TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 14

1All-Way Stop Study: King Georges Road and Grenview Boulevard North Ward 3, Kingway-Humber

2Introduction of a Parking Prohibition: Prince Edward Drive Ward 3, Kingsway-Humber

3Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Alder Crescent Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway

4Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits: Channing Place Ward 5, Rexdale-Thistletown

5Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits: Elma Street Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway

6Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

7Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Zanini Developments Inc., 112 Evans Avenue and 801 Oxford Street File No. Z-2268, Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway

8Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code297506 Ontario Ltd. (Millington & Associates), 1558 Kipling Avenue File No. Z-2247, Ward 4, Markland-Centennial

9Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee Amendment to the Terms of Reference

10Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 14

OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on December 2 and 9, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

1

All-Way Stop Study: King Georges Road and

Grenview Boulevard North

Ward 3, Kingsway-Humber

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 9, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To address the concern of an area resident with respect to the speed of vehicular traffic on KingGeorges Road in the vicinity of Grenview Boulevard North.

Funding Sources:

There are no funding issues associated with this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)all-way stop controls not be installed at the intersection of King Georges Road and GrenviewBoulevard North; and

(2) the Toronto Police Services be requested to provide periodic enforcement of the 40 km/h speed limit on King Georges Road in the area of Grenview Boulevard.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division, - District 2, received correspondence (Attachment No.1) from Mr .Andrew Chorny, 62 King Georges Road, requesting all-way stop controls be installed at the intersection of King Georges Road and Grenview Boulevard North. This request is the result of his concern with respect to the excessive speed of vehicular traffic on King Georges Road. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

To address Mr. Chorny's concern, the following information was obtained:

(1)a manual approach count conducted on Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at the intersection of King Georges Road and Grenview Road North;

(2)a radar speed study conducted on Wednesday, June 10, 1998 on King Georges Road near Grenview Boulevard North;

(3)review of the three year (1995-1997) accident history; and

(4)intersection description, existing parking restrictions, sidewalks and land use.

Comments and Discussion:

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has provided the following warrants for the installation of all-way stop controls on roads and streets considered to be neither arterial nor major collector streets:

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

b)a volume split should not exceed 65/35 for a four-way control.

(1)Manual Approach Counts

The following table summarizes the manual approach counts conducted at the intersection of KingGeorges Road and Grenview Boulevard North on Wednesday, June 10, 1998.

TIME	E/B	W/B	N/B	S/B	E/B+W/B TOTAL	TOTAL ENTERING INTERSECTION	BALANCE OF FLOW E-W/N-S
7-8 AM	44	60	23	17	104	144	72/28
8-9 AM	74	128	44	32	202	278	73/27
4-5 PM	92	63	48	19	155	222	70/30
5-6 PM	122	92	69	29	214	312	69/31
TOTAL	332	343	184	97	675	956	71/29
VEH/H	83	86	46	24	169	239	N/A

The following observations and analysis were derived from the manual count:

(a)The total vehicle volume on all approaches for the highest hour, 5-6 p.m., is 312 vehicles. This volume does not meet the minimum vehicular volume of 350 vehicles necessary to fully satisfy the volume warrant.

(b)The balance of flow for the highest hour recorded is 69/31, which does not meet the volume split warrant (65/35) for a four-way control.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the geometry of the intersection of King Georges Road and Grenview Boulevard North does not favor an all-way stop operation. The centre lines of the north and south approaches are offset 13.5 meters to each other. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices clearly states that all-way stop controls should not be used at intersections that are offset, poorly defined or geometrically substandard.

(2)Radar Speed Studies

Radar speed studies conducted on King Georges Road, near Grenview Boulevard North, between 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. revealed an 85th percentile speed of 47 km/h.; the legal speed limit on this roadway is 40 km/h.

(3)Accident Analysis

An accident review for the period January 1, 1995 to December 31,1997 revealed one reportable accident at the intersection of King Georges Road and Grenview Boulevard North. The collision was of angle type that occurred when a northbound vehicle failed to stop and struck a westbound vehicle.

(4)Intersection Description

Parking Regulations: No Parking Anytime on the south side of King Georges Road between Prince Edward Drive and Royal York Road, the north side of King Georges Road between Grenview Boulevard and Royal York Road, and the west side of Grenview Boulevard between the parking meter zone and Strath Avenue.

Lane Configuration: One lane in each direction.

Speed Limit: 40 km/h on both roadways

Through Street: King Georges Road

Sidewalks: Both sides of the through and stop streets.

Land Use: R1 Residential (single)

Conclusions:

Traffic conditions at the intersection of King Georges Road and Grenview Boulevard North do not meet the minimum requirements of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario warrants for all-way stop controls. Furthermore, the intersection geometry does not favor an all-way stop operation at this location.

The results of the radar speed study does indicate a speeding problem on King Georges Road in the area of Grenview Boulevard.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Traffic Co-ordinator - Transportation Services Division - District 2

(416) 394-8453; Fax (416) 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of December 9, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following communication:

-(December 9, 1998) from Mr. A. Chorny, Etobicoke, submitting a number of proposals for traffic calming along King Georges Road.

2

Introduction of a Parking Prohibition: Prince Edward Drive

Ward 3, Kingsway-Humber

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 9, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Prince Edward Drive between BloorStreet West and Dundas Street West.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on both sides of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and DundasStreet West; and

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

Background:

Council, at its meeting held on May 13, 1998, approved Clause No. 5 of Report No. 5, authorizing staff to proceed with the construction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and DundasStreetWest with a pavement width of 7.3 metres (24 feet). This design provides for two driving lanes of 3.65 metres. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Discussion:

Land use in the immediate vicinity is primarily residential. Stopping is prohibited on the east side of Prince Edward Drive between Marquis Avenue and a point 55.0 metres north thereof and on the west side of Prince Edward Drive between Marquis Avenue and Government Road. Parking is prohibited on the east side Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West; parking is prohibited on the west side of Prince Edward Drive between Dundas Street West and Government Road, and Marquis Avenue and Strath Avenue. Parking is permitted on the west side of Prince Edward Drive between Strath Avenue and Bloor Street West for a maximum period of three hours.

The reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive provides for the allocation of parking at two designated locations.

(i)on the east side of Prince Edward Drive from Bloor Street West to a point 31.5metres north; and,

(ii)on the west side of Prince Edward Drive from Dundas Street West to a point 41.0metres south.

Because of the restricted width of the road pavement, no parking can safely be permitted on PrinceEdwardDrive except for the two locations identified above.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter, Council's endorsement of the recommendation contained herein would be appropriate. Parking will be permitted on the east side of Prince Edward Drive from Bloor Street West to a point 31.5 metres north thereof; and on the west side of Prince Edward Drive from Dundas Street West to a point 41 metres south thereof.

Contact Name:

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

Transportation Services Division - District 2

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos.1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of December 9, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following communication:

-(December 8, 1998) from Mrs. B. McIntyre, Etobicoke, in opposition to the parking prohibition on the west side of Prince Edward Drive.

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

-Mrs. B. McIntyre, Etobicoke.

3

Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Alder Crescent

Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 9, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Alder Crescent between TwentyFifthStreet and Twenty Seventh Street.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on both sides of Alder Crescent between Twenty Fifth Street and TwentySeventh Street, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

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

Background:

The Transportation Services Division - District 2 (Etobicoke) is in receipt of correspondence from Mr. A. Zahrebelny forwarded on behalf of the residents of Alder Crescent between Twenty Fifth Street and Twenty Seventh Street (Attachment No. 2) requesting the introduction of a daytime parking prohibition for both sides of Alder Crescent between Twenty Fifth Street and Twenty Seventh Street. In response to this request, staff polled the seven affected residents of Alder Crescent between Twenty-Fifth Street and Twenty-Seventh Street to solicit public opinion on this matter (Attachment No.3). Six residents were in favour of prohibiting parking on Alder Crescent between Twenty-Fifth Street and Twenty-Seventh Street, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00p.m., Monday to Friday. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

Alder Crescent is a two-lane roadway; parking is permitted on both sides of the street for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is primarily residential.

Council for the City of Etobicoke, at its meeting held on September 22, 1986, approved By-Law No.1986-207, which recommended that parking be prohibited on the south and east sides of Alder Crescent, between Twenty Third Street and Twenty Fifth Street and that parking be prohibited on the north and west sides of Alder Crescent between Twenty Third Street and Twenty Fifth Street, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. This request was supported by a petition from the residents of Alder Crescent between Twenty Third Street and Twenty Fifth Street stating that their street was being used as a parking lot by Humber College students.

The high incidence of daytime on-street parking can be attributed to the close proximity of this street to Humber College, South Campus. Students of the college park their vehicles on this street throughout the day to avoid paying parking fees on campus. A staff review of this issue clearly indicates that daytime parking on Alder Crescent is a problem. Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

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

Transportation Services Division - District 2

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of December 9, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits: Channing Place

Ward 5, Rexdale-Thistletown

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 9, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme on Channing Place between Countryman Circle and Brownridge Crescent.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the On-Street Parking Permit Programme be introduced on the west side of Channing Place between Countryman Circle and Brownridge Crescent; and

(2)the appropriate by-law (Attachment Nos. 1 and 2) be amended accordingly.

Background:

Councillor Elizabeth Brown contacted the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division, (Attachment Nos. 3, 4, and 5) on behalf of the residents of Woolenscote Circle, Countryman Circle, and Channing Place (Attachment Nos. 6 and 7) requesting the introduction of permit parking on to Woolenscote Circle, Countryman Circle and Channing Place. A map of the area is Attachment No.8.

Discussion:

Frequently, the Transportation Services Division - District 2 (Etobicoke) and the local Councillors receive requests from the residents of Woolenscote Circle, Countryman Circle and Channing Place inquiring about the feasibility of parking permits for these streets.

In response to these requests, staff polled the affected residents of these streets to solicit public opinion (Attachment Nos. 9, 10. and 11). The following chart summarizes the results of these polls.

Conclusion:

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

Based on the staff investigation of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents of Canning Place, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

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

Transportation Services Division - District 2

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-11, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of December 9, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

5

Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits: Elma Street

Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December9,1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme on Elma Street between RoyalYork Road and Dwight Avenue.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the north side of Elma Street between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue;

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

Background:

Frequently, the Transportation Services Division - District 2 (Etobicoke) receives requests from the residents of Vanevery Street, MacDonald Street, Albani Street, Elma Street, Murrie Street, Lake Crescent, Symons Street, Struthers Street, and Heman Street, between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue, inquiring about the feasibility of parking permits for these streets. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Discussion:

In 1995, the City of Etobicoke, Transportation and Engineering Planning Division, polled the residents of these streets to solicit public opinion (Attachment No. 3) regarding the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme. At that time, only the residents of Hillside Avenue between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue were in favour and therefore, the On-Street Permit Parking Programme was implemented on Hillside Avenue only.

In March 1998, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division again received several requests from the residents of Vanevery Street, MacDonald Street, Elma Street, Murrie Street, Lake Crescent, Symons Street, Struthers Street, Heman Street and Albani Street regarding the introduction of the programme. Staff polled the affected residents of these streets to solicit public opinion on this matter (Attachment No. 4). At this time, the residents of MacDonald Street, Lake Crescent, and Heman Street were in favour of the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme and therefore, the On-Street Permit Parking Programme was implemented on these streets.

In November 1998, Transportation Services Division, received a petition from the residents of Elma Street (Attachment No.5) regarding the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme onto this street. The following chart summarizes the results of the petition.

No. of Homes	No. of Homeowners Interviewed	In Favour	Opposed
76	58	47 (81.0%)	11 (19.0%)

There are 76 homes on Elma Street; 58 homes signed the petition; 47 (81.0%) were in favour of the permit parking programme and 11 (19.0%) were opposed.

Conclusions:

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

Based on the staff investigation of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents who reside on Elma Street between Royal YorkRoad and Dwight Avenue, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

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

Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419, Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-5, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of December 9,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

6

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December9,1998), from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There will be no financial costs associated with the appeals.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding Applications Nos. A-344/98ET, 16 Tromley Drive; A-263/98, 52 Airview Drive; and, A-240/98, 75Birmingham Street.

Comments:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(1)Address:16 Tromley Drive

Applicant:Bernard and Robin Martins

Appellant:Bernard and Robin Martins

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:To legalize and permit completion of a detached two-car garage on an irregularly shaped corner lot. Section 320-43G of the Zoning Code provides that for all new dwellings erected on corner lots, any garage or carport must be attached to the dwelling.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused

Comments:The applicant partially constructed a two car garage without a building permit and was issued an Order to Comply on August 13, 1998. Based on a site inspection and review of the single variance required, staff had no comment on the application before the Committee of Adjustment. As the subject site is an irregularly shaped corner lot and the application involves only one variance, staff are of the opinion that legal and staff representation is not warranted. At its November 12, meeting Council recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board for the purpose of seeking an adjournment of an appeal relating to this application as the owner will be out of the country. No hearing date has been set at this time.

(2)Address:52 Airview Drive

Applicant:Ajit Investments Inc.

Appellant:John Ambury

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:To permit an auto repair business in an industrial condominium complex.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Approved

Comments:As this is to permit an industrial use in an industrial zone, staff are of the opinion that legal and staff representation is not warranted.

(3)Address:75 Birmingham Street

Applicant:Bosnian Islamic Centre

Appellant:Bosnian Islamic Centre

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:To construct a second storey addition behind an existing 2-storey mosque building, over its existing parking area. The addition would contain classrooms, washrooms and offices but not expand the mosque's assembly area. A total of 24 parking spaces are required under the Zoning Code while 13 will be provided, with nine spaces having reduced width. As the addition would extend to the rear and side lot lines, it would not meet the required rear setback of 7.5 m, the required side setbacks of 4.5 m, nor the landscaped parking setback of 1.5 m from lot lines. The site itself is under the required lot area and lot frontage for a place of worship under the Zoning Code.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused

Comments:Staff are of the opinion that legal and staff representation is not warranted. Adequate parking is available for the proposed classrooms and office space as their hours of operation differ from the existing place of worship. While the addition will extend to the lot lines, it is located in an area where existing buildings have minimal setbacks. The exterior treatment of the addition, and its landscaping and parking, can be addressed in more detail at the site plan stage.

Conclusion:

The subject appeals were reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that appeal items (1), (2) and (3) do not involve substantive planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the OntarioMunicipal Board is not warranted for these appeals.

Contact Name:

Linda Bunce, Principal Planner

Tel: (416)394-8221, Fax: (416)394-6063

7

Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code

Zanini Developments Inc., 112 Evans Avenue and 801 Oxford Street

File No. Z-2268 Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following reports (November 24,1998) and (December 2, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposed amendment is an appropriate use of the property, recommends that:

1.the following be added to the Conditions to Approval:

(a)"and an increased setback to 1.22 m for Block O." to Condition 1.(i) so that the said condition reads as follows:

(i)Submission of revised plans which address issues related to the Evans Avenue frontage including a reduction in height, and an increased setback to 1.22 m for Block O.

(b)Condition 4.(ix) as follows:

An appropriate contribution for public art in accordance with the guidelines established by the Etobicoke Public Art Advisory Committee; and

2.the application for amendment to rezone lands municipally known as 112 Evans Avenue and 801 Oxford Street from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) and Second Density Residential (R2) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) and Public Open Space (OS) to permit the development of 127 townhouse units and a public park, be approved, as amended;

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

The Etobicoke Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to:

(i)further review recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the following communication (December9, 1998) from Mr.R.Ciupa with the applicant;

(ii)give consideration to recommendations 6, 7, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 12, 13 and 14; and

(iii)submit recommendations to the Etobicoke Community Council for cost recovery for the number of staff hours that are spent on chronic offenders who are consistently flouting the building by-laws and terms of agreements.

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

Purpose:

To consider a proposal to rezone the property at 112 Evans Avenue and 801 Oxford Street from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) and Second Density Residential (R2) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) and Public Open Space (OS) to permit the development of 127 condominium townhouses and a public park.

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 Zanini Developments Inc. 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.

Background:

In September, 1997, Etobicoke City Council approved an application for Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning made by 1215295 Ontario Limited to develop the subject site with 85 residential units (67 townhouses, 8 semi-detached and 10 single, detached units). In December, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved Official Plan Amendment No. 52-97 which redesignated the subject property from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to accommodate the proposal. The amending zoning by-law was never enacted.

In April, 1998, Zanini Developments submitted a rezoning application to permit the development of a 142 unit freehold townhouse development on the subject site. Following comments received during a community meeting held on June 17, 1998, and input from staff, the project was revised to 133 units.

Further discussions with staff have resulted in the applicant reducing the number of units to 127, introducing a 0.1 ha public park, re-orienting the northerly townhousing to front the internal private roads (rather than Oxford Street) and changing the tenure of the project to condominium. This revised plan is the subject of this report.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The 2.17 ha (5.37 ac) irregular-shaped site is located just south of the Gardiner Expressway between Evans Avenue and Oxford Street, west of Alan Avenue. The vacant site was formerly occupied by an auto parts warehouse demolished in 1995.

The surrounding land uses are as follows:

North:Across Oxford Street, a local street which ends in a cul-de-sac approximately 250 m (820 ft.) to the west, is the Gardiner Expressway.

South:Across Evans Avenue, an Etobicoke arterial road, lands are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and occupied primarily by one to two storey, single detached dwellings.

West:Lands along Oxford Street are zoned Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) and occupied by five light industrial buildings. The one-storey office/warehouse building located on the abutting property contains hair product and exhibit design businesses. The other four light industrial buildings are occupied by marketing companies, exhibit designers, a small warehouse and an accident reporting centre. The lands fronting on the north side of Evans Avenue are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and occupied primarily by one to two storey, single detached dwellings, plus two light industrial buildings further west, adjacent to Islington Avenue.

East:Lands fronting on Alan Avenue in the same block are zoned Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) and occupied by four single and two, semi-detached dwellings (8 units total). The lands fronting on the north side of Evans Avenue in the same block are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and occupied by three one to 1½ storey single, detached dwellings. Lands east of Alan Avenue are zoned Third Density Residential (R3) and occupied primarily by one to two storey single and semi-detached dwellings.

Proposal:

Zanini Developments has requested a rezoning of the subject lands from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) and Second Density Residential (R2) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the development of 127 condominium townhouses. In conjunction with the proposed dedication of lands at the northeast portion of the site for parks purposes, staff recommend that these lands be rezoned to Public Open Space (OS).

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

TABLE No. 1

The proposal consists of 15 blocks of townhouses, containing a total of 127 units. The units would be typically four storeys high with a maximum roof height of 13.3 m (43.5 ft.). The units would contain three bedrooms with an average unit size of 166.3 m² (1790 ft²). The width of the proposed units ranges from 4.9 m (16.0 ft.) to 5.05 m (16.6 ft.) facing Evans Avenue. The majority of units would have a 7.0 m (23 ft.) rear yard. A hipped-roof condition is proposed for the end of each block of townhouses.

Blocks 'K', 'L', 'M' and "N' adjacent to Evans Avenue (Exhibit No. 2) would be three storeys in height (11.9 m) and would have a frontyard setback of 3.0 m (10 ft.). These units would be provided with rear lane access into at-grade garages with 2.44 m (8 ft.) rear decks.

Each of the remaining units would be provided with parking for two cars; one in a single car garage and one parked on the driveway. The majority of visitor parking would be provided internally to the site, with some required visitor parking (9 spaces) proposed within the Oxford Street road allowance.

The most significant changes between this submission and the project previously approved by Council consist of an increase in the number of units (42), the introduction of a 0.1 ha public park at the northeast corner of the site and a change in the tenure of the project from freehold with public roads to condominium. The proposed mix of singles and semis within the project has been eliminated, with the project consisting exclusively of townhouse units.

Comment:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Medium Density Residential, under Official Plan Amendment 52-97, which permits a density of 35 to 75 uph (14-30 upa). Following the dedication of the lands for parks purposes, the net density of the project would be 61.4 uph (24.7upa) which would fall within the density limits of the plan. Planning staff are generally satisfied that the proposal would meet the criteria for Medium Density residential development as outlined in Section 4.2.19 of the Plan.

The proposal would be compatible with the adjacent light industrial developments to the west and would provide for a greater range of housing types in the area. There is sufficient capacity on the adjacent roadways to support the development and hard and soft services can be provided. Commercial shops and services are located in the vicinity along Royal York Road, and the Toronto School Board has indicated that schools would be available for additional students. In addition to the public park proposed for the northeast portion of the site, recreation facilities are available locally at Ourland Park.

Zoning Code:

The site is zoned Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) and Residential Second Density (R2). Subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions, staff recommend that the site be rezoned to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) with development standards to reflect the approved development. Staff also recommend that the portion of the site to be devoted to public park be rezoned at this time from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) to Public Open Space (OS).

As was discussed in the previous staff report for this site, there are a number of residential properties located on the west side of Alan Avenue which are designated Low Density Residential in the OfficialPlan but are zoned Class 1 Industrial (I.C1). Following a public meeting, the former Etobicoke Council endorsed staff's proposal to rezone these properties to Third Density Residential (R3) consistent with the properties on the east side of Alan Avenue and with the Official Plan designation. In conjunction with the processing of this application, a separate by-law should be enacted to bring these lands into conformity with the Official Plan.

Site Design Considerations:

There are a number of site design considerations associated with this project which staff have attempted to resolve with the applicant. The portion of the site fronting onto Evans Avenue is zoned Second Density Residential (R2) with permitted residential uses limited to single, detached dwellings. The previous proposal would have retained the Second Density Residential (R2) zoning along Evans Avenue but would have permitted semi-detached dwellings. The applicant is proposing to replace the singles and semis with townhouse units.

Two blocks, comprising 13 townhouses, will now front onto Evans Avenue. With the required 3.05m (10 ft.) road widening of Evans Avenue, these 11.9 m (39 ft.) high units will have a setback of approximately 2.95 m (9.7 ft.) with their front porches and steps protruding slightly into this setback. Staff have expressed concern to the applicant respecting the relationship of these units to the adjacent low density residential community. In response to staff concerns, the applicant has reduced the height of the end units from three to two storeys. Staff are recommending that as a condition of approval, the height of all the units fronting on to Evans Avenue be reduced from three to two storeys with a maximum height of 9.5 m (31 ft.). The 9.5 m height limit is consistent with the requirement for single, detached dwellings and the existing Second Density Residential (R2) zoning of this portion of the site.

The southerly unit in Block 'O' (Exhibit No. 2) would be located in line with the adjacent single detached house to the east. However, following the conveyance of a 3.05 m widening along Evans Avenue, the southerly unit in Block 'O' will be located up to the new lot line with no setback. While the applicant has revised the building elevations to address the Evans Avenue frontage, staff recommend a minimum setback at this location. A minimum setback would permit landscaping opportunities adjacent to the street. This setback could be achieved by reducing the width of the units or by removing the southerly unit. Removing this unit would permit the entire Evans Avenue face of the project to line up consistently. In addition, staff recommend that the southerly-most unit within this block should also be no more than two storeys and 9.5 m in height.

The applicant is proposing that nine of the required visitor parking spaces be provided within the Oxford Street road allowance. Although Works and Emergency Services staff are prepared to accept this arrangement, Urban Planning and Development staff are seeking to upgrade the streetscape at this location. The provision of required parking off-site would eliminate the opportunity to improve much of the boulevard area and introduce street trees. In addition, the applicant is proposing a 1.5m(5 ft) setback at this location which would preclude the introduction of significant on-site landscaping elements. Staff would prefer that alternate arrangements be made to accommodate required parking on-site. As an alternative, the building setback could be increased at this location to improve landscaping opportunities along Oxford Street.

In response to staff concerns, the applicant has refined the building elevations adjacent to Oxford Street as they previously presented a blank elevation to the street. The applicant is also proposing to landscape the northerly portions of the Oxford Street road allowance opposite this location.

Given the proximity to adjacent industrial uses to the west and the height of the units being proposed, there would be potential for certain units to overlook the abutting industrial properties. Consideration should be given to the introduction of solid screen fencing and landscaping. This condition will be reviewed at the time of the site plan application.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by Toronto Hydro and Realty Services. The Toronto District School Board has provided preliminary comments indicating that local schools can accommodate students generated by this project.

Comments from the Toronto Police Department, Toronto Separate School Board and final clearances from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) remain outstanding.

The Fire Department has requested minor modifications to the driveway system to accommodate a Fire Route and will have to review fire hydrant coverage. Canada Post advises that the applicant will have to provide a central mail facility within the project.

The Transportation Planning Section of City Works Services requires that the proposed parking layout be introduced with the appropriate pavement markings, and that the visitor parking spaces be signed accordingly. With respect to the provision of a portion of the required visitor parking off-site, Transportation staff advise that the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with their construction. Further, given the location of these spaces within the public boulevard, they may not be assigned exclusively for use by this project (Exhibit No. 4). The Transportation section previously identified a 3.05 m road widening for Evans Avenue, and the applicant has revised their plans to identify this requirement. It should also be noted that relief is being granted to certain condominium standards respecting road widths and the provision of sidewalks.

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

With respect to storm water management, the Development Engineering Section of City Works has concerns with the size of the rear yards within the project and their ability to receive the incident rainfall. Works therefore requires a storm water management report and detailed grading plan for review and approval, prior to rezoning. Grades at the rear of the units may be artificially raised resulting in the introduction of retaining walls along the common property lines and/or at the ends of the blocks.

Consequently, the grading plan should include information on adjacent properties and identify locations for retaining walls. Soils testing for storm water runoff will also be required as part of this review. Given concerns with regulating grades throughout the project, condominium registration is essential for Works' support of the current application. The applicant has confirmed that this will be a condominium project.

Services are available to accommodate this project with the applicant responsible for all approvals and connections. Roads must be designed to the Works Department's standards and the applicant will be required to submit a construction management plan prior to the start of construction (ExhibitNo. 5).

Public Park:

The applicant has identified a parcel of land at the northeast corner of the site which Parks and Recreation advises is acceptable for fulfilling the 5% parkland dedication, with the balance to be taken as cash-in-lieu. Parks and Recreation Services requires that the proposed park be landscaped to their satisfaction. The park is to include playground equipment, in-lieu-of an on-site tot lot, which is to be provided at the applicant's expense. In addition, the soils of the park must be cleaned up to MOE standards for public parkland. Street trees and a noise barrier along the north side of Oxford Street would also be required to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services (Exhibit No. 6).

Environmental Concerns:

The City Works Services Department has advised that the previous proposal by 1215295OntarioLimited to develop 85 dwellings units on the property was the subject of a Site Specific Risk Assessment. The Ministry of the Environment concurred with the findings of the assessment which indicated that the proposed pattern of development on the uncontaminated portions of the property was a suitable land use for the site. As the current proposal by Zanini Developments does not conform to the previously approved pattern of development, the applicant is required to submit further risk assessment information to the Ministry for approval, which may require a reduction in the number of units in areas of potential contamination.

The applicant is to submit a noise impact study to verify that the proposal will meet the Ministry of the Environment's noise criteria. The requirements for noise abatement features (including possible noise barriers adjacent to the Gardiner and the industrial buildings) and warning clauses, as identified by the study, should be included in the development agreement. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the acoustic consultant is to verify that the proposed construction meets MOE noise criteria. The applicant is also required to address air quality due to the proximity of the site to existing industrial lands and the Gardiner Expressway.

Community Meeting:

On June 17, 1998, approximately 35 area residents, attended a community meeting on the applicant's original proposal for 142 freehold townhouse units. Concerns identified at that time included density, elimination of the singles and semis, the limited size of the proposed park, unit widths, traffic, parking and school capacity.

Since that meeting, the applicant has reduced the number of units, introduced a public park component, and increased the minimum width of the units to 4.88 m (16 ft.). At the time of the writing of this report, a second community meeting had been scheduled by the local Councillors to discuss the revised proposal with area residents. If additional issues arise at that community meeting, staff will prepare a supplementary report for Council's consideration.

Conclusion:

The former Etobicoke Council's approval of Official Plan Amendment 52-97, redesignated the site to Medium Density Residential, to allow the introduction of townhouse units at this location. From a land use perspective, the applicant's proposal, notwithstanding the increase in density now being sought, would be in compliance with the current Official Plan policies.

In approving the redesignation to Medium Density Residential, consideration was given to maintaining the continuity of the Second Density Residential (R2) zoning and uses along the Evans Avenue frontage of the site. The applicant has attempted to address this issue by lowering the height of these units and eliminating individual driveways off Evans Avenue in favour of landscaping. In reviewing the current submission however, staff suggest that the introduction of townhouse units at this location should be more sympathetic to the existing street, particularly in terms of height.

In view of the commitments made by the applicant to staff regarding the condominium tenure of this application many of the comments and conditions identified by staff are predicated on condominium ownership of the project.

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

Conditions to Approval:

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

(i)Submission of revised plans which address issues related to the Evans Avenue frontage including a reduction in height.

(ii)Resolution of the provision of required visitor parking within the Oxford Street road allowance and submission of revised plans to address upgrades to the streetscape (including the north side of Oxford Street) and an increase in the setback from the northerly property line.

(iii)Confirmation from the Ministry of Environment that the current submission complies with their requirements.

(iv)Signing of a Development Agreement, including confirmation of condominium tenure, provision for the road widening and park dedication, provisions for environmental issues (including noise), warning clauses (if required), soil contamination, and development of the public park to the satisfaction of the Works and Emergency Services, Parks and Recreation Services and Urban Planning and Development Services Departments.

(v)Submission of a storm water management report and detailed grading plan for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services Departments. The grading plan should include information on adjacent properties and identify locations for retaining walls. Soils testing for storm water runoff will also be required as part of this review.

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

(i)Rezoning of the site from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) and Second Density Residential (R2) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) and Public Open Space (OS). The site specific by-law shall provide standards for units, floor space index, height, setbacks, coverage, landscaped open space, fencing and parking.

3.Enactment of a separate amending by-law to rezone the adjoining properties (17,19,21,23,25,25A, 27 and 29 Alan Avenue) from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) to Third Density Residential (R3) as authorized by Resolution No. 388 adopted on September 22, 1997, by the former Etobicoke Council.

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

(i)Signing of a Site Control Agreement which may include among other matters, provision of indemnity clauses to the City regarding liability and contamination problems.

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

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

(iv)Confirmation that the site plan is satisfactory to the Fire Department, Bell Canada, CanadaPost, Toronto Hydro and Toronto Police Services.

(v)Confirmation that the site decommissioning and clean-up has been carried out to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services in accordance with Ministry of Environment and Energy Guidelines, if required.

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

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

(viii)Submission of an appropriate noise study (including peer review) to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel: (416)394-8227, Fax: (416)394-6063

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-8, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of December 9, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (December 2, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

This report has been prepared for the information of the members of Community Council for consideration at the public meeting in conjunction with the staff report dated November 24, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received.

Background:

Zanini developments Inc. have applied for amendments to rezone lands municipally known as 112 Evans Avenue and 801 Oxford Street from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) and Second Density Residential (R2) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) and Public Open Space (OS) to permit the development of 127 townhouse units and a public park. A staff report dated November24, 1998, was prepared evaluating the application. Subsequent to the preparation of the report, a second community meeting was scheduled for December 1, 1998, by the local Councillors, and comments have been received from the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

Comment:

On December 1, 1998, approximately 17 area residents attended a community meeting on the proposal by Zanini Developments Inc. to introduce 127 townhouse units and a public park on the lands municipally known as 112 Evans Avenue and 801 Oxford Street. At the meeting the residents reiterated their previous concerns with respect to changing the Second Density Residential (R2) zoning of that portion of the site adjacent to Evans Avenue. Single, detached dwellings were preferred at this location.

They also expressed concerns with the proposed widths of the internal roads and the ability of the site to accommodate all of the parking associated with the project. Staff note that matters of parking and driveway design have generally been resolved to the satisfaction of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

An additional concern was identified with the speed of traffic travelling in the vicinity of the site, and the residents suggested that perhaps 3-way stop signs could be introduced where Alan Avenue intersects with Oxford Street and Evans Avenue. Planning staff discussed this issue with Works staff who advised that multi-way stop controls are not used as a speed mitigating measure, and that enforcement was the recommended remedial action.

Since the preparation of the staff report comments have been received from the Toronto Catholic District School Board. In their comments the Board objects to the development proposal due to lack of permanent facilities at Father John Redmond Catholic Secondary School. We understand that the Catholic Board is pursuing an Educational Development charge on the basis of deficiencies at the Secondary level; therefore, staff do not recommend that a requirement for a levy be imposed as a condition to the approval of this application.

Conclusion:

This report has been prepared to update the members of the Community Council on the most recent community meeting and to address the comments received from the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel: (416)394-8227, Fax: (416)394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (December9,1998) from Mr. Richard Ciupa, Etobicoke:

Reference: File #Z 2268 - Concerns Relating to Infill Row Housing Developments

To date no row housing standard report requested from staff has been submitted for review by Councillors or community.

To date no community input has been requested with regard to the "Construction Site Management Plan" infill housing projects - June 3, 1998.

To date no decision of the Court has been received regarding an infill construction site and the effectiveness of our existing bylaws.

Re: 112 Evans Avenue - 801 Oxford Street - File # Z2268

Due to past happenings I am proposing that the following conditions be included in the approval agreement.

1.That row housing blocks be comprised of no more than 8 units.

2.That the set backs from municipal roads be consistent with the set backs of existing dwellings - blocks M. N. & O.

3.That the staff recommendation that all row housing units M. & N, be two stories along with the southerly unit of Block O. be a condition of approval.

4.That the Oxford Street set back be 3.0 metres as recommended by staff regarding OxfordStreet/Gardiner Expressway exposures.

5.That a screen be provided along the side/rear yards of the westerly abutting properties.

6.That the retaining walls be erected 0.3 metres from the subject site property lines to accommodate future screening of such elements by abutting land owners.

7.That engineering drawings for grades, roads and servicing be submitted initially to Ward Councillors, Planning and Parks and Recreation for review and comment prior to acceptance/approval for City Departments.

Grade changes / separations to be communicated to adjacent and abutting land owners prior to approval of the engineering plans and servicing plan and site plan.

8.That prior to the issuance of building permits for unit construction, all roads are to be constructed with base asphalt.

9.That the Construction Site Management Plan specifically cover the inground services phase of the development along with the building construction and landscaping of the site.

10.That the construction equipment is not allowed to be operated and/or moved from the site on a Sunday.

11.a.That all site meetings precipitated by complaints be recorded in written form and copies of the any agreements from the meeting be delivered to all parties involved in the specific meeting.

b.That an hourly rate be determined and charged to the Developer/Builder for any staff time for site or City Hall meetings resulting from complaint initiated meetings relative to noncompliance of the Site Management Plan and applicable by-laws.

12.That inground servicing / engineering inspectors / building inspectors and Parks and Recreation personnel be aware of the Site Construction Management Plan and be required to report any adverse site conditions and noncompliance to the appropriate administrative personnel.

13.That the Site Management Agreement prior to the issuing of any servicing and construction permits and landscaping agreement include preventative methods / measures to be taken to prevent mud tracking on municipal roads prior to inground servicing, building construction and landscaping construction during the entire construction period.

14.That a larger financial guarantee be obtained prior to issuance of any permit for servicing, construction and landscaping.

Including the above would:

- allow existing neighbourhoods quiet enjoyment while development and redevelopment occurs in their neighbourhood.

- have an infill project constructed and completed in a good workman like manner.

- have a healthy and compatible infill residential development.

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council also had before it the following communication in opposition to the proposal:

-(Undated) from Mrs. D. McLennan, Etobicoke, submitting a petition, with approximately 110 signatures of residents in the area, opposed to the proposed rezoning.

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

-Ms. I. Catsibris, on behalf of Zanini Developments Inc., in support of the proposal;

-Mr. A. Boyko, Etobicoke, who expressed the opinion that the proposal is not beneficial to the community; it is a community within a community; the little parkette is not accessible and suggesting that it be moved to the Evans Avenue frontage; upper level windows will impact on the privacy of existing bungalows;

-Mrs. L. Palmiero, Etobicoke, the resident adjacent to the property, in support of the rezoning as an improvement to the site, noting that townhouses with garages at the rear are better than single family dwellings with garages at the front; expressing the opinion that the development will improve the value of the existing homes;

-Mrs. A. McLellan, Etobicoke, urging that the Second Density Residential (R2) be maintained; noting that all traffic from the development will exit onto Evans Avenue; that the garage parking configuration for one car behind another will necessitate constant shunting and cars being left on the street; that there is proliferation of townhouse development in Etobicoke;

-Mr. F. Sarrapochiello, Etobicoke, opposed to any change in the zoning and expressing the opinion, contrary to the applicant, that there is a market for single family dwellings;

-Mr. R. Ciupa, Etobicoke, reiterating his long-standing concerns about infill rowhousing, and reiterating the recommendations contained in the foregoing (December 9, 1998) communication;

-Mr. J. Bettencourt, Etobicoke, in opposition to the current proposal, and maintaining his support for 85 units earlier approved by the former City of Etobicoke; and

-Mr. C. Marino, Etobicoke, opposed to the proposal because it is a nice area and the residents do not want to change it, although he had agreed to the earlier proposal on the site for 85 units.

8

Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code

297506 Ontario Ltd. (Millington & Associates), 1558 Kipling Avenue

File No. Z-2247, Ward 4, Markland-Centennial

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following reports (October 14, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposed amendment is an appropriate use of the property, recommends that

1.the following be added to Condition 4 of the Conditions to Approval:

(viii)An appropriate contribution for public art in accordance with the guidelines established by the Etobicoke Public Art Advisory Committee;

(ix)Consultation with the residents who participated in the community meeting process at the site plan stage; and

2.the application for amendment to Etobicoke By-law No. 14,834 and the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit a 2-storey commercial development, consisting of a financial institution and professional offices, at the north-west corner of Kipling Avenue and Clement Road, be approved.

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 (October 14, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider an amendment to By-law 14,834 and the Zoning Code to permit a Commercial development consisting of 1312 m² (14,120 sq.ft.), for a financial institution and professional offices.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by 297506 Ontario Ltd. (Millington & Associates) for amendment to the Zoning Code to permit a financial institution and professional offices at 1558Kipling Avenue be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, the conditions outlined in this report including the repeal of By-laws 14,834 and 1982-52, be fulfilled.

Background:

The 0.23 hectare site was rezoned in 1956 from Second Density Residential (R2) to Limited Commercial (CL) with permitted uses limited to a gas station only By-Law No. 14,834). An Esso gas station occupied the lands until its closure in 1995. Site decommissioning was conducted and the service building was demolished in 1996.

In 1982, Council passed By-law 1982-153 to permit a rental operation for 10 cars in conjunction with the gas station. In 1987, a rezoning application to permit redevelopment of the site for a convenience retail store and gas bar was submitted. However, the application was withdrawn when the proposal was viewed unfavourably by the community.

The current application, submitted in August, 1997, initially sought the re-instatement of all the uses listed under a Limited Commercial (CL) zoning category to be included within a one-storey, 7-unit retail plaza. Following a community meeting, and in response to residents' preference for a commercial office development, the applicants have now submitted a revised proposal for a two-storey commercial building consisting of a financial institution and professional offices.

Site Description and Surrounding uses:

The site, now vacant, has a frontage of 48.5m on Kipling Avenue and a flankage of 49.0 m on Clement Road (Exhibit No. 1). The lands fall generally to the south. A cedar hedge currently exists along the westerly lot line adjacent to the residential area.

Surrounding land uses are as follows:

North:Richmond Gardens Medical Centre zoned (CL)

South:Richview Baptist Church and senior citizen residence, totaling 299 units, zoned Sixth Density Residential (R6).

East:Across Kipling Avenue, single, detached dwellings zoned Second Density Residential (R2).

West:Single, detached dwellings zoned Second Density Residential (R2)

Proposal:

The applicants request zoning amendments to allow a commercial development with a floor area of 1 312 m² (14,120 sq.ft.). The site plan indicates a two-storey banking/commercial office building with a drive-through ATM machine, oriented toward the Kipling Avenue, Clement Road street lines. Parking would be located at the rear of the building. Access to the site would be via full function driveways off Clement Road and Kipling Avenue. Two existing driveways (off Kipling Avenue and Clement Road), associated with the former service station use, would be closed and the boulevards and sidewalks reinstated to City standards. A 1.6m (6 ft.) high solid masonry wall and landscaped strip (preserving the cedar hedge located along the westerly property line) would be introduced to buffer the parking area from the existing single family dwellings immediately to the west (Exhibit No. 2).

The following is a summary of relevant information:

Official PlanResidential Low Density

Zoning - ExistingLimited Commercial (CL)

(As amended by By-law 14,834 and By-law 1982-152.)

- ProposedLimited Commercial (CL), site specific

(For financial institutions and professional offices only)

Site area0.23 ha (0.57 ac)2 316 m² 24,927 sq.ft.

Gross Floor Area1 312 m²(14,120 sq.ft.)

F.S.I. 0.56

Building Coverage 650 m²7,000 sq.ft.(28%)

Landscape Open Space 401 m²4,315 sq.ft.(17%)

Paved Surface Area1264 m²13,613 sq.ft.(55%)

Building Height2 storeys8.5 m (28 ft.)

Parking Required

(@ 3 spaces/93 m²)42 spaces

Parking Provided38 spaces

Parking Shortfall 4 spaces

Comments:

Official Plan and Zoning Code:

The Official Plan designates the site Residential Low Density which permits a range of dwelling types and associated facilities including schools, churches, local parks, playgrounds and local commercial areas up to 0.4 ha in size. Given the limited area of the site (.23 ha), the proposal conforms to the Official Plan.

The site is zoned Limited Commercial (CL), but restricted to an automobile service station use only by By-law 14,834 which was amended by By-law 1982-153 also allowed a 10 car rental operation in conjunction with the service station. Approval of this proposal would necessitate the enactment of a site specific by-law to permit a financial institution with associated banking machine, and professional offices at this location.

In addition, relief would be required for the proposed building in terms of parking shortfall, and setback from Kipling Avenue (as the proposed building has to be in line with the existing medical building to the north or thirty percent of lot depth). Any amending by-law should also repeal the two existing site-specific by-laws.

Agency/Department Circulation

In response to the circulation of this application, Etobicoke Hydro, Realty Services and the FireDepartment have expressed no objections. Comments from Bell Canada, Canada Post and Toronto Hydro - Etobicoke Office, are attached as Exhibit Nos. 6, 7 and 9, respectively.

The former Metro Transportation Department requires that the Kipling Avenue access be a minimum of 9.0 metres wide and be restricted to in-right/out-right movements only, in addition they request that the easterly Clement Road access be closed, and that all curbs/public boulevards along Kipling Avenue and Clement Road be restored to City standards, with the applicants paying all costs. They further suggest that the proposed building be located adjacent to the Kipling Avenue/Clement Road frontages, with parking provided to the rear of the building (Exhibit No. 3). The current site plan has addressed these requirements, with the exception of the Kipling Avenue driveway which is proposed to be a full access.

The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department's comments addressed services, storm water management, roads and sidewalks construction requirements, waste management and Environmental concerns. Since this is the site of a former gasoline service station, the Environmental Planning, Works and Emergency Services Department has advised that the peer review has concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed development. The applicants are, however, required to pay the cost of the peer review prior to issuance of the building permit (Exhibits Nos.4 and 5).

The Transportation Services Division, in response to the revised site plan requires the proposed Clement Road access be redesigned to reflect Etobicoke Engineering Standards. In addition, they require the applicant to eliminate the most southerly parking space located on the west side of the Clement Road driveway, and the Kipling Avenue access must be designed to prohibit left turn movements from northbound Kipling Avenue. The entrance of the drive-through automatic bank machine must also be modified.

The Division has accepted the four space parking deficiency but are concerned about uses permitted in CL zones that have the potential to generate parking demand in excess of on-site parking supply and recommended that those uses be prohibited (Exhibit No.8).

The project is subject to Site Plan Control which will provide staff the opportunity to review, in more detail, matters such as grading, landscaping, screen fencing, street planting, pedestrian linkages and building design.

Community Input

A community meeting was held on the initial plaza proposal on February 9, 1998, and was attended by the applicants, area councillors, staff and over 200 residents. The residents were opposed to the development of a plaza at this location. Their concerns include the type/numbers and kind of commercial uses and hours of operation proposed; need for stores at this location; garbage from a commercial plaza; future expansion opportunity; pedestrian (students and seniors) safety; traffic and noise increase; parking on street; intrusion into currently safe neighbourhood; and lack of guarantee that no obnoxious use would come in if initial tenants fail.

A Sub-committee consisting of local residents, councillors and staff was subsequently formed and a meeting held on February 24, 1998, to discuss community concerns. The Committee concluded that a commercial office development (with no food establishment) is the preferred development. August11, 1998, the applicants presented the subject proposal for a bank/office development to the Sub-committee. The proposal, with the exception of the location of the ATM machine, received support from this committee.

Conclusion:

The proposal is in compliance with the Official Plan policies for commercial uses in a residential designation. In terms of scale and land use compatibility, the proposal is considered suitable for this site. The applicants have attempted to address community concerns and staff therefore recommend that a Public Meeting be held to obtain views of surrounding property owners.

Should this application be approved, it is recommended that the following conditions apply:

Conditions to Approval:

1.Submission of a revised site plan showing revised parking and driveway designs (if required) in order to facilitate the preparation of a draft by-law.

2.The amending by-law shall repeal By-laws 14,834 and 1982-152, affirm the Limited Commercial (CL) zoning, and provide for the following inter alia:

(i)Permitted uses should be restricted to a financial institution with a ATM machine and professional offices only.

(ii)A maximum commercial floor space of 1 312 m² (14,120 sq.ft.).

(iii)Site specific standards related to minimum parking, building and parking setbacks.

(iv)Maximum height of two storeys.

3.Under the Site Plan Control review process, the applicant shall address the following matters:

(i)Signing of a Site Control Agreement, including an indemnification clause saving the City harmless and indemnifying the municipality from any claims, actions or causes of action arising by virtue of the presence of any on-site or off-site environmental contamination, and payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution, and registration of same.

(ii)Payment of fees for peer review to the satisfaction of the Works Department.

(iii)The signing of a Servicing Agreement to the satisfaction of the Development Engineering Section of the Works Department, if required.

(iv)Submission of detailed site and landscaping plans illustrating grading, drainage, lighting, fencing, landscaping, fire route, waste disposal/recycling facilities, roof-top screening, revised parking layout, security measures, and an appropriate financial guarantee, to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

(v)Resolution of matters relating to the realignment of the proposed driveway from Kipling Avenue, to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Department and Transportation Planning Section of the Works and Emergency Services Department, respectively.

(vi)Requirements of Etobicoke Hydro and Bell Canada to be satisfied.

(vii)Provision of barrier free access.

Contact Name:

Lorna Hahn, MCIP, RPP

Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416) 394-8232, Fax: (416) 394-6063

(Copies of Exhibits Nos. 1-9, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of December 9, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

_____

The following person appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in support of the application:

-Mr. A. Debono, Etobicoke.

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (December 9, 1998) from Mr. Rob Summers, Treasurer, Richmond Gardens Ratepayers' and Residents' Association, with respect to an application for an amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code regarding 1558 Kipling Avenue, Toronto.)

9

Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee

Amendment to the Terms of Reference

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

1.the Terms of Reference for the Barrier Free Accessibility Committee be amended to provide that the presence of six members constitutes a quorum;

2.staff representation be amended to provide for a Works and Emergency Services Department representative and the Community Relations Officer, and deletion of the reference to the City Manager's Office; and

3.the adoption of the following report (December9,1998) from the Secretary of the Barrier Free Accessibility Committee, as amended by the foregoing:

Purpose:

To amend the Terms of Reference to include an additional paragraph under the Selection/Appointments section.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no financial impact.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Terms of Reference for the Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee be amended by adding the following paragraph under the Selection/Appointments section:

"If in any calendar year a member of the committee, not having been granted a leave of absence by the committee, fails to attend three (3) inclusive consecutive committee and subcommittee meetings, may by resolution of the committee have his or her membership declared vacant. He or she would be so notified by the Secretary."

Background:

At its meeting on Thursday, November 26, 1998, the Barrier Free Accessibility Committee discussed the attendance record of members and the inability to maintain a quorum. In order to more effectively control committee attendance it was decided to add the foregoing paragraph to the attached Term of Reference. New committee members will thereby be more aware of the need for a regular commitment.

10

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)1999 - 2003 Capital Budget Review.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, at its meeting on December 2, 1998, having recommended to the Budget Committee that:

(1)$50,000 for Public Art Acquisition be reinstated in the 1999 budget;

(2)reconstruction of the Kingsview Park tennis courts be moved ahead to 1999; and

(3)$180,000 be provided for the Don Russell parking lot/tennis court, and that the Lakeshore Lions Club and Gus Ryder Pool be asked to contribute matching funds.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Budget Committee and Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, to submit a report to the Budget Committee with respect to:

(i)the possibility of using $50,000 from the $150,000 reserve fund from the sale of two properties on Avon Park Drive, for the reconstruction of the Queensway Rink; and

(ii)covering boccie courts in the Etobicoke district, to be identified by Members of the Community Council, including those at the Ourland Community Centre and in particular, those at the North Kipling Community Centre and the cost savings if done in conjunction with the construction of the new school at 2 Rowntree Road;

The Etobicoke Community Council further reports having:

(i)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Budget Committee when the Committee is considering the Sidewalk Budget, on the feasibility of a sidewalk for the Mystic Pointe development along the Gardiner Expressway collector lane to Park Lawn Road, and whether funding can be obtained from development charges for the work to proceed in 1999;

(ii)whereas the Etobicoke Community Council has identified the Eatonville Library as a major construction priority and a request, as included in the CAO recommended capital budget, has gone forward for $150,000.00 to proceed with design studies in 1999 and construction in 2000, requested the Library Board to submit to Budget Committee on December 11, 1998, a new construction schedule, which includes a revised cash flow with construction activities beginning in 1999; and

(iii)received the following reports:

-(November 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer, presenting a 1999-2003 Capital Works Program for the City of Toronto and recommending projects and cash flow for 1999.

-(November 11, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, proposing a preliminary capital financing plan for the 1999-2003 capital program; and

-(November 20, 1998)from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, submitting a listing of the CAO recommended Capital Budget for selected programs (sorted by Community Council)

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council also had before it the following communications with respect to the foregoing:

-(November 11, 1998) from Mr. K. Dewaele, DD Consulting, requesting that sufficient funds be allocated in the 1999/2000 Capital Budgets to ensure the availability of services in the Kipling/Islington City Centre Secondary Planning Area;

-(December 2, 1998) from Mr. D. Grimaldi, President, St. Andrew Senior Club, requesting that funds be allocated to cover the boccie courts at North Kipling Community Centre; and

-(December 2, 1998) Mr. K. Riddell, Director of Traffic Prince Edward Drive South, Kingsway Sunnylea Residents Association, supporting the allocation of funds in the 1999 Capital Budget for the work to be done on Prince Edward Drive South.

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

-Mr. T. Reardon, Etobicoke Federation of Residents' and Ratepayers' Association, with respect to the budget process in general; and

-Mr. R. Gullins, Lakeshore Ratepayers Association, with respect to the budget process.

The following persons addressed the issue of a sidewalk on Dundas Street West between Old Oak Road and Donnybrook Lane:

-Ms. R. Swarbrick, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

-Mr. and Mrs. G. McGuiggan, Etobicoke;

-Ms. S. Armstrong, Etobicoke;

-Ms. D. Kyles, Etobicoke;

-Mr. W. Sung, Etobicoke; and

-Mrs. Y. Bowen, Etobicoke.

The following person addressed the issue of covered boccie courts at North Kipling Community Centre:

-Ms. I. Battiston, St. Andrew Seniors Club.

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

-Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto; and

-Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown

(b)Agreement to Encroach on City Property in Front of 53 and 55 Toledo Road, Ward 4, Markland-Centennial.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communications (i) and (ii):

(i)(November 19, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, to Mr. W. Campbell regarding a hedge planted on the right-of-way at 55 Toledo Road without prior authorization; and

(ii)(December 8, 1998) from Mr. & Mrs. J. Sidey, Etobicoke, advising that the appropriate steps have been taken to obtain a minor encroachment agreement for the subject hedge.

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

-Mr. W. Campbell, Etobicoke.

(c)Request for a Curb Cut - 17 Mervyn Avenue, Ward 4, Markland-Centennial.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)directed the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, to proceed with the curb cut at 17 Mervyn Avenue as requested, with delineation of the sidewalk portion of the driveway, at the expense of the property owner; and

(2) received the following communication:

(November 16, 1998) from Mr. V. Kostic, requesting an opportunity to address Community Council regarding a decision to refuse a curb cut to accommodate an expanded driveway.

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

- Mr. Kostic Jr., Etobicoke

(d)Traffic Assessment: Edenbridge Drive, Edgehill Road and Edgevalley Drive,

Ward 3, Kingsway-Humber.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to the next meeting of the Community Council to allow for deputation by interested parties:

(December 9, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, recommending that no additional traffic control measures be implemented on Edenbridge Drive, Edgehill Road and Edgevalley Drive, and that Toronto Police Services be requested to enforce the 50km/h speed limit on Edenbridge Drive near North Drive.

(e)Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Recycle Plus Ltd., 63 Medulla Avenue - File No. Z-2269, Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to the next meeting of the Community Council to allow for resolution of certain issues:

(November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, regarding an application for amendment to the Class 2 Industrial (I.C2) provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the operation of a recycling/waste transfer facility, including office space, within an existing 1 969.6 m² (21,202 sq.ft.) industrial building on the east side of Medulla Avenue, north of Coronet Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December 9, 1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

(f)New Development Applications for Etobicoke District.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(December 9, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing a summary of development applications received since the November 12, 1998, meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council.

(g)Preliminary Evaluation Report Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Code - Fogh Sails Holdings Ltd., 2242 Lake Shore Boulevard West - File No: Z-2276,

Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)recommended to the Director of Community Planning, West District, that a review of the Park Lawn Road/Lake Shore Boulevard Secondary Plan be completed before any recommendations on the Fogh Sails Holdings Ltd. application are considered by the Etobicoke Community Council; and

(2) received the following report:

(November 24, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application by Fogh Sails Holdings Ltd. to amend the Office designation and Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) zoning of an industrial site at 2242LakeShoreBoulevard West, to permit a 20-storey, 110-unit apartment building and attached 1 765 m² retail/office building.

(h)Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Society of Franciscan Fathers of Ontario (Lithuanian) Roman Catholic Church of the Resurrection, 3700 Bloor Street West - File No: Z-2266 - Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following report to a public meeting:

(November 24, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, regarding an application by the Franciscan Fathers of Ontario (Lithuanian) for amendments to the Zoning Code to permit a place of worship with accessory uses and a nursing home containing 90 beds.

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

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)recommended to the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services that an application by Pattison Outdoor Signs for a variance to the third party sign prohibition under by-law 280-1998, at 534 Evans Avenue, be refused;

(2)referred an application by Pattison Outdoor Signs for a variance to permit a third party sign at 423 Evans Avenue be referred back to staff and the Sign Variance Advisory Committee for further review; and

(3)received the following report:

(November 25, 1998) from the Secretary of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee with respect to applications for variance at the following locations:

1. Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, 523 The Queensway;

2.Amazing Party & Costume, 923 Oxford Street;

3.A. Mantella & Sons (Harvey's/Church's Chicken), 6620 Finch Avenue;

4. Pattison Outdoor Signs, 534 Evans Avenue;

5.Pattison Outdoor Signs, 423 Evans Avenue;

6.National Money Mart, 5451 Dundas Street West; and

7.Burger King, 1560 The Queensway.

(j)OMB Decision - Park Lawn Cemetery, 2801 Bloor Street West, Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following confidential reports (i) and (ii):

(i)(November 30, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, further to a decision by the Ontario Municipal Board granting a motion brought by Park Lawn Cemetery and Kening Properties Limited, which resulted in the dismissal of an Official Plan and Zoning appeal by Ms. J. Gaudaur; and

(ii)(December 8, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, regarding a restrictive covenant registered against the subject lands.

(k)The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding, for information, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 12 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure", which was adopted, as amended by City Council at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998.

(l)Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee - Access to Public Meetings.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the appropriate staff for review and report back to Etobicoke Community Council:

(October 30, 1998) from Mr. W. Alexander, Chair, Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee, regarding the provisions, policies and procedures in place for the co-ordination of all public meetings with respect to barrier free accessibility, provision for those with visual and hearing impairment, availability of translation services, and sign language interpreters when required.

(m)Multicultural and Race Relations Committee - Summer Employment Opportunities for Volunteers.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(December 9, 1998) from the Secretary, Etobicoke Multicultural and Race Relations Committee, recommending that the Human Resources Department be requested to place a priority on the consideration of volunteers and their family members for summer employment positions.

(n)Outdoor Lights - Request for Nuisance By-law.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having the following communication to the Deputy Chief Building Official, West District, for report to the Etobicoke Community Council:

(November 23, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, forwarding a communication and petition requesting consideration of the enactment of a "nuisance by-law" to control the location of spotlights and security lighting.

(o)Ward Boundary Changes.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having forwarded the following communications (i) and (ii) to City Council for consideration in conjunction with the recommendations contained in Clause No. 1 of Report 14 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee with respect to Ward Boundaries:

(i)(November 25, 1998) from the President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations, forwarding the comments of various member associations with respect to options for the division of Ward 4, Markland-Centennial; and

(ii)(December 8, 1998) from the Co-President, Thistletown Ratepayers Association, in favour of an option using Kipling Avenue, all the way from Steeles Avenue to Highway 401 as more acceptable for the division of Ward 5, Rexdale-Thistletown.

(p)Minutes of Boards and Committees.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following minutes (i), (ii) and (iii):

(i)Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Multicultural and Race Relations Committee held on October 13, 1998;

(ii)Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Barrier Free Committee held on September9,1998; and

(iii)Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC held on October14,1998.

(q)Traffic on Cliveden Avenue, Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, for review in consultation with staff at 22 Division, Traffic Response, Toronto Police Services, and report back to the Community Council:

(November 25, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones forwarding a communication from residents of Cliveden Avenue requesting remedial measures to control wrong-way traffic on the street.

(r)OMB Decision - Harvey Sawh, 63-65 Winterton Drive, Ward 4, Markland-Centennial.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(December 1, 1998) from B. C. Ketcheson, of Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, regarding the decision delivered by the Ontario Municipal Board dismissing appeals by the owners involving the proposed development of a 40-unit retirement residence.

(s)Welcome Baby Support Program.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(undated) from Ms. L. Nuk, Program Co-ordinator, advising of the Welcome Baby Support Program in Etobicoke and expressing appreciation for the support of Etobicoke members of Council.

(t)Traffic Safety Issues.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, in consultation with Toronto Police Services, to report back to the Etobicoke Community Council with recommendation on improving traffic safety at the following intersections:

-Dixon Road/Islington Avenue;

-Dixon Road/Martin Grove Road; and

-Eglinton Avenue/Martin Grove Road.

(Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, at the meeting of City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, declared his interest in Item (j), entitled "OMB Decision - Park Lawn Cemetery, 2810 Bloor Street West, Ward 2, Lakeshore-Queensway", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he is the owner of a plot located in the Park Lawn Cemetery.)

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH BROWN,

Chair

Toronto, December 2 and 9, 1998

(Report No. 14 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)