Amendments to the Zoning Code - D.E & V.I. Investments Limited

(Shell Canada Limited), 475 Renforth Drive - File No. Z-2258

 The Etobicoke Community Council after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May 27, 1998) and the supplementary report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (July 22, 1998) and for the reason that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by D.E. & V.I. Investments Limited (Shell Canada Limited), regarding a zoning by-law amendment for 475 Renforth Drive, be refused:

 The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June 25, 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, at which time the Etobicoke Community Council:

(i) referred the matter to the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council for a continuation of the public meeting;

 (ii)requested the applicant to reconsider the issue of the 24-hour operation; and

(iii)requested the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District, to report to the Community Council at the continuation of the public meeting on July 22, 1998, with respect to the new legislation pertaining to licensing:

 The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

 Purpose:

 To consider a site specific proposal to amend the Zoning Code with respect to the property located at the southeast corner of Renforth Drive and Rathburn Road to permit the conversion of the existing service station garage bays to accessory retail floor space to accommodate a convenience store and food sales inconjunction with an existing service station operation.

 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 D.E. & V.I. Investments Ltd. (Shell Canada Limited) be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

 Background:

 The subject site is located at the southeast corner of Renforth Drive and Rathburn Road, and has been occupied by a service station since 1965. The current service station operation includes two self-serve pump islands and a service building containing a gasoline pay point counter, offices, washrooms and three service bays for car maintenance and repair.

 Proposal:

 Shell Canada Limited, the long-term tenant of the existing service station, proposes to convert the existing three bay garage into 100 square metres (1,076 square feet) of accessory retail floor space to accommodate a pay-point counter and a convenience store which would provide food sales by a third party tenant. The balance of the area, approximately 80 square metres (861 square feet) would be devoted to staff offices, washrooms, storage, utility and mechanical areas.

 The proposal does not involve any change to the size of the building, the number of gasoline pumps or the size or location of the existing canopy. However, the appearance of the property would be enhanced with new cladding to the building and canopy areas, new signage and lighting. A new garbage enclosure would be located at the southeast corner of the property and nine parking spaces would be provided at the northeast corner of the property.

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

The lands located to the north, east and south of the site are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and are occupied by single detached homes. The Renforth Mall is located to the west and is zoned Planned Local Commercial (CPL). This mall contains 14 commercial stores including a food store, a bank, a restaurant and convenience stores (Exhibit No. 1).

 Comments:

 Official Plan:

 The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits existing service stations and local retail facilities of a type, scale (not exceeding 1 000 m² [10,764 square feet] of floor space) and orientation related to the surrounding neighbourhood. As the proposed gas bar and accessory retail uses would serve the surrounding residential properties, as well as the travelling public, the proposed development conforms with the Official Plan.

 Zoning Code:

 The subject property is zoned Limited Commercial (CL), as amended by By-law No. 12,821 and Committee of Adjustment Decision A-348/89, which limits permitted uses to a gasoline service station only and permits certain setbacks for the existing canopy, respectively. In addition, the Supplementary Regulations for Service Stations, as outlined in Section 320-21 of the Zoning Code, limits the sale of convenience products from service stations to pop, cigarettes, chips, etc., with a maximum sale area of 20 square metres (215 square feet).

 Therefore, in order to permit a larger accessory retail component (99 metres [1,066 square feet]), offering an expanded range of convenience items and food sales, amendments to the Zoning Code would be required. However, staff are concerned with the potential for more intensive impacts associated with food preparation and sales involving the use of a full commercial kitchen which must include a grease and vapour removal mechanical exhaust system. As such, staff recommend that the amending by-law permit a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with and accessory to a service station operation, with a prohibition on commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of foods. The by-law should also specify a maximum size of 100 square metres (1,066 square feet) for the retail floor space, identify garbage enclosures as a permitted accessory use and repeal By-law No. 12,821.

 Agency Comments:

 The Health Department, Realty Services, Toronto Transit Commission and the Fire Department have expressed no concern with the proposal. No comments have been received from Parks and Recreation Services and Toronto Police Services to date.

 The Transportation Section of the Works Department has advised that the proposed parking supply, driveway layout, on-site circulation and location of the garbage containment enclosure are satisfactory. However, the Rathburn Road driveway radii must be increased and a freestanding, non-illuminated sign at the northeast corner of the property must be relocated to improve site lines (Exhibit No. 5).

 The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that the applicant is required to provide a statement from a qualified environmental consultant confirming that the soil and ground water conditions on the site are suitable for the intended change in use in the building (Exhibit No. 6).

 In order to ensure sufficient screening, buffering and an upgrade to the very limited on-site landscaping, staff of the Urban Development Department recommend that a landscape plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control prior to the passing of by-law, should the application be approved.

 Community Meeting:

 A community meeting was held on March 9, 1998, to allow area residents an opportunity to review the proposal. Concerns expressed by area residents related to traffic; potential 24 hour operation; food sales; impact on existing convenance stores; need for automotive services; possible noise and impact from ventilation/mechanical units; location of parking areas; inadequate customer parking; conflict with existing driveways; on-site safety and security; poor property management practices; and, declining property values. The concerns related to planning matters have been discussed in this report, and will be further reviewed during the Site Plan Control approval process.

Parkland Contribution:

As the existing building is less than 929 m² (l0,000 square feet) in floor area, the two percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution would not apply.

Conclusions:

The proposed gas bar and the accessory retail sale of convenience items and food would be in conformity with the relevant Official Plan policies. The proposed uses are compatible with each other and surrounding land uses and could be accommodated from a design and transportation perspective. However, food services/preparation should be limited to only those items which do not require the use of a commercial kitchen in the preparation of the product. Given the size of the proposal, no impact on surrounding retail operations is anticipated.

 Conditions to Approval:

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

 (i)Receipt of satisfactory comments from Toronto Police Services and Parks and Recreation Services.

 (ii)Confirmation that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Works Department with respect to environmental issues.

 (iii)Submission of a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

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

 (i)The repeal of Zoning By-law No. 12,821.

 (ii)The maximum gross floor area associated with the service station shall not exceed 180 metres (1,927 square feet), of which not more than 100 metres (1,066 sq. ft.) may be used for the retail of convenience items and food sales.

 (iii)Commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of prepared foods shall be prohibited.

 (iv)Parking shall be provided at the rate of 4.5 parking spaces per 93 m² (1000 sq. ft.) and shall include one handicapped space.

(v)Garbage enclosures shall be permitted as an accessory use.

 (vi)Development standards to reflect existing landscaped areas and building, garbage enclosure and canopy setbacks.

 3.Further detailed consideration of the proposed development under the Site Plan Control provisions to include, inter alia, the signing of a Site Control Agreement and payment of financial guarantees and applicable development charges.

Contact Name:

 Paul Zuliani, Area Planner, Development and Design

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

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

 Purpose:

 This report has been prepared to provide additional information to the Etobicoke Community Council as requested at the public meetings of June 25, 1998.

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that the information submitted by Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited on behalf of Shell Canada Limited be received for information in conjunction with the planning reports dated May 27, 1998, which were previously received by the Etobicoke Community Council.

 Background:

 At public meetings held on June 25, 1998, for the abovementioned applications, the Etobicoke Community Council deferred the matters to the meeting of July 22, 1998, in order to receive further information from Shell Canada Limited regarding hours of operation, and grading, security and fencing for the project at 320 Burnhamthorpe Road. The City Solicitor was also requested to provide a report regarding possible restrictions on hours of operation as a result of new legislation pertaining to licensing.

 Walker, Nott, Dragicevic has submitted a letter (Exhibit No. 1) on behalf of Shell Canada Limited indicating that the applicant will not restrict their hours of operation, but would prefer hours of operation to be based on business considerations like other similar retail operations. Insofar as the matters of landscaping, drainage, and screening are concerned, the applicant has indicated that these matters can and will be dealt with at the site plan approval stage. They have also indicated that security and lighting are significant design considerations for the applicant, which will also be addressed at the site plan stage.

 Conclusion:

Staff note that the planning reports dated May 27, 1998, recommended that landscape plans, which would contain grading, fencing, security and landscaping details, be provided to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control prior to the adoption of any zoning by-law. As the conditions of approval contained within the planning reports of May 27, 1998, would adequately deal with the identified issues, except for hours of operation, staff do not recommend any additional development conditions. Any restrictions on hours of operation should be dealt with separately in accordance with the report from the City Solicitor.

 Contact Name:

 Paul Zuliani, Area Planner, Development and Design

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

 The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (July 20, 1998), from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, Etobicoke District:

 Purpose:

 The purpose of this report is to advise you as to whether site specific hours could be implemented by way of licensing.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 None.

 Recommendation:

 This report is received for information only.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 At the Community Council meeting held on June 25, 1998, an application for an amendment to the Zoning Code was considered to permit the conversion of the existing service station garage bays to accessory retail floor space. Concerns were raised by the residents that the retail floor space would be operational 24 hours a day.

 Etobicoke Community Council then inquired as to whether the City could, by way of licensing, regulate the hours of this business on a site specific basis.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 We have reviewed the licensing powers available to the City and have discussed this matter with the solicitor for the Licensing Board. The general licensing provisions of the Municipal Act give the City wide licensing powers. However, the City cannot use these general licensing powers to regulate business hours for site specific locations.

 Conclusions:

 It is not possible to regulate the hours of business of this proposed 24-hour retail shop by means of licensing.

 Contact Name:

 John R. Hart, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitors

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

 (Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-6, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

 The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (February 27, 1998) from Mrs. M. Barnes:

 Received the letter informing me of the applicant proposing to convert the existing service station to retail convenience items and food sales at Rathburn and Renforth.

 I object to having any more stores on the property of the service station at the corner of Renforth and Rathburn.

 There are enough stores on the opposite side of the street to this location. This is a residential area.

 The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (March 12, 1998) from Bridge Investments:

 We are writing on behalf of the tenants of Renforth Mall which is just across the road on the south west corner of the same streets. The tenants (Red & White, Smoke & Gift Shop, Food Stores), are strongly opposed to this development. There is not enough business in the immediate area to warrant more retail outlets.

 We trust you consider the above in connection with the proposed amendment.

 The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (July 22, 1998) from Mr. B. Caplan, Renforth Mall:

 Bridge Investments, the owners of the Renforth Mall directly across from the proposed development, STRONGLY object to having more retail outlets and especially the concept of being open for 24 hours.

 Some of our tenants have invested heavily in their stores and can ill afford any loss in business. They did not contemplate any change in the rules when they opened their stores. The proposed development would be totally unfair to them.

 The idea of any retail outlets being open for 24 hours would be disastrous for the area of Renforth and Rathburn. It is now quiet and peaceful. The 24 hour operation would create noise, loitering, traffic, hangouts and possible vandalism during the night. The homes in the area would certainly complain and Renforth Mall would be adversely affected by the above activities and are VERY concerned.

 In view of the above we trust that the proposed development will not be permitted.

_____

 The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on behalf of the applicant in connection with the foregoing:

-Mr. R. Dragicevic, of Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited, Planning Consultants; and

 -Mr. P. Smith, of Shell Canada Limited.

 The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council expressing concern regarding the proposal:

-Mr. W. Pavlov, opposed to the 24-hour operation and the proposed sale of food items, with the potential for additional littering;

 -Ms. G. Ryckaert, very worried about the 24-hour operation; the noise of squealing tires and loud automobile radios all night, all year; air pollution caused by the increased number of idling vehicles;

 -Mr. J. Lee, opposed to the 24-hour operation, noise of automobiles and motorcycles, additional littering with popcans, food wrappers, etc.;

 -Mr. K. Kim, proprietor of a convenience store in a neighbouring plaza, concerned about the 24-hour operation and the potential for increased vandalism in the plaza with more people in the vicinity during the night;

 -Ms. M. Pavlov, concerned about the 24-hour operation and the introduction of third-party food preparation, such as a doughnut shop;

 -Mr. G. Lee, concerned about the increase in traffic, noise, garbage, and the lowering of property values as a result of the increased commercial use in a residential area; and

 -Mr. B. Caplan, concerned about the 24-hour operation and the potential for creating noise, loitering, traffic, hangouts and possible vandalism during the night.