HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Agenda - 2018-06-25COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2018
7:00 P.M. -COUNCIL CHAMBER
1. COMMENCEMENT —
Singing of "0 Canada".
2. MINUTES —
CITY OF KITCHENER
200 KING STREET WEST
Minutes to be accepted as mailed to the Mayor and Councillors (regular meeting held June 11,
2018 and special meetings held June 11 & June 18, 2018) — Councillor Y. Fernandes.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
l�K�]LVA ILYillJLlI[Nivi9101Ll R2N:Ia:I N: IQ11i11aII�11111LlIII
5. PRESENTATIONS —
a. Brenda Orchard, CAO of Lennox and Addington County, and CAMA representative for
Ontario — To present the 2018 Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators (CAMA)
Willis Award for Innovation, to the City of Kitchener for Love My Hood: Kitchener's Guide
to Great Neighbourhoods.
b. Mayor B. Vrbanovic to present two awards to the City of Kitchener from the 2018
Government Fleet Expo & Conference (GFX), for the number one fleet award in the mid-
size fleet category, and fifth overall.
C. Mayor B. Vrbanovic to present a plaque to the City of Kitchener for completing all of the
necessary requirements to become a Bee City, including the commitment to develop,
restore and preserve pollinator -friendly habitats across Kitchener.
a. Pierre Chauvin — Regarding Development Services Department report DSD -18-007, listed
as item 1 under the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee report dated June 18,
2018.
b. Jim Misasi — Regarding Corporate Services Department report COR -18-006, listed as item
3 on the Committee of the Whole agenda this date.
C. Mark Bingeman — Regarding Community Services Department report CSD -18-090, listed
at item 4 under the Community and Infrastructure Services Committee report dated June
18, 2018.
d. Debbie Chapman — Regarding Breithaupt Block 3, listed as item a. under Unfinished
Business.
e. Peter Eglin — Regarding Breithaupt Block 3, listed as item a. under Unfinished Business.
f. David Mesmer — Regarding Breithaupt Block 3, listed as item a. under Unfinished
Business.
g. Dawn Parker — Regarding Breithaupt Block 3, listed as item a. under Unfinished Business.
7. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Community Services Department report CSD -18-051 — At the April 16, 2018 Council
meeting, consideration of the following recommendation was deferred to the meeting this
date:
*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.
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2018
7:00 P.M. -COUNCIL CHAMBER
COUNCIL AGENDA
-2-
CITY OF KITCHENER
200 KING STREET WEST
That consideration of the following recommendation contained in Community
Services Department report CSD -18-051, be deferred to the Council meeting of
June 25, 2018, to allow further discussion/negotiations between neighbourhood
residents, city planners and developers:
That Official Plan Amendment Application OP17/005/W/GS, Breithaupt Block
Inc., 2184647 Ontario Limited, Frederick Andrew Dobson, Paul Raymond Taylor,
Kim Taylor, & Daniel Paul Taylor, for the property
municipally addressed as 43, 47, 53 & 55 Wellington Street North, 2-12 &
26 Moore Avenue and 20 Breithaupt Street, requesting a change in designation
from General Industrial Employment and Low Rise Residential to Mixed Use with
Specific Policy Area 39 to permit a mixed use development on the parcel of land
specified and illustrated on Schedule A', be adopted, in the form shown in the
Official Plan Amendment attached to Community Services Department report
CSD 18-051 as Appendix `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of
Waterloo for approval; and,
That Zone Change Application ZC1710141WIGS for Breithaupt Block Inc.,
2184647 Ontario Limited, Frederick Andrew Dobson, Paul Raymond Taylor, Kim
Taylor, & Daniel Paul Taylor, for the property municipally addressed as 43, 47,
53 & 55 Wellington Street North, 2-12 & 26 Moore Avenue and 20 Breithaupt
Street, requesting a change from Residential Five (R-5) with Special Use
Provision 129U & 411U and Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) to High Intensity
Mixed Use Corridor (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provisions 716R, 717R, &
718R and Special Use Provision 465U on the parcel of land specified and
illustrated on Map No. 1, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-
law" dated March 7, 2018, attached to Report CSD 18-051 as Appendix `B"; and,
That the Urban Design Brief dated February 2018, and attached to Report CSD -
18 -051 as Appendix "C", be adopted, and that staff be directed to apply the
Urban Design Brief through the Site Plan Approval process, and further,
That Kitchener City Council declare as surplus to City needs and sell at fair
market value to Breithaupt Block Inc. and/or 2184647 Ontario Limited, a portion
of the laneway between Moore Avenue and Waterloo Street illustrated on the
Map of Proposed Lane Closure, attached to Report CSD 18-051 as Appendix
,.D„
9. NEW BUSINESS —
a. Regional Council Update — Mayor B. Vrbanovic.
10. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
11. BY-LAWS ---1ST READING —
a. To further amend By-law No. 88-171, being a by-law to designate private
roadways as fire routes and to prohibit parking thereon. (Amends By-law 88-171
to add or delete areas of jurisdiction)
b. To further amend By-law No. 2008-117, being a by-law to authorize certain on -
street and off-street parking of vehicles for use by persons with a disability, and
the issuing of permits in respect thereof. (Amends By-law 2008-117 to add or
delete areas of jurisdiction)
C. To further amend By-law No. 2010-190, being a by-law to prohibit unauthorized
parking of motor vehicles on private property. (Amends By-law 2010-190 to add
or delete areas of jurisdiction)
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER
7:00 P.M. -COUNCIL CHAMBER - 3 - 200 KING STREET WEST
d. Being a by-law to amend Chapter 110 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code
regarding By-law Enforcement. (Amends Schedule `A' to add or delete the name
of a Municipal Enforcement Officer)
e. Being a by-law with respect to special events on city roads — temporary closing of city
roads. (To make this by-law a part of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code and to
number the Chapter accordingly)
f. Being a by-law with respect to boulevard beautification and maintenance. (To make this
by-law a part of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code and to number the Chapter
accordingly)
g. Being a by-law to amend By-law 73-90, as amended, to authorize participation in the
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. (To effect the enrollment of members
of Council in the OMERS pursuant to Report FCS -17-164 as adopted by Council
October 16, 2017)
h. To confirm all actions and proceedings of the Council.
12. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE —
Chair, Councillor Y. Fernandes.
`K�.yglil:iii]�::I�K�]►�il►�il:�:��il�:a��i�l:[�7��
14. BY-LAWS --- 3RD READING —
a. To further amend By-law No. 88-171, being a by-law to designate private roadways as
fire routes and to prohibit parking thereon.
b. To further amend By-law No. 2008-117, being a by-law to authorize certain on -street
and off-street parking of vehicles for use by persons with a disability, and the issuing of
permits in respect thereof.
C. To further amend By-law No. 2010-190, being a by-law to prohibit unauthorized parking
of motor vehicles on private property.
d. Being a by-law to amend Chapter 110 of The City of Kitchener Municipal Code
regarding By-law Enforcement.
e. Being a by-law with respect to special events on city roads — temporary closing of City
roads.
f. Being a by-law with respect to boulevard beautification and maintenance.
g. Being a by-law to amend By-law 73-90, as amended, to authorize participation in the
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System.
h. To confirm all actions and proceedings of the Council.
Staff Report
Development Services Department
REPORT TO:
Council
DATE OF MEETING:
June 25, 2018
SUBMITTED BY:
Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7319
PREPARED BY:
Garett Stevenson, Planner, 519-741-2200 x 7070
WARD INVOLVED:
Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT:
June 15, 2018
REPORT NO.:
DSD -18-055
SUBJECT:
Follow Up to CSD -18-051
Official Plan Amendment OP17/0051W/GS
Zone Change Application ZC17/014/W/GS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
J
01(1 i� v -R
www.kitchener.ca
Breithaupt Block Inc., 2184647 Ontario Limited, Frederick Andrew
Dobson, Paul Raymond Taylor, Kim Taylor, & Daniel Paul Taylor
43, 47, 53, & 55 Wellington Street North, 2-12 & 26 Moore Avenue,
20 Breithaupt Street
Location Map: Subject Property
On April 16, 2018, Kitchener City Council deferred consideration of the above noted applications to the
Council meeting scheduled for June 25, 2018. The purpose of the deferral was to allow further
discussion/negotiations between neighbourhood residents, city planners and developers.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
S.a.1
The Planning Division received a revised development concept and presented it to the community at a
drop-in information meeting on June 5, 2018. At that meeting, interested residents provided oral
comments to Planning Staff and some followed with additional written comments, attached as Appendix
"D„
While Planning staff remain supportive of the Recommendations of Report CSD -18-051, Planning staff
have also prepared a revised Official Plan Amendment and amending Zone Change by-law, attached to
this report as Appendixes "A" and "B", based on the revised development concept. Planning staff are also
supportive of the Recommendations noted below as the revised Official Plan Amendment and Zone
Change amendment achieve similar planning objectives but with a slightly different built form. If approved,
the Recommendations of this report would permit the revised concept, being a ten storey office building, a
five storey parking garage, a new privately owned and maintained parkette (POMPA) at the corner of
Moore Avenue and Wellington Street North, and the reconfiguration of the existing lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OP17/005M//GS for Breithaupt Block Inc.,
2184647 Ontario Limited, Frederick Andrew Dobson, Paul Raymond Taylor, Kim Taylor, &
Daniel Paul Taylor requesting a change in designation from General Industrial
Employment and Low Rise Residential to Mixed Use with Specific Policy Area 39 to
permit a mixed use development on the parcel of land specified and illustrated on
Schedule `A', be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to
Report DSD -18-055 as Appendix `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of
Waterloo for approval; AND
B. That Zone Change Application ZC17/014/W/GS for Breithaupt Block Inc., 2184647 Ontario
Limited, Frederick Andrew Dobson, Paul Raymond Taylor, Kim Taylor, & Daniel Paul
Taylor requesting a change from Residential Five (R-5) with Special Use Provision 129U
& 411U and Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -3)
with Special Regulation Provisions 716R, 717R, & 718R and Special Use Provisions 465U
and 468U on the parcel of land specified and illustrated on Map No. 1, be approved in the
form shown in the "Proposed By-law" dated March 7, 2018, attached to Report DSD -18-
055 as Appendix "B"; AND
C. That the Urban Design Brief dated February 2018, and attached to Report CSD -18-051 as
Appendix "C", be adopted, and that staff be directed to apply the Urban Design Brief
through the Site Plan Approval process; AND
D. That Kitchener City Council declare as surplus to City needs and sell at fair market value
to Breithaupt Block Inc. and/or 2184647 Ontario Limited, a portion of the laneway
between Moore Avenue and Waterloo Street illustrated on the Map of Proposed Lane
Closure, attached to Report CSD 18-051 as Appendix "D"; AND
E. That Planning staff be directed to involve a number of interested residents who reside or
own property immediately adjacent to the proposed parking garage, in the review of the
building fagade treatments (elevation plan review), at the site planning stage: AND
FURTHER
S.a.2
F. That Planning staff be directed to involve a number of representatives from the
community in the review of the design of the privately owned and maintained publically
accessible parkette (amenity area) plans at the corner of Moore Avenue and Wellington
Street North, at the site planning stage.
REPORT:
Planning staff received a revised development concept and presented it to the community at a drop-in
Neighbourhood Information Meeting (NIM) on June 5, 2018. At that meeting, interested residents
provided oral comments to Planning staff and provided additional written comments, attached as Appendix
"D„
The development concept presented to the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee on April 9, 2018
and to Council on April 16, 2018, has been revised as follows:
• The height of the tower has been reduced by two storeys, reducing the overall height from 60
metres to 49.6 metres.
• The width and depth of the office building has increased and the building is now closer to
Breithaupt Street and Moore Avenue. New floor area is shown on floors one through ten of the
office tower (larger floor plates).
• Three areas have been identified for potential additional floor area, including: redesigning the
recessed corner entry at Moore Avenue and Breithaupt Street; between the office tower and the
parking garage above the proposed new lane, and between the parking garage and Breithaupt
Street. In all cases, any additional floor area would be located within the proposed 50 metres
(office tower) and 18 metres (parking garage) height limits.
• To provide for greater flexibility in the ultimate design of the floor plates and the potential for
additional floor area noted above, the FSR is now requested to be up to 4.5, rather than 4.2.
• The parking garage has been setback from the exterior side yard by 0.685 metres and the yard
abutting the lane by 0.964 metres.
ADDITIONAL NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMENTS:
In addition to written comments attached to Report CSD -18-051, Planning staff have attached all
written submissions received between March 7, 2018 and June 15, 2018 as Appendix "D". Some of
these comments were submitted in advance of the preparation of the revised concept. Oral comments
were received at the second NIM on June 5, 2018. Further discussion on the comments received from
community members during the additional consultation on these applications is outlined in greater detail
below.
Any comments received after June 15, 2018 will be provided directly to Council in advance of the June
25, 2018 Council meeting. Copies of these comments will form part of the public record and can be
obtained upon request.
8.a.3
Revised Office Tower Building Height
Attendees of the second NIM expressed mixed initial reactions on the revised development concept,
some appreciated the compromise and others felt it was still too tall. Some residents felt that the
building should be six storeys in height.
The revised development concept is similar to the previous version; however the office building is
approximately 10 metres shorter and slightly deeper and wider. Planning staff are confident that the
revised development concept continues to satisfy the City's Tall Building Guidelines and further
refinement of the building will occur at the site planning stage.
The revised by-law has been amended to reduce the maximum height of the office building to 50
metres. Additionally, 0.0 metre setbacks are proposed for Moore Avenue and Breithaupt, rather than
1.5 metres, to accommodate the wider and deeper floor plates.
Residential Uses/Zoning along Wellington Street North
Comments were received suggesting that the portion of the subject lands between Wellington Street
North and the existing lane be zoned to permit low density residential uses which are targeted to
families, rather than empty nesters and young singles. It was suggested that not permitting residential
uses in this location could lead to speculative land purchases, additional deterioration of the housing
stock, new low -quality rental housing, the erosion of the neighbourhood, and the devaluation of
property value due to the increased risk of the conversion of the remainder of the neighbourhood.
The Innovation Employment land use designation discussed in the PARTS Central Plan is a new
category of land use which is not currently found in the City's Official Plan. Uses permitted within this
land use district may include residential uses to provide for a transition between the Low Rise
Residential land use designation and Mixed Use and Innovation District land use designations, where it
can be demonstrated that the residential use is compatible with Innovation Employment uses on the
subject lands and adjacent lands. The initial application did not specifically seek permission for
residential uses and the current owner does not intend to develop the site with residential uses.
Planning staff have further considered the opportunity for residential uses along Wellington Street North
within a mixed-use building fronting the parkette and the revised zoning by-law, attached to this report
as Appendix "B", permits residential uses on the lands between Wellington Street North and the lane.
As part of the special use provision, residential uses would be subject to a Record of Site Condition, as
required by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, as the lands were previously used for
automobile parking. Proposed residential uses now include: Duplex Dwelling, Dwelling Unit, Home
Business, Multiple Dwelling, Residential Care Facility, Single Detached Dwelling, Street Townhouse
Dwelling, and Tourist Home.
Updated Shadow Study & Impacts
Planning staff received comments that the shadows would shade the neighbourhood in the winter
months. Updated Revised shadow studies have been provided for the revised development concept
and are attached as Appendix "E" of this report.
The City's Tall Building Guidelines target is to achieve 5 cumulative hours without shadow at the
equinox (March 21 and September 21). The revised development concept meets the City's Tall
8.a.4
Building Guidelines for shadow impacts, as there is at least five cumulative hours of direct sunlight for
both the March and September equinoxes, and the reduction in height of 10 metres has reduced the
length of some shadows. While the shadows are greater in length during the winter months, the
shadows do travel across the neighbourhood from west to east. An updated shadow study will be
required, along with an updated 3D Model, at the site planning stage to confirm potential shadow
impacts.
Parking Garage Design & Setback
Planning staff received varying comments and suggestions on the setback of the parking garage from
the lane. Some residents wanted a setback that would accommodate snow storage but not be large
enough to become a social gathering space. Planning staff also heard suggestions about setting the
garage back to provide a sidewalk along the lane as part of a placemaking opportunity. Some
residents suggested that stepbacks be applied for upper storeys, or that the building mass could be
softened with landscaping or wall treatments. Some residents also questioned whether there is an
appropriate transition between the neighbourhood and the parking garage.
With agreement from the Developer, Planning staff are recommending that Council direct staff to work
with residents who reside or own property immediately adjacent to the lane, in the review of the building
elevations at the site planning stage. The garage setback currently shown provides room for fagade
treatments which could include a living wall. There have been no detailed design submissions made to
the City on the garage design, as this level of detail is typically addressed at the site planning stage.
The Applicant's Architect has provided some precedent images to illustrate potential design solutions
for the parking garage, attached as Appendix "F". Planning staff have reviewed other lanes in the
Breithaupt Mount Hope neighbourhood and observed that the typical function of the lanes in the
neighbourhood is utilitarian, providing access to the rear yard and rear yard parking or garages. Many
of the lanes are lined with tall privacy fences, expansive driveways or parking pads, as well as blank
garage walls and doors. Typically, in neighbourhoods with a fine grid street pattern with street facing
and ground oriented land uses, the sidewalks adjacent to the streets are the more pleasing pedestrian
connections through the neighbourhood. Planning staff recommend that any placemaking opportunities
be directed to the publically accessible and highly visible parkette space along Wellington Street North.
The parking structure will transition between the dwellings on Wellington Street North and the taller first
phase of the Breithaupt Block; as well as between the dwellings on Breithaupt and Waterloo Streets
and the taller proposed office tower. The subject lands are also a transition between the stable
neighbourhood and locations planned for large scaled development and redevelopment within the
Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), the future HUB, SIXO, and along the King Street West Mixed Use
Corridor.
The revised by-law now includes a requirement to provide a 0.75 metre (minimum) setback from the
property line of the lane and the exterior side yard.
Snow Removal
A resident on Wellington Street North expressed concern about the snow removal operations for the
proposed reconfigured lane. There were also concerns that the new north -south lane would not be
adequately sized to handle the volume of vehicle traffic to this site or the delivery trucks that would
service the future building.
8.a.5
The City's Operations Division has reviewed the proposed development concept and lane configuration
and has confirmed that the City can continue to operate and maintain the lane, including snow removal.
Access rights for the public will be maintained during and after construction. The current lane is only
one-way travel, from Waterloo Street to Moore Avenue. There is no change proposed in this regard.
The new lane, from Wellington Street North to Breithaupt Street, will be subject to detailed design at the
site planning stage and will be designed to the City's two-way private driveway standards. Additionally,
at the site planning stage, detailed truck turning plans will be required and will be reviewed by
Transportation Services staff, to ensure that the existing and proposed lanes will adequately function.
Privately Owned and Maintained Publically Accessible (POMPA) Parkette
Some residents expressed concern about the initial renderings and design of the parkette along
Wellington Street North. While some residents liked the idea of the parkette, there was some concern
about the space becoming an opportunity for negative behaviour. Some residents preferred to eliminate
the parkette altogether and have residential development in the same location. Other residents
suggested the parkette could be used for a restaurant or cafe patio space. Some residents were
concerned that public access would not be maintained, and some comments were received suggesting
that part of the parkette will not be useable with the parking access ramp located within it.
The proposed site-specific zoning requires that any future building be setback 15 metres from the
streetline along Wellington Street North to provide an at -grade privately owned and maintained
publically accessible parkette. The parkette is proposed to be maintained by the Owner and public
access will be secured through an easement prior to final site plan approval. The publically accessible
parkette was included in the overall design of the site to create a gathering point for social interaction
and to act as a transition between the residential development and the office building. The Applicant
included precedent images in the Urban Design Brief (attached to Report CSD -18-051 as Appendix
"C") on how the parking ramp could be implemented with the landscape design as part of the parkette
amenity.
The proposed base zoning, High Intensity Mixed Use (MU -3), permits several uses including
restaurants. The ultimate uses of the building, or portions thereof, will be determined by the Developer
and/or future lease and tenant arrangements. The parkette will have public access and Planning staff
are recommending that the detailed design of that space be further reviewed with the community at the
site planning stage as discussed above.
The Developer has agreed to involve a number of representatives from the community in the review of
the parkette plans at the corner of Moore Avenue and Wellington Street North, at the site planning
stage. The City's Site Plan Review Committee will be the ultimate approval authority for the design of
the parkette, however input and suggestions will be solicited from the community as part of the process.
Comprehensive Transportation and Traffic Analysis
At the second NIM, some residents expressed concerns that the Transportation Impact Study should
address the existing traffic as well as potential traffic generated from other potential developments.
A Transportation Impact and Demand Management Study, prepared by Paradigm Transportation
Solutions Limited, was prepared to support the proposed development. As part of that study, traffic
volumes were counted at the proposed driveway locations (for movements into the parking area) and
on Wellington Street North and Waterloo Street. Background growth rates were determined with
8.a.6
information from the Region of Waterloo for the ION corridor. The growth forecasts include traffic
volumes before the ION is built, after ION is built, and long range forecasts for 2031 and 2036. The
proposed traffic generation of the proposed development was evaluated against these different criteria.
One of the initial recommendations from the report was to establish a left turn lane with 15.0 metres of
storage on Wellington Street North into the new private laneway. The feasibility of this occurring is
unlikely, so City Transportation staff requested that additional evaluation be completed without the left
turn lane and that traffic be allocated to other entries. When this evaluation was completed,
Transportation staff had no objections to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change
applications and are satisfied with the lane reconfiguration, subject to detailed design at the site
planning stage (see Appendix E of Report CSD -18-051). The two accesses to the parking garage will
accommodate a majority of the vehicle parking on site. One access is located internal to the site and
the second access directly from Breithaupt Street. The ramp to the smaller underground parking under
the office tower is located towards Wellington Street North.
Site Light and Light Pollution
Some commenters highlighted concern about the potential for light pollution from the office building,
outdoor lighting, and the parking garage lighting.
The City's Urban Design Manual requires a detailed Lighting Plan at the site planning stage and will
require that light fixture meet the City's Dark Sky Compliant standards. The roof top level of the parking
garage will have to be designed to avoid light spill onto the adjacent properties. Low level or motion
censored lighting will be explored through the CPTED review, at the site planning stage, to ensure that
areas that are less publically visible are well lit.
Loading Area
Some residents who live on Wellington Street North expressed concerns about the location of the
loading area and any potential noise generated from air brakes and back up beeping from delivery
trucks.
Noise mitigation measures will be evaluated at the site planning stage which will specifically evaluate
any loading associated noise generation sources, as well as any potential noise mitigation required for
the HVAC systems. At the site planning stage, truck turning plans will be required to show the travelled
path of the delivery vehicles to ensure maneuverability of the site and the access.
CONCLUSION:
Planning staff remain supportive of the recommendation of Report CSD -18-051, however, Planning
staff have prepared a revised Official Plan Amendment and amending zoning by-law attached as
Appendixes "A" and "B" of this report. These revised documents, if approved, would regulate the future
development to a built form that is in keeping with the revised development concept attached to this
report. Planning staff are also supportive of the Recommendations noted in this report as the revised
Official Plan Amendment and amending Zone Change by-law achieve similar planning objectives but with
a slightly different built form. Planning staff also recommend that given the interest of the
neighbourhood, and the willingness of the Developer to participate, that Council direct Planning staff to
work with key representatives of the community and the adjacent residents and property owners along
Wellington Street North, on the proposed design of the parkette and parking garage. Staff Report CSD -
8.a.7
18-051 should be read in conjunction with this report for a comprehensive planning analysis of the
applications.
REVIEWED BY: Della Ross, Manager of Development Review
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix "A" Revised OPA and OPA Map
Appendix "B" Revised Proposed Zoning By-law & Map No
Appendix "C" Revised Development Concept
Appendix "D" Additional Community Input
Appendix "E" Updated Shadow Studies
Appendix "F" Parking Garage Precedent Images
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
CITY OF KITCHENER
Breithaupt Block Phase 3
DSD -18-055
Appendix "A"
8.a.9
I_1 LVA 1N11►19]►V121►1a01IOWA C0111.I2111136199Is] /_\w»_1►1
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
Breithaupt Block Phase 3
INDEX
y2 101156701i II142F_1►106161LVA Iai7►121►116"]
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee of April 9, 2018
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee — April 9, 2018
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — April 16, 2018
APPENDIX 4 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — June 25, 2018
8.a.10
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. 2 to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener.
This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive.
SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is change the land use designation and amend Map 3 as
well as to add a site specifc policy area and amend Map 5 to permit the development of the subject
lands with a new mixed-use office and commercial development.
The amendment comprises of the following changes:
• Map 3 is amended by changing the land use designation from General Insutrial Employment
and from Low Rise Resdiential to Mixed Use,
• Map 5 is amended by adding Specific Policy Area 39,
• Adding Policy 15.D.12.39 to Section 15.D.12 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.5.
SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject lands are currently designated as General Industrial Employment and Low Rise
Residential in the 2014 Official Plan.
The current General Industrial land use designation from the 1994 plan was brought forward into the
2014 plan as General Industrial Employment. The Low Rise residential land use designation is also
carried forward from the 1994 plan and permits a variety of low density residential uses and
neighbourhood scaled compatible non-residential uses.
The existing Secondary Plans were not reviewed as part of the 2014 Plan as station area planning
exercises were contemplated for large portions of the Secondary Plan areas. While the subject
lands are not within a Secondary Plan area, they were identified as a Major Transit Station Area
intensification area in the City's urban structure.
Major Transit Station Area Intensification Areas are planned to accommodate growth through
development to support existing and planned transit and rapid transit service levels, while preserving
stable residential neighbourhoods which are not the primary focus for intensification.
The subject applications have been considered under the policies of both the City's 1994 and 2014
Official Plans. The Official Plan for the City of Kitchener was adopted by Kitchener City Council on
June 30, 2014 and approved by the Region of Waterloo on November 19, 2014. While some
policies remain under appeal, including the Major Transit Station Area Intensification Area urban
structure component and the General Industrial Employment and Mixed Use land use designations,
the balance of the plan is now in force and effect, with an in effect date of September 23, 2015,
being the date the appeal to the entire 2014 Official Plan was withdrawn. Where policies of the 2014
Official Plan were specifically appealed, those specific policies are not in effect.
Planning staff are recommending that the land use designation for the subject lands be amended to
Mixed Use. However, the Mixed Use land use designation is under appeal in the 2014 Official Plan.
Until such time as the new Mixed Use land use designation is fully implemented, the Mixed Use
8.a.11
Node land use designation from the 1994 Official Plan would apply with the approval of Official Plan
Amendment application outlined in Planning Staff's recommendation above.
For lands designated as Mixed Use, permitted non-residential uses include compatible commercial
uses such as, but not limited to, retail, commercial entertainment, restaurants, financial
establishments, personal services, office, health-related uses such as health offices and health
clinics and institutional uses such as daycare facilities, religious institutions, and educational
establishments but not including elementary schools, social service establishment, and studio and
artisan -related uses.
As the Mixed Use land use designation from the 2014 Official Plan is under appeal, with approval of
Planning staff's recommended Official Plan Amendment, the Mixed Use Node land use designation
policies from the 1994 Official Plan would apply to the subject property. The Mixed Use Node land
designation is also appropriate for the subject lands. The policies are quite similar to the Mixed Use
land use designation policies in the 2014 Plan. Lands designated as Mixed Use Node are planned
to be developed with intensive, transit supportive development in a compact form.
The Floor Space Ratio for all new residential or mixed use building developments with the Major
Transit Station Area shall be a minimum of 0.6 and a maximum 4.0. Area Specific/Site Specific
Policy Area 39 is proposed to permit a total FSR of 4.5. Site specific zoning regulations and well as
a Council -adopted proponent prepared Urban Design Breif will ensure that the ultimate development
is compatible with the surrounding community.
Section 13.C.3.12 of the 2014 Plan provides direction for development applications in advance of the
full implementation of station area planning exercises. Planning Staff's recommended Official Plan
Amendment will permit the development of the subject lands with a mixed-use development that is in
a compact form with uses that are transit supportive. The proposed development is located within
walking distance to the future multi -modal transit hub at King and Victoria Streets, the planned
intensification corridor along King Street West, and the City's Urban Growth Centre.
The Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications have been reviewed in consultation
with the Council -adopted Planning Around Rapid Transit Station Areas (PARTS) Central Plan. While
the proposed land use designation differs from the Central PARTS Preferred Plan, the concept of
locating employment uses in a compact form that is buffered from the low rise residential
neighbourhood is largely achieved with the proposed site specific permitted uses and set back
regulations.
The 2014 Plan permits the conversion of employment lands to other non -industrial employment
uses. Policy 15.D.12.22 permits lands to convert to other non -industrial employment uses or non -
employment uses without the requirement for a municipal comprehensive review provided the
proposal is in accordance with the Transit -Oriented Development Policies in the Section 13.C.3.
Since the approval of the 2014 Official Plan, new policies came into effect in the 2017 update to the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe which requires a Municipal Comprehensive Review
to be completed by the Region of Waterloo to permit the conversion of employment lands to other
non -industrial employment uses. In 2010, as part of the Official Plan review, the City undertook the
Comprehensive Review of Employment Lands study (CREL). The purpose of the study was to
complete a provincially mandated municipal comprehensive review of the City of Kitchener's
employment lands (industrial lands) to ensure that the City has sufficient lands to meet long term
industrial employment needs, to protect prime industrial employment lands and to identify industrial
employment lands that are suitable for conversion to other employment uses and non -employment
uses. The study recommended that lands identified within the Urban Growth Centre and Major
Transit Station Areas were not required to be retained for employment uses for the purposes of
accommodating the employment projections. As a result, planning applications for employment
lands conversions could be considered and processed in these specific areas, provided that each
application demonstrate how the proposed development will meet the objectives of any Provincial or
B.a.12
Regional policies associated with such areas. The proposed development is in accordance with the
Transit -Oriented Development Policies in the Section 13.C.3 of the Official Plan as it will facilitate a
development that promotes a walkable and transit-suportive employment use. The development
concept is compact and within walking distance of the King and Victoria Street multi -modal transit
station. The proposed building, streetscapes, and publically accessible parkette will be support a
high quality public realm which will enhance the identity of the area and create a gathering point for
social interaction. The proposed development supports various transportation modes including
walking and cycling.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications comply with the Kitchner Growth Management
Strategy as it allows for the appropriate intensification of the subject property which better utilizes the
existing and planned infrastructure with development at a transit -supportive density.
The applications align with Provincial, Regional, and City policies and will contribute to and support
the newly constructed ION rapid transit system. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications
conform to the Growth Plan. The development of the subject lands with a mix of uses at a density
that will support the rapid transit system.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications are consistent with the PPS as they
will facilitate the development of the subject property with a compact mixed-use development that is
located within walking distance to the future multi -modal transit hub at King and Victoria Streets, the
planned intensification corridor along King Street West, and the City's Urban Growth Centre. The
proposed development will provide additional employment opportunities and will better utilizes lands
that are currently be used for surface parking.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan. Within the
Urban Area, most of the Region's future growth will be directed to Urban Growth Centres, Major
Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Urban Designated
Greenfield Areas. In general, these areas will be planned to create a more compact urban form with
a greater mix of employment, housing and services in close proximity to each other.
The applicant has also applied for a Zone Change to change the zoning the lands from Residential
Five (R-5) with Special Use Provision 129U & 411 U and Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) to High
Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -3) with Special Regulation Provisions 716R, 717R, & 718R and
Special Use Provisions 465U and 468U. Special Use Provision 465U prohibits certain non -
employment commercial type uses that are more appropriate for a mixed use corridor, providing
further direction for innovation employment type uses. Special Use Provision 468U permits
compatible residential uses along Wellington Street North. Special Regulation Provisions 716R,
717R, and 718R define the location of the front yard along Breithaupt Street as well as podium and
tower setbacks, stepbacks, and heights along Wellington Street. Regulations on site specific vehicle
and bicycle parking standards, maximum FSR, and building height are also further regulated.
B.a.13
61X0111:e7►[mf:IEvil LY, IMIN I]LY, IQ►1111
The City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
a) Part D, Section 15.D.12 is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.12.39
as follows:
"15.D.12.39. Breithaupt Block Phase 3
Notwithstanding the Mixed Use land use designation and policies, on
the lands municipally known as 43, 47, 53 and 55 Wellington Street
North, 2-12 and 26 Moore Avenue, and 20 Breithaupt street, a
maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.5 will be permitted."
b) Amend Map No. 3 — Land Use by:
i) Designating the subject lands `Mixed Use' instead of `General Industrial
Employment' and `Low Rise Residential', as shown on the attached Schedule
W.
c) Amend Map No. 5 — Specific Policy Areas by:
i) Adding Specific Policy Area 39 to the subject lands as shown on the attached
Schedule `B'.
6
8.a.14
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee of April 9, 2018
Advertised in The Record — March 16, 2018
PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED
TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS
A PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENTS TO THE KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW
Breithaupt Block Phase 3
UNDER SECTIONS 17,22 AND 34 OF THE PLANNING ACT
The City of Kitchener has received an application for an Official Plan Amendment for the lands shown above to
change the land use designation from General Industrial Employment and Low Rise Residential to Mixed Use with
Special Policy Area 39 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.2. The City has also received a Zone
Change Application to change the zoning from Residential Five (R-5) with Special Use Provisions 128U & 411 U and
Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -3) with Special Use and Special
Regulation Provisions to permit a new 12 storey office and commercial development.
The public meeting will be held by the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee, a Committee of Council which
deals with planning matters, on:
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2018 at 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2nd FLOOR, CITY HALL
200 KING STREET WEST, KITCHENER.
Any person may attend the public meeting and make written and/or verbal representation either in support of, or in
opposition to, the above noted proposals. If a person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the
decision of the City of Kitchener to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but the person or public body does not
make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Kitchener prior to
approval/refusal of these proposals, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is available by contacting the staff person noted below, viewing the staff report which will
be available approximately 10 days before the meeting (https://calendar.kitchener.ca/council - click on the meeting date
in the calendar, scroll down & select meeting), or in person at the Planning Division, 6t" Floor, City Hall, 200 King Street
West, Kitchener between 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday to Friday).
Garett Stevenson, Planner - 519-741-2200 ext.7070 (TTY: 1-866-969-9994); garett.stevenson @kitchener.ca
8.a.15
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee — April 9, 2018
B.a.16
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — April 16, 2018
S.a.17
APPENDIX 4 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — June 25, 2018
10
8.a.18
Q
� U
Z a) U)i
Co
U) w
C Q O o
Cl) a) j j
d LL 0 (0 W >� >� o
LU Q ° _
Q c O
W Q O O
= J Q W co Ed +J +J I i z
in w C c
Z
U z
YQzo -S U� Ea� E O N L
LL v ami � � a) � ° a) U) z O � a
OLL.OJ ° 0 (n o2 E �D E cZ W w
U 3 x c a) 2 u cu aa) o� a°i o� Z U i a
LU
J U W
Q 2 0 O � Dll� QLL Qii�2 d� 0
Q Q Y
Q Ow
d Z >1CO
Q � U�
w0
LL z
LL
O NN o
0
w
U)
w
ZO LO
X02 N
a0
/� C)
O
U N
w
O
F-
w O w
N (o Z
r �
J W
° U) Q
IIIII IIII
Q
111111 IIII 1111111 cowo N�
O���PJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "0� Ncn
�
UzYof Z o -
MI Illlllllllllllill (IIIIIIIII a YYof°cn=
IIII�IIIIIII�IIIIIII�I IIIII I� w ow°mow
lillllllilllll lilllll Illlill ? m"'o<of
I I I I I I I I zo
a� a
LL Z J N
I II IIII II IIII II II I IIIIw =o2Eww<u
~�QQ �>
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111 v u of0Lo
LQ
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111CO
�gDzZO
IIII 111111 1111111 II IIII IIIIIIIII' zofa Q�
II IIIII IIIII II II II IIII IF -z
2L�
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII a°10
° �N
III III III III II IIa o
S.a.19
m
/� U
\��
N (6 M (n U)
V!LL N
N (6 > > a
Q
W L L
d
LO
WQ�Q cv � — - L) 0 0
J � "- Z0 CU O V I I
z
U) E
HJHJ N �, m d U z
Ya LU a- c6 CU � -0-0 a U 5 O z L a
0�� Q U)° o Q� w O z
p U � v Q cn W
LL z U Lo ° D Q F-
O C7 L- cu m U S Q
U �w o �70 (1)Q z U
a
Q d 00 N Q' (6 Q M LUd p
`� 5M Q Q Y W
(1) ss z w 4
d ZU)
J = +J z
U V a
ULu
z o
LLz W
2 O ON o
CO
CO
o
U)
�T
Yl. o
Ln
00 ) S N
co
N
LLI L
w ow
0 z
o
J W
U D
Z
Q
00 � H
Z N cf)
p
z< _0 Z
YofOJ cf) Q
m UU0Q Z H
W o��� o w
J of
Hof~pQ Z mo
Q D-LLZa J N
W Qp2W W LL
LU
ti ti �of0 W
l uJ—QQ
` EJof
00 JQ D
tititiwti�ti zofaa QD
�ti 1ti�ti}4 o�Uz
N
aOm v
a
ti ti441444� Q o v
8.a.20
follows:
DSD -18-055
Appendix "B"
PROPOSED BY — LAW
June 15, 2018
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended, known as
the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener
- Breithaupt Block Inc., 2184647 Ontario Limited, Frederick Andrew
Dobson, Paul Raymond Taylor, Kim Taylor, Daniel Paul Taylor
— Breithaupt Block Phase 3)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 for the lands specified above;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as
Schedule Numbers 74 and 84 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended
by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on
Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Residential Five Zone (R-5) with
Special Use Provision 129U to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special
Use Provision 468U and Special Regulation Provisions 716R and 717R.
2. Schedule Numbers 74 and 84 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended
by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 2 on
Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Residential Five Zone (R-5) with
Special Use Provision 411U to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special
Use Provision 468U and Special Regulation Provisions 716R and 717R.
3. Schedule Numbers 74 and 84 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended
by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 3 on
Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) to
High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Use Provision 465U and Special
Regulation Provisions 716R and 717R.
4. Schedule Numbers 74 and 84 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended
by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 4 on
Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) to
8.a.21
High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3) with Special Use Provision 465U and Special
Regulation Provisions 716R and 718R.
5. Schedule Numbers 74 and 84 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby further
amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached
hereto.
6. Appendix "C" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 465 thereto as follows:
"465. Notwithstanding Section 55.1 of this By-law, within the lands zoned MU -3 as shown
on Schedules 74 and 84 of Appendix `A', as affected by this section, the following
uses are prohibited;
Commercial Entertainment
Conference or Convention Facility
Duplex Dwelling
Dwelling Unit
Home Business
Hospice
Hotel
Lodging House
Multiple Dwelling
Museum
Private Club or Lodge
Religious Institution
Residential Care Facility
Single Detached Dwelling
Street Townhouse Dwelling
Tourist Home"
7. Appendix "C" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 468 thereto as follows:
"468. i. Notwithstanding Section 55.1 of this By-law, within the lands zoned MU -3 as
shown on Schedules 74 and 84 of Appendix `A', as affected by this section, the
following uses are prohibited;
8.a.22
Commercial Entertainment
Conference or Convention Facility
Hotel
Lodging House
Museum
Private Club or Lodge
Religious Institution
ii. Notwithstanding Sections 55.1 of this By-law, within the lands zoned MU -3 as
shown on Schedules 74 and 84 of Appendix `A', as affected by this section, the
following uses shall not be permitted unless the City of Kitchener has received
acknowledgment from the Ministry of the Environment advising that a Record
of Site Condition has been completed in accordance with the relevant Ontario
legislation;
Duplex Dwelling
Home Business
Hospice
Lodging House
Multiple Dwelling
Private Home Day Care
Residential Care Facility
Single Detached Dwelling
Street Townhouse Dwelling
Tourist Home"
8. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 716 thereto as follows:
716. Notwithstanding Sections 6.1.2a), 6.1.2b), 6.1.2d), and 55.2 of this By-law, within
the lands zoned High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3), shown as affected
by this subsection, on Schedules 74 and 84 of Appendix "A", a mixed-use
development shall be permitted in accordance with the following:
a. The required off-street parking for all uses shall be 1 parking space per 93
space metres of gross floor area.
8.a.23
b. A minimum of 1 bicycle parking space, which is either in a building or
structure or within a secure area such as a supervised parking lot or
enclosure with a secure entrance or within a bicycle locker, per 333 square
metres of gross floor area of all uses shall be provided.
C. A minimum of 1 bicycle parking space, which is located in accessible and
highly visible locations near the entrance of a building and are accessible to
the general public, per 500 square metres of gross floor area of all uses
shall be provided.
d. The front yard shall be the lot line abutting Breithaupt Street.
e. The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 4.5."
9. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 717 thereto as follows:
"717. Notwithstanding Sections 55.2 of this By-law, within the lands zoned High Intensity
Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3), shown as affected by this subsection, on
Schedules 74 and 84 of Appendix "A", a mixed-use development shall be permitted
in accordance with the following:
a. The rear yard shall be lot line abutting Wellington Street North.
The minimum rear yard abutting a street along Wellington Street
North for any portion of a building with a height less than 21.0 metres
shall be 15.0 metres.
ii. The minimum rear yard abutting a street along Wellington Street
North for any portion of a building with a height greater than 21.0
metres shall be 31.5 metres.
b. A building used for access to underground parking which is combined with an
amenity or landscape feature shall not be subject to regulation a. above.
C. The maximum building height is 50 metres.
8.a.24
d. The minimum front yard setback from Breithaupt Street and the minimum
side yard abutting a street setback from Moore Avenue shall be 0.0 metres."
10. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 718 thereto as follows:
"718. Notwithstanding Sections 55.2 of this By-law, within the lands zoned High Intensity
Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -3), shown as affected by this subsection, on
Schedules 74 and 84 of Appendix "A", a mixed-use development shall be permitted
in accordance with the following:
a. The maximum building height is 18 metres.
b. The minimum exterior side yard and the minimum setback from the lane shall
be 0.75 metres."
11. This By-law shall come into effect only upon approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, or his/her delegate, of Official Plan Amendment No. 2, Breithaupt Block
Phase 3, but upon such approval, the provisions hereof affecting such lands shall be
deemed to have come into force on the date of passing hereof.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of
'2018
Mayor
Clerk
8.a.25
WC � Wo
Wo
W
a a a a
00mozom zom
N m i N O N S O N S
�_ m, �_ m � NM, NM,
W .0 M W 0 M Q
z Z Q Z
z
0 0 0 m0 Zmo Zmo z
F, W W
wM O0> wv OOm C, OOm C,OOm W O 0 O W
wma wma Wwma wwma ZW W NZ
`�zrnaz `�zrnaz m0az m0az OZ Z Jw WO
Q x z O Q x z O x z O x z O N O O a Z N
�> m0o �o m0o Q C,0o Qm 0� N W Z O Z W
W O x Q D w O x Q O x Q 0 m x Q 0 Q Q � Z N z W Z
m,xa a xa xa xm � Z aON�QNXD W
w0~W� m0~ww Z~w� ~W� Q �� WU~ZJ�X Z
x�nm DU)m rnm rnm In Q 0
2�Wax 0�Wax 2Wax 2W�x LU y �(nW�(rZ W�H�W N U)
N �w ZwU �w ZwU ZwU �Z wU W �S (7 O�Ow�_ W (n�ZH O>
a axaw axaw x a W xaw �� Z W � N� W 0 W Z W (5 N W
ax=x0 ax�x0 aU) M x0 a�x0 ILL ZO�Q(WO -ZzWWQ z
a �FOFz �FOFo rco~� w wOXO wEoD5I<:��Q� O
aa a���a a��a a��a �w0l w� JwOOF--ll w N
U wZ zOa��mDzwOzw
LU
wwQ= OOwoHow�=aw
O O d' O M O
00 LLH��N n
W00 0N n0Y C�O0��—��3333a�
v � �
con
�1P
sz� �
«.w
N
CL
qq,,s M 7 \
O �
r4ey
N �
ALL M 7
i e
o
\
ui
LL O E
N
U)
0
N
r
0
of
L0
Lo o
r
U
w O
N
Z
0
L z
�W
Q
cr
a
o L11
U
Mo
J
J
w
�rc ❑
I.L
�ir
LU
U)
LU
Oz
cW
G
z
=
♦♦LU
V o
U
LUZ
z
Y�
0
N
i e
o
co
U)
0
N
w
of
L0
Lo o
w O
W
z
o L11
J
L.LI
0�
agM1
mo
z
Y�
ma
wa
o�
ww
�z
o
QC,
co
a
Will
Z Da
Q ~ _
D ZY Z ~
O W
O m In (r
a>yro a v O Z 07
arv~ 0 N
(7 06
m Z W
Z
Z0 J Q
LU LU
Lo O
m Lo 0
a o6
<z
No
° 0
m
k\\k N
m0 M
mc, V N
8.a.26
Z Da
Q ~ _
D ZY Z ~
O W
O m In (r
a>yro a v O Z 07
arv~ 0 N
(7 06
m Z W
Z
Z0 J Q
LU LU
Lo O
m Lo 0
a o6
<z
No
° 0
m
k\\k N
m0 M
mc, V N
8.a.26
i
I
a
I
8.a.28
8.a.29
a r a
a a a
r a r
a a a
1 a r r �
r
w y Y
� r i
r
i�w
8.a.31
Rffe_
8.a.33
;� -:
�;
•-�'r
7'
WO' r
=mom,
r
r
rr
k
«
$
ƒ
\
E
IL
\\}\\\\\\\\� /\ \\\\\\\
(\}\\\\\\\\ \� = ww'4www /� {
ILs=ee=m ) / 0. : //\j §
®
\
�
u of
ILs=ee=m ) / 0. : //\j §
u of
]\[t:
\
-
k
mo
ILs=ee=m ) / 0. : //\j §
\ . . . . . � ,
\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-I- - -L-I- -
\
\ \
�
I -
d
s4s w*c L - \
-
� � (
-
� . . . . . . . . . . � ;
--4 -
�
-�- - -� \
------------------------ �--- - - -'
E/
\\
8.a.36
]\[t:
\
-
k
mo
/
\
(
\
)\
\ . . . . . � ,
\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-I- - -L-I- -
\
\ \
�
I -
d
s4s w*c L - \
-
� � (
-
� . . . . . . . . . . � ;
--4 -
�
-�- - -� \
------------------------ �--- - - -'
E/
\\
8.a.36
k
«
$
ƒ
\
E
IL
\\}\\\\\\\\� /\
()})({§\\\§ k\
\\\\\\\ \\ \ } \
® \ �
8.a.37
]\[t:
2;
!
_ -
\
-
/\\\ \
IL s=ee=m ) /
0. :
§
8.a.37
]\[t:
\
-
k
mo
/
\
(
\
)\
8.a.37
6
/
k
«
$
ƒ
\
E
IL
\\}\\\\\\\\� /\ \\\\\\\
(\}\\\\\\\\ \� = ww'4www /� {
® \ �
t5 0
ILs=ee=m ) / 0. : m E: \ §
(
CL
8.a.38
]\[t:
\
-
k
mo
/
\
(
\
)\
(
CL
8.a.38
k
«
$
ƒ
\
E
IL
\\}\\\\\\\\� /\ \\\\\\\
(\}\\\\\\\\ \� = ww'4www /� {
® \ �
t5 0
ILs=ee=m ) / 0. : m E: \ §
8.a.39
]\[t:
\
-
k
mo
/
\
(
\
)\
8.a.39
k
«
$
ƒ
\
E
IL
\\}\\\\\\\\� /\ \\\\\\\
(\}\\\\\\\\ \� = ww'4www /� {
® \ �
t5 0
ILs=ee=m ) / 0. : m E: \ §
8.8.40
]\[t:
\
-
k
mo
/
\
(
\
)\
8.8.40
k
«
$
ƒ
\
E
IL
\\}\\\\\\\\� /\ \\\\\\\
(\}\\\\\\\\ \� = ww'4www /� {
® \ �
t5 0
ILs=ee=m ) / 0. : m E: \ §
r9
CO
8.a.41
]\[t:
\
-
k
mo
/
\
(
\
)\
r9
CO
8.a.41
k
«
$
ƒ
\
E
IL
\\}\\\\\\\\� /\ \\\\\\\
(\}\\\\\\\\ \� = ww'4www /� {
® \ �
t5 0
ILs=ee=m ) / 0. : m E: \ §
8.a.42
]\[t:
\
-
k
mo
/
\
(
\
)\
8.a.42
MmmmN r n�
H nnnnnui .�-� a?
a
N
d R"i'4MM-
N Rm
� O w
C d V m m e a
tn
Z
8.a.43
_
nm
c01i c°1i c°1i c°1i c°1i a c°1i
nnnnnnn
t9 y y y N y y
u u
an
N y
u `�. o. N
n� Z
y o y
8
o
8
C
�
�
a
m
s
m �
a
3
m
N
No
O
O �
L
N �
d cn
8.a.43
8
8
8
8
�
8
0
— — — — — — — — —
I
LI
8
8
8.a.43
s N zro
-0L E E
Q N
L �_ 3
� � Z
07 �;
L m
H
8.a.44
z
0
U
LU
8.a.45
t
i
y
m
ff
-
E
g�
3
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
�
{I
I{
Ir
o
If
I
i
�i3r��r�mine
aro
aosse
z
0
U
LU
8.a.45
8.a.48
tn
Z
tn
z
a
8.a.49
8.a.50
8.a.51
I)S � -18 .-
-fmyf my
\�,
Resident and owner, Shanley Street
Kitchener, ON N2H SN7
4 April 2018
Kitchener City Counsillors and Mayor
cc: Waterloo Region Record, Kitchener Post, CBC radio Kitchener, neighbours
Dear city councillors and mayor,
I am writing to express my opposition to the planning staffs recommendation for
approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Breithaupt Block
Phase 3. Specifically, I strongly oppose the rezoning of 26, 43, & 47 Wellffigton
Street North out of low-rise residential and into High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor.
I believe that the zoning for these properties should follow the recommendations of
the Parts Central plan, recently approved by council.
I am writing as a neighbour and property owner, but many of my arguments are
drawn from my expertise as Professor in the School of Planning, University of
Waterloo, and my expertise on the economics of residential land markets.
I am opposed to the zone change out of residential for the following reasons:
• I believe the change to a use that is incompatible with low-density residential
will erode the integrity of that part of Wellington as a residential street. The
project introduces a highly incompatible use that affects properties from
three sides, on a corner with three existing heritage homes. These magnified
negative effects will decrease the value of adjacent properties in residential
use.
• At the same time, the rezoning creates a very dangerous precedent, which
will lead to are expectation by owners of other properties on Wellington
between Moore and Waterloo that their Future rezoning applications will he
accepted. This creates incentives for purchase of these priaperties for land
banking, where properties are allowed 'tn deteriorate (as low -quality rentals,
or even empty bre iIdings), lentil the perceived value of conversion is nigh
enuugh to apply for a zone change, We have seen Meow "banked" properties
negatively affect the neighbourhood already (Electrohorne, Sacred Heart
schon], and 18 Guelph street].
• These combined dynamics leave additional residential properties vulnerable
to decay and conversion, In Pac Mair fashion, as neighbouring properties
convert, the contagion of property value decrease and conversion risk
spreads further into the neighbourhood. This effect has been seen in the
Noafidale neighbourhood in Waterloo over the last decade, where
conversion of single-family Domes to strident rentals combined with
construction of very high density residential has lead to the complete
deterioration of a single-family residential neighbourhood.
8.a.52
• These concerns are discussed in detail in the Parts central plan, page 21,
section on "Conservation of Stable Established Neighbuurhoods," This part
of Wellington is identified as part of astable residential neighbourhood. The
PARTS plan notes that the inclusion of the stable residential neighbourhoods
in the plan "recognizes their contribution and importance to the station area
plan and. provides a clear message that these lands are not the Focus for
redevelopment and intensification."
• The plan also highlights the importance of transitioning to protect low-
density residential (p. 34) "Stepping back building mass should be used to
ensure an appropriate built form transition between the higher density
mixed use and the lower density residential."
A block with a complete line of intact zoning, as recommended by PARTS is
much more likely to be stable, as single -family residential homes would only
be negatively impacted on one of their borders (and buffered by the
laneway).
• Page 21 of the PARTS central plan also illustrates the maximum allowable
height for its recommended zoning (14 meters for innovation employment
and low density residential). The maximum heights recommended for
approval exceed these by orders of magnitude.
A different approach is pussiblc for development ill this neighbourhood,
creating different incentives: For example the Zehr's groups Sixo proposal
situates lova-density residential along the stretch of Well €ngton that abuts the
area recommended to !•ernain in residential in the PARTS plan. This planned
low-density residential has provided a signal to the neighbourhood that that
section of Wellington will rema in residential. Since that rezoning, several
large heritage homes along Wellington and Walter have been undergoing
renovation, into high-end multiple apartment rentals, a housing product that
research from my group indicates is scarce in the current market,
• The low-density residential zoning provides space For a housing product that
is highly scarce in the current ma rket. Research from my group shows that
while marry residential developers are planning residential development in
the cure, they are targeting young singles and empty nesters, and not
families. Our renter's survey indicated high demand for medium-sized 3-4
high-quality bedroom rentals, especially for households with children.
Finally, our interviews with Realtors indicate that the short supply of housing
coupled with increasing housing costs has increased demand for mid-sized
purchase options such as townhomes, row houses, and stacked townhomes.
This location is perfect for such kinds of residential development, which are
attractive to range of demographics.
This decision is critical for council, as it occurs at the transition between the Ontario
Municipal Board and the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunals. Under LPAT it will
be much more difficult for a developer to contest a decision that follows a
municipality's codified planning and zoning. It will also be easier for neighbours to
contest decisions under LPAT. However, if Council allows this rezoning, it will set a
precedent that might diminish the ability of the City to make future decisions
8.a.53
consistent with PARTS and other collaborative planning exercises, and for
neighbours to contest decisions that harm the integrity of their historic
neighbourhood.
So far we have seen little explanation of why the planning department has approved
a proposal that has substantial neighbourhood opposition and also contradicts its
own collaborative planning process. Why would the city council approve a
recommended plan, then turn around and almost immediately approve a proposal
that contradicts this plan? And how can the city expect citizens to continue to
participate in collaborative planning efforts, if the results of those efforts are
ignored by Council?
Please vote to oppose the current proposal and to support the planning for these
parcels that is recommended in PARTS.
Thanks very much,
8.a.54
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 5:18 PM
To: Sarah Marsh; Frank Etherington; Scott Davey; Dave Schnider; John Gazzola; Yvonne
Fernandes; Kelly Galloway-Sealock; Paul Singh; Bil Ioannidis; Zyg Janecki; Mayor
Cc: Garett Stevenson; Della Ross; development@mhbpna.org
Subject: Responses to council and planning staff comments from April 9 plus proposed action
items on Breithaupt Block 3 development
Attachments: BB_Phase3_Parker_15April2018.pdf; UW -LRT Realtor Report Final.pdf; UW -Renter Survey
Report Final.pdf
Resident and owner, Shanley Street
Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo
Kitchener, ON N21-1 5N7
16 April 2018
Kitchener City Councillors and Mayor
cc: Planning, Waterloo Region Record, Kitchener Post, CBC radio Kitchener, 570 news, Globe and Mail,
MHBNA development committee
Dear city councillors and mayor,
First, let me express my appreciation to all of you for voting in favour of the proposed greenhouse gas reduction
target. This vote reminds us that we all share similar core values and vision for our community.
I am writing to follow up on arguments offered in the April 91h city council meeting (POINTS) and to propose
relevant action items for Council and planning staff.
POINT 1: Consultation with neighbours occurred that was appropriate and complete.
Planning stuff excluded neighbourhood communication from consideration and communication to
council. It appears that neighbourhood feedback that was offered at the January meeting and received in
writing after that meeting was neither fully considered nor communicated to council. On my end:
8.a.55
• I clearly communicated my opposition to the rezoning of the Wellington street parcels out of residential at the
January 9th meeting. This feedback was completely excluded in all communications and planning.
• Mr. Stevenson received my letter, forwarded here, from March 9th, which again clearly outlined my opposition
to this rezoning and offered a potentially profitable alternative.
+ My letter addressed to both you and Mr. Stevenson on April 4th was also ignored.
Other agency communication, such as from Scott Berry on March 9th, was included in the communication to
council. As neighbours we are now feeling that our feedback goes into a black hole.
PROPOSED ACTION ITEM 1: The process should be revised such that all communications from neighbours
are fully incorporated into planning and communication to council.
POINT 2: Some councillors, as well as planning staff, argued that the density and new zoning as employment -
only was appropriate for this location, as such density would help meet provincial, regional and now local
targets for active transportation access, which would contribute to carbon reduction goals. I offer the following
points in response:
The neighbourhood has also consistently supported higher density development at this location.
In spite of comments to council, based on Mr. Stevenson's staff report to council, both neighbours and Mr.
Stevenson recognize the applicability of the PARTS Central Plan, adopted by council, to this case. All
acknowledge the plan's mandate that "stable residential neighbourhoods ... are ...not the primary focus for
intensification." (Page 2-10,11,19)
However, we have substantive disagreement regarding whether the proposed plan protects the stable
neighbourhood. I argue that it does not.
Council may not be aware that the proposed bylaw change specifically excludes any residential use at the
property now or in future. (page 2-13)
Special Use Provision 465U prohibits certain non -employment commercial and residential uses that are more
appropriate for a mixed use corridor, providing further direction for innovation employment type uses. Prohibited
uses include Commercial Entertainment, Conference or Convention Facility, Duplex Dwelling, Dwelling Unit,
Home Business, Hospice, Hotel, Lodging House, Multiple Dwelling, Museum, Private Clubor Lodge, Religious
Institution, Residential Care Facility, Single
Detached Dwelling, Street Townhouse Dwelling, and Tourist Home.
In contrast, the "Innovation Employment" zoning proposed in PARTs says "In order to provide a transition
between low-density residential land -use designation and and Mixed-use and Innovation land designations,
residential uses may be permitted on some lands, where it can be demonstrated that the residential use is
compatible with the innovation uses" (page 24).
Why were residential land uses specifically prohibited on this parcel?
• The proposed zoning would prevent, for instance, Google from building accessible on-site housing for
employees with mobility issues, or short-term housing for visiting scholars.
8.a.56
If Perimeter group ends up selling this parcel and not developing it as planned, this highly restrictive zoning
would reduce the flexibility, and therefore potential profitability, for another developer, potentially delaying
redevelopment.
A mixed-use designation, including residential, would allow development of this parcel at a higher effective
density without a height increase, as it would allow further reductions in parking. This would offer the best
contributions to carbon reduction.
• As I argued in my letter of March 9th, while 1-2 bedroom condos are not scarce, 3+ bedroom units are. This
action removes land that would be ideal for, and highly profitable in, family -sized residential units and changes
those lands to employment -only use. Families also deserve the opportunity to live in the CTC and use the
transit system, rather than being banished to the suburbs. We do not need a more volatile residential housing
market.
PROPOSED ACTION ITEM 2: Special Provision 465U be amended not to exclude residential uses on this
property.
The neighbourhood feels that the proposed tower is too high. It is over 4 times the height of the PARTs
recommended zoning and Breithaupt blocks 1 and 2. Therefore:
PROPOSED ACTION ITEM 3: 717R (b) be amended such that the height of the office tower be decreased to
48 metres, without increasing height and massing elsewhere on the property. This height would allow the same
number of floor/total floor space, if floors were built at the standard 4 metre height. There would be no loss of
useable employment space. If engineering studies supported moving more parking below ground, more
opportunities to increase useable space could be found.
PROPOSED ACTION ITEM 4: Maximum height of the Perimeter Class A office space building at 345 King
be increased by 15 metres in compensation.
(It is puzzling to the neighbourhood why the building on King Street is only 6 stories, whereas one in the
middle of a residential neighbourhood is 12-+).
POINT 3: Comments and questions by Council seemed to portray neighbours as NIMBYists who lacked a
unified vision. This is absolutely not the case. As a neighbourhood, we support positive intensification efforts.
• SIXO has not faced the same opposition. While it is impossible to compare total numbers as we don't have
them for this development, staff report that after the first SIXO public meeting, they received 5 requests for
clarification, 2 in support, and 2 in opposition. In my view, SIXO is a better -designed project, with low-rise
residential abutting residential, attractive and useable planned public space, attention to accessibility, and towers
set back from the neighbourhood.
From the staff report to council, counting both positive and negative comments, there were 6 supportive
comments and 16 in opposition before the Jan. meeting. We also submitted 136 signatures of neighbours in the
4-5 blocks surrounding the development against 13133. We are opposed to this development, not to
development.
We know the McDonald's property is zoned for high-rise development. That parcel is a block further away
from the residential, and a block makes a large difference for shadowing. However in consideration of this
good point:
8.a.57
PROPOSED ACTION ITEM 5: Both shadowing and traffic studies for this development should be re -done,
taking into considering all pending height and traffic impacts from other planned development adjacent to King
from Victoria to Agnes.
Many reassurances were made that further concerns raised by neighbours, such as wind, noise, landscaping, and
setback for the parking garage would be resolved at site plan time. We are not confident this will occur. Thus:
PROPOSED ACTION ITEM 6: A minimum setback established by the intersection of a 45 degree line from
the rear/side property line of the adjacent resident residential properties to the maximum height of the parking
structure be imposed.
The current setback appears to be zero from the laneway border. We need only look to Midtown Lofts to see the
negative effects of no setback from a laneway.
r� A deeper setback would leave room for mature hardwood trees in the setback's landscaping. These would
contribute to carbon reduction.
The setback would preserve the opportunity for these residential landowners to develop their properties at
comparable density in future.
PROPOSED ACTION ITEM 7: Neighbours should be engaged in substantive, good faith consultation at the
site planning stage to address issues related to public space design, landscaping, wind, noise, and light
pollution.
I will likely not be able to attend Monday night's council meeting, but I would welcome any other opportunity
to speak with you further about these issues.
Thank you,
Dawn Parker
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Subject: Recent research of interest, plus suggestions for the Moore and Wellington parcel
Date: March 9, 2018 at 3:55:01 PM EST
To: cbeattie&perimeterdevelopment.com
Cc: sarah.marsh a,kitchener.ca, Garett.Stevenson(a,kitchener.ca
Hello Craig,
8.a.58
I thought that you might be interested in recent research from my group related to rental housing markets and
realtor perceptions. We also did a survey of residential developers in fall 2015, and I'm including a link to that
research.
I have an alternative suggestion for the North part of the parcel at Moore and Wellington (the section currently
zoned residential). As I'm sure you are aware, there is substantial concern about the proposed change of zoning
for this parcel to accommodate office space. As someone who bought a house nearby, understanding the
planned location of the intensification "yellow line," at that time, I'm really concerned. Before I elaborate on
my reasons for that concern, I'd like to offer an alternative, that I think could be quite profitable and again
identify you as a leader and innovator in the local land development community.
I suggest that the part of the parcel that is residential stay in that use, with a medium density residential
designation, perhaps with a possibility for height bonusing in return for additional massing and/or accessible or
other supportive housing units. This development could be connected to the office building behind it—
essentially, the front 1/3 or so of the building would be residential, and the rest commercial. (This would also
resolve issue with the loading dock location, as a residential building would not need loading dock service.)
What I envision is high-end, executive units for most of the development, with a substantial proportion of the
units being 3-4 bedrooms and 1 1/2-3 baths. This is a product almost completely absent in the downtown
market, and I have not heard of a similar development in the works. The units could be an amenity offered by
the employer to attract and retain high-profile employees, as a way especially to assist relocating employees
who have concerns about visas, foreign buyer taxes, or simply would like to get to know the area before buying
a home. The location would leave them close to work, but also living in a (currently) lively and welcoming
heritage neighbourhood, close to schools, shopping, and transit.
The strong message we are getting in all of our research is that there is a real scarcity of family -friendly
housing, both rental and sales, in the core, especially in the mid-size, non -detached market. The interviews that
we did with developers a couple of years back showed that few or none considered families to be their target
market in the CTC. What we seem to be seeing now is a profusion of 1-2 bedroom condos in the CTC (perhaps
to the point of being in danger of overbuild), but not the family -friendly units in the CTC—which the
demographics of the area indicate are really desired. Our research also shows that, on the rental side, people are
willing to pay more rent for units that are 3 bedroom and contain some private open space or access to high
quality public open space.
Our research also shows (from 2016) a rental premium of about 7.5% in the CTC, as well as a sales premium of
34% for properties that border permanent open space.
For the development that I envision on your property, I think the premium would be much higher, as the park
space on the North side of the parcel would provide rare frontage on park space in this neighbourhood. I can
also envision a design of tiered units, perhaps in some sort of courtyard design, that would take full advantage
of exposure to the park land, plus allow for private balconies and deck areas. (If it were me, I would also mirror
the classic 1930s design of the brick apartments with deep, private balconies or perhaps the iconic art deco
apartments on Margaret ave.)
Ground floor units could be accessible/visitable, providing a really attractive living option for Google or other
employees with mobility issues, or providing an in-law suite for aging parents.
It goes without saying, as well, that if you were to provide some sort of affordable/inclusive housing as part of
the development, the neighbourhood would be likely to view it more favourably, as this is a very high priority
for this neighbourhood.
8.a.59
You mentioned that you didn't feel a development only on the back half of the parcel would be a large enough
scale to attract the sort of tenant you hoped to market to. Again I suggest that you try to also acquire the
McDonalds parcel. This could be developed with an over -road overpass to the commercial part of the Moore
building, and perhaps another overpass to Google. That would also solve what is now a serious accessibility
problem related to getting to the Google building from the new LRT stop. The grade is very steep and the
turning angle also very acute. However, people with mobility issues could enter the McDonald's building, take
an elevator up and cross over, and then exit the Moore building pretty much at grade to enter the current Google
campus. (tach Zehr's group is putting a lot of thought into how to deal with accessibility issues with Sixo,
which is what brought the issue to mind for me.)
If the zoning is changed for the parcel and the office building constructed, it is predictable what will
happen. First, in the immediate area, in Pac-man style, the existing residential properties will become much less
pleasant to live in,and much less valuable. In all likelihood they will then be acquired by investors (who having
seen one erosion of zoning will expect another to be allowed in future). These properties will be rented out for
short-term income, but not maintained, as there is an expectation that they will be converted once there
development value is high enough. The result will be that the heritage neighbourhood that is now so elegantly
reflected from the Google extension will no longer be there. People working in these buildings will also be less
likely to live in the neighbourhood, as they see it deteriorating. Therefore the value of your building as an
employment location will also erode.
Heritage -character neighbourhoods like our are irreplaceable. We are happy to have the current Perimeter
development in our neighbourhood, as it has increased the attractiveness of our neighbourhood and revitalized
under -used heritage buildings. However, the success of this development does not justify the sacrifice of what
remains of our neighbourhood. The city has done very careful planning, very recently, to establish the
residential land use boundary. I'm offering a solution that would allow that to be maintained, while also
allowing you to bring a unique product to the market, which would continue to position you as a leading
innovative development, serving the needs of global companies, in the Region.
I would be happy to have a coffee some time to discuss more.
Thanks a lot,
Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo
http://research.wici. ca/ugc/
Resident, Shanley Street, Kitchener
Developer survey:
http://hdl.handle.net/I0012/11163
8.a.60
UNIVERSITY OF URBAN
(7
'W
ATERLOO !GROWTH
& CHANGE
RESEARCH
9� GROUP
Investigating realtor perspectives on the impact of the
ION LRT on the real estate market in the Region of
Waterloo
Justin Cook Oacook(a%uwaterloo.ca ), Dr. Jennifer Dean (iez�nifer.dean uwaterloo.ca ), and Dr.
Dawn Parker (dcpaxker(a�uwaterloo.ca)
Executive summary
Researchers at the University of Waterlog s,�huol of planing Ijustin C: le, a master's studa"nt,
Supervised by Professor Jetwifcr Dean, overseen by Professor Dawn Parker) undertook in
investi 60a into the perccptions of realtcars tegardingr the impacts of the IMV Light Rail Transit
(LRT) on chc real estate market in the Region of Waterloo. This qualitative research aimcLl to
develop a deeper understanding of how thL implemmtat mi of the LRT and changes in the
central tmm;ir corridor (CTC) were afEerdng the real estate market in the Region of Waterloo.
Real estate agaernts were identified and invited to participate in focus groups and interviews as key
informants using a ptnrf osefid sampling technique, which sought to include theinsights of
Realtors €torn a diversity of cheat base, locaticir� mrd brokerage affiliation, The qualitative.
methods employed in this study arse intcnded to complcment several of the quantitative research
projects being roaducted by the Urban Growth & Change ReseaLch Group. The findings ,of ".q
research will ultimately benefit the Region and th(.- rese ch community by providing an
imderstatnding of the nature of the relationship between changes in built foam, deznograph -5
and lard value in the Region.
A total of 25 agents participated in focus groups, and 5 agents participated in interviews to date;
with data collection on going. There was a broad range of experience among the participant real
estate agents, which included agents with 2 pears of experience to agents with 33 years of
experience. All the real estate agents who participated in the study were active as agents or
brokers in the Region of Waterloo. While severaI agents mentioned also warldng in nearby
municipalities, most focused on the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo, and the
surrounding townships. Agents were recruited as key infc rraa,nts to share the perspectives of
their clients but in a few cases where appropriate, they shared their own perspectives as buyers,
sellers and investors.
ne. data derived from the Realtor's perceptions indicated that the implemrnt€ttion of the LRT
and the clevclopr hent of the CTC were in flucncing cliatngc -within the R{-givn's real estate market
in several ways. The real estate agents grencrally View ed ncc LRT as positive for existing re.,iidmts,
While also helping K,1tchener-%Water100 gain status as a "world class" city. Of tncte, the
development of the CTC Was seen as attracting 2. wide range ofinvestars, who s�tw the LRT as a
key piece of isnfrastructure that vwoWd fiLttlzer develop on the success of the'%Cch hubs" and
intensify desirable lifestyle ame dties:. '1'he LRT was also discussed as shifting the perceptions of
the Region as it was described as acting as a symbol of a "world class city". Lastly, while the
Realtors described long term residents as becoming more favourable of the LRT, they raised
concerns that suitable housing was not available for aging populations, who were seeking
opportunities to downsize and would benefit from the CTC developments.
519-888-4567 1 uwaterloo.ca 1 200 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, WATERLOO, ON, CANADA NZL 3G1
8.a.61
Findings
Encouraging Real Estate Investment
The LRT was perceived by participants as reshaping real estate investment decisions within the
Region. Residents from the Region and individuals from outside of the Region were described as
interested in the LRT as it represented an investment opportunity in a growing but relatively
affordable housing market (in comparison to Toronto or Vancouver). The land value uplift that
has occurred in many cities throughout the world as a result of rapid transit infrastructure
implementation was referenced by Realtors as a primary driver of investors' purchasing
decisions. Access to the LRT was seen as a central concern for investors, as proximity to the
LRT was understood as being a key predictor of future property value. The LRT development
was seen as a driving international .investment in the Region; however, this represented a small
subset of iovestors. Instead, local residents and Toronto residents were discussed as being the
major drivers of investment in the CTC. Local investors were described as seeing the potential
value of property in the CTC, but not wanting to live there themselves, leading them to often
purchase second homes within the CTC as investments. Toronto investors were, on the other
hand, described as being interested in residing in the CTC, but often not until a later time when
they would be able to transition their life there from Toronto, or when regional transit
connections between the Region and Toronto were more consistently available.
'We're seeing investment, local people that are buying in uptown, or downtown just for investment
purposes. I think the families, the 30 plus demographic, that are now looking for more investment
opportunities, they realise [the CTCJ is something they can grasp and they reali.Ze that's an up and
coming area. "
Influence on Development
The LRT was described as "transformational" by participants, who saw it as a key piece of
infrastructure contributing towards the larger process of revitalization occurring throughout the
Region. The growth of the Region as a "Tech Hub" was seen as a long-term project, with the
universities and innovation districts serving as central features to attract corporate offices and
high-tech employers. Realtors felt that developing the tech hubs in the CTC was more
advantageous than previous efforts, such as RIM Park, because of the centralization and rapid
commercial growth in the CTC that drew in prospective residents who would be moving into
the Region for job opportunities. The LRT implementation was seen as enhancing the success of
the Cities and Region in creating a desirable place for businesses to operate and people to reside.
Several participants described how the clients who were interested in living near the LRT were
often employed in the innovation districts.
`The LRT line is just unbelievable. There is great demand, near the hub there at Victoria and King,
whereyou have the school of medicine, school of pharmacy, Google, Communitech, D2L, and new office
of Deloitte. That is really a hot area. "
Regional Image
Realtors perceived the transformations occurring within the Region as positively enhancing the
area's image as "world class". The LRT was a key symbol of the Region's progressiveness,
likened by agents to other global cities such as Toronto, London, Calcutta and Hong Kong.
8.a.62
Agents shared a common perception that the Region's focus on developing a strong technology
hub served to enhance its status as "the Silicon Valley of the north", and helped attract young
professionals and foreign professionals. The development of the "world class city" identity was
discussed as differing from long term residents' urban identities, who were seen as more car
centric and focused on single family home life. While these differing perspectives were raised as
concern towards acknowledging existing communities throughout the development processes,
the opportunities afforded to residents by the development of the CTC were understood overall
as positive for the Region.
"Waterloo is a bubble... a city unto its own; as was Toronto in 1976 when Quebecois went into power,
as was Vancouver when Hong Kong wasgoing back to Chinese rule, as was Calgary and Edmonton in
the 70s and 80s when oil and gas exploration became an option. And I think Waterloo is next. I
believe that we're the next power center. "
Lifestyle Choice
People who relocated into the CTC were attracted to the lifestyle opportunities that were made
possible by the centralization of services and amenities. Agents stated that young professionals
in the technology and education sectors were most commonly driven by the appeal of an urban
lifestyle. Specifically, the walkability of the CTC played a significant role, as amenities and
services were available in close proximity to employment and housing. Further, the increasing
development in the CTC was considered to provide access to many of the services and cultural
amenities that these professionals were used to having in other cities, such as Toronto or
Vancouver, resulting in the Region increasing its competitiveness in attracting these
professionals.
" fThe younger generation] are looking at l festyle first, and they're looking at living quarters as just
that; where they go home and sleep at night... With the KT you can expand on that, because that's
going to have a huge play in this overall weight of their thinking... With each station there will be a lot
Of condos starling to pop up, just like Toronto, just like the Young and Shephard line. "
"The people coming from Toronto, or other big cities are a lot more open to, or interested in the idea of
proximity to public transit. "
`People are becoming eco -sensitive. If you go back ten years ago the idea was more garage the better.. .
not such a priority anymore. Some condos in the CTC are offering one parking spot for their larger
units instead of two or three, and that seems acceptable. More electric vehicles, LRT goes along with
that. People are really buying into that lifestyle. "
Aging Population Needs/Wants
Aging populations were discussed by Realtors as a population who were expressing interest in
and could benefit from the intensification in the CTC. Like young professionals, the increased
access to services within walking distance coupled with the lifestyle and amenities offered in
condominiums, was discussed as desirable for older adults looking to downsize. However,
realtors shared that the existing housing stock in the CTC were largely unappealing to older
adults because they were seen as too small (e.g., single -bedroom condos) or two costly (e.g., in
some cases equivalent to the price of a single -detached home). This provided little incentive for
older adults to downsize, which according to some realtors, contributes to a reduced stock of
8.a.63
desirable single -detached homes outside the CTC, which was perceived as a contributing to an
upward pressure on home prices and unaffordability in the Region.
`Mgybe if condos were larger, but to move from a 2,500 square foot [home] to an 800 square foot
condo is a big culture shock. [Aging populations] want that evolution ofgoing to a 1,500 square foot
bungalow, and then maybe a condo. "
`even some of the older demographics, I think they are really looking forward to [LRT]. Thy are
definitely buying to be close to it, not right on it but somewhat close to it, within a block or two. So it
will be really good. I think it will impact [the Region] in a positive may. "
Local Perceptions of the LRT
According to realtors, long-term residents' perceptions of the LRT were shifting from negative
to positive. Construction was a central concern for local residents but was diminishing as major
portions of the construction were completed. Long-term residents living outside the CTC were
reported as unlikely to use the LRT as a means of transportation with the exception of students
(both high school and university).
'What I'm getting from my clients, not all of my clients, but... the people who were born and grew up
here are just not getting [the LRT] because they're North American; the car rules, they have families,
and th y're nevergoing to use it. "
Many participants compared the negative reactions to the LRT as being similar to those
expressed in reaction to the development of the expressway (Conestoga Parkway), which is now
viewed as an essential piece of infrastructure for the Region. These comparisons showed how
Realtors perceived the LRT as a long-term investment in the Region, the success of which would
become more apparent over time as residents became more reliant upon it.
`The expressway system was the forbearer to what we have now and [the LRT] is just another
inclination that the Cities will survive because of the intuitiveness to get this project moving. "
'Well when they started building the expressway in 1965, it wasn't being built for the drivers of 1965
it was for the drivers of 1975 and 1980. And the LRT isn't being provided for anyone in this room. "
Connecting the Region
The LRT was described by many participants as a piece of infrastructure that would help to
connect the Region of Waterloo with the larger southern Ontario region. Specifically, the LRT
was appealing to a new market of residents who could now easily access GO train services that
would connected them to Toronto. Combined with the relatively lower housing prices in the
Region, the ability of the IRT to connect residents in KW to their employment in Toronto was
discussed as a major factor influencing the influx of newcomers to the Region.
`7n a real estate perspective, all the condos, the Google building... the Zehrgroup building those are
only there because of the LRT. Thy're looking at it as it's not just a north and south train, it's
connection to Barrie, Hamilton, Niagara. All these places are going to have LRT that lead to these fast
trains that all spine into Toronto. That's what [people are] investing on. "
8.a.64
Within the Region, the LRT was seen as helping to bring together Kitchener and Waterloo as a
more seamless urban environment and diminish the perceived socio-economic differences that
exist(ed) between the cities. The implementation of the second phase of the ION into
Cambridge was described as an important next step to tie the Region together as a unified
whole.
"These cities are so close together, the LRTJ will unite the cities: The tri -cities will become one, it mill
be great. "
Conclusion
The findings of this research show how the implementation of the LRT is resulting is dramatic
changes throughout the Region's real estate market. The intensification of the "Tech Hubs"
associated with the development of the CTC is helping to attract employers, real estate investors,
and newcomer residents. By ensuring that the development of the CTC is guided by planning
policy that is responsive to the needs of long term residents, most notably the aging population
of the Region, there is strong reason to believe that the LRT will be celebrated long into the
future.
The continuation of this research project will seek to further uncover how the development of
the CTC is affecting residents' relationship with housing, and how LRT access and investment
considerations are affecting home choice decisions. The data will also be used to build upon
and/or substantiate the findings of several of the other studies being conducted in the Urban
Growth and Change Research Group, including the recent renters' survey, the forthcoming
buyers/sellers survey, and previous work done oto developer perceptions and hedonic modeling.
funding support from SSERCgrant # 890-2013-0034 isgratefully acknowledged.
8.a.65
UNIVERSITY OF
WATERLOO
URBAN
GROWTH
h & CHANGE
RESEARCH
GROUP
Results of 2016 rental housing survey released by the
Urban Growth and Change research group at the
University of Waterloo
Dr. Dawn Parker (dcparker jjsw, erloQ.ca) and Xinyue Pi, MES (xi e.pi@ILu terloo.ca)
Executive summary
Xinyue Pi's thesis "Exploring Rental Housing Markets in Kitchener -Waterloo, Ontario" is now
published and available for download at https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handleZI0012/12431 .
Xinyue Pi completed her Master's in Environmental Studies in the School of Planning under the
supervision of Professor Dawn Cassandra Parker. Dr. Xiongbing Jin served as committee
member and Professor Kevin Curtis as external reader. From June to November 2016, we
mailed invitations to a random sample of 2912 households renting in Kitchener and Waterloo
to participate in a survey on residential location choice, renting experience and behaviours and
perceptions towards the upcoming LRT, after which a total of 290 survey responses were
analyzed. After a descriptive statistical analysis of the survey results, a multivariate hedonic
statistical model was also developed to investigate the relationship between rental housing prices
and corresponding household, :residential, neighbourhood and behaviour characteristics. Such
models statistically distill the independent influences of renter household, dwelling, and
neighbourhood characteristics on rent. Chapter 8 of the thesis summarizes the main findings
and discusses policy implications. We highlight some of the most interesting results of our study
here.
The first lesson is that K -W renters are a diverse group. Our survey identified three cohorts,
which have diverse and unique rental needs and preferences:
Families with children are a target market for medium -low density dwellings, having a
strong preference towards single -detached houses with a small to medium yard. These
families both were more likely to live in single detached rentals, and also more likely to
consider single detached homes as ideal. Further, their ideal housing size and number of
bedrooms is higher than other groups. They prioritize school quality and accessibility to
school in their location choices.
Retired households currently, in the rental market could be considered a target market
for high-density dwellings. Most retired households survey respondents were living in
apartment buildings at the time of the study. Generally, they prefer apartments to
houses, and a patio, deck or balcony iastead of a yard. (It is important to note that our
other research identifies demand for ground floor units with some private open space
for downsizers looking to buy rather than rent.) Important as rental price is, retired
households are more concerned with residential characteristics such as central air
conditioning, availability of parking and ease of maintenance. Ease of walking and
minimal traffic noise are also regarded as important by responding seniors. Most senior
households consider accessibility to retail and services, open space, urban center and
distance to family/friends as important in their location choice decision.
519-888-4567 1 uwaterloo.ca 1200 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, WATERLOO, ON, CANADA N2L 3G1
8.a.66
Most student households are aged 18-24 and living with a group of roommates. Similar
to senior households, students are a target market for high-density dwellings as well.
They generally prefer apartments to houses. They also prefer a patio, deck or balcony
and small yard. While most 5 -bedroom residences in the survey are occupied by
students, student households generally prefer 2 -bedroom and 3 -bedroom residences.
Students find ease of walking, school quality, accessibility to school and accessibility to
bus stops very important. Student's high valuation of accessibility to transit and school is
reflected in the concentration of student renters in the "Columbia/Lakeshore
Neighbourhood", close to where two universities are located. Different from, any other
resident group, students are more frequent movers, and they account for most surveyed
subtenants.
Different household types are paying differential rents. Our survey data allowed us to
add household characteristics to our hedonic statistical models. Results showed that
families without children paid the highest rents, followed by households of roommates,
one-person households, and households with children. Student households pay the
highest rent, followed by employed households, retired households and unemployed
households.
Some interesting results were seen across all rental groups:
• .Affordability and safety were stated as important by all rental groups.
• In spite of the stated importance of affordability, many respondents reported that their
ideal rent was higher than the rent they currently paid—across income levels. These
renters generally desired larger units with more access to open space.
• There was demand for 3-4 bedroom units across all demographic groups.
• Renters did not express a strong preference to be surrounded by people like themselves
in terms of income, education, or ethnicity. These results bode well for development of
diverse communities.
• Most renters expressed neutral views towards the pending LRT—although many
planned to use it, with the most frequently stated planned use being "social activities."
• There is a good proportion of renters who rent for convenience and flexibility and prefer
just a balcony or no open space. In general, preferences for private open space are less
for renters than we found in an earlier survey of owners of single-family detached
homes.
Interestingly, the vast majority of renters in our survey aspire to be homeowners in
future, indicating increasing internal pressure on the housing market. Note this survey
was 2016. We know that pressure is likely much higher now due to the inflation in the
local real estate market. Many people who had hoped/expected to be able to buy a
home in this last year find themselves still renting.
8.a.67
Further results related rents follow expectations:
* Higher numbers of bedrooms and number of bathrooms are associated with higher
rental prices.
A high-.dse apartment is the most expensive to rent, followed by houses (single detached
to row houses) and low-rise apartments.
Rents were higher in the CTC by more than 7%, controlling for all other factors.
It is important to note that the rents reported in this survey are likely considerably lower
than current rents, as realtors report substantial rental price appreciation in the last year.
Collectively, these results indicate that a "one size fits all" approach to rental housing may not be
appropriate. They also suggest that there may be unmet market needs for renters—in particular,
rental offerings in the "missing middle," that provide affordable, family friendly rental units of
sufficient size with access to open space. Many renters may be willing to pay a premium for
these offerings. For those renters, nud-density town homes or row houses near the core may be
highly attractive. However, other renting families may be better served by more affordable mid -
density housing outside the core, provided the options still have good access to services and
schools.
Students, retirees, and working couples may all want high quality apartments ---but the locations
and amenities sought by these groups are different. For example, access to transit is currently
critical for students, but less of a priority for seniors. Affordability concerns also differ between
these groups.
What do we consider to be some of the policy/planning implications of our research?
While still striving to protect heritage assets and existing residential neighbourhoods,
consideration should be given to identifying opportunities to revise existing policies and
zoning to increase the availability of mid-sized rental units (around 1500 square feet)
with some access to high-quality open space. These opportunities could come in many
forms—from facilitating more high quality duplex/income units, to finding
opportunities to repurpose under-utilized land in the core areas for medium density
housing, such as stacked town homes with common open space. Inspired examples of
these housing forms already exist, inside and outside the core areas.
If data could be compiled, it would be useful to examine the size and number of
bedrooms of units currently in production. Given our research, it seems that smaller 1-2
bedroom units with little or no private open space may be currently oversupplied,
relative to larger units with good open space access. It may also be worth investigating
opportunities to transform some currently oversupplied housing types to those more in
market demand.
• Beyond policy, high quality information generally improves the functioning of markets
and allows adaptation to the forces of supply and demand. Our research is publically
funded and is conducted in consultation with government and industry partners. We
hope that the information we provide will help contribute to a well-functioning rental
market.
The new LRT will certainly improve the quality of transit experience for those living in
the central transit corridor. However, newly implemented and planned express bus
services routes are also increasing accessibility and quality of transit experience outside
the core. The survey results support current efforts to develop higher-desnity mixed-use
nodes outside of the CTC. We believe that rental markets should look toward these
opportunities to balance affordability with demand for larger units,
In Professor Parker's view, although the research illustrates that many renters would
ideally prefer to live in single detached housing, the results do not justify opening new
lands for development. Separate studies by other authors show there remains sufficient
buildable land, and the costs of further sprawl—high infrastructure costs, traffic
congestions, and loss of agricultural land and ecosystem services—in her view far
outweigh the benefits of new low-density housing.
It is important to note that our survey respondents had higher levels of education than
average. "Less than high school" and "high school only" are underrepresented. This likely
means that our survey does not reflect needs of the lowest -income renters. We know that our
cities face a substantive rental housing affordability problem—but we direct the reader to other
experts and studies to best shed light onto those issues.
Funding supportfrom SSHRCgrants # 490-2011-1340 and # 890-2013-0034 isgratefully acknowledged.
8.a.69
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 12:27 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: Breithaupt block
Hey Garett, I'm just writing you in support of the proposed building beside Google. We need to intensify
downtown and save our farmland. I say build up!
36 Blucher St
8.a.70
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:15 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: Re: questions arising from Monday night meeting
Garrett,
I'm very disappointed that 13133 is so very diffferent than what is included in PARTS after extensive public
consultation. I wish that a smaller building had been negotiated.
I recognize that it is now too late and so will not be getting active on this issue. So don't bother answering my
questions.
I do hope though that in the future PARTS plans can be more influential even before they become official.
Sincerely,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 3:39 AM,
wrote:
rrett,
I attended Monday night's meeting to listen and learn.
I've since read the report and I have some questions. I don't believe they are clearly answered in the report at least for a
non planner. If they are, you could point me to that portion of the report.
1) What does the currently applicable zoning in place for the site allow to be built there? Especially in relation to height
and FSR.
2) Why recommend the High Density Mixed Use? Why is that better than the Innovation Employment that is in PARTS
Central? Or the Innovation District which covers the rest of the Breithaupt Block development? Or even a lower density
mixed use designation?
8.a.71
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 6:14 PM
To: Garett Stevenson; Sarah Marsh; Mayor; Scott Davey; Dave Schnider; John Gazzola;
Yvonne Fernandes; Kelly Galloway-Sealock; Paul Singh; Bil Ioannidis; Zyg Janecki; Frank
Etherington
Subject: Breithaupt Block Development
Hello Councillors and Mr Stevenson,
My name is . and I live in Kitchener's Midtown, a few blocks from this development. I am
writing this email to voice my concerns regarding this development.
I My understanding of the PARTS planning process was to help guide council in situations such as this. To help
integrate development along the transit corridor for residential areas. My frustration comes from seeing council
completely disregard it. What's the point in developing a process, spending time, money, and effort on it, if a guideline
isn't going to be used.
2. The City put a planner on this project to work with the developer to create a plan that would fit with the look and
feel of the current neighborhood. The point would also be to transition to residential use.... The tower is 4x the height of
the max in the PARTS plan. How could that possibly be in the spirit of the PARTS plan? When you spend enough time
working on something you will become biased about it. I believe that for Mr. Stevenson to even provide an opinion on
this matter is actually a conflict of interest because he has a vested interest in seeing this development move
forward. Moving forward it is my opinion that you should refrain from asking his opinion about its conformance to the
PARTS plan because it is biased.
3. As far as i could tell, there has been absolutely no consideration to traffic planning. The streets surrounding
this development can barely handle the current traffic load... this proposal combined with the development planned for
the ODC land parcel will substantially increase the volume of traffic. Frustrated drivers trying to use the main arteries
around the development will seek the path of least resistance - which would be the smaller roads. These smaller roads
are home to hundreds of young children who play throughout this neighborhood, street hockey, easter egg hunts,
cycling etc. This will pose a significant hazard and threat to their safety.
Our Councillor has declared a conflict of interest. This puts our ward at a great disadvantage because we no
longer have a voice on council. No one to advocate for us. At minimum we should be appointed someone in the
interim that can advocate for us and that receives the same voting authority as our Councillor would have. Without this
consideration, I believe that the process is not democratic or fair.
5. As has been repeatedly voiced, the residents of this neighborhood are not opposed to development, but they
want a development that makes sense for this neighborhood. One that transitions in use, and one that the people can
be proud of. Instead of listening or even hearing our voices, council has turned away, and turned their back on their
constituents. I am disheartened by this process. This is not the way to build civic engagement.
In closing, my only remaining belief is that Council is blinded by the revenue and the prestige of catering to Google. I believe you are selling
out the people who live and work in midtown for people you don't even serve.
Thank vou.
43 Delisle Ave, Kitchener, ON
8.a.72
April 16, 2018
Resident, Owner in Mount Hope
Waterloo Street, Kitchener N2H 3V9
Mayor Vrbanovic and Kitchener City Councillors
200 King Street West, Kitchener, ON
cc. Garett Stevenson, Mount Hope neighbours
Dear Mayor Vrbanovic and Councillors.
I am writing this letter in response to the Breithaupt Block Phase Three (13133) decision
taken at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting on April 9, 2018. 1 will attend
tonight at the April 16 2018 Council meeting to present this delegation in person. The
comments expressed in this letter are based on a great deal of discussion and communication
with neighbours over the past week.
I want to express my deep concern about the community engagement process we have
experienced as neighbours over the past 7 months, which has highlighted some areas for
improvement. Residents feel they were not heard and, as such, I recommend that Council
direct Staff to conduct a full review of the BB3 engagement process, with respect to its own
Community Engagement Framework. I recommend this review be conducted by a small group
including staff, 3-4 residents and 1-2 Councillors.
Mr. Stevenson's staff report from April 9, p2-19 indicates that residents were engaged via the
"Inform" and "Consult" levels of the City's own Community Engagement Framework. The third
and fourth levels, as you know, are "Collaborate" and "Entrust". We identified some very
specific challenges within each of the areas of Inform and Consult.
Inform = "We will keep you informed by providing information that is timely, accurate,
balanced, easily understood and accessible."
1. Information that is timely
Yes, people received advance notice of meetings in October 2017 and January 2018.
However, we simply need more time. New developments are a steep learning curve
for many residents. It's a slow and tedious process that involves reading 100s of pages
of documents, summarizing for other neighbours so that we can ask questions of
clarification and so that we can share it through neighbourhood blogs and emails. It
involves knocking on doors and dropping flyers in mailboxes. It involves fact -checking
and conversations with staff & Councillors to interpret and re -interpret proposals and
feedback. As projects change, it involves circling back to re-engage all of the same
people to discuss changes, implications and impacts. We even use our neighbourhood
8.a.73
chalkboards (funded by a Love my Hood neighbourhood matching grant!) to publicize
meetings and consultations. (they are very effective, by the way). It involves endless
emails and gatherings of small and large groups to decided what, if any action people
would like to take. This is messy work and it's never a linear process. A seven-month
engagement period might seem 'long' to the developer but it is lightning speed to
residents. As a result, neighbourhood responses may look uncoordinated or lacking in
consistency, which is certainly not the intention.
2. Information is easily understood and accessible.
Planning and development processes are complicated. However, we need plain
language documentation of proposals and plain language presentations during
neighbourhood meetings with planners and the developers.
Documents for this project were not easily accessible. They were in multiple places on
the website, sometimes buried in agendas and minutes, sometimes only found via a link
provided in an email from staff. The recent Staff Report associated with 13133 was
released in a time frame that left residents with very little time to read, get clarification,
discuss and formulate responses. No one knew it was available to residents until shortly
before the April 9 Committee meeting.
In addition, two 2 -hour public meetings are woefully insufficient on a project of this
significant.
3. Information is accurate. Information is balanced.
If by accurate, you mean technical, then yes, accuracy in spades! Lets' keep the accuracy
and find some more room for plain language. There are great examples to learn from in
other municipalities.
Residents do not feel the Staff Report provided a balance or complete reflection of
resident comments and feedback from the two neighbourhood/public meetings. See
below re: Consult.
Consult = "We will inform you, listen to you, acknowledge your concerns, and provide feedback
on how public input influenced the decision."
1. Residents do not feel heard.
As evidenced by the fact that some residents do not see their comments or emails
included in the Staff Report. There is a selection of resident comments sheets from the
October Neighbourhood Meeting included in the report, along with Department and
Agency comments. However, some residents do not see theirs included. How many
were not included? Who decides what gets included and what doesn't? Are emails to
Councillors included or only the comment sheets?
As for the January Public Meeting, the Staff Report states "Responses and comments
identified during that meeting were largely considered in a revised proposal."
8.a.74
The Staff Report does not indicate any stats on attendance at public meetings or the
volume of feedback. We have no way of knowing, did Councillors ever see the full
complement of resident feedback? What if there had been 400 individual pieces of
feedback about this particular development proposal; how would Councillors know the
accurate level of feedback received?
2. Feedback on how public input influenced the decision
It was made very clear that public input had an influence on some changes to the
proposal. (Setbacks, stepping of the building, parkette) It was also clear that public input
had no influence on the primary concern about the height of the building adjacent to an
established neighbourhood and the concern
We can make this process better and less painful. We know there is more development coming
in and around our midtown neighbourhood. We're going to be working together on new
developments for the foreseeable near future. Improving the engagement process will help to
re-establish trust between the City and the neighbourhood and make it better for other core
and near downtown neighbourhoods.
The short story is this: We're not going anywhere; we still live here because we love it here. We
are engaged. We are collaborative. We demonstrate leadership. We are supportive of
compatible development.
In fact, the past 7-10 years alone, residents and the Mount Hope Breithaupt Park
Neighbourhood Association have actively participated in no less than 15 municipal and regional
planning processes:
LRT & the Central Transit Corridor
Weber Street widening & the Wilhelm crosswalk
Electrohome building at 152 Shanley Street
PARTS Midtown (where we even held a resident -led walk to engage more people in the
process)
We're a RAIN Smart neighbourhood (where the City is a partner together with REEP &
have a volunteer advisory committee)
RIENS (one resident on the steering committee)
i Sixo Midtown
• Tall Building Guidelines
Spurline Trail
Transit Hub
Pedestrian access to the Transit Hub via Waterloo Street
a Love My'Hood
• CROZBY
• Residents have started a development committee to help coordinate our efforts to track
& engage with the fast & furious pace of development projects around us.
8.a.75
For 9-10 years, residents have led Jane's Walks designed to facilitate walking
conversations about our amazing neighbourhood. Last year's walk on intensification was
led by two neighbours and our Ward Councillor, with guest appearances and input from
the developers associated with the properties we visited. We are making efforts to
engage directly with developers in a constructive, relationship -based way.
I want to re -iterate, we are engaged and we are supportive of compatible development. We
also want to ensure that policies designed to protect established neighbourhoods in the core
are used to their full effect by Staff and Councillors. We see it as our civic responsibility to hold
our representatives accountable for the work that residents have also contributed to.
To close, our capacity and skill for organizing is improving with every process we work on. Other
core and near downtown neighborhoods are drawing on our model to start their own
development committees. Now is the time to establish better engagement for planning
processes that are keeping Staff busy.
We look forward to working together today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year and
the year after. We're here.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful attention.
Best regards,
8.a.76
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 1:04 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Cc: Sarah Marsh; Frank Etherington
Subject: Re: Breithaupt Block Phase 3 - Revised Development Concept
Hello Garett, Sarah & Frank,
Yes, indeed.
The minimally complete and accurate graphic depictions I have set out are required in order to fulfill the
minimal ethical code standards set out by your profession to balance the community interest and individual
interest in the evaluation of a proposal of this kind.
Please assure that these standards are met in the future submissions.
Yours sincerely,
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:06 PM, <Garett.Stevenson(a�kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hello
The revised development concept on the website refers to the revised concept that was previously submitted to Council
(revised from the original application). The updated revised concept, which is still being prepared, will hopefully be
received and posted very soon.
I will send out another email to let everyone know when the website has been updated.
Thank you,
Garett
8.a.77
Hello Garett, Sarah & Frank,
I have just now looked at the revised scheme.
1. The shadow studies contain obvious glaring errors.
2. Two full block large scaled cross sections cutting through the proposed buildings and buildings existing on
adjacent properties,
and streets - one from Moore to Waterloo looking east and one from Wellington to Breithaupt looking south are
required
as standard, minimal, professional depiction of this proposal in its planning context.
Sincerely,
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Michael Brisson <go.brissonggmail.com> wrote:
Hello Garett, Sarah & Frank,
It is always great news when a move toward understanding or compromise takes place.
Better communication always helps, but having made note of the motion passed at the last council meeting,
I would like to suggest an approach which I has been very useful and successful in resolving these situations
in my past experience: that of clear communication based on accurate, professional measurement and
documentation.
Rather than so much a problem of a lack of the proponent and staff failing to present the proposal in "lay"
terms to citizens, what we have seen is a lack of clear documentation & graphic representation of the project
to a minimum professional standard by the planning consultant & a lack of staff either demanding a minimum
standard
of fellow professionals or at least pointing out to council & citizens that the material presented is lacking in a
minimum standard of
completion, clarity & measured accuracy.
In concrete terms, no clear discussion of this or any urban design development proposal can occur without the
minimum
8.a.78
professional documentation of:
1. Full Site & Site Context/Full Block Cross Sections at a large, detailed scale showing human,vehicle & plant
detail.
2. Fully accurate & complete black shadow studies with date, time, altitude & azimuth specified on each.
Detailed charted floor area/site/parking & F.A.R. ratios on the drawings vis a vis bylaw revisions requested.
4. The project shown in the context of known proposed & zoning permitted possible other projects within a
radius of 500 metres.
Clear depiction is essential to understanding. A lot of lost time & anguish has taken place, for no good reason.
Please do what you can to foster understanding at this next stage of your deliberations by requiring complete
accuracy.
Sincerely,
8.a.79
Notes for planning meeting May 29, 2018
• Why does the proposed bylaw exclude all residential uses?
What is the justification for the change of zoning for the Wellington parcels
out of residential and into mixed use?
r C'-6
Concerns/suggesti ns from others in the neighbourhood:
Assurance through the Site -Specific Zoning By-law
Site specific performance requirements (provisions) is the best way to give
both the city and the public assurance about what will be built on the
site. Garrett Stevenson/the City is recommending a number of these,
including a cap on the building height, floor area ratio, and setbacks from
Wellington Street. However, there are a number that we recommend be
either revised or added for improved assurance and (more importantly) built
form compatibility with the adjacent low rise area.
1. Reduce the maximum height permitted from 60 metres to 48 metres. We
are not aware of another mid sized municipality where an 18-20 storey
building is appropriate directly across from (and beside) lands with a
maximum height of 10 metres (aka a designated low rise residential area). A
more appropriate height transition based on best practices is in the range of
20 - 30 metres (or a 6 to 8 storey building).
2, Introduce a minimum building setback from the laneway. Although the
current setback requirement is 0 metres, you can go out to see and feel what
this is like at the back of the MidTown Condo project at Louisa and King. Its
far too aggressive a setback from what is a low rise res laneway. The 0 metre
setback was originally introduced to allow single family garages to be
directly off the laneway. The intent was NOT to allowed 6 storey buildings
(parking structures in this case) directly adjacent to the laneway! It means
that during construction and for any future exterior maintenance to that
building, they will encroach into and possibly block entirely the public
laneway. This 0 metre setback should be increased.
3. Increase the building setbacks from Wellington to reflect those setbacks
shown on the conceptual site plan that was submitted with the
application. The site specific setbacks that staff has recommended from
Wellington Street (being something like 15 metres for the first 21 metres of a
building and 30 metres for any portion of building taller than 21 metres) are
smaller than those on the plans. The setbacks should reflect the conceptual
site plan, otherwise the building could be moved closer to Wellington Street
and that open space 'parkette' could get much narrower.
/' 8.a.80
4. The minimum landscape open space (LOS) in the MU -3 zone is only 10%.
However, the conceptual site plan presented with this application shows
much more landscape open space than that. We recommend that a site-
specific landscape open space requirement be included that reflects the
amount of open space the developer is showing to the public, and no less. We
caution that if this is not included, the developer could legally reduce the LOS
to 10%. Staff has said a number of times that this can be controlled at site
plan, but unless its written into the by-law, it can be changed.
S. If in fact the developer promises the community a certain amount of
community space within the building, again, write it into the by-law. Make it
a legal requirement. Otherwise, the developer can simply back out of that.
Other Considerations not for the Zoning By-law
There are a number of other aspects of the proposal that we feel warrant at
least a recommendation in the staff report to give further assurance that
what will be built is consistent with what is discussed and/or shown on the
plans.
1. Extension of a Public Laneway. Based on the staff report, we all are aware
that the southern third of the laneway between Waterloo and Moore Ave is
recommended to be deemed surplus and sold to the developer. However, no
plans appear to be in place to require the developer to give the City a piece of
their land for a public laneway extension (out to Wellington Street). The staff
report should makes a clear recommendation (which Council should
endorse) that the developer be obligated to provide an easement to allow
public access over their land for that laneway extension, otherwise it simply
might not be done. Waiting till the Site Plan stage to secure this easement is
not a guarantee to the public. As a side note, the developer should also be
required to resurface the entire laneway from Waterloo to the edge of the
development. Its in horrible condition right now and would surely get worse
after they are done with construction.
2. Public Access to the Parkettes. Based on the plans and the staff report,
there are 2 parkettes proposed. The more substantial one is along Wellington
Street. It is described in the staff report as being privately owned with public
access. The staff report should make a clear recommendation that the
developer be obligated to provide easements over these parkettes to give
public access, otherwise much like the laneway easement, it might not be
done. Again, this should not just be something that staff hope is secured at
the site plan stage. There is no legal mechanism to require it. At least a staff
report recommendation puts it on the record.
8.a.81
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 12:24 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Cc: Alain Pinard; Sarah Marsh; Della Ross; development@mhbpna.org
Subject: Re: When might the revised concept plans be available?
Thanks. Since you are likely busy re -writing a bylaw or such, here are just a few thoughts that have been percolating
since our productive discussion earlier in the week.
I've been trying to think of a good solution to the problem of the re -zoning of the parcels on Wellington out of low-rise
residential and into high-density mixed use.
My first suggestion is that these parcels get a different re -zoning than the other parcels. This should be feasible, while still
allowing the nature of development that seems to be illustrated on the new concept plans (based on a quick scan).
It looks like (correct me if I'm wrong) the max height of the proposed developed up to the location of the current laneway is
in line with what would have been recommended by a combination of the Parts (14.5 meters) and Crozby bonusing
provisions for similar parcels (with density bonusing for blue/green infrastructure, which is sounds like is something that is
likely to happen, given the Leed Gold aspiration, and the hopeful involvement of neighbours in the parkette design.) So
what I would suggest is a separate zoning bylaw for that parcel along those lines.
As I was walking home, I was thinking about my hope for a cafe like Public on Frederick. What is the zoning on Frederick
between roughly Centre in the Square and Bruce? Whatever it has has lead to the original housing built form being
maintained in large part, if repurposed for small businesses. This would certainly be a reasonable outcome along
Wellington, one which would provide appropriate buffering and protection for our neighbourhood. It would also allow
some of the retail to be moved to the Wellington side (looks like it could be moved without loss of office floor area), which
would support what I thought was a brilliant suggestion on your parts to have cafes/pubs with patios bordering the
parkette. That would be an absolutely premium space for any food and drink establishment, and would be a prime
location for people in the neighbourhood who have aspirations to open breweries and/or cafes to put in a bid
To my mind the most important point from a neighbourhood protection perspective is that there is a clear signal given that
Wellington zoning will remain low-rise, hopefully followed by a formal new bylaw for Wellington from King to Duke as soon
as possible.
Hope these thoughts are helpful.
My initial reaction to the height reduction is positive. It seems to be in line with my suggestion before the last council
meeting, which also was supported by a group of others in the neighbourhood (and came from someone other than me).
The lack of setback of the garage and relocation of the loading dock will likely be a point of disappointment in the
neighbourhood, to put it in a Midwestern way. And I'm sure our professionals in the neighbourhood will have a lot of
feedback after careful analysis of everything.
I have a short meeting with Craig tomorrow morning, too
Thanks!
8.a.82
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 7:28 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: BB3
Good evening
Thanks for the little open house tonight.
Overall I'm supportive of the revised plan.
I understand the concerns of my fellow neighbors and I might feel differently if I was immediately next door. It
is difficult living beside a tall building.
I live a few blocks away and from my perspective I feel the building will be a good addition to the
neighbourhood. I appreciate the quality and design of the building itself and recognize the need for higher
density close to the future transit hub.
On the topic of public engagement I overheard a few people at the open house having a hard time understanding
the subtle changes on the drawings. I don't know how you could show more -maybe they were too afraid to ask
questions of staff.
There might be larger questions to ask about the whole topic of what a public engagement process could look
like but that is likely something to chat about another time.
217 Waterloo Street
8.a.83
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 4:52 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: Re: Breithaupt Block 3
On Jun 6, 2018, at 4:48 PM,
Dear Sarah and Garett,
wrote:
I have lived in this neighbourhood for 25 years. As mentioned before I have studied and made
paintings of this urban neighbourhood for 15 years.
Firstly this project location is not on King St or Victoria where for me the height would be fine.
It is surrounded by a residential area with a historical factory retrofit as its projects basis and
beginnings.
The height of the proposed building will also cast a large, long shadow in winter for almost 2
blocks in the afternoons. I am a SAD sufferer in winter along with a few others that admitted this
and asked for help in the meeting in January. Being in shade of this factory totem will affect me
in winter. The repositioning of the tower is commendable but not really making a noticeable
difference to us, the neighbours.. I suggest 6 floors maximum would solve a lot of the
neighbours concerns.
The proposed factory high ceilings are not environmentally efficient, as the glass will let out heat
in winter and the cool of the air conditioning. It also will let its interior light pollute the
surrounding neighbourhood as we see the first Google building doing now. Except that this
building will pollute into 3 sides of this residential area not just one. I don't understand why
blinds to stop light pollution at night can not be installed. One person working was lights on the
whole floor or staircase as in the Google building effecting the lives of many neighbours. I don't
understand why this allowed in a building surrounded by residential houses.
The construction on King for the ION provided us with a lot of dust. The prevailing wind comes
to us from the south, along Victoria, through the gap at Moore and King St. were we already
experience high winds without a tower to accelerate it. Are there any wind analysis being
presented with is project? Are there any dust barriers being considered to address the making of
construction dust particulate?
Appreciate the opportunity,
Thanks,
83 Louisa St
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Cc:
Subject: Feedback, Briehtaupt Block Phase 3 - Revised Development Concept
Hi Garett,
Thank you for hosting this consultation meeting Tuesday. I'm wondering if the city still looking to receive feedback from
neighbourhood residents on the revised concept. I understand the purpose was to verbally discuss/negotiate changes at
the event but I didn't see any opportunity for residents to provide their feedback in a more formalized fashion.
If written information is being gathered, we would like to indicate our support for a maximum building height of 6 storeys to
better integrate with the height of the predominantly single home residential neighbourhood surrounding this property.
Kind Regards,
41 Louisa Street,
Kitchener
8.a.85
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 7:24 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: BB3
I was looking at the site plan again in more detail. It would be great to see a bit of a setback in the laneway
behind the garage in order to get a sidewalk as it will be a walkway for people but also there will be a lot of
cars
A living wall would be super too.
thanks
217 Waterloo Street Kitchener
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 1:04 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: BB3 feedback
Garett: I have looked over the proposed changes and am happy to see the height reduced. It is nice that
Perimeter have made this effort. I have a few concerns:
1. the "crooked" lane from Breithaupt to King (I believe) shows two way car traffic but we know it will be used
by pedestrians. So I believe it is important to have a safe sidewalk.
2. the garage seems the same as before. Rather monolithic. We have been told it will be "nice" but what does
this mean? Some details would be "nice" to have.
3. The garage has an offset of less than a metre from the edge of the property. This is very small considering its
height. Can we not reduce the size? One of the planners on our Development Committee remarked that the
driving lanes in the garage looked very large. We were not sure if that was because of the illustration or was the
reality?
4. The parkette, which Perimeter has promoted as such a boon to the neighbourhood, now has almost half of it
taken up as the roof of the parking garage entry. I wondered if they could turn this into a feature. E.g. put steps
or seats there. People could eat lunch outside. And you could have a small stage at the bottom for little
concerts?
8.a.87
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:17 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: Breithaupt
Garett,
thanks for our conversation. Having sections and elevations through the lanes and looking through and toward
the parking structure will help me understand what is proposed, its height above grade, and how the proposal
works across the ground plane.
Unfortunately I'm not able to answer residents questions about what is really being proposed, given the
documentation to date.
Also, I understand City Staff will still be recommending acceptance of the Urban Design Brief, in an unrevised
form. I have to say I disagree with that brief, and don't think it should be allowed to stand in its present form.
Let me know if this documentation can be made available with enough time to review it prior to the Council
meeting.
'hank you for your consideration in this matter.
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2016 ,2:56 rive
To: Garett Stevenson; Sarah Marsh; Mayor; Frank Etherington; Yvonne Fernandes
Subject: Re: Breithaupt Block Phase 3
Hello Garett,
I'm not sure what the timeline is for submitting my comments on Perimeter Development's Phase 3 at the
Breithaupt Block, but I imagine you're working now to draft a new zone change or Official Plan amendment,
and so I want to share my thoughts as a nearby resident of the Midtown neighbourhood.
Overall, I'm happy that Perimeter has found a way to lower the building by two storeys. I still would like to see
more done to help this project fit into the neighbourhood. These are big buildings, taller than or comparable to
many downtown towers and parking garages. Being located in a residential neighbourhood, I think it's
important to consider all and any ways to transition from the office tower's great height (and the 5 -storey
parking garage!) to the single-family homes right beside.
I would be happy to see the project a little smaller, simply because of how both the tower and the large parking
garage will loom over existing neighbours on Wellington, Moore and Waterloo Streets. I realize I can't get
everything I want, though, and I'd be happy just to see a few more changes to help this Phase 3 project become
a welcomed, well -fitting addition to our neighbourhood.
If the office tower can't or won't be changed any more, I'd like to see some adjustments to the parking structure:
-Does the parking garage need to be as big as it is? Can there be efficiencies in parking space size or using one-
way lanes to reduce the size and create more green space or setbacks?
-Can fewer parking spots serve these sites?
-Can another level or two of parking be put underground, out of sight? I realize this probably costs more, but it
could go a long way to helping transition this project into the existing neighbourhood.
If a 50 -metre building is allowed here, what might the city later permit at the former Sacred Heart school? At
the former Electrohome building? Intensification along the new LRT route is important, but should be balanced
by what the city apparently wants and recommends in its PARTS plan (buildings only 14 metres tall). I hope
you'll consider the precedent being set here and the PARTS plan guidelines as this project moves forward.
Thank you,
14 Briar Ave
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:20 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: Additional comments on the 13133 revised plans
Hello Garett,
For your report and the public record, here are some additional comments from me about the revision.
1) As I said before, having asked for a reduction to 48 metres, the planned height reduction of the tower is OK.
The majority of people who I spoke with in the neighbourhood also felt the same way.
My view on this part of the parcel is that there are clear benefits to the proposed use, especially so close to the
LRT, as long as sufficient buffering and transitional use is provided along Wellington, the residential on Moore,
and Waterloo street.
2) If a viable space for creation of a private parkette is actually provided by the development, it seems like we
have some consensus between the neighbourhood, Mr. Beattie, and hopefully the city that a small number of
neighbours could be involved in consultations around the design of open space. If this really happens, it could
create a showcase space that the neighbourhood would actually make use of.
3) The vast consensus of the neighbours who I have spoken with is that the design of the parking is still
unacceptable. I share this view. We understand that it might be difficult or impossible to further reduce the
number of spaces required, given current standards and the lack of the 2 way all day train service to Toronto.
However, the lack of setback of the parking garage is viewed as unacceptable by the majority of residents.
- If the space were another building, setbacks would be required.
- The current design leaves no space for a pedestrian/bike path along the laneway from Waterloo. This laneway
is highly likely to be used as a pedestrian and bike through -way (as are all in our neighbourhood currently),
especially as the underpass to the transit terminal will be along Waterloo. It will likely have high volume car
traffic, meaning that shared use will be an accident waiting to happen.
There is currently no room for snow clearance.
The current plans may not provide the visual buffering required by bylaw (see below)
- It seems that it would be possible to fit the same number of spaces in a smaller footprint, if the traffic flow
were redesigned to be one way, the lanes were narrowed, compact car spaces were included, and/or the standard
stall length is narrowed. See technical notes below.
- A more compact lot redesign could result in the parking garage entrance off of Wellington being moved,
creating space for an actual functional parkette and/or patios for food and drink establishments.
- Why couldn't more parking go underground?
- A cynical person would say that the developers are trying to establish a precedent for a large footprint now
with plans of building another tower on that footprint in future. It's amazing that the footprint of the parking
garage is higher than the footprint of the employment lands building itself.
We are asking for parking garage setbacks that:
Would be at least as large as those needed for a building;
8.a.90
- Would have sufficient space for a shared pedestrian/bike path;
- Would have a sufficient green buffer for growth of mature trees.
I also strongly urge the city to have the parking ramp off Wellington moved into the building, so that a
functional greenspace could be built. The current ramp fragments the space, making it difficult to create
functional public spaces. Further, there would be little or no opportunity for ecologically functional green space
on the ramp. Mature hardwood trees contribute most to climate mitigation (above and below ground carbon
sequestration, heat island mitigation, and stormwater management from increasing storm water events. (All this
is described in the city's outreach materials on trees). Trees also provide an appropriate buffering/transitional
use from our neighbourhood, which is known for its mature tree canopy. You can't plant trees on a parking
ramp. Turf grass, the likely cover, has minimal ecological value.
The current ramp entrance is also likely to lead to traffic back-up onto Wellington as well as very high
concentrations of air pollution on a residential street. Concentrated air pollution is also inappropriate for a
public open space, especially one that might be used by kids.
The neighbours and the developer have struck a compromise that preserves what everyone agrees is a good—
the employment space. Surely we can all find a solution to minimize the bad—parking. Not a single one of up
is excited about parking—it's a disamenity.
4) Finally, as I mentioned previously several times, it is essential to maintain the Wellington frontage lots in
low-rise zoning, to provide an appropriate transitional use and protective buffer for the neighbourhood. A
hybrid proposed zoning by-law is possible given the current building design—with additional massing allowed
in response to density bonusing features that will be provided as part of this Leed Gold development.
Finally please see additional technical comments from another neighbourhood resident.
Thanks for your attention.
-Section 6.1.2 b) of the Zoning By-law outlines that all off-street parking facilities shall be provided
with adequate means of ingress and egress to and from a street or lane and shall be arranged so as
not to interfere with the normal public use of a street or lane. What is the setback proposed for the
underground parking ramp from the lot line abutting Wellington Street? Concerned that the proposed
location could result in vehicles spilling over ont Wellington Street during peak times due to the
proposed location and setback of the entrance to the parking garage. It is encouraged that alternate
locations are considered for access to the parking garage through the site plan process.
I found that the definition of Outdoor Area within the by-law is 2 means any portion of a lot which
abuts a street, is not used for parking or access to parking, has no building situate thereon at ground
level, and is not occupied by a loading dock, waste storage, utility or mechanical equipment or other
similar facility. In the case of a lot which abuts a lane only, the outdoor area shall abut the lane. (By-
law 92-232, S.3[e])
I am not sure if anyone has any insight on what the last part means but although this lot does not abut
a lane only- it abuts a lane and public street. However it is requested that an outdoor area abut the
lane.
Section 6.1.2 a) of the Zoning By-law states that where a parking lot is situate on a lot which abuts a Residential
Zone, a visual barrier shall be provided and maintained along such abutting lot line in accordance with Section
5.11 of this By-law. Section 3.4.1 of the Zoning By-law outlines that unless otherwise shown a lane shall be
included within the zone of the adjoining lot(s) on the side theoeof and where the lane serves as a boundary
between two or more zones, the centre line of such lane shall be deemed to be the boundary between zones.
8.a.91
Therefore section 6.1.2a) of the zoning by-law is to be applied. Due to the small size of the lane and minimal
setback applied this would reduce the impacts on abutting properties. It is requested that confirmation is
provided that this will be required through the site plan process and that the visual barrier be landscaping
(instead of a fence or wall and that the parking garage structure not be considered an appropriate visual
barrier) that is a minimum of 1.8m in height in accordance with section 5.11 of the Zoning By-law. Which
requires any trees or shrubs to have a reserved width of planting that is appropriate for healthy plant growth so
that the vegetation achieves a minimum height of 1.8m and is continuously unpierced within 3 years of
planting.
-Although the current zoning by-law does not require a separation distance between a laneway and
structures, the proposed setback does not provide sufficient space for excavation or building the
structure on private property, or sufficient space for the required screening and does not allow for
sidewalks etc that could provide safe pedestrian access to that portion of the site.
-Could reduce the size of the parking garage by reducing the access aisles to 6.1 m for two way traffic
or at minimum reducing the 7.3m two way access aisles to 6.7m. Could consider doing one way
access aisles in the parking garage to further reduce the overall size and control traffic flow.
8.a.92
June 15, 2018
Re: Breithaupt Block 3 (BB3) Consultation
To: Garett Stevenson
As a result of the public dismay at the city's consultation efforts on 13133, city council has ordered a
report into the planning process - I can't find the minutes where this is detailed. For a council that has a
heightened awareness of residents' displeasure with its planning process, I thought more effort would
have been put into consulting residents during these seven weeks.
When council deferred a decision on the 13133 development in April, I expected that members of the
community would convene with the developer and city planners, to discuss alternatives.
However, the city and developer have proposed alternative plans without resident consultation. You
suggested the developer had heard plenty from residents at the planning committee and council
meetings, to incorporate feedback into a revised plan. This has two key flaws:
i. Residents who spoke at those meetings were not very familiar with the proposal, and were not
aware of what others at the public meeting would say. Using those preliminary comments does
not represent a cohesive understanding of the residents' concerns. Consultation should be
meaningful.
Resident concerns have been simplified into one key message: "opposition to building height."
There were in fact many concerns raised about this development. The revised proposal doesn't
address:
Putting a high rise in the midst of a low-rise residential area with historical and cultural
significance, with no regard to transition
• Inconsistency with the city's own urban design manual
Inconsistency with previous resident consultations on development around rapid transit stations
Obstruction of views
• Increased traffic
• Night-time light pollution
Lack of neighbourhood amenities such as community meeting space, seating areas, public art,
waste disposal, improvements to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure
• Loss of residential lands in core area
Unfortunately, I didn't take notes at the meeting, because I thought it would be available for viewing
afterwards. However, the meeting was never televised and has not been made available to the public.
Additional concerns were raised.
To improve public consultation on development projects, I believe there are 3 important components:
1. Meaningful materials that non -experts can understand.
This Includes:
non -jargon descriptions
North arrows, streets labelled, and neighbourhood context. on materials. Show pedestrians,
cars, cyclists and related infrastructre. Some pictures looked like castles floating in the sky. How
8.a.93
June 15, 2018
could anyone oppose that?! This is not a greenfield development, include the neighbourhood
context
+ Accuracy and consistency across all graphics.
■ Easy access to the rules that apply - whether this is zoning laws, planning policies, etc. Put them
where people can easily find them.
• 3D for the non-technical person is something we can touch and feel. Think lego ... show us what
will it will look like
2. A clear before and after
= What is there now, and what will be there if this goes ahead?
a If changes are made to the design (like in this case) what was first proposed, and what changed?
Show visual before and after.
• We hear a lot of ideas tossed around, verbally. Put into writing the concrete changes that are
being considered.
+ Consultation prepares us for what can be built. Residents beside the Midtown lofts were told
the lofts would be 6 storeys on King St, and step down to 2 storeys in their alley. But they got 7
storeys in their back yards, instead, resulting in a complete loss of privacy to the backyards for
residents on Shanley street.
. City impacts
The city will live with this development long after the developer. Show us how it fits into and will
change the neighbourhood. Beyond the site itself, we want to know:
Traffic impact. This is huge, given all of the development in this small part of the city. And
everyone's consulting on it, but not working out a plan. The Region is consulting on the traffic
hub, Perimeter is here tonight. Six -0 is consulting. And several others. What is the expected
impact of all of these plans?
a Pedestrian impact: What is the pedestrian access to Transit Hub? Where will people get
dropped off? The region says they will come to Breithaupt and Waterloo. The city says, no.
There should be a coordinated plan.
• Impacts on other areas of municipal services.
Please consider these points in developing future consultations. I have seen the Citizen's guide to
neighbourhood development. It's a good start - I suggest that the city involve some citizens that are not
professionals in the development industry to improve the next draft, and incorporate information
design and visualization principles.
Thanks for this opportunity to provide feedback.
3 Dekay St, Kitchener, ON
8.a.94
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good afternoon Garrett,
Friday, June 15, 2018 3:43 PM
Garett Stevenson
1363
First of all, I want to thank you for the information you provided regarding the Midtown Lofts.
My main concern for BB3, is the setback from the lane. I don't understand how they are having less than a metre allowed
for the setback.
Midtown Lofts have a 3 metre setback and I think that is more reasonable. Our property value will be affected for future
development.
and I would like to be part of final site plan process.
Thank you for consideration in this matter.
t �t yv, `t, f\ 1" ,
8.a.95
Garett Stevenson
From:
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 10:52 PM
To: Garett Stevenson
Subject: Phase 3
I must register my absolute dismay and disappointment with the total disregard for the residents on Wellington St in the
block adjacent to Phase 3. I've heard comments that the developer has compromised, but in reality they have given up
very little if anything. The fact that their initial proposal of 12 stories which in reality is equivalent to 20 stories, in an area
that is zoned for only 6, seems to be lost on everyone. There has been no compromise on the parking garage which
seems incredulous to me when on one of the first city hall meetings, the city voted to commit to reducing the carbon
footprint. It is recognized that with all the other developments in the area and Wellington becoming the new main artery,
there will be major traffic congestion in 5 to 10 years. It appears that there was a suggestion that it could encourage more
walking, cycling or transit use, but by whom? If the developer's clients or potential clients believed their employees would
be walking, cycling or using transit, than why the need for 600+ parking spots. And what makes you think it will be 5 to 10
years from now? What about the immediate increase of traffic and noise when the construction begins? If we've allowed
the developer to totally disregard the zoning bylaws, why would I believe that the city would monitor and enforce the noise
level bylaws and construction starts and stops. Wellington is narrowest right in the block adjacent. Are there now plans
that have not been divulged to the Wellington St residents to expropriate land and widen the street? I've invested heavily
in the downtown Kitchener - I lived, raised my family and worked for most of my married life in the downtown, long before
it became trendy. Quite frankly, I'm feeling like I've just been thrown under the proverbial bus.
72 Wellington St N
Kitchener
Sent from my iPhone
8.a.96
O
I
O
r -I i
N 41 I yuou
s �
U
i
m 4
G M >.
70 ' S t
= v� a i
O
O
El
m
O
s
00 C9
tom! O O CA
m U 3
4a v (D 0')O s ++ O H o N ,
cn C 3 z o z _
a,O m � c Z 04a LU -
� �CL 4a w ° a m z
Cl) cn m Uo oC J N y w o 0
e t
f Y
It
IL40
IK Ao
10
It
IL
f 4F
1 -
Vk
I
o
r -I i
N 41 I 4uou
9+ M >
70 r S �=
3 Y _
O C 'c ++ o
G1
2 m Co t 0 (D U)
0 cn Q- +' z o z
dA m Z O
(Q O O LV - w
•CL +' GJ W i Q U O z
NC -0 U OG J N o to 0 o
8.a.100
o
o
rl
L
N
�
'
U
i
'
CCm
s
3
Y
L
a
c
Cl)
o
c
•-
m
�s
m
s
4a
0 Ln
CL
ao
moo
c
Z
w
o
Cl)
U
cI)
m
oc
J
Vf
yy�ou
C)
Z o Z
w
P o
11
\I
1
O 1
O
i
N G1 1 4uou
cu f0
� � 1
O
� M
N S �
ao
f0 O O CA
o
s m a, 4 C)
i Q
v 0 O ' ~ o N
4J O Y Z z o z
W O
+� w 0 �
i +' cl)W
Uri oo U I=J Ln o w o
,
i
- pl�
MW
w�►,
lk
�No
fi
"A% IVO 4L t
.a.102
F-
yuou
ve
R npo i
o
I
ra
°
N
0
1
M
iii
o
c
+r
N
s
O
G CU
a
Y
Z
3
�E
�,
;.
0
LU
cn
m
U
I=
J
cn
yuou
ve
R npo i
yuou
_ 4 ` b,
1 �
ANN -
n
.a.104
O
1
1
N
a
1
�
�
1
�
s
—
O
Cl) m
O
c
?� cn
0°
s
O
L
CL
aV+
Q
E
`°z
cc
w
o
Cl) Vf
L
m
U
oc
0
m
J
Vf
yuou
_ 4 ` b,
1 �
ANN -
n
.a.104
F-
I
�
°
I
N
O
�
M
� 0
Y
rL
i
N
m
s
4�CU
Y
C33
E
�°
Z
O
i E
�.—
+,LU
a
cnai
m
U
I=
J
N
i
hw-Al
v�a�e'Y
yuou
C)
CA
U 3
(D 0')
c H o N _
Z o Z _
o vvi
Ra,
Y� f gy
e
r k
law
yy�ou
. J
0
4Ch\
L
0
1
1
N
a
1
�
�
1
�
s
—
O
-I--M
cn
s
O
CL
o
E
`°z
00
w
o
Cl)LU
Vf
L
m
4�,
U
'�
oc
0
m
J
Vf
yy�ou
. J
0
4Ch\
L
E
4uo�
/ 4
a.107
o
o
N
�
++
f0
'
cu
N
C
a
_
O
Y
L
Q .
C
i
O
o
o
LU
V)
Q
J
Vf
4uo�
/ 4
a.107
yuou
ik
O
I
O
r-1
i
N
CL
aj
O
++
O
iii
o
c
"
++
O
N
4�
Ga
c
=
�'
Y
3
o
Z
ca
�
o
.
�
0
4-0
+�
Q
m
U
J
N
yuou
ik
yuou
0 ,
CA
U 3
(D 0')
c H o N
Z o Z _
W
o to o o r
IL
to
Is s�
I
N
y
v
CL
CL)
N
O
I
M
>,
+!
N
3
O
a
Y
i
a
N
as
O
O e-
Q
*'
o
c0
Z
O
0LU
f0
Cl)Q
m
U
OAC
J
N
yuou
0 ,
CA
U 3
(D 0')
c H o N
Z o Z _
W
o to o o r
IL
to
Is s�
i �a
0
.2 -
0
wr-
cl) 3:
0
oj
—
W
4a
0
CL
f0
Z
i
W
4a
4a
0
r
0
LU
0
0
-0
Cl) 3:
>.
4a
LU
m
Qn =
# of e
'IE
W
•
k
yuou
Y
r }
O
I
_O
N
i
�
O
�
M
�
a
L
C
Q'
Cl) O
O
i
++
c�
41
O
O v
Y
3
(Q +O+
O
O
Z
++
LUC
IV)
m
U
oOC
J
N
# of e
'IE
W
•
k
yuou
Y
r }
09
yy�ou
w
a L) o
� - - � T �,.
4-J -%-
�r
•
� w
@AL
a
" y '•�
Y�'
o
o
ri
N
i
�
�
'L
E
o
1
'
v
M
�
+=
� O
s
NC
Y
Q.
3
0
c
+r
c�
m
4a
s
v
O
Os
a
3
cQ w+s+
a
o
o
Z
W
o
-0
4a
'aA
U
LU
s
V)
m
U
o�c
J
Vf
09
yy�ou
w
a L) o
� - - � T �,.
4-J -%-
�r
•
� w
@AL
a
" y '•�
Y�'
-Y zro
0 N m o_b
O L E
co C Y�
� � z
m �7
-C m
H
s
0�,
O �
o E
5'
- J Y -•T
C N
y0 � �6
d � O
tlIa!
M
0
U)
a)
0)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2018
CHAIR —COUNCILLOR Y. FERNANDES
A. BY-LAWS LISTED ON THE AGENDA — 2ND READING
That the by-laws considered by this Committee be taken as read a second time and be
recommended for enactment.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Tenders
Attached are reports from J. Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, recommending:
FIN -18-014 — T18-003 Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre — Alterations and
Expansion
That Tender T18-003 Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre — Alterations and
Expansion, be awarded to Gateman-Milloy Inc., Kitchener, Ontario, at their
tendered price of $3,9 73, 542., less negotiated items of $496, 000. plus H.S. T. of
$452,080.46, for a total of $3,929,622.46.
ii. FIN -18-015 — T18-029 Water Heaters Preventive Maintenance Inspections &
Deliminq Services
That Tender T18-029 Water Heaters Preventive Maintenance Inspections & De -
Liming Services, be awarded to Steadfast Gas Services, Kitchener, Ontario, at
their tendered price of $346,250. plus H.S.T. of $45,012.50, for a total of
$391,262.50, for a one (1) year term, with an option to renew for four (4)
additional twelve (12) month terms.
iii. FIN -18-016 —T18-005 RBJ Schlegel Park— Park and Sportsfield Construction
That Tender T18-005 RBJ Schlegel Park — Park and Sportsfield Construction, be
awarded to Gateman-Milloy Inc., Kitchener, Ontario, at their tendered price of
$8,516,517.12, plus provisional items of $182,905., plus H.S.T. of $1,130,924.88,
for a total of $9,830,347.
iv. FIN -18-017 —T18-068 Sale of Industrial Lot on Strasburg Road
That Tender T18-068 Sale of Industrial Lot on Strasburg Road, be awarded to
2140221 Ontario Inc., Kitchener, Ontario, and;
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Agreement of Purchase
and Sale with 2140221 Ontario Inc., for their acquisition of the City's parcel of
land, legally described as PART LOT 17, RCP 1471, BEING PARTS 1 & 2 ON,
58R-6642, SIT 1004437; SIT 1487182 [being all of PIN 22607-0040 (LT)], AND
PART LOT 11 RCP 1382, BEING PART 8 ON 58R-12866, SAVE & EXCEPT
PART 1 ON 58R-15153 [being all of PIN 22607-1238 (LT)], City of Kitchener,
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, consisting of approximately 37.6 acres, at a
total purchase price of $3,915,000. plus H.S.T.; said agreement to be to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and further;
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute all documentation required to
complete the transaction, said documentation to be satisfactory to the City
Solicitor.
V. FIN -18-018 — T18-073 Kolb Creek Culvert Replacement
That Tender T18-073 Kolb Creek Culvert Replacement, be awarded to Sierra
Infrastructure Inc., Woodstock, Ontario at their tendered price of $547,614.50
including provisional items and contingencies of $35,000., plus H.S.T. of
$71,189.90, for a total of $618,804.40.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
B. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - CONT'D
2. DSD -18-033 — Ontario's Main Streets Revitalization Fund Initiative
JUNE 25, 2018
Attached is Development Services Department report DSD -18-033 (C. Bluhm), dated
June 6, 2018.
WHEREAS the Municipality wishes to enter into an Agreement in order to
participate in Ontario's Main Streets Revitalization Initiative,-
AND
nitiative,AND WHEREAS the Municipality acknowledges that Funds received through the
Agreement must be invested in interest bearing reserve account until the earliest
of expenditure or March 31, 20201-
Now
020;Now THEREFORE, the Council of the CITY OF KITCHENER, a municipal
corporation pursuant to the Municipal Act, 200 1, -
ENACTS AS FOLLOWS
That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Municipal
Funding Agreement for the transfer of Main Streets Revitalization Initiatives
Funds between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the CITY OF
KITCHENER as in Schedule A attached hereto.
Schedule A shall form part of this by-law.
3. COR -18-006 — Sign Variances — 101-127 Frederick Street/40 Weber Street East and
171 Sherwood Avenue & Fence Variance — 66 Inwood Drive
Attached is Corporate Services Department report COR -18-006 (D. Saunderson) dated
June 20, 2018.
That the application of EUROPRO (KITCHENER) GP INC. (SG 2018-006 - 101
Frederick Street/40 Weber Street East) requesting permission to replace the
existing sign with a ground -supported sign having 65% (12.67 sq.m.) of the sign
area being changing copy rather than the permitted maximum sign area of 30%
(5.83 sq.m.), on Part Lots 2 and 4 to 9, Part Lot 38, Streets and Lanes, Part Lot
169, Plan 364, 101-127 Frederick Street/40 Weber Street East, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a sign permit the Planning Division by
September 30, 2018.
That the owner shall ensure messages displayed on the automatic changing
copy portion of the sign remain static for at least 6 seconds.
- and -
That the application of ST JAMES ROSEMOUNT UNITED CHURCH (SG 2018-
007 — 171 Sherwood Avenue) requesting permission to install a ground -
supported sign with two adjoining sign faces having automatic changing copy to
be located 52m from a residential zone rather than the required 100m, to have
the civic address located on a decorative end piece connecting the two sign
faces whereas the By-law requires the civic address to be on each sign face, to
legalize a second existing ground -supported sign having a height of 1.55m to
encroach into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not
permit signs having a height over 0.9m to encroach into the DVT, a distance
separation from another ground -supported sign of 32m rather than the required
distance separation of 50m, and, to permit the sign identified in the application as
"Sign 2" to not contain the civic address whereas the By-law requires the address
to be identified on ground -supported signs, on Lots 77 to 82, Lots 92 to 96 and
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
B. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - CONT'D
JUNE 25, 2018
Part Lot 97, Plan 841, 171 Sherwood Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Sign Permit for the proposed business from
the Planning Division.
2. That the owner shall ensure the automatic changing copy shall not contain
flashing, intermittent or moving lights and that the rate of change in the
content of the graphics shall remain static for a minimum of six (6) seconds.
3. That the owner shall ensure the automatic changing copy portion of the sign
be turned off between the hours of 11 pm and 6 a.m.
4. That the owner shall fulfil the above noted Conditions 1 to 3 no later than
October 1, 2018. Any request for a time extension must be approved in
writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate) prior to the
completion date set out in the decision. Failure to fulfil these conditions will
result in this approval becoming null and void; and,
5. That the owner shall acknowledge that, as there is a smaller ground -
supported sign located in the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), the City of
Kitchener reserves the right to remove the sign at any time if required, at the
owner's expense.
-and-
That the application of JULIE and JAMES MISASI (FN 2018-002 — 66 Inwood
Drive) requesting permission to construct a wooden fence having a height of
1.82m in the northerly side yard located 0.6m from the lot line abutting Glasgow
Street rather than the required 1.5m, on Part Lot 23, Plan 793, being Part 1 on
Reference Plan 58R-17164, 66 Inwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall submit and obtain approval of a landscape plan from
the City's Director of Planning. The landscape plan shall show
landscaping to be installed between the fence and the site lot line abutting
Glasgow Street. All landscaping shall be completed by October 31, 2018
and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
4. COR -18-007 — Encroachment Request — Street Lighting in Belmont Village
Attached is Corporate Services Department report COR -18-007 (E. Mogck), dated June
20, 2018.
Subject to staff comments, that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an
Encroachment Agreement, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with the Belmont BIA
for electrical wiring and conduit encroaching over/under the City's road allowance
in Belmont Village.
5. COR -18-008 — Encroachment Request — Canopies Projecting Over Sidewalk at 51
David Street
Attached is Corporate Services Department report COR -18-008 (E. Mogck), dated June
20, 2018.
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Encroachment
Agreement, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with the property owner and any
mortgagee(s) of the property municipally known as 51 David Street to permit
canopies that will project over the City's sidewalk.
4
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
B. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - CONT'D
JUNE 25, 2018
6. COR -18-009 — Encroachment Request — Williamsburg Public School — Structure
Over Commonwealth Park
Attached is Corporate Services Department report COR -18-009 (E. Mogck), dated June
20, 2018.
Subject to staff comments, that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute
an Encroachment Agreement, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with the Waterloo
Region District School Board for play structures and features encroaching over
Commonwealth Park near Williamsburg Public School.
7. DSD -18-056 — Development Charges Rebate Program Implementation
Attached is Development Services Department report DSD -18-056 (A. Pinard), dated
June 14, 2018.
That the Region of Waterloo, as the Service Manager for Housing, be authorized
by by-law to execute the transfer agreement and to administer the Ontario
Government's Development Charges Rebate Program on behalf of the City of
Kitchener; and,
That City of Kitchener participates in the administration of the program as
outlined in a Report DSD -18-056, and,
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with the
Region of Waterloo that outlines the roles and responsibilities in the
administration of the program, and further,
That rebates be allocated in accordance with the process and selection criteria
outlined in this report.
8. COR -18-003 — Delegated Authority — "Lame Duck" Council
Attached is Corporate Services Department report COR -18-003 (C. Tarling), dated June
20, 2018.
That, in the event the provisions of Section 275 of the Municipal Act, as
amended, come into force and effect between Nomination Day and the end of
the outgoing Council's term, the Chief Administrative Officer is granted authority
to approve expenditures or other liabilities which are currently unbudgeted and
with a value in excess of $50,000.00; and,
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute Agreements that have been
approved by the Chief Administrative Officer during this period, subject to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor, and further,
That any approvals granted by the Chief Administrative Officer during this period
be reported to Council for information at the earliest opportunity following the
Inaugural Meeting of the new Council.
9. COR -18-004 — Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee (M ECAC)
Attached is Corporate Services Department report COR -18-004 (C. Tarling), dated June
20, 2018.
That participation on the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee and the
Terms of Reference attached as Appendix " A" to Corporate Services
Department report COR -18-004, be approved, and,
That the City Clerk shall appoint members of the Municipal Election Compliance
Audit Committee, in consultation with the Clerks of the other participating
municipalities, and further,
5
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
B. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - CONT'D
JUNE 25, 2018
That remuneration of $175 per diem plus the applicable mileage rate be
approved for members of the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee.
Rise and Report
Staff Repod
Financia! Services Department
REPORT TO:
DATE OF MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
WARD (S) INVOLVED:
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
l
�_,
���X:HF.NF.0
www.kitch ever. ca
Committee of the Whole
2018-06-25
Laurie Stecho, Supervisor of Purchasing, 519-741-2200 ext. 7089
Laurie Stecho, Supervisor of Purchasing, 519-741-2200 ext. 7089
Ward 4
2018-06-18
FIN -18-014
T18-003 Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre — Alterations and Expansion
That Tender T18-003 Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre — Alterations and Expansion,
be awarded to Gateman-Milloy Inc., Kitchener, Ontario, at their tendered price of
$3,973,542., less negotiated items of $496,000. plus H.S.T. of $452,080.46, for a total of
$3,929,622.46.
BACKGROUND:
Doon Pioneer Park was originally constructed in 1989 to service a community of approximately
7,200 residents. In 2000, the City of Kitchener commissioned a Community Centre Feasibility
study where an expansion for the Doon Pioneer Park facility was one of several
recommendations, as community centre needs were considered into the future. Growth in the
south-east end of Kitchener was the significant factor contributing to the recommendation for the
centre.
The proposed expansion for Doon Pioneer Park has been delayed on a number of occasions
due to insufficient development charge revenues. The population of the surrounding area has
grown substantially since the expansion recommendation, reaching 18,500+, and the existing
space can no longer accommodate the needs of the community.
The project is scheduled to begin July 9, 2018 and be completed by August 17, 2019, weather
permitting.
REPORT:
Tenders were issued to five (5) prequalified general contractors and by the closing date of March
1, 2018, three (3) tenders had been received.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
The following tenders were received:
Bid Price Negotiated Price
Gateman-Milloy Inc. Kitchener ON $ 4,490,102.46 $3,929,622.46
Nith Valley Construction (2008) New Hamburg ON $ 4,957,536.00
Bestco Construction (2005) Ltd Ancaster ON $ 5,314,345.93
The lowest compliant bidder, Gateman-Milloy, bid price exceeded the City's budget. The City
entered into negotiations with Gateman-Milloy to reduce specific items and scope of work in the
amount of $496,000. These changes do not jeopardizing the building functionality, the splash
pad, or significantly decrease the expansion square footage.
The tenders were reviewed by P. Sapaunzi, Managing Partner, +VG Architects, the City's
Consultant for the project, M. Hildebrand, Director Neighbourhood Programs and Services, S.
Roth, Manager of Community Centres and P. Forrest, Construction Project Manager, who
concur with the above recommendation.
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.
1J-2
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The net cost for this tender (A), is fair and reasonable for a project of this scope and the upset
limit is within the funding available (B) for this project. Funding for this project is included within
the approved capital budget. The estimated surplus (D) will be closed out to the appropriate
funding sources upon completion of the project.
T18-003
Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre — Alterations and Expansion
The total budget for all phases of this project is
Estimated Cost for this Phase of Work
Tender T18-003 costs, including HST
less: HST rebate
Net Cost Being Awarded
Costs Incurred to Date
Contingency
Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment
Architect Fees
Permits, Surveys & Geotechnical Studies
Contribution for Public Art
Total Estimated Cost for this Phase of Work
Budget for this Phase of Work
Neighbourhood Association Contribution
Master Plan Feasibility Study Transfer
Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre - Capital from Current
Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre - Development
Charges
Request for Budget Increase CSD18-086 (June 18)
Total Budget for this Phase of Work
Estimated Surplus/(Deficit) for this Phase of Work (B - C)
Estimated Surplus/(Deficit) from previous phases
Total Estimated Surplus/(Deficit)
$4,646,836.68
3, 929, 622.46
(390,875.72)
3, 538, 746.74 A
196,600.26
378,000.00
233,000.00
190, 000.00
72,000.00
29,000.00
4, 637, 347.00 C
80, 000.00
43,180.68
714,898.00
3,258,758.00
550, 000.00
4, 646, 836.68 B
9,489.68 D
9,489.68 E
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
• CSD -18-086 — Doon Pioneer Park Community Centre Expansion Update — June 18,
2018, Community Services Department
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
Department
1.i - 4
l
Staff Repod 0X:..R
Financia! Services Department www.kitch ever. ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: 2018-06-25
SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Stecho, Supervisor of Purchasing, 519-741-2200 ext. 7089
PREPARED BY: Steve Rudak, Buyer, 519-741-2200 ext. 7213
WARD (S) INVOLVED: ALL
DATE OF REPORT: 2018-06-12
REPORT NO.: FIN -18-015
SUBJECT: T18-029 Water Heaters Preventive Maintenance Inspections & De -
Liming Services
RECOMMENDATION:
That Tender T18-029 Water Heaters Preventive Maintenance Inspections & De -Liming
Services, be awarded to Steadfast Gas Services, Kitchener, Ontario, at their tendered
price of $346,250. plus H.S.T. of $45,012.50, for a total of $391,262.50, for a one (1) year
term, with an option to renew for four (4) additional twelve (12) month terms.
BACKGROUND:
The water hardness in Kitchener is in excess of 25 grams per gallon. The hardness of the water
contributes to reducing the life of water heaters. The inspection and the removal of lime
increases safety and extends the life of water heaters up to an additional three (3) years.
Inspection and de -liming of the water heater is intended to meet regulatory obligations of the
Technical Standards and Safety Authority. Preventative maintenance is based on the age of the
water heater and during this maintenance it is determined if the water heater also requires de -
liming.
In 2017, 668 water heaters were to have had preventative maintenance completed but only 250
were completed. There is currently has a backlog of 418 service requests which is reflected in
the tendered price.
This tender is based on fixed unit prices for one (1) year for preventative maintenance and de -
liming of residential and commercial water heaters.
The average annual spend over the past three (3) years was $118,661. The actual spend will
depend on the level of activity throughout the term of the contract. Kitchener Utilities will reduce
the amount of work being done in the given year as to not go over budget
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
REPORT:
Tenders were advertised publicly on the City of Kitchener website. Documents were
downloaded by five (5) interested parties and by the closing date of Thursday March 29, 2018,
four (4) tenders had been received.
The following tenders were received:
Bid Price
Afterglow Ltd. Waterloo ON $ 303,970.00
Steadfast Gas Services Kitchener ON $ 391,262.50
4 Seasons Heating and Cooling Ltd. Waterloo ON $ 449,514.00
1458013 Ontario Ltd (Aire -One) Kitchener ON $ 845,635.50
The tender submitted by Afterglow was deemed non-compliant and disqualified
The price for preventative maintenance inspections and de -liming of water heaters has
increased 30% from the 2017 contract prices, which have remained unchanged since the
contract was initially awarded in 2015.
The tender was reviewed by G. St. Louis, Director of Utilities and D. Oswald, Supervisor
Customer Service Utilities, who concur with the above recommendation.
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.
1Ji-2
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The net cost for this tender (A), is fair and reasonable for a purchase of this scope and the upset
limit is above the budget allowance (B) provided within the budget. Funding for this project is
included within the approved operating budget. The estimated deficit (D) will be funded from
the parts budget, if required.
T18-029
Water Heater Preventive Maintenance Inspections & De -Liming Services
Estimated Cost
T18-029 costs, including HST
less: HST rebate on tender
Net Cost Being Awarded
Less: Maintenance Costs to City Owned Tanks
Estimated Cost
Budget
Contracted Services
Total budget
Estimated Surplus/(Deficit) (B - C)
Financials will be managed to be within the budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
391, 262.50
(45,012.50)
346,250.00 A
(8,750.00)
$ 337, 500.00 C
320, 000.00
$ 320, 000.00 B
(17,500.00) D
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
Department
Staff Repod
Financia! Services Department
REPORT TO:
DATE OF MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
WARD (S) INVOLVED:
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
l
�_,
���X:HF.NF.0
www.kitch ever. ca
Committee of the Whole
2018-06-25
Laurie Stecho, Supervisor of Purchasing, 519-741-2200 ext. 7089
Steve Rudak, Buyer, 519-741-2200 ext. 7213
Ward 5
2018-06-13
FIN -18-016
T18-005 RBJ Schlegel Park — Park and Sportsfield Construction
That Tender T18-005 RBJ Schlegel Park — Park and Sportsfield Construction, be awarded
to Gateman-Milloy Inc., Kitchener, Ontario, at their tendered price of $8,516,517.12, plus
provisional items of $182,905., plus H.S.T. of $1,130,924.88, for a total of $9,830,347.
BACKGROUND:
The South Kitchener District Park (SKDP) Master Plan serves as a vision for the future overall
development of the park and to guide future site planning and detailed design work of the many
park facilities and features. The planned RBJ Schlegel Park features represent an important
extension of the strategic delivery of leisure and recreational facilities and services, as well as
delivery of important active -park and open space resources to service and support the
emergence of the southwest Kitchener community.
The park will be constructed in three (3) phases, followed by a future indoor facility building
stage. The works in Phase 1 were separated into two parts — Site Preparation and Park and
Sportsfield Construction. The Site Preparation was completed in May 2018.
This tender represents the Park and Sportsfield Construction and includes the installation of
major park infrastructure including: servicing (water and stormwater), dual artificial turf multi-
purpose fields with lighting, single natural turf football field (unlit), cricket pitch, heritage building
relocation, main roadway from Huron Rd., parking lots, playground, splashpad, pedestrian
pathways and tree planting.
REPORT:
Tenders were advertised publicly on the City of Kitchener website. Documents were
downloaded by forty-three (43) interested parties and by the closing date of Tuesday June 5,
2018, two (2) tenders had been received.
The following tenders were received:
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Bid Price Incl. Provisional Items
Orin Contractors Inc. Concord ON $ 8,716,610.72 $ 8,973,610.72
Gateman-Milloy Inc. Kitchener ON $ 9,623,664.35 $ 9,830,347.00
The tender submitted by Orin Contractors was deemed non-compliant and disqualified. Under
Proof of Ability, the City required that at least two projects must have been completed in the past
5 years and Orin has not met this requirement.
The tenders were reviewed by S. Bendo, Stantec Consulting Ltd., the City's Consultant for the
project, D. Ritz, Supervisor Design & Development, who concur with the above recommendation.
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 net cost for this Tender (A), is fair and reasonable for a project of this scope and the upset
limit is within the funding available (B) for this project. Funding for this project is included within
the approved capital budget. The estimated surplus (D) will be used to fund remaining phases
of the project.
T18-005
RBJ Schlegel Park - Park and Sportsfield Construction
Estimated Cost for this Phase of Work
Tender T18-005 costs, including HST
$9,830,347.00
less: HST rebate
(977,814.61)
Net Cost Being Awarded
8,852,532.39 A
Costs incurred to date
2,383,619.49
Projected Costs: Staff Time/Permits
57,500.00
Projected Costs: Contribution for Public Art
87,000.00
Projected Costs: Trail Development
42,500.00
Projected Costs: Signage
100,000.00
Total Estimated Cost for this Phase of Work
11,523,151.88 C
Budget for this Phase of Work
Funds Available for this Phase of Work 11,528,647.34
Total Budget for this Phase of Work 11,528,647.34 B
Estimated Surplus/(Deficit) for this Phase of Work (B - C) 5,495.46 D
1.ili - 2
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
• INS -13-043 South Kitchener District Park Master Plan - Community and Infrastructure
Services Committee, November 18, 2013
• FCS -17-163 — T17-034 South Kitchener District Park (SKDP) Phase 1 Area Grading,
September 25, 2017
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
Department
l
Staff Repod 0X:..R
Financia! Services Department www.kitch ever. ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: 2018-06-25
SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Stecho, Supervisor of Purchasing, 519-741-2200 ext. 7089
PREPARED BY: Laurie Stecho, Supervisor of Purchasing, 519-741-2200 ext. 7089
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: 2018-06-19
REPORT NO.: FIN -18-017
SUBJECT: T18-068 Sale of Industrial Lot on Strasburg Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That Tender T18-068 Sale of Industrial Lot on Strasburg Road, be awarded to 2140221
Ontario Inc., Kitchener, Ontario, and further;
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale
with 2140221 Ontario Inc., for their acquisition of the City's parcel of land, legally
described as PART LOT 17, RCP 1471, BEING PARTS 1 & 2 ON, 58R-6642, S/T 1004437;
S/T 1487182 [being all of PIN 22607-0040 (LT)]; AND PART LOT 1, RCP 1382, BEING PART
8 ON 58R-12866, SAVE & EXCEPT PART 1 ON 58R-15153 [being all of PIN 22607-1238
(LT)]; City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, consisting of approximately
37.6 acres, at a total purchase price of $3,915,000. plus H.S.T.; said agreement to be to
the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and further;
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute all documentation required to
complete the transaction, said documentation to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
BACKGROUND:
The City acquired this property over a period of time; the last large piece consisting of 26.6 acres
was purchased from Maple Leaf Foods. The lands were consolidated into one large parcel with
the intent of potentially using it for the Kitchener Operations Facility. The City no longer requires
this property and as a result, decided to sell this property on the open market by way of tender.
This is the last un -serviced industrial parcel in the Huron Business Park.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.iv - 1
REPORT:
Tenders were advertised publicly on the City of Kitchener website. Documents were downloaded
by ten (10) interested parties and by the closing date of Wednesday May 30, 2018, three (3)
tenders had been received.
The following tenders were received:
Bid Price (w/o HST)
Induscon Land Corp. Kitchener ON $ 4,460,000.00
2140221 Ontario Inc. Kitchener ON $ 3,915,000.00
Perimeter Development Corporation Kitchener ON $ 3,795,000.00
The tender submitted by Induscon Land Corp., was non-compliant, as requirements of the
Agreement of Purchase of Sale were modified..
The tender was reviewed by B. Bennett, Manager Business Development and R. Morgan,
Capital Investment Advisor/Brownfield Coordinator, who concur with the above
recommendation. Legal Services provided advice regarding the documentation.
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:
Funds received from the sale of these lands will be deposited in the Business Parks reserve
fund in accordance with the Council approved Reserve Fund policy (FIN -RES -770).
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: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
Department
1.iv - 2
Staff Repod
Financia! Services Department
REPORT TO:
DATE OF MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
WARD (S) INVOLVED:
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
l
�_,
���X:HF.NF.0
www.kitch ever. ca
Committee of the Whole
2018-06-25
Laurie Stecho, Supervisor of Purchasing, 519-741-2200 ext. 7089
Amy Carr, Buyer, 519-741-2200 ext. 7184
Ward 1
2018-06-14
FIN -18-018
T18-073 Kolb Creek Culvert Replacement
That Tender T18-073 Kolb Creek Culvert Replacement, be awarded to Sierra Infrastructure
Inc., Woodstock, Ontario at their tendered price of $547,614.50 including provisional
items and contingencies of $35,000., plus H.S.T. of $71,189.90, for a total of $618,804.40.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Stormwater Utility's effort to improve stormwater management and replace
critically deficient infrastructure, the replacement of a twin elliptical culvert crossing on Kolb
Creek at Forwell Road will be completed.
The culvert crossing provides access to a residential property, and connects Forwell Road and
Forwell Court. The existing culverts are undersized and heavy flows frequently overtop the road.
City of Kitchener Operations staff have done restorative works to re -instate the roadway and
protect the buried utilities beneath the crossing on a regular basis for a number of years.
The intent of the proposed design is to reduce the need for constant maintenance, protect buried
infrastructure, and provide residents with continued access to private property during heavy rain
events. The work includes the removal and replacement of the existing twin steel elliptical culvert
crossing with a twin cell rectangular precast box structure. Additionally, the lowering of the
existing watermain and adjustments to the existing sanitary sewer are necessary to install the
box structure.
The project is scheduled to begin July 2018, weather permitting.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
1.v - 1
REPORT:
Tenders were advertised publicly on the City of Kitchener website. Documents were downloaded
by twenty-nine (29) interested parties and by the closing date of Wednesday May 30, 2018, three
(3) tenders had been received.
The following tenders were received
Bid Price
Sierra Infrastructure Inc. Woodstock ON $618,804.40
Bel -Air Excavating & Grading Ltd. Cambridge ON $655,425.43
2220742 Ontario Ltd o/a Bronte Construction Oakville ON $657,140.20
The tenders were reviewed by S. Brickman, Design & Construction Project Manager, who
concurs with the above recommendation.
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:
In addition to the costs anticipated in this tender, the design and implementation of these types
of projects typically involves city staff and resources from across the corporation. These costs
are included in the line item "Projected Costs: Staff Time/Permitting/Material testing", and will be
itemized when they exceed $125,000. Included in this line item are staff time and expenses for
all city staff in support of the project such as Engineering, Kitchener Utilities, and Transportation
Planning. The line item also includes all regulatory permitting, geotechnical and material testing,
detouring and traffic control, alternate access and parking requirements and any other
miscellaneous costs. Projects utilizing in-house staff will include costs for inspection during
construction and contract administration.
The net cost for this proposal (A), is fair and reasonable for a purchase of this scope and the
upset limit is within the budget allowance (B) provided within the budget. The remaining surplus
(D) will remain within the account to fund future projects within the Watercourse Improvement
Program.
1x - 2
Tender T18-073
Kolb Creek Culvert Replacement
Estimated Cost
Tender T18-073, including HST
less: HST rebate on tender
Net Cost Being Awarded
Costs Incurred to Date
Projected Costs: Staff Time/Permitting/Material Testing
Total Estimated Cost for this Phase of Work
Funding Available
Funding available, net of encumbrances
Total Funding Available for this Phase of Work
Estimated Surplus/(Deficit) for this Phase of Work (B - C)
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
618, 804.40
(61,551.84)
557,252.56 A
50,591.95
15, 000.00
622, 844.51 C
1,404,100.10
1,404,100.10 B
781,255.59 D
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
Department
1x - 3
1
Staff Reart KIY FR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: Monday June 25, 2018
SUBMITTED BY: Cory Bluhm, Executive Director Economic Development,
519-744-2200 x7065
PREPARED BY: Thom Ryan, Sr. Business Development Officer, 519-744-2200 x7826
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward(s) 9, 10
DATE OF REPORT: Tuesday June 6, 2018
REPORT NO.: DSD -18-033
SUBJECT: Ontario's Main Streets Revitalization Fund Initiative
RECOMMENDATION:
WHEREAS the Municipality wishes to enter into an Agreement in order to participate in
Ontario's Main Streets Revitalization Initiative;
AND WHEREAS the Municipality acknowledges that Funds received through the
Agreement must be invested in interest bearing reserve account until the earliest of
expenditure or March 31, 2020;
Now THEREFORE, the Council of the CITY OF KITCHENER, a municipal corporation
pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001;
ENACTS AS FOLLOWS
That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Municipal Funding
Agreement for the transfer of Main Streets Revitalization Initiatives Funds between the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the CITY OF KITCHENER as in Schedule A
attached hereto.
Schedule A shall form part of this by-law.
BACKGROUND:
The Main Street Revitalization Initiative is a $26 million fund established by the Province of
Ontario to help municipal governments undertake main street revitalization activities that support
and benefit small businesses. Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) has agreed to
administer the funding on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
AMO signed the Agreement with OMAFRA on March 12, 2018. The Agreement's effective date
is April 1, 2018.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2-1
All lower and single tier municipal governments are eligible for the allocation based funding. The
formula for the funding was established by OMAFRA without the need for an application or
matching funding. It empowers municipalities to make investment decisions within the program's
parameters. The Main Street Agreement encourages collaboration, building of partnerships and
strategic alliances when working on eligible projects.
The municipal government grant formula established by OMAFRA, enables the City of Kitchener
to access up to a maximum of $235,909 in support of eligible works.
What is eligible?
Projects undertaken are to be geared towards supporting main street commercial businesses.
The work must be identified as a priority through an existing Community Improvement Plan, or
municipal physical infrastructure priorities identified through other municipal land use planning
documents for the municipality's main street that involves the construction, renewal, renovation
or redevelopment, or material enhancement in each of the following categories:
Implementation of priority financial incentives in existing Community Improvement Plans such
as:
a) Commercial building facade improvements;
b) Preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage and industrial buildings
c) Provision of affordable housing;
d) Space conversion for residential and commercial uses;
e) Structural improvements to buildings (e.g. Building Code upgrades);
f) Improvement of community energy efficiency; and
g) Accessibility enhancements.
Funding of strategic municipal physical infrastructure such as:
a) Signage — wayfinding/directional, and gateway;
b) Streetscaping and landscape improvements — lighting, banners, murals, street furniture,
interpretive elements, public art, urban forestation, accessibility, telecommunications/
broadband equipment, parking, active transportation infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/
storage, cycling lanes and paths) and pedestrian walkways/trails; and
c) Marketing plan implementation — business attraction and promotion activities, special
events.
Municipalities can identify projects in one or both categories.
What types of costs are eligible?
Eligible costs include:
2-2
• Costs directly and reasonably incurred on or after April 1, 2018 up to and including March
31, 2020 for construction, renewal, or material enhancement activities funded under
existing Community Improvement Plan financial incentive programs; and/or,
• Costs directly and reasonably incurred on or after April 1, 2018 up to and including March
31, 2020 for construction, renewal or material enhancement activities funded under the
Municipal Physical Infrastructure category, including projects in downtown or main street
areas, as defined through an existing Community Improvement Plan or other municipal
land use planning policy that will support the success of small businesses in main street
areas.
Ineligible costs include:
• Costs incurred prior to April 1, 2018 or after March 31, 2020;
• Any costs associated with providing any Reports to AMO;
• Any costs associated with lobbying Ontario, including other Ministries, agencies and
organizations of the Government of Ontario;
• Costs for infrastructure works in the following categories: highways, short -sea shipping,
short -line rail, regional or local airports, and brownfield redevelopment;
• Costs of infrastructure works that does not improve energy efficiency, accessibility,
aesthetics of marketability of small business within a main street area;
• Costs of infrastructure works outside of main street areas, as defined through an existing
Community Improvement Plan or other municipal land use planning policy;
• The cost of leasing of equipment, any overhead costs, including salaries and other
employment benefits of any employees, its direct or indirect operating or administrative
costs, and more specifically its costs related to planning, engineering, architecture,
supervision, management and other activities normally carried out by its staff, except in
accordance with eligible costs above;
• Taxes, to which the municipality is eligible for a tax rebate;
• Purchase of land or any interest therein, and related costs; and,
• Routine repair and maintenance costs.
The program is focused on implementation of existing Community Improvement Plans or
priorities through other existing municipal land use planning policies, including through the
official plan, economic development strategy, downtown revitalization plan or another related
plan in support of the municipal main street.
REPORT:
As of April 1, 2018, municipal governments can invest in revitalization activities that will support
small businesses through activities undertaken to revitalize downtown main streets. The work
can be identified as priority through an existing Community Improvement Plan or municipal
physical infrastructure priorities identified through other municipal land use planning document
for the municipality's main street that involves construction, renewal, renovation or
2-3
redevelopment, or material enhancement. Eligible works include only costs incurred from April
1, 2018 to March 31, 2020.
Through consultation with downtown partners including the Downtown Kitchener BIA and the
Waterloo Region Small Business Centre and city staff, a number of potential projects of eligible
work and timing were identified, and then prioritized within the program's desired criteria
including small business, benefit to downtown, revitalization, collaboration/community
partnerships, and strategic import.
Recommended Projects:
Project Title: Queen Street Lighting Enhancements
Project Description: A part of the broader $2 million Queen Street redevelopment plan, support
for enhanced lighting elements, such as the decorative string lighting installation.
Eligible Project Category (CIP/ Municipal Physical Infrastructure): Physical Infrastructure
Total Project Cost: $200,000
Estimate of Funds (Main Street) To Be Spent: $50,000
Project Title: King Street East Enhancements
Project Description: Enhance the customer experience of the Market District while improving
its integration with the rest of Downtown Kitchener, as outlined in the Shape DTK 2020
strategic plan. Improvements could include, but not limited to, new signage, flower bed
enhancements, gateway enhancements, new banners, marketing infrastructure, or other
capital improvements that support an enhanced retail environment.
Eligible Project Category (CIP/ Municipal Physical Infrastructure): Physical Infrastructure
Total Project Cost: $40,000
Estimate of Funds (Main Street) To Be Spent: $40,000
Project Title: Enhancing the Downtown Customer Experience
Project Description: Enhancing physical and digital infrastructure in downtown Kitchener,
including items such as additional furnishings, public art, downtown hotspots, physical and
digital discovery, etc.
Eligible Project Category (CIP/ Municipal Physical Infrastructure): Physical Infrastructure
Total Project Cost: $100,000
Estimate of Funds (Main Street) To Be Spent: $100,000
Project Title: Main Street Marketing Plan Implementation and Research
Project Description: Support for marketing initiatives that promote downtown businesses (e.g.
the production and distribution of OWN IT magazine, from the Shape DTK strategic plan),
and/or market research to support business competitiveness/business attraction (from the
Make It Kitchener economic development strategic plan and Shape DTK strategic plan).
Eligible Project Category (CIP/ Municipal Physical Infrastructure): Physical Infrastructure
Total Project Cost: $45,909
Estimate of Funds (Main Street) To Be Spent: $45,909
2-4
Other Projects Considered:
Through consultation, staff identified several other projects of eligible works but ultimately ranked
lower than the recommended projects above. Ranking consideration included value to small
businesses, main street revitalization, partnerships, identification in an existing strategic or
business plan, ability to implement within the required timelines, and alignment with City
objectives. Other projects included:
• Irrigation Enhancements on King Street
• Retail Incubator Program
• Pop Up Retail Program
• Rear Laneway Access
Rationale for Recommended Projects:
Given the purpose of the program is to support main street commercial businesses, staff have
recommended projects that should, in some way, benefit the majority of downtown commercial
businesses. The "Enhancing the Customer Experience" and "Main Street Marketing Plan
Implementation" projects are intended to have a downtown -wide scope. Staff will work with the
BIA to identify the ultimate outcomes and ensure they benefit as many businesses as possible.
Meanwhile, the "King Street East Enhancements" and "Queen Street Lighting Enhancements"
projects support commercial areas that have not seen significant recent investments. The
Queen Street project, in particular, ensures that, through the construction of the Queen Street
Placemaking Plan, the enhanced lighting features (a signature element to the customer
experience) will be implemented from the start. Staff will work with the BIA and King Street East
businesses to determine which enhancements will be implemented.
In addition, staff have identified projects that balance immediate support with long lasting support
(such as capital projects where assets will exist for many years to come).
Other Work Already Implemented or Planned
While the projects listed above are new initiatives, the City and BIA collectively work together to
continuously enhance customer experience and support main street businesses through
numerous initiatives through the year. The following is just a sample of these initiatives:
• Downtown Discovery Team
• Horticulture enhancements
• Community, festival and event programming
• Downtown Clean Teams with a new Garbage Removal Program (new in 2018)
• Addition of on -street parking in Bell's Lane (planned for 2019)
• Numerous marketing and promotion efforts
2-5
Reporting
Results reporting to the AMO will demonstrate how the funding has been invested in the City of
Kitchener to support revitalization within main street areas:
Community Improvement Plan Eligible Projects
• Number of small businesses supported;
• Total value of physical improvements;
• Total Main Street Funds provided;
• Total Municipal investment; and,
• Total private investment.
Municipal Physical Infrastructure Eligible Projects
• Total value of physical improvements;
• Total Main Street Funds provided; and
• Total municipal investment.
Annual reporting and results reporting will be due to AMO by May 15, 2019 and every year
thereafter until the funds are spent.
The City of Kitchener will be expected to acknowledge funding of projects by the Province by
inviting the Province to participate in media events or announcements related to projects funded
under the Main Street Revitalization Initiative.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority: Strong and Resilient Economy — We will work within a collaborative network
of city -builders to create a dynamic and prosperous Kitchener that is rich with employment
opportunities and successful business ventures that can grow and thrive within the broader
global economy.
Strategy: 2015-2019 Kitchener Economic Development Strategy "Make it Kitchener"
Make It Start — We will be agile in the provision of services for startups, continue to attract
entrepreneurs (locally, nationally, globally), and become a magnet for investment.
Make It Urban - We will continue to develop a dynamic downtown and promote
urbanization across the city, lead the way in property redevelopment, and facilitate the
creation of sought-after urban amenities.
2-6
Strategic Action: 2017-2022 Downtown Kitchener Action Plan
Ignite the downtown as a platform for the next generation of urban shops, restaurants,
businesses & services: Create the runway for businesses to succeed by providing tools to
compete in an increasingly disruptive, digital marketplace. Examples of possible initiatives
include: retail/food incubator program, retail market analysis, and physical enhancements that
improve the customer experience
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The City of Kitchener will receive up to a maximum of $235,909 from OMAFRA through AMO in
support of projects of eligible work. The City is not required to match any portion of the funding
received.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
CONSULT - Consultation with Downtown Kitchener BIA and Waterloo Region Small Business
Centre to identify and prioritize eligible projects. Staff will work with the BIA and any key
stakeholders/businesses as part of the implementation of each project.
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, Development Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Bylaw & Schedule A
2-%
PROPOSED BY — LAW
June 25, 2018
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener to enter
into an agreement with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to
participate in Ontario's Main Street Revitalization Initiative)
WHEREAS the Municipality wishes to enter into an Agreement in order to participate in Ontario's Main
Street Revitalization Initiative;
AND WHEREAS the Municipality acknowledges that funds received through the Agreement must be
invested in an interest bearing reserve account until the earliest expenditure or March 31, 2020;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener
enacts as follows:
THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Municipal Funding Agreement for
the transfer of Main Street Revitalization Initiatives funds between the Association of Municipalities
of Ontario and The Corporation of the City of Kitchener as in Schedule A attached hereto.
Schedule A shall form part of this by-law.
2. THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon the final passing thereof.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 12018
Mayor
Clerk
2-8
AmeAm&*n of
Municipalifies Ontario
SCHEDULE A
MUNICIPAL FUNDING AGREEMENT
ONTARIO'S MAIN STREET REVITALIZATION INITIATIVE
This Agreement made as of 1st day of April, 2018.
BETWEEN:
AND:
THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO
(referred to herein as "AMO")
THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(a municipal corporation pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, referred to herein as the
"Recipient")
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario is making $26 million available for allocation for the
purposes of supporting municipal Main Street Revitalization Initiatives in Ontario;
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario, Ontario municipalities as represented by AMO are
signatories to Ontario's Main Street Revitalization Initiative Transfer Payment Agreement on
March 12, 2018 (the "OMAFRA-AMO Agreement"), whereby AMO agreed to administer Main
Street Revitalization funds made available to all Ontario municipalities, excluding Toronto;
WHEREAS the OMAFRA-AMO Transfer Payment Agreement contains a framework for the
transfer of provincial funds to Ontario lower -tier and single -tier municipalities represented by
AMO;
WHEREAS the Recipient wishes to enter into this Agreement in order to participate in Ontario's
Main Street Revitalization Initiative;
WHEREAS AMO is carrying out the fund administration in accordance with its obligations set
out in the OMAFRA-AMO Agreement and it will accordingly undertake certain activities and
require Recipients to undertake activities as set out in this Agreement.
THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
1.1 Definitions. When used in this Agreement (including the cover and execution
pages and all of the schedules), the following terms shall have the meanings
ascribed to them below unless the subject matter or context is inconsistent
therewith:
200 University Ave. Suite 801 www.amo.on.ca Tel 416. 971.9856 Toll Free in Ont A
Toronto, ON, M5H 3C6 amo@a amo.on.ca Fax 416. 971.6191 877.426.6527 7
"Agreement" means this Agreement, including the cover and execution pages
and all of the schedules hereto, and all amendments made hereto in
accordance with the provisions hereof.
"Annual Report" means the duly completed report to be prepared and
delivered to AMO as described in Section 7.2 and Section 2 of Schedule D.
"Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)" means a legally
incorporated entity under the Corporations Act, 1990 R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c.38.
"Communication Report" means the duly completed report to be prepared
and delivered to AMO as described in Section 7.1 and Section 1 of Schedule D.
"Community Improvement Plan" has the meaning as defined under section
28(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.
"Contract" means an agreement between the Recipient and a Third Party
whereby the latter agrees to supply a product or service to an Eligible Project in
return for financial consideration.
"Effective Date" is April 1, 2018.
"Eligible Costs" means those expenditures described as eligible in Schedule C.
"Eligible Projects" means projects as described in Schedule B.
"Eligible Recipient" means a
a. Municipality or its agent (including its wholly owned corporation); and
b. Non -municipal entity, including for profit, non-governmental and not -for
profit organizations, on the condition that the Municipality(ies) has
(have) indicated support for the Eligible Project through a formal grant
agreement between the Municipality and the non -municipal entity.
"Event of Default" has the meaning given to it in Section 11.1 of this
Agreement.
"Funds" mean the Funds made available to the Recipient through the Main
Street Revitalization Initiative, a program established by the Government of
Ontario. Funds are made available pursuant to this Agreement and includes any
interest earned on the said Funds. For greater certainty: (i) Funds transferred to
another Municipality in accordance with Section 6.2 of this Agreement, other
than as set out in Sections 7.1(a), (c) and (f), are to be treated as Funds by the
Municipality to which the Funds are transferred and are not to be treated as
Funds by the Recipient; and (ii) any Funds transferred to a non -municipal entity
in accordance with Section 6.3 of this Agreement shall remain as Funds under
this Agreement for all purposes and the Recipient shall continue to be bound by
all provisions of this Agreement with respect to such transferred Funds.
"Ineligible Costs" means those expenditures described as ineligible in
Schedule C.
2 2-10
"Lower -tier Municipality" means a Municipality that forms part of an Upper -
tier Municipality for municipal purposes, as defined under the Municipal Act,
2001 S.O. 2001, c.25.
"Municipal Fiscal Year" means the period beginning January 1st of a year and
ending December 31 st of the same year.
"Municipality" and "Municipalities" means every municipality as defined
under the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001 c.25.
"Municipal Physical Infrastructure" means municipal or regional, publicly or
privately owned, tangible capital assets primarily for public use or benefit in
Ontario.
"Ontario" means Her Majesty in Right of Ontario, as represented by the
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
"Parties" means AMO and the Recipient.
"Project Completion Date" means the Recipient must complete its Project
under this Agreement by March 31, 2020.
"Recipient" has the meaning given to it on the first page of this Agreement.
"Results Report" means the report prepared and delivered to AMO by the
Recipient by which reports on how Funds are supporting progress towards
achieving the program objective, more specifically described in Section 3 of
Schedule D.
"Single -tier Municipality" means a municipality, other than an upper -tier
municipality, that does not form part of an upper -tier municipality for municipal
purposes as defined under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c. 25.
"Third Party" means any person or legal entity, other than the Parties to this
Agreement who participates in the implementation of an Eligible Project by
means of a Contract.
"Transfer By-law" means a by-law passed by Council of the Recipient pursuant
to Section 6.2 and delivered to AMO in accordance with that section.
"Unspent Funds" means the amount reported as unspent by the Recipient as
of December 31, as submitted in the Recipient's Annual Report.
1.2 Interpretations:
Herein, etc. The words "herein", "hereof' and "hereunder" and other words of
similar import refer to this Agreement as a whole and not any particular
schedule, article, section, paragraph or other subdivision of this Agreement.
Currency. Any reference to currency is to Canadian currency and any amount
advanced, paid or calculated is to be advanced, paid or calculated in Canadian
currency.
Statutes. Any reference to a federal or provincial statute is to such statute and
to the regulations made pursuant to such statute as such statute and
regulations may at any time be amended or modified and in effect and to any
statute or regulations that may be passed that have the effect of supplementing
or superseding such statute or regulations.
Gender, singular, etc. Words importing the masculine gender include the
feminine or neuter gender and words in the singular include the plural, and vice
versa.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
2.1 Term. Subject to any extension or termination of this Agreement or the
survival of any of the provisions of this Agreement pursuant to the provisions
contained herein, this Agreement shall be in effect from the date set out on the
first page of this Agreement, up to and including March 31, 2020.
2.2 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time in writing as agreed
to by AMO and the Recipient.
2.3 Notice. Any of the Parties may terminate this Agreement on written notice.
3. RECIPIENT REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Communications. The Recipient will comply with all requirements outlined,
including providing upfront project information on an annual basis, or until all
Funds are expended for communications purposes in the form described in
Section 7.1 and Section 1 of Schedule D.
a) Unless otherwise directed by Ontario, the Recipient will acknowledge the
support of Ontario for Eligible Projects in the following manner: "The
Project is funded [if it is partly funded the Recipient should use "in part'] by
the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs."
b) The Recipient shall notify Ontario within five (5) business days of planned
media events or announcements related to the Project, organized by the
Recipient to facilitate the attendance of Ontario. Media events and
announcements include, but are not limited to, news conferences, public
announcements, official events or ceremonies, and news releases.
3.2 Contracts. The Recipient will award and manage all Contracts in accordance
with its relevant policies and procedures and, if applicable, in accordance with
the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and applicable international trade
agreements, and all other applicable laws.
a) The Recipient will ensure any of its Contracts for the supply of services or
materials to implement its responsibilities under this Agreement will be
4 2-12
awarded in a way that is transparent, competitive, consistent with value for
money principles and pursuant to its adopted procurement policy.
4. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
4.1 Eligible Projects. Costs directly and reasonably incurred by the Recipient for
construction, renewal, renovation or redevelopment or material enhancement
activities funded under existing Community Improvement Plan financial
incentive programs or activities funded under the Municipal Physical
Infrastructure category, including projects in downtown or main street areas, as
defined through an existing Community Improvement Plan or other municipal
land use planning policy that will support the role of small businesses in main
street areas as more specifically described in Schedule B and Schedule C
4.2 Recipient Fully Responsible. The Recipient is fully responsible for the
completion of each Eligible Project in accordance with Schedule B and Schedule
C.
S. ELIGIBLE COSTS
5.1 Eligible Costs. Schedule C sets out specific requirements for Eligible and
Ineligible Costs.
5.2 Discretion of Ontario. Subject to Section 5.1, the eligibility of any items not
listed in Schedule B and/or Schedule C to this Agreement is solely at the
discretion of Ontario.
5.3 Unspent Funds. Any Unspent Funds, and any interest earned thereon, will be
subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
5.4 Reasonable Access. The Recipient shall allow AMO and Ontario reasonable and
timely access to all documentation, records and accounts and those of their
respective agents or Third Parties related to the receipt, deposit and use of
Funds and Unspent Funds, and any interest earned thereon, and all other
relevant information and documentation requested by AMO or Ontario or their
respective designated representatives for the purposes of audit, evaluation, and
ensuring compliance with this Agreement.
5.5 Retention of Receipts. The Recipient will keep proper and accurate accounts
and records of all Eligible Projects including invoices and receipts for Eligible
Expenditures in accordance with the Recipient's municipal records retention by-
law and, upon reasonable notice, make them available to AMO and Ontario.
6. FUNDS
6.1 Allocation of Funds. AMO will allocate and transfer Funds on the basis of the
formula determined by Ontario.
6.2 Transfer of Funds to a Municipality. Where a Recipient decides to allocate
and transfer Funds to another Municipality (the "Transferee Municipality"):
5 2-13
a) The allocation and transfer shall be authorized by by-law (a "Transfer By-
law"). The Transfer By-law shall be passed by the Recipient's council and
submitted to AMO as soon thereafter as practicable. The Transfer By-law
shall identify the Transferee Municipality and the amount of Funds the
Transferee Municipality is to receive for the Municipal Fiscal Year specified
in the Transfer By-law.
b) The Recipient is still required to submit an Annual Report in accordance with
Sections 7.1 (a), (c) and (f) hereof with respect to the Funds transferred.
c) No transfer of Funds pursuant to this Section 6.2 shall be effected unless
and until the Transferee Municipality has either (i) entered into an
agreement with AMO on substantially the same terms as this Agreement, or
(ii) has executed and delivered to AMO a written undertaking to assume all
of the Recipient's obligations under this Agreement with respect to the
Funds transferred; in a form satisfactory to AMO.
6.3 Transfer of Funds to a non -municipal entity. Where a Recipient decides to
support an Eligible Project undertaken by an Eligible Recipient that is not a
Municipality:
a) The provision of such support shall be authorized by a grant agreement
between the Municipality and the Eligible Recipient in support of a
Community Improvement Plan. The grant agreement shall identify the
Eligible Recipient, and the amount of Funds the Eligible Recipient is to
receive for that Eligible Project.
b) The Recipient shall continue to be bound by all of the provisions of this
Agreement notwithstanding any such transfer including the submission of
an Annual Report in accordance with Section 7.2.
c) No transfer of Funds pursuant to this Section 6.3 shall be effected unless
and until the non -municipal entity receiving the Funds has executed and
delivered to the Municipality the grant agreement.
6.4 Use of Funds. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees the Funds are intended
for and shall be used only for Eligible Expenditures in respect of Eligible
Projects.
6.5 Payout of Funds. The Recipient agrees that all Funds will be transferred by
AMO to the Recipient upon full execution of this Agreement.
6.6 Use of Funds. The Recipient will deposit the Funds in a dedicated reserve fund
or other separate distinct interest bearing account and shall retain the Funds in
such reserve fund, or account until the Funds are expended or transferred in
accordance with this Agreement. The Recipient shall ensure that:
a) any investment of unexpended Funds will be in accordance with Ontario law
and the Recipient's investment policy; and,
6 2-14
b) any interest earned on Funds will only be applied to Eligible Costs for
Eligible Projects, more specifically on the basis set out in Schedule B and
Schedule C.
6.7 Funds advanced. Funds transferred by AMO to the Recipient shall be expended
by the Recipient in respect of Eligible Costs. AMO reserves the right to declare
that Unspent Funds after March 31, 2020 become a debt to Ontario which the
Recipient will reimburse forthwith on demand to AMO for transmission to
Ontario.
6.8 Expenditure of Funds. The Recipient shall expend all Funds by March 31, 2020.
6.9 GST & HST. The use of Funds is based on the net amount of goods and services
tax or harmonized sales tax to be paid by the Recipient net of any applicable tax
rebates.
6.10 Limit on Ontario's Financial Commitments. The Recipient may use Funds to
pay up to one hundred percent (100%) of Eligible Expenditures of an Eligible
Project.
6.11 Stacking. If the Recipient is receiving funds under other programs in respect of
an Eligible Project to which the Recipient wishes to apply Funds, the maximum
contribution limitation set out in any other program agreement made in respect
of that Eligible Project shall continue to apply.
6.12 Insufficient funds provided by Ontario. If Ontario does not provide sufficient
funds to AMO for this Agreement, AMO may terminate this Agreement.
7. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Communication Report. Immediately upon execution of this Agreement the
Recipient shall report to AMO any Eligible Project being undertaken in the
current Municipal Fiscal Year in the form described in Schedule D.
7.2 Annual Report. The Recipient shall report in the form in Schedule D due by
May 15th following the Municipal Fiscal Year on:
a) the amounts received from AMO under this Agreement;
b) the amounts received from another Eligible Recipient;
c) the amounts transferred to another Eligible Recipient;
d) amounts paid by the Recipient in aggregate for Eligible Projects;
e) amounts held at year end by the Recipient in aggregate, including interest,
to pay for Eligible Projects;
f) indicate in a narrative the progress that the Recipient has made in meeting
its commitments and contributions; and,
2-15
g) a listing of all Eligible Projects that have been funded, indicating the Eligible
Project category, project description, amount of Funds, total project cost,
start date, end date and completion status.
7.3 Results Report. The Recipient shall account in writing for results achieved by
the Funds through a Results Report to be submitted to AMO. Specifically the
Results Report shall document performance measures achieved through the
investments in Eligible Projects in the form described in Section 3 of Schedule
D.
8. RECORDS AND AUDIT
8.1 Accounting Principles. All accounting terms not otherwise defined herein have
the meanings assigned to them; all calculations will be made and all financial
data to be submitted will be prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) in effect in Ontario. GAAP will include, without
limitation, those principles approved or recommended for local governments
from time to time by the Public Sector Accounting Board or the Canadian
Institute of Chartered Accountants or any successor institute, applied on a
consistent basis.
8.2 Separate Records. The Recipient shall maintain separate records and
documentation for the Funds and keep all records including invoices,
statements, receipts and vouchers in respect of Funds expended on Eligible
Projects in accordance with the Recipient's municipal records retention by-law.
Upon reasonable notice, the Recipient shall submit all records and
documentation relating to the Funds to AMO and Ontario for inspection or
audit.
8.3 External Auditor. AMO and/or Ontario may request, upon written notification,
an audit of Eligible Project or an Annual Report. AMO shall retain an external
auditor to carry out an audit of the material referred to in Sections 5.4 and 5.5
of this Agreement. AMO shall ensure that any auditor who conducts an audit
pursuant to this Section of this Agreement or otherwise, provides a copy of the
audit report to the Recipient and Ontario at the same time that the audit report
is given to AMO.
9. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY
9.1 Insurance. The Recipient shall put in effect and maintain in full force and
effect or cause to be put into effect and maintained for the term of this
Agreement all the necessary insurance with respect to each Eligible Project,
including any Eligible Projects with respect to which the Recipient has
transferred Funds pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement, that would be
considered appropriate for a prudent Municipality undertaking Eligible Projects,
including, where appropriate and without limitation, property, construction and
liability insurance, which insurance coverage shall identify Ontario and AMO as
additional insureds for the purposes of the Eligible Projects.
9.2 Certificates of Insurance. Throughout the term of this Agreement, the
Recipient shall provide AMO with a valid certificate of insurance that confirms
compliance with the requirements of Section 9.1. No Funds shall be expended
$ 2-16
or transferred pursuant to this Agreement until such certificate has been
delivered to AMO.
9.3 AMO not liable. In no event shall Ontario or AMO be liable for:
(a) any bodily injury, death or property damages to the Recipient, its
employees, agents or consultants or for any claim, demand or action by
any Third Party against the Recipient, its employees, agents or
consultants, arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement; or
(b) any incidental, indirect, special or consequential damages, or any loss of
use, revenue or profit to the Recipient, its employees, agents or
consultants arising out of any or in any way related to this Agreement.
9.4 Recipient to Compensate Ontario. The Recipient will ensure that it will not, at
any time, hold Ontario, its officers, servants, employees or agents responsible
for any claims or losses of any kind that the Recipient, Third Parties or any other
person or entity may suffer in relation to any matter related to the Funds or an
Eligible Project and that the Recipient will, at all times, compensate Ontario, its
officers, servants, employees and agents for any claims or losses of any kind
that any of them may suffer in relation to any matter related to the Funds or an
Eligible Project. The Recipient's obligation to compensate as set out in this
section does not apply to the extent to which such claims or losses relate to the
negligence of an officer, servant, employee, or agent of Ontario in the
performance of his or her duties.
9.5 Recipient to Indemnify AMO. The Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify and
hold harmless AMO, its officers, servants, employees or agents (each of which is
called an "Indemnitee"), from and against all claims, losses, damages, liabilities
and related expenses including the fees, charges and disbursements of any
counsel for any Indemnitee incurred by any Indemnitee or asserted against any
Indemnitee by whomsoever brought or prosecuted in any manner based upon,
or occasioned by, any injury to persons, damage to or loss or destruction of
property, economic loss or infringement of rights caused by or arising directly
or indirectly from:
(a) the Funds;
(b) the Recipient's Eligible Projects, including the design, construction,
operation, maintenance and repair of any part or all of the Eligible Projects;
(c) the performance of this Agreement or the breach of any term or
condition of this Agreement by the Recipient, its officers, servants, employees
and agents, or by a Third Party, its officers, servants, employees, or agents; and
(d) any omission or other wilful or negligent act of the Recipient or Third
Party and their respective officers, servants, employees or agents.
10. DISPOSAL
10.1 Disposal. The Recipient will not, without Ontario's prior written consent, sell,
lease or otherwise dispose of any asset purchased or created with the Funds or
9 2-17
for which Funds were provided, the cost of which exceed $50,000 at the time of
sale, lease or disposal prior to March 31, 2021.
11. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION
11.1 Event of Default. AMO may declare in writing that an event of default has
occurred when the Recipient has not complied with any condition, undertaking
or term in this Agreement. AMO will not declare in writing that an event of
default has occurred unless it has first consulted with the Recipient. Each and
every one of the following events is an "Event of Default":
(a) failure by the Recipient to deliver in a timely manner an Annual Report or
Results Report.
(b) delivery of an Annual Report that discloses non-compliance with any condition,
undertaking or material term in this Agreement.
(c) failure by the Recipient to co-operate in an external audit undertaken by AMO
or its agents.
(d) delivery of an external audit report that discloses non-compliance with any
condition, undertaking or term in this Agreement.
(e) failure by the Recipient to expend Funds in accordance with Sections 4.1 and
6.8.
11.2 Waiver. AMO may withdraw its notice of an Event of Default if the Recipient,
within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the notice, either corrects the
default or demonstrates, to the satisfaction of AMO in its sole discretion that it
has taken such steps as are necessary to correct the default.
11.3 Remedies on default. If AMO declares that an Event of Default has occurred
under Section 11.1, after thirty (30) calendar days from the Recipient's receipt of
the notice of an Event of Default, it may immediately terminate this Agreement.
11.4 Repayment of Funds. If AMO declares that an Event of Default has not been
cured to its satisfaction, AMO reserves the right to declare that prior payments
of Funds become a debt to Ontario which the Recipient will reimburse forthwith
on demand to AMO for transmission to Ontario.
12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
12.1 No conflict of interest. The Recipient will ensure that no current member of
the AMO Board of Directors and no current or former public servant or office
holder to whom any post -employment, ethics and conflict of interest legislation,
guidelines, codes or policies of Ontario applies will derive direct benefit from
the Funds, the Unspent Funds, and interest earned thereon, unless the
provision of receipt of such benefits is in compliance with such legislation,
guidelines, policies or codes.
13. NOTICE
10 2-18
13.1 Notice. Any notice, information or document provided for under this
Agreement will be effectively given if in writing and if delivered by hand, or
overnight courier, mailed, postage or other charges prepaid, or sent by
facsimile or email to the addresses, the facsimile numbers or email addresses
set out in Section 13.3. Any notice that is sent by hand or overnight courier
service shall be deemed to have been given when received; any notice mailed
shall be deemed to have been received on the eighth (8) calendar day following
the day on which it was mailed; any notice sent by facsimile shall be deemed to
have been given when sent; any notice sent by email shall be deemed to have
been received on the sender's receipt of an acknowledgment from the intended
recipient (such as by the "return receipt requested" function, as available,
return email or other written acknowledgment), provided that in the case of a
notice sent by facsimile or email, if it is not given on a business day before 4:30
p.m. Eastern Standard Time, it shall be deemed to have been given at 8:30 a.m.
on the next business day for the recipient.
13.2 Representatives. The individuals identified in Section 13.3 of this Agreement,
in the first instance, act as AMO's or the Recipient's, as the case may be,
representative for the purpose of implementing this Agreement.
13.3 Addresses for Notice. Further to Section 13.1 of this Agreement, notice can be
given at the following addresses:
a) If to AMO:
Executive Director
Main Streets Agreement
Association of Municipalities of Ontario 200 University Avenue, Suite 801
Toronto, ON M5H 3C6
Telephone: 416-971-9856
Email: mainstreets@amo.on.ca
b) If to the Recipient:
CAO/Interim City Treasurer
Dan Chapman
CITY OF KITCHENER
Box 1118, 200 King St. W.
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
(519) 741-2200 x7350
dan.chapman@kitchener.ca
14. MISCELLANEOUS
14.1 Counterpart Signature. This Agreement may be signed in counterpart, and the
signed copies will, when attached, constitute an original Agreement.
14.2 Severability. If for any reason a provision of this Agreement that is not a
fundamental term is found to be or becomes invalid or unenforceable, in whole
or in part, it will be deemed to be severable and will be deleted from this
11 2-19
Agreement, but all the other terms and conditions of this Agreement will
continue to be valid and enforceable.
14.3 Waiver. AMO may waive any right in this Agreement only in writing, and any
tolerance or indulgence demonstrated by AMO will not constitute waiver of
rights in this Agreement. Unless a waiver is executed in writing, AMO will be
entitled to seek any remedy that it may have under this Agreement or under the
law.
14.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario.
14.5 Survival. The Recipient agrees that the following sections and provisions of this
Agreement shall extend for seven (7) years beyond the expiration or
termination of this Agreement: Sections 5, 6.7, 6.8, 7, 9.4, 9.5, 11.4 and 14.8.
14.6 AMO, Ontario and Recipient independent. The Recipient will ensure its
actions do not establish or will not be deemed to establish a partnership, joint
venture, principal -agent relationship or employer-employee relationship in any
way or for any purpose whatsoever between Ontario and the Recipient,
between AMO and the Recipient, between Ontario and a Third Party or between
AMO and a Third Party.
14.7 No Authority to Represent. The Recipient will ensure that it does not
represent itself, including in any agreement with a Third Party, as a partner,
employee or agent of Ontario or AMO.
14.8 Debts Due to AMO. Any amount owed under this Agreement will constitute a
debt due to AMO, which the Recipient will reimburse forthwith, on demand, to
AMO.
14.9 Priority. In the event of a conflict, the part of this Agreement that precedes the
signature of the Parties will take precedence over the Schedules.
15. SCHEDULES
15.1 This Agreement, including:
Schedule A Municipal Allocation
Schedule B Eligible Projects
Schedule C Eligible and Ineligible Costs
Schedule D Reporting
constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject
matter contained in this Agreement and supersedes all prior oral or written
representations and agreements.
12 2-20
16. SIGNATURES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMO and the Recipient have respectively executed, sealed and
delivered this Agreement on the date set out on the front page.
RECIPIENT'S NAME:
CITY OF KITCHENER
Mayor Name Signature
Clerk Name Signature
THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO
By Title
In the presence of:
Witness Title
13
Signature
Signature
2-21
SCHEDULE A
MUNICPAL ALLOCATION
RECIPIENT'S NAME: CITY OF KITCHENER
ALLOCATION: $235909.0971
The Recipient acknowledges this is a one time payment for Eligible Projects with Eligible Costs.
14 2-22
SCHEDULE B
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
Funding is to be directed to Eligible Projects to support revitalization activities within main
street areas, as defined through an existing Community Improvement Plan or any other
municipal land use planning policy. Funding can be used in one or both of the following
categories:
1. Community Improvement Plan - construction, renewal, renovation or redevelopment
or material enhancement activities that implement priority financial incentives in existing
Community Improvement Plans such as:
a. Commercial building fa4ade improvements
b. Preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage and industrial buildings
c. Provision of affordable housing
d. Space conversion for residential and commercial uses
e. Structural improvements to buildings (e.g. Building Code upgrades)
f. Improvement of community energy efficiency
g. Accessibility enhancements
2. Other Municipal Land Use Planning Policy- construction, renewal or material
enhancement activities to fund strategic Municipal Physical Infrastructure and
promotional projects such as:
a. Signage - wayfinding/directional, and gateway.
b. Streetscaping and landscape improvements - lighting, banners, murals, street
furniture, interpretive elements, public art, urban forestation, accessibility,
telecommunications/broadband equipment, parking, active transportation
infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/storage, cycling lanes and paths) and pedestrian
walkways/trails.
c. Marketing plan implementation - business attraction and promotion activities, special
events.
15 2-23
SCHEDULE C
ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS
1. Eligible Costs include:
a. Costs directly and reasonably incurred on or after April 1, 2018 up to and including the
Project Completion Date by the Recipient for construction, renewal, renovation or
redevelopment or material enhancement activities funded under existing Community
Improvement Plan financial incentive programs.
b. Costs directly and reasonably incurred on or after April 1, 2018 up to and including the
Project Completion Date by the Recipient for construction, renewal or material
enhancement activities funded under the Municipal Physical Infrastructure category
including projects in downtown or main street areas, as defined through an existing
Community Improvement Plan or other municipal land use planning policy that will
support the success of small businesses in main street areas.
2. Ineligible Costs include:
a. Costs incurred prior to Effective Date or after the Project Completion Date;
b. Any costs associated with providing the Annual and Results Reports to AMO;
c. Any costs associated with lobbying Ontario, including other Ministries, agencies and
organizations of the Government of Ontario;
d. Costs associated with construction, renewal, renovation or redevelopment or material
enhancement of all things in the following categories: highways, short -sea shipping,
short -line rail, regional or local airports, and brownfield redevelopment;
e. Costs of infrastructure construction, renewal, renovation or redevelopment or material
enhancement that do not improve energy efficiency, accessibility, aesthetics of
marketability of small businesses within an Recipient's main street areas; or that do not
encourage strategic public investments in municipal and other public infrastructure
within main street areas that will benefit small businesses; or that otherwise will likely
fail to contribute to the success of main street businesses;
f. Costs of infrastructure construction, renewal, renovation or redevelopment or material
enhancement outside of the Recipient's main street areas, as defined through an
existing Community Improvement Plan or other municipal land use planning policy;
g. The cost of leasing of equipment by the Recipient, any overhead costs, including
salaries and other employment benefits of any employees of the Recipient, its direct or
indirect operating or administrative costs of Recipients, and more specifically its costs
related to planning, engineering, architecture, supervision, management and other
activities normally carried out by its staff, except in accordance with Eligible Costs
above;
h. Taxes, to which the Recipient is eligible for a tax rebate;
i. Purchase of land or any interest therein, and related costs; and,
j. Routine repair and maintenance Municipal Physical Infrastructure.
16 2-24
SCHEDULE D
REPORTING
1. Communication Report
Immediately following the Municipality executing this Agreement the Recipient will provide
AMO a Communication Report in an electronic format deemed acceptable to AMO, consisting
of the following:
Project Title
Project
Description
Eligible Project
Category (CIP/
Municipal Physical
Infrastructure
Total Project
Cost
Estimate of Funds
(Main Street)
Spent
20xx
2018-2020
Opening Balance
$xxx
Received from AMO
$xxx
$xxx
Interest Earned
$xxx
$xxx
Received from An Eligible
$xxx
$xxx
Recipient
2. Annual Report
The Recipient will provide to AMO an Annual Report in an electronic format deemed
acceptable to AMO, consisting of the following:
a. Financial Reporting Table: The financial report table will be submitted in accordance with
the following template:
17 2-25
Annual
Cumulative
Annual Report Financial Table
20xx
2018-2020
Opening Balance
$xxx
Received from AMO
$xxx
$xxx
Interest Earned
$xxx
$xxx
Received from An Eligible
$xxx
$xxx
Recipient
Transferred to an Eligible
($xxx)
($xxx)
Recipient
Spent on Eligible Projects (for
($xxx)
($xxx)
each Eligible Project category)
Closing Balance of
$xxx
Unspent Funds
17 2-25
b. Project List: The Recipient will provide to AMO a project list submitted in accordance with
the following template:
3. Project Results.
The Results Report shall outline, in a manner to be provided by AMO, the degree to which
investments in each project are supporting progress towards achieving revitalization within
main street areas:
a. Community Improvement Plan Eligible Projects
• Number of small businesses supported;
• Total value of physical improvements;
• Total Main Street Funds provided;
• Total Municipal investment; and,
• Total private investment.
b. Municipal Physical Infrastructure Eligible Projects
• Total value of physical improvements;
• Total Main Street Funds provided; and
• Total municipal investment.
18 2-26
Project
Project
Eligible
Total
Main Street
Start & End
Completed?
Recipient
Title
Description
Project
Project
Funds Used
Date
Category
Cost
Yes/No/
Ongoing
3. Project Results.
The Results Report shall outline, in a manner to be provided by AMO, the degree to which
investments in each project are supporting progress towards achieving revitalization within
main street areas:
a. Community Improvement Plan Eligible Projects
• Number of small businesses supported;
• Total value of physical improvements;
• Total Main Street Funds provided;
• Total Municipal investment; and,
• Total private investment.
b. Municipal Physical Infrastructure Eligible Projects
• Total value of physical improvements;
• Total Main Street Funds provided; and
• Total municipal investment.
18 2-26
Staff Report
KI r[ HEST R Finance and Corporate Services Department www.kitchenerca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: June 25, 2018
SUBMITTED BY: Dianna Saunderson, Secretary -Treasurer, Committee of
Adjustment (519-741-2200 ext. 7277)
PREPARED BY: Holly Dyson, Administrative Clerk (519-741-2200 ext. 7594)
WARD(S) INVOLVED: 1, 8 and 10
DATE OF REPORT: June 20, 2018
REPORT NO.: COR -18-006
SUBJECT: Sign Variances - 101-127 Frederick Street/40 Weber Street East
and 171 Sherwood Avenue
Fence Variance — 66 Inwood Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
"That the application of EUROPRO (KITCHENER) GP INC. (SG 2018-006 - 101
Frederick Street/40 Weber Street East) requesting permission to replace the existing
sign with a ground -supported sign having 65% (12.67 sq.m.) of the sign area being
changing copy rather than the permitted maximum sign area of 30% (5.83 sq.m.), on
Part Lots 2 and 4 to 9, Part Lot 38, Streets and Lanes, Part Lot 169, Plan 364, 101-127
Frederick Street/40 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a sign permit from the Planning Division by September
30, 2018.
2. That the owner shall ensure messages displayed on the automatic changing copy
portion of the sign remain static for at least 6 seconds."
- and -
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 3 — 1
"That the application of ST JAMES ROSEMOUNT UNITED CHURCH (SG 2018-007 —
171 Sherwood Avenue) requesting permission to install a ground -supported sign with
two adjoining sign faces having automatic changing copy to be located 52m from a
residential zone rather than the required 100m; to have the civic address located on a
decorative end piece connecting the two sign faces whereas the By-law requires the
civic address to be on each sign face; to legalize a second existing ground -supported
sign having a height of 1.55m to encroach into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT)
whereas the By-law does not permit signs having a height over 0.9m to encroach into
the DVT; a distance separation from another ground -supported sign of 32m rather than
the required distance separation of 50m; and, to permit the sign identified in the
application as "Sign 2" to not contain the civic address whereas the By-law requires the
address to be identified on ground -supported signs, on Lots 77 to 82, Lots 92 to 96 and
Part Lot 97, Plan 841, 171 Sherwood Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Sign Permit for the proposed business from the
Planning Division.
2. That the owner shall ensure the automatic changing copy shall not contain flashing,
intermittent or moving lights and that the rate of change in the content of the
graphics shall remain static for a minimum of six (6) seconds.
3. That the owner shall ensure the automatic changing copy portion of the sign be
turned off between the hours of 11 pm and 6 a.m.
4. That the owner shall fulfil the above noted Conditions 1 to 3 no later than October
1, 2018. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the
Manager of Development Review (or designate) prior to the completion date set out
in the decision. Failure to fulfil these conditions will result in this approval becoming
null and void; and,
5. That the owner shall acknowledge that, as there is a smaller ground -supported sign
located in the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), the City of Kitchener reserves the
right to remove the sign at any time if required, at the owner's expense."
- and -
"That the application of JULIE and JAMES MISASI (FN 2018-002 — 66 Inwood Drive)
requesting permission to construct a wooden fence having a height of 1.82m in the
northerly side yard located 0.6m from the lot line abutting Glasgow Street rather than
the required 1.5m, on Part Lot 23, Plan 793, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-
17164, 66 Inwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
condition:
3-2
1. That the owner shall submit and obtain approval of a landscape plan from the
City's Director of Planning. The landscape plan shall show landscaping to be
installed between the fence and the site lot line abutting Glasgow Street. All
landscaping shall be completed by October 31, 2018 and shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved landscape plan."
REPORT:
The Committee of Adjustment met as a Standing Committee of City Council on June 19,
2018 to consider two applications pursuant to Chapter 680 (SIGNS) of the City of
Kitchener Municipal Code and one application pursuant to Chapter 630 (FENCES) of
the City of Kitchener Municipal Code.
These recommendations are being forwarded to you on behalf of the Committee of
Adjustment for your consideration.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendations of this report support the achievement of the City's strategic
vision through the delivery of core service.
Respecting Sign By-law and Fence By-law variances, the Committee of Adjustment
operates as a Standing Committee of City Council, and as such represents efficient and
effective government.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
►=
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM - As directed by the Sign By-law and Fence By -Law, notice of Applications for
Variance to the Sign By-law and Fence By-law are published in the Record 15 - 18 days
prior to the Committee of Adjustment meeting at which the application will be
considered. Notice of an application is also mailed to property owners within 30 metres
of the subject property.
INFORM - This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance
of the council / committee meeting.
ENTRUST - The Committee of Adjustment is a Quasi -Judicial Committee of citizen
members operating as a Standing Committee of City Council.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services
3-3
Staff Report
Corporate Services Department
wwwkitchenerca
REPORT TO:
Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING:
June 25th, 2018
SUBMITTED BY:
Erin Mogck, Associate City Solicitor 519-741- 2200 ext. 7060
PREPARED BY:
Erin Mogck, Associate City Solicitor 519-741- 2200 ext. 7060
WARD (S) INVOLVED:
Ward 8
DATE OF REPORT:
June 20th, 2018
REPORT NO.:
COR -18-007
SUBJECT:
Encroachment Request — Street Lighting in Belmont Village
RECOMMENDATION:
"Subject to staff comments, that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an
Encroachment Agreement, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with the Belmont BIA for
electrical wiring and conduit encroaching over/under the City's road allowance in
Belmont Village."
BACKGROUND:
The Belmont Business Improvement Area (Belmont BIA) has applied for permission to install
electrical wiring and conduit within the City's road allowance of Belmont Avenue West for
decorative tree lights.
REPORT:
The Belmont BIA would like to have Christmas lights up all year-round along City Boulevard
trees of Belmont Avenue West. During the road reconstruction of 2009, conduit and handwells
were installed; however, it did not connect to the corner trees of Argyle Street, Rock Avenue,
and Claremont Avenue.
The BIA will hire a contractor to install the electrical wires and boxes, as well as to install conduit
and wiring to the corner trees. One comment received through the circulation process is that
power should only go through the already -mounted hydro panel on the corner of Rock Avenue
and Belmont Avenue West and fitted with a meter and account in the Belmont BIA's name.
The contractor will also need to complete the work permit process through Transportation
Services, which is required for any contractor to do work within the City's road allowance. Since
this area may be vulnerable to regular maintenance activities, the encroachment agreement will
include a condition that if the Belmont BIA's wiring becomes damaged due to the City performing
maintenance, the Belmont BIA will be responsible for the cost of the repair to the wires. To
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
C=I
protect the BIA's investment, the Belmont BIA contractor will register the underground
infrastructure with Ontario One Call.
Additionally, through circulation process, City staff have identified the need for more precise
drawings to show the exact location of the proposed conduit from the existing conduit to the
corner trees. These drawings will be re -circulated for staff comment prior to any construction
activity.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation outlined in this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic
vision through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Belmont BIA has paid the fees in accordance with the City's fee schedule.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Standing Committee.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services
4-2
Staff Report 11:, JR
Corporate Services Department wwwkitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: June 25th, 2018
SUBMITTED BY: Erin Mogck, Associate City Solicitor 519-741- 2200 ext.7060
PREPARED BY: Erin Mogck, Associate City Solicitor 519-741- 2200 ext. 7060
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT: June 20th, 2018
REPORT NO.: COR -18-008
SUBJECT: Encroachment Request - canopies projecting over sidewalk at 51 David
Street
RECOMMENDATION:
"That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Encroachment Agreement,
satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with the property owner and any mortgagee(s) of the
property municipally known as 51 David Street to permit canopies that will project over
the City's sidewalk."
BACKGROUND:
Vive Development Corporation (Vive) has applied for permission to install two canopies attached
to the future building at 51 David Street. These canopies will project over the City's David Street
sidewalk.
REPORT:
The proposed canopies are architectural features extending beyond the front face of the exterior
building over David Street by 1.5 metres. The width of the canopies will be about 6.5 metres.
Since the City maintains David Street sidewalk all year-round with sidewalk sweepers and snow
removal vehicles, the canopies will be above the required minimum clearance of 9 feet or 2.74
meters above the sidewalk.
Vive will be responsible to ensure proper clearances are maintained according to KW Hydro's
conditions of service and the Electrical Safety Authority.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation outlined in this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic
vision through the delivery of core service.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5-1
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
All fees associated with encroachments will be paid by Vive. The Application fee of $280.00 has
been paid. Processing fee of $235 will become payable after Council approval.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Standing Committee.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services
5-2
Staff Report 11:, JR
Corporate Services Department wwwkitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: June 25th, 2018
SUBMITTED BY: Erin Mogck, Associate City Solicitor 519-741- 2200 ext.7060
PREPARED BY: Erin Mogck, Associate City Solicitor 519-741- 2200 ext. 7060
WARD (S) INVOLVED: Ward 5
DATE OF REPORT: June 20th, 2018
REPORT NO.: COR -18-009
SUBJECT: Encroachment Request — Williamsburg Public School — structures over
Commonwealth Park
RECOMMENDATION:
"Subject to staff comments, that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an
Encroachment Agreement, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with the Waterloo Region
District School Board for play structures and features encroaching over Commonwealth
Park near Williamsburg Public School."
BACKGROUND:
Williamsburg Public School has applied for permission to install several play structures and
features within Commonwealth Park, which is the park located adjacent to the school at 760
Commonwealth Crescent.
REPORT:
Williamsburg Public School has proposed to install a "challenge circuit", "jumping pit", "walking
path", and benches within the City's Commonwealth Park. The school has fundraised money
for these schoolyard improvements.
The "challenge circuit" is a climbing and balancing structure forjunior students. The "jumping pit"
is for long jump and will be 25-30 feet in length. Currently, there are trails connecting the
community to the park and the park to the school. The "walking path" would be installed around
the perimeter of the park to provide an alternative activity for students who do not want to play
soccer, go on the challenge circuit, orjump the jumping pit. All of these features will be available
for general public use and these features will not be fenced off from the community.
The school would also like to add several benches, which will meet accessibility standards
according to regulation.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
6-1
Through the circulation process, City staff have identified the area of a catch basin and drainage
ditch. Since the City will require access to this infrastructure, an area of 10 meters clearance
will be maintained. Also, the walking path "between the trees" should not interfere with the
Landscaping Plan since the Landscaping Plan is maintained for the life of the development.
Furthermore, Williamsburg Public School will be responsible for cutting grass and removing
snow on the trials and walking path. The City will continue to maintain the portion of land between
the bridge and the City street, Commonwealth Crescent, as there is some City infrastructure
within this location.
The inclusion of these play structures will be beneficial to the Williamsburg community in addition
to the Williamsburg Public School students.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation outlined in this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic
vision through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Williamsburg Public School will be responsible for the costs associated with these play features.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Standing Committee.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services
6-2
Staff Repoil
Development Services Department
1
K, rYiFNFR
www kitch ever ca
REPORT TO:
Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING:
June 25, 2018
SUBMITTED BY:
Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319
PREPARED BY:
Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
City Wide
DATE OF REPORT:
June 14, 2018
REPORT NO.:
DSD -18-056
SUBJECT:
Development Charges Rebate Program Implementation
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Region of Waterloo, as the Service Manager for Housing, be authorized by by-
law to execute the transfer agreement and to administer the Ontario Government's
Development Charges Rebate Program on behalf of the City of Kitchener; AND
That City of Kitchener participates in the administration of the program as outlined in a
Report DSD -18-056; AND
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with the Region of
Waterloo that outlines the roles and responsibilities in the administration of the
program; AND FURTHER
That rebates be allocated in accordance with the process and selection criteria outlined
in this report.
BACKGROUND:
On February 26, 2018 Council authorized Kitchener's participation in the province's
Development Charges Rebate Program with the adoption of Report CSD -18-049. On April 27,
2018, the City of Kitchener received the news that its submission for funding was successful,
and has been approved for a total of more than $ 5.2 million over five years. Kitchener is one
of only 13 municipalities to receive funding. Kitchener's allocation is the 5t" highest in the
province. This report provides for a course of action should the new government maintain the
program as is.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
7-1
REPORT:
The current caretaker government does not have the authority to execute the transfer
agreements. Should the program remain unchanged, several actions need to be taken over
the course of the summer in order to participate in the program in 2018. These actions cannot
commence until the Region is authorized by by-law to execute the transfer agreements and to
administer the program on behalf of the City with participation from Kitchener staff. It is also
necessary to execute an agreement that outlines the respective roles.
Should the program be maintained as is, the Region would need to submit an initial Take Up
Plan for 2018-2019 by September 1, 2018. In order to complete the Take Up Plan, approved
new rental developments must be identified. This would necessitate issuing a request for
proposals for the first year of the program in July. The request for proposals would follow the
Region's procurement process. City staff would participate in drafting the request for proposals
and would sit on the selection team.
In addition to the criteria set out in Report CSD -18-049, is it recommended that the selection
process give preference to projects based on affordability levels. That is, the proposed
development with the most affordable rents would be provided an allocation until all the funds
are allocated. Any remaining funds would be allocated to the project with the second most
affordable rents and so on. This criterion can be changed and other criteria can be added in
future years with the approval of Kitchener City Council and Regional Council.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This initiative supports several community priorities, especially priority 3.4 of Kitchener
Strategic Plan which is excerpted below:
Facilitate and promote housing development that provide options for a diversity of lifestyles
and household types.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no capital costs and no new operating costs associated with this initiative.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
COLLABORATE — City staff have collaborated with the Region of Waterloo at every step of the
process.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services
7-2
Staff Report 11:, JR
Corporate Services Department wwwkitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: June 25, 2018
SUBMITTED BY: Christine Tarling, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk, 519-741-
2200, ext. 7809
PREPARED BY: Cody Boomer, Election Assistant, 519-741-2200, ext. 7593
WARD (S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: June 20, 2018
REPORT NO.: COR -18-003
SUBJECT: Delegated Authority — "Lame Duck" Council
RECOMMENDATION:
That, in the event the provisions of Section 275 of the Municipal Act, as amended, come
into force and effect between Nomination Day and the end of the outgoing Council's
term, the Chief Administrative Officer is granted authority to approve expenditures or
other liabilities which are currently unbudgeted and with a value in excess of
$50,000.00; and,
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute Agreements that have been
approved by the Chief Administrative Officer during this period, subject to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and further,
That any approvals granted by the Chief Administrative Officer during this period be
reported to Council for information at the earliest opportunity following the Inaugural
Meeting of the new Council.
BACKGROUND:
Section 275 of the Municipal Act (the Act) sets out possible restrictions on a council,
sometimes referred to as the "lame duck" provisions. There are two periods during which
Council could be in "lame duck" status:
First Period: Between July 27, 2018 and October 22, 2018 — The determination of lame
duck status will be determined by the Municipal Clerk by July 30, 2018 following the
certification of candidates for municipal council for the 2018 election. If less than 75% (9 in the
case of Kitchener) of the existing council members are running for municipal council, the
restrictions set out in the Municipal Act, 2001 will apply.
Second Period: Between October 22, 2018 and November 30, 2018 —The official election
results are declared by the Municipal Clerk shortly after Election Day. If less than 75% (9) of
the incumbent council members have been re-elected, the restrictions will apply.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
8-1
The restrictions set out in Section 275 of the Act only pertain to the following actions:
a) the appointment or removal from office of any officer of the municipality;
b) the hiring or dismissal of any employee of the municipality;
c) the disposition of any real or personal property of the municipality which has a value
exceeding $50,000 at the time of disposal; and,
d) making any expenditures or incurring any other liability which exceeds $50,000.
Clauses (c) and (d) do not apply if the disposition or liability was included in the most recent
budget adopted by council before Nomination Day in the election.
Sub -section 275(6) of the Act, provides that Section 275 does not prevent a person or body
exercising any authority of the municipality that is delegated to the person or body prior to
Nomination Day.
REPORT:
At this time, it cannot be determined whether council will be in "lame duck" status for the first
period because less than 75% of the incumbent council members have filed thus far. It is still
possible to be in "lame duck" status if less than nine (9) incumbent council members do not file
their nomination papers by July 27, 2018.
Likewise, it is not possible to know at this point, whether the new council will be comprised of
75% or more of incumbent council members. The certainty of this will only be established after
Election Day and so, it is unknown whether council will be in "lame duck" status in the second
period. The ability to delegate authority under Section 275 of the Act, though, must be made
before Nomination Day (July 27, 2018).
Unbudgeted Expenditures
In order to be proactive and prudent, it is recommended the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
be delegated the authority to approve unbudgeted expenditures in excess of $50,000. This
delegation has been made in previous election years and is done in order to ensure business
continuity in the event that an unforeseen expenditure is required for the good of the City.
Disposition of Property
The CAO is authorized by Council resolution dated August 25, 2014 to approve the disposition
of City property, the total value of which is $125,000 or less, including executing any
documentation, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, in accordance with the provisions contained
within that resolution. Staff do not envision a scenario under which additional delegation would
be required prior to the new term of Council.
8-2
Appointment and Dismissal of Staff
As per Chapter 115 of the Municipal Code, the CAO has responsibility for managing the day-
to-day administrative and operational functions of the Corporation and is responsible for full
control and direction of all City employees. As such, no additional delegation is therefore
required.
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:
Without the delegation of authority as per Section 275 of the Act, there will not be the ability to
make any unbudgeted expenditure or incur any other liability which exceeds $50,000.
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: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services Department
8-3
Staff Report KNE J�R
Corporate Services Department www kitchener ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: June 25, 2018
SUBMITTED BY: Christine Tarling, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk, 519-741-
2200, ext. 7809
PREPARED BY: Cody Boomer. Election Assistant, 519-741-2200, ext. 7593
WARD (S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: June 20, 2018
REPORT NO.: COR -18-004
SUBJECT: Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC)
RECOMMENDATION:
That participation on the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee and the
Terms of Reference attached as Appendix " A" to Corporate Services Department report
COR -18-004, be approved; and,
That the City Clerk shall appoint members of the Municipal Election Compliance Audit
Committee, in consultation with the Clerks of the other participating municipalities; and
further,
That remuneration of $175 per diem plus the applicable mileage rate be approved for
members of the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee.
BACKGROUND:
Section 83.37 (1) of the Municipal Elections Act (the Act) requires every municipality to appoint
a compliance audit committee no later than October 1 of an election year for a 4 -year term.
The compliance audit committee's mandate is to determine if an allegation made by an elector
of non-compliance with the Act regarding the financial statement of a candidate or third party
advertiser warrants an audit by a certified auditor. If applicable, the compliance audit
committee also receives the Clerk's report identifying an apparent contravention of the
contribution limits of a candidate or third party advertiser.
Since 2003, the councils from the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, the Townships of North
Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich, and the Region of Waterloo have appointed a joint
Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee (the MECAC). In 2014, the City of Cambridge
also became a member of the MECAC. A joint MECAC better serves the participating
municipalities because it would be difficult to find sufficient qualified individuals willing to serve
on eight different committees within close proximity to one another.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
9-1
Additionally, all the participating councils have delegated approval of the membership
appointments to the MECAC to each of their Clerks to streamline the process of establishing
the MECAC and to eliminate a potential or perceived conflict of a sitting member of council.
The City of Kitchener has not received a compliance audit request since the inception of the
MECAC.
REPORT:
In 2018, a committee of Clerks from the participating municipalities reviewed the Terms of
Reference for the MECAC to see if any improvements were warranted. As well, recognizing
the value of the MECAC, the City of Guelph made a request to join. The committee felt that
while the Terms of Reference served the participating municipalities well, a few amendments
were beneficial. Below are highlights of the amended Terms of Reference (attached as
Appendix `A') as well as the conflict of interest policy based on the Region's policy for its
advisory committees (attached as Appendix `B'), which will govern how the MECAC will
conduct its business.
Participating Municipalities
The City of Guelph will join the MECAC along with the Region of Waterloo, the Cities of
Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo, and the Townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot
and Woolwich. The addition of Guelph to the MECAC serves to underscore the benefit of
Kitchener continuing to be a member since competition with the surrounding municipalities in
recruiting individuals to comprise a compliance audit committee would be even more difficult if
Kitchener were to opt out of participating on the MECAC.
Membership and Composition
Previously the MECAC was comprised of seven (7) qualified members from across the
Waterloo region. The MECAC will now be comprised of a pool of ten (10) qualified members
from across the Waterloo region and Guelph who can be asked to sit when needed.
Establishing a pool will help if any member is in conflict with an application and/or is
unavailable to sit in order to hear applications in a timely manner.
A further restriction to membership within the MECAC has been added to include any persons
who are registered third parties in the municipality for which the MECAC is established.
Meeting Administration
When an application is received, the municipality in which the candidate/third party advertiser
has filed their nomination/registration (Host Municipality) is responsible for administering the
meetings of the MECAC and paying all costs for the MECAC members as well as the
expenses of the auditor if required. It is at the full discretion of the Clerk of the Host
Municipality to determine the number of MECAC members who will be required to meet to
review the application (not fewer than 3 and not more than 7) and which of the members from
the pool will sit. The Clerk of the Host Municipality also has full discretion to determine the
order that members from the pool will be contacted.
9-2
Remuneration
Previously, the MECAC members were paid a per diem rate of $150.00 plus the applicable
mileage of the Host Municipality. In order to help provide incentive for qualified individuals to
apply to be a MECAC member, the per diem rate has been increased to $175.00 plus the
applicable mileage rate of the Host Municipality. Expenses would only be incurred if the
MECAC were called to meet. Additional expenses would be incurred if an audit were required.
All expenses will be paid by the Host Municipality.
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 expenses associated with a compliance audit are currently unfunded and would represent
a variance within the Election Reserve Fund if a compliance audit were required.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Membership for the MECAC will be solicited across the participating municipalities by
advertising, posting on the respective municipal websites, using social media channels,
contacting various professional associations, and by approaching previous MECAC members.
The Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee offers qualified citizens the opportunity to
engage in the municipal election process, help met the provisions regarding election campaign
finances, and provide transparency throughout the entire election process.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
FCS -14-085 — Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC)
CRPS-10-159 — Appointments — Joint Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Victoria Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services Department
9-3
APPENDIX `A'
Terms of Reference
Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee
(MECAC)
Refer to Section 88.37 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996
1. Name of Committee
The Participating Municipalities have agreed to create a joint Municipal Election
Compliance Audit Committee which is named:
the "Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee" ("MECAC")
2. Definitions
"Act" means the "Municipal Elections Act, 1996" as amended.
"Clerk" means the Clerk of the municipality or designate.
"Host Municipality" means the municipality where the application for a compliance audit
is received. A Host Municipality can only receive applications for candidates or third
parties registered in its municipality.
"Participating Municipalities" means the municipalities who have agreed to participate in
a joint MECAC and includes:
The City of Cambridge,
The City of Guelph
The City of Kitchener
The City of Waterloo
The Township of North Dumfries
The Township of Wellesley
The Township of Wilmot
The Township of Woolwich
The Region of Waterloo
3. Mandate
The MECAC will operate within the provisions of the Act.
The MECAC will consider an application for a compliance audit of a candidate's or
registered third party's election campaign finances received under Sections 88.33 or
88.35 of the Act from an elector to determine if the application should be granted or
rejected. If granted, the MECAC will appoint an auditor, receive and consider the
9-4
auditor's report and decide whether legal proceedings should commence or if there
were reasonable grounds for the application. The auditor's report is also submitted to
the host Council and they are entitled to recover the auditor's costs if there was no
apparent contravention and the MECAC finds no reasonable grounds for the
application.
MECAC will also receive the Clerk's report identifying apparent contribution
contraventions, prepared under Section 88.34 of the Act. Within 30 days after receiving
a Clerk's report, the MECAC shall consider it and decide whether to commence a legal
proceeding against a contributor for an apparent contravention.
4. Advertising, Selection and Eligibility of Members for the MECAC Pool
A pool of ten (10) members for MECAC will be developed and approved by the Clerks
of the Participating Municipalities. Advertisements, including postings on the respective
municipal websites, will be placed to solicit membership for the MECAC pool. Previous
MECAC members may be contacted, along with direct contacts by municipal staff.
The Clerks of the Participating Municipalities will meet to review the applications.
Approval of the appointments will be delegated to each of the afore -mentioned Clerks
by their respective Councils and the approved names will be put forward to each
Council for their information. Appointments to the MECAC pool will be approved by a
majority vote of the Clerks.
Criteria used to determine membership in the MECAC pool may include:
• demonstrated knowledge and understanding of municipal election finance rules;
• analytical and decision-making skills;
• availability for meetings during the day or evening;
• previous committee experience, etc.;
• expertise in:
o accounting and audit;
o academic with expertise in political science or local government;
o legal matters;
0 other individuals with knowledge of the campaign finance rules contained
in the Act.
Members of the MECAC pool shall not include:
• current members of any municipal Council represented;
• current employees or officers of the municipalities represented;
• any persons who are candidates in the election for which the Committee is
established; or
• any persons who are registered third parties in the municipality in the election for
which the committee is established.
9-5
5. Term of Office and Review
The term of office of the MECAC pool is the same as the term of Council, December 1St
of an election year to November 14th of the subsequent election year.
The establishment of this Committee and its Terms of Reference will be reviewed prior
to the start of the next term of Council in 2022.
6. Committee Composition and Membership
When an application is made to MECAC, the Clerk of the Host Municipality shall
determine the composition and membership of the MECAC for the meeting(s) at which
the application will be heard.
To determine the composition, the MECAC will be composed of not fewer than three
and not more than seven (7) members from the MECAC pool. It is at the full discretion
of the Clerk of the Host Municipality to determine the number of members within this
range that will be required for a MECAC meeting.
To determine membership, the Clerk shall contact members of the pool to form the
membership of the Committee to hear the application. It is at the full discretion of the
Clerk of the Host Municipality to determine the order that members from the pool will be
contacted.
The Chair of the MECAC will be selected by resolution at the start of the first meeting of
each MECAC application by the members present.
7. Meetings
Meetings will be held as required under the provisions of the Act. The time frames for
receiving applications and holding meetings shall be as established by the Act.
8. Agenda and Minute Preparation for the Meeting
The Clerk of the Host Municipality will be responsible for determining the location of the
meeting, scheduling the meeting, preparing the meeting agenda and arranging for the
minutes of the meeting to be taken. All expenses will be paid by the Host Municipality.
The Clerk of the Host Municipality is responsible for the administrative duties associated
with MECAC but may contact the Clerk of any of the Participating Municipalities for
assistance with minutes or any other matters if required.
9-6
9. Closed Meetings of Committees
The meetings of MECAC shall be open to the public, but MECAC may deliberate in
closed session as needed and will follow the procedures of the host municipality. The
Clerk of the Host Municipality is responsible for conducting the closed meetings but may
contact the Clerk of any of the Participating Municipalities for assistance with minutes or
any other matters if required.
10. Meeting Procedures
Quorum will be a majority of the members of the MECAC selected for the meeting(s).
Voting by consensus will be used for decisions of the Committee or a majority vote by
members, usually performed by the show of hands. The Chair is also entitled to a vote
on MECAC.
Meetings will be governed by the Procedural By-law of the Host Municipality and
Roberts Rules of Order as required.
11. Remuneration
Members of the MECAC shall be paid a rate of $175 per meeting plus the applicable
mileage rate from the Host Municipality. Expenses will be paid by the Host Municipality.
12. Conflict of Interest Policy
Members of the MECAC will conform to the Conflict of Interest Policy, attached as
Schedule "A" to these Terms of Reference.
13. Removal of Members
The current MECAC may recommend to the host Clerk for the removal of a member for
reasons as listed, but not limited to:
• the member being in contravention of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Provincial Offences Act,
the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and/or the Municipal Elections Act, 2001,-
•
001,• the member being in contravention of the Code of Conduct and/or Procedural By-
law of the Host Municipality; or
• other legal issues.
The Clerk of the Host Municipality may select another person from the MECAC pool if
necessary.
9-7
14. Errors/Omissions
The accidental omission to give notice of any meeting of the MECAC to its members, or
the non -receipt of any notice by any of the members, or any error in any notice that
does not affect its substance, does not invalidate any resolution passed or any
proceedings taken at the meeting. Any members of the MECAC may at any time waive
notice of the meeting.
APPENDIX `B'
Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC)
Conflict of Interest Policy
Policy Application
This Policy applies to the Municipal Elections Act Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) for
the municipalities of the Region of Waterloo, Cities of Cambridge, Guelph, Kitchener,
Waterloo, Townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot and Woolwich.
Operating Principles:
Members of the MECAC have a duty to conduct themselves in an impartial and objective
manner. It is recognized that appointees have a broad range of interests and, from time to
time, actual or potential conflicts of pecuniary interest or the appearance of such conflicts may
arise. The purpose of this Policy is to enable the MECAC to deal with such conflicts in as open
and appropriate a way as possible.
It is understood that members of MECAC will perform their duties in such a way as to promote
public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the Committee. No
member shall directly or indirectly receive any profit from his/her position, provided that an
honorarium, as established in the Terms of Reference and reasonable expenses may be paid
in the performance of their duties.
Definitions
"Affected Party" means any individual, partnership, corporation, organization or other legal
entity which has an interest in property, objects or other assets which are the subject matter
of consideration by the Committee;
"Business associate" means an individual in a formal partnership or in a shared ownership of a
company or enterprise with a Member;
"Committee" is the Municipal Elections Act Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC);
"Immediate family" means a parent, child, spouse or common-law spouse of a Member;
"Member" is an individual formally appointed to the MECAC in accordance with the Terms of
Reference.
Conflicts
Conflicts of pecuniary interest arise when Members may financially benefit, directly or
indirectly, from their membership on a Committee. Such involvements include, but are not
limited to, the following:
9-9
• Members being the Affected Party or employed by or doing business with the Affected
Party
• Members' immediate family being the Affected Party or employed by or doing business
with the Affected Party
• Members' business associates being the Affected Party or employed by or doing
business with the Affected Party
A conflict of interest may be actual, potential or apparent. The same duty to disclose applies to
each. The pecuniary interests of a Member's immediate family or business associate are
considered to also be the pecuniary interests of the Member. Full disclosure in itself does not
remove a conflict of interest.
Principles and procedures
It is important that Members be sensitive to appearance and perception and err on the side of
transparency. In case of conflicts, whether actual, potential or apparent, Members are
expected to fully disclose the conflict as soon as it arises and before the Committee makes any
decisions in the matter where the conflict exists.
Once such a disclosure has been made, the Member involved shall abstain from voting and
shall not participate in the discussion of the matter which gave rise to the conflict. The affected
Member must not in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, attempt to influence
the outcome of any discussion or voting on the matter. If the meeting at which the matter is
discussed is not open to the public, in addition to the above, the Member must leave the
meeting room for the duration of any discussion and voting on the matter.
In cases where one or more of the Committee's Members has abstained from voting as a
result of conflict, such Members shall be identified in the minutes of the meeting.
Individual Members are encouraged to seek independent advice on conflicts or potential
conflicts.
Quorum
Where the number of Members who, by reason of conflict, are disabled from participating in a
meeting such that the remaining Members no longer constitute a quorum as set out in the
Committee's Terms of Reference, then remaining Members shall be deemed to constitute a
quorum provided there are not less than two Members present.
Solicitation
No Member may in any way, either overtly or otherwise, use the fact of their membership on
the Committee to solicit business for their own benefit or the benefit of their immediate family
or business associates.
9-10
REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL
JUNE 25, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER
COMMUNITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE — JUNE 18, 2018
1. That the proposed winter sidewalk maintenance program as outlined in Infrastructure Services
Department report INS -18-023, be approved; and,
That staff be directed to monitor and evaluate program components A, B, C, D and E, as
outlined in Report INS -18-023 throughout winter 2018/2019; and,
That the purchase one (1) Trackless municipal tractor, from the Fleet Reserve, be approved;
and further,
That staff report back by June 2019 with recommendations on the preferred sidewalk
maintenance program.
2. That a grant in the amount of $10,000. to be funded from the Capital Contingency Reserve, to
establish a fund for up to ten community shared snow blowers at the contribution limit of $500.
each, including costs to administer, communicate, monitor and evaluate a shared snow blower
pilot initiative to provide residents with a resident -led, city -supported opportunity to help one
another to clear snow from sidewalks and driveways.
3. That the stopping prohibition on Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the north
(even -numbered) side of Montcalm Drive be extended an additional 50 metres westerly to
Tecumseh Crescent, as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD -18-042;
and,
That stopping be prohibited on Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the south
(odd -numbered) side of Montcalm Drive from Old York Crescent to a point 70 metres west
thereof; and further,
That the Uniform Traffic By-law be amended accordingly.
4. That an exemption to Chapter 450 (Noise) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code be granted
to Bingemans for confirmed event dates on July 20, July 21, August 19, September 7, 8 and 9
being held at 425 Bingemans Centre Drive, as outlined in the letter provided by Mark
Bingeman, dated May 29, 2018, attached to Community Services Department report CSD -18-
090, subject to the following conditions, which, if not complied with, will render the noise
exemption null and void:
a) There shall be no offensive language, in the opinion of City staff, generated from the
music events, audible in any adjacent residential neighbourhood. The event organizers
will ensure that there is an on-site contact person accessible to correspond with City
staff at all times during the event(s);
b) The event organizer will be responsible for the cost of a pay -duty Noise Officer, to be
assigned specifically to these event(s);
c) The event organizers agree to respond accordingly to requests from City staff, during
the event(s), in order to address community concerns that may arise with regard to the
impact of noise heard within adjacent residential areas; and,
d) The maximum decibel level (dba) audible from a residential area shall not exceed 55
dba; and further,
That the Director of Enforcement or Designate be delegated the authority to grant exemptions
to Chapter 450 (Noise) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code to Bingemans for the proposed
potential events dates being held at 425 Bingemans Centre Drive, as outlined in the letter
provided by Mark Bingeman, dated May 29, 2018, attached to Community Services
Department report CSD -18-090.
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement, subject to the satisfaction
of the City Solicitor, as outlined in Community Services Department report CSD -18-092, with
the Kitchener -Waterloo Gymnastics Club (an affiliated minor sport group) to provide a 5 -year
interest free loan of up to $75,000. to install an air conditioning system for the organization's
REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL
JUNE 25, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER
training space located at the Twin Cities Gymnastics/Judo Training Centre, municipally
addressed as 805 Victoria Street South, Kitchener.
That the 'Financial Plan — Kitchener Water Distribution System', as outlined in Infrastructure
Services Department report INS -18-029, be approved as it demonstrates the financial viability
of the Kitchener drinking water system in accordance with Ontario Regulation 453/07
(Financial Plans) under Subsection 30 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
That the Brownfield Remediation Program Application for 1 Adam Street, received from
1841362 Ontario Ltd., as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD -18-031,
be approved; and,
That in exchange for a completed and filed Record of Site Condition for the subject property,
the owner will be provided a phased tax incremental grant on the phased redevelopment of
the property in the form of an annual rebate on City taxes in an amount equal to 100% of the
City Tax Increment applied on the basis of the six redevelopment phases; and,
That the City Tax Increment be defined as the difference between the City portion of real
property taxes for the 2011 taxation year and the new City portion of real property taxes levied
as a result of a new assessment by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)
determined for each phase following completion of the redevelopment of each phase, as
compensation for the remediation of the above subject property; and,
That the total maximum City Tax Incremental Grant for all phases combined is not to exceed
$2,025,687. payable in phases over a 10 -year period; and,
That the Region of Waterloo be circulated a copy of any decision made by Kitchener City
Council regarding this application; and further,
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement, subject to the satisfaction
of the City Solicitor, with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and 1841362 Ontario Inc., to
implement the provisions of the Brownfield Remediation Program for 1 Adam Street, as
outlined in Report DSD -18-031.
That a By-law, as outlined in Community Services Department report CSD -18-016, be enacted
to allow residents flexibility in using different materials, ground cover and plantings as an
alternative to sod on city boulevards.
That the By-law (Special Event Permit), attached to Development Services Department report
DSD -18-043, be adopted; and,
That Council Policy #MUN-STR-1230, formerly Policy #1-1230 'Temporary Closure — City
Streets', be repealed and replaced by Chapter Special Event By-law; and,
That an updated Love My Hood Street Party Events Program be approved, as outlined in
Report DSD -18-043; and further,
That consideration of a Special Event permit fee be referred to the fees and charges review of
the 2019 budget process.
10. That $550,000. be added to the Doon Pioneer Park expansion budget to address the project
over -expenditure, as outlined in Community Services Department report CSD -18-086; and,
That funding for the over -expenditure be considered and referred to the 2019 Development
Charges Background Study, and the 2019 Capital Budget & Forecast.
11. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute agreements, subject to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor, with the Waterloo Region District School Board for the construction and
ownership arrangements of a joint facility to include at least a school and a community centre
on their Tartan Avenue property, as outlined in Community Services Department report CSD -
18 -089; and,
REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL
JUNE 25, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute any agreements, subject to the satisfaction
of the City Solicitor, necessary to operate the joint facility including common facilities and
operating agreements; and further,
That funding for the City's share of the project be included in the 2019 Development Charges
Background Study, and the 2019 Capital Budget & Forecast.
PLANNING AND STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE —JUNE 18, 2018
That Official Plan Amendment Application OP17/006/K/BB for Drewlo Holdings Inc. requesting
a change for the properties municipally addressed 471, 475, 481 & 505 King Street East and
18 & 24 Cameron Street South from Mixed Use Corridor with Special Policy 1 to Mixed Use
Corridor with Special Policy Area 6 of the King Street East Secondary Plan to permit a mixed
use development with a Floor Space Ratio of 7.1 on the parcel of land specified and illustrated
on Schedule 'A', as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD -18-007, be
adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -18-007 as
Appendix 'A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and,
That Zone Change Application ZC17/018/K/BB for Drewlo Holdings Inc. requesting a change
for the properties municipally addressed 471, 475, 481 & 505 King Street East and 18 & 24
Cameron Street South from High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor zone (MU -3 with Special
Regulation Provision 544R and Special Use Provision 410U) to High Intensity Mixed Use
Corridor zone (MU -3 with Special Regulation Provision 719R) on the parcel of land specified
and illustrated on Map No. 1, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" dated
April 27, 2018 attached to Report DSD -18-007 as Appendix 'B' and that in accordance with
Planning Act Regulation 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for minor variances shall be permitted
for lands subject to Zone Change Application ZC1710181KIBBI and,
That the Urban Design Brief Implementation Recommendations attached to Report DSD -18-
007 as Appendix 'C', be adopted, and that staff be directed to apply the Recommendations
through the Site Plan Approval process; and further,
That staff be directed to work with the developer in consultation with the Ward 9 and 10
Councillors regarding the bonusing provision and the number of subsidized, affordable housing
units in both multi -residential dwellings, being considered for the Drewlo Holdings Inc.
application at the King Street East and Cameron Street South, rather than a cash -in -lieu
contribution to the Region of Waterloo.
That Zone Change Application ZC17/006/F/AP for Drewlo Holdings Inc. requesting a change
to the properties municipally addressed 25 & 75 Fallowfield Drive from Residential Six Zone
(R-6) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Regulation Provision 720R and Residential
Eight (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 721R on the parcel of land specified and
illustrated on Map No. 1 as outlined in Development Services report DSD -18-018, be approved
in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" dated April 25, 2018, attached to Report DSD -18-
018 as Appendix 'A'; and that in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that
applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zone Change
Application ZC17/006/F/AP; and further,
That the Planning Justification Report and Urban Design Brief for 25 and 75 Fallowfield Drive,
attached to Report DSD -18-018 as Appendix 'C', be adopted and provide the basis for future
site development.
That Official Plan Amendment Application OP17/007/H/KA for Schlegel Urban Developments
Corp. requesting a change to the properties municipally addressed 1940 Fischer Hallman
Road, 163 Plains Road & 780 Huron Road to the Urban Structure Identification and Land Use
Designations as outlined in Development Services Department report DSD -18-021, be
adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -18-021 as
Appendix 'A', for the lands specified and illustrated as the "Area of Amendment" on Schedules
A and B thereto, and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and,
That Zone Change Application ZC17/019/H/KA for Schlegel Urban Development Corp., be
approved, as amended, in the "Proposed By-law", as circulated at the June 18, 2018 Planning
and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting, and "Map No. 1" attached to Report DSD 18-021
REPORTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL
JUNE 25, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER
as Appendix 'B'; and that in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 &
1.4) that applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zone Change
Application ZC17/019/H/KA; and,
That the City of Kitchener, pursuant to Section 51 (44) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990,
Chapter P 13, as amended, and Delegation By-law 2002-64, hereby modifies the conditions of
draft approval for Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-07205, in the City of Kitchener, for
Schlegel Urban Developments Corp., as attached to Report DSD 18-021 as Appendix 'C'; and
further,
That staff be directed to proceed with the Privately Owned and Maintained Publically
Accessible (POMPA) Parks concept, in accordance with the discussion contained in Report
DSD 18-021, and subject to Conditions of Draft Plan Approval as attached to Report DSD 18-
021 as Appendix 'C'; that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute agreements which
may be necessary to implement the POMPA Parks concept; and that Council deem the
deferred dedication of parkland, as contemplated in the POMPA Park concept, to comply with
Parkland Dedication Policy (1-1074).
HERITAGE KITCHENER COMMITTEE —JUNE 5, 2018
That pursuant to Sections 30(2), 33 and 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, Heritage Permit
Application HPA-2018-IV-010 be approved to permit the demolition of all additions on the 19th
century stone farmhouse located on the property municipally addressed as 710 Huron Road,
known as the Grant House; the repair and reinforcement of the original stone walls of the
Grant House; and the relocation of the original Grant House to the property to be municipally
addressed as 68 Saddlebrook Court, as outlined in Development Services Department report
DSD -18-037, and in accordance with the supporting information submitted with the application
and subject to the following conditions:
a. That the owner fulfill their obligations with regard to the relocation of the Grant House,
in accordance with the heritage covenant agreement registered on title of 710 Huron
Road; and,
b. That the final details of the method of moving the stone farmhouse be reviewed and
heritage clearance be provided by heritage planning staff prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
AUDIT COMMITTEE—JUNE 11, 2018
That the 2017 Audited Consolidated Financial Statements of the City of Kitchener be
approved.