TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 8

1Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits in the Stonegate Area

2Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls: Trehorne Drive and Tallon Road

3Introduction of Stopping Prohibition: Brampton Road

4Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Longbourne Drive

5Introduction of a Parking Prohibition: Collingdale Road

6Introduction of a Parking Prohibition: King Georges Road

7Proposed Installation of Yield Sign Controls: Murchison Crescent and Blackbush Drive (North-West and South-East Intersections)

8Request for the Closure of the Municipal Walkway Between Goa Court and Edilou Drive

9Request for the Closure of the Walkway Between Blackbush Drive and Netherly Drive

10Funding for Community Playground Upgrade Programme

11Funding of Signs Posted on 3857, 3859 and 3861 Lake Shore Boulevard West

12Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

13By-law to Designate Certain Areas with High Concentrations of Rental Housing as Areas of Demolition Control Within the Former City of Etobicoke - File No. 300.12.3.1

14Adult Entertainment Facilities - Interim Control By-law File No. 580.70

15Terms of Reference - Review of the Kipling/Islington Centre Secondary Plan

16Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Shell Canada Limited, 320 Burnhamthorpe Road - File No. Z-2257

17Amendments to the Zoning Code - D.E. & V.I. Investments Limited (Shell Canada Limited), 475 Renforth Drive - File No. Z-2258

18Technical Amendment to Site Plan Control Provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code - File No. Z-2001

19Scarlett Gate Developments, 542 Scarlett Road Supplementary Report - File No. Z-2262

20Etobicoke Fire Route By-law

21Special Occasion Permit - Humber Bay Park

22Performing Art Centre Task Force

23Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue

24Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 8

OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on July 22, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

1

Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits in the Stonegate Area

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme within the Stonegate area.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the south side of BerryRoad between ParkLawnRoad and Kinsdale Boulevard; on the north side of BerryRoad between the HumberRiver and StephenDrive; and Bell Manor Drive and ParkLawnRoad;

(2)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the east side of ParkLawnRoad from a point 98.0 metres south of KinsdaleBoulevard to KinsdaleBoulevard; and between KinsdaleBoulevard and Berry Road;

(3)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the north side of KinsdaleBoulevard between BerryRoad and ParkLawnRoad; on the south side ofKinsdaleBoulevard between BerryRoad and Newholm Road; and Cloverhill Road and Park Lawn Road;

(4)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the south side of HeatherdaleRoad between CloverhillRoad and the west limit of the road;

(5)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the east side of CloverhillRoad between BerryRoad and KinsdaleBoulevard; and on the west side of CloverhillRoad between KinsdaleBoulevard and HeatherdaleRoad;

(6)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on both sides of NewholmRoad from a point 45.0 metres north of CloverhillRoad to BerryRoad;

(7)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the north side of BellManorDrive from a point 100.5 metres north of BerryRoad to a point 38.0 metres north thereof;

(8)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the north side of BaskingRidge between BaysideLane and ParkLawnRoad;

(9)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the east, west and north sides of CrownHillPlace;

(10)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the west side of RiverwoodParkwaybetween KingsPoint Road and Stephen Drive;

(11)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on both sides of KingsPointDrive between ParkLawnRoad and RiverwoodParkway;

(12)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on both sides of HillHeights between ParkLawnRoad and Crown Hill Place;

(13)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the east side of StephenDrive between BerryRoad and the north limit of the road; and on the west side of Stephen Drive between Riverwood Parkway and the north limit of the road; and

(14)the appropriate by-laws (Attachment Nos. 1, 2 and 3) be amended accordingly.

Background:

Frequently, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division receives requests from the residents of BerryRoad, ParkLawnRoad, KinsdaleBoulevard, HeatherdaleRoad, CloverhillRoad, NewholmRoad, BellManorDrive, BaskingRidge, CrownHillPlace, RiverwoodParkway, StephenDrive and KingsPointRoad enquiring about the feasibility of parking permits for these streets. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

In February and March 1998, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division received several requests from the residents of BerryRoad, ParkLawnRoad, KinsdaleBoulevard, HeatherdaleRoad, CloverhillRoad, NewholmRoad, BellManorDrive, BaskingRidge, CrownHillPlace, RiverwoodParkway, StephenDrive and KingsPointRoad regarding the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme.

Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly medium density residential. There are seventy-seven (77) apartment buildings within this area with approximately 2,500 units. These apartments were built between 1952 and 1968, predating the introduction of the current parking standards for residential developments in the City of Etobicoke. As a result, when current parking standards are applied there is a shortfall of six hundred and five (605) parking spaces on-site. Consequently, the residents who do not have parking available to them have no alternative but to leave their vehicles on the street.

A community meeting was held on May 25, 1998, at Etienne Brule Public School, 50CloverhillRoad, to discuss permit parking for this area. All attendees were in favour of the proposed permit parking programme. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Due to the extensive size of this area, permits will be implemented in two phases. Phase I will be implemented on November 1, 1998 and will encompass all streets south of and including BerryRoad between Park Lawn Road and the Humber River; Phase II on December 1, 1998 and will include all streets north of Berry Road between Park Lawn Road and Stephen Drive.

Conclusions:

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

Based on the staff investigation of this matter and the favourable consensus of those in attendance at the community meeting, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

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

Transportation and Engineering Planning.

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

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls:

Trehorne Drive and Tallon Road

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:

Purpose:

To evaluate a request for the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of Trehorne Drive and Tallon Road.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)all-way stop controls be erected at the intersection of Trehorne Drive and Tallon Road; and

(2)the associated by-laws (Attachment Nos. 1 and 2) receive Council approval.

Background:

In response to a request from Mr. A. Laczko, 50 Trehorne Drive for the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of Trehorne Drive and Tallon Road, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division has completed a review of the traffic conditions at this intersection. A map of the area is Attachment No.3.

Comments and Discussion:

To assess traffic conditions at the intersection, the following information was obtained:

(1) manual approach counts conducted at the intersection of Trehorne Drive and Tallon Road;

(2)radar spot speed studies conducted on Trehorne Drive near Tallon Road;

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

(4)intersection description, including existing parking restrictions, sidewalks 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 neither arterial nor major collector streets:

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

(b)a volume split should not exceed 75/25 for a three-way control.

(1) Manual Turning Movement Count

Date: April 7, 1998

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

(a)The total vehicle volume on all approaches for the highest hour, 8-9 a.m., is 393 vehicles. This volume satisfies the minimum vehicular volume requirement of 350 vehicles necessary to fully satisfy the volume warrant.

(b)The balance of flow for the highest hour recorded is 72/28, which fulfills the volume split warrant (75/25) for three-way control.

(2)Radar Speed Studies

Radar speed studies conducted on Trehorne Drive, near Tallon Road, between 7-9 a.m. and 3-5 p.m. revealed an average speed of 46 km/h. Given the 50 km/h legal speed limit, this speed is within acceptable levels.

(3)Accident Analysis

An accident analysis for the last three years revealed no reportable accidents at/near the intersection of Trehorne Drive and Tallon Road.

(4)Intersection Description

Parking Regulations:

Trehorne Drive, north of Tallon Road, Three Hour Maximum Parking.

Trehorne Drive, south of Tallon Road, No Parking 8 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Tallon Road, south side, No Parking Anytime.

Tallon Road, north side, No Parking 8 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Lane Configuration: One lane in each direction.

Speed Limit:

40 km/h on Tallon Road.

40 km/h on Trehorne Drive, south of Tallon Road.

50 km/h on Trehorne Drive, north of Tallon Road.

Sidewalks: Both sides of through and stop streets.

Land Use: R2 Residential (Second Density)

Conclusions:

Traffic conditions at the intersection of Trehorne Drive and Tallon Road do satisfy the minimum requirements of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario warrants for the installation of all-way stop controls.

Contact Name:

Kevin Akins, Traffic Technologist,

Transportation and Engineering Planning Division.

(416) 394-6046; 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 July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

3

Introduction of Stopping Prohibition: Brampton Road

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a stopping prohibition on both sides of Brampton Road between TheWestway and Learmont Drive.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)stopping be prohibited on both sides of Brampton Road between The Westway and LearmontDrive, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

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

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division is in receipt of a petition from the residents of Brampton Road between The Westway and Learmont Drive (Attachment No. 3) requesting the introduction of a daytime stopping prohibition for both sides of Brampton Road between TheWestway and LearmontDrive. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

Brampton Road is a two-lane roadway; parking is prohibited on both sides of the street between TheWestway and a point 169.0 metres north thereof between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Land use in the immediate vicinity is primarily residential. Kipling Collegiate Institute is located on the north-west corner of The Westway and Brampton Road. The high incidence of daytime on-street parking can be attributed to the close proximity of this street to Kipling Collegiate Institute. A staff review of the parking supply at Kipling Collegiate Institute clearly indicates that adequate parking facilities are available, however, staff and students continue to park on Brampton Road between The Westway and Learmont Drive as a convenience. Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

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

Transportation 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 of July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Longbourne Drive

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on the south side of Longbourne Drive between Westwynd Court (west intersection) and a point 34.75 metres east thereof to eliminate a continuous over-time parking problem.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on the south side of LongbourneDrive between WestwyndCourt (west intersection) and a point 34.75 metres east thereof; and

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

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division is in receipt of a petition from the residents of Longbourne Drive and Westwynd Court (Attachment No.2) requesting the introduction of a parking prohibition on Longbourne Drive between Westwynd Court (west intersection) and a point 34.75 metres west thereof. A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

Comments:

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

The high incidence of on-street parking on Longbourne Drive can be attributed to the proximity of this street to the high/medium density housing complexes in the immediate area. Residents of these complexes frequently park on this section of Longbourne Drive, often in excess of the three hour limitation. Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

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

Transportation and Engineering Planning

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

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

5

Introduction of a Parking Prohibition: Collingdale Road

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports (July22,1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of an overnight parking prohibition on the south and east sides of CollingdaleRoad from a point 183.0 metres south of John Garland Boulevard (west intersection) to a point 107.0 metres south of JohnGarland Boulevard (east intersection); and on the east-north, and west sides of Collingdale Road between Hartismere Court and John Garland Boulevard (east intersection).

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on the west side of Collingdale Road between JohnGarlandBoulevard (west intersection) to a point 183.0 metres south thereof;

(2)parking be prohibited on the east side of Collingdale Road between John Garland Boulevard (east intersection) to a point 107.0 metres south thereof; and

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

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division is in receipt of correspondence from GeneValent, 53 Collingdale Road (Attachment No. 2) requesting the introduction of an overnight parking prohibition for both sides of Collingdale Road between John Garland Boulevard (east intersection) to JohnGarlandBoulevard (west intersection).

The fifty (50) affected homeowners who reside on both sides of Collingdale Road between JohnGarlandBoulevard (east intersection) to John Garland Boulevard (west intersection) were polled by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 3). There were twenty-five (25) respondents to the poll: twenty (20) were in favour of the proposal and five (5) opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

Collingdale Road is a two lane roadway; parking is prohibited on the west side of CollingdaleRoad (at the rear of West Humber Collegiate Institute), and on the east side of the street in front of GarlandPark. Parking is permitted on all other sections of the street for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate area is predominantly residential. Medium density housing occupies the area on the north side of John Garland Boulevard, and on both sides of JamestownCrescent. West Humber Collegiate Institute is located on the south-east corner of MartinGroveRoad and John Garland Boulevard. Greenholme Public School is located on Jamestown Crescent north of John Garland Boulevard. The high incidence of on-street parking on Collingdale Road can be attributed to the proximity of this street to the medium density housing complexes in the immediate area. Residents of these complexes frequently park on CollingdaleRoad, often in excess of the three hour maximum limitation. A staff review of the parking supply at these buildings clearly indicates that adequate parking facilities have been provides on-site. Periodic police enforcement initiatives have been ineffective in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

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

Transportation and Engineering Planning.

(416) 394-8419, Fax 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to the Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (July 22, 1998) from the Director, Transportation, Engineering and Planning:

The recommendations contained in the foregoing report should be amended to include the following two additional items:

(4)Overnight parking prohibition on the south and east sides of Collingdale Road from a point 183.0 metres south of John Garland Boulevard (west intersection) to a point 107.0 metres south of John Garland Boulevard (east intersection);

(5)Overnight parking prohibition on the east, north and west sides of Collingdale Road between Hartismere Court and John Garland Boulevard (east intersection).

6

Introduction of a Parking Prohibition: King Georges Road

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on the south side of KingGeorgesRoad between PrinceEdward Drive and Kings Lynn Road.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on the south side of KingGeorgesRoad between PrinceEdwardDrive and KingsLynnRoad; and

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

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division is in receipt of a petition from the residents on the south side of KingGeorgesRoad between PrinceEdwardDrive and KingsLynnRoad (Attachment No.2) requesting the introduction of a parking prohibition on the south side of KingGeorgesRoad to eliminate a continuous over-time parking problem.

The nine (9) affected homeowners who reside on both sides of King Georges Road were polled by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 3). There were eight (8) respondents to the poll: six (6) were in favour of the proposal and two (2) opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

King Georges Road is a two lane roadway; parking is permitted on the south side of the street for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate area is predominately residential. Periodic police enforcement initiatives have been ineffective in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

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

Transportation and Engineering Planning.

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

_____

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

-(June 12, 1998) from Mr. L. De Francesco, in opposition to the parking prohibition on KingGeorgesRoad.

(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 July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Proposed Installation of Yield Sign Controls: Murchison Crescent

and Blackbush Drive (North-West and South-East Intersections)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning

Purpose:

To propose the installation of yield sign controls on Murchison Crescent at the south and east approaches to the north-west and south-east intersections, respectively, of Blackbush Drive and Murchison Crescent.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the regulatory signage are contained in the 1998Transportation Division'sOperating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a yield sign control be erected at the south approach to the north-west intersection of MurchisonCrescent and Blackbush Drive;

(2)a yield sign control be erected at the west approach to the south-east intersection of MurchisonCrescent and Blackbush Drive; and

(3)the attached by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division has received a verbal request from Mr.Delmonaco, 5 Blackbush Drive, requesting some form of traffic control on Murchison Crescent at the north-west and south-east intersections of Murchison Crescent and Blackbush Drive. Mr.Delmonaco's request is the result of his concerns regarding accidents that have occurred at these intersections. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Currently, both intersections are uncontrolled and right of way is established by the normal (basic) right of way rule. The rule, as stated in the Highway Traffic Act, Section 135(1) & (2) is "every driver approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection that has entered it from an intersecting highway," and "when two vehicles enter an intersection from intersecting highways at approximately the same time, the driver on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right." Given the complainant's concerns, it would seem that there have been incidents of noncompliance of this rule at the subject intersections.

To address Mr. Delmonaco's concerns, the following information was obtained:

(1)twenty-four hour automatic approach and both ways counts recorded on Murchison Crescent and Blackbush Drive, respectively; and

(2)review of the three year (1995-1997) accident history.

Comments and Discussion:

(1)Automatic Traffic Counts

The following table summarizes the traffic counts recorded in April and May of this year at/near the north-west and south-east intersections of Murchison Crescent and BlackbushDrive.

STREET	LOCATION	COUNT TYPE	24 HOUR VOLUME	PEAK HOUR VOLUME
Murchison Crescent	South of Blackbush Drive	Approach: northbound	125	15
Murchison Crescent	West of Blackbush Drive	Approach: eastbound	147	19
Blackbush Drive	South of Murchison Crescent	Both ways	444	41
Blackbush Drive	West of Murchison Crescent	Both ways	253	25

It is evident from the above counts that Blackbush Drive is operating as the major street in terms of traffic flow. Overall, traffic volumes at both intersections would be considered low.

(2)Accident History

A review of the accident history for both intersections of MurchisonCrescent and BlackbushDrive has revealed no reportable accidents in the last three years ( 1995-1997).

Conclusions:

Overall, traffic volume at the two intersections of Blackbush Drive and Murchison Crescent is minimal; however, based on these volumes, Blackbush Drive would be considered the major street. The introduction of yield sign controls on Murchison Crescent at the approaches to Blackbush Drive would assign right of way to the major street and provide safe, convenient, and efficient traffic movement at these intersections.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Traffic Co-ordinator,

Transportation and Engineering Planning Division.

(416) 394-8453; 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 July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Request for the Closure of the Municipal Walkway Between

Goa Court and Edilou Drive

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1)the municipal walkway between Goa Court and Edilou Drive be closed for a temporary period of six-nine months;

(2)the closure of the subject walkway be reassessed after the six-nine month trial period to determine if permanent closure is desirable; and

(3)the following report (May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, be received:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a public meeting on July 22, 1998, to obtain the views of area residents with respect to the closure of the municipal walkway between Goa Court and Edilou Drive, at which time approximately nine persons attended, all of whom were in favour of the closure.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To respond to a petition requesting the closure of a municipal walkway between Goa Court and EdilouDrive.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)this report be received; and

(2)Community Council convene a public meeting to obtain the views of the local residents regarding the closure request for the municipal walkway between Goa Court andEdilouDrive.

Council Reference and Background:

A petition dated June 1997 from the residents of Goa Court and Edilou Drive was received by Council at its meeting of July 11, 1997 (Attachment No. 1). The petition requests the closure of a municipal walkway between the above-noted roads, as shown on Attachment No. 2. The 3 metre wide paved walkway is constructed on municipal property, and flanked by a 1.5 metre and 2.2 metre easement leading to Goa Court and Edilou Drive, respectively, as denoted on Attachment No. 3.

Upon receipt of the petition, Councillor Jones convened a community meeting to obtain further comments from residents in the immediate vicinity as well as from the broader community. The meeting was held on January 15, 1998. Although not well attended, perhaps due to inclement weather, those present were generally in support of the closure to prevent littering, loitering and other offensive activities.

Comments:

The municipal walkway traverses two separate plans of subdivision. Prior to the development of these lands, a creek traversed the properties in a northwest to southeast direction. The Edilou Drive subdivision was the first to be constructed in 1971. At that time, the lands to the north (now GoaCourt) were vacant and owned by the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board (MSSB). As part of the Edilou development plan, the creek was filled and lands leading to Edilou Drive were dedicated to the City by the developer (south portion of the subject walkway), to accommodate a large diameter storm sewer and sanitary sewer to service the development.

In the early 1980s, the MSSB decided that the vacant property was surplus to their needs and it was sold to a developer who constructed the Goa Court subdivision. The servicing for this plan was designed to complement the existing infrastructure. As part of the subdivision agreement, the developer dedicated lands to the City (north portion of the subject walkway) to accommodate storm and sanitary sewer facilities, and to provide a surface overflow route for the 100-year storm event. The grades of the paved walkway and the side yards of the lots in this area were specifically designed to channel water away from the homes in the Edilou and Goa Court subdivisions.

In addition to ownership of the paved walkway, the City has easement rights over four strips of privately owned land along both sides of the walkway. These easements allow the City to maintain the walkway and below grade storm and sewer facilities. The existing fence on both sides of the walkway are required to preclude encroachments into the storm overflow and utility area.

The paved walkway was also designed to provide pedestrian access to nearby school facilities. A pedestrian count was undertaken on January 14, 1998, to ascertain the level of pedestrian use. These counts are provided on Attachment No. 4. A total of 237 people used the walkway between 7:45a.m. and 3:30 p.m. This represents a significant volume of pedestrian traffic. Approximately 50% of the users were children/youth using the walkway before 9:00 a.m., suggesting a high student count travelling to the Father John Redmond Catholic School and Douglas Park Junior School.

In summary, the subject walkway has a three-fold purpose:

1.to accommodate the below grade storm and sanitary sewer facilities;

2.to channel stormwater away from the Goa Court and Edilou Drive subdivision in a 100-year storm event; and

3.to provide pedestrian access to the Father John Redmond Catholic School and DouglasPark Junior School.

Conclusions:

A petition has been received to close the 3 metre paved walkway between Goa Court and EdilouDrive. This petition appears to be premised on the nuisance created by users of the walkway, particularly littering and loitering problems. However, this walkway serves as an important pedestrian link to nearby schools, was designed to accommodate a large diameter storm sewer and sanitary sewer to service the Goa Court and Edilou subdivision, and provides an at grade storm overflow route to channel water away from the homes during a 100-year storm event.

In order to gauge the community's desire to have the walkway closed for pedestrian purposes, it is appropriate that a formal public meeting be held by Etobicoke Community Council prior to staff making any recommendations on related technical issues.

Contact Name:

Dominic Gulli, Director - Transportation and Engineering Planning Division

(416) 394-8409; Fax: 394-8942.

____

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following communications in support of closing the walkway:

-(June 12, 1998) from Mr. G. Nicholson;

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. E. Mateus;

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. H. Friedrich;

-(July 18, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. A. S. Virdee;

-(July 19, 1998) from Ms. M. Vergas;

-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. G. Loncar; and

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. K. Kaczmarczyk.

(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 July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

9

Request for the Closure of the Walkway Between

Blackbush Drive and Netherly Drive

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1)the municipal walkway between Blackbush Drive and Netherly Drive be closed for a temporary period of six-nine months;

(2)the closure of the subject walkway be reassessed afther the six-nine month trial period to determine if permanent closure is desirable; and

(3)the following report (June 26,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, be received:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a public meeting on July 22, 1998, to obtain the views of area residents with respect to the closure of the municipal walkway between Blackbush Drive and Netherly Drive, at which time approximately eleven persons attended, all of whom were in favour of the closure.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June24,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To respond to a petition requesting the closure of a municipal walkway between Blackbush Drive and Netherly Drive.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)this report be received;

(2)Community Council convene a public meeting this summer to obtain the views of the local residents regarding a temporary closure of the municipal walkway between Blackbush Drive and NetherlyDrive for a period of six months; and

(3)the closure of the subject walkway be reassessed after the six-nine month trial period to determine if permanent closure is desirable.

Background:

The City of Toronto, Etobicoke Office, received a petition (Attachment No. 1) dated April 18, 1998, requesting closure of the municipal walkway between Blackbush Drive and Netherly Drive, as shown on Attachment No. 2. Both residential streets are located between Martin GroveRoad and KiplingAvenue, north of Albion Road.

Comments:

Councillor Brown convened a community meeting at the Elmbank Community Centre onApril21,1998,to obtain comments from residents in the immediate vicinity as well as from the broader community regarding closure of the subject walkway. Approximately 20 persons were in attendance, including representatives from the Toronto Police Services, Crime Prevention Unit. Those present were generally in support of the closure to prevent vandalism, littering, loitering, foul language, and other offensive activities. There are five schools located in the vicinity of the walkway. Residents have indicated that the majority of the pedestrians are students travelling in an east-west direction to the Smithfield Middle School. There appears to be sidewalks on all roads leading to school facilities.

Conclusions:

Council has received a petition to close the municipal walkway between Blackbush Drive and Netherly Drive. This walkway is primarily utilized by students traveling to and fromSmithfieldMiddleSchool. This has generated a nuisance for nearby residents, particularly with respect to loitering, foul language, littering, and other offensive activities. As there appears to be sidewalks along the roads leading to the school facilities, a temporary closure could be imposed for a trial period, and the issue reviewed again in late 1998.

Contact Name:

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 July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Funding for Community Playground Upgrade Programme

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, as amended by adding the words "commencing in 1999" to Recommendation (3) to read as follows:

"(3)Council approve the spending of each Ward's remaining allotment on playground upgrades within respective Wards, should no request come forward by the August 1 deadline, commencing in 1999."

Purpose:

Respond to the request to have staff prepare an overall policy incorporating the four existing Wards.

Source of Funds:

None available at this time.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council approve the funding of $10,000.00 per Ward deposited into the 1999 Parks Development and Improvement budget;

(2)Council approve the equal sharing of these funds between Wards should more than one playground per Ward be requested (see Comments for details); and

(3)Council approve the spending of each Ward's remaining allotment on playground upgrades within respective Wards, should no request come forward by the August 1 deadline.

Council Reference and Background History:

On October 30, 1995, the former Etobicoke Council approved a policy on cost sharing for upgrades to playground equipment between the City and local communities. This policy is as follows:

(1)A written indication of interest from the community group be submitted to Administration Committee;

(2)City must approve all designs and equipment must meet Canadian Standards Association guidelines;

(3)All equipment to become property of City of Etobicoke. Maintenance and liability to be assumed by the City of Etobicoke;

(4)The City of Etobicoke will pay up to a maximum of 50% of the total cost to a maximum subsidy of $10,000.00 per park, subject to the availability of funding;

(5)Community funds must be guaranteed prior to equipment being purchased; and

(6)The City of Etobicoke will coordinate purchase and installation of all equipment.

Comments:

The former City of Etobicoke has previously funded this programme through a Capital Reserve Account Number 60007. The funds in this account are now depleted after seven very successful community playground upgrades.

Since this programme was developed to encourage and promote community involvement for playground upgrades we feel the $10,000.00 per Ward per year is appropriate. Should one Ward have two requests, however, and the other Wards none for example, we suggest funding the second request equally among the other Wards to a maximum of $10,000.00 collectively. The remaining funds would be used specifically on playground upgrades in those Wards as prioritized by staff. We suggest an August 1 cut off date for requests which would allow staff time to process a second request in one Ward and also enable staff to apply the remaining funds in each Ward to upgrade their playgrounds before the end of the year.

An example of how this can work is:

-Ward 5 requests upgrade before August 1;

-Ward 2 requests upgrade before August 1;

-Ward 5 receives a second request before August 1;

-Wards 3 & 4 have no requests as of August 1.

$5,000.00 from Ward 3 and $5,000.00 from Ward 4 are used to fund the second request for Ward5. The remaining $5,000.00, in each of Wards 3 and 4, would be used specifically for playground upgrades in those Wards prior to year end.

Conclusion;

This system would allow for the spirit of fundraising and cost sharing to continue yet give Wards who have not come forward an opportunity to benefit from this programme as well. Our Parks and Recreation Department has previously partnered with seven local communities who have been able to significantly increase the quality, quantity and creativity of our children's playspaces through this programme. We hope this successful programme will continue.

Contact Name:

Paul G. Ronan, Toronto Parks and Recreation, Etobicoke Region

Tel: 394-8505; Fax 394-8935

11

Funding of Signs Posted on

3857, 3859 and 3861 Lake Shore Boulevard West

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To report on the possibility of using City funds to pay for noise warning signs recently posted in the parking lot of 3857, 3859 and 3861 Lake Shore Boulevard West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approximately $60.00 will be required from the Advertising and Promotion Account (516045204500) of the 1998 Urban Development Department Budget (Etobicoke District).

Recommendation:

It is recommended that funds ($60.00) from the 1998 Urban Development Departmental Budget (Account No. 5160 4520 4500, Etobicoke District) be used to pay for signs posted on 3857, 3859 and 3861 Lake Shore Boulevard West and that Councillor Jones' budget be reimbursed accordingly.

Background:

Community Council had instructed staff to report on the possibility of using City funds to pay for signs which have been recently posted in the parking lot of 3857, 3859 and 3861LakeShoreBoulevardWest and paid for out of Councillor Jones' budget.

Comments:

To alleviate a noise problem caused by patrons, the property owner of a local fast food plaza agreed to allow the City to post three signs prohibiting loud music in its parking lot. However, the owner indicated that he would not be responsible for the cost of the signs. Councillor Irene Jones authorized the signs to be made and at the Community Council meeting of June 24, 1998, requested that staff look into the possibility of reimbursing her from a City account.

Staff from the Works Department have indicated that only certain signs installed on public property are funded in their budget. Similarly, no provision for signage is made in the budget of the Urban Development Department. However, as this is a unique situation undertaken to enable the enforcement of a City by-law, the cost of the signs can be charged to the Departmental Advertising and Promotion Account 5160 4520 4500. Staff will ensure that the funding will be transferred appropriately to cover the expenditure from the Councillor's Budget.

In the future, should Community Council feel that there is a need for this type of funding, then considerations should be given when budgetary needs are being assessed.

Contact Name:

Gene Lee, P.Eng., Director, Inspection Services

Tel: 394-8008; Fax: 394-8958

12

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial impact.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding Application No.A-139/98ET, 300 The Kingsway, Application No. A-175/98ET, 2WoolenscoteCircle, and Application No. A-162/98ET, 2685 Lake Shore Boulevard West.

Comment:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(i)Address: 300 The Kingsway (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant:Ella Morgan

Appellant:Westell Peaker

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:The applicant proposes to introduce two parking spaces within the front yard setback of the existing apartment building, whereas Section 320-18B.(2)(d) of the Zoning Code prohibits parking areas to be located beyond the main wall of apartment buildings.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Granted.

Staff Recommendation: Legal representation is not recommended.

(ii)Address:2 Woolenscote Circle (Rexdale-Thistletown)

Applicant:Kenneth and Hemwattie Ramsarran

Appellant:Kenneth and Hemwattie Ramsarran

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:Proposed variances to the rear yard setback and maintenance easement provisions of the Zoning Code (By-law 1978-154) to permit an attached carport.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Staff Recommendation: Legal representation is not recommended.

(iii)Address:2685 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant:Da Vinci Homes Limited

Appellant: T. Pagington et al

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:Proposed variances to the front and side yard setback provisions of the Zoning Code to permit a five-storey, 16-unit residential apartment building.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Granted.

Staff Recommendation: The subject property is designated High Density Residential in the Etobicoke Official Plan and zoned R4 (New Toronto). The proposal has been designed in an effort to mitigate possible impacts and will be subject to further review as part of the Site Plan Control Approval process. Staff have no concerns regarding this proposal, therefore, staff and legal representation is not recommended.

Conclusion:

The subject appeals were reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that the above-noted appeals do not involve substantive planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is not warranted for these appeals.

Contact Name:

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, Director of Development and Design

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

13

By-law to Designate Certain Areas with High Concentrations

of Rental Housing as Areas of Demolition Control

Within the Former City of Etobicoke - File No. 300.12.3.1

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To designate all lands zoned for residential purposes, including commercial zones where residential uses are permitted, and containing five or more residential dwelling units, as areas of Demolition Control within the former City of Etobicoke, in response to the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Etobicoke Community Council endorse the attached draft by-law to introduce Demolition Control for certain areas within the former City of Etobicoke, and, direct staff to forward same to the City of Toronto Council for adoption.

Background:

In a report to Etobicoke Community Council, dated June 24, 1998, regarding Condominium Conversion and the Demolition of Rental Housing, staff recommended that consideration be given to designating areas with high concentrations of rental housing as demolition control areas in response to the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act. The report noted that, unlike other former local area municipalities, Etobicoke implements demolition control through the use of site-specific by-laws, as opposed to on a more comprehensive basis. At its meeting of June 24, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council directed the Commissioner of Urban Development to prepare the necessary by-law and to report back to the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council on the criteria for designating demolition control areas.

Comments:

Staff have reviewed various options for implementing demolition control for areas containing rental housing and have concluded that the most effective and comprehensive approach would be to apply the control to specific zones as opposed to areas.

The attached by-law, once enacted and passed by Toronto Council, will designate all lands zoned for residential and/or commercial purposes, and containing five or more residential dwelling units, as areas of Demolition Control within the former City of Etobicoke. Commercial properties have been included as residential uses are permitted as-of-right in certain commercial zones. Said wording corresponds to the definition for an apartment building as "a residential building or part thereof containing at least five dwelling units...", as contained in the Etobicoke Zoning Code.

This regulation will allow Toronto Council to refuse to issue a permit to demolish all or part of a residential building, until such time as a building permit is issued, and/or to impose conditions prior to issuance. By-laws are already in force in the former Cities of York and Toronto which provide for the similar treatment of residential properties containing six or more residential dwelling units. The attached by-law has been reviewed by the City Solicitor and found to be acceptable.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that the attached draft by-law be forwarded to the City of Toronto Council for adoption.

Contact Name:

L. Gary Dysart, Principal Planner, Policy and Information Services

Tel: (416) 394-8233; Fax: (416) 394-6063

(The attachment referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998, and copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

Adult Entertainment Facilities - Interim Control By-law

File No. 580.70

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1)Interim Control By-law No. 1997-168, regulating Adult Entertainment Facilities, be extended;

(2)staff be directed to review the regulations regarding the content of signs, hours of operation and licensing for Adult Entertainment Facilities; and

(3)the following report (July22,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, be received:

Purpose:

To advise Members of the Etobicoke Community Council of the status of the Interim Control By-law for Adult Entertainment Facilities in the former City of Etobicoke.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information and that Interim Control By-lawNo.1997-168 not be extended.

Background:

In September, 1997, the former Etobicoke Council enacted Interim Control By-law No. 1997-168, regulating Adult Entertainment Facilities. The purpose of this by-law was to prohibit the development of restaurants which contain an adult entertainment component in all Commercial and Regional Open Space (ROS) zones. At that time, staff were directed to review the policies regulating the location and development standards for adult entertainment facilities and report back with possible recommendations for amendments to the Zoning Code.

Comments:

The enactment of the interim control by-law was intended to regulate the introduction of Adult Entertainment in proximity to residential zones. Current zoning requirements prohibit restaurants with an entertainment component from locating within 90 m of residentially zoned lands. While restaurants are recognized as a permitted use within the Regional Open Space (ROS) zone, Centennial Park is the only location within the former municipality of Etobicoke with such zoning. The introduction of a restaurant within the park would be considered a private venture in a public park and would be subject to the park's master plan policies and associated scrutiny by staff and possibly Council. Under such circumstances it is unlikely that an Adult Entertainment Facility would be allowed to open within the park.

Interim Control By-law No. 1997-168 is scheduled to expire in September, 1998. While the term of an interim control by-law can be extended, the Planning Act stipulates that when such a by-law has been in effect, Council may not pass another interim control by-law for a period of three years, for those same lands. Renewal of the interim control by-law at this time, could hinder future municipal objectives which may require the introduction of another interim control by-law for commercial lands. Given the existing 90 m setback requirement, it would be appropriate to allow the interim control by-law to lapse.

In order to maintain fairness and equity across the City, a consistent approach is necessary to regulate Adult Entertainment. Planning staff have determined that the former North York Council has passed zoning by-laws which sought to regulate "adult entertainment parlours" through various locational criteria which could be adopted for the rest of Toronto. However, a court challenge of these by-laws and an Ontario Municipal Board appeal have been launched by affected landowners. The Ontario Municipal Board appeal will not be heard until the legal challenge is completed.

Conclusions:

Given the possible city-wide implications associated with regulating adult entertainment, and the need to ensure consistency across the City, it may be appropriate to give further consideration to the approach and standards recently adopted by the former North York Council. Staff will report further once the status of the North York by-laws and regulatory approach have been resolved. Until such a time, it would be appropriate to allow Interim Control By-law No. 1997-168 to lapse.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner, Development and Design Division

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

15

Terms of Reference - Review of the Kipling/Islington Centre

Secondary Plan

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, as amended by the addition of the following item (7) to Phase 1: Background Review, in the Terms of Reference:

"(7)review the existing service levels and constraints of the utilities infrastructure, and potential solutions."

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, to convene a meeting between the land owners in the area, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and appropriate staff, to review development issues in the Kipling/Islington Centre;

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (July22,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To provide Terms of Reference for a review of the Kipling/Islington Centre Secondary Plan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications, at this time. Should any aspect of the transportation component of the review require out-sourcing, based on future discussions with City traffic and transportation staff, staff will report further on the possibility of providing the necessary funding in the 1999 budget for consultants.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Terms of Reference for the Kipling/Islington Centre Plan (Exhibit No. 1) be approved.

Background:

The need for a comprehensive review of the zoning, land use, property ownership and transportation requirements to facilitate redevelopment of the Kipling/Islington Centre was identified and approved, as part of the departmental work programme for 1998.

Comments:

A secondary planning study of the Centre area was last initiated in 1978 and culminated with the adoption of the Kipling/Islington City Centre Secondary Plan (C-59-86) by the former CityofEtobicoke Council on May 20, 1986, with final approval granted by the Province on November 24, 1987. Current Official Plan policies support and encourage the creation of a multi-functional, mixed-use city centre incorporating residential, commercial, institutional, recreational, transportation, utility, and industrial uses in this area. While the general principles underlying the Plan are still considered valid, the Plan is over ten years old and the original assumptions underlying development/redevelopment of the area at least 20 years old.

As indicated in the attached Terms of Reference, a number of factors have changed over the intervening period which would support a general review of the original planning parameters guiding development/redevelopment of this area, including its future status as a centre within the context of the amalgamated City of Toronto's overall urban structure, the future disposition of a number of city-owned land holdings in the area, the future configuration of the Six Points Interchange and its ultimate impact on the development/redevelopment of sites in the Kipling/Dundas area, as well as the development industry's impartiality to build in accordance with the very specific urban design guidelines put in place to guide development or to build certain residential housing forms.

While the original principles guiding development in the area may be found to remain valid following this review, alternative ways of achieving them and/or implementing them may be suggested which may more accurately reflect current trends/updated assumptions regarding development/redevelopment.

It is anticipated that this review will be completed within one year, depending on staffing commitments and departmental priorities. Staff will include a senior policy planner as project co-ordinator and urban design and development control staff, as needed, to attend meetings and develop new development policies and design guidelines, where necessary, and to generally provide feedback throughout the process. Transportation planning staff will also be required to undertake a major review of the transportation system and impact on existing/future development in the Centre, including an update of the Kipling/Islington Transportation Study and related development cap. Preliminary discussions with traffic and transportation staff indicates, that should no in-house capability or resources exist to conduct such a review, staff will report further on the possibility of providing the necessary funding in the 1999 budget for consultants.

While this review may have implications for the forthcoming City Official Plan, it will not preclude any future options and will advance the area specific work that may be needed to complement the Official Plan.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that the Terms of Reference for the Kipling/Islington Centre Secondary Plan be approved as the basis for undertaking this review.

Contact Name:

L. Gary Dysart, Principal Planner, Policy and Information Services

Tel: (416) 394-8233; Fax: (416) 394-6063

_____

Exhibit No. 1

Terms of Reference

Review of the Kipling/Islington Centre Secondary Plan

Purpose:

The purpose of this exercise is to review and update the principles and objectives, and the general development concept, including the land use, open space and transportation plans, guiding the development/redevelopment of lands within the Kipling/Islington Centre Secondary Planning area in achieving a multi-functional urban centre in this location. Such a review would also necessitate revisiting and reassessing the site specific development policies and urban design guidelines of the Plan in light of current circumstances within the new City of Toronto, as well as the requisite implementation measures to ensure ultimate development.

Background:

A secondary planning study of the lands both contiguous to and extending between the Kipling and Islington subway stations was initiated in 1978 and culminated with the adoption of the Kipling/Islington City Centre Secondary Plan (C-59-86) by the former City of Etobicoke Council on May 20, 1986, with final approval granted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on November24,1987. Its major objective was to establish a viable "downtown" for the former City of Etobicoke, with a strong civic presence, particularly in the vicinity of the Kipling/Dundas area.

To this end, current Official Plan policies support and encourage the creation of a multi-functional, mixed-use city centre incorporating residential, commercial, institutional, recreational, transportation, utility, and industrial uses in this area. Development policies and urban design guidelines are incorporated into the Plan: to maximize development within walking distance of subway stations, to ensure that built form, density and design are sensitive to adjacent uses and surrounding communities and in keeping with the objective of reinforcing a pedestrian orientation; to relocate as many transportation functions as possible away from the Islington subway station to lands in the vicinity of the Kipling subway station; and, generally, to incrementally upgrade the transportation and hard services infrastructure to accommodate future development/redevelopment activity.

While these principles are still considered valid today, the Plan itself is over ten years old and the original assumptions underlying development/redevelopment of the area at least twenty years old. As development/redevelopment interest in key sites such as the Michael Power/St. Josephs site appears to be increasing, and land assemblies are occurring, it is considered timely to conduct a comprehensive review of the original planning parameters guiding the development/redevelopment of this area, including a re-examination of the land use expectations and design guidelines specific to this area.

The review would not address the broader City-wide issue of the function of the Centre but would proceed within the context of this area remaining as a high intensity node within the structure of the new City of Toronto, given its current development pattern and transit oriented location. As such, this review would assist future consideration of the status of the Centre during the new Official Plan process by providing for an updated Plan and more current information.

The Plan envisaged a major civic presence in the Bloor/Kipling/Dundas area, which is unlikely to occur given amalgamation. The original premise that lands surrounding the Kipling subway station would develop as a major office and transportation centre, has been expanded to include high density residential uses. Key issues affecting development in the area, identified at the time the Plan was adopted, have yet to be fully resolved, eg. the future configuration of the Six Points Interchange and possible freeing up of additional developable lands and associated access considerations, the future disposition of the former Metro-owned Westwood Theatre site, which is now closed, the realization of the Kipling station area as a major regional transportation centre, including a Mississauga bus terminal, and the freeing up of lands surrounding the Islington subway station currently serving that function. These issues were further compounded by jurisdictional hurdles that should be mitigated somewhat with the advent of amalgamation.

Another overriding issue affecting development in the Centre area concerns densities and the development cap (3,300 apartment units and 376,000 m² of office space), which was based on the transportation capacity of existing and future roadways/improvements in the area. This potential is the maximum amount of development to be permitted until a comprehensive review of the transportation network demonstrates that additional capacity for development exists. The Plan currently provides for a major review of the transportation system to be undertaken once development reaches 80% of this development cap. While existing and proposed development has not yet reached this level of activity and is not anticipated to do so in the near future, and the Plan is only at mid-point in achieving its horizon year, the Plan does provide that this development limit be reassessed in the event any of the planning/transportation assumptions change.

Review Area:

The Kipling/Islington Centre area is a centrally located node of mixed development within the Etobicoke Community, comprising 178 hectares which abut and are located within 700 metres of two major stations on the Bloor/Danforth subway system. It has an elongated wedge shape extending from Shorncliffe Road to Montgomery Road and includes lands abutting on Bloor Street, DundasStreet, and the CPR (see attached map).

High density residential apartments are concentrated in the area south of Dundas Street, generally west of Islington Avenue; commercial office development, in high and low rise forms, is concentrated at Islington Avenue and Bloor Street and along the south side of Dundas Street at Subway Crescent, while retail strips are found along both Dundas Street and Bloor Streets. Institutional uses formerly occupied a substantial area immediately east of the Six Points Intersection, in addition to other scattered church and school sites in the vicinity. Public open space areas are provided by CentralPark and the valleyland areas associated with the Mimico Creek. Development of the lands west of Kipling Avenue consists of mixed commercial office/retail/residential, transportation, industrial and isolated residential communities, while the south-west boundary abuts a large industrial area and hydro electric complex.

I.Study Outline:

A.Phase 1: Background Review

(1)review of current development trends and recent approvals within and outside the Centre area, i.e. land use, density/f.s.i, height, design guidelines, etc.;

(2)review of original assumptions, principles, development policies underlying development within the Centre area, in general and on a site-by-site basis, to determine if they remain valid today, i.e. heightened civic presence/within the context of the overall urban structure of the amalgamated city;

(3)review development/redevelopment potential of remaining sites, i.e. land use designation, density/f.s.i., height, ownership, design considerations, etc.;

(4)review and update the Kipling/Islington Transportation Study and the potential impact of transportation issues on permitted densities and the development cap, i.e. future configuration of Six Points interchange;

(5)review urban design guidelines and the implications on development and overall built form; and

(6)review other opportunities/constraints to development/redevelopment within the area, i.e. Westwood Theatre site, hard and soft service infrastructure.

B.Phase 2: Development of Alternatives

(1)update of existing development policies/design guidelines to better reflect current trends/assumptions and a change in emphasis from a city centre with a strong civic presence to one which is based on the concept of a major multi-functional urban centre serving the Etobicoke Community and the western Toronto area (status quo); and

(2)investigate a blending of the key development objectives for the area into a plan which places less emphasis on land use designations, site specific development policies and design guidelines; more reliance on providing for an appropriate range of as-of-right uses, broad based built form and other urban design guidelines and general performance standards/criteria.

C.Phase 3: Implementation Tools

The review will include an examination and assessment of how best to achieve and promote development/redevelopment objectives within the secondary planning area:

A.through existing site plan control standards and zoning regulations; or

B.alternative implementation measures: i.e. development permit system; and

C.discussions with prospective developers and the review and approval of applications to amend the Zoning Code and/or the Official Plan.

Public Input:

An open house/information session or community meeting will be held to inform interested people and agencies of the review's progress, to explain any proposed changes to the planning parameters affecting this area, and to solicit comments, prior to a recommendation report being forwarded to City Council for approval and a public meeting being held. Other public consultation venues may be determined as the review progresses.

Time Frame and Staff Requirements:

It is anticipated that this review will be completed within one year, depending on staffing commitments and departmental priorities. Staff will include a senior policy planner as project coordinator and urban design and development control staff, as needed, to attend meetings and develop new development policies and design guidelines, where necessary, and to generally provide feedback throughout the review process. Transportation planning staff will also be required to undertake a major review of the transportation system and impact on existing/future development in the Centre, including an update of the Kipling/Islington Transportation Study and related development cap. Preliminary discussions with traffic and transportation staff indicates, that should no in-house capability or resources exist to conduct such a review, staff will report further on the possibility of providing the necessary funding in the 1999 budget for consultants.

16

Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code -

Shell Canada Limited, 320 Burnhamthorpe Road - File No. Z-2257

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District(May27,1998) and the supplementary report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (July 22, 1998) and for the reason that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Shell Canada Limited, regarding a zoning by-law amendment for 320 Burnhamthorpe Road, be refused:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June25,1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder; at which time the Etobicoke Community Council:

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

(ii)requested the applicant to reconsider the issues raised by residents, namely, improved fencing, no overnight operation, and some type of security plan; and

(iii)requested the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, to report to the Community Council at the continuation of the public meeting on July 22, 1998, with respect to conditions to approval that would address these issues:

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

Purpose:

To consider a site specific proposal to amend the Zoning Code with respect to the property located at the southwest corner of Burnhamthorpe Road and Martin Grove Road to permit the conversion of the existing service station garage bays to accessory retail floor space to accommodate a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with an existing service station operation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

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

Background:

The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Burnhamthorpe Road and Martin Grove Road. The existing service station was constructed in 1969. The current service station operation includes two self-serve pump islands and a service building containing a gasoline pay point counter, offices, washrooms and three service bays for car maintenance and repair.

Proposal:

Shell Canada Limited, the owner of the existing service station, proposes to convert the existing three bay garage into 98 square metres (1,055 square feet) of accessory retail floor space to accommodate a pay-point counter and a convenience store which would provide food sales by a third party tenant. The balance of the area, approximately 82 square metres (863 square feet) would be devoted to staff offices, washrooms, storage, utility and mechanical areas.

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

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

The lands located to the north are zoned Neighbourhood Commercial (CN) and the lands located to the east are zoned Limited Commercial (CL). These sites are occupied with retail stores including restaurants, convenience stores, a bank, video store and cleaners. A newly constructed vacant building also stands at the southeast corner of the intersection. This site has been the subject of a Zoning Amendment application and a Committee of Adjustment application both of which requested restaurant uses. In both of these applications, staff note that restaurant uses were not granted.

Lands located to the south are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and are occupied primarily by single detached homes. The property immediately to the west is zoned Fourth Density Residential (R4) and is occupied by a duplex dwelling (Exhibit No. 1).

Comments:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits existing service stations and local retail facilities of a type, scale (not exceeding 1000m² [10,764square feet] of floor space and orientation related to the surrounding neighbourhood. As the proposed gas bar and accessory retail uses would serve the surrounding residential properties, as well as the travelling public, the proposed development conforms with the Official Plan.

Zoning Code:

The subject property is zoned Limited Commercial (CL), as amended by By-law No. 757 and Committee of Adjustment Decision A-161/76, which provides for minimum distances between ramps, minimum lot frontages, and permits certain setbacks for the existing canopy, respectively. In addition, the Supplementary Regulations for Service Stations, as outlined in Section 320-21of the Zoning Code, limits the sale of convenience products from service stations to pop, cigarettes, chips, etc., with a maximum sale area of 20 square metres (215square feet).

Therefore, in order to permit a larger accessory retail component (98 square metres [1,055squarefeet]), offering an expanded range of convenience items and food sales in conjunction with a service station operation, amendments to the Zoning Code would be required. However, staff are concerned with the potential for more intensive impacts associated with food preparation and sales involving the use of a full commercial kitchen which must include a grease and vapour removal mechanical exhaust system. As such, staff recommend that the amending by-law permit a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with and accessory to a service station operation, with a prohibition on commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of foods. The by-law should also specify a maximum size of 100 square metres (1,066 square feet) for the retail floor space and identify garbage enclosures as a permitted accessory use.

Agency Comments:

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

The Transportation Section of the Works Department has advised that the proposed parking supply, driveway layout, on-site circulation and location of the garbage containment enclosure are satisfactory. However, the Burnhamthorpe Road driveway width must be increased to 9.0 metres and the curb radii must be increased (Exhibit No. 5).

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

Toronto Hydro has no objection to the application subject to their standard conditions of approval (Exhibit No. 7).

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

Community Meeting:

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

Parkland Contribution:

As the existing building is less than 929square metres (10,000square feet) in floor area, the two percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution would not apply.

Conclusions:

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

Conditions to Approval:

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

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

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

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

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

(i)The maximum gross floor area associated with the service station shall not exceed180square metres (1,927 square feet), of which not more than 100 square metres (1,066square feet) may be used for the retail of convenience items and food sales.

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

(iii)Parking shall be provided at the rate of 4.0 parking spaces per 93m² (1000squarefeet) and shall include one handicapped space.

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

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

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

Contact Name:

Paul Zuliani, Area Planner, Development and Design

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

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

Purpose:

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

Recommendation:

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

Background:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

Paul Zuliani, Area Planner, Development and Design

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

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

This report is received for information only.

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

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

Comments and/or discussion and/or Justification:

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

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

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

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

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

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (April 4, 1998) from Mr. C. Darrow:

I am a home owner at 189 Shaver Avenue North and I strongly object to Shell Canada's application to amend the existing service station garage to an accessory retail store.

We already have Giselle's store across the road, a pizza parlour and fish and chips store; and on the next corner, two convenience stores and a pizza parlour. The garage servicing cars is needed more than another convenience store.

I repeat I am strongly against any such change and so are a number of my neighbours.

P.S. It would be ridiculous and harmful to the existing tax paying business for this to be approved.

_____

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

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

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

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

-Mr. G. Kapsa, who indicated that the changes in the marketing policies of the oil companies will impact his life style, impacting on his privacy and property value as the abutting property owner, expressed concern about the 24-hour operation, pollution caused by cars idling, loitering and littering, and the need for appropriate fencing and security to protect his property, maintenance, as well as proper grading of the property;

-Dr. R. Croucher, who expressed concern about the gradual erosion in life style as a result of commercial development in a residential area, seeking further clarification on what type of retail would be in the new building, noting the impact of proposed signage on traffic visibility and safety, the artificial grading level of the existing service station site and its impact on the abutting property;

-Mr. G. Babiarz, concerned about idling vehicles during the night and loud music from car radios, protection of the neighbourhood from vandalism, poor maintenance that currently exists on the service station site, including grass cutting and snow removal, litter, drainage, and the negative impact of introducing additional commercial uses into a residential area, and submitting a petition with 116 signatures in opposition to the proposal; and

-Mr. C. Darrow, who expressed the opinion that another convenience store in the neighbourhood is ridiculous, as well as creating additional litter such as popcans, food wrappers, etc.

17

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

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

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May27,1998) and the supplementary report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (July 22, 1998) and for the reason that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by D.E. & V.I. Investments Limited (Shell Canada Limited), regarding a zoning by-law amendment for 475RenforthDrive, be refused:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June25,1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder, at which time the Etobicoke Community Council:

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

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

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

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

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

Background:

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

Proposal:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits existing service stations and local retail facilities of a type, scale (not exceeding 1000m² [10,764square feet] of floor space) and orientation related to the surrounding neighbourhood. As the proposed gas bar and accessory retail uses would serve the surrounding residential properties, as well as the travelling public, the proposed development conforms with the Official Plan.

Zoning Code:

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

Therefore, in order to permit a larger accessory retail component (99 metres [1,066 square feet]), offering an expanded range of convenience items and food sales, amendments to the Zoning Code would be required. However, staff are concerned with the potential for more intensive impacts associated with food preparation and sales involving the use of a full commercial kitchen which must include a grease and vapour removal mechanical exhaust system. As such, staff recommend that the amending by-law permit a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with and accessory to a service station operation, with a prohibition on commercial kitchens and seating for the consumption of foods. The by-law should also specify a maximum size of 100 square metres (1,066 square feet) for the retail floor space, identify garbage enclosures as a permitted accessory use and repeal By-lawNo. 12,821.

Agency Comments:

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

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

The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that the applicant is required to provide a statement from a qualified environmental consultant confirming that the soil and ground water conditions on the site are suitable for the intended change in use in the building (ExhibitNo. 6).

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

Community Meeting:

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

Parkland Contribution:

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

Conclusions:

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

Conditions to Approval:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Name:

Paul Zuliani, Area Planner, Development and Design

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

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

Purpose:

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

Recommendation:

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

Background:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

Paul Zuliani, Area Planner, Development and Design

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

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

This report is received for information only.

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18

Technical Amendment to Site Plan Control Provisions of the

Etobicoke Zoning Code - File No. Z-2001

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To clarify the intent of the Site Plan Control provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code with respect to lands affected by the Parkway Belt West Plan, July 1978, as amended, and to enact the necessary by-law to give effect thereto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding or financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Toronto Council enact the draft by-law attached hereto.

Background:

Article XI, Chapter 304, Site Plan Control Areas of the Etobicoke Zoning Code currently includes "lands affected by the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act, 1973, as amended" as areas to be subject to site plan control. This section of the Code, however, is intended to apply only to industrially zoned lands. While the historical (and underlying) zoning of the Parkway Belt lands in Etobicoke is primarily industrial, such zoning has been superseded by the Parkway Belt Land Use Regulations.

Comments:

In order to clarify the City's intent with respect to Parkway Belt lands (i.e. that they continue to be subject to Site Plan Control), it is necessary to relocate such provisions to the appropriate section of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, namely, Section 326-2 (Non-Industrial Site Plan Control provisions).

The attached by-law has the effect of removing the current Site Plan Control provisions for Parkway Belt lands from Section 304-37 (D) (Industrial provisions) and relocating them to a new Section326-2.U. The Planning Act does not require the holding of a public meeting in connection with such by-laws.(Exhibit No.1)

Conclusion:

The attached by-law should be enacted as soon as possible to avoid any questions of interpretation.

Contact Name:

Linda Bunce,Principal Planner

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

(Copy of Exhibit 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 July 22, 1998, and copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

19

Scarlett Gate Developments, 542 Scarlett Road

Supplementary Report - File No. Z-2262

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To review revised plans submitted in response to concerns expressed by Staff and the Etobicoke Community Council.

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 and that the following be added to the Conditions to Approval outlined in the Staff report dated May 27, 1998:

1.(vi)Submission of grading plans to the satisfaction of the Works Department and the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

Background:

On June 24, 1998, a public meeting was held to review the plans for a proposed 12 unit freehold townhouse development on the west side of Scarlett Road, north of La Rose Avenue(ExhibitNo.1). During the meeting concerns were expressed by area residents and staff with respect to private rear yard amenity space, a suitable children's play area, walkway connections and the location of parking and service areas. Etobicoke Community Council recommended approval of the townhouse development in principle, subject to the redesign of the project to address site design concerns and confirmation from the applicant that the project will be developed as a condominium.

Comment:

The applicant has submitted a revised site plan (Exhibit No. 2) indicating a reduction in the number of units from 12 to 11 and a reconfiguration of the parking, loading and service functions. The original scheme is attached as Exhibit No. 3.

The applicant has increased the rear yard setback of the westerly block of townhouses from 4.5m (14.7 ft.) to 7.5 m (23.6 ft.), an increase of 3.0 m (10 ft.), which would be consistent with the standards exhibited by townhouse projects recently approved by Council. This increased setback also improves the relationship of the project with the adjacent residential properties to the west and provides sufficient area to allow for landscape screening of the project. To address the concerns of area residents regarding overlook, the applicant has agreed to restrict the location of windows to the first and second floors of the affected westerly elevation of the project.

The visitor parking spaces have been relocated away from the street line and are now situated adjacent the northerly lot line with an area available for landscape screening. Although a turn-around area for service vehicles would still be provided within the building setback from Scarlett Road, the surface of the turn around could be treated with decorative landscape materials and separated from the main driveway functions with a rolled curb. A limited area has been provided for landscape screening. The Traffic and Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has advised that the revised site layout is acceptable from an operational standpoint.

The applicant has agreed to develop the project as a condominium and is in the process of fulfilling Council's conditions to approval prior to enactment of amending by-law. Outstanding items include confirmation from the Works Department that the environmental information as submitted is satisfactory and the execution of a Development Agreement. Urban Development staff request that grading plans submitted in connection with the execution of the Agreement be subject to review by the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control. Once these conditions have been satisfied, staff will forward the by-law to City Council for adoption.

Additional details with respect to landscaping, building elevations, fencing, safety and security measures would be required for review during the Site Plan Control process with financial guarantees submitted to ensure compliance with the approved plans.

Conclusion:

Staff are of the opinion that the revised site plan provides a functional site layout and recommend that grading plans be submitted to the satisfaction of the Works Department and the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.

Contact Name:

Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416) 394-8229; Fax: (416) 394-6063

(Copies of Exhibit 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 July 22, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

20

Etobicoke Fire Route By-law

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July17,1998) 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":

630 Evans Avenue

(2)the final designation of Fire Routes under Chapter 134 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be approved at the following location:

22-66 Guided Court

(3)the appropriate by-laws be enacted by City Council.

Background:

On April 8, 1975 "An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke" received Royal Assent. A portion of the Act, Section 2, allows the Corporation to pass by-laws regulating and designating fire routes. Each property requires the enactment of two by-laws; (1) to allow the Works 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:

Teresa Robillard, Clerk's Department

Tel: (416) 394-8081

21

Special Occasion Permit - Humber Bay Park

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) 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 Nucleus Housing Inc. company picnic.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

That Etobicoke Community Council recommend that the Nucleus Housing Inc. company picnic be permitted to take place at Humber Bay Park on August 8, 1998, and that beer be permitted to be sold at the picnic, subject to the requirements of the Fire, Health, and Building Departments being addressed.

Background:

Nucleus Housing Inc. is a division of the Ministry of Health Long Term Care Division and provides assistance to adults with a physical disabilities. They will be hosting a company picnic on Saturday,August 8, 1998, for approximately 75 adults and 20 children. The picnic is for staff and consumers of Nucleus and their immediate families. (Attachment No. 1)

In accordance with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario (LLBO) regulations, Council's approval for the sale of beer and wine for the event 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 Nucleus Housing Inc. company picnic along with the sale of beer be granted subject to the requirement of Fire, Health, and Building Departments being addressed.

Contact Name:

Vicki Tytaneck, Acting Manager, Clerk's Division, Etobicoke District

Tel: (416) 394-8080

(Copy of the Attachment referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998, and a copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

22

Performing Art Centre Task Force

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1)in order to continue the work of the Steering Committee towards establishing a Performing Art Centre for Etobicoke District, a Task Force be established by Toronto Council, with a membership to be comprised of the current citizen representatives on the Steering Committee; and

(2)that Councillor Bruce Sinclair be the Council representative on the Task Force.

23

Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls

Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, received this Clause, and subsequently adopted the following Motion, without amendment:

Moved by:Councillor Giansante

Seconded by:Councillor Lindsay Luby

"WHEREAS the Etobicoke Community Council recommends, as a result of the large number of calls received regarding the changing of the stop controls at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue; and

WHEREAS it is desirable that no changes be made until a further report has been submitted to the Etobicoke Community Council;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT in accordance with Section 46 of the Council Procedural By-law, Clause No. 3 embodied in Report No. 6 of the Etobicoke Community Council, entitled 'Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls: Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue', adopted by City of Toronto Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, be reopened;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Works and Emergency Services Staff, Etobicoke District, be directed to retain the temporary signing indicating that the Stop Controls are being relocated from a north-south direction to an east-west direction at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue, until such time as a further report can be submitted to Etobicoke Community Council;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the sign referring to a change on August 4, 1998, be removed.")

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends, as a result of the large number of calls received regarding the changing of the stop controls at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue, that:

(1)Clause 3 embodied in Report No. 6 of the Etobicoke Community Council, adopted by City of Toronto Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, be reopened;

(2)Works and Emergency Services Staff be directed to retain the temporary signing indicating that the Stop Controls are being relocated from a north-south direction to an east-west direction at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue, until such time as a further report can be submitted to Etobicoke Community Council; and

(3)the sign referring to a change on August 4, 1998, be removed.

24

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Request for Tree Removal - 8 Alcan Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)referred a request for removal of a large Silver Maple from the front of 8AlcanAvenue back to the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services and to the City Solicitor for resolution of the issue; and

(2)received the following report:

(July 22, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, responding to a request to remove a large Silver Maple from the front of 8 Alcan Avenue, and recommending that the tree not be removed.

_____

Mr. D. Erent appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

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

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)referred Item (c) of the following report back to staff for a review of how the distance factor between roof signs is applied; and

(2)received the following report for information:

(June 30, 1998) from the Secretary, Sign Variance Advisory Committee, advising of the decisions of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee made on June 23, 1998, with respect to applications for variance at the following locations:

(a)Nooky's Adult Entertainment, 1780/1790 Albion Road;

(b)Hawk's Nest, 36A Stoffel Drive;

(c)Pattison Outdoor Signs, 935 The Queensway; and

(d)Kipling Car Wash, 2146 Kipling Avenue.

_____

Mr. J. Cole, of Pattison Outdoor Signs, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council to appeal the decision of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee with respect to the foregoing Item (c), wherein the Committee refused the variance.

(c)Appeal from a Decision of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee - Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, 2182 Islington Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)supported the recommendation of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee and staff as contained in the following report; and

(2)requested the Deputy Chief Building Official, Etobicoke District, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to:

(i)the feasibility of an out-right ban on third-party signs in the Etobicoke District; and

(ii)whether the public should be notified as part of the sign variance application procedure:

(July 6, 1998) from the Secretary, Sign Variance Advisory Committee advising that the Sign Variance Advisory Committee concurred in a staff recommendation and refused an application by Urban Outdoor Trans Ad for variance to the Sign By-law to permit the installation of a Standard Outdoor Advertising (third party) ground sign on a railway right-of-way at 2182 Islington Avenue, facing a residential area.

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received a communication (July 5, 1998) from Mr. C. Williams, of Aird & Berlis, Barristers & Solicitors, appealing the decision of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee.

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

-Mr. C. Williams, of Aird & Berlis; and

-Mr. D. Mackie, Urban Outdoor Trans Ad.

(d)Traffic Assessment of Edgehill Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following report back to the Director of Transportation and Engineering Planning, with a request that a comprehensive review be undertaken with respect to the speed and volume of vehicular traffic in the area of Edenbridge Drive, Edgehill Road and Edgevalley Drive, to be the subject of a future report to the Etobicoke Community Council:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, recommending that no additional traffic control measures be implemented on Edgehill Road.

(e)Planning and Design Study Process for the Reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)directed the Works and Emergency Services Division, Etobicoke District, to proceed with the generalized study process presented in the following report for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road;

(2)requested that a representative of the Toronto Police Department be invited to sit on the Steering Committee; and

(3)directed that members of the Steering Committee be allowed to participate in the interview process in the event that the project is undertaken with a consultant:

(July 22, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning, proposing a planning and design study process for the 1999 reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive between Bloor Street West and Berry Road, and requesting that staff be authorized to proceed with the generalized study process.

_____

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the foregoing:

-Mr. K. Riddell, on behalf of the Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. and the Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association, advising of the Associations' interest in constructing the terms of reference for the project, and noting their interest in achieving a 24 feet grass to grass street;

-Ms. M. Campbell, President of the Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. supporting the 24feet grass to grass street; and

-Ms. J. Etter, on behalf of the Prince Edward Drive (south) Working Group, expressing appreciation for the City involving the residents in the process, and generally endorsing the proposals contained in the staff report.

(f)Rexdale Boys and Girls Club.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services to meet with representatives of the Etobicoke North Community Information Centre, Albion Neighbourhood, to review all aspects and to assist in the development of their proposal for a Boys and Girls Club.

_____

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

-Mr. O. Carroll, Toronto Volunteers Association; and

-Ms. D. Dike and Ms. L. Hunter, Etobicoke North Community Information Centre.

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

-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. D. Dike, providing background information about the Boys and Girls Club and the benefits of membership for the community.

(g)Office Space - Etobicoke Community Care Access Centre.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner, Parks and Recreation Services, providing an update on the status of a request for office space by the Etobicoke Community Care Access Centre, and advising that negotiations are proceeding between the Centre and Toronto Hydro, Etobicoke District.

_____

Ms. C. Whitbread, Etobicoke Community Care Access Centre, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing and confirmed that there are ongoing discussions with Etobicoke District Hydro.

(h)Naming and Renaming of Two Existing Parks - Thirty-Eighth Street Park and Lakeshore Village Public Open Space.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to carry out required mail ballots to residents in proximity to the two park areas identified in the following report, for the purpose of seeking their input regarding the proposed naming/renaming:

(July 22, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner, Parks and Recreation Services, with respect to the renaming of an existing park and the naming of an existing public community open space area in the Lakeshore-Queensway Ward.

(i)The 2008 Toronto Olympic Bid - Public Consultation.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information, and confirmed the public meeting date of September 17, 1998:

(July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, outlining the public consultation process related to Toronto's bid to host the 2008 Olympic games, and specifically setting out the details of Phase I of the process.

(j)Sheldon Avenue Water Supply.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 22, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning, advising that although the Sheldon Avenue area is not scheduled for rehabilitation until after the year 2002, every effort will be made to consider the area for inclusion in the 1999 Capital Budget as part of the Watermain Cleaning and Lining Programme.

(k)Mobile Signs.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)held a public meeting to seek the views of the public and the mobile sign industry with respect to mobile signs; and

(2)referred all submissions to staff and the Toronto Sign By-law Review Committee for review and consideration in the preparation of a comprehensive Sign By-law.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in support of mobile signs and offering suggestions for improvements to the by-law:

-Ms. L. Duff, Rexdale Community Health Centre;

-Mr. N. Cirillo; Court Services Group;

-Mr. B. Ridgway, ASAP Signs;

-Mr. D. Heinic, Red Hot Signs;

-Mr. D. McPhail;

-Ms. A. Wease;

-Ms. E. O'Toole, Magnet Signs;

-Ms. C. MacKenzie;

-Mr. K. Ingle; and

-Mr. W. Heinic.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council objecting to the proliferation of mobile signs:

-Mr. K. Van Graft; and

-Ms. N. Mueller, Crime S.C.O.P.E.

_____

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

-(July 8, 1998) from Mr. D. Johnston and Ms. G. Wetton, expressing their strong opposition to the presence of mobile signs on the public streets;

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. E. O'Toole, Magnet Signs, offering recommendations toward the compiling of new by-laws that would provide for mobile signs in a reasonable manner. Nine similar letters were submitted by businesses in Etobicoke;

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. L. McKitterick, expressing her concern about the use of mobile signs for inappropriate advertising;

-(July 22, 1998), from Rexdale Community Health Centre, stressing the importance of being able to advertise their services to the community and the effectiveness of the mobile sign in doing so, and recommending certain changes to the sign by-law to allow for mobile signs;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. B. Mingo, in opposition to the proliferation of mobile signs on public property;

-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. E. Cetnarowski, opposing mobile signs on private and public property; and

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. C. Morren, in opposition to mobile signs on public property.

(l)New Development Applications for Etobicoke District.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, forwarding a list of development applications received by the Urban Development Department, Etobicoke District, up to June 30, 1998.

(m)Urban Development Department Report for the Second Quarter of 1998.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, forwarding a list of activities undertaken by the Urban Development Department, Etobicoke District, for the second quarter of 1998.

(n)Preliminary Report - Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Code - Home Depot, Kipling Avenue at Bethridge Road - File No. Z-2272.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be held to consider the following report:

(July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application received on June 23, 1998, from Home Depot to amend the Industrial designation and the Industrial Class 1 (I.C1) zoning of a vacant site at Kipling Avenue and Bethridge Road, to permit a retail warehouse outlet in addition to the permitted industrial uses.

(p)Preliminary Report - Amendments to the Zoning Code - Recycle Plus Ltd., 63MedullaAvenue - File No. Z-2269.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, advising of receipt of an application for amendment to the Industrial Class 2 (I.C2) zoning to permit a recycling facility at 63 Medulla Avenue.

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received a communication (July 21, 1998) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, Solicitor, on behalf of a client group formed in opposition to the establishment and operation of a waste transfer/recycling facility at 63 Medulla Avenue, requesting that a public meeting not be scheduled and supporting the concept of a community meeting prior to a final report.

(q)Status Report (Terms of Reference) - Townhouse Development Standards.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)directed the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, to undertake an interim review of the Etobicoke Zoning Code townhouse standards in accordance with the following report; and

(2)requested that, during the review process, staff consider the compatibility with the density in the surrounding area, lot size and massing, height, side yards, rear yards, front yards, side walls and building width, as well as parking:

(July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, providing an update on the status of the Community Council's request for an evaluation of the need to review townhouse standards in the Etobicoke district.

(r)Status Report - Daniels' Lakeshore Village Development - File No. Z-2241.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having

(1)requested the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services to report to the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to status of the proposed park and community centre in the Lakeshore Village development; and

(2)received the following report:

(July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, forwarding a status update on the Daniels' Lakeshore Village development since its approval by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1991.

(s)City of Toronto Ward 2 - 657 Evans Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - OMB File No. V970545.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(June 29, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, advising that the Ontario Municipal Board granted a minor variance application to permit a basement apartment in a duplex at 657 Evans Avenue.

(t)Joseph Albanese Limited, 2 Dunbloor Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the appropriate staff to review the infrastructure and its capacity to accommodate high-density development in the area at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West, and that the Etobicoke District Committee of Adjustment be so advised; and

(2)received the following communication:

(June 24, 1998) from DD Consulting, requesting that staff be instructed to review the provisions of the Official Plan and the availability of services to accommodate high density development at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West.

_____

M. K. Dewaele, of DD Consulting, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(u)Etobicoke Awards of Excellence.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(June 26, 1998) from Ms. C. Whiteside in appreciation of being a recipient of the Volunteer of the Year Award, and commending the Etobicoke Community Council for its commitment to continuing these awards, and encouraging continuation of the annual event in Etobicoke.

(v)Request for Repaving, Sidewalk and Curbs - Greensboro Drive.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Works and Emergency Services Department for review and report back to the Etobicoke Community Council:

(July 22, 1998) from Soheil Mosun Limited, requesting the installation of a sidewalk and curb along the north side of Greensboro Drive and subsequent repaving.

(w)Committee of Adjustment - Mandate and Protocol.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, for the appropriate action:

(July 9, 1998) from Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association requesting opportunity to be included in discussions with respect to appointments to the Committee of Adjustment and any changes to the Committee of Adjustment process.

(x)Westwood Theatre Project.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(July 10, 1998) from the Co-Chairs of the Westwood Theatre Project advising of the progress of the project to date, the establishment of a Steering Committee, and a proposed Open House scheduled for September, 1998.

(y)Speed Control - Edgevalley Drive.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Work and Emergency Services Department for consideration in the comprehensive review to be undertaken with respect to the speed and volume of vehicular traffic in the area of Edenbridge Drive, Edgehill Road and Edgevalley Drive:

(July 9, 1998) from Councillor G. Lindsay Luby, forwarding a petition from residents requesting implementation of measures to control excessive speeding on Edgevalley Drive.

(z)Site Plan Control Application - Deeper Life Christian Ministries International Inc., 20RakelyCourt.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)received the following report for information; and

(2)requested the local Councillors to hold a community meeting to review the issue with interested residents:

(July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, providing information regarding the status of a Site Plan Control application for a Christian Centre at the south-west corner of Eglinton Avenue and Rakely Crescent, and recommending that all input received regarding this proposal be considered during the review of the application, prior to finalizing delegated Site Plan Control Approval.

(aa)Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests in Planning Matters.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee from a meeting on July 13, 1998, with respect to the establishment of guidelines for determining City-wide interest in planning matters, and requesting that any comments from Community Councils be forwarded directly to the July29,1998 City Council meeting.

(bb)Private Roads and Freehold Developments.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee from a meeting on July 13, 1998, with respect to a report (June 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; namely, that:

(1)development of freehold housing on private roads generally be discouraged;

(2)the Province of Ontario be urged to enact the proposed amendments to the Condominium Act pertaining to Common Elements Condominiums and Phased Condominiums; and

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report directly to Council on July 29, 1998, regarding the establishment of a 20-unit cap on any future applications of this nature until such time as a City-wide policy is in place.

(cc)Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 9, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Board of Health for the City of Toronto Health Unit, forwarding reports (June 19 and July 3, 1998) from the Medical Officer Health, and related material with respect to draft animal care and control legislation, and educational programs to prevent dog bites, and

(1)advising that the Medical Officer of Health has been requested to prepare a further report and draft by-law;

(2)requesting each Community Council to consider the report and draft by-law, when prepared, and provide comments to the Medical Officer of Health for inclusion into a consolidated report.

(dd)School Crowding.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District for any attention deemed necessary:

(July 14, 1998) from Councillor Blake Kinahan, regarding the need for short-term and long-term solutions to the provision of school space in the Humber Bay area of the Lakeshore-Queensway Ward.

(ee)Rexdale Community Resource Centre.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)referred the following communication to the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services with a request that he assist the Rexdale Community Resource Centre working group in finding meeting space in North Etobicoke; and

(2)advised the Rexdale Community Resource Centre to seek federal funding to assist their organization through their local representative:

(July 22, 1998) from Mr. F. Ahinful, Rexdale Community Resource Centre, requesting assistance in locating meeting space for their organizational working group, which is developing settlement services and integration programmes for needy immigrants, newcomers and refugees in the North Etobicoke area.

_____

Mr. F. Ahinful, of the Rexdale Community Resource Centre, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(ff)School Board Levy - 2276 Lake Shore Boulevard West.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)directed that financial conditions to approval in Plans of Subdivision and Site Control Agreements not be waived without first being reported to the Etobicoke Community Council; and

(2)requested the City Solicitor to submit a further report to the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to School Board contributions pertaining to 2276 Lake Shore Boulevard West:

(July 20, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, Etobicoke District, reporting, as requested, with respect to financial contributions to the Toronto District School Board.

(gg)Confidential Report Pertaining to a Legal Matter.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following confidential report for information:

(July 20, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, Etobicoke District, regarding the outcome of a Court Order.

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH BROWN,

Chair

Toronto, July 22, 1998

(Report No. 8 of The Etobicoke Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998.)