1 No Stopping and Parking Prohibitions: Legion Road North and Manitoba Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

2 Removal of Parking Prohibition: Lothian Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)

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

4 Boulevard Parking Agreement Commercial and Home Builders 25 and 41 Westside Drive (Markland-Centennial)

5 Municipal Law Enforcement Officers in the Former City of Etobicoke

6 Historical Marker - Long Branch Race Track (Lakeshore-Queensway)

7 The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy Task Force Appointments

8 Construction and Maintenance of Fire Route 2045 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Lakeshore-Queensway)

9 Designation of Fire Route 250-300 Manitoba Stree (Lakeshore-Queensway)

10 Request for Endorsement of Event for Liquor Licensing Purposes

11 Validation Certificate Application 107 Martin Grove Road, 109 Goswell Road and 93 Goswell Road (Markland-Centennial)

12 Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

13 Amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Shell Canada Limited - 435 Browns Line File No. Z-2278 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

14 Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Allerton Investments Limited (Shell Canada Limited) 230 Lloyd Manor Road - File No. Z-2259 (Markland-Centennial)

15 Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Petro Canada - 830 Burnhamthorpe Road File No. Z-2287 (Markland-Centennial)

16 Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Scarlet Gate Development Inc. - 200 Royal York Road File No. Z-2292 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

17 Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code 1308684 Ontario Limited, 3085 Bloor Street West and 20 Thompson Avenue - File No. Z-2293 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

18 Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code Harvey Sawh, 63 and 65 Winterton Drive File No. Z-2296 (Markland-Centennial)

19 Long Branch Mainstreets Pilot Project Reconstruction of the South Side of Lake Shore Boulevard West Twenty Second Street to Thirty First Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

20 Confidential Report Regarding a Building Permit Application

21 Request to Lift Holding (H) Designation Zanini Developments Inc., 112 Evans Avenue and 801 Oxford Street - File No. Z-2268 (Lakeshore-Queensway)

22 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose a No Stopping prohibition on both sides of Legion Road North between the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and south limit of Manitoba Street; and, a No Parking prohibition on both sides of Manitoba Street between Legion Road North and a point 29 metres west thereof.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) stopping be prohibited on both sides of Legion Road North between the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and the south limit of Manitoba Street;

(2) parking be prohibited on both sides of Manitoba Street between Legion Road North and a point 29 metres west thereof; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that may be required.

Background:

Legion Road North is a new public roadway that is accessed from the eastbound Park Lawn Road exit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway. This road was constructed as part of the overall transportation network required to accommodate the new condominium developments on the north side of Manitoba Street, west of Legion Road North and the future developments in the secondary plan area known as the Park Lawn/Lake Shore Planning Area. Legion Road North was recently by-lawed a through highway; and, a one-way street, southbound. This report proposes some traffic/parking control measures to facilitate and manage the safe flow of traffic. A map of the area is Attachment No. 1.

Comments:

Given that the off-ramp from the Park Lawn Road exit of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway to Legion Road North is relatively short in distance, it is anticipated that the speed of some vehicular traffic on Legion Road North will still be in a transition stage as drivers decelerate from highway speed to the 50 km/h local road speed limit. In order to provide a safe flow of this traffic, a No Stopping prohibition must be introduced on both sides of Legion Road between the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and the south limit of Manitoba Street.

Legion Road North currently terminates at the south limit of Manitoba Street. Therefore, all traffic on this roadway must turn right at Manitoba Street. The introduction of a No Parking prohibition on both sides of Manitoba Street between Legion Road North and a point 29 meters west thereof will address any traffic safety issues at and near the intersection of Legion Road North and Manitoba Street.

Conclusions:

Adoption of this report and approval of these by-laws are required to facilitate and manage the safe flow of traffic on both Legion Road North and Manitoba Street.

Contact Name:

Mr. Mark Hargot, Supervisor, Traffic Engineering - District 2

Tel.: (416) 394-8453; Fax: 394-8942

(A copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the removal of the existing "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" prohibition from both sides of Lothian Avenue, from a point 119.0 metres south of Springbrook Gardens to a point 94.5 metres further south.

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 Saturday" restrictions on both sides of Lothian Avenue from a point 119.0 metres south of Springbrook Gardens to a point 94.5 metres south, be removed; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any bills that may be required.

Background:

In 1983, the former City of Etobicoke, purchased the property at 80 Lothian Avenue from the Etobicoke Board of Education, and the building is now used as the Fairfield Seniors' Centre. It is used on a daily basis for classes and events. During peak periods the parking lot is insufficient, and some short-term street parking is necessary.

In January 1999, correspondence was received from Ms. Ruth Doherty, Supervisor, Fairfield Seniors' Centre (Attachment No. 1) requesting that the "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" prohibition on both sides of Lothian Avenue, in the vicinity of the Fairfield Seniors' Centre, be amended to allow for short-term, on-street parking.

In response to this request, staff sent survey questionnaires, by first class mail, to the nine affected residents on the east side of Lothian Avenue opposite the Fairfield Seniors' Centre (Attachment No. 2). The results of this survey are described in the following table:

A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

Discussion:

Lothian Avenue is a two-lane local road. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential. Parking is currently prohibited on both sides of Lothian Avenue from a point 119.0 metres south of Springbrook Gardens, to a point 94.5 metres further south.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein are considered appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Coordinator

Transportation Services Division, District 2

Tel.: (416) 394-8419; Fax (416) 394-8942

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1 to 3, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

The subject of this report is to seek Council's approval to exempt the applicant from the Etobicoke Zoning Code requirement of four additional parking stalls, conditional upon a payment-in-lieu of parking.

Funding Sources:

Council's approval of this application will provide the City of Toronto with a $4,000.00 payment-in-lieu of parking, and a $200.00 application processing fee.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this application be approved.

Background:

The site is located at 3034-3036 Bloor Street West, and is occupied by a two-storey commercial building with 294.4 m² of gross floor area (Attachment No. 1). At its meeting of June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, Council for the City of Toronto approved the applicant's request for a payment-in-lieu of parking for nine parking stalls. The applicant is currently renovating the existing building, which will be occupied by a dental office, and proposes to introduce a 59.6 m² two-storey addition at the rear of the building. This expansion will increase the gross floor area of the building to a total of 354 m². The additional floor space will be used in conjunction with the dental practice.

Comments:

The Urban Planning and Development Services Department informed the applicant that the proposed 59.6 m² expansion requires four additional parking stalls. The site cannot provide the four additional parking stalls. 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 would not support a Committee of Adjustment 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 August 24, 1999, the Kingsway Business Management Board outlined their support for the above-noted application (Attachment No. 3).

Conclusions:

At its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Toronto City Council received a report dated September 10, 1998, from the Commissioners of the Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services, headed "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. This recommended 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 practices 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.

The applicant's request for an exemption to the provision of four additional parking stalls is appropriate. The four-stall parking shortfall will not have a significant impact on parking conditions in the immediate area, and Council can grant the requested exemption, subject to the usual conditions.

Council has 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 require that the applicant make a payment of $4,000.00 for the four-stall parking shortfall before the issuance of a building permit.

Contact Name:

Mr. J. Mariconda, Transportation Engineer/Coordinator - District 2

Tel.: (416) 394-8417; Fax: (416) 394-8942

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1 to 3, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To recommend that Etobicoke Community Council authorize a total of 15 parking stalls in the boulevard area of Westside Drive.

Funding Sources:

Introduction of boulevard parking stalls at this location will provide the City of Toronto with an application fee of $250.00 and an annual fee of $3,300.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the location of 15 parking stalls in the boulevard area of Westside Drive be authorized; and

(2) the applicant sign a "boulevard parking agreement" that is registered on title, and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

Background:

The subject site is presently occupied by two, one-storey industrial buildings (Attachment No. 1). On June 18, 1999, the Committee of Adjustment approved a severance application (Decision No. B-22/99ET) that granted the applicant's request to divide this property into two industrial lots (Attachment No. 2). One of the conditions to approval requires that the applicant either remove the existing parking that is occurring within the Westside Drive right-of-way, or enter into a boulevard parking agreement that authorizes the use of the boulevard area of Westside Drive for vehicle parking purposes.

In correspondence dated August 18, 1999, the owner's representative requested that Etobicoke Community Council consider their proposal to legitimize the existing 15 boulevard parking stalls that exist within the Westside Drive right-of-way (Attachment No. 3).

Comments:

Staff reviewed the applicant's request for boulevard parking, and the site plan illustrating the layout of the 15 boulevard parking stalls within the Westside Drive right-of-way (Attachment No. 4). The stalls are designed perpendicular to Westside Drive, and comply with the dimensional requirements of the Etobicoke Zoning Code.

The applicant will be required, under the terms of a standard "boulevard parking agreement," to construct the boulevard parking stalls to municipal standards; register the agreement on-title; provide the municipality with liability insurance; and, pay an annual fee of $253.00 per parking stall, including GST and PST. The annual fee conforms to the new fee structure established by the City of Toronto Council on April 26, 1999.

Conclusions:

The boulevard area of Westside Drive, abutting the subject site, can be used for parking purposes without any significant impact to existing traffic operations. The applicant's proposal is considered appropriate, subject to the submission of a "boulevard parking agreement."

Contact Name:

Mr. J. Mariconda, Transportation Engineer/Coordinator - District 2

Tel.: (416) 394-8417; Fax: (416) 394-8942

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 1 to 4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1) the following staff of the Parks and Recreation Division, West District, be sworn in as Municipal Law Enforcement Officers:

(a) Mr. Harald Zorn, Parks Supervisor; and

(b) Mr. Milton Pastor, Park Patrol; and

(2) the necessary by-law be enacted.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To arrange for Mr. Harald Zorn, Parks Supervisor, and Mr. Milton Pastor, Park Patrol, of the Parks and Recreation Division, West District, to be sworn in as Municipal Law Enforcement Officers.

Source of Funds:

None required.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

Currently, the Parks and Recreation Division, West District, has one Municipal Law Enforcement Officer. There is too much responsibility put on one particular individual which results in additional overtime to be paid out. Adding two more officers would result in better enforcement of municipal by-laws as they relate to the Parks and Recreation Division.

Conclusion:

The swearing in of two additional Municipal Law Enforcement Officers will allow the West District, Parks and Recreation Division, to deal with issues in a more timely and efficient manner.

Contact Names:

Don Boyle, Director, West District, 394-5723

John Fulton, Manager, South Region, 394-8527

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the Etobicoke Community Council that the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department report back on the recognition of the location of the former Long Branch Race Track by the erection of a historical marker on the site. The Etobicoke Community Council also requested that the Etobicoke Historical Board be asked to comment on the proposal.

Source of Funds:

Costs will be in the range of $3,000.00 and could be covered by the 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) staff be authorized to proceed with the installation of an enamelled historical plaque, with appropriate landscaping, to commemorate the location of the former Long Branch Race Track;

(2) installation of the historical plaque proceed in the fall of 1999 or as soon as the necessary permissions are obtained;

(3) the cost to fabricate and install the plaque be covered by the 1999 operating budget; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on April 28, 1999, the Etobicoke Community Council considered a memorandum from Councillor Irene Jones, requesting that the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department report on the recognition of the location of the former Long Branch Race Track by the erection of a historical marker on the site on Horner Avenue. The Etobicoke Community Council further requested that the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC be asked to comment.

The Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC considered this matter at its meeting held May 12, 1999, and endorsed the concept of a historical marker for this site.

Background:

The Long Branch Race Track was active between 1924 and the late 1950's. Councillor Jones has asked that its site be marked with a historical marker at the location of the last remaining physical artifacts, one post marking the east entrance to the track and an avenue of trees which formed that entrance.

The Long Branch Race Track operated on a site on the north side of Horner Avenue, west of Kipling Avenue and east of the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks. Newspaper accounts show that the track opened on September 6, 1924, and was active with some disruptions during World War II until October 21, 1955. This property and the Dufferin Race Track, both controlled by the Orpen family, were sold to the Toronto Racing Securities Limited on December 1, 1955. At some later date, the Township of Etobicoke took over the property for industrial development.

Discussion:

Although, at one time, the Track consisted of a small grandstand and several paddock barns, as well as the race course itself, all that remains is a single stone gatepost and an avenue of trees which formed the main entrance to the Race Track grounds. All other evidence has been lost over time. It should also be noted that the gatepost has been vandalized and has been tipped off of its mooring onto its side and needs to be stabilized.

The property is currently owned by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and is the site for their Ontario Region distribution facility.

The Etobicoke Historical Board has established a style of plaque which has been used in the former City of Etobicoke in recent years. This consists of an enamelled panel with a photograph or series of photographs, plus text enamelled onto the panel. This style would be appropriate for this site as there are several photographs of the race track from its days of activity and would help explain the site to today's reader.

The plaque could be erected outside of the fencing delineating the Goodyear property, between the fencing and the public sidewalk. It is advisable to consider a site to the western end of the property as there is a lay-by immediately to the west of the railroad tracks into which people can pull their vehicles if they wish to read the plaque(s). At the same time, such location would allow pedestrian traffic to read the plaques while the plaques would not interfere with vehicular traffic as they are well back from the roadway.

The Etobicoke Historical Board has indicated their willingness to provide wording for the text.

Past practice in Etobicoke was to enlist the support of local corporations and businesses in underwriting part or all of the cost of commemorative plaques. This could be pursued in this instance, although Council should be aware of possible delays if implementation must await private sector support. Alternatively, the costs can be covered by this year's (1999) Culture Division budget.

Conclusion:

It is appropriate that the Culture Division, in consultation with the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC, proceed with the installation of a plaque to commemorate this site.

Contact Name:

Ms. Beth Hanna, Culture Division

Tel.: (416) 392-5225

Mr. Ernest Buchner, Heritage Coordinator, Montgomery's Inn

Tel.: (416) 394-8112

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1) Councillor Irene Jones be appointed to the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy Task Force; and

(2) Councillor Blake Kinahan be appointed as alternate.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (July 19, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:

In the spring of 1999, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) initiated a watershed strategy for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks. A stakeholders workshop and a number of information sessions were held to inform the public of the study process and how they can become involved. A task force will be initiated in the fall of 1999, to assist in the development of an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy to achieve sustainable, healthy watersheds.

At Meeting No. 6/99 held on June 25, 1999 (minutes enclosed), the Authority adopted Res. No. A166/99:

"THAT the membership selection, reporting procedures and terms of reference for the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force, as described in the report dated June 1999 (attached), be approved;

THAT the Authority direct staff to confirm, with local and regional municipalities within the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds, the appointment of a Council Member and alternate to the Task Force by September 1, 1999;

THAT the Authority direct staff to request selected federal and provincial agencies to appoint a senior employee and an alternate to the Task Force by September 1, 1999;

THAT the Authority direct staff to invite applications from the Etobicoke and Mimico Creek watershed residents to participate on the Task Force;

THAT the Authority direct staff to invite community groups, residents associations, and education representatives to apply for membership on the task force;

THAT the Authority authorize staff to take all other necessary actions to form an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force to prepare an Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Strategy;

THAT staff report back to the Authority on the proposed membership of the Task Force for endorsement and formal appointment."

Further, Amendment Res. No. D38/99:

"THAT Councillor Cliff Gyles, City of Mississauga, and Councillor Irene Jones, City of Toronto, assist in the interview process for citizen members of the Task Force."

In this regard, the Authority requests that a member of Etobicoke Council be appointed to the Watershed Task Force. Councillor Irene Jones has expressed an interest in participating in the strategy development. The appointment of an alternate is also requested. The alternate may be a Member of Council or a municipal staff person.

Watershed strategies are developed to provide context and recommendations for natural systems protection, restoration, environmental education, recreation, and cultural and heritage planning initiatives. To date, the TRCA has established planning task forces and completed watershed management strategies for three of the nine watersheds within its jurisdiction. In 1990, the first watershed management strategy, The Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed, was produced. In 1994, Forty Steps to a New Don, was completed by the Don Watershed Task Force. In 1997, Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber and its companion document, A Call To Action - Implementing Legacy: A Strategy for a Healthy Humber, were produced by the Humber Watershed Task Force as an integrated watershed management strategy for the Humber River. Each of these documents has been adopted by the Authority.

The Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Task Force will have a membership of approximately 30 people. Members will include elected municipal representatives, provincial and federal agency staff, and representatives from business, industry, community groups, ratepayers associations, education, and citizens residing within the watersheds. This cross-section of interests, background, and expertise will help to build the strong partnerships needed for planning and implementing the strategy.

If you have any questions or require additional information regarding the Task Force or the strategy development, please contact the undersigned at (416) 661-6600 extension No. 240 or Nancy Gaffney, Acting Etobicoke and Mimico Creek Watersheds Specialist at extension No. 313. The Authority is prepared to make a brief presentation at Council if this would be of benefit to Council Members.

(A copy of each of the attachments, referred to in the foregoing communication, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 9, 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 the following location: 2045 Lake Shore Boulevard West.

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 and Emergency Services Department, 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 location to Schedule 'B' "Lands Upon Which Fire Routes Are to be Constructed and Maintained": 2045 Lake Shore Boulevard West; 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 the 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.

Conclusion:

In keeping with the regulations of Toronto Fire Services, 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:

Ms. Nicole Moyaert

Legislative Services

Tel.: (416) 394-8081

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 30, 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 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 and Emergency Services 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: 250-300 Manitoba Street; 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 the Etobicoke Community Council to authorize the enactment of this by-law (Attachment No. 1). 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 allow the By-law Enforcement Officers to tag vehicles that are illegally parked in fire route zones.

Contact Name:

Ms. Nicole Moyaert

Administrative Assistant

Legislative Services

Tel.: (416) 394-8081

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, declare the Family Fall Fair 1999 to be held on October 15, 16 and 17, 1999, at Etobicoke Centennial Park, to be an event of municipal and/or community significance, as requested in a communication (September 14, 1999) from Mr. Frank Berndt, Past President, The Rotary Club of Toronto West; and, further, that Council advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to it taking place.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from Mr. John R. Hart, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson:

Purpose:

This report is submitted for the purpose of requesting a Validation Certificate pursuant to the Planning Act, to sever the properties municipally known as 107 Martin Grove Road, 109 Goswell Road and 93 Goswell Road because title to the properties was merged inadvertently as the stamp of the Committee of Adjustment was not applied to the Transfers.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost of preparing this report and the subsequent Certificate of Validation will be borne by the applicant. There are no other financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a Certificate of Validation in the form attached be issued in respect of the properties at 107 Martin Grove Road, 109 Goswell Road and 93 Goswell Road.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1975, Ernest and Florence Salt made an application to Committee of Adjustment (B-96/75) to have their lands municipally known as 107 Martin Grove Road and described as Lot 2 on Plan 3869 being Parts 2 and 3 on Plan 64R-5173 severed by conveying Part 2 to Joe Muhic.

At the same time of Application, B-96/75, Evlyne and Robert Smith made an application to Committee of Adjustment (B-95/75) to have their lands municipally known as 109 Goswell Road and described as Lot 1, Plan 3869 being Parts 1 and 4 on Plan 64R-5173 severed by conveying Part 1 to Joe Muhic.

Both Applications B-96/75 and B-95/76 were contingent upon one another which would create a new Lot being described as Part of Lots 1 and 2, Plan 3869 being Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 64R-5173. The properties abut each other and therefore would be subject to the part lot provisions in the Planning Act.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the requested Consents in B-96/75 and B-95/75, however, the applicants failed to have the Deeds stamped by the Committee of Adjustment.

Parts 1 and 2 were subsequently conveyed to Joe Muhic. The property was developed as a single family dwelling municipally known as 93 Goswell Road.

In 1980, another Application for Consent (Salt and Smith together) was filed with the Committee of Adjustment (B-44/80) to grant the aforesaid Consents in B-96/75 and B-95/75 and again, Consent was granted on both parcels but, again, the applicants failed to have the Deeds stamped by the Committee of Adjustment.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The solicitor for Florence Salt has requested a Validation Certificate to validate the transfer from Salt to Muhic. In 1991, Muhic transferred Parts 1 and 2, Plan 64R-5173 to Bertha Ticic, who is the present registered owner.

Under the Planning Act, Council is authorized to give severance consent by way of issuance of a Certificate of Validation, which Certificate would retroactively cure the title defect. However, "the Validation Certificate does not affect the rights acquired by any person from a judgment or order of any court given or made on or before the date on which the certificates issued".

Conclusions:

(1) The properties at 107 Martin Grove Road and 109 Goswell Road were separately owned prior to the Consent Applications. The Consents were granted on both occasions to create a new Lot municipally known as 93 Goswell Road. A single family residence was constructed on the property known as 93 Goswell Road and is in accordance with the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

(2) As a result of the Applicants neglecting to have the Committee of Adjustment stamp their Transfers prior to registration of same, title was not properly conveyed.

(3) The issuance of a Certificate of Validation is appropriate in this matter.

Contact Name:

Mr. John R. Hart at Reble, Ritchie,

Green & Ketcheson, Solicitor

Tel.: (416) 622-6601; Fax: (416) 622-4713

WHEREAS Ernest Frederick Salt and Florence Alberta Salt, (hereinafter called "Salt") are the registered owners of the lands known as 107 Martin Grove Road and more particularly described in Schedule "A" herein;

AND WHEREAS Robert Charles Smith and Evlyne Smith, (hereinafter called "Smith") are the registered owners of the lands known as 109 Goswell Road and more particularly described in Schedule "B" herein;

AND WHEREAS Smith applied to the Committee of Adjustment to sever the rear of their abutting lands described as Firstly in Schedule "C" herein and Salt applied to the Committee of Adjustment to sever the rear of their abutting lands being described as Secondly in Schedule "C" herein;

AND WHEREAS the lands described in Schedule "C" were to create a new single family lot municipally known as 93 Goswell Road;

AND WHEREAS portions of the Schedule "A" lands and the Schedule "B" lands abut the Schedule "C" lands and are therefore subject to the part lot provisions in the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P.13;

AND WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment approved both Applications and all conditions were met;

AND WHEREAS the parties did not have the Committee of Adjustment stamp their conveyances as to the lands in Schedule "C" herein and as a result the Transfers were registered without the Committee of Adjustment stamp;

AND WHEREAS on February 13, 1976, Ernest Frederick Salt and Florence Alberta Salt conveyed by Instrument No.458867 Etobicoke that part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 3860 being Part 2 on Plan 64R-5173 to Joe Muhic, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Joe Muhic Construction;

AND WHEREAS the transfer of the lands by Instrument 458867 Etobicoke resulted in a breach of the Planning Act in that Ernest Frederick Salt and Florence Alberta Salt retained abutting lands when they conveyed Part 2 on Plan 64R-5173;

AND WHEREAS on February 13, 1976, Robert Charles Smith and Evlyne Smith, as joint tenants conveyed by Instrument No. 458869 Etobicoke that part of Lot 1, Registered Plan 3860 being Part 1 on Plan 64R-5173 to Joe Muhic, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Joe Muhic Construction;

AND WHEREAS the transfer of the lands by Instrument No.458869 Etobicoke resulted in a breach of the Planning Act in that Robert Charles Smith and Evelyn Smith retained abutting lands when they conveyed Part 1 on Plan 64R-5173;

AND WHEREAS on September 27, 1976, Joe Muhic, carrying on business under the firm name and style of Joe Muhic Construction conveyed by Instrument No.467616 Etobicoke the lands described in Schedule "C" to Smajo Ticic and Berta Ticic, as joint tenants, being the present registered owners of the lands in Schedule "C";

AND WHEREAS Florence Alberta Salt, as surviving joint tenant has requested a Validation Order pursuant to Section 57 of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990;

AND WHEREAS Section 57(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended, states that a council authorized to give a consent under Section 53 may issue a certificate of validation;

AND WHEREAS the City of Toronto deems it appropriate to issue a Certificate of Validation;

NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORONTO

ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

l. That a contravention of Section 50 of the Planning Act or a predecessor thereof, or a by-law passed under a predecessor of Section 50 or of an order made under clause 27(1)(b), as it existed on the 25^th day of June, 1970, of the Planning Act, being Chapter 296 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, or a predecessor thereof, does not have and shall be deemed never to have had the effect of preventing the conveyance or creation of any interest in the lands described in Schedule "C" herein;

2. That by the passage of the herein By-law, Council has given consent for validation of the lands described in Schedule "C" and described in Instrument Nos.458867 Etobicoke and 458869 Etobicoke;

3. That this By-law shall take effect upon its approval by the City of Toronto and upon its registration in the appropriate Land Registry Office.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of September, A.D. 1999.

________________________ ______________________

Mayor City Clerk

Lands municipally known as 107 Martin Grove Road

Part of Lot 2, in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of Etobicoke) according to Plan 3860 and being more particularly described as Part 3 on Plan 64R-5173 filed in the Land Registry Office for the Registry Division of Toronto.

Lands municipally known as 109 Goswell Road

Part of Lot 1, in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of Etobicoke) according to Plan 3860 and being more particularly described as Part 4 on Plan 64R-5173 filed in the Land Registry Office for the Registry Division of Toronto.

Lands municipally known as 93 Goswell Road

FIRSTLY:

Part of Lot 1, in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of Etobicoke) according to Plan 3860 and being more particularly described as Part 1 on Plan 64R-5173 filed in the Land Registry Office for the Registry Division of Toronto.

SECONDLY:

Part of Lot 2, in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of Etobicoke) according to Plan 3860 and being more particularly described as Part 2 on Plan 64R-5173 filed in the Land Registry Office for the Registry Division of Toronto.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (August 30, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the appropriate staff in Urban Planning & Development Services, West District, to convene a meeting with the interested parties with a view to negotiating a settlement prior to an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing with respect to the appeal regarding 48 Reid Manor.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To advise Etobicoke Community 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 not be provided for the appeals regarding 48 Reid Manor, 51 and 53 Evans Avenue, and 158 Hay Avenue.

Comments:

The application and appeals are summarized as follows:

(i) Address: 48 Reid Manor

Ward: Lakeshore-Queensway

Application No. A-148/99ET

Applicant: Brendan and Faye Murphy

Appellants: Halina and William Gonos

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The property is occupied by a one-storey single family detached dwelling with an attached one-car garage. The existing building is located 1.2 m (4 ft) from the north side lot line. The applicant proposed to legalize and maintain an existing air conditioner that is located 0.45 m (1.5 ft) from the north side lot line. The Etobicoke Zoning Code requires air conditioning equipment to be located 1.5 m (5 ft) from a side yard lot line.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Approved

Comments: Staff have reviewed the file and have not identified a planning issue that would warrant legal representation.

(ii) Address: 51 and 53 Evans Avenue

Ward: Lakeshore-Queensway

Applications Nos. A-207/99ET and A208/99ET

Applicant: Arthur Louie and Frank Spudic

Appellants: Arthur Louie and Frank Spudic

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The properties consist of a pair of semi-detached dwellings with attached one-car garages. The front yards of the properties have been paved over, with no landscaped open space provided. The applicants are seeking to legalize and maintain the existing driveway width of 7.62 m, instead of the 6.0 m width required by the Etobicoke Zoning Code.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: Staff note that the existing front yard situation is a long standing condition, and that the Committee refused the variances. Staff feel that representation in support of the decision is not warranted in this instance.

(iii) Address: 158 Hay Avenue

Ward: Lakeshore-Queensway

Applications Nos. B-25/99ET, A-210/99ET and A-211/99ET

Applicant: 535244 Ontario Limited

Appellants: 535244 Ontario Limited

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The vacant property has a frontage of 15.24 m, an area of 715 m² and is zoned Second Density Residential (R2). The applicant is proposing to sever the property into two lots, each of which would be developed with a single-detached dwelling, with an attached one-car garage. The proposed lots would have a frontage of 7.62 m and lot areas of 357.6 m². In addition to the severance, the applicants are seeking variances for reduced frontage and lot area, maximum dwelling depth (19.34 m in-lieu-of 16.5 m) and garage width (2.8 m in-lieu-of 3 m).

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused

Comments: A review of the assessment map indicates that there are other properties on Hay Avenue, in the vicinity of the subject site, which have been developed with similar lot frontages and a reduced lot area. In view of the foregoing, and the Committee's decision to refuse the application, legal representation is not warranted.

Contact Name:

Mr. Allen Appleby, Manager

Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8216; Fax: (416) 394-6063

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, the written submission filed and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (August 25, 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 Shell Canada Limited for amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit a convenience store in conjunction with a service station at 435 Browns Line, be approved, subject to amending the conditions to approval as follows:

(1) deleting from Condition No. (1)(i), the words "appropriate financial guarantee", so that such Condition shall now read as follows:

"(i) Submission of a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Planning Division;"; and

(2) adding to Condition No. (3), after the word "review", the words "confirmation that a fence will not be constructed on the north lot line", so that such Condition shall now read as follows:

"(3) Further detailed consideration of the proposed development under the Site Plan Control provisions including the signing of a Site Control Agreement, provision of environmental information for peer review, confirmation that a fence will not be constructed on the north lot line, and payment of financial guarantees and applicable development charges.".

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 (August 25, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a proposal to amend the Zoning Code with respect to the property located at the north-east corner of Browns Line and Horner Avenue to permit a convenience store in conjunction with a service station.

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 Shell Canada Limited be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Proposal:

Shell Canada Limited proposes to demolish the existing facilities and construct a new 185 m²   (1,991 sq ft) building containing a convenience store with pay-point counter, public and staff washrooms, storage and ancillary office space. A new canopy, kiosks, pump islands (including diesel) and separate garbage enclosure would also be provided, along with nine parking spaces (Exhibit No. 2).

Site Description And Surrounding Land Uses:

The property is located at the north-east corner of Browns Line and Horner Avenue, and is occupied by an existing three-bay service station, which was constructed in 1959.

The lands located to the north are zoned Third Density Residential (R3) and are occupied by two-storey, semi-detached dwellings which front onto Browns Line. Lands to the east include a two-storey commercial building with a restaurant on the ground floor zoned Limited Commercial (CL). Single-detached and semi-detached dwellings which front onto Lunness Road and which are zoned Third Density Residential (R3) abut the rear of the subject site. To the west of the site, on the opposite side of Browns Line is a Toronto Dominion Bank and two-storey commercial buildings zoned Limited Commercial (CL). To the south of the site, opposite side of Horner Avenue, is a one-storey industrial building zoned Class One Industrial (I.C1).

Exhibit No. 1 is a map showing the location of the subject property and surrounding zoning. Exhibit No. 2 is a reduction of the site plan. A summary of the site data is listed in the following table:

Comments:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Commercial-Residential Strip in the Official Plan which permits a full range of commercial uses serving both the residential neighbourhood in which they are located and the passing traffic on the arterial road. While additional or expanded automotive uses, including service stations, are precluded in the plan, this application represents an expansion of the retail uses on the site, with a reduction in the automotive services currently provided. The proposed gas bar and accessory retail uses would serve the surrounding residential properties, as well as the travelling public, consistent with the intent of the Official Plan.

Zoning Code:

The subject property is zoned Limited Commercial (CL), which permits service stations and convenience stores as-of-right. However, the Supplementary Regulations for Service Stations, as outlined in Section 320-21 of the Zoning Code, limits the sale of convenience products from service stations to pop, cigarettes, chips, etc., with a maximum sale area of 20 m² (215 sq ft). In order to permit a larger retail component with an expanded range of convenience items and food sales, amendments to the Zoning Code would be required.

Staff have previously identified concerns with food preparation and sales involving the use of a full commercial kitchen in conjunction with a service station operation. As such, any amending by-law to permit a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with the service station, should prohibit commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of foods. The by-law should also specify a maximum size for the retail floor space and identify garbage enclosures as a permitted accessory use.

Agency Comments:

The Public Health Division, Realty Services Division, Toronto Police Service and Toronto Hydro have expressed no concern with the proposal. Toronto Fire Services advised that a fire access route is required and that hydrant coverage must be in accordance with Building Code requirements. Parks and Recreation Services advise that their parkland dedication requirements would not apply.

The Transportation Section of Works and Emergency Services has advised that they have no objection to the application subject to certain conditions. These conditions are primarily site plan related and can be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Transportation Section also advises that while the design of the northern-most access driveway to Browns Line is acceptable, its width exceeds the 7.5 m maximum specified in the Zoning Code. The applicant has requested that this width be recognized within the amending by-law (Exhibit No. 3).

The Development Services Section of Works and Emergency Services has advised that a storm water management report is required and that storm water quality may be addressed through a cash-in-lieu payment. Driveways and sidewalks are to be constructed in accordance with City standards. The applicant is also required to submit environmental information for peer review to the satisfaction of the City (Exhibit No. 4).

In accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines for Service Station Redevelopment, recently adopted for the South District Planning Area, Planning staff met with the applicant in an attempt to address issues related to the location of the building and canopy. Given the adjacent property owner's preference to have the building serve as a buffer from the pumping operations, staff have agreed to the proposed site layout. Issues of extensive upgrades to the landscaping of the site, including upgrading the existing screen fence along the easterly property line, and maintaining the mature trees at the rear of the site, should be resolved prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.

Community Meeting:

A community meeting was held on May 17, 1999, to allow area residents an opportunity to review the proposal. The four people who attended the meeting were generally satisfied with the proposal. The adjacent residents to the north of the site expressed a preference that no fencing be introduced along the common property line. They did, however, request that the northerly drive servicing this site be relocated further to the south. This change has been reflected in the current proposal.

Conclusion:

The proposed gas bar and the accessory retail sale of convenience items and food would comply with the relevant Official Plan policies. The proposed uses can be accommodated from a design and transportation perspective. Subject to the submission of detailed landscape plans which address the issues discussed with area residents, and which provide for extensive upgrades to the site and adjacent public boulevard, the proposal represents an appropriate land use which should not have any significant impacts on adjacent properties. Food services/preparation, however, should be limited to those items which do not require the use of a commercial kitchen in the preparation of the product.

Conditions to Approval:

(1) Fulfillment of the following condition prior to the enactment of an amending by-law:

(i) submission of a landscape plan and appropriate financial guarantee to the satisfaction of the Community Planning Division.

(2) The amending by-law shall permit the convenience operation with food services in conjunction with a service station operation, subject to the following provisions:

(i) the maximum gross floor area associated with the service station and retail component shall not exceed 190 m² (2,045 sq ft);

(ii) commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of prepared foods shall be prohibited;

(iii) garbage enclosures shall be permitted as an accessory use; and

(iv) development standards to reflect landscaped areas, driveway widths, building, garbage enclosure and canopy setbacks.

(3) Further detailed consideration of the proposed development under the Site Plan Control provisions including: the signing of a Site Control Agreement, provision of environmental information for peer review, and payment of financial guarantees and applicable development charges.

Contact Name:

Mr. Richard Kendall, Principal Planner

Cmmunity Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8230; Fax: (416) 394-6063

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. John Kim, Etobicoke, on behalf of his parents who own a convenience store in the area, expressing concerns regarding the negative impact of the proliferation of convenience stores; and filed a copy of his deputation with respect thereto; and

- Mr. Brad Wyatt, Etobicoke, the abutting neighbour to the north, expressing concerns regarding fencing.

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, the written submission filed and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (August 19, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application by Allerton Investments Limited (Shell Canada Limited) for amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of a new service station with a convenience store at 230 Lloyd Manor Road, not be approved.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director, Transportation Services Division, District 2, to include improvements in the geometry of the Eglinton Avenue West/Lloyd Manor Road interesection in the 2001 Capital Budget Program, in the event the application does not proceed. The intersection of Eglinton Avenue West/Lloyd Manor Road will be designed to provide separate northbound left-turn and through/right-turn lanes, and an appropriate corner radius at the south-west corner of the intersection; such improvements will be at the applicant's expense if the application is approved.

The Etobicoke Community Council also 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 (August 19, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a site specific application to amend the Zoning Code to permit the development of a new service station with a convenience store for a property located at the south-west corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Lloyd Manor Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. No impacts on capital or operating budgets have been identified at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Allerton Investments Limited (Shell Canada Limited) be approved subject to a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

The site is currently occupied by a service station. An application was first received on December 16, 1997, to permit the conversion of the existing service station garage bays to accessory retail floor space to accommodate a convenience store, food sales and a drive through pick-up window in conjunction with an existing service station operation with a total gross floor area of 223 m² (2,400 sq ft). The application was recently revised and resubmitted on June 15, 1999, to permit the development of a new service station with a convenience store. However, the previously proposed drive-through component has been eliminated.

The lands located to the south of the site are zoned First Density Residential (R1) and are occupied by single detached homes. The Lloyd Manor Plaza is located to the east and is zoned Planned Local Commercial (CPL). This mall contains a number of commercial stores including a food store, a bank and convenience stores. Abutting the site to the west is Martin Grove Collegiate Institute which is zoned Fourth and First Density Residential (R4 and R1). To the north, across Eglinton Avenue, are high-rise apartments zoned Fourth Density Residential (R4) (Exhibit No. 1).

Proposal:

Shell Canada Limited proposes to demolish the existing facilities and construct a new 242 m²  (2,500 sq ft) building containing a convenience store with pay-point counter, public and staff washrooms, storage and office space. The convenience store would occupy approximately 150 m²  (1,615 sq ft) of the building floor area. A new canopy, pump islands and separate garbage enclosure would also be provided, along with eight parking spaces (Exhibit No. 2).

Exhibit No. 1 is a map showing the location of the subject property and surrounding zoning. Exhibit No. 2 is a reduction of the site plan. The following is a summary of the site data:

Comments:

Official Plan:

The Metropolitan Official Plan designates the lands as Metropolitan Corridor which permits a mix of employment, residential and other uses. The site is designated Low Density Residential by the Etobicoke Official Plan which permits existing service stations and local retail facilities of a type, scale (not exceeding 1 000  m² /10,764 sq ft of floor space) and orientation related to the surrounding neighbourhood. As the proposed gas bar and accessory retail uses would serve the surrounding residential properties, as well as the travelling public, the proposed development conforms with the Official Plan.

Zoning Code:

The subject property is zoned Limited Commercial (CL), as amended by By-law No. 13,207 which among other things, limits permitted uses to a gasoline service station only. In addition, the Supplementary Regulations for Service Stations, as outlined in Section 320-21 of the Zoning Code, limits the sale of convenience products from service stations to pop, cigarettes, chips, etc., with a maximum sale area of 20 m² (215 sq ft).

Therefore, in order to permit a larger accessory retail component (150 m²/1,615 sq ft), offering an expanded range of convenience items and food sales, amendments to the Zoning Code would be required. However, staff are concerned with the potential for more intensive impacts associated with food preparation and sales involving the use of a full commercial kitchen which is in effect a restaurant. A full commercial kitchen must include a grease and vapour removal mechanical exhaust system. As such, staff recommend that the amending by-law permit a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with and accessory to a service station operation, with a prohibition on commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of foods. The by-law should also specify a maximum size of approximately 150 m² (1,066 sq ft) for the retail floor space, identify garbage enclosures as a permitted accessory use and repeal a portion of By-law No. 13,207.

Site Plan Issues:

In accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines for Service Station Redevelopment, recently adopted for the South District Planning Area, Planning and Urban Design staff met with the applicant in an attempt to address issues related to the location of the building, canopy and driveways, width of landscaping, fencing and screening. Shell has revised their plans in an attempt to address these issues by shifting the proposed building closer to the south-east corner of the site, eliminating the northerly most driveway on Lloyd Manor Road and increasing the width of landscaped strips around the site. This has made it possible to establish a direct pedestrian connection to Lloyd Manor Road and has eliminated the drive-through component of the application, thereby reducing off-site impacts to the abutting residential use to the south and to the transportation network. Planning staff are in support of the revised site layout. Issues with respect to the landscaping of the site, should be resolved to the satisfaction of the Community Planning Division, prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.

Agency Comments:

The Public Health Division, Facilities and Real Estate Division, Fire Services Division, Toronto Transit Commission and Toronto Hydro have expressed no concern with the proposal. Parks and Recreation Services Division have advised that their parkland dedication requirements would not apply given the size of the proposed building.

The Transportation Planning Division of Works and Emergency Services previously indicated that the proposed parking supply, driveway layout, on-site circulation and location of the garbage containment enclosure are satisfactory. However, staff have a concern with the location of the driveway on Lloyd Manor Road and with the design and radii of the revised driveways. The applicant must address these design details at the site plan stage (Exhibit No. 3).

The Development Services Section of Works and Emergency Services has advised that a storm water management report is required and that storm water quality may be addressed through a cash-in-lieu payment. Driveways and sidewalks are to be constructed in accordance with City standards. The applicant is also required to submit environmental information for peer review to the satisfaction of the City (Exhibit No. 4).

Community Meeting:

A community meeting was held on February 16, 1998, to allow area residents an opportunity to review the proposal. Concerns expressed by area residents related to: traffic; hours of operation; food sales; lack of retail demand; impact on existing convenience stores; need for automotive services; noise and impact from ventilation/mechanical units; location of parking areas; inadequate customer parking; conflict with existing driveways; on-site safety and security; poor property management practices; and, declining property values. The concerns related to planning matters have been discussed in this report, and will be further reviewed during the Site Plan Control approval process.

With respect to the concern regarding hours of operation, staff would note that the existing gas facility operates 24 hours a day. Staff have consulted with the City Solicitor regarding this matter and have been advised that the municipality does not have the authority under Section 34 of the Planning Act to regulate hours of operation through a zoning by-law. The Municipal Act provides some authority to restrict the hours of operation of commercial establishments, but only on a class basis and not on an individual site specific basis. It is also interesting to note that the Committee of Adjustment through Section 45 of the Planning Act has the authority to impose conditions in their decisions which could include a restriction in the hours of operation of an establishment.

Conclusions:

The proposed gas bar and the accessory retail sale of convenience items and food would comply with the relevant Official Plan policies. The proposed uses can be accommodated from a design and transportation perspective. Subject to the submission of detailed landscape plans which address the issues regarding screening and planting, and which provide for extensive upgrades to the site and adjacent public boulevard, the proposal represents an appropriate land use. Food services/preparation, however, should be limited to those items, which do not require the use of a commercial kitchen in the preparation of the product, and no seating should be permitted. Given the size of the proposal, no impact on the planned function of existing retail centres in the area is anticipated.

Conditions to Approval:

(1) Prior to the enactment of an amending by-law the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Planning Division of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department.

(2) The amending by-law shall confirm the existing Limited Commercial (CL) zoning of the site and permit an accessory paypoint/retail convenience operation with food services, only in conjunction with a service station operation, subject to the following provisions:

(i) Section 2 of Zoning By-law No. 13,207 shall be repealed;

(ii) the maximum gross floor area associated with the service station shall not exceed 250 m² (2,691 sq ft) of which not more than 150 m² (1,615 sq ft) may be used for the retail of convenience items and food sales;

(iii) commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of prepared foods shall be prohibited;

(iv) garbage enclosures shall be permitted as an accessory use; and

(v) development standards to reflect landscaped areas and building, garbage enclosure and canopy setbacks.

(3) Further detailed consideration of the proposal under the Site Plan Control provisions to include, inter alia, the signing of a Site Control Agreement, provision of environmental information for peer review and payment of financial guarantees and applicable development charges.

Contact Name:

Mr. Paul Zuliani, Senior Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8230; Fax: (416) 394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (September 1, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Peter Restivo, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the application and strongly requesting that the Etobicoke Community Council decline the proposal.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in opposition to the application:

- Ms. Julia Viaggi, Etobicoke;

- Ms. Antonio Pinto, Etobicoke;

- Mr. Tim Brethour, Etobicoke;

- Mr. Jerry Fordham, Etobicoke; and

- Mr. Mike Borgia, Etobicoke.

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (August 19, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:

(1) the application by Petro Canada for an amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of a new service station with a convenience store at 830 Burnhamthorpe Road, not be approved; and

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to retain outside planning consultants in the event of an appeal by the applicant to the Ontario Municipal Board.

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 (August 19, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a site specific application to amend the Zoning Code to permit the development of a new service station with a convenience store for a property located at the south-east corner of Burnhamthorpe Road and Mill Road (Exhibit No. 1).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. No impacts on capital or operating budgets have been identified at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Petro Canada be approved subject to a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

This site was previously the subject of a Committee of Adjustment application (A-290/98ET) for an identical project. The Committee refused the application and the decision has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant. Council has authorized legal and staff representation in support of the Committee's decision. However, a hearing date for the appeal has not been scheduled.

The applicant has also appealed this Zoning Amendment application in accordance with the Planning Act. A separate Site Plan Control application has also been submitted for this development and has also been appealed by the applicant. Petro Canada has indicated that they will request the Board to consolidate the Zoning and Site Plan Control applications with any future hearing.

Proposal:

Petro Canada proposes to demolish the existing facilities and construct a new 217 m² (2,336 sq ft) building containing a convenience store with pay-point counter, public and staff washrooms, storage and office space. The convenience store would occupy approximately 142 m² (1, 529 sq ft) of the building floor area. A new canopy, four pump islands with eight pumps and a separate garbage enclosure would also be provided, along with seven parking spaces (Exhibit No. 2).

The lands surrounding this site, at the four quadrants of the intersection, are zoned Sixth and Fourth Density Residential (R6 and R4) and are occupied by high rise residential apartment buildings. The Burnhamthorpe Mall is located to the east of the site at Saturn Road.

Exhibit No. 1 is a map showing the location of the subject property and surrounding zoning. Exhibits Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are reductions of the site plan, elevations and landscape plan. The following is a summary of the site data:

Comments:

Official Plan:

The site is designated High Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits existing service stations and local retail facilities not exceeding 1 000 m² (10,764 sq ft) of floor space. These facilities are to be oriented to servicing the surrounding area. As the proposed gas bar and accessory retail uses would serve the surrounding residential properties, as well as the travelling public, the proposed development conforms with the Official Plan.

Zoning Code:

The subject property is zoned Limited Commercial (CL), as amended by By-law No. 12,299 which limits permitted uses to a gasoline service station only. In addition, the Supplementary Regulations for Service Stations, as outlined in Section 320-21 of the Zoning Code, limits the sale of convenience products from service stations to pop, cigarettes, chips, etc., with a maximum sale area of 20 m² (215 sq ft).

In order to permit a larger accessory retail component of 142 m² (1,529 sq ft), offering an expanded range of convenience items and food sales, amendments to the Zoning Code would be required. However, staff are concerned with the potential for more intensive impacts associated with food preparation and sales involving the use of a full commercial kitchen which is, in effect, a restaurant. A full commercial kitchen must include a grease and vapour removal mechanical exhaust system. As such, staff recommend that the amending by-law permit a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with and accessory to a service station operation, with a prohibition on commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of foods. The by-law should also specify a maximum size of approximately 142 m² (1,529 sq ft) for the retail floor space, identify garbage enclosures as a permitted accessory use and repeal By-law No. 12,299.

Site Plan Issues:

In accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines for Service Station Redevelopment, recently adopted for the South District planning area, Planning staff met with the applicant in an attempt to address issues related to the location of the building, canopy and driveways, width of landscaping, fencing and screening. Petro Canada has revised their plans in an attempt to address these issues by shifting the proposed building closer to the southwest corner of the site, eliminating the northerly most driveway on Mill Road and increasing the width of landscaped strips around the site. This has made it possible to establish a direct pedestrian connection to Mill Road. Staff are in support of the revised site layout. A final landscape plan should be submitted, along with appropriate financial guarantees, to the satisfaction of the Community Planning Division, prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.

Agency Comments:

The Public Health Division, Facilities and Real Estate Division, and Fire Services Division have expressed no concern with the proposal. Parks and Recreation Services Division have advised that their parkland dedication requirements would not apply given the size of the proposed building. Toronto Hydro has no objection to the application subject to their standard conditions of approval (Exhibit No. 5).

The Transportation Planning Division of Works and Emergency Services previously indicated that the proposed parking supply, driveway layout, on-site circulation and location of the garbage containment enclosure are satisfactory. The applicant will be extending the raised centre median on Burnhamthorpe Road to which will prevent future westbound left turns into the site. However, they have some concerns with the design and radii of the revised driveways. These design details must be addressed by the applicant at the site plan stage (Exhibit No. 6).

The Development Services Section of Works and Emergency Services has advised that a storm water management report is required and that storm water quality may be addressed through a cash-in-lieu payment. Driveways and sidewalks are to be constructed in accordance with City standards. The applicant is also required to submit environmental information for peer review to the satisfaction of the City (Exhibit No. 7).

Community Meeting:

A community meeting was held for the Committee of Adjustment application on October 26, 1998, to allow area residents an opportunity to review the proposal. Concerns expressed by area residents related to: traffic; hours of operation; food sales; lack of retail demand; impact on existing convenience stores; need for automotive services; noise and impact; inadequate customer parking; conflict with existing driveways; on-site safety and security; poor property management practices; and, declining property values.

With respect to the concern regarding hours of operation, staff would note that the existing gas facility does not operate 24 hours a day. Staff have consulted with the City Solicitor regarding this matter and have been advised that the municipality does not have the authority under Section 34 of the Planning Act to regulate hours of operation through a zoning by-law. The Municipal Act provides some authority to restrict the hours of operation of commercial establishments, but only on a class basis and not on an individual site specific basis. It is also interesting to note that the Committee of Adjustment through Section 45 of the Planning Act has the authority to impose conditions in their decisions which could include a restriction in the hours of operation of an establishment.

Conclusions:

The proposed gas bar and the accessory retail sale of convenience items and food would comply with the relevant Official Plan policies. The proposed uses can be accommodated from a design and transportation perspective. Subject to the submission of detailed landscape plans which address the issues regarding screening and planting, and which provide for extensive upgrades to the site and adjacent public boulevard, the proposal represents an appropriate land use. Food services/preparation, however, should be limited to those items, which do not require the use of a commercial kitchen in the preparation of the product, and no seating should be permitted. Given the size of the proposal, no impact on the planned function of existing retail centres in the area is anticipated.

Conditions to Approval:

(1) Prior to the enactment of an amending by-law the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Planning Division of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department.

(2) The amending by-law shall confirm the existing Limited Commercial (CL) zoning of the site and permit an accessory paypoint/retail convenience operation with food services, only in conjunction with a service station operation, subject to the following provisions:

(i) Zoning By-law No. 12,299 shall be repealed;

(ii) the maximum gross floor area associated with the service station shall not exceed 220 m² (2,370 sq ft) of which not more than 145 m² (1,560 sq ft) may be used for the retail of convenience items and food sales;

(iii) commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of prepared foods shall be prohibited;

(iv) garbage enclosures shall be permitted as an accessory use; and

(v) development standards be incorporated to reflect landscaped areas and building, garbage enclosure and canopy setbacks.

(3) Further detailed consideration of the proposed development under the Site Plan Control provisions to include, inter alia, the signing of a Site Control Agreement, provision of environmental information for peer review and payment of financial guarantees and applicable development charges.

Contact Name:

Mr. Paul Zuliani, Senior Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8230; Fax: (416) 394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i) (May 3, 1999) from Rev. Dr. William H. Jones, Etobicoke, outlining his concerns with the Zoning Code amendment application, namely, added noise and general disruption; increased traffic activity at a busy corner of a main arterial road; and environmental litter which destroys the area; and submitting photographs with respect thereto;

(ii) (May 11, 1999) from Ms. Jean Dugale, Etobicoke, submitting comments in strong protest to the application; and requesting Community Council's support in this matter;

(iii) (May 11, 1999) from Ms. Gilbertina Wittick and Ms. Maude Reid, Etobicoke, expressing their strong objection to the application;

(iv) (June 6, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Judd, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the proposed change from the present gas station to a 24-hour operation;

(v) (June 25, 1999) from The Honourable Mr. Justice and Mrs. Thomas A. Beckett, Etobicoke,outlining various concerns regarding the application;

(vi) (July 19, 1999) from A. D. Anderson and M. J. Moore, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the application;

(vii) (July 21, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. George Carruthers, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the application; and strongly urging Council to oppose this application;

(viii) (July 28, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. L. A. Jones, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the application; and attaching a copy of a paper previously submitted on August 31, 1998, in this regard, as well as a petition signed by residents of 335 Mill Road;

(ix) (August 5, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Ian McSweeney, Etobicoke, advising that they are adamantly opposed to the application; and outlining their concerns in this regard;

(x) (August 9, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. A. Rowcliffe, Etobicoke, expressing comments in opposition to the application;

(xi) (August 25, 1999) from Ms. Alice M. Churchman, Etobicoke, advising that she strongly objects to the application; and requesting that Council continue to refuse the proposed rezoning;

(xii) (August 26, 1999) from R. Coleman, Etobicoke, outlining concerns regarding the negative impact that this project would have on the community;

(xiii) (August 30, 1999) from Ms. Olga Bucar, Etobicoke, expressing her concerns regarding the application;

(xiv) (September 8, 1999) from Ms. Donna Thomas and Mr. Edward Fisher, Etobicoke, reiterating the comments expressed at previous meetings in opposition to the proposal;

(xv) (Undated) from Mr. Fred Haggerty, Etobicoke, submitting a copy of a presentation on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Larry Jones, and the community, in opposition to the proposal; and requesting that the application be rejected; and

(xvi) 303 additional form letters from residents of 284, 288, 296 and 300 Burnhamthorpe Road in opposition to the application.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in opposition to the application, noting the intrusion of a 24-hour operation into a residential neighbourhood, the impact on traffic conditions, and the need for service rather than a convenience store:

- Ms. Marlene Cater, Etobicoke; and filed a copy of her deputation and a petition signed by 177 neighbours with respect thereto;

- Mr. Tom Beckett, Etobicoke; and gave a video presentation;

- Rev. Dr. William H. Jones, Etobicoke;

- Mr. Fred Haggerty, Etobicoke;

- Mr. Steve Johnson, Etobicoke,

- Mr. Arnold Williams, Etobicoke;

- Mr. David Jolly, Etobicoke; and

- Mr. Clifford Bowman, Etobicoke.

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 3 to 7, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the written submission filed and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (August 26, 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 Scarlet Gate Development  Inc. for amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of a 2½-storey, 9-unit, freehold townhouse project at 200 Royal York Road, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the 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 (August 26, 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 2½ -storey, 9-unit, freehold townhouse project at the north-west corner of Vanevery Street and Royal York Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Scarlet Gate Development Inc. be 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.

Proposal:

The applicant proposes to construct a 9-unit, 2 ½ -storey freehold townhouse project on the 0.17 ha site. The units would contain 3 bedrooms and would average 150.5 m² (1,620 sq ft) in size. The project would be located up to 1.63 m from the Royal York Road frontage, with 16 parking spaces (required and visitor) being provided at-grade, at the rear of the site and accessed via a 6.0 m wide private lane off of Vanevery Street. Separate stairs originally proposed at the front of the units to access the individual basements, have been eliminated. Access to the basements, however, would still be available at the rear of the units.

Landscaping would occur in the front yard, within the Vanevery Street boulevard and within the private rear yards of the individual units. Solid screen fencing is also proposed along the rear (west) and portions of the north property lines. The ends of the 9-unit (43.3 m or 142 ft) long block would feature a hipped-roof design.

In addition to the zoning amendments, the applicant has applied for Site Plan Control approval for the project and eventually intends to seek the lifting of Part-lot Control to construct the townhouses.

Site Description And Surrounding Land Uses:

The property is located on the west side of Royal York Road at Vanevery Street, in the former Town of Mimico. The vacant site was formerly occupied by a public garage which was demolished in 1990, and is zoned Commercial, C-Mimico.

To the north of the site is the Mimico Valu-Mart food store. The front of the store is located behind the applicant's rear (westerly) property line, with parking for the store located in front of the store, up to Royal York Road. The food store is zoned Commercial, C-Mimico, as is a service station located to the north of it.

A 2½-storey commercial building with residential above is located to the south of the site, along with a 2-storey commercial building and semi-detached dwellings facing Royal York Road. These properties are also zoned Commercial C-Mimico. Lands to the rear of the site, fronting onto Vanevery Street are zoned R-2 Mimico and consist of a 2 ½ -storey apartment building and a mix of one- and two-storey single, detached dwellings. On the opposite of Royal York Road, the lands are also zoned R-2 and C, and include the Mimico Presbyterian Church and grade-related, commercial units with residential uses on the second floor.

The adjacent mix of uses all demonstrate different relationships to the street, with the food store, and to a lesser extent, the service station having a significant setback from the street. The church and the semi-detached dwellings, also feature different setbacks.

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

* Based on condominium standards appended to Etobicoke Official Plan

Comments:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Commercial-Residential Strip in the former Etobicoke Official Plan, which permits a wide range of commercial and residential uses. The Plan also provides for the introduction of residential buildings on separate sites within Commercial-Residential Strips, provided the residential use does not interrupt the continuity of the commercial frontage to a significant degree.

Staff note that the existing pattern of development along this portion of Royal York Road represents a mix of separate commercial and residential uses, with no uniform street edge or definition of character. The introduction of grade-related townhouse units, located up to the streetline, would serve to enhance the street edge, implement Urban Design objectives and provide a greater degree of continuity in this area. Staff are satisfied that the proposed townhouse units would be consistent with the intent of the Official Plan policies at this location.

Zoning Code:

The site is zoned Commercial (C-Mimico) in the Etobicoke Zoning Code, which permits a range of commercial uses, as well as dwelling units over a commercial use. To permit the proposed townhouse units, a site-specific by-law amendment would be required to reflect the applicant's proposal. Any amending by-law should include standards for parking, building setbacks, floor space index and landscaped open space.

Site Plan Issues:

The massing, building placement and access are acceptable. Issues identified with respect to street trees, fencing, landscaping and sidewalk improvements would appropriately be addressed during the Site Plan review stage.

Community Planning staff discussed with the applicant possible options to introduce a commercial mix into the project, possibly consisting of at-grade retail or office related functions. The applicant's response was to introduce a second set of stairs off of Royal York Road which would lead directly to the basement of the individual units and facilitate their use as an office or other similar purpose. Given the limited opportunities for additional on-site parking, staff were concerned that this arrangement could lead to the introduction of additional residential units into the project. In addition, the recently adopted Second Suites By-law, would not allow second suites within townhouses. Consequently, the applicant has deleted the second set of stairs at the front of the units. Staff note that the Zoning Code contains policies which allow for business office uses within townhouse units, provided that they are conducted solely by means of telecommunications equipment.

With respect to tenure, staff would normally encourage such projects to be developed as Condominiums. Given that each of the units would have frontage on a public street, and the limited common elements associated with the project (rear lane and parking pad), Planning staff have no objections to the proposed freehold form of tenure for these units. It is noted that the project would comply with the recently adopted guidelines for Private Roads and Freehold Development within the City of Toronto.

Agency Comments:

Realty Services, Health Services and Canada Post have expressed no concern with the proposal.

Toronto Fire Services advises that hydrant coverage must be in accordance with Ontario Building Code requirements.

Toronto Hydro has no objection to the application, but they have identified a number of conditions to approval that the applicant will be required to meet.

Parks and Recreation Planning indicate that the project will be subject to a five percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The location and number of street trees will be addressed as part of the Site Plan review.

The Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services advises that water, storm and sanitary services are available and separate connections will be required for each unit. A grading plan and storm water management report is required for their review and approval, and storm water quality may be addressed through a cash-in-lieu payment. As a condition of site plan approval, they require confirmation that the proposed waste/recycling facilities are acceptable, and that the applicant enter into appropriate agreements with the City, including bonding, to ensure completion of the grading and other services. Works also recommends condominium registration for the units, in the event that an alternative arrangement is approved, then a mutual use and maintenance agreement must be entered into to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor (Exhibit No. 4).

The applicants have submitted environmental information to Works and Emergency Services for a peer review. This review has indicated that there are a number of environmental issues which remain to be addressed, and which must be resolved prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.

The Transportation Services Division of Works and Emergency Services has advised that the proposed parking supply is acceptable. Transportation Services also recommends that the visitor spaces be appropriately signed at the applicant's expense. These matters will be addressed as conditions of site plan approval (Exhibit No. 5). The Division has also identified some minor modifications to the site layout, which should be reflected on a revised site plan, and the driveway should be constructed to accommodate waste collection vehicles.

The Toronto District School Board advises that the students anticipated from this development can be accommodated, but that alternate arrangements may be required once the local schools reach their capacity. The Toronto District Catholic School Board has expressed concern that regarding the overcrowding and lack of permanent facilities at Bishop Allen Academy. They advise however, that elementary students can be accommodated at St. Leo Catholic School.

Community Meeting:

A community meeting was not held in connection with this application.

Conclusions:

The townhouse project conforms to the relevant Official Plan policies for a Commercial-Residential Strip designation, and the introduction of grade-related townhouse units would serve to enhance the street edge, without interrupting the continuity of the commercial frontage, to a significant degree. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses and could be accommodated from a design and transportation perspective.

Conditions to Approval:

Prior to the enactment of an amending by-law, the applicant shall address the outstanding environmental issues identified in the peer review.

(1) The amending by-law shall confirm the existing Commercial (C-Mimico) zoning of the site and incorporate site-specific provisions addressing matters including parking, front, side and rear setbacks, landscaped open space and floor space index. As well, the by-law would permit use of the ground floors of the units for live/work space as well as uses currently permitted by the Commercial zoning.

(2) Further consideration of the proposal under Site Plan Control to include:

(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 a landscape plan detailing planting, lighting, curbing, fencing, grading and street trees, and the posting of a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(iii) submission of a stormwater management report, grading plan and construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services;

(iv) provision of on-site services, including storage of waste and recyclable materials, the treatment and provision of stormwater management facilities (including payment of stormwater quality cash-in-lieu, if required), and the posting of adequate bonding to ensure completion of the grading and services, and compliance with the construction management plan, to the satisfaction of the Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services;

(v) payment of a five percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution to the satisfaction of the Policy and Development Division of Parks and Recreation Planning;

(vi) payment of applicable development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits.

(vii) provision of facilities to the satisfaction of Toronto Hydro; and

(viii) submission of a revised site plan to the satisfaction of Transportation Services.

Contact Name:

Mr. Richard Kendall, Principal Planner, Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8227; Fax: (416) 394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (August 31, 1999) from Mr. Reginald E. Smitheram, Etobicoke, expressing his concerns with respect to the project and commenting that six units would be a more acceptable proposal.

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 3 to 5, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (August 20, 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 1308684 Ontario Limited for amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit a 6-storey, 83-unit "mainstreet" apartment building at the south-west corner of Bloor Street West and Thompson Avenue, be approved, subject to the conditions to approval outlined in the report, as amended by:

(1) deleting the wording in Condition No. (3), and replacing it with the following:

"(3) The Second Density Residential (R2) designation on the 20 Thompson Avenue property be retained, and the amending zoning by-law be drafted so as to provide for a Site Specific exemption to permit minor structures necessarily incidental to the building such as underground structures, walkways, landscaping features; to exclude retail uses as permitted by the Commercial zoning; and to incorporate site-specific provisions addressing parking, front, side and rear setbacks, landscaped open space and floor space index."; and

(2) adding to Condition (4) the following items for consideration under Site Plan Control:

"(xiii) screening be required to prevent light pollution from vehicles, leaving the garage and moving around the driveways, from illuminating neighbouring houses;

(xiv) sound baffling be required to prevent noise pollution from vehicles, exhaust fans and from the opening and closing of the garage door, from disturbing the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring backyards;

(xv) venting from the garage and the driveway be directed so that exhaust pollution from vehicles avoid completely the neighbouring property, perhaps by routing the vent to roof level; and

(xvi) a satisfactory Landscape Plan be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Planning, West District, in consultation with The Thompson Orchard Community Association, and that such plan should, as much as is possible, provide for, inter alia, the retention of the existing trees along the south and west sides of the proposed development."

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting in accordance with Sections 17 and 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 (August 20, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a site specific proposal for an amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Code with respect to two properties located on the south-west corner of Bloor Street West and Thompson Avenue, municipally known as 3085 Bloor Street West and 20 Thompson Avenue. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Commercial-Residential Strip and Low Density Residential designations of the Official Plan and the Limited Commercial (CL) and Second Density Residential (R2), to permit a six-storey, 83-unit "mainstreet" apartment building. A site plan control application has also been submitted and is being reviewed concurrently.

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 be approved, subject to a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, the conditions outlined in this report.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The property consists of two parcels of land. The principal parcel (3085 Bloor Street West), now vacant, was previously occupied by a vehicle sales establishment and public garage (McDowell Jeep Eagle) until the business closed in 1998. A second, smaller parcel presently occupied by a single detached dwelling (20 Thompson Avenue) has been acquired and included within the proposal. The former vehicle sales establishment has been demolished, and the single detached dwelling will be demolished to accommodate this proposal (Exhibit No. 1).

The 0.37 ha (0.92 ac) site is a corner property located to the west of the boundary of the commercial strip (Kingsway Business District) along Bloor Street West (Exhibit No. 1). A three-storey medical office building is located immediately west of the subject property. Low density residential development abuts the site to the south. North of the site, across the street, is Humberview Motors and a predominantly low density residential community (Exhibit No. 2).

Proposal:

The applicant proposes to construct an 83-unit, 6-storey "mainstreet" apartment building on the combined site. The building will contain 22 one-bedroom and 61 two-bedroom condominium apartments which will range from approximately 60 m² (645 sq ft) and 160 m² (1, 722 sq ft) in size, respectively. No at-grade retail is provided in the project.

The proposed apartment building would be located on the north portion of the site, along the Bloor Street West frontage. The underground parking entrance and vehicle circulation area would be located behind (south of) the building, and would be accessed at street level by a "portico" through the building at the western edge of the site, off Bloor Street West. No vehicle access/egress is proposed off of Thompson Avenue. Private passive outdoor sitting areas and a water feature within a grade-related, outdoor garden would be located adjacent to Thompson Avenue. A rooftop indoor/outdoor amenity area has also been proposed accented by a rooftop conical architectural feature.

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

Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 are key and context maps of the area. Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are reductions of the proposed site plan, elevations, and building cross sections. A summary of information as provided by the applicant is listed in Table No. 1.

Comments:

Official Plan:

The principal portion of the site is designated Commercial-Residential Strip within the Etobicoke Official Plan and the City Centre Secondary Plan. This designation permits a wide range of commercial uses, and certain residential uses such as apartment buildings provided they do not interrupt the continuity of the commercial uses to a significant degree. While the Secondary Plan would allow eight stories, the Official Plan permits heights up to six storeys, provided they are buffered to respect the proximity of adjacent low density residential areas. Rezonings to permit such projects are subject to the provisions of Sections 4.4.4 and 4.4.5 and the criteria set out in Section 4.4.6, including height and angular plane provisions. It is noted that there are no absolute density or floor space index restrictions in the Official Plan for commercial-residential strip development although there are density gradient guidelines in the City Centre Plan. The review of this development proposal in the context of these policies is described in detail in Exhibit No. 6 of this report.

The City Centre Secondary Plan requires that new developments along Bloor Street West contain street level commercial uses to reinforce the retail character of the area. Currently, however, the Kingsway Business District ends at Thompson Avenue. The Bloor Street West frontage of the site forms part of a transition area along this section of Bloor Street West that extends to the west to the beginning of another commercial strip that extends to Islington Avenue. The character of this transition area is mixed and more open. A vehicle sales establishment (Humberview Motors) with open parking display dominates the landscape of the north side of Bloor Street West opposite the site. The south side of Bloor Street is developed with medical buildings, auto leasing and a veterinarian clinic at Mimico Creek.

As the site has not previously provided grade related retail, the applicant was not interested in pursuing a mixed-use building at this location. Staff recommend, however, that some flexibility be introduced to allow opportunities for future changes as the area changes. The proposed by-law would permit enough flexibility for the ground floor apartments facing Bloor Street West to adopt a more commercial character over time. The applicant has agreed with this approach.

The second smaller parcel of land which is presently occupied by a single detached dwelling (20 Thompson Avenue) is designated Low Density Residential. The Official Plan policies for such designations (Section 4.4.7) permit the incorporation of adjacent properties, without amendment to the Official Plan, where existing commercial development directly abuts residential uses to the rear without separation by a service lane. The applicant, for reasons of consistency, has requested an amendment to redesignate the Low Density Residential to Commercial-Residential which would create a new logical boundary for the subject lands. Applications to amend the residential designation of these lands are subject to the provisions of Section 4.2.23. The review of this development proposal in the context of these policies is described in detail in Exhibit No. 7 of this report.

In summary, the project generally conforms with the principles of mainstreet intensification and staff are satisfied that the proposed apartment building generally conforms to the Official Plan and does not significantly interrupt the commercial continuity of Bloor Street West. The proposal also meets the majority of the criteria for assessing the appropriateness of the density and height for the subject site, including the setback, angular plane and landscape buffering of the project from the low density residential area immediately to the south; proximity to retail facilities, schools, public transit, arterial roads; and, the provision of on-site parking.

Zoning Code:

The principal portion of the subject site is zoned Limited Commercial (CL) in the Etobicoke Zoning Code, which permits a range of commercial uses, as well as apartment buildings and walk-up apartments above stores. The balance of the lands are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and generally permits single detached dwellings. To permit the proposed apartment building, a site-specific by-law amendment is proposed to provide for site specific development standards in the Zoning Code related to parking, building setbacks, height, floor space index and landscaped open space. In addition, the by-law would permit the use of the ground floor apartments facing Bloor Street West as live/work space as well as other specific uses permitted in the Commercial zone.

Urban Design and Site Plan Considerations:

The proposed building is 6 storeys in height excluding the enclosed roof-top amenity, conical architectural feature and mechanical penthouse structure. The floor area of the enclosure on the roof covers less than 15 percent of the building roof area. In reviewing the height of the applicant's proposal, staff have considered the shadow impacts of the proposed development and compliance with the 45 degree angular plane provisions of the Official Plan. After reviewing the most recent plans, Planning staff note that there are no concerns regarding overshadowing, as the site is located to the north of the abutting residential neighbourhood and the project is in full compliance with the 45 degree angular plane test.

The building would be set back 18.5 m (61 ft) from the low density residential to the south which allows for the planting of significant trees to buffer the project from the low density residential area immediately to the south.

A road widening of a maximum of 2.5 m (8 ft) has been requested by Works and Emergency Services along the Bloor Street West frontage. The proposed apartment building would be located not more than 2.5 m (8 ft) south of the new street line of Bloor Street West. Raised planter boxes and precast pavers are proposed at-grade along the Bloor Street frontage area. The low planters have been proposed to provide privacy from passers-by for the north-facing ground floor apartments. Staff will be reviewing the details of this design including the possible relocation of the raised planters as part of the finalization of the Site Plan details.

City Council at its meeting of March 4, 5, and 6, 1998, adopted the Terms of Reference for the Kingsway/Bloor Street District Urban Design Review. The purpose of the review was to develop urban design guidelines for new development/redevelopment within the "mainstreet" section of Bloor Street. Council further endorsed the creation of a Working Committee, partially consisting of the Kingsway Park Ratepayers' Association and the Kingsway BIA to assist in the public consultation process. The design guidelines are in draft form and will be presented to Council later this year.

Planning staff have consulted with the applicant's Architect and reviewed the application within the context of the emerging goals and objectives of the guidelines. Staff have noted a number of positive features of the design including the visual prominence of this corner property, and the uniqueness of the main corner entrance design to this area. The location of the building has been designed to address the "streetwall" and has incorporated a strong two-storey base building element which helps integrate it within the existing built-form context. While the plans originally submitted indicated some building articulation, staff noted that additional setbacks along the building facades were warranted and that stronger vertical and horizontal elements were recommended in order to reduce the visual scale and impact of building mass. These changes have been incorporated by the applicant in this latest revision.

Community Planning staff are satisfied that the project generally complies with a number of goals and objectives of the evolving Urban Design Guidelines and is an appropriate building type and design for "mainstreet" developments.

With respect to the provision of public art, the applicant has agreed to explore ways of incorporating public art in the entry area of the development at the corner of Thompson Avenue and Bloor Street West. The provision of public art will be secured as a condition of site plan approval.

Landscape Open Space and Recreational Amenities:

The proposed site plan would allow for 33 percent (1, 240 m² or 13,350 sq ft) of the site to be devoted to landscape open space. Rooftop outdoor amenity space of approximately 600 m²  (6,500 sq ft) has been appropriately located adjacent to indoor amenity areas to improve recreational opportunities and interaction between the indoor and outdoor spaces. The rear setback from the property line will permit a generous private passive outdoor recreation and garden area, and provides a buffer from the lower density residential uses. The building has also been setback from Thompson Avenue to provide private patio areas for ground floor units and a planted buffer from adjacent uses. These buffers would be further enhanced through the provision of decorative and/or acoustical fencing along the rear and side property lines and will be secured as part of approval.

The existing 2 m (5 ft) wide sidewalk along Bloor Street will be flanked with a double row of street trees within the expanded boulevard. A sidewalk along Thompson Avenue will be extended with a number of new street trees. The existing on-street parking located on the west side of Thompson Avenue will be retained. Finalization of the detailed landscape plan will be required as part of site plan approval.

Transportation Analysis:

A Traffic Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant, dated June 1999, and prepared by BA Consulting Group, concluded that the amount of vehicular traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development can be accommodated on the existing road network and no discernible use of any local streets by site generated traffic will occur. The Traffic Planning Section of Works and Emergency Services concurs with the findings of the report and note that the study was based on an originally proposed 78-unit development. The nominal increase in the number of residential units from 78 to 83 would have a negligible traffic impact of the current development proposal on the surrounding road network (Exhibit No. 8).

A circular driveway system has been proposed by the applicant to access the underground parking garage and main drop-off area. This system has been designed for passenger vehicles only. Truck loading and servicing is proposed under the "portico" at the south-west portion of the building removed from low density residential uses. The underground parking entrance and vehicle circulation area would be located behind (south of) the building, and would be accessed at street level by a "portico" through the building at the western edge of the site, off Bloor Street West (Exhibit No. 3). No vehicle access/egress is proposed off of Thompson Avenue. A guiding principle of "mainstreet" redevelopment discourages vehicle access/egress points along the mainstreet frontage. Staff had reviewed alternate access/egress scenarios including the use of the signalized intersection and Thompson Avenue. It was, however, determined that this intersection's skewed configuration, which is unique within the commercial strip, made it difficult to fully utilize the intersection. While not ideal from a "mainstreet" perspective the Bloor Street access and "portico" is acceptable.

Transportation Planning staff have also advised that the 6.0 m (20 ft) wide single driveway located at the western limit, is undersized. A minimum driveway width of 7.2 m (24 ft), with a 5.0 m (16 ft) corner radii is required. These modifications may require the removal and/or relocation of two tandem public parking stalls on Bloor Street, immediately to the west of the site. The loss of these spaces, however, may be offset by the introduction of additional metered parking on the west side of Thompson Avenue, as a result of the restoration of the municipal boulevard where existing driveways are to be closed. The applicant is responsible for all costs associated to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services and the Toronto Parking Authority.

The parking requirement for this type of Condominium development is 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit. In this case, a total supply of 133 spaces is required, including 17 visitor spaces. The applicant will supply a total of 151 spaces, including 17 visitor spaces, in a two-level below grade parking garage. This proposed parking supply is equivalent to a ratio of 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit and acceptable to Transportation staff.

The following transportation improvements and requirements have also been requested and will be secured through a development agreement or conditions of Site Plan Control approval:

(1) the dedication of a maximum 2.5 m widening across the Bloor Street West frontage of the site towards achieving the 30 m (98 ft) right-of-way shown in the Official Plan;

(2) revision to the proposed underground garage ramp in accordance with Works and Emergency Services Standards;

(3) submission of garage security and access control to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services and the Toronto Police Service;

(4) details with respect to solid waste management must be provided to the satisfaction of the Co-ordinator of Waste Management Programming, Works and Emergency Services ; and

(5) obtaining applicable permits for building location, access and streetscape prior to construction including any other permits associated with construction activities.

Environmental Matters:

The site was previously occupied by a vehicle sales establishment and public garage (McDowell Jeep Eagle) for several years until the business closed in 1998. The applicant has submitted Phase I/II and III Environmental Site Assessment Reports prepared by an environmental consultant, Dillon Consulting Limited (July 1997 and 1998, respectively). These studies are currently under review by a peer review consultant. The approval of the by-law should be conditional upon confirmation by Works and Emergency Services that the Environmental Site Assessment Reports prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited are acceptable and that any remediation measures are appropriately secured.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

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

The Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services has advised that the developer will be financially responsible for all work proposed within the road allowance and will be required to enter into a Development Agreement (Exhibit No. 9). The following technical requirements shall also be provided to the satisfaction of the Division:

(a) the developer will be responsible for service connections to existing watermains, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers on Bloor Street and Thompson Avenue;

(b) a storm water management report, incorporating quantity and quality control measures, will be a requirement for the development;

(c) the developer will be required to submit a lot grading plan, prior to the issuance of building permit(s);

(d) the developer will be required to reconstruct existing and install were necessary public sidewalks on Bloor Street and Thompson Avenue;

(e) the building shall be constructed to condominium standards; and

(f) the developer shall submit environmental (soil and ground water) information for peer review.

Toronto Fire Services has requested confirmation of entrance access points and hydrant coverage in accordance with Ontario Building Code requirements (Exhibit No. 10).

The Toronto District School Board has advised that the students anticipated from the proposed development can be accommodated at Sunnylea Middle School. Students, however, cannot be accommodated at Norseman Junior-Middle School and Etobicoke Collegiate, and alternative accommodation arrangements will be required (Exhibit No. 11). The Toronto District Catholic School Board has expressed their concern regarding the overcrowding and lack of permanent facilities at Our Lady of Sorrows School (junior kindergarten to grade eight) and Bishop Allen Academy Catholic Secondary School (grade nine to OAC) (Exhibit No. 12). Staff note that the School Boards can pursue an Educational Development Levy to secure contributions in order to increase school capacities. Staff is therefore not recommending that a financial contribution be required.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has reviewed the amendment application and has no objection to the proposed redevelopment. They further note that site specific changes in land use are a local responsibility and subject to municipal review (Exhibit No.13).

Staff have not received comments from Parks and Recreation staff. As this development site is within the secondary plan area, parkland dedication is to be calculated at a rate of 0.5 ha for every 300 dwelling units to a maximum of 20 percent of the land proposed for development. Payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland is required prior to the issuance of a building permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Policy and Development Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Community Meeting:

On June 8, 1999, a community meeting was attended by approximately 75 area residents who indicated general support for the application. Some concerns that were expressed related to traffic impact and access arrangements, precedent for the inclusion of low density residential within the development, sun-shadow effects, and building elevations and design.

Staff note that the Traffic Planning Section of Works and Emergency Services concurs with the findings of a Traffic Impact Assessment that has been submitted and concluded that the amount of vehicle traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development can be accommodated on the existing road network.

Conclusions:

The application has been evaluated within the context of the Official Plan policies for development within Commercial-Residential Strip designations. The proposed mainstreet apartment building conforms with the relevant Official Plan policies, and would not significantly disrupt the continuity of commercial uses in the Bloor Street strip.

Revisions to the original proposal provide for positive design modifications and address the commercial nature of the Bloor Street West frontage (e.g., live/work). The proposal also meets the majority of the criteria for assessing the appropriateness of the density and height, including setback, angular plane and landscape buffering of the project from the low density residential area immediately to the south. The site is in close proximity to retail facilities, schools, public transit and arterial roads, and provides acceptable on-site parking.

Staff recommend that the draft by-laws to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code be introduced to Council.

In the event of approval, the conditions below should apply.

Conditions to Approval:

(1) Prior to Community Council's enactment of the Official Plan and zoning amendments, confirmation is required by Works and Emergency Services that the Environmental Site Assessment Reports prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited are acceptable and that any remediation measures have been appropriately secured.

(2) Enactment of an amendment to the Official Plan to redesignate a portion of the site from Low Density Residential to Commercial-Residential Strip and introduce a Special Site Policy to grant relief from the Commercial Policies of the City Centre Secondary Plan in accordance with the Draft Official Plan Amendment attached as Exhibit No. 14.

(3) Enactment of a site specific amending by-law shall rezone the Second Density (R2) portion of the site to Limited Commercial (CL) and reconfirm the existing limited Commercial (CL) zoning of the entire site and incorporate site-specific provisions addressing parking, front, side and rear setbacks, landscaped open space and floor space index. As well, the by-law would permit use of the ground floor units facing Bloor Street West for specified uses currently permitted by the Commercial zoning.

(4) Further consideration of the proposal under Site Plan Control to include:

(i) signing of a Site Control Agreement which may include, among other matters, the securing of financial guarantees and payment of necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and registration of same, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

(ii) the grade of the ground floor of the apartment building, private courtyards and the height of associated planters and steps on Bloor Street West be redesigned to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(iii) submission of a landscape plan detailing planting, lighting, curbing, fencing, grading and street trees, and the posting of a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(iv) submission of a stormwater management report, grading plan and construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services;

(v) provision of on-site services, including storage of waste and recyclable materials, the treatment and provision of stormwater management facilities (including payment of stormwater quality cash-in-lieu, if required), and the posting of adequate bonding to ensure completion of the grading and services, and compliance with the construction management plan, to the satisfaction of the Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services;

(vi) submission of revised plans for the access driveway and ramp to the below grade parking structure including details with respect to garage access, lighting and security to the satisfaction of the Toronto Police Service and Works and Emergency Services;

(vii) the resolution of on-street parking matters with respect to the potential removal and/or relocation of two tandem public parking stalls on Bloor Street and, installation of parking meters for the proposed on-street tandem parking spaces adjacent to the site along Thompson Avenue, at the applicant's expense to the satisfaction of Traffic Planning Division of Works and Emergency Services and the Toronto Parking Authority;

(viii) payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland to the satisfaction of the Policy and Development Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(ix) payment of applicable development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits;

(x) dedication of a road widening to a maximum of 2.5 m (8 ft) along the Bloor Street West frontage to the satisfaction of the Transportation Services Division of Works and Emergency Services;

(xi) a construction site management plan to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control; and

(xii) the provision of public art to the satisfaction of the Etobicoke Public Art Advisory Committee.

Contact Name:

Mr. Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP

Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-6004; Fax: (416) 394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i) (August 26, 1999) from Dr. and Mrs. Earle Varty, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the re-zoning of 20 Thompson Avenue;

(ii) (August 26, 1999) from Mr. Glen M. Hogg, Etobicoke, advising that he is in favour of the proposal to amend both the Official Plan and the Zoning Code as a package; and commenting that he does not favour a general rezoning of the property without the commitment to construct the quality condominium which has been planned;

(iii) (August 30, 1999) Mrs. Wilhelmina Kolody, Etobicoke, expressing her views in opposition to the proposal;

(iv) (August 31, 1999) Ms. Mary L. Campbell, President, The Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association/KPRI, expressing concerns regarding negative precedents that may be established with this project; suggesting that a set-back at the fourth storey of this proposal would enhance the human scale of the building and make the structure a better fit for the neighbourhood; and requesting details of the 'greening' for this project;

(v) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. A. Cachia, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the proposal on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Levy, Mr. and Mrs. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Hobb, Dr. and Mrs. Varty and Mr. and Mrs. Guardian; and requesting Community Council to vote against the application to rezone 20 Thompson Avenue;

(vi) (September 2, 1999) from Mr. Paul Scholefield, Etobicoke, submitting various concerns/issues regarding the proposal;

(vii) (September 3, 1999) from Ms. Cindy Girvan, Etobicoke, submitting various concerns regarding the proposal;

(viii) (September 7, 1999) from Mr. Brian Fenoulhet, Chairman, The Thompson Orchard Community Association, requesting, on behalf of the Board of Directors of The Thompson Orchard Community Association, that the suggested solutions to the issues raised by the Board, outlined in the communication, be included as conditions to approval of the application; and

(ix) (September 9, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Wilfred Coutu, Etobicoke, submitting comments in support of the condominium project; advising that the addition of the adjacent 20 Thompson Avenue as park area will further enhance the design of the project; and.

(x) (September 15, 1999) from Mr. Barry Phillips, President, Kingsway Business Management Board, advising that the Board supports the proposal for a "mainstreet" apartment building, but does not think it is necessary for the project to include retail space on the street level.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Brian Fenoulhet, Chairman, The Thompson Orchard Community Association, reviewing the issues that had been agreed upon by the Association and the applicant;

- Dr. Earle Varty, Etobicoke, reiterating the comments contained in his communication dated August 26, 1999, that he was opposed to the re-development of 20 Thompson Avenue;

- Mr. Walter Dashko, Etobicoke, raising a number of concerns including the height of the structure and potential traffic congestion;

- Mr. Joshua Abush, Etobicoke, expressing his concerns including safety, traffic flow;

- Mr. Paul Scholefield, Etobicoke, comments on issues including the re-zoning of 20 Thompson Avenue, neighbourhood safety, and the amount of visitor parking spaces ; and

- Mrs. Wilhelmina Kolody, Etobicoke, reiterating the views stated in her communication dated August 30, 1999, in opposition to the project.

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 4 to 14, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (August 20, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application by Harvey Sawh for amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit a 10-unit retirement home at 63 and 65 Winterton Drive, not be approved.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting in accordance with Sections 17 and 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 (August 20, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider an application to amend the Residential (R1) zoning and the Official Plan (Utilities) of a site at 63 and 65 Winterton Drive to permit a 10-unit retirement home.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the application by Mr. Harvey Sawh be approved subject to a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and the fulfilment of conditions outlined in this report; and

(2) subject to the conditions set out in this report, that by-laws to implement the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments to permit the proposed development be introduced at Council.

Background:

Over a two-year period, Mr. Sawh has submitted a number of proposals to the City to develop the formerly surplus hydro property. In 1997, a proposal for a 24-bed retirement home was withdrawn, and revised to request rezoning to First Density Residential (R1) to permit two single family dwellings, which was approved by Council in September 1997. More recently (in February 1998), an application to permit a 40-unit retirement residence was refused by the Ontario Municipal Board as being too intense for this site.

In its decision, the Board indicated that a retirement home in the range of 10-12 units could potentially be accommodated, subject to submission of a site plan which provides for significant set-backs separating the retirement home from neighbouring houses; provision of a significant front and rear yard with generous usable outdoor amenity area, significant landscaping including berming to reduce visual impact, and submission of a design resembling a single family dwelling to achieve a consistent street scape on Winterton Drive.

Proposal:

The applicant has now submitted a revised application to amend the Official Plan and zoning to permit a 10-unit retirement residence in response to the findings stipulated by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), in its decision of November 27, 1998.

The applicant proposes to construct a one and a half split level building accessed by a single driveway off of Winterton Drive.

The project includes 10 suites and a manager suite, served by a common dining lounge, kitchen, and general office on the main floor (upper level). The lower level would contain 4 rooms, the manager suite, storage room, and exercise room. Parking for 7 cars is located in front of the building. Landscaping is provided along the Winterton Drive frontage, the side yard abutting existing single family dwellings which front onto Streatham Place, and the entire rear yard of the project.

A comparison of the main difference between the earlier proposal considered by the OMB, and the present revised submission are summarized as follows (See Table No. 1):

(1) a reduction in the number of units from 40 to 10, and corresponding decrease in the overall gross floor area from 2 306 m² (24,888 sq ft) to 700 m² (7,535 sq ft);

(2) the elimination of a substantive portion of the rear of the building, and replacement with landscaped open space; as a result landscaped open space ration is increased from 40 percent to 66 percent;

(3) the elimination of all of the front yard parking and paved area which formerly abutted single family residences adjacent to the property, and replacement with a landscaped berm buffer; and

(4) an increase in the side yard set-back from 3.0 metres to 4.61 metres.

Exhibit No. 1 is a map showing the location of the subject property and surrounding zoning. Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of the site plan and elevations, respectively. A summary of the site data for the proposal recently considered by the Ontario Municipal Board, and the current submission is listed in Table No. 1.

Comments:

Official Plan:

The property is designated for utility purposes in the Official Plan. An amendment to low density residential, which permits a range of grade-related housing including lodging houses, would be appropriate to reflect the intended use, and would be consistent with the existing First Density Residential (R1) zoning.

Although lodging houses are preferably located in higher density multiple occupancy areas of the City, they are permitted in all residential areas subject to the criteria regarding use and standards set out in the Official Plan Policy Section 4.2.2.0.

Staff are satisfied that the revised proposal generally meets the criteria set out in Section 4.2.2.0 of the Official Plan (Exhibit No. 4) with respect to the use, location and development standards for lodging houses; the exception being Section (a) which prescribes that such uses be located on arterial roads. Notwithstanding the above, the Ontario Municipal Board in their findings on the previous application, concluded that the retirement facility at this location would not result in any noticeable traffic or parking problems for the area; nor was the site's location on a local road raised as an issue in the Board's consideration of appropriate use for the site. Staff note that the site is located only one block south of Eglinton Avenue West, a major arterial road, which can be readily accessed by Martin Grove Road.

Zoning:

The site is zoned First Density Residential (R1) which limits use of the property to two single family dwellings only. The proposed senior's residence is classified as a lodging house in the Etobicoke Zoning Code. In residentially zoned areas, lodging houses are permitted uses only in the Fourth or Fifth (R4, R5) zones subject to supplementary regulations for lodging house which restrict use locations and development standards. Therefore, in order to permit the current "retirement home", a site specific amendment will be required to permit this facility in an R1 zone and exempt the facility from certain supplementary regulations for lodging houses.

The current proposal generally complies with the supplementary regulations for lodging houses with staff's evaluation contained in Exhibit No. 5. In particular, it is noted that the revised proposal meets or exceeds all of the criteria related to intensity of use, landscaped area, amenity area, side yard and rear yards, all of which are critical in achieving a suitable buffer from the adjacent single family community.

One area, which does not appear to completely respond to the Board's comments, relates to the easterly side yard setback. In this regard, staff note that the side yard abutting the front portion of the proposed retirement residence has been increased from 3 metres to 4.61metres. The rear portion of the easterly side yard however, has actually been reduced from 4.68 metres to 4.61 metres. Staff have requested that as a condition to this report, the building be shifted westerly as far as technically feasible toward the hydro right-of-way to maximize the separation between the retirement home and the abutting single family dwellings on Streatham Place.

Staff note that there is also an opportunity to shift some of the parking currently located along the westerly lot line further toward the building thereby significantly increasing the landscape buffer on Winterton Drive.

It would be appropriate for the implementing zoning by-law to tie down the details of the current proposal including use, number of residents, setbacks based on the footprint of the building. It would also be appropriate for a more detailed version of the site plan to be submitted, illustrating the particulars of the landscaped area, fencing, as well as the previously noted recommendations related to increased buffer on Winterton Drive and the shifting of the building to the east as far as possible.

Prior to enactment of an amending by-law a revised plan detailing landscaped area and details, lot grading and fencing as well as revised parking layout to achieve more landscaping on Winterton Drive and the shifting of the building to the east to achieve a better buffer between adjacent residential on Strathearn Place will be required.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

Toronto Health Services, Toronto Fire Services, Canada Post, Bell Canada, the Toronto Police Service, Park Services West District, the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto District Catholic School Board have expressed no concern with the proposal.

The Transportation Services Division of Works and Emergency Services has advised that the level of vehicular traffic generated by this development during actual weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours is not expected to impact on the operation or level of service of the abutting road network.

The proposed driveway location and design is acceptable, with the applicant being financially responsible for removal and/or relocation of any utilities in order to introduce the proposed driveway.

The proposed parking supply and layout are generally acceptable. However, it has been recommended that the parking area along the west lot line be shifted toward the building by approximately 4.0 m, to permit additional landscaping on Winterton frontage and increased clear throat distance for the main entrance driveway. A revised plan reflecting the above is condition to by-law approval.

The Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services advised that water, storm and sanitary are available to service the site. Storm water management, both quality and quantity measures in a requirement to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services. The driveway and reconstruction of the sidewalk on Winterton Drive is to be in accordance with Std 220-225 and Std 249, respectively.

To ensure that the development of the subject property does not create a drainage problem to this or the abutting lands, the applicant will be required to submit a lot grading plan showing existing and proposed grades for the Works and Emergency Services Department's approval. The Works and Emergency Services Department have also advised that the plan of survey shows an encroachment along a portion of the east side of the property, and that a resolution of the matter must be reached prior to the approval of a grading plan.

All of the above will be addressed as conditions to site plan approval. Finally, it has been noted that a minor adjustment to the ground floor plan is required to accommodate the necessary recycling equipment, and garbage set-out area, also required as a condition to site plan approval. The applicant has also been requested to submit environmental information for peer review (soil, ground water) which is a condition to be satisfied prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.

Toronto Hydro has advised that relocation of the existing Toronto Hydro Plant to accommodate this project will be at the applicant's expense. The proposed development will be supplied from the existing Toronto Hydro distribution system, and services to buildings shall be underground at the owner's expense. The above-noted requirements are included as conditions to site plan approval.

Community Meeting:

A community meeting, attended by 16 residents, was held on June 24, 1999. The residents remain firmly opposed to the concept of a retirement facility at this location, and prefer that the developer develop the site for two single family dwellings in accordance with recently approved variances. They also remain concerned about traffic congestion, and speculated that further applications to add more space to the facility would likely occur in the future.

Staff reiterate that neither the use of the site for retirement home nor traffic impact were considered an issue when the Ontario Municipal Board rendered its decision for this site. As noted earlier, if approved, the by-law should restrict the lodging house to a retirement home facility, detailing maximum number of residence, set-backs, landscaped area, and the footprint of the building. No additions or alterations should be permitted to this use without amendment to the by-law.

Conclusion:

The proposed retirement facility, as revised, is in conformity with the relevant Official Plan policy, and supplementary regulation for lodging houses. The proposal has also been revised to meet the intent of the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Board in its decision on the previous proposal, including a substantial increase in landscaping, reduction in units from 40 to 10, and a significant increase in setbacks to provide an adequate buffer from adjoining single family uses.

Although the site being developed with two single family dwellings as originally proposed would form a more logical integration with the existing community, it is evident that the retirement home is an acceptable alternative which can be adequately buffered from the Community and is in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board requirements with respect to this site. It should be understood that should Council approve this application, it would be a site-specific amendment based on the present submission, with any additions or alterations subject to a further by-law amendment application.

Conditions to Approval:

(1) The enactment of an amendment to the Official Plan from Utilities to Low Density Residential in accordance with Draft Official Plan attached as Exhibit No. 6.

(2) Prior to the enactment of an amending by-law the applicant shall submit:

(i) a revised site plan, including redesign of parking area in front of the building and the introduction of additional landscaping, and shifting of the building as far as technically feasible to the west property boundary;

(ii) a detailed landscaping plan including fencing, lot grading, and landscape details to the satisfaction of Staff Advisory Committee; and

(iii) environmental information (soil and ground water) for peer review.

(3) The amending by-law shall confirm the existing First Density Residential (R1) zoning of the site and permit a lodging house subject to the following conditions:

(i) the lodging house use shall be restricted to a retirement home for seniors and the elderly;

(ii) a maximum of 10 residents and one manager suite may be accommodated;

(iii) set-back, height, Ground Floor Area, shall be in accordance with the approved site plan; and

(iv) no exterior alterations or additions to the facility shall be permitted, except as required to comply with other municipal and provincial regulations.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael McCart, Senior Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8228; Fax: (416) 394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i) (August 27, 1999) from Mrs. B. Easton, Etobicoke, outlining her concerns regarding the proposed development;

(ii) (August 29, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. David Skene, Etobicoke, outlining their various concerns with respect to the proposed development;

(iii) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Jim Bowes, Etobicoke, submitting their comments in strong opposition to the proposed development;

(iv) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. Ron Coulter, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to any change in the Official Plan to amend this designation;

(v) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Santon, Etobicoke, advising of their opposition to the rezoning of the subject lands for the purpose of a retirement home or any other (R4) use; and

(vi) (September 14, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Bing Wong, Etobicoke, advising, for the reasons outlined in the communication, that they object to the proposed development.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Josie Dobosz, Etobicoke, expressing concerns regarding increased traffic congestion at the subject site; and filed a copy of her deputation with respect thereto;

- Ms. Barbara Bowes, Etobicoke, in opposition to the re-zoning to permit a business venture on a residential street; and

- Mr. Jim McMurray, Executive Director, Richview Residence, commenting that there is a great need for retirement home facilities in the Etobicoke district.

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 3 to 6, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services Division, District 2:

Purpose:

To reconstruct the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Second Street and Thirty First Street, using an alternative Right-of-Way cross-section. The proposed cross-section retains the on-street angled parking stalls that exist on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Fifth Street and Thirty First Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for the reconstruction of this section of Lake Shore Boulevard West is contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Etobicoke Community Council approve staff's alternative cross-section for the reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Second Street and Thirty First Street, that retains the existing on-street angled parking stalls situated along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Fifth Street and Thirty First Street.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 1, 1997, the Council for the City of Etobicoke endorsed "Option B7" as the preferred road allowance cross-section to be used in the future reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Second  Street and Thirty First Street (Attachment No. 1). The result of a comprehensive 1996 transportation assessment completed as part of the "Long Branch Mainstreets Pilot Project," Option B7 substantially increases boulevard landscaping and sidewalk areas on both sides of Lake Shore Boulevard West (Attachment No. 2). This is achieved by narrowing the travelled portion of this segment of Lake Shore Boulevard West to two lanes in each direction, and by replacing the on-street angle parking stalls on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Fifth Street and Thirty First Street, with parallel parking stalls.

Approval of Option B7 was conditional upon a "Memorandum of Understanding" that was to be signed by the Long Branch Business Improvement Association (LBBIA), the City of Etobicoke and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Attachment No. 1). This "Memorandum of Understanding" specified that:

(1) improvements first be made to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard West;

(2) the City of Etobicoke and Metropolitan Toronto consider improvements on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, consistent with Option B7, during the preparation of their 1998 budgets; municipal participation was predicated on a tripartite cost-sharing arrangement with the LBBIA;

(3) the LBBIA would use its 'best efforts' to secure the financing necessary to contribute to the south side road improvements;

(4) further to area parking studies conducted by BA Consulting Group in December 1995 and January 1996, City staff were requested to conduct additional parking surveys in the study area before reconstructing the south side;

(5) to ensure that on-street parking was kept available for patrons, the LBBIA was to encourage its membership to lease parking in the relocated Skeen's Lane municipal parking lot that was to be constructed as part of the redevelopment of Skeen's Lane;

(6) subject to the results of the additional parking studies, the City of Etobicoke would endeavour to lease and/or purchase property between Twenty Second Street and Thirty First Street for public parking purposes;

(7) the City of Etobicoke shall develop and implement a Parking Management and Enforcement Plan for the Long Branch Business Improvement Area; and

(8) the LBBIA would continue to "aggressively" implement the recommendations identified in the Final Report of the Long Branch Mainstreet Pilot Project.

While the former City of Etobicoke Council and Metropolitan Toronto Council endorsed Option B7, the LBBIA did not, and the "Memorandum of Understanding" was not signed.

As indicated previously, reconstruction of the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Second Street and Thirty First Street, was completed in 1998. Budget approval to reconstruct the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West was granted by the City of Toronto Council in 1999. Council's authorization to proceed with the reconstruction of the south side requires that a decision be made regarding the configuration of the on-street metered parking stalls situated on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A total of 134 on-street parking stalls exist on both sides of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Second Street and Thirty First Street. There are 88 on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West and 46 on the north. A municipal lot containing 22 additional parking stalls is located on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, at Twenty Third Street.

As described in Section 187-2 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code, these parking stalls are metered with a maximum permitted stay of 120 minutes between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. The present cost of parking at a metered parking stall in this area is $0.25 per hour; however, the Toronto Parking Authority has recently changed the time period and parking rate. The fee for parking at a metered stall will increase to $1.00 per hour between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, and 1:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sunday.

Parking occupancy studies conducted in December 1995 by BA Consulting Group as part of the "Long Branch Mainstreet Pilot Project Transportation Assessment" found that the metered parking stalls on this section of Lake Shore Boulevard West showed an average weekday peak period occupancy of 88 percent. This high level of parking occupancy was not unexpected, since December is the peak month for retail parking demand, and is not normally used for design purposes.

In addition to the studies done by BA Consulting Group and as requested by the LBBIA, City of Etobicoke Transportation staff conducted additional parking occupancy studies in January and April 1997. These studies found that between 50 to 60 percent of the on-street parking stalls in the area are occupied during weekday and weekend peak demand periods. This low level of parking occupancy appears to have resulted from the low utilization of the parallel parking stalls located on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, where less than one-third of the available on-street parking stalls are in use during peak periods. When only the south side, between Twenty Second Street and Thirty First Street is analyzed, peak period parking occupancy ranges between 60 and 70 percent. The angled parking stalls situated on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Eighth Street and Thirty First Street, are 100 percent occupied during peak midday periods.

As approved, Option B7 replaces the existing angled parking stalls on Lake Shore Boulevard West with parallel parking stalls, decreasing the total available supply of on-street parking stalls by approximately 22 percent. This reduction in on-street metered parking stalls results in an overall parking vacancy rate of 15 percent during peak demand periods for those stalls on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West. Our analysis also showed that based on current demand, converting the existing angled stalls to parallel on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Seventh Street and Thirty First Street, results in a parking supply that cannot accommodate the existing demand.

One of the goals of the Long Branch Mainstreets Pilot Project is to revitalize the business community through initiatives such as increased development densities and, where appropriate reduced commercial and residential parking standards. Unlike other successful 'mainstreet' areas such as The Kingsway and Bloor West Village, the study area does not have access to a large number of off-street public parking stalls that can easily be used to support this level of redevelopment. Reducing the existing on-street parking supply by converting the existing angled stalls to parallel may actually discourage future commercial investment in the area.

To secure the development potential of the Long Branch Mainstreets Pilot Project requires that we protect the existing supply of on-street parking stalls. With this in mind, we examined a number of alternative cross-sections that, rather than the parallel parking stall layout illustrated in Option B7, used parking stall angles of 45 degrees and 60 degrees. The 60 degree angle design was found to be the most efficient from a parking supply perspective, and 'buffer' dimensions between the rear of the stall and the travelled portions of the road were maximized to increase the sight distance available to motorists when they back out of the stalls. The result of this redesign is the road allowance cross-section that is illustrated in Attachments Nos. 3 and 4. Using this cross-section provides an on-street angled parking layout that is as safe as the current arrangement, less wasteful of boulevard and pedestrian area, and maintains the existing number of angled parking stalls.

Conclusions:

The road allowance cross-section that we propose for the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Second Street and Thirty First Street will narrow Lake Shore Boulevard West to two through lanes in each direction. It provides dedicated bicycle lanes on both sides of the street, and retains the angled parking stalls that exist on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Twenty Fifth Street and Thirty First Street. This redesign increases the minimum hard surfaced boulevard and sidewalk width from the approximately 2.1 m that currently exists, to between 4.0 m and 4.5 m.

Contact Name:

Allan Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/R-O-W Management, District 2

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

(A copy of each of Attachments Nos. 1 to 4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the Confidential report (September 10, 1999) from Reble, Ritchie Green & Ketcheson, respecting the awarding of additional costs in connection with the delay in obtaining a building permit.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (September 10, 1999) from Mr. John R. Hart, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Barristers and Solicitors, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated September 28, 1999, from the City Solicitor, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that Condition No. (4) to the lifting of the Holding Designation, as contained in the September 14, 1999 report of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, be amended to read as follows:

"(4) written confirmation from the City's environmental peer review consultant concurring with the developer's consultant (Angus Environmental Limited - letter dated September 28, 1999) that the contamination associated with Part 1 on the draft reference plan prepared by Rabideau & Czerwinski, O.L.S., as plan RC2727A5, will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent lands within the development;" '.")

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (September 14, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, subject to adding at the end of the recommendation, the words "and the required notice of intent to pass a by-law to lift the Holding (H) designation be given."

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having referred Conditions Nos. (4) and (5), contained in the aforementioned report, to the City Solicitor with a request that he submit a report thereon directly to City Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on September 28, 29 and 30, 1999.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (September 14, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a proposal to lift the Holding (H) designation for a portion of the property at 112 Evans Avenue and 801 Oxford Street.

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 Council support the request by Zanini Developments Inc. to lift the Holding (H) designation for Blocks K, L, M and N, subject to the conditions outlined in this report and staff be instructed to bring forward the appropriate by-law.

Background:

On April 15,1999, Toronto City Council adopted By-law No. 227-1999, which served to rezone certain lands located on the north side of Evans Avenue from Second Density Residential (R2) and Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the development of a 127-unit condominium townhouse project. The by-law included certain holding provisions which would have to be addressed, prior to any development occurring. These conditions included the submission of a storm water management report, detailed drainage plans and the receipt of any necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment, including the signing of any agreements required to implement their requirements.

Subsequent to the adoption of the by-law, the applicant has been working with staff to finalize a grading and drainage plan, and has been pursuing the approvals required from the Ministry of the Environment. The applicant advises that they have had to redo some of the testing for the site and that as a result it is taking much longer for the Ministry to respond to their application than anticipated.

The applicant has now requested that staff give consideration to releasing a portion of their lands from the holding provisions of the by-law in order to allow development to occur on the four blocks (K, L, M and N) located adjacent to Evans Avenue (Exhibit No. 1).

Comments:

The applicants have submitted a detailed grading and drainage plan, and Works and Emergency Services staff advise that the proposed plan is acceptable from a technical and engineering perspective. The proposed plan however, provides for an increase in grade along the common, easterly property line, which is shared with single, detached dwellings fronting onto Alan Avenue. Changes are also proposed along the westerly property line, adjacent to the existing industrial building. Staff, in discussions with the applicant, have expressed concerns with respect to considering any grading plans which would result in a change of grade along the common property lines, particularly abutting homes.

The applicant's response was that the grades were designed as proposed in order to accommodate the 3 1/2 storey height of the project, while meeting Building Code requirements. Staff note that there is an existing retaining wall along portions of the common property lines and that the applicant is proposing to build on top of the existing structure. This would result in an increase to the structure along the easterly property line of up to 0.6 m and the introduction of a retaining wall in excess of 1.0 m in height along portions of the westerly edge of the site. Given the existing vegetation and the location of detached structures in the rear yards of some of the properties fronting onto Alan Avenue, staff do not anticipate that the proposed additional height would create a significant intrusion to the amenity of the rear of those properties fronting onto Alan Avenue. An industrial building is located along the westerly edge of the site where the new retaining wall is proposed.

A component of the grading plan includes the introduction of planter boxes/retaining walls in the front yards of the four blocks of townhouse units located adjacent to Evans Avenue. The applicant advises that these retaining walls are necessary in order to meet Building Code requirements for exit purposes from the upper floors of the units. The proposed plan would result in the entire 3.0 m required front yard setback along Evans Avenue being occupied by these planter boxes/retaining walls. A 3.0 m wide landscaped strip would continue to be provided as part of the widened public boulevard at this location. The height of the proposed planter boxes/retaining walls would vary between approximately 1.0 m and 1.6 m at its easterly terminus.

Staff is concerned from a design and streetscape perspective that the planting boxes/retaining walls are not representative of the lower density residential character which was envisioned for this portion of the development. In response to this issue, the applicant has verbally advised that they will introduce additional steps within the buildings at this location in order to reduce the number of exterior, front yard steps to no more than five. This matter will be addressed at site plan approval.

With respect to the Ministry of the Environment, the applicants have undertaken additional soil testing, the results of which have recently been submitted to the Ministry. The applicant's consultant advises that the Site Specific Risk Assessment report shows that the redevelopment plan for the property is acceptable from the perspective of human health. They further advise that the area of contamination identified by the most recent testing occurs in the central portion of the property under portions of Blocks H and I. Based on the sampling which has been undertaken, the consultant's letter concludes that the contaminant has not impacted conditions at Blocks K, L, M and N (Exhibit No. 2).

The Ministry also advises that they are prepared to accept a Record of Site Condition and grant an acknowledgement for that portion of the site which can be properly identified by a legal description. The required survey would have to identify the portion of the site to be excluded from the Record of Site Condition. Staff would also require the survey to properly reference lands to be dedicated for road widening and parkland dedication purposes, as well as a description of the lands to be released from the Holding (H) designation.

The applicants have requested their noise consultant to review the permit drawings for the four Blocks adjacent to Evans Avenue for conformity with the recommendations contained in the noise study submitted in support of the application for zoning amendments. The noise consultant has confirmed that, subject to the compliance with the recommended location of the required air conditioning units and the installation of fencing between the individual balconies of the units, the plans meet or exceed the sound insulation criteria set out in their study.

The Development Agreement for this project cannot be finalized until such a time as the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment have been identified and incorporated into the appropriate schedule. This agreement would then have to be registered on title. The requirement for this agreement was originally identified as a condition to approval to be fulfilled prior to the enactment of an amending by-law. Given the uncertain timing associated with obtaining comments from the MOE, Council agreed to defer the signing of the agreement until such a time as the Holding (H) designation was proposed to be lifted.

With respect to the lifting of the Holding (H) designation, a separate Development Agreement could be signed and registered covering only the lands associated with Blocks K, L, M and N, for which the Ministry has indicated that it would acknowledge the Record of Site Condition. This acknowledgement would be required prior to the lifting of the Holding (H) designation. The lifting of the Holding (H) designation for the balance of the site, including the contaminated portion, would still be subject to a second agreement being signed incorporating the Ministry's requirements.

An application for Site Plan Control approval has been submitted and is currently being reviewed by staff, as are Building Permit applications. Given the assertion by the applicant's Environmental Consultant that Blocks K, L, M and N are not affected by the contaminant, and that the applicant's plans would otherwise comply with the noise requirements which would normally be addressed in the Development Agreement, the applicant is seeking the lifting of the Holding (H) designation over portions of the site.

While the applicant has requested that additional lands be released for development, staff are concerned that resolution of the environmental conditions north of Blocks K and L may impact the overall site plan. Staff are, therefore, only prepared to consider the four Blocks K, L, M and N for release of the Holding (H) designation.

Conclusion:

This matter has been reviewed by Works and Emergency Services staff in conjunction with the Legal Division who advise that consideration for releasing a portion of the Holding (H) designation could only be considered for Blocks K, L, M and N, provided the following matters are satisfactorily addressed:

(1) submission of a legal description of the lands subject to the lifting of the Holding (H) designation; the contaminated portion, and the lands identified for road widening and parkland dedication purposes;

(2) Council endorses the proposed grading plan as discussed in this report;

(3) completion of a peer review of the environmental investigation related to the lands to be dedicated for road widening and parkland purposes, to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services;

(4) written confirmation from the Ministry of the Environment that the contamination identified in the Site Specific Risk Assessment dated August, 1999, will not adversely affect other contiguous lands where services or dwellings may be located;

(5) Written confirmation from the Ministry of the Environment that it does not have any requirements which would necessitate additional agreements pursuant to Clause 2(iii) of By-law No. 227-1999, or if the Ministry has such requirements, receipt of confirmation that the necessary agreements have been entered into; and

(6) Written confirmation from the Ministry of the Environment that they acknowledge the Record of Site Condition for Blocks K, L, M and N.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8227; Fax: (416) 394-6063

(A copy of Exhibit No. 2, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 28, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide information directly to City Council with respect to Conditions No. 4 and 5 as contained in the September 14, 1999 Report of the Urban Planning and Development Department regarding the subject property.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

That Condition No. 4 to the lifting of the Holding Designation, as contained in the September 14, 1999 Report of the Urban Planning and Development Department, be amended to read as follows:

"(4) written confirmation from the City's environmental peer review consultant concurring with the developer's consultant (Angus Environmental Limited - letter dated September 28, 1999) that the contamination associated with Part 1 on the draft reference plan prepared by Rabideau & Czerwinski, O.L.S., as plan RC2727A5, will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent lands within the development;"

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on September 14, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council had before it the September 14, 1999 Report of the Urban Planning and Development Department recommending the lifting of the Holding Designation from a portion of the property, subject to a number of conditions. The owner of the lands, Zanini Developments Inc., attended at the meeting and made submissions that it could not satisfy Conditions 4 and 5 because the the Ministry of the Environment would not provide the required written confirmations. Etobicoke Community Council adopted the Report, subject to adding at the end of the recommendation, the words "and the required notice of intent to pass a by-law to lift the Holding (H) designation be given". It also referred the following Conditions Nos. (4) and (5), contained in the aforementioned report, to the City Solicitor with a request that he submit a report thereon directly to City Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on September 28, 29 and 30, 1999:

"(4) written confirmation from the Ministry of the Environment that the contamination identified in the Site Specific Risk Assessment dated August 1999, will not adversely affect other contiguous lands where services or dwellings may be located;

(5) written confirmation from the Ministry of the Environment that it does not have any requirements which would necessitate additional agreements pursuant to Clause 2(iii) of By-law No. 227-1999, or if the Ministry has such requirements, receipt of confirmation that the necessary agreements have been entered into; and".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Representatives of Legal Services, Works and Emergency Services, and Urban Planning and Development Services met with representatives of the owner at the Etobicoke Civic Centre on September 27, 1999. The owner advised City staff that it will be able to satisfy Condition No. 5 noted above, but that the Ministry of the Environment will not provide the written confirmation required in Condition No. 4. The owner provided to City staff a letter from the Ministry indicating that the Ministry would not provide written confirmation of the matter contained in Condition No. 4. After considerable discussion between City staff and the owner, it was felt that the City's concerns over the potential impact of the contaminated portion of the site on the portion of the property from which the Holding designation would be lifted could be satisfied through the City's peer review consultant rather than through the Ministry. Accordingly, it is recommended that the wording of Condition No. 4 be changed in accordance with the recommendation section of this report. The wording of that condition is satisfactory to City staff and the owner.

Conclusions:

The owner has advised the City that it can satisfy Condition No. 5 and therefore that condition is no longer in issue. The owner's concern with respect to Condition No. 4 has been resolved by deleting reference to the Ministry of the Environment and by requiring the written confirmation to be from the City's environmental peer review consultant.

Contact Name:

Brian W. Haley, Solicitor, Legal Services, 23rd. Floor, Metro Hall, Tel: 392-6757)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Request for Installation of Pedestrian Crossover or Traffic Control Signals: Burnhamthorpe Road Between Martin Grove Road and Kipling Avenue (Markland-Centennial).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report and communications to its next meeting scheduled to be held on October 13, 1999:

(i) (September 1, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services Division, District 2, respecting the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals on Burnhamthorpe Road near Echo Valley Road, and traffic control signals at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens, as well as at the Firehall (Station No. 3) driveway; and recommending that:

(1) a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals not be installed at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Echo Valley Road and/or Botfield as the warrants are not met;

(2) traffic control signals not be installed at the intersection of Burnhamthorpe Road and Lorraine Gardens as the warrants are not met;

(3) traffic control signals not be installed at the Firehall driveway immediately west of Lorraine Gardens as the warrants are not met; and

(4) Burnhamthorpe Road between Martin Grove Road and Kipling Avenue be monitored by staff and that staff report in the Fall of the year 2000 on the results of this monitoring program;

(ii) (May 21, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Council of the City of Toronto on May 11 and 12, 1999, struck out and referred Clause No. 1 of Report No. 6 of The Etobicoke Community Council, headed "Request for Installation of Pedestrian Crossover or Traffic Control Signals: Burnhamthorpe Road near Echo Valley Road (Markland-Centennial)", back to the Etobicoke Community Council for further consideration; and

(iii) (September 10, 1999) from [a resident of Lorraine Gardens], requesting that this matter be deferred for one month.

(b) Bloorhill Properties Limited - Proposal to Dedicate City-owned Land as Public Highway - Bloor Street West, North Side, Between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, 2842 to 2846 Bloor Street West (Kingsway-Humber).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of this matter to its meeting scheduled to be held on October 13, 1999:

(i) (September 14, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, respecting a request from Bloorhill Properties Limited to dedicate a strip of municipal property on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, as a public highway; advising that the Etobicoke Community Council on July 15, 1999, referred this matter to the Director, Transportation Services Division, District 2, for a report thereon to Community Council in September 1999; that, in October 1997, the Facilities and Real Estate Division initiated discussions with the abutting owner, Bloorhill Properties Limited regarding the possibility of selling the subject property; that, responding to opposition to the sale from area residents and as recommended in the report (October 28, 1999) from the Manager of Realty Services, Etobicoke Community Council recommended that the property not be sold, and directed that steps be taken to renew the lease of the former laneway to the abutting owners for parking for a term of 10 years at a rate to be negotiated by the City's Realty Services staff; that City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted Community Council's recommendation; and recommending that:

(1) the City-owned land on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, not be dedicated as public highway; and

(2) the terms and conditions of a 10-year lease agreement with Bloorhill Properties Limited be negotiated according to City Council's decision of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998; and

(ii) (September 7, 1999) from Mr. Barnet H. Kussner, Weir & Foulds, requesting, on behalf of their client, Bloorhill Properties Limited, that this matter be deferred in light of the ensuing negotiations with the City's Realty Department and the expectation that the parties will be able to come to terms on the lease renewal; and advising that once a final agreement is reached and approved, they expect to be in a position to formally withdraw the request altogether.

(c) Proposed Road Classification System.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) referred the following report and deputations for consideration at a public meeting to be scheduled on October 13, 1999; and

(2) requested the Director, Transportation Services Division, District 2, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council, for consideration at such meeting, on the roads in the Etobicoke area that would be affected by the new system and their respective re-classifications:

(i) (July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Works Committee on July 14, 1999:

(1) referred the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the consolidation of the various road classification systems inherited from the amalgamated municipalities into a single, consistent system, and the clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and various Standing Committees regarding traffic operations policies in the context of the new classification system, to all Community Councils for consideration, and requested that comments be submitted to the Works Committee for its meeting to be held on November 3, 1999; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit comments on the proposed road classification system to the Works Committee for consideration at such meeting.

(ii) (September 14, 1999) from Ms. Judy Sheils, Etobicoke, submitting comments on behalf of Burnhamthorpe Residents for Traffic Safety; advising that they would like to be involved in further discussions regarding this matter.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and filed a copy of her deputation with respect thereto;

- Mr. Alan Shiels, Etobicoke; and

- Ms. Janice Etter, Etobicoke.

(d) Harmonized Residential Water Service - Connection Repair Program.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having reaffirmed the previous recommendation and received the following report:

(June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, providing, through Community Councils to the Works Committee, a strategy and the estimated number and cost to the City of an annual program to upgrade the private portions of residential water service connections (extending from the street line to the meter), in conjunction with the Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program; advising, for the reasons outlined in the report, that given the numerous demands on the water and wastewater capital budget, he does not recommend this increased level of service, especially as it would involve working on private property; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(e) New Practices for the Review of Development Applications.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee that:

(a) Members of Council continue to chair community meetings and that staff of Urban Planning and Development Services only do so if requested by the local Councillor(s); and

(b) the notification to Ward Councillors of site plan approval applications contain a 'response box' for completion by Councillors requesting a "bump-up"; and

(2) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee on October 4, 1999, clarifying the statement regarding the recovery of costs from the Councillor's budget if a request is made to exceed the requirements of the Act with respect to the area of notice for community and public meetings:

(i) (August 17, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Planning and Transportation Committee on July 12, 1999, amongst other things:

(1) referred the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, headed "New Practices for the Review of Development Applications", wherein he proposes new practices for the review of development applications and for the delivery of City Planning services across the City, to Community Councils for review and comment back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting on October 4, 1999; and

(2) requested each Community Council to schedule deputations from the public on this report;

(ii) (July 30, 1999) from Councillor John Filion (North York Centre), forwarding to Community Councils his suggested amendments to the recommendations contained in the aforementioned report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(iii) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. Jim Murphy, Director of Government Relations, Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, advising that the Association supports, in principle, the recommendations contained in the aforementioned report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and commenting on specific issues regarding the proposal.

Mr. Wes Peaker, Etobicoke, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(f) Establishment of Group Home - 48 Robinglade Drive (Markland-Centennial).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested Vita Community Living Services Inc. to:

(1) obtain the necessary approvals from the Public Health Unit, West District, for the operation of a Group Home at 48 Robinglade Drive; and

(2) provide to area residents, on request, the name and telephone number of a contact person for Vita Community Living Services Inc. in the event of concerns regarding the Group Home:

(i) (September 15, 1999) from the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, submitting comments with respect to the concerns of the Community of Rathburn-Grove Ratepayers regarding the establishment of a Group Home at 48 Robinglade Drive; advising that Vita Community Living Services of Toronto Inc. began construction without the appropriate permits and operated a Group Home facility without the appropriate approvals under the Etobicoke Zoning Code and Group Home Registry By-law; that a Municipal Standards Officer contacted Vita Community Living Services in this regard and, subsequently, the property has been vacated and applications for the necessary approvals have been submitted; that subject to confirmation of the funding and referral requirements and approval from Public Health, the application appears to meet the requirements for a Group Home under the local Zoning Code; and recommending that the report be received for information; and

(ii) (July 22, 1999) from Ms. Nancy Mueller, Acting President, Community of Rathburn-Grove Ratepayers, forwarding the concerns of the area residents, as outlined in the communication.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Nancy Mueller, Acting President, Community of Rathburn-Grove Ratepayers; and filed a petition containing 109 signatures, in opposition to the project; and

- Ms. Manuela Dalla-Nora, Executive Director, Vita Community Living Services of Toronto Inc.; and filed a copy of her submission with respect thereto;

- Councillor Joyce Frustaglio, City of Vaughan, President and Founding Member, Vita Community Living Services of Toronto Inc.;

- Ms. G. Ziraldo, Etobicoke; and

- D.W., Etobicoke.

(g) Building Permit Status - 51 Glenaden Avenue East (Lakeshore-Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, West District, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council in January 2000 on the status of the construction at 51 Glenaden Avenue East:

(September 15, 1999) from the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, responding to a request by Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, for a report on the status of construction at 51 Glenaden Avenue East, and the possibility of revocation of the permit as a result of the apparent suspension of construction; advising that the conditions necessary for a legal revocation of the permit do not exist at this time as the progress of construction has not been substantially suspended or discontinued for a period of more than one year; that staff will continue to monitor the progress of the work through the regular inspection process; and recommending that the report be received for information.

Mrs. A. Gardiner, Etobicoke, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(h) Variances to the Etobicoke Sign By-law.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following reports:

(i) (July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, submitting the decisions of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee from its meeting on July 13, 1999; and recommending that the recommendations contained in the report with respect to the following applications for variance to the Etobicoke Sign By-law, be received for information:

(1) Merrill Lynch, 3250 Bloor Street West (Kingsway-Humber);

(2) Old Mill Tower (Old Mill Restaurant), 39 Old Mill Road (Kingsway-Humber); and

(3) Premier Health Club, 1040 Islington Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway).

(ii) (August 24, 1999) from City Clerk, submitting the decisions of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee from its meeting on August 24, 1999; and recommending that the recommendations contained in the report with respect to the following applications for variance to the Etobicoke Sign By-law, be received for information:

(1) Chapters, 1950 The Queensway (Lakeshore-Queensway);

(2) Hillside Montessori School, 106 Ravenscrest Drive (Markland-Centennial); and

(3) Travelodge Hotel, 925 Dixon Road (Rexdale-Thistletown).

(i) By-law Compliance - 90 Shorncliffe Road (Lakeshore-Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(August 29, 1999) Acting Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, responding to a request by the Etobicoke Community Council on April 28, 1999, for a report regarding 90 Shorncliffe Road, on whether municipal by-laws have been breached and whether charges should be laid for non-compliance with the Property Standards By-law; advising that the subject property may have been in breach of the former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code in that the property owners were prosecuted by the Ministry of Environment, Ontario, for operating without the required Certificate of Approval; that inspections between May 13, 1999 and August 27, 1999, revealed no violations of the Property Standards By-law; and recommending that Municipal Licensing and Standards staff continue to monitor the subject property and, if necessary, take appropriate action to ensure compliance with the City's by-laws.

(j) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code and Site Plan Approval - 1115314 Ontario Inc. (Shorncliffe Properties) 90 Shorncliffe Road - File No. Z-2298 (Lakeshore-Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(August 12, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application received on June 7, 1999, from Shorncliffe Properties to amend the Class 2 Industrial (I.C2) zoning of a site at 90 Shorncliffe Road, to permit a Waste Disposal facility; advising that the facility would handle non-hazardous solid residential, commercial industrial and institutional construction or demolition waste; that no City-wide issues have been identified; that local issues include: nature of the recycling operations, compatibility with surrounding land uses and environmental issues under review with the Ministry of the Environment; and recommending that the report be received and upon completion of a final report, that staff be authorized to schedule a Public Meeting to consider the application at a meeting of Community Council in the fall of 1999.

(k) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Oxford Hills Development (Manitoba) Limited, 67 Grand Avenue File No. Z-2302 (Lakeshore-Queensway).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(August 19, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application received on July 20, 1999, from Oxford Hills Developments (Manitoba) Limited to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code on the lands municipally known as 67 Grand Avenue to permit the development of eight freehold townhouse units; and recommending that:

(1) the report be received and the application continue to be circulated; and

(2) upon completion of the staff report, a Public Meeting to consider the application be scheduled for a meeting of Community Council.

(l) Access to Public Meetings - Etobicoke Community.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(August 30, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, advising that the Etobicoke Community Council on December 16, 1998, in considering a communication (October 30, 1998) from the Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee, requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to submit a report to Community Council respecting access to public meetings; outlining the various actions taken by City Council arising out of the final report of the Task Force on Community Access and Equity and regarding the provision of attendant care services at public meetings; advising that issues raised by the Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee are being adequately addressed through the establishment of a corporate Access and Equity Unit and through the preparation of departmental business and action plans; that, in the interim, Etobicoke-based staff can enhance access to public meetings through the measures identified in the report; and recommending that until departmental business and action plans are developed to address access issues, Council direct the appropriate staff working out of the Etobicoke Civic Centre to:

(a) ensure that all public meetings are held in locations that are physically accessible to persons with disabilities;

(b) provide copies of reports in a large print format, upon request; and

(c) ensure that any notices or communications inviting public participation clearly indicate that requests for special needs services will be accommodated with sufficient notice.

(m) New Development Applications for West District (Etobicoke).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(August 30, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing a summary of new development applications for the West District (Etobicoke) received since June 28, 1999; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(n) Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Nazeer Bishay, 22 Kingsview Boulevard File No. Z-2252 (Kingsway-Humber).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(August 20, 1999) from Mr. John R. Hart, Solicitor, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, advising that Mr. Nazeer Bishay received approval from the Ontario Municipal Board of his Site Specific Zoning at 22 Kingsview Boulevard, conditional upon the construction of a fence around his backyard within six months from July 30, 1999; that a further report will be provided at the conclusion of the six-month period; and recommending that this report be received.

(o) Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(August 6, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding, for information, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 2 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999.

(p) Minutes of Etobicoke Boards and Committees.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following Minutes from meetings of:

(1) Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission held on April 21, 1999; and

(2) Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC held on June 9, 1999.

(q) Apartment Building Audit, 2737 and 2757 Kipling Avenue (Rexdale-Thistletown).

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) directed that the following report be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Committee, for information;

(2) requested the Acting Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, to provide a copy of the Notice to Tenants regarding the procedure to follow for getting repairs done in their unit and how to contact City staff to arrange for assistance, if needed, to the Property Managers of all high-rise apartment buildings in the Etobicoke area; and

(3) received the following communication:

(i) (August 17, 1999) from the Acting Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, reporting on the results of a building audit conducted on the properties municipally known as 2737 and 2757 Kipling Avenue; and recommending that Municipal Licensing and Standards staff continue to conduct apartment building audits at the discretion of the District Manager pending further consideration by the City as to the feasibility of implementing a city-wide proactive apartment building audit program; and

(ii) (September 15, 1999) from Ms. Nancy Mueller, Chairperson, Community Standards Toronto, responding to comments raised in the report dated August 17, 1999, from the Acting Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards Division; expressing appreciation to Councillors and staff for conducting the audit; commenting that an expansion of these audits to include the three other buildings along the Kipling corridor would greatly contribute to residents' safety and well-being; and submitting, for information, copies of outstanding work orders.

Ms. Nancy Mueller, Chairperson, Community Standards Toronto, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(r) Review of Definition of Grade.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(September 7, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, respecting the issues associated with the definition of grade contained in the Etobicoke Zoning Code; advising that, for the reasons outlined in the report, agreement on a comprehensive and common approach to building height across the whole City is not possible at this time because of the different ways in which height and grade are calculated in the various by-laws; that a City-wide approach may be considered at a future time by the Planning and Transportation Committee; and recommending that, should Council wish to amend the definitions of grade and height in the Etobicoke Zoning Code, as proposed in the report, staff should be directed to schedule a formal Public Meeting under the Planning Act and to prepare the appropriate amending by-law as discussed therein.

(s) Acquisition of a Portion of a Laneway Adjacent to 28 Kingsgarden Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Manager, Realty Services, Etobicoke-York Districts:

(Undated) addressed to Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby, from Mr. Claudio Sanniti, Etobicoke, respecting the possibility of purchasing a portion of Fishers Lane behind his property at 28 Kingsgarden Road.

(t) Status of Lodging House, 10 Fairfield Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council on the status of the proposed lodging house located at 10 Fairfield Avenue.

(u) Public Right-of-Way Adjacent to the Grand Harbour Development, 2281-2283 Lake Shore Boulevard West.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the City Solicitor to forward a communication to the Condominium Corporations for Grand Harbour, 2281-2283 Lake Shore Boulevard West, advising that public access along the Waterfront Trail must not be impeded and requesting that the gate installed on the public right-of-way be modified or removed.

(v) Players Club, Lake Shore Boulevard West.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council on the status of an application for site plan approval with respect to a site in the Humber Bay Shores redevelopment area, and to investigate possible contravention of the Etobicoke Sign By-law regarding signage erected on and around the site.

Respectfully submitted,

MARIO GIANSANTE

Chair

Toronto, September 14 and 15, 1999

(Report No. 11 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999.)