HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil - 2015-04-27 S
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 27, 2015 CITY OF KITCHENER
A special meeting of City Council was held at 3:30 p.m. this date, chaired by Mayor B. Vrbanovic with
all members present.
Notice of this meeting had been previously given to all members of Council by the City Clerk pursuant
to Chapter 25 (Council Procedure) of the Municipal Code.
1. CSD-15-046 – RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION IN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOODS
STUDY
Council considered Community Services Department report CSD-15-046 (A. Pinard), dated April 22,
2015, concerning Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods.
Mr. A. Pinard, Director, Planning, introduced the report advising the Residential Intensification in
Established Neighbourhoods Study corporate project requires the preparation and confirmation of a
Terms of Reference to ensure the final product is consistent with Council’s expectations. He
indicated four guiding questions have been prepared for consideration as outlined in Appendix ‘A’ to
report CSD-15-046.
Ms. J. Oosterveld, Manager, Site Development & Customer Service, presented the first question for
consideration of Council regarding the scale of the development that should be investigated for
smaller projects that do not currently require Planning Act approval (singles/semi-detached dwellings
and duplexes). Ms. Oosterveld advised currently zoning restrictions and Heritage Permit approval
are the only two mechanisms used in the City of Kitchener to regulate the character of the
neighbourhood for small scale development. She explained that although context-specific zoning
through more residential zone categories and additional zoning regulations would alleviate the issue,
it would be extensive work as each neighbourhood is different. She then reviewed the experiences of
the City of Ottawa which applies a Streetscape Character Analysis for small scale projects and the
Town of Oakville that has expanded Site Plan Control by providing enhanced tools for addressing
character.
A discussion took place regarding the impact of additional approvals for smaller projects on property
owners and the potential tools available that would assure community residents of compatibility with
the character of existing neighbourhoods. Concern was expressed that additional review or
expanded Site Plan approvals would infringe on property owners rights and impede small scale
intensification efforts. Council indicated stricter Urban Design Guidelines or flexible zoning regulations
could reduce the impact to existing neighbourhoods without adding additional review. In addition,
members indicated methods to engage community residents by taking a proactive approach would
assist in preserving the existing character and appease concerned residents.
Council generally expressed support for a balanced approach by examining solutions that require a
review or approval based on impact to the existing structure or neighbourhood, such as the size of
the proposed redevelopment or addition. Staff was encouraged to examine the practices of other
municipalities, such as Edmonton, and report back to Council if clarity and direction are required.
Ms. T. Malone-Wright, Senior Planner, presented the second question for Council’s consideration
regarding the geographic locations or types of neighbourhoods the Study would investigate. She
advised that staff’s recommended geographic locations have been revised to include the Vanier
Planning Community, and a modified map has been prepared for reference labelled ‘Figure 1’.
A motion was brought forward by Councillor S. Davey, seconded by Councillor B. Ioannidis, to focus
the initial phase of the study on the Vanier Planning Community and Central Neighbourhoods.
Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock suggested the motion should acknowledge that beyond the initial
phase, the Study would include a recommendation on how to address the remainder of the City.
Councillor S. Davey agreed to modify his motion accordingly.
Councillor J. Gazzola requested specific reference be given in the recommendation to the modified
‘Figure 1’ map presented this date.
Councillor Y. Fernandes expressed concern that Ward 4 is being excluded in the Study and brought
forward an amendment to include Lower Doon in the initial phase of the Study. She explained student
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 27, 2015 - 77 -CITY OF KITCHENER
housing issues, the growth of Conestoga College, and heritage conservation have implications that
require attention and should be addressed within the initial phase.
In response to questions regarding the implications of having the entire City reviewed within one
phase, Mr. Pinard advised that if all items for consideration were maximized, the study completion
could be prolonged to the three year timeframe. He explained that contextually, the Central
Neighbourhoods and Vanier Planning Community have similar typology and the first phase of the
Study serves to inform the second phase. With regard to student housing, Mr. Pinard indicated the
issue is a corporate project involving the Planning Division, By-law Enforcement and Fire Services
with a separate scope of work than the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods
Study.
LOST
Councillor Fernandes’ amendment was then voted on and was on a recorded vote with
Councillors Y. Fernandes, S. Marsh, D. Schnider, J. Gazzola, and Z. Janecki voting in favour; and,
Mayor B. Vrbanovic and Councillors S. Davey, K. Galloway-Sealock, F. Etherington, B. Ioannidis and
P. Singh voting in opposition.
Carried, Unanimously
The following motion was then voted on and on a recorded vote.
Moved by Councillor S. Davey
Seconded by Councillor B. Ioannidis
“That staff be directed to include the Central Neighbourhoods and Vanier Planning Committee
in the initial phase of the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study as
shown in the modified Figure 1 in Community Services Department report CSD-15-046; and
further,
That the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study include a
recommendation on how to address the remainder of the City.”
Ms. D. Lafferty, Planner (Urban Design), presented the third question for Council’s consideration
inquiring which design issues should be addressed in the Study. She reviewed staff’s
recommendation advising the following design issues should be included:
Front Yard Setback – the actual front yard setbacks of existing developments in relation to
what is being proposed;
Height, Building Mass and Stepbacks for upper stories – the built form in relation to
surrounding buildings;
Landscape Amenity Area – the use of the lands in the front and corner side yards such as soft
landscaping, amenity area and walkways;
Parking – the incidence and location of parking, the type and access to parking, the ratio of the
driveway width to lot width, or more in visual terms the ratio of hard surfaces to landscaping;
and,
Streetscape – character defining elements - how a new development fits into the established
character of the street.
A motion was brought forward by Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock, seconded by Councillor B.
Ioannidis, to approve staff’s recommended design issues for inclusion in the Residential
Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study.
Members of Council expressed support for the list of design issues to be addressed, emphasizing the
need to be innovative to preserve the character of established neighbourhoods.
Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned if rear yards would be addressed in the Study as the scale of the
redevelopment could impact the size of the rear yard. Ms. Lafferty advised amenity space is not
currently included in the design issues; however, it could be added but would increase the scope and
time of the work involved in the Study.
Mr. A. Pinard responded to questions regarding the landscaping amenity area design issue advising
that all plant materials, including trees, would be examined. However, he noted the recommendation
does not include revisiting the Tree Preservation Policy as part of the scope of work.
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 27, 2015 - 78 -CITY OF KITCHENER
Moved by Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock
Seconded by Councillor B. Ioannidis
“That the following design issues be included in the Terms of Reference for the Residential
Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study, as outlined in Appendix ‘A’ to Community
Services Department report CSD-15-046:
Front Yard Setback – the actual front yard setbacks of existing developments in relation to
what is being proposed;
Height, Building Mass and Stepbacks for upper stories – the built form in relation to
surrounding buildings;
Landscape Amenity Area – the use of the lands in the front and corner side yards such as
soft landscaping, amenity area and walkways;
Parking – the incidence and location of parking, the type and access to parking, the ratio of
the driveway width to lot width, or more in visual terms the ratio of hard surfaces to
landscaping;
Streetscape – character defining elements - how a new development fits into the
established character of the street.”
Carried.
Ms. N. Goss, Senior Planner, presented the final question for Council’s consideration regarding the
level and type of engagement that should be undertaken as part of the Residential Intensification in
Established Neighbourhoods Study. She reviewed the three options included in Appendix ‘A’ to the
Report advising staff recommends providing opportunities for engagement at key milestones
throughout the Study, such as: issue identification; review of alternatives; and, recommended
approach. She indicated the level and type of engagement will have significant impact on resourcing,
budget and the role of potential consultants.
Council encouraged staff to dovetail engagement strategies with others taking place throughout the
City, such as the Neighbourhood Strategy, and to utilize the community engagement activities of
Councillors if assistance is required.
Members of Council generally expressed support for ‘Option 2’, to be completed within 1 to 2 years,
which includes the tools used in traditional methods of engagement: drop-in sessions with
presentations and question/answer periods; SMS; social media; surveys; e-newsletter; and, website
as well as a physical hub for engagement.
Additional support was expressed for the inclusion of innovative tools that were outlined in ‘Option 3’,
such as videos, enhanced online engagement and live streaming of meetings.
Ms. Goss responded to questions regarding the necessity of consultant services throughout the Study
advising external facilitators may be required for engagement activities as well as to develop
materials. Mr. Pinard advised that, as the number of engagement tools increases, additional
resources are required. He indicated staff will know what will be outsourced once programming has
been completed and advised Council would have input on any procurement that requires approval.
With regard to the next steps, Mr. Pinard advised staff will weigh and analyze the input received and
will report back on how they intend to proceed with the Residential Intensification in Established
Neighbourhoods Study.
2. IN-CAMERA MEETING AUTHORIZATION
Moved by Councillor B. Ioannidis
Seconded by Councillor Y. Fernandes
“That an in-camera meeting of City Council be held this date to consider a matter subject to
solicitor-client privilege.”
Carried
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 27, 2015 - 79 -CITY OF KITCHENER
On motion the meeting adjourned at 5:43 p.m.
MAYOR CLERK