HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIS Agenda - 2020-11-02Community &Infrastructure Services Committee
Agenda
Monday,November 2, 2020
3:00 p.m. -4:00 p.m.
Office of the City Clerk
Electronic Meeting
Kitchener City Hall
nd
200 King St.W. -2
Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Page 1Chair -Councillor K. Galloway-SealockVice-Chair -Councillor D. Schnider
Due to COVID-19 and recommendations by Waterloo Region Public Health to exercise physical
distancing, City Hall is open for select services. Members of the public are invited to participate in this
meeting electronically by accessing the meeting live-stream video at kitchener.ca/watchnow.
While in-person delegation requests are not feasible at this time, members of the public are invited to
submit written comments or participate electronically in the meeting by contacting Dianna Saunderson,
Committee Administrator at dianna.saunderson@kitchener.ca.Delegates must register by 1:00 p.m.
onNovember 2, 2020, in order to participate electronically. Written comments will be circulated prior to
the meeting and will form part of the public record.
Consent Items
The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance
with the recommendation contained in each staff report. Amajority vote is required to discuss any report listed
as under this section.
1.DSD-20-157-Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2020 Annual Monitoring Report
2.DSD-20-175-All-Way Stop Control -Thomas Slee Drive & South Creek Drive
Delegations
Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five
(5)minutes.
None at this time.
Discussion Items
3.INS-20-017-Kitchener Urban ForestCanopy-Update(45min)
(Staff will provide a 5-minute presentation on this matter)
Information Items
INS-20-018-Winter Maintenance of Gravel Parking Lots and Streets without Sidewalks
Dianna Saunderson
Committee Administrator
** Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to
take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 **
REPORT TO:Community & Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: November 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY:Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services 519-
741-2200 ext. 7646
PREPARED BY:Tim Donegani, Senior Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7067
Sarah Coutu, Planner(Policy)519-741-2200 ext. 7592
WARD(S) INVOLVED:ALL
DATE OF REPORT:October 8, 2020
REPORT NO.: DSD-20-157
SUBJECT:Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2020Annual Monitoring
Report
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Report DSD-20-157Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2020Annual
Monitoring Report be submitted to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in fulfillment of
Clause 22.1 of the Administrative Agreement between the City of Kitchener and the
Region regarding delegated approval authority.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to provide Committee and Council with the Kitchener Growth
Management Strategy 2020Annual Monitoring Report (Monitoring Report). The Monitoring
Report is an action item of the 2009 Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS), which
requirestracking of the general supply of land and the achievement of intensification and density
targets on an annual basis.
REPORT:
In 2009 Kitchener approved its Growth Management Strategy (KGMS). The KGMS goals and
actions support the Province’s 2006 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth
Plan) and Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS). The KGMS provides a long-term
framework for planning where and how future residential and employment growth should occur
in Kitchener. To ensure thatgrowth contributes positively to our quality of life, the KGMS
coordinates the provision of infrastructure and services with new development.
The KGMS introduced a number ofgoals, one of which was to develop and facilitate an ongoing
growth management program to manage growth-related change in an effective and co-ordinated
manner (Goal 6). One of the action items of this goal is to prepare an annual monitoring report
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1 - 1
to track the supply of development opportunities and the achievement of intensification and
density targets. Monitoring reports have been prepared annually since 2010.
The 2020Monitoring Report (Appendix A) provides a summary and assessment of growth with
the Built-up Area (intensification areas) and Designated Greenfield Area of the city over the past
year (June 2019 to June 2020).
Highlights of the 2020Monitoring Report Include:
Residential Development Rates in 2019
The number of new dwelling units created in 2019 (3,672) increased significantly from
2018 (1,302). This is the highest year for new units created through buildings permits in
the last 30 years.
75% of the new residential units were in the form of multiple dwellings.
Urban Growth Centre (UGC) Density
The estimated density of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) is185 residents and jobs per
hectare. Kitchener continues to be well on its way to achieving the Official Plan target of
225 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031.
Built Up Area and DesignatedGreenfield Area Development (June 2019 and June 2020)
The intensification level over the past year (new residential construction that occurs within
the Built-up Area) is 75%. This is the highest level achieved in the 10 years of monitoring.
Over the next several years, it is expected that the intensification level will decrease as
lands within Kitchener’s Designated Greenfield Area (i.e. newer subdivision areas) build
out. The City’s 5-year average intensification level is 51%, which exceeds the Region of
Waterloo’s minimum target of 45%;
Building permits issued for new residential units between June 2019 and June 2020within
the Designated Greenfield Area continue to provide a varied and balanced supply of
dwelling types.
The number of multiple dwelling permits issued in the Built-Up Area far exceed those that
that were issues within the Designated Greenfield Area.
Capacity for Growth
The City continues to have the potentialto accommodate its current allocated population
and employment growth within its urban area.
Future of City’s Growth Management Program
All ofthe goals and action items of the KGMS have now been completed.
It is anticipated that the City’s growth management program, including the strategy,
framework and dynamic tracking and monitoring system, will be updated in future years
to reflect: recent changes to provincial legislation; updates to the Region’s Official Plan
following the completion of their Official Plan Review currently underway; and,
subsequently the City’s Official Plan review which will follow.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Commitment to Accountability:measuringand reporting.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no new or additional capital budget requests with this recommendation.
1 - 2
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.In addition, monitoring report information was discussed with the
Waterloo Region Home Builders Liaison Committee onOctober 16, 2020.
CONCLUSION:
The 2020MonitoringReport demonstrates that Kitchener continues to be well positioned to
accommodate growth and achieve identified targets.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services
Appendix A – Kitchener Growth Management Strategy (KGMS) Annual Monitoring Report 2020
1 - 3
Appendix A
KitchenerGrowth
Management Strategy
2020Annual Monitoring Report
November 2, 2020
RE: DSD-20-157
1 - 4
Executive Summary
In 2009 Kitchener approved its Growth Management Strategy (KGMS). Kitchener is
expected to accommodate a relatively significant amount of residential and
employment growth by 2031, as forecast by the Provincial growth plan.The City is
also mandated by the Province to achieve certain numerical targets and other
planning objectives.
Kitchener is on the leading edge with respect to its ability to track and monitor
specific growth data in a dynamic manner. A snapshot of the data is contained within
this report.
All of the goals and action items of the KGMS have now beencompletedandthe
results of the 2020 growth management data continue to be encouraging. The
number of residents and jobs per hectare (RJs/ha) in the Urban Growth Centre
(Downtown) is 185 RJs/ha and is trending towardsachieving the provincially
mandatedtarget of 200 RJs/ha by 2031, which was further established in the City’s
Official Plan, at a minimum target of 225 RJs/ha by 2031. The City’s current
intensification level of 75% and 5-year average intensification level of 51% within its
Built-up Area exceeds the regional intensification target (45%).
In 2019, building permits were issued for a total of 3,672 new residential units. This
represents a 182% increase from 2018 and is the highest year for new units created
through buildings permits in the last 30 years. 75% of new residential units
developed were in the form of multiple dwellings.
It is anticipated that the City’s growth management program, including the strategy,
framework and dynamic tracking and monitoring system, will be updated in future
years to reflect: recent changes to provincial legislation; updates to the Region’s
Official Plan following the completion of their Official Plan Review currently
underway; and, subsequently the City’s Official Plan review which will follow.
1 - 5
1.Introduction
In 2009, Kitchener approved its Growth Management Strategy (KGMS). The KGMS provides a
framework for planning where and how future residential and employment growth can be
accommodated in Kitchener while positively contributing to the City’squality of life. The goals
and actions outlined in the KGMS support the provincial Places to Grow Growth Plan for the
Greater Horseshoe (2006 Growth Plan) and the Regional Growth Management Strategy
(RGMS).
The KGMS introduced an ongoing growth management program to manage growth-related
change in an effective and coordinated manner (Goal 6). One of the action items of this goal is
to prepare an Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report to track the supply of
development opportunities, the achievement of intensification and density targets. Monitoring
Reports have been preparedand presented to Council and the development industryannually
since 2010. The Monitoring report provides an update on the progress of implementing the
KGMS action items along with provincial and regional growth plans.
The primary purpose of the Monitoring Report is to update data from the KGMS Background
Study: Current Baseline Report (Parts 6-9) annually. It presents a summary of recent residential
development rates and updates the potential capacity to accommodate growth bothwithin the
Built-up Area(intensification areas) and in the Designated Greenfield Area. The original data
from the KGMS Background Study wasas of June 16, 2008 (with some of the existing
residential data at the time coming from the 2006Census). The monitoring report also provides
a summary of development applications that have been received and those that have been
approvedin 2019.
This monitoring report captures a snapshot of all data (with the exception of Sections 2 and3)
as ofJune 16, 2020(the anniversary date of the 2006 Growth Plan).
1 - 6
2.Delegated Approval Authority Summary for 2019
This section provides a summary of the number of plans of subdivision, plans of condominium,
part-lot control applications, and consent applications received and the number and type of
dwelling units (herein after referred to as units) approvedthrough these applications in 2019.
Reporting on those approvalsis a requirement of an agreement between the City of Kitchener
and the Region of Waterloo regarding delegated approval authority.Figure 1 includesthe
number of applications received, approved and registered in 2019.
Figure 1: 2019 Development Applications Received, Approved and Registered
Combination of
Combination of Multiple Residential,
Application # of Singles, Semis or Cluster Townhouse
TypeApplicationsStreet Fronting Units, Commercial and
Townhouse UnitsMixed Use
Developments
Received Applications
Subdivision102,818
Condominium10114422
Part Lot Control 7
Consents80
Total981143,240
Approved Lots/Units
Subdivision000
Condominium25812
Part Lot Control 61220
Consents803524
Total 8821536
Registered Lots/Units
Subdivision7587746
Condominium110632
Total 185871,378
1 - 7
-
7*
708071
536632122
Total
2,8181,333
--
1236
/CT
746422632
2019
2,818
Multiple
7*
80
---
5835
587114122
SST
and registered
9
1866
13*
680688389655136
Total
2,635
approved
-
4
75
CT
729171594389641
2018
Multiple/
66
13*
-
9
94141461
509
SST
1,906
-
32
19*33*
284283603695532371
Total
Dwelling
7
nsent applications received,
-- -
6
CT
222583675526
201
Multiple/
19*33*
-
6
62202023
283371
SST
24
25*48*
142449633384673924145
Total
Multiple, Cluster Townhouse
6
–
85
CT
5**
124186615
232384897
201
Multiple/
25*48*
-
1858276027
263401
SST
4020
20*62*
160186660554498
Total
3,505
5
-
4
4**
/CT
108660554470
Subdivision, Condominium, Part Lot Control, and Consent Applications Received, Approved and Registered201
1,190
Multiple
20*62*
2019
-
- -
5
52284020
182
SST
2,315
.
2019
to
4
Figure 2: 201
visions
Single, Semi, Street Townhouse Dwelling; Multiple/CT
–
Consents
Subdi
Condominiums
Part Lot Control
Figure 2 compares the number of subdivision, condominium, part lot control, and cofrom 201 ReceivedDraft ApprovedRegisteredReceivedDraft ApprovedRegisteredReceivedApprovedReceivedApprovedSST
*Total number of applications received**Total number of multiple blocks approved
1 - 8
3.Residential Development Rates
This section provides an overview ofpast development rates in the City through the examination
of building permits fornew residential units by dwelling type.
Figure 3: Residential Development Rates
New Residential Dwelling Units Created
Through Building Permit*
5-year 10-year 20-year
AverageAverageAverage
Dwelling Type20182019(2015-2019)(2010-2019)(2000-2019)
Single Detached*298342483593636
Semi-Detached*3033265550
Duplex**1462121207562
Townhouses216340296311302
Multiple Dwellings***6122,7451,169659578
Total New Units1,3023,6722,0941,6931,627
*Gross new units (conversion/additions included, demolitions not subtracted)
**Includes additions that create new units
***Includes additions that create new units and stacked townhouses
In 2019, building permits were issued for a total of 3,672new residential units. This is a
significant increase compared to 2018. This is the highest year for new units created through
building permits in the last 30 years. The second highest year was in 1987 with 2,684 units.
75% of new residential units developed in 2019 were in the form of multiple dwellings.During
the first six months of 2020the City issued building permits for 732new residential units.
1 - 9
4.Intensification Level
The Region of Waterloo’s Official Plan requires the achievement of a region-wide target of a
minimum of 45% of all new residential development to be located within the Built-up Area
(BUA). The map below illustrates the location of Kitchener’s BUA, Designated Greenfield Area
(DGA), built boundary line (the limits of the City’s developed urban area as established by the
Province in 2006). It shows the location of new units created within these areasbetween June
16, 2019and June 15, 2020.
1 - 10
Achieving the minimum intensification level of 45% could be a challenge for some municipalities
that still have a significantamount of Designated Greenfield Area (DGA)lands available and
limited intensification opportunities. The most recent measures of new residential units by type
in the BUAand DGA are indicated in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Intensification and Designated Greenfield Area Development Levels
(June 16/19-June 15/20)
Designated Greenfield
Area Built-Up Area
Dwelling Type(New Residential Units)(New Residential Units)Total
Single Detached43120451
Semi-Detached06060
Duplex38247285
Street Townhouses28442326
Cluster Townhouses606
Multiple Dwellings*1562,440 2,596
9152,8093,724
Total
Percent of Total25%75%100%
*Includes dwelling units within mixed use buildings
The intensification level over the past year (new residential construction that occurs within the
Built-up Area) is 75%. This is the highest level achieved in the 10 years of monitoringand
continues to be an indication that the City remains positioned to both contribute towards, and in
some years exceed, the intensification target. As we have seen in recent years, when there is a
substantial number of multiple dwelling unitscreated in the Built-upArea, the City’s
intensification level is higher. As the City’s new greenfield areas are opening up, it is expected
that moving forward over the next few years Kitchener may not achieve as high an
intensification level.
1 - 11
Figure5 illustrates the historic intensification levels, as per the Provincial Built Boundary Line.
Figure 5: Intensification Level (2001 to present)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Intensification Level (%)
10
0
Year
The City expects to see “spike” (i.e. 2013,2020) and “dip” (i.e. 2012) years with respect to the
BUA intensification level as the timing of 2-3 multiple dwelling developments can affectthe
reported rate in a given year for a municipality the size of Kitchener. This is particularlyevident
for this reporting year, 2020, with 8 buildings permits issued for multiple dwelling developments
exceeding 100 units. An average provides a better understanding, for monitoring purposes, of
whether the City is on track to achieving the required intensification level. Figure 6 below
illustrates the 5-yearaverage intensification levels from June 2005 to June 2020.
Figure 6: 5 Year Average Intensification Levels
Year5Year Average Intensification Level (%)
June 2005 -June 201039
June 2010 -June 201548
June 2015 -June 202051
The 5-year average Intensification Level (June 2015 – June 2020) is now at 51% with the 10-
year average (2010-2020) slightly lower at 48%.
1 - 12
5.Intensification Areas – Existing Measures and Additional Capacity
for New Growth
Existing Measures
Figure 7 quantifies the existing number of dwelling units, residents, jobs and density measure
(residents and jobs per hectare) for the currently identified Intensification Areaswithin the BUA.
Figure 7: Existing Measures for Current Intensification Areas
Non-
Land
Residential Residents
Intensification AreaArea UnitsResidentsJobs
Floor + Jobs/ha
(Ha)
Space (m2)
Urban Growth Centre*1073,2405,735841,90114,052185
Primary Node1151,5122,723106,4983,49869
Mixed Use Nodes2944,0977,386289,5046,29043
Mixed Use Corridors1232,2654,276202,2936,76996
Neighbourhood Mixed
4616241010,6931,82652
Use Centres
Comprehensive
27411938126,98229976
Development Areas
Subtotal of
71211,68721,4681,577,87132,734
Intensification Areas
Site Specific
Intensification 1,2432,409726,8477,87354
Opportunities
Grand Total12,93023,8772,304,71840,607
*UGC data is provided by the Region
It is noted that the data sourcesfor reporting jobs within the Urban Growth Centre(UGC)has
changed from last year. In previous years, the Region’s Workplace Count Surveythat is
conducted every two years has been used and has been supplemented with more data
provided by the City’sEconomic Development staff in the years that the Workplace Count
Survey was not conducted. This year, the UGC data has been provided by the Region and has
beencalculated using data from the 2016 Census and adjusted to include estimatedadditional
employees based on non-residential floor spaceconstructed since the Census.
The estimated density of the UGC is 185RJs/ha in 2020. It is noted that this number is lower
than reported last year and this is due to the change in data sources. Additionally, at the time of
writing this report, we do not have any information regarding the number of employeesin
Kitchenerwho have lost their jobs due to novel coronavirus COVID-19.However, according to
the Labour Force Survey released by Statistic Canada, we know that the number of people
employed in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge Census Metropolitan Area has decreased by
17% since mid-year 2019.The degree to which COVID-19 will have long term implications on
employment and residential development is currently unknown, but based on planning
applications and permits in process, it is still estimated that approximately 2,450 units may be
built and occupied in theUGC in thenext 2-5 years.
1 - 13
Capacity for New Growth
Figure 8 explores the potential for accommodating new development within each of
intensification areas based on the existing zoning only.
Figure 8: Additional Capacity Measures for Current Intensification Areas
50% Scenario
It is assumed that the intensification opportunities may have a capacity of, on average, up to 50% of
their maximum zoned capacity during the planning horizon
Non-
Residential
Floor Residents +
Intensification AreasArea (Ha)UnitsResidentsSpace(m2)JobsJobs/ha
Urban Growth Centre1071,9113,413237,0129,632121
Primary Node11544691001,17622
Mixed Use Nodes2944,1198,291360,9498,64764
Mixed Use Corridors1236,50512,061443,54613,261182
Neighbourhood Mixed Use
466812322,1792357
Centres
Comprehensive
277871,7052,19927333
Development Areas
Subtotal of Intensification
71213,83526,5031,065,88633,224
Areas
Site Specific Intensification
2,3844,263231,8334,50941
Opportunities
Grand Total16,21930,7661,297,71937,733
*Some data reported utilizes MPAC data which has limitations (i.e. non-residential building floor
space).
Buildings and sites within the Urban Growth
Centre and the City’s other Intensification
Areas are well positioned with existing land
use, density, design approvals and amenities
in place which can help the existing capacity
to grow in these areas. New development
applications and updates to the zoning in
these areas as a result of the Comprehensive
Review ofthe Zoning By-law (CRoZBy),
Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations
(PARTS), and neighbourhood specific
planning reviewswill continue to refine the
planning framework and add to the capacity
to accommodate growth in these areas.
1 - 14
Figure 9 provides an account of the total number of dwelling units, residents, non-residential
floor space and jobs that could result at build-out of the Intensification Areas.
Figure 9: Total Measures (Existing + Additional Capacity) forCurrent Intensification
Areas
Non-
Residentia
Intensification Area l Floor Residents
Areas(Ha)UnitsResidentsSpace(m2)Jobs+ Jobs/ha
Urban Growth
Centre1075,1519,1481,079,37323,684306
Primary Node1151,9583,63304,67490
Mixed Use Nodes2948,13815,537575,20314,814106
Mixed Use Corridors1238,77016,336645,83920,030278
Neighbourhood
Mixed Use Centres4623053232,8722,06058
Comprehensive
Development Areas271,1982,643129,181572109
Subtotal of
Intensification
Areas71225,44447,8292,568,96765,835
Site Specific
Intensification
Opportunities3,6276,672958,68012,38295
Grand Total29,07154,5013,527,64778,217
Given the additional opportunitiesfor redevelopment, based on existing zoning, there is capacity
and potential to achieve higher densities within Kitchener’s Intensification Areas.
1 - 15
6.Estimated Land Supply
The estimated land supply for Kitchener is a total of the potential capacity within the BUAand
the DGA. As development moves from raw land through the development approvals stage and
eventually to construction, the land supply estimates become more accurate.
6.1Potential Built-up Area Supply
TheBuilt-up Arealand supply includes lands within the Built Boundary Line that are within
intensification areas, are site specific intensification opportunities, include a minor intensification
factor within existing communities (community interiors) and the potential supply from
registered, draft approved and in-circulation subdivisions.
Figure 10: Estimated Built-up Area Supply (capacity of intensification lands inside the Built
Boundary)
Non-Res.
Intensification AreaUnitsResidentsJobs
Space (m²)*
Urban Growth Centre
1,9113,413237,0129,632
Primary Node
44691001,176
Mixed Use Nodes**
4,1198,291360,9498,647
Mixed Use Corridors
6,50512,061443,54613,261
Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centres
6812322,179235
Comprehensive Development Areas
7871,7052,199273
Subtotal of Intensification Areas13,83526,5031,065,88633,224
Site Specific Intensification Opportunities2,3844,263231,8334,509
Total Potential Supply of Current
16,21930,7661,297,71937,733
Intensification Areas
Community Interiors5501,399038
Registered (Vacant Land Inventory) 322679215,6883,225
Draft Approved13336500
In Circulation0000
Other Designated0000
Subtotal1,0052,443215,6883,263
Total Potential Supply (Current Zoning)17,22433,2091,513,40740,996
*Some data reported utilizes MPAC data which has limitations (i.e. non-residential building floor
space).
**Does not include Lackner/Fairway Mixed Use Node which is in the Designated Greenfield Area.
Figure 10 illustrates that the City’s current estimated Built-up Area land supply includes a
potential capacity of approximately 17,000dwelling units and 1.5 millionsquare metres of non-
residential floor space.
1 - 16
6.2Potential Designated Greenfield Area Supply
The potential Designated Greenfield Area (DGA)land supplyincludes all lands outside the Built
Boundary Line that are designated for development in the City’s Official Plan. The estimates will
become more refined as land parcels within this area move through the development approval
process. The dwelling unit numbers are primarily based on maximumsfor blocks of land that
have a range of units.
Similar to Figure 10,the DGAland supply includes intensification areas, site specific
intensification opportunities, lands which have been designated in the Official Plan but do not
currently have development applications (e.g. portions of the Rosenberg Community) and the
potential supply from registered, draft approved and in-circulation subdivisions.
Figure 11: Estimated Designated Greenfield Area Supply
(lands outside the Built Boundary)
Non-Res. Floor
2
Greenfield LocationUnitsResidentsSpace (m)Jobs
24043057,1001,180
Intensification Areas*
Site Specific Intensification Opportunities0044,566378
Other Designated Lands**5,78013,180112,9546,016
Registered (Vacant Land Inventory)2,7327,29283,5101,459
Draft Approved8,22619,456126126
In Circulation4,96112,34267,890461
Total***21,93952,699366,1459,621
*Includes Lackner/Fairway Mixed Use Node (outside Built Boundary Line)
** Using 55 residents+jobs/hectare assumption. Lands are net Provincial constraints only. No
Hidden Valley Community included. Includes Rosenberg lands without a development
application, based on densities in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan.
***Does not include any additional lands added in the Region Official Plan and City Official Plan
to the City Urban Area. Once the land use designations are considered, the DGA supply
estimates will be updated.
Figure 11 illustrates that the City’s current estimated Designated Greenfield Area land supply
includes a potential capacity of approximately 22,000residential units and 366,000square
metres of non-residential floor space.
1 - 17
6.3Estimated Total Supply
When combined, the potential land supply of both the BUA and DGAprovidesa total estimate
for residential and employment land in Kitchener.
Figure 12: Estimated Total Supply: Built-up Area and Designated Greenfield Area
Non-Res. Space
LocationUnitsResidentsJobs
(m²)
Built-up Area (BUA)17,22433,2091,513,40740,996
Designated Greenfield
21,93952,699366,1459,621
Area (DGA)
Total 39,16385,9081,879,55250,617
The timing of development from the estimated supply of units is influenced by many factors
including infrastructure timing, landownerpriorities and market forces.
As previously discussed throughout this report, the estimated land supply for Kitchener is based
on existing lands within the City’s urban area as per the 1994 Official Plan and zoning at the
time of the preparation of the KGMS in 2009. It is not based on updatestozoningthat have
recently come into effect throughtheComprehensiveReviewoftheZoningBylaw (CRoZBy).
Further, it does not include any additional lands added in the Region’s Official Planand City’s
Official Planto the City’s urban area (within the DGA) nor does it include the intensification
areas withinthe Built-upArea as outlined in the City’s new Official Plan.It is anticipated that the
City’s growth management program, including the strategy, framework and dynamic tracking
and monitoring system, will be updated in future years to reflect: recent changes to provincial
legislation; updates to the Region’s Official Plan following the completion of their Official Plan
Review currently underway; and, subsequently the City’s Official Plan review which will follow.
7.Current Capacity for Growth
This section compares the current population and employment capacity with the population and
employment allocations provided by the Region of Waterloo.
Figure 13: Population Allocation vs. Estimated Capacity
PopulationEmployment
Existing262,000 *91,000*
Capacity88,19457,268
Total350,194148,268
2031 Growth Allocation 319,500132,500
Difference30,69415,768
*Unofficial interim population estimate as of mid-year 2020, Region
Kitchener’s 2020mid-year population estimated by the Region is now 262,000approximately
4,000more people than reported mid-year 2019. Figure 13 shows that the City has an existing
supply/capacity of developable land within the BUA and DGA that can accommodate more
residents and jobs than the 2031population and employment allocation from the Region.
1 - 18
8.A Placeto Grow Implementation
On May 16,2019 a new Growth Plan(A Place to Grow)came into effect which, among other
things, provides for revisedintensification levels and densitytargets.The new targets will come
into effect upon completion of the Regional Official Plan review, currently underway. It is
expected that theCity’s growth management strategy and framework as well as the annual
monitoring report may be revisedfollowing the Region’sOfficial Plan Review and subsequently
the City’s Official Plan review.
Growth Forecasts
In response to previousProvincial growth forecasts (and Regional allocation thereof), the City
developed background information in support of the KGMS that analyzesthe growth capacity of
various areas of the city. As indicated in Section 7.0, Kitchener has the capacity to
accommodate the allocated growth into appropriate areas.
The Province continues to update long-term growth forecast scenarios for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe. These forecasts are required to be included within the Region’s Official Plan and
the allocations ofthese forecasts within local Official Plans. At such time as the Region of
Waterloo amendstheir Plan to identify any different/further allocation of the forecasts for
Kitchener, an update to the growth management assessment and the Kitchener Official Plan
may be required.
Urban Growth Centre
The 2006 Growth Plan required that our Urban Growth Centre be planned to achieve a
minimum of 200 RJs/ha by 2031. The City’s Official Plan setthis target at 225 RJs/ha by 2031.
The present density is 185RJs/ha. With additional intensification projects currently happening
or proposed in the UGC, the city is well positioned to meet and exceed these targetsbefore
2031.
Intensification
The 2006 Growth Plan required that 40% of residential development be directed to the BUA by
2015. Thetarget within the Regional Official Planis a minimum of 45% of all new residential
development to be located within the BUA. The 2019Growth Plan has a higher intensification
level targetanddetermining how to implement the target in our region is being considered as
part of the Region’s Official Plan Review.To monitor new development, the City has a dynamic
system that tracks building permit issuance for new residential units inside and outside the Built
Boundary Line. The most recent intensification level over a one-year period was75% while the
five-year average intensification level is now at51%. As indicated in Section 4.0, a multi-year
average provides a better understanding, for monitoring purposes, of whether the City is on
track to achieving the required intensification level.
Designated Greenfield Area Densities
TheGrowth Planmandates that future development within the Designated Greenfield Area
should achieve specific, transit-supportive density targets. Based on the 2006 Growth Plan, to
contribute to meeting the Region’sminimum density target of 50 residents and jobs combined
per hectare for the entire Designated Greenfield Area shown in the Regional Official Plan,
Kitchener’s targetis 55 residents and jobs per hectare in residential subdivisions. Kitchener is
well positioned to meet this target. There are several plans of subdivision that are in areas
served, or to be served, by transit that meet or exceed the overall target. The Kitchener Growth
Management Plan (KGMP) provides a tool for identifying and tracking the Designated
Greenfield Area density.
1 - 19
Planning Principles
Planning a city is not just about achieving certain numerical targets. The majority of the Growth
Plan includes policy direction to achieve healthy and complete communities. Kitchener has long
been a leader in promoting walkable, transit-supportive development. Kitchener’s efforts to
continue to revitalize the Urban Growth Centre, clean up brownfield sites and achieve mixed
use developments that are pedestrian-oriented are significant. The City isfurther striving to
enhance the linkages between land use planning and other community considerations such as
transportation options, community infrastructure, social dynamics, economics and
environmental conservation. Ultimately, the goal is to help achieve a higher quality of life in a
complete and healthy community.
9.Regional Growth Management Strategy Implementation
The goals outlined in the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS), are largely reflected
in the goals of the KGMS.
10.Kitchener Growth Management Strategy Implementation
The KGMS encompasses six goals that facilitate managing growth and development within the
City of Kitchener. These goals support the RGMS and have been adapted to the City of
Kitchener context. All ofthe objectives, initiatives and recommendations of the KGMS have now
been completed in the past 11years, with the most recent achieved in the delivery of the new
urban design manual in September 2019.
11.Kitchener Growth Management Plan
The Kitchener Growth Management Plan (KGMP) is an evolution of the former Staging of
Development program and is used as a tool to assist with the implementation of the KGMS. The
KGMP establishes priority levels for development and infrastructure projects for each growth
area within the City. It includes the prioritization and allocation of resources towards completing
initiatives that are required to move lands from the draft approval stage to registration,
construction and developing complete communities. The current KGMP (2019-2021+) was
adopted by City Council in November 2019. The next KGMP for 2021-2023+ will be considered
by Committee of Council in Fall 2021.
1 - 20
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: November 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY: Barry Cronkite, Director, Transportation Services,
519-741-2200 ext. 7738
PREPARED BY: Ivan J Balaban, Traffic Technologist, (519) 741-2200 x7302
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT:October 9, 2020
REPORT NO.: DSD-20-175
SUBJECT: All-Way Stop Control – Thomas SleeDrive &SouthCreek Drive
__________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That an all-way stop control be installed at the intersection of Thomas SleeDrive and
South Creek Drive.
That the Uniform Traffic By-Law be amended accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
Transportation Services received severalrequeststo review the existing traffic control at the
intersection of Thomas Slee Drive and South Creek Drive. Therequestscited concerns
regarding pedestrian safety and general operation of the intersection,particularlyin relation to
Groh Public School and the number of students and parents crossing the roadway at this
location. It was requested that a crossing guard or an all-way stop be considered to control traffic.
According to the City of Kitchener’s Official Plan, Thomas Slee Drive and South Creek Drive are
both designated MinorCommunity Collector Streets.Currently, traffic on SouthCreek Drive
stops and yields right of way to traffic on Thomas SleeDrive.
REPORT:
In response to the identified safety concerns,acrossing guard study was conducted on
December 11, 2019 andtraffic study was conductedon January 30, 2020. The results of these
studiesshowed that a crossing guard iswarranted, while an all-way stop did not meet the
minimumtraffic volumethreshold. However, it is expected that with thecontinued development
in theimmediatearea and related increase intraffic volume, thatthe minimum traffic volume
threshold will be met inthe near future. The results of theall-way stoptraffic study are as
follows. These requirements are a set of guidelines based on the all-way stop warrants
established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and the Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 1
Warrant – Local/Minor Road
All-Way Stop Warrant Analysis
Thomas Slee Drive and South Creek Drive
Warrant Factors -"4-Leg" IntersectionResultsWarrant Met
The total vehicle volume on all
intersection approaches averages 250
187NO
vehicles per hour for each of any eight
hours of the day,
and
The volume split does not exceed 65% /
35% for a four-way control on the major 58% / 42%YES
road,
or
Collisions within a 12 month period
averaged over 36 consecutive months NO
0.00per year
susceptible to correction by an All-way (Warrant Value=4)
stop
All-Way Stop WarrantedNO
Installation of an all-way stop would change the warrant process for a crossing guard and result
in thecrossing guard no longer being warranted. Ratherthan recommending a crossing guard
initiallyand thensubsequentlyrecommending removal when an all-way-stop is formally
warranted in the near future, staffrecommend that an all-way stop be installed proactively.
Whilethe intersectionis slightly deficient on volume, it currently meets the split requirements
for an all-way-stop. Additionally,itwill provide much needed control and addressschool
crossing issuesand establish consistency of the intersection control. Furthermore, the all-way
stop analysis tool does not account for pedestrian volume and crossings. When taking into
account the average pedestrian crossings per hour, the resulting traffic volume would meet the
warrant criteriaon a peak hour basis.The all-way stop analysis, with pedestrians included is
as follows:
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 2
Warrant – Local/Minor Road
All-Way Stop Warrant Analysis - INCLUDING PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
Thomas Slee Drive and South Creek Drive
Warrant Factors -"4-Leg" IntersectionResultsWarrant Met
The total vehicle volume on all
intersection approaches (including
pedestrians) averages 250vehicles per 264YES
hour for each of any eight hours of the
day,
and
The volume split does not exceed 65% /
35% for a four-way control on the major 41%/59%YES
road,
or
Collisions within a 12 monthperiod
averaged over 36 consecutive months NO
0.00per year
susceptible to correction by an All-way (Warrant Value=4)
stop
All-Way Stop WarrantedYES
Based on the analysis above, Transportation services recommends the installation of anall-
way stop on the basis that the warrants for installation of the all-way stopare met when
pedestrians are accounted for andwill be met in the near futureon traffic volume alone.
Transportation Services will continue to monitor this intersection after the all-way stop
installation to ensure it is operating safely.Additionally, while a crossing guard will no longer
be warranted under the proposed all-way stop configuration, staff will continue to monitor the
crossing guard warrant. Should future volumes trigger the warrant process for a crossing
guard, staff will provide further recommendations to Council.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision
through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The total cost of implementing theall-way stop at Thomas SleeDrive and SouthCreek Driveis
approximately $1,000, including materials and installation,and will be taken from existing sign
maintenance budget.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 3
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services,
DevelopmentServices Department
Attached:
Appendix A – Proposed All-Way Stop
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 4
Appendix A: Proposed All-Way Stop
Thomas SleeDrive and SouthCreek Drive
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 5
REPORT TO:Community & Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:November 2, 2020
SUBMITTED BY:Niall Lobley,Director of Parks & Cemeteries,
PREPARED BY:Niall Lobley, Director of Parks & Cemeteries
WARD(S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:October 20, 2020
REPORT NO.:INS-20-017
SUBJECT:Kitchener Urban Forest Canopy - Update
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council direct staff to undertake engagement and consultation with
stakeholders and the community in respect to developing an Urban Forest Canopy
Cover target for the City of Kitchener, and,
That staff report back to Council on a recommended target in late Spring, 2021
BACKGROUND:
Kitchener’s Strategic Plan (2019-2022) identifies the setting of a tree canopy target, which
was first identified in Kitchener’s Sustainable Urban Forest strategy (Action 13 - Set a tree
canopy target and develop a long-term plan ensuring a vibrant and resilient tree canopy
for future generations).Kitchener’s Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy was approved by
Council in April, 2019 (www.kitchener.ca/trees).
A tree canopy target is the setting of a target (goal) to achieve and maintain a desired
level of tree cover, based on goals set for the entire municipalityand each neighbourhood
and/or landuse. Increasing a city’s tree canopy is importantto significantly increase the
benefits that trees provide to the community.
The setting of a canopy target can often turn into a discussion of planting more trees.
While an important part, it is only one of the five required actions for communities to
maintain and enhance their canopy, with the priority being increasing the quality and
longevity of the existing canopy first, with tree planting seen as a long-term benefit.
Tree canopy, like all other facets of a sustainable urban forest are built around Kitchener’s
five branches (see Figure 1) of a sustainable urban forest.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
3 - 1
REPORT:
Using the North American standard for tree canopy assessment, a land cover map has
been developed identifying the tree canopy, grass/shrubs, bare soil, water, buildings,
roads/railroads and other paved surfaces in the city.It was created from the city’s
extensive GIS data along with aerial imagery, LiDAR (light detection and ranging data)
from 2014 and 2019. This detailed mapping helps to identify the;
Existing tree canopy
Possible tree canopy, and,
Canopy change by identifying the gains and losses in canopy from 2014 to 2019.
Existing Tree Canopyis the layer of branches, leaves and stems that cover the ground
when viewed from above and includes both public and private property. Possible Tree
Canopyis the grass and shrub areas in the city that could be available for the
establishment of tree canopy. These include both public and private property. Canopy
Changeis determined by the gain (e.g. growth of existing trees, natural regeneration,
tree planting) and loss (e.g. natural mortality, invasive tree pests, extreme
weather/climate change, removal of living trees) in the city’s tree canopy over a period of
time.
3 - 2
In 2019, Kitchener had 27% tree canopy cover, that covered 3,615 hectares of land. At
the City Ward level percent canopy cover ranges from a high of 36% (Ward 4), to a low
of 17% (Ward 5). (See Figure 2.) Overall, there is an equal split of five wards having
canopy cover greater than and less than 27%.The variation between wards is as a result
of many factors and can be complex; factors differ ward by ward and in many areas,
neighbourhood by neighbourhood and street by street.
Ward 5, for example, has seen significant development pressure over recent years
removing agricultural and countryside lands, andthemature trees within them,replacing
this with suburban growth. While Ward 5 experiences the lowest canopy, it has also likely
seen by far the most significant tree planting efforts as new trees are planted in new
developments; these trees are as yet to young to contribute significant canopy but in 5 –
10 years, will likely do so.
Wards 4 and 8 by contrast have seen less development pressure and have some of the
more established urban forest canopies with more mature street and park trees and larger
private lots contributing canopy cover. Here, the existing canopy is already mature and
may not significantly increase; but development pressures for intensification could have
a more significant impact on canopy in these areas.
Ward 2 has extensive natural areas contributing to its canopy, while Ward 6 reflects more
dense residential space with lower available greenspace.
Existing Tree Canopy by City Wards
40%
36%
34%
33%
35%
30%
28%
30%
26%
27%
25%
25%
22%22%
20%
17%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Ward 1Ward 2Ward 3Ward 4Ward 5Ward 6Ward 7Ward 8Ward 9Ward 10
Existing TCAverage TC
Figure 2: 2019 Tree Canopy Cover by City Ward
3 - 3
The change in canopy from 2014 to 2019 is another important metric, especially for
communities interested in maintaining or increasing their canopy cover. Across the city
there was a 2% net gain in tree canopy, which amounts to about 280 new hectares of tree
canopy. All City Wards had a gain in canopy cover rangingfrom 0.6% (Ward 5) to 3.2%
(Ward 7).
It is noted that while this growth in canopy against a backdrop of the impacts of Emerald
Ash Borer and significant development is certainly to be celebrated, it should be done so
with some caution: the growth in canopy is driven by existing maturing trees growing
larger; it is highly likely that while canopy has grown, the overall number of trees
contributing to that canopy has decreased, therefore making the amount of canopy
susceptible to significant losses if larger, maturing trees that are driving current canopy
levels are lost to development, disease or age.
A comparison of Kitchener’s tree canopy(Figure 3),is also made with six other
municipalities that have urban forest management plans in place, know their existing tree
canopy and have set canopy cover targets. Three of the cities are larger than Kitchener,
while the other three are smaller, and three have identified their canopy change over time.
Kitchener's Tree Canopy Compared to other Cities
30%
28%
28%
27%27%
25%
24%
23%
21%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
TorontoOakvilleKitchenerCambridgeLondonGuelphHamilton
Figure 3: Municipal Comparison of Urban Forest Canopy
Establishing a Canopy Target
3 - 4
A Canopy Target is set by understanding community expectation and desires to see the
existing urban forest canopy retained and, potentially, grown. As noted, urban forest
canopy provides multiple benefits to communities from decreasing urban heat island
affects, helping provide cleaner air, mitigating the impacts of severe weather events and
providing an enhanced landscape benefitting quality of life for residents.
Urban forest canopy is retained and grown through implementing management strategies
to ensure the health and sustainability of our existing trees,protection of our existing trees
against the impacts of disease and invasive species and loss through development. Tree
planting helps support a long-termgrowth in tree canopy but it should be realised that
trees planted today will do little to enhance canopy for the next 5-10 years until they are
large enough to start providing community benefits.
It is also important to understand the opportunity for canopy growth; any urban area
reflects a diverse mix of land uses and Kitchener is no different – roads, buildings and
paved areas constitute a significant proportion of the land area of the City and cannot
contribute toward an increased urban canopy.
Figure 4:Existing and Possible Tree Canopy Cover by Ward
Work completed to date shows that across the City on a ward by ward basis,(Figure 4),
between 49% and 72% of the land area of each ward is potentially available to support
growth in the urban tree canopy. These are the areas of land in each ward that provide
greenspace that could, hypothetically, be planted and support tree growth and canopy
growth. However, even within the potential available greenspace, not all of this is able to
realistically be planted.
3 - 5
Much of this greenspace is privately owned and managed; schools, businesses and
private residences all manage greenspace; front and back yards, playing fields and
gardens are all valuable uses of greenspace and will have competing interests to tree
planting. Within public greenspace, not all the land is available for tree planting and growth
of the urban forest canopy – playgrounds, sports fields, trails all use greenspace and
these areas are crossed with services such as hydro lines and gas pipelines that limit the
availability of greenspace to be planted with trees.
In establishing a tree canopy target, it is important to not only consider the community
desire for trees, but the communities desires and needs for other competing interests that
require greenspace and the fact that much of the available greenspace that could
contribute to the urban forest canopy is privately owned. Therefore, growth in the urban
forest canopy relies heavily on community support and engagement, and indeed
partnership, whereby tree planting on private property is a valuable contribution toward
the urban forest canopy.
Several urban municipalities havedeveloped a target for urban forest canopy(Figure 5).
It is interesting to note that many municipalities that established canopy targets early set
higher targets than those that have established targets more recently, reflective in part of
an increasing understanding of how complex increasing canopy cover is, particularly in
increasing the amount of greenspace land dedicated to tree cover, both public and private
and the competing interest for these spaces.
CityTC TargetExisting TC
Toronto40%28 %
Oakville40%28%
Guelph40%23%
London34%24%
Hamilton30%21%
Cambridge30%27%
KitchenerTBD27%
Figure 5: Comparison of Urban Forest Canopy Targets
3 - 6
Next Steps
This update reportis intended to be an introduction to the city’s tree canopy and the
setting of a tree canopy target. The next phase of work, includes;
The development of a detailed technical background report that will present the full
set of metrics
The challenges and opportunities of setting a target, and,
The framework staff propose to use to set the target and implement a plan to
monitor and achieve the target.
Building on this background information an Engage survey will be used to hear from the
community. From this point a draft report and recommendations will be prepared which
the community will also be given the opportunity to comment on.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Staff have met with the Environment Committee in advance of Council.
Based on direction received, staff plan an engagement process over coming months to
help inform a recommended urban forest canopy target. The nature of this engagement
is yet to be developed and will build on engagement completed during development of
the Strategy. Participation will be encouraged and welcomed by all members of our
community and stakeholders such as developers, businesses and partners, such as
REEP Green Solutions.
During the development of the Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy, staff heard repeatedly
that there was a desire that the urban forest canopy be enhanced and grown. As can be
seen even in the high-level findings shared within this report, there is significant variation
in both existing canopy and potential canopy, and that reasons that influence canopy are
complex and varied. Building on this, staff will seek to explore through engagement the
priorities for canopy growth within the community (protection, maintenance and tree
planting) and the appetite for differential approaches to canopy management across the
City. Based on what staff hear, staff will propose potential canopy targets and activities
toward achieving these.
Engagement will obviously be impactedby COVID-19. Discussions around tree canopy
and urban forest management have traditionally proven to be well supported by the
community with a high level of engagement. It is expected that much of the engagement
will need to be delivered in an online capacity and staff will explore ways to ensure that
this is as meaningful as possible.
Staff are also anticipating a more detailed Strategic Session with members of Council on
this topic in early 2021.
3 - 7
INFORM:
This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The development of an Urban Forest Canopy Target supports the theme of
Environmental Leadership within the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan 2019-2022.
Specifically, an action within this is to ‘Establish a Tree Canopy Target’.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Work on establishing an Urban Forest Canopy target is embedded within existing
operational and capital budgets and there are no immediate financial implications.
Financial implications as a result of recommendations to be brought forward in 2021 will
beshared through subsequent reports and will be considered in future budgets.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
The Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy was approved in April 2019 in report INS-19-
008 and was informed by a Council Strategy Session in May, 2018, INS-18-025.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Denise McGoldrick, General Manager, Infrastructure Services,
3 - 8
REPORT TO: CommunityandInfrastructureServicesCommittee
DATE OF MEETING:November 2,2020
SUBMITTED BY: NiallLobley, Director- Parks& Cemeteries(519)741-2600 x4518
RoslynLusk, Director– Operations, Roads& Traffic(519)741-2600
x4599
PREPARED BY:Mara Engel, OperationsTechnologist, (519)741-2600x4185
WARD (S) INVOLVED:AllWards
DATE OF REPORT:October 15,2020
REPORT NO.: INS-20-018
SUBJECT: Winter MaintenanceofGravelParking Lots and Streetswithout
Sidewalks
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: For Information
REPORT:
The City’s winter maintenance program has been extensively reviewed over the past few years
through the Comprehensive Winter Maintenance Review and the Winter Sidewalk Maintenance
Pilot Program Evaluations. In addition to these reviews, staff were requested at the December
11,2019 Council meeting to report back with information on two issues:
winter maintenance of gravel parking lots and,
winter maintenance of streets without sidewalks.
This report provides follow up information on those two items
Winter Maintenance ofGravel Parking Lots
The City has 8 trail head gravel parking lots which historically have not had dedicated resources
to provide winter maintenance. Maintenance provided would occur when resources responsible
for maintaining paved lots at community centers, arenas, operational facilities,and major parks
were available. The winter maintenance was limited to plowing since gravel parking lots cannot
be treated with salt. Freeze point suppressant materials such as salt not only cause the ice to
melt but will also cause the surface gravel to thaw resulting in significant rutting and ponding
water. As a result, these lots could not be relied upon by the public to be cleared of snow and
have traditionally experienced long periods of icy conditions each winter.
Due to lack of dedicated resources, the City has not providedmaintenance of gravel parking lots
for the last twowinter seasons. In the fall of 2019, thegravellots were barricaded to prevent
access, recognizing the risk to users by leaving the parking lot open with no maintenance.
However, in response to a public complaint, at the December 2019 Council meeting, staff were
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
IF1 - 1
requested to remove the barricades and to report back to Council withinformation on winter
maintenance for gravel parking lotsservicing trails.Access was restored to trail head parking
lots and signs were installed at entrance points indicating no winter maintenance, use at own
risk.
In response to the access concern raised, the gravel lots in question were reviewed and
assessed based on size, ownership, purpose, Source Water Protection considerations and
alternate uses. Through this process the lots were separated into 2 categories (Appendix A).
The following is a summary of each categories key assessments and associated winter access
considerations.
Category 1: Trail Access within engineered flood plain
These are typically smaller gravel parking facilities at trail heads with limited parking. They
access gravel surfaced trails along waterways which are not winter maintained. As a result,
they all fall within engineered floodplain limits and have source water protection
considerations. These lots remain accessible through winter with signs stating there is no
winter maintenance and to use at own risk.
Category 2: Trail Access
There are 3 additional parking facilities at trail heads that are not within flood plain limits but do
have source water protection considerations. The trails are accessible but not winter
maintained. Further review of these facilities over coming years, by the Parks Team will occur
to look for opportunities associated with park enhancements, to upgrade the facilities to provide
year-round access to the trail network. While this review is completed it is proposed that these
parking lots remain accessible and not winter maintained. This includes the entrance parking
area at Steckle Woods.
Winter Maintenance of Streets without Sidewalks
In 2018, Ontario Regulation 239 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways
(MMS) changed to establish standards for winter maintenance of sidewalks. The City of
Kitchener recently evaluated the level of service and city’s involvement related to winter
maintenance of sidewalks through a series of pilots. Through those discussions, another issue
emerged related to determining a level of winter maintenance service that should be provided
on city streets where no sidewalks exist.
In December 2019, Council requested staff to report back with information on winter
maintenance of roads without sidewalks.
The Cityof Kitchener’s winter maintenance program for roads is prioritized based on the MMS.
The MMS usestraffic volumes and speed limit to classify roads from 1 to 5.Road classifications
establish when a municipality must respond based on snow accumulation and icy conditions as
well as the timeframe in which the response must be completed. The City complies with
requirements under the MMS for winter maintenance on roadsthrough three levels of
2
IF1 - 2
prioritization based on vehicularvolumes and other features; such as, whether the road serves
as a bus route, proximity toschools, or the presence ofcurves and/or hills.
The City’s winter maintenance program for roads currently considers vehicular traffic onlyand
not pedestrian traffic. On many city streets there are no sidewalks. These roadwaysmay be
considered a shared transportation network for pedestrians, bikes and vehicles.
Staff evaluated an enhanced service level (from a service level of a Priority3 road to a Priority
2 road) with consideration ofenvironmental impact, financial impact,and ability to achieve the
MMS. Key evaluation outcomes include:
The levels of service established in the MMS for all priorities of roadway exceed the level
of service for sidewalks as defined in the MMS.
Increasing the level of winter maintenance on roadways without sidewalks will have an
estimated overall operatingbudget increase of $430,000 and one-time capital impact of
$840K.
From an environmental standpoint, including roadways without sidewalks into a higher
priority winter maintenance service level would result in an overall annual increase of
approximately 1110 COEquivalent Green House Gas(GHG)Emissions and an
increased annual salt usage on roadways of an estimated 13% or 1,200 tonnes.
In addition, the sidewalk infill policy provides a mechanism to address and prioritize the
installation of sidewalks on roadways that does not currently have this infrastructure. The
following sidewalk infill policy was approved by Council in May 2015: “In order to address
concerns related to sidewalk infill, staff have developed a sidewalkinfill policy that identifies
processes and establishes a priority ranking system. Theprimary goal in the development of this
policy is to improve the sidewalk infill process asa whole, while creating a sustainable and
accessible transportation network within theCity of Kitchener.”
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The information provided in thisreport supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision
through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Denise McGoldrick, –General Manager, Infrastructure Services
3
IF1 - 3
AppendixAGravelParkingLots
Available
TotalArea
ParkingOwnershipAlternateParking
sq.m.
SiteAddressSpecialConsiderations
Spaces
CATEGORY1TRAILACCESS(trailnotwintermaintained)WITHINENGINEEREDFLOODPLAIN
KolbPark235CentennialCrt.CityofKitchenerWithinGRCAEngineeredRegulationFloodplainlimit.OnCuldesac,centennial
5005to8
SourceWaterProtectionWHPA,IntrinsicVulnerabiltiy(L)court
M.RGood650OtterbeinRd.RegionofWaterlooWithinGRCAEngineeredRegulationFloodplainlimit.OnRoad,OtterbeinRd.
70010to15
SourceWaterProtectionWHPA,IntrinsicVulnerabiltiy(L)
LancasterBusiness508RiverbendDrCityofKitchenerWithinGRCAEngineeredRegulationFloodplainlimit.None
90015to20
Greenway(adjacentto)SourceWaterProtectionWHPA,IntrinsicVulnerabilty(L)
SchneiderPark3595KingSt.ECityofKitchenerWithinGRCAEngineeredRegulationFloodplainlimit.None
80010to15
SourceWaterProtectionIntrinsicVulnerabiltiy(M)
StanleyParkOptimists2500ShirleyDrCityofKitchenerWithinGRCAEngineeredRegulationFloodplainlimit.None
90015to20
NaturalAreaSourceWaterProtectionWHPA,IntrinsicVulnerabiltiy
MargueriteOrmston2200HomerWatsonBlvdRegionofWaterlooWithinGRCAEngineeredRegulationFloodplainlimit.Noalternativeparking.
1,80030to40
(acrossfrom)SourceWaterProtectionIntrinsicVulnerabiltiy(M)
CATEGORY2TRAILACCESS(trailnotwintermaintained)
KuntzPark290LookoutLaneCityofKitchenerUsedasturnaroundforroadplow.OnRoad,JosephSchoerg
1,00015to20
SourceWaterProtectionSGRA(4),IntrinsicVulerabilityCres.
SteckleWoodsBleamsRdEntranceLotCityofKitchenerSourceWaterProtectionWHPA(6),IntrinsicVulderabiltyNone
2505
(M)
SteckleWoodsBleamsRdSecondaryLotCityofKitchenerSourceWaterProtectionWHPA(4),IntrinsicVulderabiltyNone
1,20010to15
(M)
Notes:
Totalareaincludes
accessdrives.
IF1 - 4