Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-13-015 - Victoria Park Washroom Location REPORT TO: Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: February 25, 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Jim Witmer, Interim DCAO, Infrastructure Services, ex. 4657 PREPARED BY:William Sleeth, Landscape Architect, ex. 4401 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: February 13, 2013 REPORT NO.: INS-13-015 SUBJECT:VICTORIA PARK PUBLIC WASHROOM - LOCATION RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve Option 3 as the preferred option in Victoria Park for the construction of a new washroom facility in the vicinity of the parking lot at the corner of Jubilee Dr. and David St., and That the Facilities Management Division, in consultation with Park Planning and Development and Heritage Kitchener, be directed to proceed with detailed design and tender construction drawings of this new washroom building. BACKGROUND: The Planning and Strategic Services Committee of Kitchener Council, at their meeting May 7, 2012, resolved: “…that Options 2,3 and 4 as outlined in INS Department Report # INS-12-034, be the options tabled for public input as to location only of additional permanent washrooms in Victoria Park; and that staff report back to the September 10, 2012 Planning and Strategic Services Committee meeting on the findings of the public engagement process with recommendation(s).” The following are the options identified in INS-12-034 report: Option 2: Public washrooms at a renovated 79 Joseph Street Option 3: New washroom building near the parking lot at David Street/Jubilee Drive intersection Option 4: Public washrooms installed in the ‘Front Garage’ near the Water St. park entrance The following option was also considered during the public consultation: Option 1: Convert the existing seasonal washrooms near the playground to a year round facility 2 - 1 REPORT: Public Consultation A public open house was held January 30, 2013 at the Victoria Park pavilion. This was attended by 30 citizens, primarily from the Victoria Park neighbourhood. Maps and plans illustrating the proposed locations were reviewed and discussed with the participants and most people in attendance completed a detailed comment sheet. A map (APPENDIX B – Victoria Park Washrooms Location Plan) was also posted on the City of Kitchener web page and a staff contact provided to allow residents to respond directly with comments and a preferred location. Documentation of the comments received and a summary of the preferences expressed by the public is appended to this report (APPENDIX A – Victoria Park Washrooms Public Comment Summary). Summary of Public Consultation: Option #DescriptionPreferred By 1Open seasonal washrooms year ‘round5 2Renovate 79 Joseph St.6 3Construct new building at David St/Jubilee Drive18 4Renovate ‘Front Garage’ near Water St11 No preference 2 Retain washrooms at Boathouse (not presented as an option)6 TOTAL RESPONSES48 Heritage Kitchener Committee City staff attended the meeting of Heritage Kitchener on February 5, 2013 and presented the options currently being considered for new washrooms in Victoria Park. The opinion, preferences and comment of committee members was sought as part of the public consultation regarding the proposed locations. Further consultation with Heritage Kitchener will be required in the design and implementation of the options which include the renovation of existing buildings or the construction of a new building. Victoria Park and the surrounding area are located within a heritage conservation district and the implementation of any of these options will require formal heritage approval under the Ontario Heritage Act. Further, the option to construct a new washroom building (Option 3) may require additional study through the submission of a scoped Heritage Impact Assessment, to address potential impacts on Victoria Park as a cultural heritage landscape. Heritage Planning Staff Review Option 1 - Open Existing Seasonal Washrooms Year ‘Round This would have the least amount of impact on the cultural heritage aesthetics of the park. Option 2 - Renovate 79 Joseph Street The building is at the edge of the Park and the Heritage Conservation District. Of the two options involving renovating existing buildings, it would appear 79 Joseph Street has 2 - 2 better visibility and lighting. As a result, fewer changes to the landscape may be needed to accommodate the washrooms, compared to other options. Option 3 - Construct a New Building at the Parking Lot off David Street/Jubilee Drive Notwithstanding that the construction of a new building will require Heritage Permit Approval, Option 3 is least preferred as it presents the greatest risk to the cultural heritage aesthetics of the Park. The proposed location interrupts open site lines to the natural landscape and gentle landforms around the edge of the Commons from various perspectives. Improving access and increasing lighting levels could detract from the naturalistic character of the area. In keeping with the Romantic Landscape ideals, Antique Monuments such as the statue of Queen Victoria and the Clock Tower currently accent the landscape around the edge of the Commons. A new building in this location may disrupt this essential quality. Lastly, there is always a risk that the construction of a new building in this location could set a precedent for more new facilities, whether another new building or perhaps an addition to the new washrooms at some point in the future. Option 4 - Renovate the Existing Garage Not as favorable as Option 2 in that the building is located more centrally in the wooded area of the park. There is a greater likelihood that the area around the garage will need to be altered to improve access, visibility and lighting which may impact park aesthetics. Option 4 is favored over Option 3 in that it involves an existing building. Current views/vistas and overall landscape would not change significantly. Park Planning, Development and Operations Staff Review Option 1 - Open Existing Seasonal Washrooms Year ‘Round The demand for washroom facilities near the playground is very limited in the late fall, winter and early spring. Casual surveillance by the visiting public would be limited during these seasons and require a much higher level of monitoring by staff and security. The distance of this facility from the primary winter use areas in the ‘Commons’ would limit use by the public in this location. There is limited public support for this option. Option 2 - Renovate 79 Joseph Street This location is convenient to the park entrance from downtown, however, not very convenient for the use areas in the ‘Commons’ in all seasons. Public washrooms in city hall and the transit terminal are relatively close to this location. There is some public support for this option. Option 3 - Construct a New Building at the Parking Lot off David Street/Jubilee Drive This location is convenient to the use areas in the ‘Commons’ for both winter and summer use. It is adjacent to parking making it good for accessibility and surveillance. A new building in this location has the potential for a significant change to the landscape of the park and would require high quality design and integration with the setting. There is more public support for this location than any other single option, but not a majority of respondents. Option 4 - Renovate the Existing Garage This location is relatively close to the use areas in the ‘Commons’ for both winter and summer use. Parking is discouraged at this location due to service uses and limited 2 - 3 space which would make this location less accessible by vehicle than a facility adjacent to parking. There is public support for this location as well as pointed opposition from the nearby residents. Staff considerations for a new washroom location have included the following: Meeting the needs of park visitors in all seasons Opinions and concerns of area residents Accessibility and convenience Surveillance and security Heritage conservation and the contribution to the park landscape setting On the basis of these factors, there are two locations which warranted further consideration, Options 3 and 4. Option 4 is preferable from a staff perspective since it will have the least visual impact to the park setting from both a heritage and aesthetic perspective and uses an existing building in close proximity to the primary use areas of the park. Option 3 is preferable from a public perspective since it is the most convenient location and least disruptive to nearby residents. Capital Cost Estimates The following Class C cost estimates are only preliminary and are not based on any specific design details, do not consider heritage requirements and do not include contingencies for environmental or other unknown factors. Option 1 $0 Option 2 $250,000 Option 3 $400,000 Option 4 $400,000 All of the considered options fall within the proposed project upset limit of costs established at $400,000. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Theme: Efficient and Effective Government Customer Service Goal: Provide services to the public that match or exceed the customer's expectations and adopt standards that put people first to ensure excellent customer service. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The total project budget for this project is $400,000 and was approved as part of the 2013 capital budget. The budget includes a 50% grant contribution (maximum $200,000) from the Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund (CIIF), with the remaining $200,000 budget coming from the Recreational Land reserve fund. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: 2 - 4 A public open house was held on January 30, 2013 and attended by more than 30 Kitchener residents. Information regarding the project has been posted on the City of Kitchener website since mid-January. Initial consultations have been held with Heritage Kitchener Committee, the Victoria Park Working Group and the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association. This follows extended public consultation in 2012 regarding the future of the Victoria Park boathouse and the future of the existing public washrooms in that location. CONCLUSION: Staff is prepared to make a qualified recommendation for Option 3, construction of a new building, provided that this may be accomplished with the full support of Heritage Kitchener and completed in a manner which ultimately makes a positive long term contribution to the romantic landscape of Victoria Park. ACKNOWLEDGED BY:Jim Witmer, Interim DCAO, Infrastructure Services Department 2 - 5 APPENDIX A – Victoria Park Washrooms Public Comment Summary The public open house at the pavilion was well attended with 30 citizens signing in at the door. The following documents the written comments received at the open house as well as those received afterward: OPTION 1 - OPEN WASHROOMS NEAR PLAYGROUND ALL YEAR LONG (5 in favor) PROS Not really a central location Near parking Too far from ‘Commons’ Already in use Too far from ‘Clock Tower Green’ Should be open all year anyway Too far from other side of park Parking nearby Too far for winter uses Use what we have Too far from front of park Low cost Too far for public to travel Does not adversely affect existing park Must be closed at night Minimal impact on residents Open up all year in addition to new washrooms Good location for summer uses, not winter Too far for little ones using ‘Commons’ area of Should be open all year anyway park Already existing washrooms Too far from winter use areas (ice rink) Cheap Too far from ‘Commons’ Good option Doesn’t serve the busiest area – the ‘Commons’ Open all year in addition to new washrooms Doesn’t serve north end of park Low cost solution Not a viable solution as it does not service individuals with mobility issues in the park Cheap to utilize Doesn’t meet the needs of the park Fantastic, simple, inexpensive option Too far from ‘Commons’ and the highest use Cheap area Good to use existing facilities Good so that people on this side of the park have a year round washroom CONS OPTION 2 – RENOVATION AT 79 JOSEPH STREET (6 in favor) PROS High visibility and easy to monitor CONS Best option on busy street Too far from skating Good re-use of building Loss of nice finished space Close to high need area and park entrance Too far Well lit area visible from street Gang hang-out Excellent, safe location, easy for police to monitor Remove art studio/conference facility Reasonable cost? Loss of space in useful building Structure exists Area prone to drug dealing and vandalism Not central to park activities, therefore better for Area hidden from public parkscape Too close to residences Good to use existing building Might attract transients Good location Already close to GRT washrooms Services north end of park Too close to clock tower and will encourage This is the best option youth to loiter Adverse impact to park gateway Too close to houses Existing use in building terminated (meeting room) Concern about proximity to Richmond St rear yards Decreases valuable tenant space, meeting room currently used for tenant business Too far for children and wheelchairs 2 - 6 Too close to existing washrooms at bus terminal Convenient for people on the mall Too far from Jubilee Drive Close to washrooms existing at bus terminal 2 - 7 Option 2 - Cons (continued) Addition at rear of building would relate more to Too close to existing washrooms at bus terminal park Not adjacent to parking Not centrally located Maybe too close to homes Park users may not know it’s there Too far from primary park use areas Too far from significant use areas of the park May attract problems from transit site No impact on visual aesthetics of park Too close to transit terminal Building already in use, which would be displaced Too far outside park Too far away for all park patrons, especially elderly and handicapped If the entrance is at the back it could be made part of the park least suitable space is the building on Joseph Too far from ‘Commons’ and lake Too close to bus station OPTION 3 – NEW BUILDING NEAR DAVID ST/JUBILEE DRIVE (18 in favor) PROS Nothing good about this option Visible location Waste of money Best option Too close to residences on David St. Convenient location near parking Not close to homes Convenient for winter skating Out in open, good public view Opportunity for architectural interest Out in open Easily patrolled by police Increased lighting needed to stop loitering Good visibility by park users Preserve berm for recreational sledding Open location New building would occupy valuable green space Better visual security New building will diminish aesthetics of park Convenient, beside parking lot May attract criminal behaviour here This is a good second choice, visible on all sides Parking not close to residences The only sensible choice Place it on the footprint of existing parking lot, not Best location for parents with children using the green space skating rink Historically appropriate building required Close to parking Difficult to blend new building into this context No direct impact to residents Would prefer a little extra parking This is the least problem filled option Need a break from the former crack house Good location for skaters and other winter across David St activities Expensive and difficult to do well Easy access to parking Uses valuable green space Close to lost washrooms at boathouse Busy parking lot is dangerous Doesn’t compromise any existing park use Concern for larger price tag Option 3 - Pros Good location (continued) Central location Locate at end of parking lot Good distance from nearby residences Would be a welcome new facility Good surveillance from other park users Well lit area visible from street Best option Safest location Easily monitored by police Close to parking Easily monitored by police Close to ice rinks Easy to add more lighting Close to festivals Best option Highly visible and secure Kitchener can be justified building a new washroom on David St. it’s a big, inner city park Accessible to parking and Victoria Park needs expanded facilities Fewer external effects on residences Good access for park activities CONS Easy to patrol from David or Jubilee Already have drug problem in parking lot Highly visible Expensive Close to parking Area could be used for more parking Parking supported More expensive Optimal for park events Not the ‘Green’ option Less intrusive to nearby housing Removes valuable park space Not near homes Expensive option Easy access for park patrons Partially hidden by berm may create safety issues would be the best for easy monitoring of any unwanted activity Sounds expensive, how much? 2 - 8 offer better security for people seeking to use the facilities the one nearest David St is the best best option is #3 in terms of location and convenience for people using the park Option 3 - Cons (continued) Could impact heritage aspects of park Design details are important, especially entrance location Architectural design must fit with park Option 3 is wrong on all fronts OPTION 4 – RENOVATION AT FRONT GARAGE BUILDING NEAR WATER ST. (11 in favor) PROS Too close to houses Makes use of existing building Tree removal required Good landscaping can really improve this area Too many hiding spots Building already exists Tree removal required More central to festivities Hidden from public view Area needs work anyway Too close to residential neighbourhood Close to ‘Commons’ I like nothing about this option Uses existing building resources Prone to vandalism and drug use Heritage value Too close to residents Opportunity to improve walking routes in area Increased lighting would impact adjacent May be cheaper than new building residents Easy to service Poor sight lines from roadways Good to re-use existing building Too close to neighboring residences Neighbours keep watch Adjacent to worn pathway Good in all seasons Affects backyard of residents Central location Existing building well located for open green activities Good location for flow of pedestrians from Option 4 - Pros (continued) downtown into park Close to lost washrooms at boathouse Better use of existing building Can be patrolled easily Good balance with paly area washrooms in summer New and attractive, historically appropriate structure with modern standards good idea Central area for walkers Location excellent Could blend well into heritage landscape Good use for existing building Opportunity to improve this space Good adaptive re-use of existing building not in use Central location, close to boathouse Love this option, existing building, minimal renovation and central for public access CONS Behavior issues in area Not convenient for parents with small children No parking Dangerous, there are already people hiding under the trees drinking, this location would enable them and compound the problem Problems already with drinking and drug dealing in this area Most unsafe location Less storage space for city Low visibility 2 - 9 More difficult to monitor, not visible from road Already a hang-out for individuals engaging in ‘anti-social’ behavior, public washrooms will increase the frequency of undesirable behavior Major concerns for safety and neighbourhood quality The neighbours may object Too close to residences Already safety issues here No parking for washrooms Traffic issues at Water St. entrance to park (blind corner) Not good at all, too close to homes Neighbour concerns here Already bad behaviour behind building (witnessed personally from abutting rear yard of home) Loss of park maintenance and storage facility Seems to be best option but may be difficult to sell Adjacent park area supports loitering and could raise concerns Maybe too close to homes, fencing or barriers required to separate Concern for proximity to houses and Too close to homes on Water St Option 4 - Cons (continued) Water St entrance intersection has poor sight lines and increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic Too close to neighbours will be problematic Near hang-out for ‘anti-social’ behavior Intrusive to adjacent residents, especially any Houses directly behind will be at risk and security increase in lighting will be compromised in the area Existing behavioral issues in this area of park will Creative lighting required here likely increase with washrooms Building currently underutilized women and child in particular would feel Possible objection by nearby neighbours vulnerable in this location because it is so I do not like this option at all (Water St. resident) secluded Not adjacent to parking Too close to rear yards of Water St/Richmond Ave NO PREFERENCE (2 with no preference) Regardless of location, better monitoring and patrols are required for washrooms in the park We WILL have issues regardless of location, increase police presence overall Both option 3 and 4 work for park and with good design both options are viable solutions Any option should be well designed in keeping with the existing park setting 2 - 10 BOATHOUSE - NOT PRESENTED AS AN OPTION (6 in favor of retaining this facility) Boathouse was working fine Disappointed with loss of public use of boathouse Provide separate tenant and public washrooms at boathouse None of the new options solves all the issues Boathouse is a much better location, good lighting, access to parking, adjacent to lakeside walkway, central to park activities Put the public washrooms back in the boathouse Boathouse washrooms should not have been closed find an alternative that gives the Boat House tenant its own washrooms and leaves the public facilities in the same building the best location for the washrooms, the existing Boat House, has been taken off the table keep the Boathouse washrooms PUBLIC 2 - 11 APPENDIX B – Victoria Park Washrooms Location Plan 2 - 12