Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code

File No. Z-2282 (Kingsway-Humber)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (November 9, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application by 840085 Ontario Limited for amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the redevelopment of an existing service station site at 265 Wincott Drive for a one-storey commercial plaza, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on November 9, 1999, 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 also reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1) requested the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, to do a parking study on Waterford Drive at the present time, and a further study six months after the plaza opens, and to submit a report on the findings of the two studies to the Etobicoke Community Council at the appropriate time; and

(2) noted that the applicant has voluntarily agreed to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto, to be registered on title, to restrict the hours of operation to 18 hours a day.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (November 9, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the redevelopment of an existing service station site for a one-storey, 664 m² (7,143 sq ft) commercial plaza.

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 City Council approve the application by 840085 Ontario Limited to amend the Zoning Code to permit the redevelopment of an existing service station site at 265 Wincott Drive for a one-storey, 664 m² (7,143 sq ft) commercial plaza, subject to the holding of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and the conditions outlined in the conclusion to this report.

Background:

In 1962, the subject lands, which are located on the east side of Wincott Drive north of Eglinton Avenue (Exhibit No. 1), were rezoned from Residential Second Density (R2) to Limited Commercial (CL) through enactment of By-law No. 13,173 which limits the use of the property to a service station only. In 1964, the lands were developed with a full-serve gas station, including two repair bays to facilitate minor running repairs.

On December 16, 1998, 840085 Ontario Limited submitted an application to amend By-law No. 13,173 and the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the redevelopment of the property for a retail plaza. The applicant has indicated that the property is no longer economically viable as a gas/service station.

Discussion:

Site and Surrounding Uses:

The subject property is occupied by a full-service gas station, including two automobile repair bays. The property's grade slopes moderately from the south to the north and is somewhat higher than the existing residential lands to the east.

Exhibit No. 1 illustrates zoning classifications for lands surrounding the subject property. Lands to the north, on the opposite side of Waterford Drive, are generally comprised of single family dwellings. Lands located immediately to the south are vacant and form part of the Eglinton Avenue West Corridor. Lands to the east are comprised of low-density residential development. Lands to the west, on the opposite side of Wincott Drive, have been developed with a retail plaza.

Proposal:

840085 Ontario Limited proposes to demolish the existing service station and redevelop the property with a one-storey, commercial plaza. Under the original submission, the building was proposed to be 656 m² (7,060 sq ft) in gross floor area.

Following two community meetings held on the proposed amendments, and at the request of area residents, the applicant revised the proposed site plan by closing up two existing driveways that provide access to the property from Waterford Drive. Landscaped areas would replace the driveway asphalt. Vehicular access to the proposed retail plaza would be accommodated via two driveways from Wincott Drive. The existing southerly driveway would be relocated adjacent to the south property line. The existing northerly driveway on Wincott Drive would be reconfigured and reduced in width to provide one-way outbound movements only (Exhibit No. 2).

The building's footprint has been revised from the original submission to provide for an increased rear yard setback, i.e., from 4.55 m (14.96 ft) to 5.48 m (18 ft), from the adjacent residential property line to the east. In order to achieve approximately the same floor area as originally proposed, the building's length has been increased by 3.26 m (10.69 ft) resulting it being extended to the southerly property line. The location of the building's waste storage/recycling facilities has been revised and incorporated into the building's southerly facade and away from the existing residential dwellings to the north and east (Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3).

Existing landscaped areas would be enhanced through the introduction of additional plant materials and a series of low decorative walls around the perimeter of the site. Additional street trees would be provided to complement on-site landscape improvements along with pedestrian connections to the municipal sidewalk. The applicant would be prepared to install fencing and/or landscaping along the easterly lot line to assist in screening the proposed development from the adjacent residential property to the east. A parapet would screen proposed roof-top mechanical equipment (Exhibit No. 3).

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

Table No. 1

* Based on revisions to the proposed site plan requested by Traffic Planning staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department (see Exhibit No. 6).

Official Plan and Zoning Code:

Official Plan.

The subject lands are designated Low Density Residential in the Etobicoke Official Plan. Local retail uses that serve area residents are permitted within Low Density Residential areas provided such development does not exceed 1 000 m² (10,764 sq ft) in gross floor area, subject to evaluation of the criteria set out in Section 4.2.22 of the Plan. An evaluation of the criteria is contained in Exhibit No. 4 of this report.

Staff concluded that the subject property meets the Official Plan criteria for commercial uses in Low Density Residential areas. As such, an amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan is not required.

Zoning Code.

In 1962, the subject property was rezoned from Residential Second Density (R2) to Limited Commercial (CL) with its use limited to a service station only. An amendment to the Zoning Code and By-law No. 13,173 is necessary to permit the proposed plaza and Limited Commercial (CL) uses.

Amendments to Sections 320-79 B. (3) and C. (1) of the Etobicoke Zoning Code would be necessary to permit the proposed commercial plaza to be constructed 5.4 m (18 ft) from the easterly property line and immediately adjacent to the southerly property line.

The applicant has advised that no specific tenant arrangements have been made, to date, with respect to the rental of the proposed commercial units.

At the time of application, the applicant had requested the following Limited Commercial (CL) uses:

Bakery shops; banks; clothes cleaning, laundry agencies, pressing establishments, and dry cleaning shops using non-combustible cleaning solvents; confectionery and convenience stores; florist shops; gift shops; custom dressmaking, millinery, shoe, clothing, and apparel stores; jewellery stores; business and professional offices; photographers; tailors; health centres; commercial schools; standard, convenience, and take-out restaurants under 150 m² (1,614 sq ft); medical and dental centres and offices; and neighbourhood/retail stores, including a video store.

The applicants had specifically deleted the following Limited Commercial (CL) uses from the original submission: 24-hour restaurants and convenience stores; amusement devices/game establishments; new and used car/trailer sales centres; bowling alleys; athletic and social clubs; and nursery schools.

As a result of community meetings and meetings with City staff, the applicant has agreed to further terms as noted under the community meeting discussion contained in this report and reflected in the draft by-law attached (Exhibit No. 9).

Agency/Department Circulation:

(i) Traffic Planning Division, Works and Emergency Services Department.

Traffic Planning staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department have reviewed the findings of the consultants retained by the applicant to review the development proposal from a transportation planning perspective. The study determined that the proposed development would have no significant impact on the level of service of the surrounding road network. Traffic Planning staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department concurs with the consultant's findings.

In order to provide an adequate passenger and service vehicles turning path, the applicant will be required to make revisions to the proposed parking driveway layout that will result in the loss of one parking space; however, the site will still accommodate a two space parking surplus.

Based on higher parking space requirements, Traffic Planning staff recommend that the following uses be prohibited: restaurants greater than 150 m² of gross floor area; health/fitness clubs; bowling alleys; theatres/cinemas; commercial schools; social clubs; and, medical/dental offices (Exhibit No. 5). These restrictions have been reflected in the draft by-law.

(ii) Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services Department.

The Technical Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has advised that the developer will be financially responsible for all work within the road allowances and will be required to apply for service connections within the road allowance. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer must submit a lot grading plan showing existing and proposed elevations and enter into an agreement with the City, including the posting of a bond to guarantee completion of the grading and any other service required. The proposed driveways and sidewalks are to be constructed in accordance with City standards. Solid Waste Management, including recycling, is subject to review and requirements of the Solid Waste Management Services Division. The applicant will be required to submit environmental (soil and groundwater) information for peer review, prior to the implementation of the amending by-law (Exhibits Nos. 6 and 6a).

(iii) Toronto Transit Commission.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has advised that the proposal is considered to be appropriate from a transit viewpoint. The applicant should be aware that a future subway line has been protected in the Eglinton Avenue right-of-way, adjacent to the subject property. Although there are currently no plans to build the line, the applicant should be aware that it is possible for noise, vibration, and electro-magnetic fields to be transmitted from transit facilities or structures. Transit staff suggest that the developer consider applying attenuation measures so that the levels of noise, vibration, and magnetic fields that could be transmitted to the subject development will be at the lowest levels technically feasible. The developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, through a clause in the purchase or lease agreements, of the potential for noise, vibration and/or electro-magnetic fields and that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such effects (Exhibit No. 7).

(iv) Toronto Fire Services.

Toronto Fire Services staff have advised that the applicant will be responsible for ensuring that the proposal meets the requirements on the Ontario Building Code (Exhibit No. 8).

The other circulated agencies either did not object or did not comment on the proposal.

Community Meetings:

On February 10, 1999 and May 13, 1999, community meetings were held to provide residents with the opportunity to view the proposed plans and comment on the proposal. Concerns expressed by the residents included: loss of the existing full-serve gas station; existing traffic conditions on Wincott Drive; future traffic problems arising from the proposed development; the proposed building's proximity to the dwelling to the east, and the range of proposed commercial uses, including 24-hour uses. One resident in attendance indicated her support for the proposed development citing the reason of not having to walk across Wincott Drive to reach commercial facilities. Prior to the first community meeting, the owners of the adjacent commercial plaza advised of their support for the project.

The majority of residents attending the second community meeting indicated that they were against the following uses: clothes cleaning and laundry agencies, pressing establishments, and dry cleaning plants using non-combustible cleaning solvents; confectionery and convenience stores; commercial schools; standard, convenience, and take-out restaurants; and video stores.

Planning staff noted that business uses and gross floor area of the development can be regulated through the amending by-law. With respect to the issue of regulating business hours of operation, the City Solicitor has advised that such restrictions cannot be implemented through the zoning by-law. The applicant has agreed, however, to include such restrictions within lease agreements with future tenants. The City Solicitor is examining the legal means for implementing such an arrangement, prior to the passing of the amending by-law.

In an effort to address some of the concerns noted by the residents and meetings with staff and the area Councillor, the applicant revised the site plan to that being considered in this report and has agreed to the following:

(1) to delete commercial schools and health centres from the list of Limited Commercial (CL) uses;

(2) to restrict business uses, including video/convenience stores, to a maximum hour of operation of 18 hours per day, closing no later than midnight; and

(3) to restrict the restaurant uses to a maximum gross floor area of 150m²/1,614 sq ft (Exhibit No. 10).

On October 6, 1999, a third community meeting was held by Ward Councillors to review the latest site plan that was prepared to address the site planning issues raised by residents during previous community meetings. Residents were advised of the additional concessions the applicant had agreed to since the second community meeting.

It appeared that the residents in attendance were generally satisfied with the latest proposal. Staff noted that concerns raised at the meeting related primarily to vehicle speeds and "cut-through" traffic.

Traffic staff indicated that the proposed development would have no significant impact on the level of service of the surrounding road network. Residents were advised that the issues of vehicle speeds and "cut-through" traffic are separate operational issues not related to the development proposal.

Planning Considerations:

Staff have concluded that the proposed development meets the Official Plan criteria for commercial uses in low-density residential areas. The property is currently being used for commercial purposes (i.e., a full-service gas station). The current proposal is only replacing one type of commercial development for another. A copy of the draft zoning by-law amendment is attached as Exhibit No. 9.

From a site plan perspective, the proposed one-storey commercial building would be located in the general location of the existing service station building and the number of driveways currently serving the site would be reduced from four to two. The applicant is also proposing significant improvements to on-site and boulevard landscape treatment, as part of the project.

As the property is under Site Plan Control, the applicant would be required to submit detailed site, landscape, floor, and elevation plans, in the event that the subject rezoning application is approved.

Additional Considerations:

As the proposed retail plaza is less than 929 m² (10,000 sq ft) in gross floor area, the City's 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution policy would not apply.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that application be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions to Approval:

(1) Prior to the enactment of the amending by-law, confirmation be received from the Works and Emergency Services Department that any environmental issues have been satisfactorily addressed and the proposal is to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Services Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, Toronto Hydro, Bell Canada and the Toronto Police Service.

(2) Implementation of a legal means at the applicant's expense to address the issue of lease restrictions (re: hours of operation and no 24-hr. uses) to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to the enactment of the amending by-law.

(3) The amending by-law shall repeal By-law No. 13,173, reaffirm the property's Limited Commercial (CL) zoning, and provide, inter alia:

(i) the redevelopment of the lands shall be limited to the construction of one commercial building with a maximum gross floor area of 656 m² and shall be developed in accordance with the Limited Commercial (CL) provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code;

(ii) notwithstanding Section 2(i) and Sections 320-79 B(3) and C(1) of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, the building shall maintain a minimum setback of 5.4 m (18 ft) from the easterly rear property line and 0.0 m from the southerly side property line; and

(iii) notwithstanding Section 2(i) of the by-law and Section 320-91 B(1) of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, permitted use shall be limited to the following:

Bakery shops; banks; clothes cleaning, laundry agencies, pressing establishments, and dry cleaning shops using non-combustible cleaning solvents; confectionery and convenience stores; florist shops; gift shops; custom dressmaking, millinery, shoe, clothing, and apparel stores; jewellery stores; business and professional offices; photographers; tailors; one standard or convenience or take-out restaurant under 150 m² (1,614 sq ft); neighbourhood/retail stores, including a video store.

(4) Further detailed consideration of the proposed development under the Site Plan Control provisions to include, inter alia, the signing of a Site Control Agreement, submission of finalized site and landscape plans, including details on parking, pedestrian connections, lighting, screening, handicapped accessibility, waste storage facilities, street trees, and the payment of an appropriate financial guarantee and applicable development charges.

Contact:

Brian van den Brink, Planner, Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8239; Fax: (416)394-6063

_______

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

(i) (October 28, 1999) from Dr. Lorne G. McConnell, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the proposed amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code;

(ii) (October 28, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. William Bince, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to the proposed amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code; and

(iii) (October 26, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Walter Koturbash, Etobicoke, submitting comments and a petition signed by area residents in opposition to the proposed amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code.

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

- Mr. Adam Brown, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant;

- Mr. G. Bolton, Etobicoke, expressing concerns regarding the closing hour of operation of the plaza and the proliferation of stores in the area;

- Mr. Rob Summers, Etobicoke, commenting that since the proposal does not include an area for delivery trucks, they could block fire routes and occupy public parking spaces;

- Mr. William Bince, Etobicoke, expressing concern that the plaza wall will be a visual barrier, and that there could also be problems with excessive water run-off, noise, and lighting;

- Mr. Bob Nicholls, Etobicoke, commenting that he is strongly against approval of any development other than residential;

- Mr. Mjkola Baldeckyj, Etobicoke, opposing the application; and

- Mr. Brian Eddy, Etobicoke, supporting residential development of the site.

Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway-Humber, at the meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council on November 9, 1999, declared an interest in the foregoing report, in that he resides in the notification area for the subject property.

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 3 to 10, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November 9, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)