code requirement of nine additional vehicle parking stalls.

Funding Sources:

Council's approval of this application will provide the City with an $18,000 payment-in-lieu of parking and a $200 application processing fee.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council approve this application.

Background:

The applicant proposes to move his dental practice, currently at 3031 Bloor Street West, to a location across the street at 3034-3036 Bloor Street West (Attachment No. 1). The site was previously used by a flower shop and dental/business offices, with a second-storey residential apartment. The applicant proposes to convert the entire 294.4 m² of gross floor area into a dental office.

Comments:

The Urban Planning and Development Services Department informed the applicant that the proposed dental office requires nine additional vehicle parking stalls. The site cannot accommodate the nine parking stalls, and the applicant requests 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).

Traffic 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 a correspondence dated April 20, 1999, the President of the Kingsway Business Improvement Area expressed his organization's support for the above-noted application (Attachment No. 3).

Conclusions:

At its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, City of Toronto Council received a report dated September 10, 1998, from the Commissioners of the Works and Emergency Services Department and Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled "Cash Payment-in-lieu of Parking Related to Development Applications (all Wards)." The report provided Council with background information and a summary of current payment-in-lieu of parking policies that exist in the former municipalities, recommending that both departments be requested to report jointly, at the appropriate time, with regard to consolidating payment-in-lieu of parking policies and practices. Council directed that until such time as a joint report on a 'harmonized' payment-in-lieu of parking policy is received, the Commissioners of both Departments are to ensure that: ". . . the current practises outlined in the joint report dated September 10, 1998, . . . are being followed in the former Area Municipalities." This application is made according to Council's directive.

It is staff's opinion that the request for exemption to the provision of nine additional vehicle parking stalls is acceptable. The nine 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 $18,000 for the nine stall parking shortfall before issuance of a building permit.

Contact Name:

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

Tel: (416) 394-8412; Fax (416) 394-8942

(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

for Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, declare the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a) the Big Six Softball League Playoffs in Centennial Park, September 11 and 12, 1999; and

(b) the Kiwanis Club of the Kingsway Beer Garden in conjunction with the Canada Day celebrations in Centennial Park, July 1, 1999 from 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (April 13, 1999) from John Moffett, Commissioner, Big Six Softball League; and

- (May 5, 1999) from Councillor Doug Holyday, on behalf of the Kiwanis Club of the Kingsway.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 11, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To obtain Council approval for the enactment of the appropriate by-law to approve the final designation of a fire route at 95 Melbert Road in the Markland-Centennial area, to enable by-law enforcement officers to tag illegally parked vehicles within the designated fire route.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The property owner is required to pay the cost for the installation of the fire route signs, by the Works Department, in addition to any signs that may require replacing, in the future.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the final designation of Fire Routes under Chapter 134 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be approved at the following location:

95 Melbert Road; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be enacted by City Council.

Background:

On April 8, 1975, an "Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke" received Royal Assent. A portion of the Act, Section 2, allows the Corporation to pass by-laws regulating and designating fire routes. Each property requires the enactment of two by-laws: (1) to allow the Works and Emergency Services Department to install and maintain the required number of fire route signs on each property, and (2) to allow appropriate officials to tag and/or remove vehicles illegally parked within the designated fire route area.

In instances when changes have been made to a property, such as additions to existing buildings, the construction of additional new buildings on the site or revisions to the parking areas, it is necessary to amend the designating fire route by-law.

Comments:

It is appropriate for Etobicoke Community Council to authorize the enactment of this by-law. Similar By-laws will be presented to Community Council on an ongoing basis. As all former area municipalities have different procedures for processing fire routes, revisions to Etobicoke's existing procedures may be amended in the future.

Conclusions:

In keeping with Fire Department regulations, it is appropriate to enact this by-law to allow the By-law Enforcement Officers to tag vehicles that are illegally parked in fire route zones.

Contact Name:

Vicki Tytaneck, Manager, Legislative Services

Tel: (416) 394-8080

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 11, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To obtain Council approval for the enactment of the appropriate by-law to allow the construction and maintenance of a fire route at various locations.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The property owner is required to pay the cost for the installation of the fire route signs, by Works and Emergency Services, in addition to any signs that may require replacing in the future.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Chapter 134-20 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be amended by adding the following locations to Schedule 'B', "Lands Upon Which Fire Routes Are to be Constructed and Maintained":

10 Blackfriar Avenue; 41 Blackfriar Avenue; 25 Bridesburg Drive; 55 Bridesburg Drive; 2116 Kipling Avenue; 250-300 Manitoba Street; 24 Montgomery Road; 25 Queen's Plate Drive; 100 Vulcan Street; and 90 Woodbine Downs Boulevard; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be enacted by City Council.

Background:

On April 8, 1975, "An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke" received Royal Assent. A portion of the Act, Section 2, allows the Corporation to pass by-laws regulating and designating fire routes. Each property requires the enactment of two by-laws; (1) to allow the Works and Emergency Services Department to install and maintain the required number of fire route signs on each property, and (2) to allow appropriate officials to tag and/or remove vehicles illegally parked within the designated fire route area.

In instances when changes have been made to a property, such as additions to existing buildings, the construction of additional new buildings on the site or revisions to the parking areas, it is necessary to amend the designating fire route by-law.

Comments:

It is appropriate for Etobicoke Community Council to authorize the enactment of this by-law. Similar by-laws will be presented to Community Council on an ongoing basis. As all former area municipalities have different procedures for processing fire routes, revisions to Etobicoke's existing procedures may be amended in the future.

Conclusions:

In keeping with Toronto Fire Services regulations, it is appropriate to enact this by-law to provide for the construction and maintenance of fire routes and to allow the By-Law Enforcement Officers to tag vehicles that are illegally parked in fire route zones.

Contact Name:

Vicki Tytaneck, Manager, Legislative Services

Tel: (416) 394-8080

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council request the Provincial government to take action to support higher sentences for Building Code and municipal by-law offences, including providing educational opportunities for the judiciary, and that the Province communicate the concerns of municipalities regarding the minimal sentences being imposed by judges and justices of the peace regarding these infractions; and

(2) the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to be requested to support the foregoing recommendation and to solicit the endorsement of its member municipalities.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having requested the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, and the District Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards, West District, to convene a workshop in the early Fall of 1999 with representatives of ratepayer associations throughout the Etobicoke District to discuss what other issues of concern need to be addressed.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following joint report (May 26, 1999) from the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, and District Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards, West District:

Purpose :

This report responds to the November 12, 1998 request of Etobicoke Community Council for the Deputy Chief Building Official and the Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards, West District, and the City Solicitor, for a joint report to the Community Council, to include recommendations for a mechanism by which citizens can be heard, and various levels of fines for repeat and long-standing violations.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Mr. J. Hartman, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association, appeared as a deputant before Etobicoke Community Council requesting a renewed commitment to ensuring full compliance with Etobicoke District by-laws and the convening of a workshop for the development of constructive recommendations for a new approach to enforcement.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Building Division

The Building Division of Urban Planning and Development Services Department is responsible for the enforcement of the Ontario Building Code Regulations, the Sign By-law, the Construction Fence By-law, the Swimming Pool Fence By-law, and the Group Home By-law, primarily where applicable to new construction projects. Permit application review services and permit issuance followed by inspection services define our primary role and function within the Department. The Department's organizational vision includes elements which will offer customer centred service providing value added services with clear, well defined processes that address community needs through knowledgeable/professional staff.

As have other divisions within the Department, the Building Division has undergone a significant downsizing of resources in order to meet the budgetary reductions imposed across the City. A new management structure has been implemented to better deal with issues that previously may have been a concern, and the definition of our business plan is underway.

The Humber Valley Village Residents' Association, through Mr. Jerry Hartman and Mr. Ira Nishisato, have identified a concern respecting the lack of capacity on the part of the City to pursue enforcement beyond everyday infractions, in cases of serious non-compliance. Management staff of the Building Division met with Mr. Hartman and Mr. Nishisato to further discuss our approach to handling the chronic Building Code violators and the apparent "fait accompli" attitude towards enforcement.

The division has now concluded the management and senior position placements and is presently undergoing a business process review. The outcome of this review and the establishment of realistic service levels will be the final deployment of staff resources and the continued implementation of programs.

Inspection and Enforcement Services

In terms of providing a more effective and efficient inspection and enforcement service, standardized forms and wording of Orders along with appropriate procedures for their use are being developed to unify the former cities. A centralized court services unit has been developed for the Department. Once implemented, this unit will improve the quality and effectiveness of legal action in a uniform method across the City. As the unit would be seamless in terms of the district boundaries, it will be familiar with chronic offenders and could advise the courts at the time of the hearing so that higher fines could be aggressively pursued. Provincial Offence Ticketing (Part 1 Procedures) are also being considered to provide for a more efficient enforcement service.

Municipal Standards

The Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of Urban Planning and Development Services is responsible for the enforcement of a multitude of municipal by-laws. The majority of the complaints we investigate are associated with the enforcement of zoning (land use) and property standards regulations. Although Municipal Licensing and Standards enforcement staff do not enforce the Building Code as it relates to new construction, inspection staff in both Building Services and Municipal Licensing and Standards do, and will continue to work closely together in the best interests of the citizens of Etobicoke.

Currently, the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division is in the process of restructuring by-law enforcement services City-wide. Although the new structure is not yet complete, District Managers have been appointed and, as far as day-to-day operations are concerned, we are striving to improve service delivery to all our customers.

The concerns raised in the communication from the Humber Valley Village Residents' Association have been reviewed by Municipal Licensing and Standards and we wish to assure the Association that our staff will work hard to maintain the quality of life for our citizens by insuring that the City's by-laws are complied with. With respect to repeat offenders, we agree with the Residents' Association that a clear message must be sent to deter on-going and repeated offences. In that regard, when Municipal Licensing and Standards receives a complaint it will be investigated and upon confirmation of the offence, the responsible party will be directed to comply forthwith. If compliance is not forthcoming, appropriate enforcement action will be taken, including the laying of charges if necessary. Where a conviction is handed down, the conviction will be recorded and should the offence be repeated, the Court (upon a subsequent conviction) will be advised of any previous conviction(s). This, in turn, should reflect the severity of the penalty handed down. It should be noted, however, that although the Prosecutor may make submissions to the Court concerning penalty, the decision with respect to the fine imposed rests with the Court.

Conclusions:

In conclusion, both the Building Division and the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of Urban Planning and Development Services are committed to ensuring compliance with the Ontario Building Code and City by-laws. Staff have recently attended a town hall meeting of the Humber Valley Residents' Association to address any concerns and to advise on the program changes and current procedures. Both David Roberts, District Manager, and Bruce Ashton, Deputy Chief Building Official, West District, would be happy to meet with other local Associations to address any concerns they may have from time to time.

Contact Name:

Bruce Ashton, P.Eng. David Roberts

Director of Building and District Manager

Deputy Chief Building Official Municipal Licensing and Standards

West District West District

Tel.: 394-8006; Fax:394-8209 Tel.: 394-2532; Fax: 394-2904

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

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

Background:

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

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

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

The surrounding land uses are as follows:

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

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

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

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

Proposal:

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

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

Site Area: 1 504 m² 16, 189 ft²

Gross Floor Area: 1 156 m² 12, 448 ft²

Number of Units: 8

Floor Space Index: 0.77

Density: 53 uph 21 upa

Height: 13 m 43 ft. (three storeys)

Coverage: 493 m² 5, 310 ft² 33 %

Landscaped Area: 874 m² 9, 410 ft² 58 %

Paved Area: 137 m² 1, 475 ft² 9 %

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

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

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

Comment:

Official Plan and Zoning Code:

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

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

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

Land Use and Site Design Considerations:

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

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

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

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

Community Council Requests:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Planning Approvals and Agreements:

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

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

Community Meeting:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

Conditions to Approval:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP Tel: (416) 394-6004

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

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

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

Purpose:

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

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

Contact Name:

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

District Manager, West District,

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

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

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and the report (April 29, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application by Queenscorp (33rd Avenue) Inc. to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of a 4-storey, 46-unit "mainstreet" apartment building at 3531-3533 and 3535-3543 Lake Shore Boulevard West, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report.

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 (April 29, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider an application to amend the Zoning Code to permit the development of a 4-storey, 46-unit "mainstreet" apartment building at 3531-3533 and 3535-3543 Lake Shore Boulevard 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 Queenscorp (33rd Avenue) Inc. be approved subject to a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that an amending by-law be presented to Council for adoption.

Background:

The subject site is located in the former Village of Long Branch on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, immediately west of Thirty Third Street. Two commercial buildings on the site were recently demolished.

Proposal:

The applicant proposes to construct a 46-unit, 4-storey "mainstreet" apartment building on the site. The building would contain 24 1-bedroom and 22 2-bedroom apartments of approximately 71.6 m² (771 sq.ft.) and 78.5 m² (845 sq.ft.) in size, respectively.

The proposed apartment building would be located on the north portion of the site, along Lake Shore Boulevard. The parking area would be located below and behind (south of) the building, and would be accessed off Thirty Third Street. The landscaping would comprise of raised planters at the front of the building along Lake Shore Boulevard, and low ground cover (e.g. shrubs, grass) on the adjacent boulevard of Thirty Third Street. A 2.4 m (8 ft.) wide mutual driveway straddling the west lot line of the site would be maintained.

A mix of 1 to 2-storey commercial, office and institutional buildings are situated along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of the site. Lands on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard are mostly industrial, but include institutional and car-oriented retail uses. South of the site across a 3.6 m (12 ft.) wide public lane is a low density residential neighbourhood of 1 to 2 storey dwellings.

Exhibit No. 1 is a map showing the location of the subject property and surrounding zoning. Exhibit Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are reductions of the site plan and elevations, respectively. A summary of the site data is listed below in Table 1.

The applicant has applied for site plan approval for the proposed apartment building, and intends to apply later for plan of condominium.

Table 1