TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on May 13 and 14, 1998
ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 5
1All-Way Stop Study: Wimbleton Road and St. Georges Road
2Request for Refund of Payment-In-Lieu of Parking at 2974 Bloor Street West - Dr. M.
Henderson
3Toronto Congress Centre - Request to Install Landscapingon the Public Road
Allowance at 650 Dixon Road
443 Blair Athol Crescent - Request by Residents for Assistance in Planting a Cedar
Hedge for Noise Pollution Control
5Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction: Dundas Street Westto Bloor Street West -
Schedule "B" Class Environmental Study Report, March 1998
6Proposed Construction of Sidewalk on Goswell Road
7Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls:Queen's Plate Drive and Vice Regent
Boulevard
8Payment-In-Lieu of Parking - Mr. I. Isajev,176 Royal York Road
9Redesignation of Traffic Lanes on Rathburn Road between The East Mall and the
Mimico Creek to include Bicycle Lanes
10School Safety Zone: Denfield Street
11Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Victoria Street
121998 Membership in Ontario Traffic Conference
13Etobicoke Fire Route By-Laws
14Special Occasion Permits - Centennial Park
15Forestry and Turf Enhancement on Kingsmill Road
16City of Toronto - Ontario Municipal Board Decision Involving Cantron Industries
Limited, OMB File No. PL971249
17City of Toronto Re: F-F Construction Limited and Charles and Pauline Sammut,
1386-1392 Islington Avenue
18Construction Management Plan for Proposed Commercial/Apartment Building -
Eden Oak Homes Ltd. (Skeens Lane) 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard West
19Harvey Sawh, 63-65 Winterton Drive - File No. Z-2261
20Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Toys R Us, 690 Evans Avenue - File
No. Z-2260
21Application for Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Code -Zanini
Developments, 4185 Dundas Street West
22 Thistletown Multi-Service Centre Board of Directors
23 Other Items Considered by the Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 5
OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on May 6 and 7, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on May 13 and 14, 1998
1
All-Way Stop Study: Wimbleton Road and St. Georges Road
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by:
(1)deleting from Recommendation No. (1) of the Etobicoke Community Council the
number"(1)", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:
(1)Recommendations (2), (3) and (5) of the following report (May6,1998) from the
Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, be adopted;"; and
(2)adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that 'all-way' stop signs be installed at the Wimbleton Road and
St.Georges Road intersection.")
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:
(1)recommendations (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the following report (May6,1998) from the
Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, be adopted;
(2)school crossing lines be painted across Wimbleton Road; and
(3)St. Georges Road be designated as a school zone and the speed reduced to 40 km/h:
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works,
Etobicoke District:
(i)to consider making the "curve" warning sign larger than normal;
(ii)to obtain a written undertaking from Kingsway College School that they will continue their
supervision of students crossing Wimbleton Road; and
(iii)to report back to the Etobicoke Community Council in six months with respect to the
effect of the foregoing recommendations.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To address concerns with respect to the speed and volume of vehicular traffic at the
intersection of St.Georges Road and Wimbleton Road, and in the vicinity of Kingsway
College School.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate warning signs are allocated in the
Transportation Department's 1998 Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) all-way stop controls not be installed at the intersection of Wimbleton Road and
St.GeorgesRoad;
(2)the Toronto Police Service be requested to consider the introduction of the School Crossing
Guard Programme or the School Patroller Programme on Wimbleton Road immediately in
front of Kingsway College School, in consultation with the school administration;
(3)subject to the outcome of the Toronto Police Service review of the pedestrian crossing
conditions on Wimbleton Road in front of Kingsway College School, staff will examine the
need for the implementation of alternative traffic management measures in conjunction with
the implementation of the preferred pedestrian crossing assistance programme, in consultation
with concerned residents, school administrators and the Toronto Police Service;
(4)a "hidden intersection" sign be installed on Wimbleton Road, south of St. Georges Road,
for northbound traffic; and
(5)a "curve" warning sign and a 30 km/h advisory speed tab be installed on WimbletonRoad,
north of St. Georges Road, for southbound traffic.
Council Reference:
The Etobicoke Community Council, at its February 18, 1998, meeting, received a
communication from Mr. I. Nishisato, President, Humber Valley Village Residents'
Association. In his letter, Mr.Nishisato raised concerns with respect to the speed and volume
of vehicular traffic at the intersection of St. Georges Road and Wimbleton Road, and in the
vicinity of Kingsway College School. The communication was referred to the Commissioner
of Works with a request for a report. A map of the area is Attachment No.1.
Comments and Discussion:
Wimbleton Road and St. Georges Road are classified as local roads. Each has a roadway
width of approximately 7 metres, providing one lane of traffic per direction. The posted speed
limit on Wimbleton Road is 40 km/h; the speed limit on St. Georges road is 50 km/h. There
are no sidewalks on either of these roadways. The intersection of Wimbleton Road and
St.GeorgesRoad has three municipal approaches to the north, south, and east. The west
approach is the private driveway toSt.George's-on-the-Hill Church. For purposes of this
report, the intersection of Wimbleton Road and St. Georges Road will include the church
driveway and will be considered as an intersection with four approaches. Kingsway College
School is located on the west side of Wimbleton Road immediately north of Dundas Street
West.
To assess traffic conditions at the intersection of Wimbleton Road and St. Georges Road, and
on Wimbleton Road in front of Kingsway College School, the following information was
obtained:
(1)Turning movement counts, conducted on March 26, 1998, at the intersection
ofWimbletonRoad and St. Georges Road.
(2)Intersection Capacity Analysis: Wimbleton Road and St. Georges Road.
(3)Radar speed studies, conducted on March 26, 1998, on Wimbleton Road, mid-block
between Dundas Street West and St. Georges Road; St. Georges Road, mid-block
betweenWimbletonRoad and Canterbury Road on October 7, 1997, and March 26, 1998.
(4)A vehicle collision summary for the period January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1997.
The following chart summarizes the results of the turning movement counts undertaken
onMarch26,1998, at the intersection of Wimbleton Road and St. Georges Road.
Turning Movement Count Summary
Date: Thursday March 26, 1998
|
TIME |
N/B |
S/B |
E/B
@
D/W |
W/B |
N/B + S/B
TOTAL |
TOTAL
ENTERING
INTERSECTION |
BALANCE
OF FLOW
N-S/E-W |
| 7-8 AM |
35 |
25 |
3 |
10 |
60 |
73 |
82/18 |
| 8-9 AM |
109 |
80 |
79 |
27 |
189 |
295 |
64/36 |
| 3-4 PM |
124 |
41 |
32 |
37 |
165 |
234 |
71/29 |
| 4-5 PM |
95 |
31 |
90 |
20 |
126 |
236 |
54/46 |
| TOTAL |
363 |
177 |
204 |
94 |
540 |
838 |
64/36 |
| VEH/H |
91 |
44 |
51 |
24 |
135 |
210 |
N/A |
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)a total of 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.
As noted in the turning movement count summary, the peak hour at this intersection is 8:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The total vehicle volume on all approaches during this hour is 295 vehicles
and the vehicle volume split is 64/36. Although the volume split does meet the warrant
requirement, the vehicle volume fails to meet the minimum requirement necessary to satisfy
the vehicle volume warrant. Attachment No. 2 summarizes the peak hour turning movement
data.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
The results of the capacity analysis for the intersection of Wimbleton Road and St. Georges
Road indicate that this intersection functions very efficiently at level of Service A, during the
peak hour conditions. The intersection approach delay to motorists is minimal and the
potential for vehicular conflict is very low.
Notwithstanding the results of the vehicular volume study and capacity analysis, there are a
number of conditions that must also be addressed when considering the introduction of all-
way stop controls at an intersection. The stop sign installation guidelines provided in the
Highway Traffic Act, Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, indicate that All-Way
Stop Controls should not be used under the following conditions:
1.Where pedestrian protection, in particular school children, is a prime concern, as this
concern can usually be addressed by other means;
2.As a speed control device;
3.At intersections having less than three or more than four approaches;
4.At offset or poorly defined intersections;
5.On truck or bus routes unless in an industrial area where two such routes cross;
6.On multi-laned approaches where a parked or stopped vehicle on the right will obscure the
stop sign;
7.Where traffic would be required to stop on grades;
8.As a method of deterring the movement of through traffic in a residential area;
9.Where visibility of the sign is hampered by curves or grades and a safe stopping distance of
less than 100 metres exists; and
10.Where any other traffic device controlling right-of-way is permanently in place
within250metres, with the exception of a Yield sign.
Three of these conditions are of concern at the intersection of Wimbleton Road and
St.GeorgesRoad: the roadway grade at the intersection; the driver visibility of the intersection,
and the safe stopping distance requirement on approach to the intersection; and the
intersection definition.
This intersection is located on a relatively steep grade. The installation of a stop control is not
considered where grade is a factor because it inhibits the ability of a driver to start and, more
importantly, stop a vehicle on a grade, particularly during inclement weather when pavement
conditions are hazardous. The horizontal curve on the southbound approach and the vertical
curve on the northbound approach reduce a driver's visibility of the intersection to
approximately 70metres, 25 metres below the recommended safe stopping distance of 100
metres. Compounding the visibility issue is the poor definition of this intersection. Unlike
more recently developed intersections where the roads are generally wider and curbs and
sidewalks have been constructed, these roads are narrow and treed or landscaped to the road's
edges reflecting the more rural character of the neighbourhood. These features make the
intersection less discernible to an approaching motorist.
Grade becomes an even greater factor at this location when the sight distance to the
intersection is reduced and the intersection is poorly defined. The combination of these factors
makes this intersection a poor candidate for the installation of an all-way stop control.
Requiring the drivers and pedestrians on St. Georges Road and the church driveway to stop
and yield the right-of-way to motorists on Wimbleton Road ensures that these conditions do
not become a safety factor at this intersection.
Pedestrian Activity/School Zone
During the study it was noted that on several occasions throughout the day a large number of
students crossed Wimbleton Road between the Kingsway College School and the playground
located on the east side of the road. In September 1997, staff, in consultation with the
administration of the school, upgraded the school zone advanced warning signs on
WimbletonRoad, in front of the school. The pedestrian crossing issue was discussed at this
time and staff referred the school administration to the appropriate contact in the Toronto
Police Service to discuss the merits of introducing the School Crossing Guard and School
Patroller Programmes at this location. Representatives of the police Community
Services-Education Unit met with the school administration and examined the pedestrian
crossing activity in front of the school. The police concluded that the use of school patrollers
would be suitable at this location; however, the school did not implement the programme. By
virtue of recommendation (2) in this report, this issue will be forwarded to the Toronto Police
Service for consideration and the school's administration will have the opportunity to
re-examine this option.
There appears to be some question among area residents as to whether or not St. Georges
Road is considered to be a school zone. Only roads immediately adjacent to a school are
considered to be school zones. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
clearly states that "where a school is contiguous to a highway or arterial street, it is considered
advisable to provide advance warning to motorists that they are approaching an area where
children walk along, or may cross, the roadway, and that they are required to exercise caution
and foresight in proceeding through these areas." School zones are denoted with blue and
white signs displaying the silhouette of two school children. Based on the MUTCD definition,
Wimbleton Road is considered to be the school zone and a review of the area indicates that all
the required warning signs are in place.
Radar Speed Studies
Radar speed studies conducted on Wimbleton Road, mid-block between Dundas Street West
and St.Georges Road, on March 26, 1998, between the hours of 7:00-9:00 a.m., and 3:00-5:00
p.m. indicated an average speed of 39 km/h. The average speed of vehicles recorded at this
location that proceeded straight through the intersection of St.GeorgesRoad was 40 km/h.
Since the posted speed limit on this roadway is 40 km/h, these results are well within
acceptable levels.
Radar speed studies conducted on St. Georges Road, mid-block between Wimbleton Road and
Canterbury Road, on October 7, 1998, between 7:00-10:00 a.m. and 3:00-5:00 p.m. indicated
an average speed of 32 km/h. The results of the study conducted on March 26, 1998, were
consistent with results of the study completed on October 7, 1998. Vehicle speeds on this
roadway are well below the legal speed limit of 50 km/h.
Vehicle Collission Summary
The vehicle collision summary has indicated that one reportable accident occurred at the
intersection of Wimbleton Road and St. Georges Road during the past three years. It occurred
onSeptember4,1997, when a vehicle travelling westbound on St. Georges Road struck a
vehicle travelling southbound on Wimbleton Road at approximately 30 km/h. There were no
injuries or property damage, however, the driver of the westbound vehicle was charged with
careless driving.
Conclusions:
Based on the results of these studies, the installation of all-way stop controls at this
intersection cannot be recommended. Traffic volumes at the intersection of Wimbleton Road
and St.GeorgesRoad do not meet the minimum requirements of the Ministry of Transportation
of Ontario all-way stop control warrants: the results of the radar speed studies clearly indicate
that motorists are driving in a safe and responsible manner on Wimbleton Avenue in this
school zone, and on St. Georges Road. Although an all-way stop control does strictly control
right-of-way in an intersection it also affords road users the ultimate level of access to an
intersection in that pedestrians and motorists enjoy the benefit of priority access to an
intersection. The safety of a pedestrian or a driver lawfully entering an intersection cannot be
compromised by challenging the ability of a driver to stop a motor vehicle on a grade,
particularly where visibility is a concern.
Contact Name:
Gwyn Thomas, Manager - Traffic and Parking Operations,
Transportation and Engineering Planning Division.,
(416) 394-8414, Fax 394-8942.
_____
The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had
before it the following communications:
-(April 28, 1998) from Mrs. C. Moore, Vice-Chair, Kingsway College School Parent
Network; and
-(April 2, 1998) from Mr. T. Rouse, Parish Council Representative, St. George's-on-the-Hill
Anglican Church.
_____
The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with
the foregoing matter:
-Mr. I. Nishisato, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association;
-Mr. D. Richards, Kingsway College School; and
-Mrs. C. Moore, Vice-Chair, Kingsway College School Parent Network.
(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 May 6,
1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing
Clause, the following communication (May 13, 1998) from Councillor Blake F. Kinahan,
Lakeshore-Queensway:
Councillor Lindsay-Luby is asking that this matter be referred back. In support of that request
is correspondence 2(f) from the Humber Valley Village Residents' Association. I received, as
well, the attached correspondence from Kingsway College School.
I am opposed to the referral back.
When you read the two letters together, it would appear that the only "procedural
irregularity" was one Council Member being absent from the Chamber because of a phone
call. That is not a procedural irregularity. The two letters taken together smack almost of
"judge shopping", a practice sometimes attempted by trial lawyers. What is to say that
another Council Member will not be out of the Chamber next time.
I supported the staff recommendation not to put in the all-way stop because if you put up stops
signs where they are not warranted, the public will tend to have less respect for stop signs.
We already have a current problem with the public running red lights. Let's not exacerbate
the problem of cars stopping on side streets too.
The Etobicoke Community Council supported most of the staff recommendations and added
further ones to see if the problems at the intersection could be alleviated. A further look is to
take place in six months. So, the matter will be back before Etobicoke Community Council in
due course.)
(A copy of the communication (May 7, 1998) from Mr. D. Richards, Headmaster, Kingsway
College School, referred to in the foregoing communication, is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.)
(City Council, also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a
communication (May6, 1998) from Mr. I. Nishisato, The Humber Valley Village Residents'
Association, regarding the report on the all-way stop at Wimbleton Road and St.Georges
Road and requesting that the matter be referred back to the Etobicoke Community Council for
further consideration.)
2
Request for Refund of Payment-In-Lieu of Parking at
2974 Bloor Street West - Dr. M. Henderson
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works,
Etobicoke District, to determine from the City Solicitor whether Dr. Henderson still has the
option of making application to the Committee of Adjustment for a parking variance.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
Report on the staff and solicitor's evaluation of the request made by Dr. Maureen Henderson
for a refund of the $10,000.00 payment made in-lieu of the provision of parking, and
associated application fee, which was required as a condition for the establishment of a
medical office use in a building municipally known as 2974 Boor Street West.
Financial Implications:
Council's approval of this request will require the refund of a $10,000.00 payment-in-lieu of
parking and the $200.00 application fee.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council deny the request.
Background and History:
In June 1997, the applicant, Dr. M. Henderson, applied to the former City of Etobicoke for
exemption to the parking provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code in order to be permitted to
operate medical offices within a retail designated use at 2974 Bloor Street West.
On July 11, 1997, Council for the former City of Etobicoke approved Clause 131 of the
Thirteenth Report of the Works and Environment Committee 1997 (Attachment No. 1)
thereby granting Dr.Henderson an exemption of five (5) vehicle parking stalls from the
requirements of the City of Etobicoke Zoning Code, conditional upon a payment-in-lieu of the
parking, of $10,000.00. The payment-in-lieu of parking was paid by certified cheque on July
14, 1997. The applicant signed and submitted the payment-in-lieu of parking agreement the
same day (Attachment No. 2). Permits were subsequently issued for Dr. Henderson to proceed
with the project.
Comments and Discussion:
Following occupancy of the facilities and a subsequent correspondence to the former City of
Etobicoke Council dated October 31, 1997, Dr. Henderson filed an objection to the
application of the payment-in-lieu of parking policy at this location and requested a refund of
the $10,000.00 payment-in-lieu of parking plus the $200.00 payment-in-lieu of parking
application fee(AttachmentNo.3). A copy of Dr. Henderson's correspondence was forwarded
to the City Solicitor for review and comment.
In correspondence dated December 1, 1997, the City Solicitor informed Works Department
staff that there is no legal requirement for the municipality to provide a refund (Attachment
No. 4).
On December 16, 1997, the Director of the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division
met with Drs. Maureen and Donald Henderson, at their request. The process and rationale for
the City's payment-in-lieu of parking policy and the higher parking requirements for
medical/dental offices was once again reviewed. Notwithstanding, the applicant(s) indicated
that they wanted the matter referred to Etobicoke Community Council.
Conclusions:
The City Solicitor advised that staff gave the applicant the choice of obtaining a parking
variance from the Committee of Adjustment or applying to City Council for an exemption
under the terms and conditions of the city's payment-in-lieu of parking policy. The applicant
chose the latter route, and the City Solicitor has noted that granting a refund would nullify the
parking exemption previously granted by City of Etobicoke Council and make the existing
use non-conforming. Based on all of the foregoing it is the opinion of staff that it would be
inappropriate to refund the cash-in-lieu of parking payment and associated application fee.
Contact Name:
Mr. D. Gulli, Director, -Transportation and Engineering Planning Division
(416) 394-8409; 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 May 6,
1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
_____
The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with
the foregoing matter:
-Dr. D. J. Henderson; and
-Dr. M. Henderson.
3
Toronto Congress Centre - Request to Install Landscaping
on the Public Road Allowance at 650 Dixon Road
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To authorize, in principle, the installation of landscaping on the public road allowance
betweenCityView Drive and Dixon Road adjacent to Toronto Congress Centre.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Toronto Congress Centre is located near Pearson International Airport, is highly visible from
two main thoroughfares and often hosts domestic and international visitors to the City. The
proposed landscaping will greatly improve the aesthetics of the area. The Congress Centre is
also requesting permission to provide a high level of maintenance for the whole section of
road allowance relieving the City of approximately $300 in annual maintenance costs.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)The request to install landscaping on the public road allowance be approved; and
(2)The City Solicitor be instructed to prepare an appropriate license agreement.
Background:
In an April 1, 1998 letter to the City (Attachment No. 1 & 2), Toronto Congress Centre
requested permission to install approximately 1500 square metres of landscaping, primarily
consisting of vegetation, on a peninsula of road allowance opposite the main entrance to the
Congress Centre (Attachment No. 3). The proposal also includes a small cluster of
approximately 10 trees and a six foot high decorative light post.
Comments and Discussion:
The site is currently a vacant area of road allowance requiring litter removal by City staff and
receiving the standard six cuts of grass per year by the City's contractor. The applicant wishes
to install streetscape improvements similar to the landscaping on Congress Centre property in
order to enhance the appearance of his business. The Congress Centre will bear all costs
associated with installing and maintaining the landscaping and general maintenance of the
site.
Toronto Congress Centre will be required to enter into a license agreement requiring that the
City be insured against liability claims and stating that the Centre would not be entitled to
damages should the City or a public utility company find it necessary to remove any portion
of the landscaping. The Congress Centre will satisfy the City and public utility companies
regarding the exact extent and location of all components.
Conclusions:
The proposed vegetation will not obstruct access to the road allowance and will result in
greatly enhanced aesthetics for the area at no cost to the City. These improvements are
mutually beneficial to the City and Toronto Congress Centre.
Contact Name:
Doug Robertson, Budget/Road Allowance Co-Ordinator
Building Operations, Fleet & Administration.
(416) 394-8360; Fax 394-8942.
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report, were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council Meeting of May
6, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
4
43 Blair Athol Crescent - Request by Residents for Assistance
in Planting a Cedar Hedge for Noise Pollution Control
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To provide Community Council with further information respecting a request from the owners
of 43Blair Athol Crescent for financial assistance, or alternatively, a donation in kind toward a
cedar hedge in front of their fence along Kipling Avenue.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the City not provide financial assistance or a donation in kind toward a cedar hedge at
43BlairAtholCrescent; and
(2)a copy of this report be forwarded to Mr. and Mrs. Anton Tucker, owners of the
above-noted property.
Council Reference/Background:
At its meeting of April 1, 1998, Community Council received a report from Works and
Emergency Services (Transportation and Engineering Planning), as well as Parks and
Recreation Services (Forestry and Horticulture), respecting a request from the owners of 43
Blair Athol Crescent (Attachments Nos. 1a and 1b). Community Council received both
reports and requested the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation and
Engineering Planning Division, to submit a further report for its meeting of May 6, 1998.
Comments:
Streetscape management for Kipling Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the former Metro
Transportation Department, Streetscape Division. Staff from this department has advised that
private plantings on City property require a Streetscape Permit, which can be obtained from
the Road Allowance Control Section. Once an application is received, it is circulated to
various departments for comment. A permit, which will include a caveat for continued
maintenance, is issued upon approval. The cost for the permit is $214 (includes GST). The
Road Allowance Control Section has confirmed that a permit application has not been
received from Mr. or Mrs. Tucker at43BlairAtholCrescent.
Although the City is not in a position to provide financial assistance or a donation in kind,
there may be other sources available.
1.The Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests Program (LEAF) is a project designed
to enhance public awareness on the value of our urban forest and its contribution to the
economic and environmental well-being of our communities. Further details on the
organization are provided in Attachment No. 2. This group can be contacted at 413-9244.
(The LEAF program is at capacity for its 1998 program, however, there may be opportunities
in 1999.)
2.Canada Trust Friends of the Environment (information available at any local branch).
3.Local naturalist groups (e.g., West Humber Naturalist Group).
It is not the policy of the City to liaise with these groups regarding their activities. However,
should Mr. and Mrs. Tucker decide to pursue alternative opportunities, these sources may be
of assistance to them.
Conclusions:
Although the City is sympathetic to the noise and air pollution problems associated with
residing along a major transportation corridor, it is inappropriate to provide financial
assistance, or alternatively a donation in kind, as this implies ownership of the problem and
establishes a precedent for future claims against the City. It is recommended that the owners
of 43 Blair Athol Crescent explore other opportunities in their effort to secure plantings along
their fence line adjacent toKiplingAvenue Boulevard.
Contact Name:
Judy Dunstan, MCIP, Special Projects Co-ordinator
(416) 394-8408; 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 May 6,
1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
5
Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction: Dundas Street West
to Bloor Street West - Schedule "B" Class Environmental
Study Report, March 1998
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To report on the findings of the Environmental Assessment Study for Prince Edward Drive
between Dundas Street West and Bloor Street West, prepared by the Etobicoke District Works
and Emergency Services Department. The complete study is circulated under separate cover.
Funding Sources:
Funds have been included in the 1998 Capital Budget - Transportation.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)this report and the "Prince Edward Drive Reconstruction - Dundas Street West to
BloorStreet West, Schedule 'B' Class Environmental Study Report," March 1998, be received;
and
(2)staff be authorized to proceed with the design of Prince Edward Drive at the 7.3 m (24 ft)
width as recommended by Etobicoke Community Council at the Budget Meeting held on
March 25, 1998.
Background:
In February 1997, the former Council for the City of Etobicoke approved the Works
Department 1997 Capital Budget and nine-year projections, including the reconstruction of
Prince Edward Drive between Dundas Street West and Bloor Street West, in 1998.
In preparation for the reconstruction of the road, and at the request of the area Councillor, the
community, and the Kingsway Park Ratepayers Incorporated, a detailed study programme was
prepared to ensure community involvement in every aspect of the planning process for the
road reconstruction project. An environmental study was subsequently prepared by an
interdisciplinary study team comprised of staff from the Etobicoke District Works and
Emergency Services Department, pursuant to the requirements of a Schedule "B"
Environmental Assessment. However, the study programme exceeded the legislative
requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act to respond to the community and area
Councillor's request for a comprehensive study process. While many meetings were held by
staff with a work/focus group that had been established by Kingsway Park Ratepayers and the
area Councillor, three public meetings were also organized during the study period. The
Terms of Reference and the rationale for the project were presented to the public at the first
public meeting. Three design alternatives were presented at a second meeting, and the
preferred design was presented at the third public meeting.
As a result of the public input received on the preferred design at the third meeting held
onSeptember24, 1997, the study team concluded that Alternative 3, 8 .5 m (28 ft) wide,
two-lane cross-section with grassed drainage swales, was the preferred design for the project,
as shown below:
Following the September 24, 1997 meeting, and for several months thereafter, staff received
many letters from the residents documenting their comments on the study and the preferred
design. The underlying issue from all the comments received was the community's desire for
the road pavement width to be no greater than 7.3 m (24 ft). In order to address this issue and
not compromise the safety of all road users, including cyclists, staff developed two modified
alternatives to Alternative3: Alternative 3A and Alternative 3B.
Alternative 3A provides for the width of each of the two driving lanes to be 3.65 m (12 ft),
with the edge of the driving lane defined by pavement markings. A 0.6 m (2 ft) road-side
shoulder on both sides of the road would provide for the lateral support of the pavement
structure, as well as the lateral clearance required for the safe movement of two-way traffic.
Alternative 3B provides for the width of each of the two driving lanes to be 3.65 m (12 ft),
with a0.6m (2 ft) impressed (colour) concrete shoulder. This scheme would again provide for
the lateral support and clearance required for the safe movement of two-way traffic.
Alternatives 3A and 3B are not included in the Class Environmental Assessment Report since
they were developed as a result of the comments received from the public and members of
Council following the determination of the preferred design.
Discussion:
On March 25, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council convened to discuss the City of
Toronto's proposed 1998 Capital and Operating Budgets. Deputations were made by the
Executive of the Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. and others, specifically on the issue of the
reconstruction ofPrinceEdward Drive between Dundas Street West and Bloor Street West. As
a result of the discussion that ensued, the following Resolution (Attachment No. 1) was
adopted by Etobicoke Community Council:
"That funds in the order of $1.38 million, included under Transportation, line 502, Etobicoke -
Road Reconstruction Programme, only be allocated for the reconstruction of Prince Edward
Drive on the basis of the road width being no more than 7.3 m (24 ft), grass to grass."
Conclusion:
Although a 7.3 m (24 ft) pavement width, grass to grass, is not the preferred Alternative
forPrinceEdward Drive, we accept Community Council's direction; the design which has
already commenced will be in accordance with the above Resolution. It is expected that we
will seek approvals for the appointment of a contractor from the Urban Environment and
Development Committee on July 22, 1998, and from Council on July29, 1998, following the
tender call. Construction will commence on or around August 10, 1998, with completion of
the project planned for the end of November 1998. This is based on the assumption that the
detailed design and estimates will be completed by the end of May 1998.
Contact Name:
Mr. Dominic Gulli, Director - Transportation and Engineering Planning Division
(416) 394-8409; Fax: 394-8942.
(Copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members
of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 6, 1998,
and copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
6
Proposed Construction of Sidewalk on Goswell Road
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to respond to a petition from the residents of the
GoswellRoad/JoplingAvenue area for the construction of a sidewalk.
Funding Sources:
Funds for the construction of this project are allocated within the City of Toronto 1998
Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)a section of concrete sidewalk be constructed on the north side of Goswell Road to link the
existing sidewalk east of Tonwell Court with the sidewalk on the west side of
BotfieldAvenue; and that
(2)staff be authorized to make necessary arrangements to carry out the construction of the
proposed sidewalk in the 1998 construction year.
Background:
The Works and Emergency Services Department, Etobicoke District received a petition from
Ms.Margaret Hansen of 3 Tonwell Court and area residents on November 24, 1997
(Attachment No.1). The petition requests the construction of a sidewalk on the east side of
JoplingAvenue North, between Goswell Road and Our Lady of Peace School on Mattice
Avenue. Alternatively, the petition requests linking the existing sidewalk on the north side of
Goswell Road from east of TonwellCourt with the sidewalk on the west side of Botfield
Avenue. In addition to the three householders of Tonwell Court, the petition was also signed
by nine householders residing on the east side of Jopling Avenue North, who will be directly
affected by the proposed work. Four of the nine householders residing on Jopling Avenue
North favoured the proposed work, four were opposed and one undecided.
A separate petition from Mr. John Surmachynski of 83 Jopling Avenue North and the
residents of Jopling Avenue North was also received on December 9, 1997 (Attachment No.
2). According to Mr. Surmachynski's petition, seven out of the nine householders residing on
the east side ofJoplingAvenue North opposed the construction of a sidewalk on Jopling
Avenue North, one supported and one did not sign the petition.
In January 1998, staff conducted a peak hour pedestrian volume study. The study indicates
that the volume of pedestrian traffic present on both streets warrants a sidewalk. It is our
understanding that the key concern of the area residents is to secure a safer access for the
children walking toOurLadyofPeace School from Tonwell Court. To provide this access via
Jopling Avenue North will require the construction of 280 metres of new sidewalk and the
removal/restoration of a number of hedges or other minor physical constraints at some
locations. The alternative suggestion requires the construction of a section of sidewalk 50
metres long on the north side of Goswell Road.
It is our opinion that the extension of the existing section of sidewalk on the north side of
GoswellRoad from east of Tonwell Court to the west side of Botfield Avenue (a map of the
area is Attachment No.3) will provide an alternative route to pedestrians to reach the school,
and will address the current sidewalk concerns and immediate needs of the area.
Conclusion:
Based on the departmental review of the various issues, staff is of the opinion that the
construction of a concrete sidewalk on the north side of Goswell Road to link the existing
sidewalk east of Tonwell Court with the sidewalk on the west side of Botfield Avenue will
provide the additional safety element required by the community.
Contact Name:
Mr. Wai Yeung, Manager, Road Planning - Transportation and Engineering Planning Division
Tel: 394-8408, Fax: 394-8942.
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 6,
1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
7
Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls:
Queen's Plate Drive and Vice Regent Boulevard
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District.
Purpose:
To propose the installation of All-Way Stop Controls at the intersection of Queen's Plate
Drive and ViceRegent Boulevard.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained
in the Transportation Department's 1998 Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)all-way stop controls be erected at the intersection of Queen's Plate Drive and
ViceRegentBoulevard; and
(2)the attached by-laws (Attachments Nos. 1 and 2) receive Council approval.
Background:
The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division has received correspondence from
Mr.ErnieLynch of Lynch Fluid Controls Incorporated, 55 Queen's Plate Drive,UnitNo.2,
(Attachment No. 3) requesting the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of
Queen'sPlate Drive and Vice Regent Boulevard. Mr. Lynch is concerned with the accident
frequency at this location. A map of the area is Attachment No.4.
Comments and Discussion:
To assess traffic conditions at the intersection, the following information was obtained:
A.manual vehicular turning movement counts, conducted on December 2, 1997, at the
intersection of Queen's Plate Drive and Vice Regent Boulevard;
B.automatic traffic counts recorded on December 9, 1997, at the intersection of
Queen'sPlateDrive and Vice Regent Boulevard;
C.radar Speed Studies, conducted on December 4, 1997, on Queen's Plate Drive, east of
ViceRegent Boulevard;
D.a review of the three year accident history; and
E.an intersection description, including existing parking restrictions and land use.
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 either arterial or
major collector streets:
a)a total of 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.
A.Manual Turning Movement Count
Date: Tuesday December 2, 1997
|
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 |
71 |
27 |
33 |
92 |
98 |
223 |
56/44 |
| 8-9 AM |
60 |
7 |
64 |
102 |
67 |
233 |
71/29 |
| 4-5 PM |
25 |
31 |
83 |
51 |
56 |
190 |
71/29 |
| 5-6 PM |
33 |
32 |
120 |
51 |
65 |
236 |
72/28 |
| TOTAL |
189 |
97 |
300 |
296 |
285 |
882 |
68/32 |
| VEH/H |
47 |
24 |
75 |
74 |
71 |
221 |
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 (5:00 p.m.- 6:00 p.m.) is 236
vehicles, 114 or 33% short of the required 350 vehicles. This volume does not satisfy the
minimum vehicular volume requirement established by the Ministry of Transportation of
Ontario (MTO) for the installation of all-way stop controls.
b)the balance of flow for the highest hour recorded is 72/28, which does not meet the volume
split warrant of 65/35 for four way control.
B. Radar Speed Studies
Radar Speed Studies were conducted on Queen's Plate Drive, near Vice Regent Boulevard,
between the hours of 7:00a.m.- 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. The average speed and 85th
percentile speed are 55 km/h and 64 km/h, respectively. Since the speed limit on both
roadways is 50 km/h, these results indicate that there is a speeding problem. A request has
been forwarded to Toronto Police Services for enforcement of the 50 km/h speed limit on
Queen's Plate Drive.
C. Accident Analysis
An accident analysis for a three year period revealed an average of three reportable accidents
per year have occurred at the intersection of Queen's Plate Drive and Vice Regent Boulevard.
All accidents were of angle impact type and would be considered preventable through
installation of all-way stop controls.
D.Intersection Description
No parking restrictions on Vice Regent Boulevard or Queen's Plate Drive .
Lane Configuration: one lane in each direction
Speed Limit: Queen's Plate Drive - 50 km/h
Vice Regent Boulevard - 50 km/h
Through Street: Queen's Plate Drive
Stop Signs: Vice Regent Boulevard - oversized
Land Use: Commercial
Conclusions:
The use of oversized stop signs on Vice Regent Boulevard eastbound and westbound at
Queen'sPlate Drive has had little effect in reducing the frequency of collisions in the
intersection. At present, the frequency of right angle collisions in the intersection warrants the
installation of all-waystop controls. The traffic volumes in this intersection do not currently
satisfy the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario All-way Stop Control Warrants, however,
once the development potential in the area has been realized, traffic volumes are expected to
satisfy the necessary requirements. All-way stop controls at this intersection will effectively
regulate current and future traffic demand and reduce or eliminate the occurrence of right
angle accidents.
Contact Name:
Kevin Akins, Traffic Technologist - Transportation and Engineering Planning Division.
Tel: 394-6046, 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 May 6,
1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
8
Payment-In-Lieu of Parking - Mr. I. Isajev,
176 Royal York Road
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
The subject of this report is to seek Council's approval to exempt the applicant from the
Etobicoke Zoning Code requirement of four additional vehicle parking stalls.
Funding Sources:
Council's approval of this application will provide the City with a $4,000.00 payment-in-lieu
of parking and a $200.00 application processing fee.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council approve this application.
Background:
The applicant owns an existing commercial/residential building located on the northwest
corner of Royal York Road and Macdonald Street (Attachment No. 1). The site is occupied by
100.27 m2 of ground floor retail floor area and three second storey residential apartments. The
applicant proposes to construct an 82.63 m2 ground floor retail addition and one additional
second storey residential dwelling unit.
Discussions:
The Urban Development Department informed the applicant that the proposed addition
requires the provision of four additional vehicle parking stalls. The site cannot accommodate
the four parking stalls, and the applicant has formally requested an exemption from the
parking provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, under the terms and conditions of
Etobicoke's payment-in-lieu of parking policy (Attachment No. 2 ).
Transportation Planning staff advised the applicant that we could not technically support a
parking variance at this location, and that the only reasonable recourse was through an
application to Council requesting consideration under the terms and conditions of Etobicoke's
payment-in-lieu of parking policy.
Conclusions:
It is staff's opinion that the request for exemption to the provision of four additional vehicle
parking stalls is acceptable. The four stall parking shortfall will not have a significant impact
on parking conditions in the immediate area; therefore, staff is of the opinion that Council can
grant the requested exemption, subject to the usual conditions.
Council has the authority under Section 40 of the Planning Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario
1990, Chapter 13, to require the payment of monies by an applicant where it is considered
appropriate to exempt a project from all, or part, of the Etobicoke Zoning Code parking
requirements.
Should Council concur with the application of the policy at this location, we will require that
the applicant make a payment of $4,000.00 for the four-stall parking shortfall before issuance
of a building permit.
Contact Name:
Mr. A. Smithies, Manager, Transportation Planning -Transportation and Engineering
Planning.
(416) 394-8412; 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
May6,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
9
Redesignation of Traffic Lanes on Rathburn Road between
The East Mall and the Mimico Creek to include Bicycle Lanes
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To report on the status and to implement former Etobicoke Council's directive of
October6,1997, to redesignate the traffic lanes on a section of Rathburn Road to include
bicycle lanes.
Funding Sources:
Funds have been allocated in the 1998 Operating Budget to proceed with this project.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)this report be received; and
(2)staff be authorized to proceed with this project as soon as practicable in the 1998
construction season, and following the adoption of the 1998 Operating Budget.
Background:
The former Etobicoke Council, at its meeting held on October 6, 1997, through the adoption
of Clause179 of the 17th Works and Environment Committee, 1997, and Resolution No. 419,
recommended that the traffic lane configuration of Rathburn Road between The East Mall and
Mimico Creek be redesignated within the existing road pavement to include an eastbound
lane, a westbound lane, a centre (left turn) lane, and two designated bicycle lanes; and that
monies be set aside to proceed with this project in 1998 (See Attachment No. 1). A map of the
area is AttachmentNo. 2.
Discussion and Justification:
Since December 1996, the Executive of the Community of Rathburn-Grove Ratepayers
(CORR) have been consulting with staff and members of the (former) Etobicoke Council;
more recently, with the Etobicoke Community Council at its Budget Meeting held on March
25, 1998, on the redesignation of Rathburn Road between The East Mall and the Mimico
Creek to include bicycle lanes.
A community meeting hosted by the (former) Ward Councillors and CORR representatives on
September 17, 1997, on the redesignation of Rathburn Road received overwhelming support.
Staff examined the feasibility of reconfiguring the lanes on the section of Rathburn Road in
question and concluded that it was feasible from a design point-of-view. The cost of doing
these works will not exceed $40,000.00.
Conclusion:
The former Etobicoke Council appreciated the merit of CORR's proposal to implement
bicycle lanes on the section of Rathburn Road between The East Mall and the Mimico Creek
and recommended that monies be set aside in the 1998 Budget to proceed with this project in
1998.
It is appropriate that this project proceed in 1998 following City Council adoption of
the1998Operating Budget.
Contact Name:
Mr. Dominic Gulli, Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning Division.
(416) 394-8409; 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
May6,1998,and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
10
School Safety Zone: Denfield Street
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To introduce by-law amendments to improve traffic conditions within the school zone
onDenfieldStreet in front of St. Marcellus Catholic School.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained
in the Works Department's Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the school bus loading zone on the east side of Denfield Street currently
servicingSt.Marcellus Catholic School, be extended 47 metres to accommodate additional
school buses;
(2)the "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the east side of
Denfield Street between Widdicombe Hill Boulevard and a point 138.0 metres north thereof
be changed to a "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition;
(3)the "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the west side of
Denfield Street be changed to a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday"; and
(4)the appropriate by-laws (Attachments Nos. 1, 2, and 3) be amended accordingly.
Background:
Concerns have been raised by the Principal and the Parents Association of St. Marcellus
Catholic School, 15 Denfield Street, regarding the traffic congestion and parking conditions
occurring on Denfield Street during the commencement and dismissal of classes each day. A
map of the area is Attachment No. 4.
Discussion:
Denfield Street is a two-lane roadway. St. Marcellus Catholic School is located on the east
side of the street and Central Etobicoke High School is located on the west side of the street.
The parking and stopping regulations on Denfield Street are as follows:
(a) "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the east side of
Denfield Street between Widdicombe Hill Boulevard and Clement Road;
(b)"No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the west side of
Denfield Street between Widdicombe Hill Boulevard and a point 190.5 metres north thereof;
and
(c)"No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the west side of
Denfield Street between a point 190.5 metres north of Widdicombe Hill Boulevard and
Clement Road.
It has been recognized that a safe area for parents to stop, drop off and pick up their children
from school is necessary. Therefore, the "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to
Friday" prohibition on the east side of Denfield Street from Widdicombe Hill Boulevard to a
point 138.0metres north thereof will be changed to a "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday" prohibition. This change will allow for short-term parental/guardian
stopping in a designated Kiss and Ride Zone on the east side of Denfield Street in front of St.
Marcellus Catholic School.
By providing a designated area for parents to stop and drop off and pick up their children and
by eliminating the use of one side of the street with the proposed by-law amendments, the
need for children to cross the street is eliminated. This will measurably reduce
vehicular/pedestrian conflicts, and improve pedestrian safety in this school zone.
There is a designated School Bus Loading Zone located on the east side of Denfield Street,
116.0metres south of Clement Road extending to a point 30.5 metres south thereof. This bus
loading can only accommodate two buses, however, six buses currently service St. Marcellus
Catholic School.
Section 175 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, requires that every school bus operator
who is about to stop on a highway for the purposes of receiving or discharging children shall
activate, and while stopped, continue to activate the vehicle's overhead red signal lights and
stop arm until all passengers having to cross the highway have completed the crossing.
Section 175 also provides that, when this safety equipment is activated, all motorists must
stop their vehicle before reaching the bus and shall not proceed until the bus moves or the
overhead red signal lights have stopped flashing.
Ontario Regulation 615 of the Highway Traffic Act states that a School Bus Loading Zone
may be designated to one side of the roadway, on the side which the school is located. The
purpose of a school bus loading zone is to provide a reserved area where school buses can
receive or discharge passengers without activating the overhead flashing lights. These are
used primarily in urban areas, only at locations where children are not required to cross the
roadway to access the bus.
A review of this location indicated that during peak periods, the existing bus loading zone was
not able to accommodate the large volume of school buses that service St. Marcellus Catholic
School. Consequently, school buses not within the zone, are required by law to operate the
vehicle's flashing lights and stop arm, thereby making it mandatory for all vehicles to stop.
This action, unfortunately, offsets any benefits which were derived from the existing zone.
The Toronto Catholic School Board has confirmed that students attending St. Marcellus
Catholic School are not required to cross Denfield Street to board or alight the bus. As a
result, the activation of the safety equipment is not necessary to ensure pedestrian safety at
this location.
Conclusion:
Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable support of St. Marcellus
Catholic School Parents Association, Council's endorsement of the recommendations
contained herein would be appropriate.
Contact Name:
Karen Kirk, CET, Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning.
(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
ofMay6,1998,and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
11
Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Victoria Street
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To amend the parking restrictions currently on Victoria Street to provide a designated,
short-term pick up/drop off area for the parents/guardians of students attending David Hornell
Public School.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are allocated
in the Works Department's Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the south side
of Victoria Street between Alexander Street and Louisa Street be changed to a "No Stopping,
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition; and
(2)the appropriate by-laws (Attachments Nos. 1 and 2 ) be amended accordingly.
Background:
The Transportation Department has been contacted by the Toronto District School Board
(Etobicoke) on behalf of the Principal and the Parents Association of David Hornell Public
School, 32 Victoria Street, regarding the excessive on-street parking on Victoria Street by
parents dropping off and picking up their children from David Hornell Public School. A map
of the area is AttachmentNo.3.
Discussion:
Victoria Street is a two-lane local roadway, parking is prohibited on the north side of the street
at all times and on the south side between the hours 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday
between Alexander Street and Louisa Street. Land use in the immediate vicinity is
predominantly residential.
It has been proposed that the existing "No Parking 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday"
prohibition on the south side of Victoria Street be changed to a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to
5:00p.m., Monday to Friday. This change will allow for short-term parental/guardian stopping
in a designated Kiss and Ride Zone on the north side of Victoria Street.
Conclusion:
By providing a designated area for parents to stop and drop off and pick up their children from
school and by eliminating the use of one side of the street with the proposed by-law
amendments, the need for children to cross the street is eliminated. This will measurably
reduce vehicular/pedestrian conflicts, and improve pedestrian safety in this school zone.
Contact Name:
Karen Kirk, CET, Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning.
(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942.
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to the in the foregoing report were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting
ofMay6,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
12
1998 Membership in Ontario Traffic Conference
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:
(1)Councillor Mario Giansante be appointed as the representative of the Etobicoke
Community Council on the Ontario Traffic Conference; and
(2)the selections be reported to the Administrative Assistant of the Ontario Traffic
Conference.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having had
before it a Committee Transmittal (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the
Urban Environment and Development Committee on April 20, 1998, concurred with
Recommendation No. (2), embodied in the report dated March 31, 1998, from the Interim
Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding 1998 membership in the Ontario Traffic
Conference, viz:
"(2)this report be referred to each Community Council for the selection of up to two
representatives each for the Ontario Traffic Conference, and that the selections be reported to
the Administrative Assistant of the Ontario Traffic Conference."
13
Etobicoke Fire Route By-Laws
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the City Clerk:
Purpose:
To obtain Council approval for the enactment of appropriate by-laws to allow the construction
and maintenance of fire routes at certain locations in Etobicoke, as well as approving the final
designation of fire routes to enable by-law enforcement officers to tag illegally parked
vehicles within the designated fire routes.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The property owner is required to pay the cost for the installation of the fire route signs, by the
Works Department, in addition to any signs that may require replacing, in the future.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Chapter 134 - 20 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be amended by adding the following
locations to Schedule 'B', "Lands Upon Which Fire Routes Are to be Constructed and
Maintained":
173, 185, 187, 189, 191, 193, 195, 197 and 199 LaRose Avenue
22-66 Guided Court
1291 Royal York Road
1120 Martin Grove Road
95 Melbert Road
44 and 50 Montgomery Road
23-34 Mendota Road and 93-99 Wesley Street
2281-2283 Lake Shore Boulevard West
(2)the final designation of Fire Routes under Chapter 134 of the Municipal Code be approved
at the following locations:
30-68 Old Mill Terrace
3672 Lake Shore Boulevard West
1291 Royal York Road
180, 190, 210 and 220 Manitoba Street
173, 185, 187, 189, 191, 193, 195, 197 and 199 La Rose Avenue
(3)Etobicoke By-law No. 1982-116 being a By-law to designate a Fire Route at
5230DundasStreet West (Six Points Plaza), be amended; and
(4)the appropriate by-laws be enacted by City Council.
Background:
On April 18, 1975 "An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke" received Royal Assent. A
portion of the Act, Section 2, allows the Corporation to pass by-laws regulating and
designating fire routes. Each property requires the enactment of two by-laws, (1) to allow the
Works Department to install and maintain the required number of fire route signs on each
property and (2) to allow appropriate officials to tag and/or remove vehicles illegally parked
within the designated fire route area.
In instances when changes have been made to a property, such as additions to existing
buildings, the construction of additional new buildings on the site or revisions to the parking
areas, it is necessary to amend the designating fire route by-law.
Comments:
It is appropriate for Etobicoke Community Council to authorize the enactment of these
by-laws. Similar by-laws will be presented to Community Council on an ongoing basis. As all
former area municipalities have different procedures for processing fire routes, revisions to
Etobicoke's existing procedures may be amended, in the future.
Conclusion:
In keeping with the Fire Department's regulations, it is appropriate to enact these by-laws to
provide for the construction and maintenance of fire routes and to allow the By-law
Enforcement Officers to tag vehicles that are illegally parked in fire route zones.
Contact Name:
Peggy Thompson, Clerk's Department, 394-8075
14
Special Occasion Permits - Centennial Park
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the City Clerk:
Purpose:
To address the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario (LLBO) requirement of obtaining a Council
resolution agreeing to the issuance of a Special Occasion Permit in association with the
following events:
a)7th Annual Labatt 24 Hour Relay in Support of Easter Seal Kids - June 13-14, 1998.
b)Annual Kiwanis Club of the Kingsway Canada Day Celebrations - July 1, 1998.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
None.
Recommendations:
That Etobicoke Community Council recommend that the Labatt 24 Hour Relay in Support of
Easter Seal Kids and the Kiwanis Club of the Kingsway Canada Day Celebrations be
permitted to take place at Centennial Park on June 13-14, 1998, and July 1, 1998,
respectively, and that beer be permitted to be sold at the festival, subject to the requirements
of the Fire, Health, and Building Departments being addressed.
Background:
The Easter Seal Society will be holding its 7th annual Labatt 24 Hour Relay in Support of
Easter Seal Kids at Centennial Park on the weekend of June 13-14, 1998. This fundraising
event has individuals running relay-style for 24 hours. Last year's event generated
$594,000.00 for children with physical disabilities. Beer will be sold from 11:00 a.m. on
Saturday, June 13, until 1:00 a.m. on Sunday, June14, 1998. (Attachment No. 1)
The Kiwanis Club of the Kingsway will be celebrating Canada Day in Centennial Park, as
they have done in past. The hours of operation for the sale of beer and wine will be from
12:00 noon to 10:00p.m. (Attachment No. 2)
In accordance with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario (LLBO) regulations, Council's
approval for the sale of beer and wine for both events is required.
Comment:
The former City of Etobicoke Council normally approved such requests for the sale of beer,
subject to the applicant meeting the requirements of the Fire, Health, and Building
Departments.
Conclusion:
Approval for the holding of the Labatt 24 Hour Relay in Support of Easter Seal Kids on
June13-14,1998, and the Annual Kiwanis Club of the Kingsway Canada Day Celebrations on
July1,1998, along with the sale of beer and wine be granted subject to the requirement of Fire,
Health, and Building Departments being addressed.
Contact Name:
Cathie Best, Director, Clerk's Division
Tel: (416) 394-8080
(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
May6,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
15
Forestry and Turf Enhancement on Kingsmill Road
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Acting Commissioners of Parks and Recreation Services,
Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To respond to the request by Kingsmill Road residents for forestry and turf enhancements on
Kingsmill Road.
Source of Funds:
Funds could be made available in the Parks and Forestry budget for tree planting only.
Approximate cost $2,000.00. Site preparation estimate would be required from the Works
Department for other modifications as indicated in recommendations.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the asphalt boulevard on the east side of Kingsmill Road be removed from Bloor Street
West to the existing grass boulevard at No. 7;
(2)the sidewalk be replaced and regraded to provide positive drainage to the road;
(3)the asphalt boulevard on the west side be removed from the parking lot driveway to No. 8;
(4)alternatives to turf be considered in any recaptured boulevard to encourage a change in
driving habits and to enhance the possibilities of successfully greening the environment; and
(5)the parking meters on the west side remain in place.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Council received a request from residents on Kingsmill Road on Wednesday, March 25, 1998
asking for boulevard extensions with grass and trees on both sides of Kingsmill Road to Bloor
Street as they currently end at No. 8 on the west side and No. 7 on the east side.
The Kingsway area is distinguished by narrow informal boulevards; short straight stretches
culminating in greenery; interesting architecture and attached garages and detached garages
located at the rear of the homes. Landscaping is the area's predominant feature and cars do not
dominate the landscape.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Kingsmill Road has narrow, somewhat elevated boulevards and large mature trees that
complete a full canopy over the street. The boulevards along Kingsmill at Nos. 3 and 5, as
well as the sides of the two properties that front Bloor Street, are paved with secondary grade
asphalt. Parking meters are installed on the west side along No. 2842 Bloor Street. The grade
differential between the sidewalk and the road in this particular paved section is not as
pronounced as the area further down the street.
Conclusion:
If the green boulevards are restored along the south section of Kingsmill Road, additional tree
planting would be possible and would be an asset to the community. Approximately seven
trees could be planted in this particular area.
Contact Name:
Denis McQuestion, Manager, Forestry and Horticulture
Telephone 394-8551; Fax 394-5406
16
City of Toronto - Ontario Municipal Board Decision Involving
Cantron Industries Limited, OMB File No. PL971249
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(April6,1998) from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise concerning the service of a Notice of Motion for leave
to Appeal the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board approving a proposed plan of
subdivision submitted by Rattling Chain Investments Inc. ("Rattling Chain").
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no funding requirements nor financial implications associated with this matter.
Recommendation:
That the City Solicitor be authorized to appear in response to the Notice of Motion for leave
in order to support the decision issued by the Ontario Municipal Board.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The background related to this matter is set out in our reports to you dated February 24, 1998
and March 27, 1998.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
In our last report to you we advised that a decision had been issued by the Ontario Municipal
Board approving a proposed plan of subdivision submitted to the municipality by Rattling
Chain InvestmentsInc. We also indicated that this decision would be final subject to the right
of the appellant (CantronIndustries Limited) to seek leave to appeal this decision to the
Divisional Court, on a question of law.
Subsequent to the submission of our report we were served with a Notice of Motion for leave
to by the solicitors for Cantron. Pursuant to the Motion the solicitors for Cantron allege that
the Board made various errors in its findings made on the evidence presented during the
course of the hearing. It is our opinion that none of the errors relied on in support of the
Motion for leave have merit.
The effect of the leave application is to delay the coming into force of the Municipal Board
Order required for approval of the subdivision plan. Counsel for the Joint Venture Group
(HumberCollege/Management Board Secretariat) and the developer (Rattling Chain) have
advised that they will respond in the court to the Motion and request the court not to grant
leave to Cantron to appeal the Municipal Board decision.
Conclusions:
We believe that it would be in the interest of the municipality to support the position of the
other respondents that leave to appeal this decision of the Ontario Municipal Board should not
be granted to Cantron. Therefore we would request your authorization to file responding
materials on behalf of the municipality and to appear in court in support of the approval of the
Municipal Board decision as issued.
Contact:
Bruce C. Ketcheson, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitors
Tel: (416) 622-6601, Fax: (416) 622-4713
17
City of Toronto Re: F-F Construction Limited and
Charles and Pauline Sammut, 1386-1392 Islington Avenue
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May4,1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, Etobicoke
District:
Purpose:
To report concerning the outcome of an Ontario Municipal Board proceeding conducted on
April30 and May 1, 1998 involving the above-captioned properties.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no funding requirements nor financial implications associated with this matter.
Recommendations:
1.That the City of Toronto concur with a mediated settlement endorsed by the Ontario
Municipal Board of a proposed residential draft plan of subdivision at the north-west corner of
Fairway Road and Islington Avenue; and
2.That the City of Toronto consent to an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of Zoning
By-law No. 136-1998, as filed by F-F Construction Limited and Charles and PaulineSammut,
as required for the implementation of the said settlement.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On September 8, 1997 Council for the former City of Etobicoke adopted Resolutions No. 348
and No. 349. These resolutions provided for the refusal of an application for draft subdivision
plan approval submitted by F-F Construction Limited ("F-F Construction"). The decision to
refuse this application was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the
developer, and was the subject of a hearing scheduled for April 30, 1998.
The appeal involved two residential lots municipally known as 1386-1388 Islington Avenue.
These properties are located at the north-west corner of Islington Avenue and Fairway Road in
the former City of Etobicoke.
The two properties comprise part of a larger residential plan of subdivision situated between
the Islington Golf Course and Islington Avenue. The lots in this plan of subdivision are
extremely large, with typical frontages of 15.24 metres and depths of 120.4 metres. This area
is characterized by existing, well maintained, single family dwellings and well-landscaped
lots featuring rear yards adjoining the Islington Golf Course.
Pursuant to the subdivision plan application, it was proposed to create four new residential
lots with frontage on Fairway Road, together with two additional lots fronting on Islington
Avenue and occupied by the existing dwellings. As well, this draft plan provided for the
dedication to the municipality of a block of land located at the rear of the existing lots,
adjacent to the golf course. This dedication was to be made in order to permit the construction
and future extension of a public road along the rear portion of the existing lots, beside the golf
course. It was intended by the provision of the future road to permit additional applications for
subdivision plan approval to be processed within this block of residential lots.
Following the refusal by Council of the draft plan of subdivision, the owners of the adjacent
property to the north of the F-F Construction site, Charles and Pauline Sammut, applied to the
Etobicoke Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever the rear portion of their property at
1392IslingtonAvenue. The intent of this application was to create an additional residential lot
which would front on the proposed public road to be extended along the golf course from
Fairway Drive.
This application was refused by the Committee of Adjustment and was subsequently appealed
to the Ontario Municipal Board for hearing. As the consent application was related to the
subdivision proposal, both matters were consolidated for one hearing by the Board.
In refusing the subdivision plan application, Council responded to concerns expressed by a
number of area residents. Their concerns related primarily to a desire to preserve the existing
Character of their community by discouraging applications for subdivision plan approval, or
consent applications, involving these large lots. In response to these concerns, the new City of
Toronto ultimately adopted Official Plan Amendment Number 62-98 and related Zoning
By-law No. 136-1998. The Official Plan Amendment deleted former policies within the
Official Plan which contemplated the processing of the subdivision plan applications in this
area. The zoning by-law established new minimum lot areas for the community, which were
based on the existing lotting pattern within the community.
Comments:
In response to this situation, we were instructed to appear on behalf of the municipality at the
Municipal Board hearing. In preparation for that attendance we secured independent planning
advice and consulted with both the concerned residents and representatives of the golf course.
We understand that a number of the residents also obtained independent legal and planning
advice concerning the matter.
Based on these discussions and our review of the file, it became apparent that it would be
difficult, given the size of the lots, to persuade the Board to refuse any form of intensification
within the existing community. Accordingly, with the concurrence of both the residents and
the golf course, a mediated settlement of the matter was pursed with the assistance of the
Municipal Board. As a result of this initiative, a revised plan of subdivision was ultimately
agreed to by the parties and endorsed by the Board Member, Mr. Wilson Lee.
Pursuant to this mediated settlement it was agreed that the three existing residential lots
controlled by F-F Construction and Mr. and Mrs. Sammut would be consolidated for the
purpose of one development proposal. Under this proposal, three new residential lots would
be created to the rear of the three existing dwellings fronting on Islington Avenue. The three
new residential lots would take access off of Fairway Road. The proposal to extend a new
municipal road along the edge of the golf course would not be proceeded with. The three new
residential lots to be created would be substantially larger than the lots originally proposed.
In order to implement this revised proposal, a set of conditions to the draft plan was
negotiated and will be attached to the Board Order approving the revised development. These
conditions include a number of safeguards inserted at the request of the golf course and the
residents.
In order to implement this mediated settlement, it will be necessary to amend
By-lawNo.136-1998 to exempt the subject properties. This exemption is necessary given that
the areas of the revised lots would not conform with the proposed lot areas established by the
new by-law. F-F Construction and the Sammuts have agreed not to appeal the coming into
force of the by-law for the balance of the community if their properties are exempted from its
provisions. We would recommend that Council support the granting of this exemption in
order to implement the settlement mediated by the Municipal Board.
Conclusions:
Implementation of the settlement mediated by the Municipal Board will result in the approval
of fewer lots, with larger lot areas, than originally proposed by the developers. The
elimination of the proposed public road along the golf course will significantly reduce the
impact of this intensification proposal on the balance of the existing community. We would
therefore recommend that Council support this settlement and agree in principle to the
provision of the exemption from By-lawNo.136-1998 required in order for the
implementation of this mediated settlement.
Contact Name:
Bruce C. Ketcheson, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitors
Tel: 622-6601; Fax 622-4713
18
Construction Management Plan for Proposed
Commercial/Apartment Building - Eden Oak Homes Ltd.
(Skeens Lane) 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard West
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having
(i)requested the City Solicitor to proceed with court action against Eden Oak Homes Ltd. as
directed by the Etobicoke Community Council on April 1, 1998; and
(ii)received the following communication (March22,1998) from the Chair, Lakeshore
Planning Council:
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:
Purpose :
To respond to a request by Etobicoke Community Council regarding the requirement of a
construction management plan for the proposed commercial/apartment building at
3400LakeShoreBoulevard West.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
City funding is not required.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Site Plan Control approval for a proposed "mainstreet" building by
Eden Oak Homes Ltd. at 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard West be amended by adding a further
condition as follows:
(18)Signing of a construction management agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor
prior to the issuance of building permits for 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard West.
Background:
On June 9, 1997, Etobicoke Council approved the Site Plan Control application by Eden Oak
HomesLtd. for a six-storey, "mainstreet" building containing 891 m2 (9,590 sq.ft.) of
commercial space and 54 condominium apartment units at 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard West ,
and 59 three-storey freehold townhouse units in the vicinity (Exhibit No. 1).
Construction of the townhouses is underway. Eden Oak Homes has not applied for a building
permit for the proposed "mainstreet" building on 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard West.
On April 1, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council requested the City Solicitor to proceed with
court action against Eden Oak Homes concerning dust, mud tracking, fencing, clean-up and
other problems caused by the construction of the townhouses. Community Council also
requested staff to report on the requirement of construction management plans for infill
housing projects, including the proposed "mainstreet" building at 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard
West.
Comments:
The Development and Site Control Agreements between Eden Oak Homes and the former
City of Etobicoke for the Skeens Lane project apply to 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard, but do
not specifically require a construction management plan. The Site Plan Control approval
should be modified to require the execution of such an agreement prior to the release of any
permits for 3400 Lake Shore.
Urban Development and Works staff intend to submit a report dealing with the general issue
of construction management plans at the May 27 meeting of Community Council.
Contact Name:
Jamie McEwan, Area Planner-South District
Development and Design
Tel: (416) 394-8878, Fax: (416) 394-6063
(Copy of Exhibit 1 referred to in the foregoing reort was forwarded to Members of Council
with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 6, 1998, and copy
thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (March 22,
1998) from Mr. P. Milczyn, Chair, Lakeshore Planning Council:
The Lakeshore Planning Council wishes to advise you of our concern about dust, mud, debris,
and disruption that has been occurring adjacent to some construction sites in the south end of
Etobicoke. The development of the Skeens Lane area in particular has demonstrated the
inadequacy of Etobicoke's current standards for controlling active construction sites in or
adjacent to residential neighbourhoods.
We believe that construction sites in the Etobicoke Community should be required to
effectively control dust, regularly clean-up mud that is tracked onto City streets and
sidewalks, and generally create minimal impact and inconvenience to the neighbourhood. To
this end we suggest that Construction Site Management Plans be filed with the City prior to
the issuance of Building Permits. Such plans would clearly spell out the contractor/developer's
obligations and provide a basis for legal enforcement of such obligations.
The former City of Toronto requires the filing of such plans prior to work being undertaken.
Furthermore the former City of Toronto also inspects the site and enforces the plan that is in
place.
We request that the Community Council direct the staff of the Urban Development
Department (Etobicoke Division) to follow such "best practices" which are already in effect in
other parts of the municipality and ensure that the impact from future construction sites be
minimized and effectively controlled. We thank you for your attention to this matter.
19
Harvey Sawh, 63-65 Winterton Drive - File No. Z-2261
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that
(1)the following report (May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development,
Etobicoke District be adopted; and
(2)the City Solicitor be directed to put a motion before the Ontario Municipal Board, to
have the applicant's solicitors removed due to a perceived Conflict of Interest as they are
presently retained by the City of Toronto:
Purpose:
To consider a proposal to amend the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit a
retirement residence for seniors containing 40 rooms plus one apartment unit on lands at
63and65WintertonDrive, east of Martin Grove Road.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the application by Harvey Sawh for amendments to the Etobicoke
Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit a retirement residence for seniors containing 40
rooms plus one apartment unit on lands at 63 and 65 Winterton Drive be refused and that the
applicant be invited to appear in deputation before the Etobicoke Community Council.
Background:
In January 1997, Harvey Sawh, on behalf of Ontario Hydro, submitted an application to
amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit a single storey retirement residence with
24 rooms on 0.32hectares (0.78 acres) of surplus Hydro lands. Following a community
meeting (heldFebruary24, 1997), the application was revised to request rezoning from
Utilities (U) to First Density Residential (R1) to permit two single family residential
dwellings. This rezoning application was approved by Etobicoke City Council on May 12,
1997, and By-law No. 1997-75 was enacted in September 1997. On October 24, 1997, the
Committee of Adjustment approved a consent application to create the two residential lots,
namely 63 and 65 Winterton Drive.
Harvey Sawh has in this application dated February 17, 1998, requested a further amendment
to the Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the development of a retirement residence for
seniors containing 40 rooms plus one apartment unit to accommodate a property manager on
the subject lands which he acquired from Ontario Hydro on May 30, 1997.
Site Description and Surrounding Uses:
The vacant site is situated within a neighbourhood of single family detached dwellings zoned
primarily First Density Residential (R1) and Second Density Residential (R2). The site has
31.72m (104 ft.) of frontage on Winterton Drive, with a lot depth of 125.60 m (412 ft.) which
extends along existing Hydro lands to the west and the side and rear yards of three (3) single
family homes to the east. (Exhibit No. 1)
Surrounding land uses are as follows:
North:Martin Grove Collegiate Institute (north portion (R4) and south portion (R1))
South:Princess Margaret Junior school (R2)
East:Side yard of a single family home on Winterton Drive and rear yards of two single
family homes on Streatham Place (R1)
West:Hydro Corridor (U)
Proposal:
A site plan has been submitted (Exhibit No. 2), indicating a two storey split-level building,
accessed by a single driveway off Winterton Drive. Each level would contain 20 rooms along
a central corridor. The main floor (upper level) would also contain communal/amenity
facilities including a lounge, dining room, kitchen, and an office. The lower level would
contain a sitting room (conservatory), mechanical room and storage area. The manager's suite
would be located in the attic of the building. Parking for 14 cars is proposed on site in the
front yard. (Exhibits Nos.3, 4 and 5)
The following is a summary of information relevant to this application:
Official Plan:ExistingUtility
ProposedMedium Density Residential
Zoning:ExistingFirst Density Residential (R1)
ProposedFourth Density Residential (R4)
Site Area0.32 ha (0.78 ac) 156.6 m2 (33,979 sq.ft.)
Proposed G.F.A.2306 m2 (24,818 sq.ft.)
Floor Space Index0.73
No. of rooms40
No. of apt. units1 (manager's suite)
Building Height2 storeys 8.84 m (29 ft.)
Building coverage (footprint)1182 m2 (12,722 sq.ft.)37%
Paved area 703 m2 (7,567 sq.ft.) 22%
Landscaped area1283 m2 (13,815 sq.ft.)41%
Parking:Required:14 spaces (@ 1 space per 4 rooms and 4 spaces for visitors)
Provided14 spaces (including handicapped space)
Comments:
Official Plan:
The site is designated for Utility purposes in the Etobicoke Official Plan. Permitted uses
include electric power facilities, water and sewage treatment plants, as well as public uses
such as parks, bicycle paths and transit routes. The recent rezoning [to First Density
Residential (R1)] to permit two residential lots was permitted without an amendment to the
Official Plan as rezoning of surplus hydro lands in accordance with adjacent land use
designations is allowed. In this instance, the adjacent designation is Low Density Residential.
Although the type of use being proposed does not constitute the form and scale of
development envisaged by the Official Plan for lodging houses, it would nevertheless be
technically classified as a lodging house and is thus subject to the criteria set out in the Plan
and to municipal licensing. The proposed retirement residence would not meet the criteria for
a Lodging House, as contained in Section 4.2.20 of the Official Plan, which stipulate among
other things a maximum of ten residents. A further amendment to the Plan would be required
to exempt the residence from criteria a), b), andg) set out in Section 4.2.20 of the Plan.
(Exhibit No. 6).
As noted in Exhibit No. 6, lodging houses are considered to be a form of multiple housing
most suitably located in higher intensity multiple occupancy residential areas of the City. An
amendment to the Official Plan from Utility to Medium Density Residential would therefore
be required to recognize the intensity of the proposed use.
In commenting on the applicant's previous proposal for a 24-bed retirement home, the Metro
Planning Department advised that the proposal was consistent with the principles and policies
of Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan.
Zoning Code:
The site is now zoned First Density Residential (R1) which limits use of the site to two (2)
single family detached dwellings only with a minimum permitted lot frontage of 13.5 m (44.5
ft.).
In residentially zoned areas, lodging houses are listed as permitted uses only in Fourth
Density Residential (R4) and Fifth Density Residential (R5) zones, subject to the
Supplementary regulations for lodging houses. Rezoning to one of these categories would
therefore be necessary, subject to any necessary amendments to those standards (eg. rear and
side yard). While the proposal would meet most of the regulations set out in Section 320-24 of
the Zoning Code, it would not meet the owner occupancy requirement for lodging houses and
would considerably exceed the maximum number of residents permitted (i.e., ten.) Further,
the rear yard space, which measures approximately 477 m2, is deficient (as the minimum
required rear or side yard area is 574 m2 based on 14 m2 for each resident), and the minimum
separation distance of 300 m between other similar facilities has not been met (as a group
home already exists within this radius). (Exhibit No. 7)
Comment:
It should be noted that the currently permitted single family dwellings which would be
compatible with the immediately abutting (R1) development, as provided for by the Official
Plan for development of surplus Hydro lands, were approved by Etobicoke Council only
recently. The proposed lodging house is physically not in harmony with surrounding houses
and, as a residence for over 40 people, it also represents an undesirable intrusion into a stable
single family area. The easterly face of the structure would constitute an uninterrupted wall
measuring 65 m (213 ft.) immediately adjacent to three single family dwellings, and the
proposed FSI of 0.73 exceeds typical single family development.
This residence does not satisfy several criteria as set out in the Official Plan or the
Supplementary regulations for lodging houses. It is not located on an arterial road, the number
of residents exceeds ten, the rear yard is deficient and the minimum separation distance from
other existing similar types of residential care uses is inadequate.
Agency/Department Circulation:
Comments received as a result of circulation of the proposal related to site/building
design(e.g.layout, height, elevations, safety, security, screening, planting, lighting, buffering
and barrier-free accessibility) and servicing matters (e.g., sanitary sewer, watermain, fire
hydrants, sidewalks, drainage/grading, stormwater management, waste management,
encroachment and environmental issues) which would be addressed at the site plan approval
stage, should this application be approved.
The Metropolitan Toronto Police has expressed concern regarding a seniors residence at this
location due to the high volumes of traffic in the area. (Exhibit No. 8)
Parks and Recreational Services has indicated that parkland dedication requirement for this
proposal will be 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution.
Community Consultation:
A community meeting was held on February 25, 1998; approximately 70 people attended,
including the applicant, his agents, area councillors and staff. The local area residents noted
that a similar proposal was rejected previously by the community and a compromise scenario
involving two single family homes was approved only recently. They restated their concerns
about potential increased traffic, insufficient parking, congestion, the location of the delivery
and service area, noise (from ambulances), high density, building mass and height.
Conclusions:
The proposed amendments to permit a seniors residence are not appropriate in that they would
allow development which is not compatible with the surrounding community or the intent of
the Official Plan and the Zoning Code. It is recommended that the application be refused.
This application is for a site specific amendment and there are no City-wide issues.
Contact Name:
Lorna Hahn, MCIP, RPP, Planner, Development and Design
Tel: (416) 394-8232; Fax: (416) 394-6063
_____
Mr. M. Rendl appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on behalf of Mr. H. Sawh,
with respect to the foregoing matter.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having also had before it a communication
(May5,1998) from Mr. Q. M. Annibale, of Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish, giving notice of
appeal of the City of Toronto's (former City of Etobicoke's) refusal or failure to approve plans
or drawings referred to in subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act, as amended, with respect to
lands located on the south side of Winterton Drive, east of Martin Grove Road for the
development of the site as a 41-unit senior citizens retirement home and lodging house.
(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 May 6, 1998,
and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(Councillor Brown, at the meeting of City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, declared her
interest in the foregoing Clause, in that the Chief Financial Officer and Fundraising
Co-Chair of her election campaign is a partner in the firm of Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish,
which is acting on behalf of the applicant.)
20
Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Toys R Us,
690 Evans Avenue - File No. Z-2260
(City Council, on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out Recommendation
No.(4) of the Etobicoke Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(4)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to
prepare an area-specific development charge for the Sherway Centre Area.")
The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the findings of fact, conclusions
and recommendations contained in the following report (April 1, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, recommends that the
application by Toys R Us for amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit an
additional 3 863 mē (41,580sq.ft.) of retail uses on lands at the north-east corner of Evans
Avenue and Sherway Gate be approved, in principle, subject to fulfillment of the
conditions outlined in the report (April 1, 1998), as amended by the following:
(1)that Condition 1(a) be deleted;
(2)that the applicant enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto to ensure
compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines in the Sherway Centre Secondary Plan;
(3)that the applicant/Urban Development staff continue to consult with the affected
parties about the the design of the future facility; and
(4)that Urban Development staff submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council
on the issue of development charges, and also whether the current exemption of
commercial and industrial development in force in the former City of Etobicoke should
be repealed.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on
May6,1998 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.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (April 1, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Urban Development Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
Proposed amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit an additional 3863 m2
(41,580sq.ft.) of retail uses on lands at the north-east corner of Evans Avenue and Sherway
Gate.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
City funding is not required.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the application by Toys R Us for amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning
Code to permit an additional 3863 m2 (41,580 sq. ft.) of retail uses be the subject of a Public
Meeting to be held by the Etobicoke Community Council to obtain the views of interested
parties and, if approved, the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.
Background:
Toys R Us owns a 1.64 ha (4.05 ac) site at the north-east corner of Evans Avenue and
SherwayGate (Exhibit No. 1). The site contains a 3863 m2 (41,580 sq. ft.) Toys R Us retail toy
store with related parking. Public access is from Sherway Gate to the west. A private
agreement with the adjacent Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre also permits access from the
SherwayGardens ring road to the north.
Surrounding land uses consist of the Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre to the north;
EvansAvenue and the Q.E.W. to the south; the Q.E.W. to the east and Sheridan Nurseries to
the west.
Proposal:
The applicant, Toys R Us, is seeking a zoning amendment to permit the development of an
additional 3863 m2 (41,580 sq. ft.) of retail space in the form of a second storey above the
existing store. Required parking the for addition is proposed as part of the two storey structure
on the north side of the retail store and includes underground and rooftop parking (Exhibit 2a
and2b).
The following is a summary of relevant information:
Official Plan:
Existing:Mixed Use B, Site Specific policy allowing retail uses.
Zoning:
ExistingLocal Commercial (CL) Site Specific limiting uses
ProposalLocal Commercial (CL)
Site Area1.64 ha (4.05 ac)
G.F.A.
Existing3863 m2 (41,580 sq. ft.)
Proposal3863 m2 (41,580 sq. ft.)
Total7725 m2 (83,160 sq. ft.)
F.S.I.0.47
Parking:Required418
Provided 425Deck160
Surface227
Underground 38
Comment:
Official Plan:
The proposal conforms with the Official Plan as amended by the Sherway Centre Secondary
Plan. Section 4.3.18 of the Official Plan sets out criteria to be considered in applications for
enlarging a retail site through rezoning or Official Plan amendment. The applicant has
submitted a traffic study to Transportation Planning and Ontario Ministry of Transportation
for review. No market analysis is required since the application is for a development of less
than 6908 m2 (75,0000sq.ft.) and does not include a food or drug component of more than
1858 m2 (20,000sq. ft.). It is staff's opinion that the proposed expansion satisfies the criteria in
Section 4.3.18.
Zoning Code:
The site is zoned Limited Commercial (CL) with permitted uses limited, through two site
specific by-laws, to horticultural uses and a specialty retail store for selling toys, childrens
goods and furniture, sporting goods, recreational and electronic equipment in a maximum
building size of 3900m2. Consequently, an amendment is required to permit additional retail
space and uses.
Agency/Department Circulation:
In response to the circulation of a conceptual site plan submitted in support of this application,
no ojections have been expressed. However, certain matters need to be addressed prior to
further development of these lands through site plan approval.
The Fire Department notes that fire hydrants and a fire access route will be required.
The Ontario Ministry of Transportation requires a minimum setback of 13.7 m (45 feet) from
a highway property boundary and submission of a traffic study and a drainage plan.
The Transportation Planning section of the Works Department requested a traffic study and is
presently reviewing that study. Verbal comments suggest that restrictions on some uses may
be necessary. The review of that study should be complete in time for staff to present a
supplementary report, if required, at the recommended public meeting on this application.
Parks and Recreation indicates that cash-in-lieu of parkland should be applied and a landscape
plan is to be submitted and address planting on public boulevards in the area.
The highly visible location of this property makes it a candidate for consideration with regards
to a contribution to public art.
Urban Design Considerations:
This application is still in the conceptual stage. It does not include a detailed site plan and
building elevations showing the precise architectural treatment of the expanded building and
related parking structure. Consequently, the site plan approval process will be particularly
important in ensuring a high standard of urban design recognizing the urban design guidelines
appended to the Sherway Centre Secondary Plan. Should this application be approved
therefore, staff suggest such approval be given in principle and finalization of the by-law
await the submission of a Site Control approval application.
In responding to other recent zoning amendment applications in the Sherway area, it has been
acknowledged that a development charge would be applicable. That should also apply to this
development proposal when a building permit is being issued.
Conclusions:
This application has been evaluated within the contect of the Official Plan, as amended by the
Sherway Centre Secondary Plan, and is consistent with the objectives of those documents.
Staff conclude that the proposed expanded retail uses are acceptable for the site. Should this
application be approved, the following conditions should apply.
Conditions to Approval:
1.Prior to the amending by-law being adopted the applicant to:
a)submit a Site Plan Approval application; and
b)meet the requirements of the Transportation Planning section of the Works Department.
2.The amending by-law shall reaffirm the Limited Commercial (CL) zoning of the property,
permit the full range of retail uses under that zoning category and address development
standards with respect to building size, building height, setbacks and parking requirements.
Contact Name:
Ed Murphy, Planner-Urban Development Department
Tel: (416)394-8234, Fax (416)394-6063
_____
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following
communication:
-(April 24, 1998) from Mr. V. N. Lind, Urban Land Consultant, on behalf of Sheridan
Nurseries Limited, with respect to the impact of the proposed location of the parking
structure.
The following individuals appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to
the foregoing matter:
-Ms. R. Houser, Solicitor, on behalf of Toys R Us.
Ms. Houser asked that the Etobicoke Community Council endorse the report with one
exception, that being the deletion of condition 1(a) which requires the Site Plan Aproval
application to be submitted prior to enactment of the amending by-law. Ms. Houser advised
that there are ongoing discussions with neighbouring owners with respect to site plan issues;
however, the zoning needs to be in place to facilitate these discussions.
-Mr. V. Lind, Urban Land Consultant, on behalf of Sheridan Nurseries Limited.
Mr. Lind expressed his client's concern with the proposed location of the parking structure
projecting out towards a prime corner of the Sherway Ring Road; asked that it be given more
consideration; and made reference to Urban Design statements which relate specifically to this
type of parking structure and the conformity of the proposal to these guidelines.
-Mr. P. Peterson, Solicitor, on behalf of Sherway Centre and Addison Properties.
Mr. Peterson expressed a concern about road improvements and how the applicant would
contribute to these improvements, stating that there are circulation and access issues to which
the applicant should make a fair share contribution. Mr. Peterson indicated that the agreement
in principle is not appropriate as there is insufficient information on how the application will
affect adjacent lands.
(Copies of the exhibits referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City
Clerk, Etobicoke Civic Centre)
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing
Clause, a communication (May 12, 1998) from Mr. Paul J. Peterson, McCarthy Tetrault,
Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of their client, The Canada Life Assurance Company,
owner of the majority of the Sherway Gardens Shopping Centre, expressing concern and
opposition to the approval of zoning amendments for the adjacent Toys "R" Us site.)
21
Application for Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Code -
Zanini Developments, 4185 Dundas Street West
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the findings of fact, conclusions
and recommendations contained in the following report (April 1, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, recommends that the
application by Zanini Developments for amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and
Zoning Code to permit the development of thirty-six freehold townhouses on the south
side of Dundas Street West, east of Prince Edward Drive be approved, subject to
fulfillment of the conditions outlined in the report (April 1, 1998), as amended by the
following:
(i)Condition 1(i) to be amended to read:
"Submission of revised plans to show visitor parking spaces 2.7 m (8.8 ft) in width, to
the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control."; and
(ii)Condition 4(v) to be amended by deleting the words "if approved".
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(i)requested the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, in concert with the
staff of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, to develop a standard for
freehold developments across the new City of Toronto;
(ii)requested the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, in concert with
the staff of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, to also investigate
standards for private roads;
(iii)requested the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, to report back to the Etobicoke
Community Council on the implementation of measures to improve turning movements on
Dundas Street West in the vicinity of Prince Edward Drive; and
(iv) received the following supplementary report (May6, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Urban Development, Etobicoke District:
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on
May6,1998 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.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (April 1, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Urban Development Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To review a proposal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code with respect to the property
located on the south side of Dundas Street West, east of Prince Edward Drive, from General
Commercial (CG) and Second Density Residential (R2) to Fourth Density Residential Group
Area (R4G) to permit the development of thirty six freehold townhouses.
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:
(i)the application by Zanini Developments 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 including an amendment to the Official Plan; and,
(ii)that the Community Council make a recommendation regarding the acceptability of the
proposed freehold nature of the project.
Background:
In March, 1993, The City of Etobicoke Council considered and refused an application by
Ferracuti in Trust for the development of a six storey rental apartment building containing 102
units on a portion of the subject site. The property at that time was irregular in shape and 0.48
hectares (1.19acres) in size. The lands were subsequently purchased by Zanini Developments
who then assembled the rear 24.3 ha (80 ft.) of the adjacent residential properties to the south
to create a rectangular development parcel of 0.6 hectares (1.4 acres).
On October 14, 1997, a community meeting was held to allow area residents and surrounding
property owners an opportunity to review a proposal for 36 townhouses, prior to the
submission of a formal application to the City. On October 21, 1997, Zanini Developments
submitted their application. Comments from that meeting are provided further in this report.
Site Description and Surrounding Uses:
The rectangular site is located on the south side of Dundas Street West, one site east of
PrinceEdward Drive (Exhibit No. 1). The majority of the site is zoned General Commercial
(CG). The four commercial buildings on the site, which were previously occupied by two
automotive garages, a landscape contracting operation and the Knights of Columbus meeting
hall, have recently been demolished. The rear portion of the site (lands assembled from the
adjacent residential properties to the south) is zoned Second Density Residential (R2).
Surrounding zoning categories and land uses are as follows:
North:General Commercial (CG) - a variety of commercial uses in low rise buildings
South:Second Residential Density (R2) - single detached dwellings
East:General Commercial (CG), Second Residential Density (R2) - commercial buildings
fronting onto Dundas Street West with single detached dwellings fronting onto Earlington
Avenue
West:General Commercial (CG), Second Residential Density (R2) - the property fronting onto
Dundas Street West is occupied by a single storey restaurant with parking in front and single,
detached homes fronting on Prince Edward Drive
Proposal:
Zanini Developments has requested a rezoning from General Commercial (CG) and Second
Density Residential (R2) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) to permit the
development of 36freehold townhouse units. All the units would be four storeys in height
(13.4m [44 ft.]) and contain three bedrooms.
The project would consist of three townhouse blocks, containing 11, 12 and 13 units,
respectively. Two blocks would be oriented perpendicular to Dundas Street West with the
third block oriented parallel to the southerly lot line (Exhibit No. 2). Each unit would have
individual garages at grade with a second parking space available on each driveway.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via a cental 'T' shaped private roadway from
Dundas Street West with six visitor parking spaces provided towards the rear of the site.
A typical unit would contain 3 bedrooms with an average unit size of approximately 163.5 m2
(1,760sq. ft.). The units would be between 4.8 m (16ft.) and 5.4 m (17.9ft.) in width with
minimum front and rear yards of 6.0 m (19.6 ft.) and 7.0m (22.9 ft.), respectively.
The following is a summary of information relevant to this application:
Official Plan:Commercial Residential Strip
Zoning:Existing:General Commercial (CG) Second Density Residential (R2)
Proposed:Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G)
Site Area0.6 ha (1.48 ac)
Units36
Density60 uph (24.3 upa)
G.F.A.:5 884.9 m2 (63,345 sq. ft.)
F.S.I.0.98
Coverage2 283.7 m2 (24,582 sq. ft.)27.8%
LOS2 045.9 m2 (22,022 sq. ft.)34.1 %
Paved Area1 669.3 m2 (17,969 sq. ft.)27.8%
Parking:Required: tenant: 51 spacesProvided:tenant: 72 spaces
visitor: 7 spacesvisitor: 6 spaces
total: 58 spacestotal:78 spaces (short 1 visitor space)
Comment:
Official Plan:
The commercial properties fronting onto Dundas Street West are designated Commercial
Residential Strip in the Official Plan. This designation permits mixed commercial/residential
developments up to a maximum height of six storeys with sufficient building stepping,
buffering or separation to protect adjacent low density residences. Stand alone residential
buildings are also permitted, provided the use does not interrupt the continuity of the
commercial frontage to a significant degree. The maximum height and density of such
developments shall have regard for the relevant criteria for stand alone residential projects, as
outlined in Section 4.4.6 of the Plan, and shall be regulated by an absolute height limit as well
as a 45 degree angular plane requirement from the adjacent Low Density designations (see
Exhibit No. 5 of this report).
Section 4.4.7 of the Official Plan provides for the consolidation of directly abutting residential
properties within the Commercial Residential Strip designation without amendment to the
Plan in order to achieve satisfactory development standards for redevelopment projects with
respect to site design, servicing and the creation of larger parcels of land. In these cases,
zoning amendments may be considered, subject to the criteria of Section 4.4.6 and, the
provision of adequate landscaping and screening to buffer the proposed parking and loading
areas from surrounding residential uses. Further, the height and form of the development
should not create any adverse undue impacts with respect to overshadowing and loss of
amenity. Therefore, for the purposes of this application, the entire site has been evaluated
based on the relevant provisions of the Commercial Residential Strip designation.
Based on a review of the criteria of the Official Plan, staff are satisfied that while the proposal
does not meet all of the criteria, it does meet the overall intent of the policies for residential
development within a Commercial Residential Strip (Exhibit No. 5). A stand alone residential
development at this location would not interrupt the continuity of the commercial frontage to
a significant degree as the uses within this section Dundas Street West are more automobile
oriented than the commercial uses to the west of Prince Edward Drive. The project would also
not adversely impact or compromise the surrounding commercial uses. In terms of land use
and building height, the applicant's proposal would generally conform to the provisions of the
Official Plan with limited impact on adjacent residential properties. Further, sufficient traffic
capacity would be available on the adjacent roadways to accommodate the development, with
parks and social services available within the established community.
However, while the proposal is generally satisfactory from a land use standpoint, staff have
concerns regarding the massing and development standards exhibited by the project. In
addition, the project as proposed would not comply with the angular plane provisions of the
Official Plan and an amendment to the Plan would be required. A draft of the Official Plan
amendment is attached as Exhibit No. 6. A detailed discussion of these items is provided
below under 'Site Design Considerations'.
Zoning Code:
The property is zoned General Commercial (CG) and Second Density Residential (R2). In the
event of approval, staff suggest that the site be rezoned to Fourth Density Residential Group
Area (R4G) which would provide for the proposed townhouse dwelling type. Site specific
development standards should be incorporated to reflect the approved plans.
Site Design Considerations:
As previously noted, the proposal consists of three, 4-storey townhouse blocks. Blocks A and
B would be oriented perpendicular to Dundas Street and Block C would be located parallel to
the southerly property line (Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3).
As result of the orientation of Blocks A and B, side wall conditions would be presented to
DundasStreet West. Although a facing front wall condition would be preferable to address the
streetscape, the applicant has submitted building elevations which indicate that the facade of
the units adjacent to Dundas Street West would be detailed with additional windows and a
side door entrance (Exhibit No.4).
The applicant is proposing a minimum building setback of 1.5m (5.0 ft.) from Dundas Street
West, whereas the development standards in a Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G)
zone would require a building setback of 13.5 m (44.2 ft.) from the street line. Staff
acknowledge that commercial developments are generally encouraged to locate at the street
line to maintain the continuity of the streetscape and create a pedestrian environment.
However, the reduced setback proposed by the applicant would result in a loss of privacy for
the affected units and preclude the opportunity to provide a suitable streetscape of tree
planting and privacy fencing.
It is recommended that an increased setback of 4.0 m (13.0 ft.) be provided from Dundas
Street West which would allow for a greater separation between private residential areas and
the public boulevard with additional space available for the development of an appropriate
streetscape. A greater setback from the street would also improve the operation of the
driveway allowing for a 6.0 m (19.6 ft.) clear "throat distance" between the property line and
the closest driveway. Staff suggest that a combination of fencing and landscaping could be
implemented during the Site Plan Control Approval process to maintain the continuity of the
street edge.
The applicant would provide each townhouse unit with a minimum 7.0 m (22.9 ft.) rear yard
which would not allow for the provision of a 45 degree angular plane from the abutting Low
Density Residential neighbourhood which surrounds the southerly portion of the site. Staff
acknowledge that the size of the proposed rear yards would be comparable to the development
standards recently approved by Council for similar townhouse developments. However given
the residential context of this site and the proposed 13.1 m (43 ft.) building height, staff are of
the opinion that in order to reduce overlook and prevent a loss of privacy in the rear yards of
the adjacent low density neighbourhoods, the project should be revised to meet angular plane
requirements for all facing rear yard conditions to the south and east for Blocks A and C.
With respect to Block A, to the west, there is a finger of land, owned by the abutting
restaurant property, which runs down a majority of the westerly property line, allowing for a
separation of 11.5m (38 ft.) between the subject site and the abutting low density residential
properties to the east. This separation would be sufficient to reduce any impact from the
proposed townhouses which would be in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan;
therefore, the provision of a 45 degree angular plane would not be required for Block A.
The side yard of Block C would maintain a maximum of 1.26 m (4.1ft.) from the abutting rear
lot lines of the residential properties to the east and west. These properties are occupied by
single, detached homes on lots of approximately 45.7 m (150.0 ft.) in depth. The requirement
for a 45degree angular plane would also apply in this instance; however, as this would not be
a facing condition, the potential for overlook would be reduced. Therefore, staff recommend
some relief from the angular plane provisions in this instance but, to reduce the visual impact
of the 4 storey townhouse units on the rear yards of these abutting properties, the height of the
proposed end units should be reduced to a maximum eave height of 6.5 m (21.3 ft) and a
maximum building height of 9.5 m (31.1 ft.) which would be consistent with the height
requirements applicable to the abutting single detached dwelling.
Each of the three townhouse blocks would be between 58.7 m (192.5 ft.) and 64 m (210.0 ft)
in length, and contain between 11 and 13 townhouse units. To reduce the visual impact and
massing of these blocks, as they relate to the internal private drive and the surrounding land
uses, a break between units should be provided at approximately the mid-point in each Block.
In addition, a sidewalk is to be introduced along one side of the private road to facilitate safe
pedestrian movements through the site
Staff's concerns with respect to building setbacks, block length and the provision of an
internal sidewalk should be addressed through a redesign of the project which may result in a
reduction in the number of units. The requested modifications to the project would be similar
to those standards exhibited by recently approved townhouse developments on Skeens Lane
and DundasStreet West at Donnybrook Lane. As previously noted, as a 45 degree angular
plane is not proposed adjacent to the low density residential properties, an amendment to the
Official Plan would be required. The applicant has been advised of these concerns and may
wish to address the matter before the Community Council in deputation.
Agency/Department Circulation:
In response to the circulation of plan submitted in support of this application, no objections
have been expressed by the following departments:
Fire DepartmentToronto Hydro
Toronto Transit CommissionBell Canada
Health Department
Comments from The Toronto Separate School Board, Parks and Recreation Services, and the
Toronto Police Department remain outstanding.
The Transportation Planning section of the Works Department comments are attached as
Exhibits7 and 8. Transportation staff advise that the level of service on the boundary roadway
will not be negatively impacted by the development proposal and that the driveway layout and
parking supply as shown is satisfactory subject to minor modifications to the site plan. Given
the surplus amount of tenant spaces, Transportation staff have advised that the visitor parking
shortfall of one space is not significant. In the event that the freehold nature of the project is
found acceptable, mutual rights of way for the driveway must be registered for each unit to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
The Development Engineering section of the Works Department has advised that the existing
storm sewer on Dundas Street West does not have the capacity for the proposed development.
The applicant has been advised to review possible solutions for storm drainage and present
viable options for review by City staff. Works staff has advised that the preferred engineering
solution for storm drainage would be to provide a break in the middle of Block C to allow for
storm sewer and surface flows towards Dundas Street West (Exhibit No. 9). Works staff are
recommending the installation of an internal walkway for public safety and the existing
sidewalks on DundasStreet are to be continuous through the driveway.
The applicant is required to provide an environmental report for peer review to ensure that the
property is suitable for residential development. The Development Engineering Section also
recommends condominium registration for this development rather than the freehold tenure
proposed. This issue is discussed in the following section on " Tenure".
The Etobicoke Board of Education does not object to the application but has advised that
additional space would be required at Etobicoke Collegiate Institute to accommodate students
from the proposed development (Exhibit No. 10). The Board has requested that the applicant
make contributions towards capital costs for school facilities. The applicant has been advised
of this request, however, as the Board does not have a development charges by-law in place,
this request has not been included as a condition to approval.
Urban Development staff request that details of tree preservation methods be submitted during
the Site Plan Approval Process to protect trees on adjacent properties. The applicant would be
required to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of the
building permits, as well as a five percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution.
Tenure
Council has in the past approved freehold developments on a private roadway.
Notwithstanding these approvals, staff of the Urban Development Department, the Works
Department and the Solicitor for the Etobicoke Office continue to have concerns regarding the
long term suitability of freehold developments utilizing common facilities such as roadways
and underground services. City staff remain of the opinion that developments which share
common facilities are more appropriately dealt with under the provisions of the Condominium
Act through the registration of a condominium corporation.
Staff have reviewed this matter with the other the district offices, the majority of whom
discourage this type of ownership arrangement.
Should the application for a freehold ownership arrangement on a private road be approved, a
private mutual use and maintenance agreement, including cost sharing arrangements and the
establishment of a reserve fund for the repair and or replacement of common services and
facilities should be to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
Community Meeting
On October 14, 1997, approximately 30 persons attended a community meeting to review the
proposed plans prior to the submission of a formal application to the City. The residents in
attendance were generally receptive to the concept of townhouses but expressed concerns
regarding traffic generation, lack of visitor parking, the safety of the access onto Dundas
Street West, effects on property values, preservation of trees on adjacent properties and had
questions regarding the maintenance of private roads and common elements in a freehold
situation.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of Urban Development staff that the application for townhouses would
generally satisfy the Official Plan criteria for considering residential development within a
Commercial Residential Strip designation.
However, staff recommend a number of modifications to address the angular plane
requirements of the Official Plan and concerns regarding the massing and length of the
townhouse blocks, the proposed building setback from Dundas Street West as well as the
requirement for an internal walkway to ensure safe pedestrian movements through the site.
Staff anticipate that such a redesign may result in the loss of units, however, these
modifications would also serve to address a number of the comments from the Development
Engineering Section of the Works Department and be more consistent with recent approvals
by Council and the Ontario Municipal Board for townhouse developments within the
Etobicoke area. Subject to the requested modifications, staff are of the opinion that the
proposal would represent good planning.
In order to avoid difficulties for the City with respect to the long term maintenance of freehold
developments, staff recommend that the proposal be dealt with by way of condominium
registration.
In the event of approval the following conditions should apply:
Conditions to Approval:
1.Fulfilment of the following conditions prior to the enactment of an Official Plan amendment
and amending by-law:
(i)Submission of revised plans to include an increased setback to Dundas Street West, an
internal sidewalk, compliance with 45 degree angular plane requirements and building heights
as outlined in the staff report, revised curb radii, a maximum block length of seven units and
visitor parking spaces 2.7 m (8.8 ft.) in width, to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory
Committee on Development Control.
(ii)The submission of environmental reports for peer review in accordance with the Etobicoke
Policy and Procedures for Potentially Contaminated Sites.
(iii)Confirmation form the Development Engineering Section of the Works Department that
servicing constraints have been satisfactorily addressed
(iv)Signing of a Development Agreement and the payment of the necessary fees associated
with the preparation execution and registration of same, if required by the Works Department.
(v)Receipt of comments from, and subject to any requirements of, Parks and Recreation
Services, the Toronto Separate School Board and the Toronto Police Department.
2.Enactment of an amendment to the Official Plan to introduce a Special Site Policy to grant
relief from Section 4.4.5 of the Plan with respect to angular plane requirements.
3.The amending by-law shall rezone the lands from General Commercial (CG) and Second
Density Residential (R2) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) and shall provide
development standards to include: floor space index, building height, setbacks, coverage,
parking, landscaping, internal sidewalks and a maximum number of units.
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 property damage with respect to units on
the private road or any contamination problems, and payment of necessary fees associated
with the preparation, execution and registration of same, to the satisfaction of the City
Solicitor.
(ii)Submission of a landscaping plan detailing fencing, curbing, grading, retaining walls,
street trees, planting, and tree preservation methods for trees on abutting properties, to the
satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control, and posting of an
appropriate 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 stormwater management facilities or cash-in-lieu payment, the signing of
agreements, and the posting of financial guarantees, if required by the Works Department.
(iv)Confirmation that the site plan is satisfactory to Bell Canada, Etobicoke Hydro and
Canada Post.
(v)Freehold units sharing common services, if approved, be required to have a Mutual Use
and Maintenance Agreement addressing the mutual right-of-way, cost-sharing for
maintenance of common services and the establishment of a reserve fund for the eventual
replacement of services on private property, to the satisfaction of the Works Department and
City Solicitor.
(vi)Confirmation that the site decommissioning and cleanup has been carried out to the
satisfaction of the Works Department in accordance with Ministry of Environment and
Energy guidelines, if required.
(vii)The developer to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of issuance
of building permits and five percent cash in lieu of parkland dedication.
(viii)A construction site management plan to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee
on Development Control.
Contact Name:
Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design
Tel: (416)394-8229 Fax: (416)394-6063
(Copies of Exhibits referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City
Clerk, Etobicoke Civic Centre.)
The Etobicoke Community Council further submits the following supplementary report
(May6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To respond to a request from Etobicoke Community Council for additional information
regarding the development of freehold townhouses on private roads elsewhere in the City.
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 for information.
Background:
During the Etobicoke Community Council meeting held on April 1, 1998, additional
information was requested regarding the extent to which approvals have been granted for
freehold townhouse developments on private roadways in other areas of the City of Toronto.
Comment:
Based on a survey of the District Offices in the City of Toronto, the following is a list of the
number of freehold townhouse projects and related numbers of units within the projects that
have been rezoned for development on private roadway systems since January 1995:
| District Office |
Number of Projects |
Total Number of Units |
| East York |
2 |
40 units |
| Etobicoke |
6 |
105 units |
| North York |
3 |
45 units |
| Scarborough |
0 |
0 |
| Toronto |
4 |
45 units |
| York |
0 |
0 |
| Total |
15 |
235 |
As noted in the staff report dated April 1, 1998, the district offices contacted discourage
freehold developments on private roadways.
Conclusion:
That this report be received for information.
Contact Name:
Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design
Tel: (416)394-8229 Fax: (416)394-6063
_____
The Etobicoke Community Council also report having had before it the following
communications:
-(May 1, 1998) from Mr. W. N. Bernard, on behalf of the tenants of the Lambton Business
Centre, expressing concern about the impact of the proposed development on the traffic flow
in the area and the adverse effect it will have on those who occupy and use the commercial
buildings on Dundas Street West; and
-(May 6, 1998) from Mrs. C. Torneiro, concerned about the future private road, privacy,
overshadowing and the overflow of parking onto neighbouring streets.
The following individuals appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council:
-Ms. I. Catsibris, on behalf of Zanini Developments;
-Mr. D. Butler, Planning Consultant, on behalf of Zanini Development;
-Mr. W. N. Bernard, who reiterated the concerns expressed in his communication about the
impact on existing traffic conditions, particularly the difficulty in make left turns into both
east- and west-bound traffic;
-Mrs. C. Bromstein, who expressed support of the proposal; and
-Mr. G. Schrader, who support the comments made about traffic issues.
22
Thistletown Multi-Service Centre Board of Directors
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that Councillor Bruce Sinclair,
Rexdale-Thistletown, be appointed as the Etobicoke Community Council representative
on the Board of Directors for the Thistletown Multi-Service Centre.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports have received the following communication
(April23,1998) from Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Rexdale-Thistletown:
I would like to bring to the attention of the members of Etobicoke Community Council my
intentions to step down from the Thistletown Multi-Service Centre Board of Directors.
Because of time constraints on my schedule, I feel that I will not be able to fulfill my
commitment to this Board. Please be advised that Councillor Bruce Sinclair has expressed an
interest in serving on the Thistletown Board and I would recommend that Council approve his
appointment.
23
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)Presentation on Behalf of Etobicoke Concert Band.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)endorsed in principle the request by representatives of the Etobicoke Concert Band,
to seek the right for community arts organizations in Etobicoke to occupy the Westwood
Theatre property;
(2)requested the staff of the Facilities and Real Estate, Arts and Culture and Urban
Planning Departments to confer with a view to arriving at some sort of agreement with
the arts community and the City;
(3)advised the Etobicoke Concert Band representatives, together with other arts and
culture groups in Etobicoke, to draft a letter that the Etobicoke Community Council can
forward to the Members of Parliament representing the Etobicoke area seeking their
assistance in obtaining infrastructure funding; and
(4)received the following communication:
(April 28, 1998) from Ms. C. McGee, on behalf of the Westwood Theatre Project, requesting
the opportunity, in the short term, to obtain the right for community arts organizations in
Etobicoke to occupy the Westwood Theatre property, at nominal cost; and in the long term, if
and when the property is declared surplus by the City of Toronto and offered sale, that the
development criteria include performing arts facilities.
_____
Ms. C. McGee appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the
foregoing.
(b)Somali-Canadian Sports and Art Centre.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following
communication (i) and the following report (ii):
(i)(April 20, 1998) from Mr. S. J. Ali, President, Somali-Canadian Sports and Art Centre,
regarding the Somali Week events at Centennial Park and issuance of appropriate permits; and
(ii)(May 6, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, Etobicoke
District, clarifying the issuance of permit for Somali Soccer at Centennial Park;
recommending that where there is a community based event, the community organize a
meeting of its interested stakeholders and make one application only for the use of the City
facilities required; and that a list of officers of the committee be provided to facility staff in
order to execute a permit within the existing conditions and regulations governing such
events.
(c)Arts Etobicoke - Request to Utilize Space in Municipally-owned Building.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)requested the Manager, Realty Services, Etobicoke-York, to report back to the
Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting of June 24, 1998 on the use of
municipally-owned facilities in Etobicoke by Etobicoke-based groups;
(2)received the following communications (i) and (ii); and
(3)received the following report (iii):
(i)(March 30, 1998) from Ms. M. Hopper, Chair, Arts Etobicoke, advising that their present
lease will expire in November, 1998, and expressing an interest in moving into space which
may become available in one of Etobicoke's public building;
(ii)(May 6, 1998) from Mrs. S. Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' &
Residents' Associations, advising that the Association has formed an Airport Committee, and
requesting office and support facilities in the Etobicoke Civic Centre for the Committee;
(iii)(May 4, 1998) from the Manager, Realty Services, Etobicoke-York, advising that a draft
policy is being developed by the Facilities and Real Estate Group to set out the parameters for
accommodation of such requests.
_____
Mrs. S. Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' & Residents' Associations,
appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
(d)The Franklin Carmichael Art Group.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)referred the request for the development of an improved art facility at 24Riverdale
Drive to the Acting Commissioners of Parks and Recreation Services Department for a
report to the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to:
(i)whether the proposal should be endorsed, in principle;
(ii)whether the solicitation of funds for this proposed project should be endorsed; and
(iii)whether the proposal should be included in the next review of the 5-year Capital
Budget.
(2)requested the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, Etobicoke
District to report to the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council with respect
to the immediate repairs necessary at 24 Riverdale Drive, and to identify the associated
costs.
The Etobicoke Community Council received a presentation from Mr. Geoff Le Feuvre, Chair
of the Board of the Franklin Carmichael Art Group, seeking approval in principle for the
development of an improved art facility at 24 Riverdale Drive, and permission to commence
fundraising for this project.
(e)Enforcement of Regulations with Respect to Mobile Signs.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)directed the Property Use Division of the Urban Development Department, Etobicoke
District, to take immediate action to remove illegal mobile signs on public property;
(2)requested the Urban Development Department, Etobicoke District, to prepare a letter
to be circulated, to the best of their ability, to all business that have rented illegally
placed mobile signs, advising that the signs do not conform to municipal by-laws and
that they should seek recourse with the sign company; and
(3)received the following communication:
(April 21, 1998) from Mr. L. Reina, President, Red Hot Signs Inc., requesting a 30-day period
in which to comply with directives from the Property Use Division of the Urban Development
Department to remove all mobile signs from public properties.
(f)Variances to the Etobicoke Sign By-law.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following reports (i) and
(ii) for information:
(i)(April 7, 1998) from the Secretary, Sign Variance Advisory Committee, advising of the
decisions of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee made on March 31, 1998, with respect to
applications for variance at the following locations:
(a)730343 Ontario Ltd., 577 Burnhamthorpe Road;
(b)Winners, 180 Queen's Plate Drive;
(c)Shell Canada Products Ltd., 135 Rexdale Boulevard; and
(d)The Shoe Club, 1255 The Queensway; and
(ii)(April 29, 1998) from the Secretary, Sign Variance Advisory Committee, advising of the
decisions of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee made on April 28, 1998 with respect to
applications for variance at the following locations:
(a)Glit/Gemtex, 60 Belfield Road;
(b)Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, 2182 Islington Avenue;
(c)Gould Outdoor Signs, 1770 Albion Road;
(d)730343 Ontario Ltd., 577 Burnhamthorpe Road;
(e)Pro Golf, 5429 Dundas Street West;
(f)Sheridan Nurseries, 700 Evans Avenue; and
(g)Humberwood Centre, 850 Humberwood Boulevard.
_____
Mr. J. Cole, of Gould Outdoor Signs, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in
connection with the foregoing report (ii)(c).
(g)1998 Awards of Excellence.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)approved the following recommendations of the Civic Awards Selection Committee
for the 1998 Etobicoke Civic Awards, which include the Etobicoke Hall of Fame, Citizen
of the Year, Corporate Citizen, Award of Distinction, and Youth Achievement Awards:
-Citizen of the YearDr. Murray Lang
-Hall of FameJames A. McNabb
-Award of Distinction Ruth Grier
-Corporate Citizen Campbell Soup Company
-Youth Achievement AwardOlivia Lee
(2)concurred in the following recommendations of Volunteers Etobicoke for the
Etobicoke Volunteer of the Year Award:
Group 1 - Health Related
-Barbara Johnston - Queen Street Mental Health Centre;
-Eva Jean Kiverago - Lakeshore Area Multi-Service Project (LAMP)
-Valerie Moore - Queensway Hospital Auxiliary
Group 2 - Arts and Culture
-Bruce Jackson - Etobicoke Youth Choir
Group 3 - Education, Sports & Education
-Jack Blasutti - Etobicoke Youth Soccer Association
-Rohan Smith - Highfield Community Enrichment Project
Group 4 - Community and Social Services
-Donald White - Rexdale Community Legal Clinic
-Carolyn Whiteside - Central and North Etobicoke Home Support Service
(3) concurred in the recommendation that these awards be presented at the Etobicoke
Community Council meeting to be held on Thursday, June 25, 1998;
(4)received the following reports (i) and (ii):
(i)(May 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the 1998 Civic
Awards Selection Committee for the Etobicoke Hall of Fame, Citizen of the Year, Corporate
Citizen, Award of Distinction and Youth Achievement Award; and
(ii)(April 23, 1998) from the Executive Director, Volunteers Etobicoke, submitting the names
of the nominees for the Awards of Excellence, Etobicoke Volunteer of the Year.
(h)All-Way Stop Study: Thirtieth Street at Rimilton Avenue.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, advising that a report on
the implementation of stop controls at the intersection of Thirtieth Street and Rimilton
Avenue will be available for the Community Council meeting of May 27, 1998.
(i)Urban Development Department - Report for the First Quarter of 1998.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, reporting
on all activities in the Urban Development Department for the first quarter of 1998.
(j)New Development Applications for Etobicoke District.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following reports (i) and
(ii) for information:
(i)(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District,
forwarding a list of development applications received by the Urban Development
Department since April 1, 1998; and
(ii)(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District,
forwarding a list of additional development applications received by the Urban Development
Department, Etobicoke District, to April 30, 1998.
(k)Request for Closure of Municipal Walkway between Goa Court and Edilou Drive.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be
held to consider the following report:
(May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, regarding a request for
closure of the municipal walkway between Goa Court andEdilouDrive.
(l)Zoning Code Review - Supplementary Report No. 3 - File No. Z-2001B.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be
held to consider the following report:
(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, with
respect to proposed revisions to the Etobicoke Zoning Code pertaining to Waste
Disposal/Recycling Facilities.
(m)Simcoe Construction, 505 The West Mall - File No. Z-2245.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be
held to consider the following report:
(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, regarding a
site specific proposal to amend the Zoning Code from Fifth Density Residential (R5) to Sixth
Density Residential (R6) to permit the development of an additional 93-unit, 10-storey
residential condominium in conjunction with an existing 6-storey apartment building on a site
at the south-east corner of The West Mall and Holiday Drive.
(n)Lavington Properties, 5 Lavington Drive - File No. Z-2250.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be
held to consider the following report:
(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, regarding
an application for amendment to the Zoning Code to legalize eight existing apartment units
located above a neighbourhood plaza, and to permit four additional units in a 403 mē
(4,340sq. ft.) addition to the plaza, for a total of twelve apartment units.
(o)Notice of Proposal for an Instrument Pursuant to the EPA, s.27 Approval for a Waste
Disposal Site, 90 Shorncliffe Road -MOE Reference A680288.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following
communication:
(April 17, 1998) from Willms & Shier, Barristers & Solicitors, opposing the issuance of a
certificate of approval in respect of an application by 1115314 Ontario Inc., for the lands and a
proposed building at 90 Shorncliffe Road, to permit the handling and recycling only of a
maximum of 30 tonnes per day (and total storage of 150 tonnes) of only non-organic
construction and demolition waste.
(p)Application for Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Code- Tanana
Investments and Royal Gate Apartments, 1407 Royal York Road - File No. Z-2249.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports, after considering the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (April 1, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, having:
(1)deferred consideration of the following reports (i) and (ii) until the next meeting of the
Etobicoke Community Council for a continuation of the statutory public meeting;
(2)requested the applicant and representatives of the community to meet prior to that
time in an attempt to achieve a resolution of the issues; namely, square footage of the
units, landscaping, density, driveway locations, traffic, building height, etc.;
(3)requested the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, to conduct a traffic study
in the area, to be a minimum of three days, to verify the numbers given in the staff
report; and
(4)requested the applicant to enter into discussions with the Toronto School Board with
respect to appropriate contributions toward their needs and a report back to the
Community Council from either the applicant or the School Board.
(i)(April 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District,
regarding an application by Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments for amendments
to the Etobicoke Official Plan to permit the development of two condominium apartment
buildings, 10 and 15 storeys in height, containing a total of 219 units, to be developed in
conjunction with an existing 13-storey rental apartment building located at the south-east
corner of Royal York Road and LaRose Avenue.
(ii)(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District,
reporting with respect to inclusion of a provision for a public art component and, further, with
respect to the complete text of Special Site Policy No. 20 as stated in the Etobicoke Official
Plan pertaining to density provisions of the subject lands.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on May6,
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.
(q)Sidewalk Improvement - Royal York Road between Hay Avenue and Simpson
Avenue.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following
communication (March 24, 1998) to the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, for
review and report back to the Community Council:
(March 24, 1998) on behalf of Concerned Business and Property Owners on the west side of
Royal York Road between Hay Avenue and Simpson Avenue with respect to sidewalk repairs
and the introduction of info-railings which would permit third party advertising immediately
in front of their premises.
(r)Speed Limit Compliance on Urban Streets.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following
communication (May 6, 1998) to the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, for
review and report back to the Community Council:
(May 6, 1998) from Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Etobicoke Member, Toronto Pedestrian Issues
Committee, regarding the results of radar spot speed studies in certain areas of the
community, and vehicle operating speeds in excess of the posted speed limit which are not
considered to be within the enforceable range and therefore require only a periodic level of
police enforcement.
(s)Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)referred the following submissions, received at a public meeting to hear deputations
on the role of the Community Council, to the Special Committee to Review the Final
Report of the Toronto Transition Team;
(2)received the following communication (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk
forwarding Clause 2 of Report No. 3 of The Special Committee to Review the Final
Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles
and Responsibilities of Community Councils":
(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding for consideration and community
consultation, Clause No. 2 contained in Report No. 3 of The Special Committee to Review the
Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles
and Responsibilities of Community Councils", which was adopted, without amendment, by
City Council at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.
_____
The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with
the foregoing:
-Mr. Gary Collver, on behalf of Etobicoke Citizens for Effective Government, regarding
division of councillors' responsibilities between policy making and administrative roles;
engaging residents in meaningful participation; development of a code to address the roles and
responsibilities of councillors; neighbourhoods report cards; delegation of powers to
Community Councils with active citizen participation;
-Ms. Nadine Grant, LAMP, endorsing the concept of Community Report Cards, and in
particular, reporting on the community report card process that has been initiated in the
Lakeshore-Queensway Wards; advising that the Healthy City Coalition is working on
benchmarks;
-Mr. Bob Berry, Islington Residents and Ratepayers Association, who stressed that the issues
are accessibility and accountability; that the Etobicoke Community Council rates very highly,
both individually and collectively; that the Council as a whole should not be tied up with what
are deemed to be local issues; and identified issues that must be considered by the entire
Council such as a tax freeze, policing, pollution, transportation, user fees, etc., and the need to
have a level playing field.
-Mrs. Sylvia Giovanella, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' & Residents' Associations, who
recommended that the area of each community council should be centred in the six previous
local governments and each to have eight to ten councillors; the community council should
have "real teeth" and specific responsibilities for Zoning by-laws, consents, building permits,
plans of subdivision, local by-laws, and power to appoint a Committee of Adjustment; while
each Community Council should have administrative staff, they should not have a separate
budget; the Chair should be appointed for an 18-month period and elected by the Community
Councillors; decisions of the Community Council to require a 75% vote of the City Council to
be overruled; there should not be neighbourhood committees. Mrs. Giovanella also
recommended outside scrutiny by an "Auditor General";
-Mr. W. Culbertson, stressing the need for local advisory groups, such as local seniors'
associations which are presently actively involved with the local administration and need that
support to continue;
-Mrs. Marjorie Hewett, speaking from the perspective of the local arts community, and
stressing the need for local Community Councils who understand the needs of the local
groups;
-Mr. W. Alexander, Chair of the Etobicoke Barrier Free Accessibility Committee, who also
stressed the need for Community Councils in to order to support the work of community
volunteers who establish such committees;
-Mr. D. Bannon who, while recognizing the work of local groups and staff, remarking that
there must be some budget and staffing efficiencies.
Respectfully submitted,
ELIZABETH BROWN,
Chair
Toronto, May 6 and 7, 1998
(Report No. 5 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additions thereto, was
adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998.)
