Item - 2013.EY21.49
Tracking Status
- City Council adopted this item on February 20, 2013 with amendments.
- This item was considered by the Etobicoke York Community Council on January 22, 2013 and adopted without amendment. It will be considered by City Council on February 20, 2013.
EY21.49 - Request for Review of Mimico 20/20 Reports
- Decision Type:
- ACTION
- Status:
- Amended
- Ward:
- 6 - Etobicoke-Lakeshore
City Council Decision
City Council on February 20 and 21, 2013, adopted the following:
1. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to address, in the context of the final Mimico 20/20 Report, how recommended policies and initiatives will create a framework to encourage investment in the area.
2. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to report to the Etobicoke York Community Council on the next phase of community consultation.
Background Information (Community Council)
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-55428.pdf
Communications (City Council)
(February 14, 2013) Letter from The Steering Committee, Ward 6 Community Action Team (CC.Supp.EY21.49.2)
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/cc/comm/communicationfile-34561.pdf
(February 15, 2013) E-mail from Martin E. Gerwin and Judith A. Rutledge, Co-Chairs, Steering Group, Mimico Lakeshore Network (CC.Supp.EY21.49.3)
(February 19, 2013) E-mail from Abbe Edelson (CC.New.EY21.49.4)
(February 20, 2013) Letter from Timothy Dobson, Chairman, Lakeshore Planning Council Corp. (CC.New.EY21.49.5)
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/cc/comm/communicationfile-34601.pdf
(February 20, 2013) E-mail from Kyle Gojic (CC.New.EY21.49.6)
Motions (City Council)
That City Council delete Etobicoke York Community Council Recommendation 1:
Recommendation to be deleted:
1. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in conjunction with the Deputy City Manager, the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District, and the local Councillor, to incorporate in the staff report on the Mimico 20/20 initiative, commentary on the following issues to incent revitalization in the Mimico area, including their inclusion in the draft Secondary Plan:
1. Development of mechanisms required to implement the plan including the designation of a Mimico revitalization zone, a Mimico Community Improvement Plan and the application of policies specific and unique to the area including those related to the provision of rental housing.
2. Development of realistic site specific policies for the development of key sites that must deal with a variety of encumbrances on properties while meeting the public objectives of the process within a realistic budget.
3. Additional topics also include, for example:
a. tax incentives
b. waiving development fees
c. provision of grants
d. acquisition of lands
e. Section 37 dedications.
These items will comprise part of the report requested, allowing the plan to achieve timely revitalization.
and insert instead the following new Recommendation 1:
1. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to address, in the context of the final Mimico 20/20 Report, how recommended policies and initiatives will create a framework to encourage investment in the area.
Vote (Amend Item) Feb-21-2013 10:08 PM
| Result: Carried | Majority Required - EY21.49 - Del Grande - motion 1 |
|---|---|
| Total members that voted Yes: 28 | Members that voted Yes are Paul Ainslie, Maria Augimeri, Ana Bailão, Michelle Berardinetti, Shelley Carroll, Gary Crawford, Janet Davis, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Mike Del Grande, Sarah Doucette, John Filion, Doug Ford, Mary Fragedakis, Doug Holyday, Mike Layton, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Josh Matlow, Pam McConnell, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Joe Mihevc, John Parker, James Pasternak, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Jaye Robinson, Karen Stintz, Adam Vaughan, Kristyn Wong-Tam |
| Total members that voted No: 7 | Members that voted No are Josh Colle, Vincent Crisanti, Rob Ford, Mark Grimes, Peter Milczyn, Frances Nunziata (Chair), Cesar Palacio |
| Total members that were Absent: 10 | Members that were absent are Raymond Cho, Frank Di Giorgio, Paula Fletcher, Norman Kelly, Chin Lee, Giorgio Mammoliti, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Ron Moeser, David Shiner, Michael Thompson |
Vote (Adopt Item as Amended) Feb-21-2013 10:08 PM
| Result: Carried | Majority Required - EY21.49 - Adopt the item as amended |
|---|---|
| Total members that voted Yes: 32 | Members that voted Yes are Paul Ainslie, Maria Augimeri, Ana Bailão, Michelle Berardinetti, Shelley Carroll, Josh Colle, Gary Crawford, Vincent Crisanti, Janet Davis, Glenn De Baeremaeker, Mike Del Grande, Sarah Doucette, John Filion, Doug Ford, Mary Fragedakis, Doug Holyday, Mike Layton, Gloria Lindsay Luby, Josh Matlow, Pam McConnell, Mary-Margaret McMahon, Joe Mihevc, Peter Milczyn, Cesar Palacio, John Parker, James Pasternak, Gord Perks, Anthony Perruzza, Jaye Robinson, Karen Stintz, Adam Vaughan, Kristyn Wong-Tam |
| Total members that voted No: 3 | Members that voted No are Rob Ford, Mark Grimes, Frances Nunziata (Chair) |
| Total members that were Absent: 10 | Members that were absent are Raymond Cho, Frank Di Giorgio, Paula Fletcher, Norman Kelly, Chin Lee, Giorgio Mammoliti, Denzil Minnan-Wong, Ron Moeser, David Shiner, Michael Thompson |
EY21.49 - Request for Review of Mimico 20/20 Reports
- Decision Type:
- ACTION
- Status:
- Adopted
- Ward:
- 6 - Etobicoke-Lakeshore
Community Council Recommendations
Etobicoke York Community Council recommends that:
1. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in conjunction with the Deputy City Manager, the Director, Community Planning, Etobicoke York District, and the local Councillor, to incorporate in the staff report on the Mimico 20/20 initiative, commentary on the following issues to incent revitalization in the Mimico area, including their inclusion in the draft Secondary Plan:
1. Development of mechanisms required to implement the plan including the designation of a Mimico revitalization zone, a Mimico Community Improvement Plan and the application of policies specific and unique to the area including those related to the provision of rental housing.
2. Development of realistic site specific policies for the development of key sites that must deal with a variety of encumbrances on properties while meeting the public objectives of the process within a realistic budget.
3. Additional topics also include, for example:
a. tax incentives
b. waiving development fees
c. provision of grants
d. acquisition of lands
e. Section 37 dedications.
These items will comprise part of the report requested, allowing the plan to achieve timely revitalization.
2. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to report to the Etobicoke York Community Council on the next phase of community consultation.
Origin
Summary
The Mimico 20/20 process has been ongoing for six years in Etobicoke Lakeshore. The original intent and agreement with local stakeholders was to create a perfect vision for revitalization of the rundown apartment and commercial strip along Lake Shore Blvd West in Mimico by the Lake area. The apartments, primarily built in the 1950's are a poor use of the land. They are built in long narrow unattractive corridors, blocking any access to the lake. Current restrictions and bylaws have created a situation where investors are unwillingly to invest in the community and rebuild or improve the housing. The intent of the Mimico 20/20 was to create a vision of a revitalized community that would meet the needs of the existing residents while encouraging investment in the area, and improve the community overall.
During the community outreach process Residents in the community and neighbouring areas have expressed a preference for continuing the linear waterfront park, on land currently encumbered by buildings on some sites, protecting the heritage buildings in the area, and that rental units be replaced in the area or adjacent communities on a one to one basis. Each site along the waterfront has some or all of these encumbrances that must be taken into account before redevelopment can take place to revitalize the individual lots.
The decision now invoked by City Staff to create a secondary plan for the area and establish consistent patterns of buildings, heights and densities does not provide sufficient flexibility to encourage investments in properties that need to deal with all of the restrictions, heritage, waterfront and rental, in one application.
The proposed secondary plan therefore does not achieve the goal of community improvement and/or the public objectives as it does not encourage investment in the community or revitalization of the neighbourhood.
Background Information
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-55428.pdf