HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-16-018 - 11 Young Street-Follow Up ReportStaff Report
7c E ,R (M Office
wmkdtchenerca
REPORT TO:
Council
DATE OF MEETING:
June 6, 2016
SUBMITTED BY:
Rod Regier, Executive Director of Economic Development
(519) 741 -2200 ext. 7506
PREPARED BY:
Cory Bluhm, Manager of Downtown Development
(519) 741 -2200 ext. 7065
WARD (S) INVOLVED:
9&10
DATE OF REPORT:
May 30, 2016
REPORT NO.:
CAO -16 -018
SUBJECT:
11 Young Street
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City not proceed with a Temporary Public Space on 11 Young Street in 2016.
In cooperation with the property owner, that the City investigate the development of a
public art solution to be installed along the existing fencing at a minimal cost.
That, should redevelopment still not be imminent, the City consider integrating the
surface works of a temporary public space on 11 Young Street as part of the 2017
Roads Tender, and reconsider a temporary public space in 2017.
BACKGROUND:
At the May 16, 2016, Council meeting, City Council discussed options for addressing the
current state of 11 Young Street, contained in report CAO -16 -017. Council directed staff to
explore options for reducing the costs associated with Option #3 (Temporary City Operated
Public Space), confirm the contributions from the property owner, and evaluate the potential for
a public art solution.
REPORT:
Costs Associated with a Temporary City- Operated Public Space
The installation of a hard surface and associated grading is the most expensive element of the
preferred option. Staff estimate this could comprise anywhere between $35,000 to $45,000 of
the entire cost of the space. The remainder of the expenses relate to the installation of
temporary landscaping, armour stone, furnishings, etc., estimated at approximately $20,000.
Many of these elements, unlike the surface work, could be redeployed to other City spaces.
* ** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. * **
1. -1
Based on Council's concerns over these costs, staff re- evaluated all of the potential surface
materials. Unfortunately, staff are not prepared to recommend the use of alternative materials
(wood chips, gravel, etc.) due to sanitation and safety concerns with utilizing these materials in
a busy urban environment. Given the potential for sharp objects (e.g., broken glass), food and
drink spills, and other unforeseen refuse, such materials would have to be cleaned /monitored
daily and replaced throughout the season to avoid possible injuries to members of the public.
As for cost reductions, it is the conclusion of staff that there are no further cost savings to be
gained in 2016 for any form of hard surface (asphalt, concrete, paving stone, patio slabs, etc.).
In light of these limitations, staff recommend an alternate approach, whereby the proposed
asphalt work would be included in the City's larger Roads Tender in 2017, in hopes of
achieving more favourable pricing. Based on this new price, Council could revisit the
Temporary Space option in early 2017. If Council finds the new pricing more reasonable, staff
could, at that time, solicit input from the public to determine the broader community's interest in
creating a temporary public space. Pursuing this option would be contingent on
redevelopment not being imminent and the property owner's continued willingness to permit a
public use on their property.
Contributions from the Property Owner
As the proposed temporary park space is an initiative of the City, in response to concerns from
the community, the owner believes he is being more than fair and reasonable by permitting the
use of his land at no cost, repositioning the fencing, and assuming the asphalt removal costs
when the space is decommissioned. He believes these costs will far exceed the expense he
would bear should he seed or sod the site. The cost to remove the asphalt, for example, is
estimated at between $4,000 - $5,000, whereas the cost to sod the site is estimated at $3,000-
$3,500. The owner also intends to repaint the building wall abutting the site.
Regarding the outstanding demolition condition, the property owner does want it to be clear
that the demolition was not initiated by himself, but was an order from the Chief Building
Official due to conditions beyond his control. Throughout the entire demolition process, he has
been an active partner, meeting all of the requirements and requests of the City, save and
except for grassing the site. While the owner may have originally agreed to grass the site, he
reiterated his position that this may not be a viable solution given the harsh growing
environment and lack of an on -site water source. Even if the fence remains in place, he has
concerns over the liability he would be exposed to, as a grassed site could invite unwanted
users that the current state of the site would not.
To this effect, the owner is amenable to the suggestion that staff explore options for a public
art solution to be installed on the existing fence. The property owner is willing to help
contribute to this solution once a viable option is identified, as an alternative to grassing the
site.
1. -2
Public Art Solution
If directed by Council, and based on the foregoing, staff will explore options for the
development of a public art solution, working collaboratively with the property owner, with a
goal of implementing a solution during the Summer of 2016.
Potential Next Steps
As costs were clearly one of the main stumbling blocks for Council, staff suggest including the
asphalt surface in the larger Road Tender for 2017, and re- evaluating the temporary public
space concept at that time. In the meantime, staff can explore options for a public art solution.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The City's Official Plan supports opportunities for place- making and encourages the use of
publicly accessible spaces to be programmed with arts, cultural and event programing to
create vibrant people places.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Low cost public art options can be implemented through existing operating budgets.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report will be posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Council meeting.
ENGAGE — Staff will engage the Public Art Working Group for input into the potential public art
solution, if this is the option preferred by Council. Should Council wish to revisit the possibility
of a temporary public space in 2017, additional community engagement could occur at that
time.
CONCLUSION:
Staff could seek more favourable pricing in 2017, and in the meantime, explore options for a
public art solution.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, CAO
1. -3