Loading...
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.