Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEcon Dev Adv 2010-05-26 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES May 26, 2010 City of Kitchener The Economic Development Advisory Committee met this date, chaired by Adrian Conrad; the following members were in attendance: Councillor Christina Weylie, Steven Voll, Mark Bingeman, Peter Benninger, Bob Denton, Ian Cook, Alan Anderson, Len Carter, Bernie Nimer, Dan Piedra, Brian Bennett The following people sent their regrets: Howie Budd, Jeremy Auger, Rebecca Short, Mark Collins The following people were absent: Staff in attendance: Rod Regier, Valerie Machado, Cory Bluhm, Rob Pettapiece, Tracey DeVille, Hans Gross 1.1 Approval of minutes On motion, by Bernie Nimer seconded by Peter Benninger The minutes of April 2010 were approved. New Business: 2.1 Downtown Property Strategy Rod Regier introduced the Downtown Property Strategy. Specifically, how the city of Kitchener should move forward with the excess properties in the downtown. The process that we are going through is that we have had a preliminary discussion with council in earlier may and they have asked that we design a process to help manage the strategy and do more work in terms of building the analyses of the real estate inventory before we bring it back to council. We are currently engaged in that process and will bring it back to council in the fall. We need to consider what we need to address as we move forward. Today’s discussion is intended to be a starting point into a much deeper conversation. We need to know what it is that we want to achieve in this process. It is important to remember that this is the starting point of a series of public consultations. Rod Regier provided an overview of the status of several parcels of land in the downtown, providing a general idea of what objectives the city has already identified as considerations that need to be included in the strategy. The Committee provided the following feedback: ? Does the strategy involve getting rid of surface and going to structure? Yes, all monthly parking would end up in structures, some surface o would remain for hourly customers ? Does the parking policy provide for increase in structure parking? Yes, not a lot there is one more structure in the planning process o for the Charles / Water parking lot, which can hold approx 1000 vehicles, it is tagged to start in 2014 – 2015 but we need to find funding. We have been replacing surface to structure parking on a one to one basis. Our employment is growing about 5% annually a year ? Is the primary use for these residential or parking? That is something we need to balance out we would like to see o more residential downtown but we need to make sure that is the best use of space. Bramm Street has a 30m buffer around it due to the rail line and the limited residential building for there ? We need to make sure that there is a variety of size, space etc. for residential. You need a mix of everything where are the planning stages of the other projects in the downtown – civic district Vision for the civic district is arts and education there is room in o there to create mixed use opportunities and even some potential residential opportunities. ? Does the city have any plans to purchase any lands that are surrounding these sites to enhance the development potential That is possible, we need to consider and discuss with council o ? The discussion paper that we produced did have some suggested uses for these parcels; we did not get into too much detail on purpose because we want public input on the uses and the parcels. In terms of the question on parking there is a study that was done and that is going to be updated every 5 years to review the needs to ensure that it is accurate ? Has there been any thought on how this is going to be rolled out, is the intent to take this to the public for an RFP, how is this going to work For residential or mixed use or business park type projects, the city o would not be the developer, our job is to set the vision and make sure that is in the public interest and recruit a developer that is able to deliver the project. If we are making an investment in the arts, there may be a different type of partnership arrangement. We would not recommend the city take on major operating liabilities. ? The city has made a huge investment in the downtown, now is the time to turn it over to the private sector and have them invest more. ? It could take a long time to develop these parcels through RFPs etc. ? Where is the city’s thinking around where they see the development of these parcels We have discussed some possibilities and some research on these o parcels is there, in terms of timing we need to know that the market is there, we need to be strategic about it. We have been through a lot of research and development of the downtown and we understand that it takes time to get it right. We look at other cities and see that it takes time and we are prepared for that ? When you look at some of the smaller parcels and they are more manageable by smaller developers, you do not want to make it too cumbersome for the small developer, it just needs to be simple and easy for development to move the project forward at a faster rate We agree with that o ? When we developed discussion paper we thought of timing for the development and what our thoughts might be, short, medium or long term development and it was a difficult way of doing things. When we developed the matrix we looked at the likelihood of which parcles may advance sooner than others which provides and indicator of those parcels. The other thing is we don’t want to flood the market with too many of the same products, the development timing and potential relates to the use and potential of the parcels. ? Are we still looking to identify more than what the policy objectives you have shown us Yes, that is something that we have to do o ? It could be beneficial for you to look at Salt Lake City and see how they revitalized in preparation of the Olympics. They changed their approach and they focused on culture and entertainment and the folks in the suburbs saw the downtown there as the entertainment We will look at that and if there are any other case studies we o would love to look at that ? I wouldn’t be afraid of a little healthy competition and have a couple of large projects on the go is better, you do want to be in the action We do understand that we have been cautious because as the city o we do not want to be accused of distorting the market if you were a private developer you might not think of that ? One thing that may be missing is the LRT and transit, that is the policy objective here, we need to fill the space with people and maximize the density possibilities as much as possible We do identify the LRT and GO transit as things that will set the o stage but we do need to achieve the density to support those The civic district is a separate issue that will roll out over time, the o majority of these parcels are small, the other thing is getting down to stable end uses – how engaged is the city when the school board talks closing downtown schools those are missing that needs to stay on the radar. Another thing that seems to be missing is the grocery store, Sobey’s or Zehrs give them a great deal to want to be there, it is missing from the downtown and without that it will continue to be a problem. The market is not utilized properly and if we could put a grocery store there instead. We need to understand what the best location is, how to get them here. ? We were at a presentation on business attraction at the BIA for retail. Trying to get a Sobey’s here even if you offer free rent, what is going to be our magnet, the studies show that it is movie theatres, but we don’t have the parking, what do we do? Another problem with the CITS is the symphony that takes the prime nights – Friday and Saturday nights. The demographics of that is another thing that needs to look at – need to look at how to contract with the symphony ? We can not allow the LRT to fail that issue has to be on top of the agenda it is extremely important. ? Events in the downtown have to continue you can not let it fail. ? Incentives in the downtown maybe offered if only the project satisfies certain features. The right developers will be here when the time is ready. Project Updates Rod Regier provided an overview of the Project Updates. The Committee discussed the development of the downtown and the current status of that. Rod Regier asked if the Committee had any concerns regarding the current situation at The Tannery and he also advised there is a meeting with community reps, city staff and the developers to discuss the current situation. Members provided the following: Can’t you compliment both keeping the buildings and providing parking? There are some compromise solutions that have been discussed. People o fear that it will stay as surface parking and nothing will happen. Cadan Inc has not come to a conclusion as to what the final product will be. The focus has been on the main site. They have done some preliminary things; they have a large parking problem with the amount of employees they can house there. Does the community want to maintain the façade, is that what they want? There are a number of people that are actively vocal on it. Cadan Inc has a o different outlook and a balance needs to be found. It is something that needs to be addressed with the community and the developer and the most important aspect of the project is to ensure that the best interest of the community, the city and the developer are achieved. On motion, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.