HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIS Agenda - 2019-06-17Community &Infrastructure Services Committee
Agenda
Monday,June 17, 2019
9:30 a.m. to12:30 p.m.
Office of the City Clerk
Council Chamber
Kitchener City Hall
nd
200 King St.W. -2
Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Page 1Chair -Councillor K. Galloway-SealockVice-Chair -Councillor D. Schnider
Consent Items
The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance
with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed
as under this section.
1.CSD-19-017-Noise Exemption –Bingemans –425 Bingeman Centre Drive
-Bingemans Summer EventSeries
2.DSD-19-140-2020 Sidewalk Infill through Roadway Reconstruction
3.DSD-19-141-School Related Traffic Review
4.DSD-19-142-Traffic Signal Control –River Road East and Manchester Road
Delegations
Pursuant to Council’s Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five
(5)minutes.
Item 6-Leslie Maxwell
Discussion Items
5.CSD-19-015-Neighbourhood PlacesProgram –Greening, Seating and Art(20min)
(Staff will provide a 5minute presentation on this matter)
6.INS-19-010-Year-Round Maintenance of Trails & Pathways Around Schools –Pilot(60 min)
(Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter)
(Materials will be provided under separate cover)
7.CSD-19-016-Review of Facility Booking Guidelines for Non-Profit Groups and the(45min)
Neighbourhood Association Affiliation Policy
8.DSD-19-075-Fence Regulations on Corner Lots –By-law Review(30min)
(Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter)
Information Items
Unfinished Business List
Dianna Saunderson
Committee Administrator
** 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 **
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 17, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Gloria MacNeil, Director of By-law Enforcement, 519-741-2200ext. 7952
PREPARED BY: Gloria MacNeil, Director of By-law Enforcement, 519-741-2200ext. 7952
WARD (S) INVOLVED:Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT:May 21, 2019
REPORT NO.: CSD-19-017
SUBJECT: NOISE EXEMPTION – BINGEMANS – 425 BINGEMAN CENTRE DRIVE –
BINGEMANS SUMMER EVENT SERIES
___________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That an exemption to Chapter 450 (Noise) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code be
granted to Bingemans for several events being held at 425 Bingeman Centre Drive, as
part of their summer Events Series.
This exemption is 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.
BACKGROUND:
Bingemans “On the Grand” will be holding several events over the summer season. This venue
will host a variety of different types of events, including music concerts, food festivals, as well as
other types of programming.Bingemans isrequesting a noise exemption for several dates, the
event times will occur between 11am and 11pm.
REPORT:
On the Grandis an outdoor venue that allowsfor the continuation and growth of events of all
sizes and uses, including corporate events, community festivals, music concerts and many other
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
1 - 1
activities. In addition to these, community groupshave the abilityto use the space for unique
initiatives which will assist in building increased capacity for community based tourism events.
The capacity of the venue for events will range from 5000 to 16,000 patrons depending on the
type of event and will vary in termsof start time however none of these events will be scheduled
past 11pm.
Bingemans has confirmedsome programming dates for the 2019 summer season, the list below
outlines the events that have been scheduled for the first part of the summer. Staff will be
bringing forward another report in August with the remaining scheduled events.
The dates below have been confirmed:
Canada Day Concert – rock/main stream music – June 29, 2019
Slam Fest Concert – rock/main stream music – July 6, 2019
Reggae Festival – reggae music – July 27, 2019
Throwback Concert – 90’s music – August 24, 2019
The stage design of the venue is directed (facing) North East whichwill allow the sound to travel
through a large wooded and industrial area out towards the city limits, which should minimize
impact on surrounding neighbouring properties.
It should be noted that weather conditions can play a role with regard to sound dispersion. At
this point we would not be able to predict the impact of weather during these events however it
will be closely monitored during the event.
Staff will work with the event organizers and will conduct sound testing to ensure the sound
output conforms with the prescribed decibel level that has been recommended. The event
producers will implement as many possible noise mitigation efforts through placement as well
as technology advances for each of the event(s).
The By-law Enforcement Division will be assigning a Noise Officer to monitor the event(s). The
event organizers will ensure that there is an on-site contact available during the event(s) who
will be available to By-law Enforcement staff, if required, to address any concerns raised.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
TherecommendationofthisreportsupportstheachievementoftheCity’sstrategicvision
throughthedeliveryofcore service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
It is anticipated that the cost of a paid duty Noise Officer, will be a minimum of $150 for each
event, depending on the length of the event. This cost will be billed to the event organizer.
1 - 2
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: The event organizer is responsible for ensuring that this event
is communicated throughout the community in advance of the event.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department
1 - 3
REPORT TO:Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 17, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:Barry Cronkite,Director, Transportation Services 519-741-2200
x7738
PREPARED BY:Lou Slijepcevic, Traffic Project Coordinator, 519-741-2200
x7153
WARD(S) INVOLVED:Wards 9 and 10
DATE OF REPORT:May 10,2019
REPORT NO.:DSD-19-140
SUBJECT:2020Sidewalk Infill through Roadway Reconstruction
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the following streets be approved for sidewalk infillin 2020as per the Sidewalk
Infill Policy MUN-STR-2004, approved by Council June 1, 2015:
PerthRoad,
EdwinStreet; and further,
That Council receive, for information purposes only, other sidewalk infill locations
in 2020that are pre-approvedas per the Sidewalk Infill Policy MUN-STR-2005;
BACKGROUND:
On June 1, 2015 Council approved MUN-STR-2004Sidewalk Infill Policy. TheInfillPolicy
defines the framework around the installation of new sidewalk locations where sidewalk
currently does not exist.Generally speaking, the policy confirms the City’s commitment
to an improved sidewalk network on existing roadways to support a more pedestrian
friendly environment.It also defines priority levels for sidewalk infill locations and provides
a framework for community and Council input onproposed installations when sidewalk
infill is not pre-approved through the policy.
The policy requires Council approval for somesidewalk infill locations. This report outlines
locations of sidewalk that are recommended to be built in conjunction with upcoming road
reconstruction projectsin 2020, and provides recommendations for the application of the
policy in these areas.
REPORT:
The Sidewalk Infill Policy stipulates that planned sidewalk infill locations must be
presented to Council for approval at least one year in advance of implementation.
Accordingly, staff has reviewed locations that are being reconstructed for sidewalk infill
through 2020reconstruction, as follows;
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 1
Perth Road
Location: Perth Road:
On the south side of Perth Road from South Drive to a point
approximately 78 metres east thereof;
On the northside of Perth Road from South Drive to a point
approximately 120 metres west thereof.
Priority: Priority 1 (Greater than 62points)
Score: 85pts
Perth Road Point Summary
Transit Subtotal Points5
Major Destination Subtotal Points20
Schools Subtotal Points25
Roadway Volume Subtotal Points10
Other Factors Subtotal Points (zoning, connections, etc.)25
Total Points85
Implementation Year: 2020
Length of Sidewalk Infill: 200m
Priority 1is defined as: Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the roadway as they
connect to a significant number of pedestrian origins and destinations.Locations that
score more than 57 points are considered priority 1.
Transportation Services surveyed area residents within the identified study area
regarding sidewalk infill along the identified sections of roadway. The results of the survey
are as follows:
Directly Affected Perth RoadResidents:
In Favour1of 3 (33%)
Opposed2of 3 (67%)
Total responses of Directly AffectedResidents 3 out of 12 surveyed (25%)
Area Residents:
In Favour31 of 41 (76%)
Indifferent4 of 41(10%)
Opposed6 of 41 (14%)
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 2
Total responses of Area Residents 41 out of 192 surveyed (21%)
Total Residents(directly affected + area residents):
In Favour32 of 44 (73%)
Indifferent4 of 44 (9%)
Opposed8 of 44 (18%)
Total responses 44out of 204surveyed (22%)
The sidewalk installation is proposed to be constructed with the upcoming full
reconstructionwork on Perth Road.The City of Kitchener is replacing underground
servicing as part of this work. The installation of the sidewalk may require the removal of
localized residential landscaping and the removal of low to medium stature vegetation.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 3
Perth Road: Proposed sidewalk infill location
Legend:
Study Area
Proposed Sidewalk Infill
Existing Sidewalk
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 4
Edwin Street
LocationEdwin Street:
On the west side of Edwin Street between Louisa St and
Blucher St.
Priority Priority 1 (Greater than 62points)
Score 65pts
Edwin StreetPoint Summary
Transit Subtotal Points15
Major Destination Subtotal Points0
Schools Subtotal Points25
Roadway Volume Subtotal Points0
Other Factors Subtotal Points (zoning, connections, etc.)25
Total Points65
Implementation Year2020
Length of Sidewalk Infill350m
Directly Affected Edwin Street Residents:
In Favour1of 3 (33%)
Opposed2of 3 (67%)
Total responses of Directly Affected Residents 3 out of 8 surveyed (38%)
Area Residents:
In Favour13of 18 (72%)
Indifferent3 of 18 (17%)
Opposed2 of 18 (11%)
Total responses of Area Residents 18out of 125surveyed (14%)
Total Residents(directly affected + area residents):
In Favour14of 21(67%)
Indifferent3 of 21 (14%)
Opposed 4 of 21 (19%)
Total responses 21out of 133 surveyed (16%)
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 5
The sidewalk installation is proposed to be constructed with the upcoming full
reconstruction work on Edwin Street. The City of Kitchener is replacing underground
servicing as part of this work. The installation of the sidewalkis not anticipated to have
any impact to residential landscaping.
Edwin Street:Proposed sidewalk infill location
Legend:
Study Area
Proposed Sidewalk Infill
Existing Sidewalk
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 6
Other Sidewalk Infill Locations
Othersidewalk infill locationsplanned for 2020 constructionaresummarized in the table
below. These locations do not require neighbourhood surveys, nor do they require
Council approval,dueto preapproved point totals (90+), private frontages are not
adjacent to the infill location, orsidewalk installationis being postponed. All locations are
presented to thesurrounding neighbourhood through the roadway reconstruction public
information centres (PICs) held by the Engineering Division. Transportation Planning staff
attend these PICs to discuss and answer questions regarding sidewalk infill, and other
transportation impacts.
Sidewalk infill Neighbourhood
WardSidewalk Infill
Roadway
location survey required?
St. George St. No - Preapproved point
Peter St.9 Yes
to Church St.total (90+)
Courtland Ave. No - Preapproved point
Yes
Mill St.9
to Ottawa St.total (90+)
Ottawa St. to No - Preapproved point
Mill St.9 Yes
Stirling Ave.total (90+)
Hoffman Ottawa St. to No - Preapproved point
Yes
9
St.endtotal (90+)
Greenbrook No -Private frontages
Stirling
Yes
Ave. to 9 are not adjacent to the
Ave.
Mausser St.infill location
No -Private frontages
Queen's Blvd.
Yes
Rex Dr.9 are not adjacent to the
to Glen Rd.
infill location
Installation postponeddue
No - Requirement for
to large/mature tree loss.
St. Clair Glen Rd. to survey will be
9 Sidewalks will be designed,
Ave.Stirling Ave.reassessed at time of
and installed when trees
installation
expire and are replanted.
St George. St.
No - One-way laneway with
Hebel Pl.to Courtland 9 N/a
space constraints
Ave.
No - Low priority roadway
with space constraints,
Ephraim St. to
Ethel St.1 mature tree loss, parking N/a
Frederick St.
loss, grading issueswith
retaining wall requirement
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 7
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority:Sustainable Environment & Infrastructure
Strategy:4.4 - Develop a network of safe, comfortable and linked pedestrian and cycling
facilities and improve year-round maintenance on priority routes.
Strategic Action:#97 Sidewalk Infill Policy
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The cost of sidewalk installation is funded through the Water Infrastructure Program (WIP)
in the 2020capital budget for these projects.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance
of the council / committee meeting.Residents were notified regarding this report to
recommend the implementation of sidewalk through upcoming reconstruction projects.
CONSULT – Transportation Services initiated public consultation through a
survey/questionnaire for:
Edwin Street– April 16, 2019
Perth Road- April 16, 2019
The Engineering Division holds public information centres (PICs) for roadway
reconstruction projects. Transportation Planning staff attend these PICs to discuss and
answer questions regarding sidewalk infill, and other transportation impacts.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 8
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 17, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Barry Cronkite, Director, Transportation Services, 519-741-2200
Extension 7738
PREPARED BY:Dean McMillan, Supervisor, Crossing Guards,519-741-2200
Extension 7232
WARD (S) INVOLVED:Ward(s)7 and 9
DATE OF REPORT:May 16, 2019
REPORT NO.:DSD-19-141
SUBJECT:School Related Traffic Review
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe existingSchool Bus Loading Zoneon Stirling Avenuebe
extended on the westside(even-numbered)200msouthof CharlesStreetto a point 250m
souththereof; and,
That the Adult Crossing Guard be removed along Highview Drive at Willow Green Court;
and further,
That the Uniform Traffic By-law be amended accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
Transportation Services is providing an update to Council prior to school year end with changes
for the upcoming school year, the following items have been outlined for review:
Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region(STSWR)haverequested an
extension of the existing School Bus Loading Zone, including a No-stopping restriction;
Staff are recommending the removal of the crossing guard for Highview Drive at Willow
Green Courtdue to a decreasein the number of students accessing the crossing location.
REPORT:
Cameron Heights Collegiate Institute – School Bus Loading Zone
STSWR requested an extension of the existing School Bus Loading Zone (SBLZ) on the west
side of Stirling Avenue(between Charles Street and Courtland Avenue)to accommodateschool
buses dropping-off and picking-upstudents. Staff have reviewed the locationand determined
that the existing school buszonecan be lengthened to accommodate approximately 14 buses
that are stopping along Stirling Avenue for the high school. Further information is illustratedin
Appendix A.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
3 - 1
Highview Drive at Willow Green Court – Crossing Guard Removal
Concerns were received in relation to the relatively low number of students crossing Highview
Drive at Willow Green Court.As a result, staff collected information for both the morning and
afternoon shifts.For both shifts there wereno more than 10 pedestrians observed crossing and
the majority of pedestrians crossing were accompanied by an adult. Due to the low number of
pedestrians observed at this crossing location, staff are recommending to discontinuethe
crossing guardlocation for the upcoming school year. The affected school hasbeennotified of
the change.A location map is included in Appendix B.
Additionally, it should be noted thatstaff improved the crossing through a recommendation
brought forward to Council to narrow the roadway along Highview Drive at the intersection during
a traffic calming review in 2013 (Report: INS-13-063); the road narrowing has since been
installed and effectively lessens the distance for pedestrians crossing.
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 for the signs in relation to schools will be taken from the existing sign maintenance budget
and is expected to cost approximately $1750.00.A cost savings is expected to be realized from
the existing crossing guardpart-timewages ofapproximately $9,500.00per year.
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: Justin Readman, General Manager
Development Services Department
Attached:
Appendix A – Key Map – Proposed School Bus Loading Zone –Stirling Avenue
Appendix B – Key Map – Proposed Crossing Guard Removal –Highview Drive at Willow Green Court
3 - 2
Appendix A
Proposed School Bus Loading Zone
Stirling Avenue
Cameron Heights
Collegiate Institute
Kaufman Park
Legend
Existing School Bus Loading Zone
Proposed School Bus Loading Zone
3 - 3
Appendix B
Proposed Crossing Guard Removal
Highview Drive at Willow Green Court
Legend
Crossing Guard Removal
3 - 4
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure ServicesCommittee
DATE OF MEETING:June 17, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Barry Cronkite, Director,Transportation Services
519-741-2200 ex.7738
PREPARED BY:Ivan J. Balaban, Traffic Technologist,
519-741-2200 ex. 7302
WARD (S) INVOLVED:Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT:May22, 2019
REPORT NO.:DSD-19-142
SUBJECT:Traffic Signal Control – River Road Eastand Manchester Road
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That a traffic signalbe installed at the intersection of River Road East and Manchester
Road; and further,
That the UniformTraffic Bylaw be amended accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
Transportation Services received a request to review the existing traffic control at the intersection
ofRiver Road East and Manchester Road. The request cited concerns regarding pedestrian
safetyand general operation of the intersection. It was requested that traffic signalbe considered
to control traffic.
A
ccording to the City of Kitchener’s Official Plan, River Road Eastis designated as a City Arterial
roadway and Manchester Roadisdesignated as aMinorNeighbourhood Collector roadway.
Currently, traffic on Manchester Roadstops and yields right of way to traffic on River Road East.
RE
PORT:
In response to the identified concerns, a traffic study was conducted for the intersection of
River Road East and Manchester Road on TuesdayMay 29, 2018. Theresults of the study
were compared to the traffic signalwarrant requirementscontained within the Ontario Traffic
Manual, which is themunicipal andregional accepted standard. The results are as follows:
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
4 - 1
Warrant – Traffic SignalWarrant Analysis
RiverRoadEastand Manchester Road
Warrant Factors -4-LegIntersectionResultsWarrant Met
Vehicle volume on all intersection
Minimum
approaches in each of theheaviest 8 hours 100% Justified
Vehicle
is720vehicles per hour
NO
Volume
Vehicle volume along the minor road for
(Warrant must
each of the heaviest 8 hours is 170 86% Justified
meet 100%)
vehicles per hour
and
Vehicle volume along the major road in
each of the heaviest 8 hours is72098% Justified
Delay to
vehicles per hour
Cross Traffic
NO
Combined Vehicle and PedestrianVolume
(Warrant must
meet 100%)
crossing the major road is 75foreach of 83% Justified
the same 8 hours
or
Volume/Delay Justifications 1 and 2 both fulfilled to
86% / 83%YES
Combinationthe extent of 80% or more
Traffic Signal WarrantedYES
Based onthe above, a traffic signal is warranted since both the Minimum Vehicle Volume and
Delay to Cross Traffic warrants are greater than 80% justified.
Transportation Services recommends the installation of a traffic signalat this location toproperly
allocate right-of-way andimprove vehicle and pedestrian safety. The lane designations at the
intersection of River Road East and Manchester Road are expected to remain as they currently
exist (an exclusive Left lane and a shared Through-Right lane for each approach on River Road
East and a shared Left-Through-Right lane for each approach on Manchester Avenue).The
proposed traffic signalwillhelp alleviateconcerns of traffic congestion during peak times, as well
ashelp improvepedestrian safety.
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:
As per regional policy, The Region of Waterloo will cover the initial cost of installationestimated
at approximately $100,000, the City of Kitchener is billed annually for all traffic signal
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
4 - 2
maintenance.The estimated annual maintenance cost is approximately $3500 and will be
referred to the 2020 operating budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
CONSULT – This recommendation has been communicated with the local Ward Councillor.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager
Development Services Department
Attached:
Appendix A – Key Map – Proposed Traffic Signaland Lane Designations
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
4 - 3
Key Map
Proposed Traffic Signaland Lane Designations
Legend
Existing Traffic Signal Control
Proposed Traffic Signal Control
Proposed Lane Designations
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
4 - 4
REPORT TO: CommunityandInfrastructureServicesCommittee
DATE OF MEETING:June 17, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:Josh Joseph, Neighbourhood Development OfficeSupervisor
519-741-2200 x 7079
PREPARED BY:Jenna van Klaveren, Neighbourhood Development Office Associate,
519-741-2200 x 7083
WARD (S) INVOLVED:AllWards
DATE OF REPORT: May 20, 2019
REPORT NO.:CSD-19-015
SUBJECT:Neighbourhood Places Program – Greening, Seating and Art
_____________________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That the three Neighbourhood Places Programs, including The Neighbourhood Greening
Program,The Neighbourhood Seating Program and Neighbourhood ArtProgram, as
outlined in report CSD-19-015, be approved.
BACKGROUND:
LoveMyHood – Kitchener’s first Neighbourhood Strategy – was approved by Kitchener City
Council on February 27, 2017, through report CSD-17-008. The Neighbourhood Strategy
recommendations encourages residents to take a lead role in making their neighbourhood great,
with a commitment that City of Kitchener staff will help them every step along the way. It includes
18 action items in three areas of focus: Great Places, Connected People and Working Together.
All 18 action items were requested by residents through one of the most comprehensive
community engagement processes ever conducted by the City of Kitchener.
Through a massive community engagement campaign for the creation of Love My Hood, 5,651
residents provided input in 3,942 hours of conversation. They requestedthat City staff make it
easier for residents to lead popular improvements to public places, with less red tape and more
support from the City. Responding to this need is Action Item #1, the Neighbourhood Places
Program, which includes nine popular projecttypes:
In ProgressPending Approval
ProgramCompleted
Community Gardens X
Cul-de-sac Enhancements X
Little Libraries X
Neighbourhood Art X
Neighbourhood Greening X
Neighbourhood Public Seating X
Neighbourhood Signage X
Pop-up Markets X
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5 - 1
Resident-led Traffic Calming X
To date, the City’sresident-led trafficcalming program (INS-17-038),community garden
program (INS-17079), and neighbourhood market programhave been successfully developed
and implemented.Building fromthe success of these programs under the Neighbourhood
Places Program, City staff have worked with the community to develop three new programs:
resident-led art, resident led greening and resident-led public seating.
REPORT:
A common theme heard throughout the initial process for the Neighbourhood Strategy was the
desire for more greening, public seating and art initiatives to help enhance neighbourhood
spaces and encourage people to gather and make connections with one another. The City has
supported a number of resident-led projects that have included components relating to
neighbourhood greening, public seating and art. These projects include:
Resident-led Art Project Year Funded
Tessellation Gardens Art Installation 2014
Wilson Avenue Pool Mural 2016
Forest Heights Storage Mural 2016
Shantz Park Fairy Village 2016
Community Mural Project for Queensmount Bunker 2018
Sprucedale Community Gathering Rock Painting 2018
Portable Blacksmith Demonstration at Berlin Flea Market 2018
Beautifying Our Community Entrance Signs Painted Rock Garden 2019
Community Thoughts Art Installation 2018
Westmount Mural Paintings (In progress) 2019
Cameron Heights Graffiti Wall and Signage (In progress) 2019
Resident-led Greening Project Year Funded
Iron Horse Trail Pollinator Garden 2016
Refresh My Outdoor Hood 2017
Laneway Edible Plant and Garden Improvement 2018
Pioneer Park Fire Hall Urban Farm and Food Forest 2019
Rockway Raised Bed Herb Garden (In progress) 2019
Loose Parts Bin in Argyle Park (In progress) 2019
Resident-led Public Seating Project Year funded
Cherry Park Picnic Shelter 2017
Fred’s Benches 2018
Accessible Picnic Table and Math Wall at Morrison Park 2018
Forest Heights Food Forestry Benches 2018
Thomas Slee Park Seating 2018
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5 - 2
Public consultation during the development of the Neighbourhood Strategy, and the
implementation of the above projects, have both shown that there isa demonstrable desire for
resident-led greening, public seating and art projects. This was confirmed againmost recently
during a community engagement workshop and the launch of three EngageWR surveys with a
focus on resident-led greening, public seating and art.
As part of the Neighbourhood Places program, by providing a wide range of project types under
resident-led greening, resident-led public seating,and resident-led art, peopleare offered the
opportunity to choose projects that matter most to them and decide how to shape the future of
their neighbourhood places. Below are the specific project types under each program.
Resident-led GreeningProgram
There is a wide-range of resident-led greening projects that can be considered and implemented
by residents. The main project areas that City staff have explored as a part of the launch of the
resident-led greening program include:
•Community Clean-ups:
o Community clean-ups have occurred mainly during Earth Week and the month of
March, April and May through the city’s Natural Areas Program. Through the
resident-led greening program, this program will be expanded to accommodate for
year-round clean-ups. The Region of Waterloowill continue to provide clean-up
supplies, which will be distributed to participating groups through the city’s 14
community centre facilities.
•Pollinator Projects:
o Through continued collaboration by City staff, and in support of the City of
Kitchener’s affiliation with Bee City Canada, residents can create their very own
pollinator patches, wildflower meadows, naturalized landscapes or planter boxes
to help to create a space in the city where bees, butterflies and other pollinators
can thrive.
•Wildlife Habitat Creations:
o This project allows residents to install a wide-range of habitats in their
neighbourhoods for birds, bees, butterflies and bats. Wildlife habitat projects could
also complement pollinator restoration programs. With bat monitoring devices and
other citizen science tools, residents can also help monitor the outcomes of their
restoration projects.
•Tree Planting Pilot Program:
o LoveMyHood’s tree planting pilot aligns with Kitchener’s Sustainable Urban Forest
Strategy as a way to increase community awareness, encourage community
participation and ownership of the city’s urban forest.
o City staff have partnered with ReepGreen Solutions to provide a Tree Planting
Pilot Program in 2019 for both plantings on privately and publically owned
properties. The five neighbourhood groups selected to take part in tree planting
activities in city parks will also be provided with educational workshops and
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5 - 3
consultations, as well as the opportunity to host a community gathering supported
by the Neighbourhood Development Office.
•Food Forests and Hedges:
o Working with residents and building on past food forest projects, City staff will hold
a series of events through 2019 to develop resources that will support the planting
and stewardship of resident-led food forests and hedges on public and private
lands. The goal of the work in 2019 will be to support projects in 2020 based on
available funding and resources.
•Citizen Science and Education Programs:
o Residents can enhance their pollinator or wildlife habitat projects through citizen
science and education programs, such as nature walks, ecological monitoring and
nature play. These programs will be developed in response to a pollinator or
wildlife habitat projects, the location of the project and with assistance from the
City’s Natural Areas Program.
•Storm-water Management Projects:
o Storm-water management projects may include the installation of rain gardens,
and bioswales by resident groups. Resident-led storm-water projects will be
assessed on a case-by-case basis by the Selection Committees, with input on
location, technical viability and design standards from Storm-water Management.
Resident-led Public SeatingProgram
There are two distinct streams of resident-led public seating:
•Stream 1: Standard City-approved Seating Options
o A list of pre-approved seating options have been developed for residents who are
interested in selecting seating, such as picnic tables and benches, from the city’s
list of standard products. These seating options will be installed and maintained by
City staff.
•Stream 2: ‘Build Your Own’ Seating Options
o In some cases, residents may endeavour to build their own seating. For projects
like this, LoveMyHood has introduced a new ‘Build Your Own’ option to allow
residentsto propose creative project ideas while ensuring safety and maintenance
standards are adhered to.
o To help facilitate these kinds of projects, staff have developed a “Build Your Own”
Project Checklist (on page 15 of the Neighbourhood Public Seating Guide attached
as Appendix A).
o This “Build Your Own” approach is a great example of staff and residents working
together, and encourages flexibility for the creative ideas of residents.
Resident-led Art Program
There is a number of resident-led art projects that can be considered and implemented by
residents. The main project areas city staff have explored as a part of the launch of the resident
led art program include:
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5 - 4
•Community Murals:
o Community murals are paintings ranging in size and located in a neighbourhood
space, such is on an unused wall, temporary hoarding or a concrete bunker.
Community murals are intended to be graphic and vibrant and enhance a
neighbourhood space. Through the LoveMyHood program, community murals will
be done by residents and in some cases with the help of community-based artists.
•Painted Rock Gardens:
o Painted rock gardens can enhance neighbourhood entryways and parks through
colourful designs and inspiring words.
• Mosaics:
o Mosaics are art installations made from smaller pieces of coloured glass, stone or
other materials. Mosaic projects led by residents require the sourcing of reclaimed
materials and the arrangement of the materials on a wall or other surfacein a
neighbourhood space by residents.
•Temporary Installations:
o Temporary installations may be knitted creations, small art installations or other
forms of interactive art designed and installed by residents in a neighbourhood
space.
To further support residents in leading greening, public seating and art projects, City staff are
proposing a change to the existing Neighbourhood Places Program, as outlined below:
Proposed Changes Rationale
New Step-by-Step -Guide books will be resized to 5.5 x 8.5”.
Guide Books -Included a condensed step-by-step checklist.
-Includes details on project cost.
-Includes details on maintenance requirements.
-Includes details on lifespan of a project.
-Includes information on the LoveMyHood process and the
Single Point of Contact approach, solidifying LoveMyHood
as a core service that involves all City staff in supporting
resident-led projects.
-Guide books will be a living document that will be updated to
reflect project detail.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5 - 5
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority:Safe & Thriving Neighbourhoods
Strategy: 3.1: Give citizens the tools and opportunities to play an active leadership role in
creating great neighbourhoods and fostering a stronger sense of community belonging.
Strategic Action:#NB1 Neighbourhood Strategy
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
It is anticipated that, combined, the resident-led greening, public seating and art programs will
have minimal impacts in terms of financial resources. Each project will be evaluated on a case
by case basis for funding opportunities, to assist neighbourhoods with the overall implementation
of these initiatives. The existing Neighbourhood Matching Grant and Neighbourhood
Placemaking Challenge Grant is a key funding tool for these projects, which has the added
benefit of leveraging volunteer hours and community contributions to match the City’s financial
contribution.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Through a massive community engagement campaign for the creation of Love My Hood, 5,651
residents provided input in 3,942 hours of conversation. Staff heard from a diversity of residents,
such as neighbourhood associations, schools, faith communities, cultural clubs, sportsteam,
youth and seniors groups. Staff engaged residents at parks, pools, splash pads, bus stations,
soccer games, events and shopping centres all across the city.
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council/committee meeting.
CONSULT – In addition to the consultation for the Neighbourhood Strategy, a Community
Engagement Workshop was held at Catalyst 137 in November 2018 for further consultation on
resident-led greening, seating and arts projects. With over 50 residents in attendance, staff from
a wide-range of departments were provided feedback on what tools, level of support and
information should be provided to best assist residents in leading these types of projects.
Three follow-up surveys on resident-led greening, seating and art have been published on a
dedicated EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Program page to gather more insight on the tools,
information and level of support residents require when leading these projects in their
neighbourhoods. These survey results can be found in Appendix B.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO Community Services
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Neighbourhood Places Program Guide Books – Art, Greening and Public Seating
Appendix B: EngageWR Neighbourhood PlacesPrograms Surveys
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
5 - 6
....
...
.........
........................
......................
.........................
................................
................................
................................
................................................................
-
-
5 - 7
-
-
-
5 - 8
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 9
-
5 - 10
-
5 - 11
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
5 - 12
5 - 13
5 - 14
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 15
...
.........
........................
......................
..........................
.........................
................................
................................
................................................................
-
-
5 - 16
-
-
-
5 - 17
-
5 - 18
-
-
-
5 - 19
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
5 - 20
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 22
-
-
-
5 - 23
-
5 - 24
-
5 - 25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 26
...
.........
...........
........................
......................
.........................
................................
................................
................................
................................................................
-
-
5 - 27
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 28
-
--
-
-
-
-
5 - 29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 30
-
5 - 31
-
-
-
-
5 - 32
-
-
5 - 33
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 34
-
5 - 35
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5 - 36
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Art Survey Responses
5 - 37
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Art Survey Responses
5 - 38
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Art Survey Responses
5 - 39
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Art Survey Responses
5 - 40
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Art Survey Responses
5 - 41
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Art Survey Responses
5 - 42
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Art Survey Responses
Icon Images Included in Survey:
/ƚƭƷ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below there is 1 dollar sign symbol out of 5 dollar sign symbols, which represents a project that is low
in cost.
\[ĻǝĻƌ ƚŅ ağźƓƷĻƓğƓĭĻ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below are 4 wrench symbols out of 5 wrench symbols, which represents a project that requires a high
level of maintenance
\[źŅĻƭƦğƓ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below are 2 clock symbols out of 5 clock symbols, which represents a short lifespan of a project.
5 - 43
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Art Survey Responses
o
reminds me of the good in the world. Art in my neighborhood reminds me of the good in my neighborhood.
I would love to see art that represents or has symbols from local organizations. Even if it felt a little like
advertising. I think it would be nice, for example, to see art about local soup kitchens, or art collectives. I
love the mural of the old water tower from my childhood. Even though it's now been torn down, I love to
see it as a reminder of my city's history.
o The icons are helpful overall but don't give specific info. For example, what is a 5 clock timespan look like
o love to see more painted murals downtown especially in alleyways like Goudies Lane. They add so
o
o While I love city art projects and murals I feel like they are often the target of graffiti and vandalism.
Residence planning such projects would need help from the city to understand what type of projects are
o ject. Having an easy way
to browse through other people's experiences helps with planning, execution, and even developing and
5 - 44
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Greening Survey Responses
5 - 45
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Greening Survey Responses
5 - 46
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Greening Survey Responses
5 - 47
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Greening Survey Responses
5 - 48
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Greening Survey Responses
5 - 49
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Greening Survey Responses
Icon Images Included in Survey:
/ƚƭƷ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below there is 1 dollar sign symbol out of 5 dollar sign symbols, which represents a project that is low
in cost.
\[ĻǝĻƌ ƚŅ ağźƓƷĻƓğƓĭĻ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below are 4 wrench symbols out of 5 wrench symbols, which represents a project that requires a high
level of maintenance
\[źŅĻƭƦğƓ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below are 2 clock symbols out of 5 clock symbols, which represents a short lifespan of a project.
5 - 50
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Greening Survey Responses
o
the specifics of it were missing. For example, 1 dollar bill out of 5 means it was not costly, but does that
mean it was a $100 project or a $1000 project? People may not interpret it the same way.
o ith symbols on previous page, a definition might help with the wrench, since people wouldn't intuitively
associate it with greening or art projects.
o It would be good to identify areas most in need first. (i.e. empty boulevards, where things would be really
noticed and welcomed).
o It would be great to receive maintenance, financial support after the initial project is complete.
o Could you advertise this program on-site? E.g. a project on the Spurline is advertised on the Spurline, with
info about the project and the program (and how to start your own initiative).
5 - 51
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
5 - 52
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
Seating options used for Survey Question 1:
Standard Bench: Naturalized Seating:
Standard Accessible Picnic Table: Custom-built Seating:
-
Standard benches w arms to enable older adults or those transferring from a mobility aid, such as a
5 - 53
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
o d meet their
neighbors, but I think that's unlikely. I would use it, although rarely, and I don't want to misleadingly
o
5 - 54
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
5 - 55
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
5 - 56
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
5 - 57
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
5 - 58
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
5 - 59
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
Icon Images Included in Survey:
/ƚƭƷ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below there is 1 dollar sign symbol out of 5 dollar sign symbols, which represents a project that is low
in cost.
\[ĻǝĻƌ ƚŅ ağźƓƷĻƓğƓĭĻ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below are 4 wrench symbols out of 5 wrench symbols, which represents a project that requires a high
level of maintenance
\[źŅĻƭƦğƓ ƚŅ ğ tƩƚƆĻĭƷʹ
For example, below are 2 clock symbols out of 5 clock symbols, which represents a short lifespan of a project.
5 - 60
Appendix B:
EngageWR Neighbourhood Places Resident-led Public Seating Survey Responses
o Really excited to have this consultation. Definitely want to work with the City, but do not want to lose the
opportunity to work with neighbours. Project should remain true to the desires of citizens and not enfolded
into a process that ends the project because it isn't part of a menu-option design. Projects shouldn't be 'if'
o
owned/maintained property including the downtown
o
o
o
o
families (who frequently stop for snacks, or to tie shoes etc.), and seniors who like to walk but need to stop
o
Currently there is only 1 but it would be beneficial to have benches installed near the sports fields for people
walking on the dike to have a seat to be able to watch games. The benches would also be a great resting
o Would like benches installed on the dike in Bridgeport for resting spots and to be able to watch games at
the sports fields.
o A website containing approved design templates (e.g. for a picnic table) would make standardizing
community-built projects easier.
o I have some particular places in mind for where public seating should go. Does that fit in to the city's
consultation process?
5 - 61
REPORT TO: Community & Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 17, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Niall Lobley,Director Parks and Cemeteries,519-741-2600, 4518
PREPARED BY: Liz Christensen, Trails Project Manager,519-741-2600, 4032
WARD (S) INVOLVED:6- All
DATE OF REPORT:May 23, 2019
REPORT NO.:INS-19-010
SUBJECT:Year-Round Maintenance of Trails & Pathways Around Schools - Pilot
__________________________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to continue to winter maintain trails in the Country Hills West
neighbourhood and the annual operating funding of $14,000 be added to the 2020
budget to reflect this permanent service level; and,
That staff be directed to continue to explore opportunities for coordination and
efficiencies of winter maintenance activities with school boards; and,
That staff be directed to use the results of the Country Hills West neighbourhood trail
pilot to inform the winter trail maintenance priorities of the Cycling and Trails Master
Plan (in development).
BACKGROUND:
In 2015, staff were directed by Council (INS-15-074) to undertake improvement to
approximately 2.5km of trail around Glencairn PublicSchoolin the Country Hills West
neighbourhood, to provide winter maintenance to these trails, and to use this as a pilot project
to inform later work.
The request for the pilot was a response to Council’s direction to provide feedback on
transportation priorities between the City of Kitchener and local area school boards.The trails
in the Country Hills West neighbourhood, providing access to GlencairnPublic School,were
identified as a high priority trailnetwork that isutilized as well used routes to school. These
trails are primarily of granular material and are not winter maintained. Due to overwhelming
support within the neighbourhood and the Glencairn Public School community, the trails in the
Country HillsWest neighbourhood were identified as the preferred candidate for a pilot
program to assess trail usage, financial impact, and community feedback.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
6 - 1
REPORT:
The trails in the Country Hills West neighbourhood provide valuable recreational amenities to
residents and serve as a key transportation route to Glencairn Public School. In 2016, 2.5 km
of trails were upgraded from granular surface to asphaltto facilitate year-round maintenance of
the trails. Appendix1 provides a map of the trails that were improved andmaintained through
the duration of the pilot study. The trails were maintained throughout the winters of
2016/2017; 2017/2018; and 2018/2019 to ensure a representative winter was experienced and
evaluated. This report, INS19-010 provides a summary of the data collected, an analysis of
results and identifies potential future investment related to increased service levels for trails
that serve as an important transportation route to students.
Data Collection Methodology
Data collection included summary of costs, trail counts, and user engagement. Staff have
collected and analysed data from a range of sources to determine what impact upgrades to
facilitiesand year round maintenance has on active transportation (means other than
vehicular) to and from the school. This data has been collected:
Quantitatively: Through counts of students using trails to get too and from school both
manually and by using electronic counters
Qualitatively: Through in person discussions and via survey tools such as the City’s
Engage platform
In addition, Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)providedvaluable
information related to transportation data for schools across the City and provided feedback
through the pilot study.
Summary of Costs
In 2016, the City invested approximately $230,000 into trails around the Glencairn Public
School, upgrading existing granular/stone dust trails to an asphalt surface.
The City added these trails to its winter maintenance programs in 2016/17, 2017/18 and
2018/19. In each of these winters, approximately $14,000 was directly spent (excluding
overhead costs such as downtime, supervisory time etc.) on winter maintenance activities.
Trail Counters
Automated counters were located in strategic locationson the trail(at Erinbrook Greenway and
Erinbrook Drive, and the trail intersection at RittenhouseRoad) and provided daily count data
between 8am and 10am and 3pm and 5pm to specifically account for school based access.
Counters were able to differentiate and establish traffic flow toward the school, and away from
the school. As might be expected, the majority of access was taken within the period
immediately before 9am and after 3pm.
6 - 2
Table 1: Average Trail Use at RittenhouseRoad
MonthAverage Average Number of winter/extreme
Morning - InAfternoon – cold days
Out
October 201830460
November 201830341 snow
December 201829360
January 201927302 snow 1 extreme cold
February 201923242 snow
March 201929410
April 201928410
Table 2: Average Trail Use at ErinbrookDrive
MonthAverage Average Number of winter/extreme
Morning - InAfternoon – cold days
Out
October 201834420
November 201826381 snow
December 201828380
January 201922322 snow 1 extreme cold
February 201920292 snow
March 201921390
April 201929390
Note: Figures show thenumber of passes of the automated trail counter. These numbers do
not directly relate to individuals. A single ‘count’ can include a small group passing a counter at
one time, for example, an adult and 1 – 2 children may be a single count as they pass a
counter as a cluster. The data should therefore be considered as indicative and comparable,
but not reflective of a total number of individual users of the trail.
User Engagement Pre-Implementationof the pilot (2015):
Staff met with the local neighbourhood association and hosted a broader public information
gathering session in Ward 6. A significant focus of this discussion was on GlencairnPublic
School, but it was not exclusively the target for discussion in these sessions.
Feedback obtained through the engagement indicates that the trails around Glencairn Public
School arewell used as an access to the school and their value is that they create a shorter
route to the school than following the road based sidewalks. Feedback was provided that
sidewalk routes are typically 3-4 times longer than using the trail and a 30 minute sidewalk
walk can be shortened to 10 minutes orless using the trails. Feedback alsosuggestedthat
seasonal variation (weather and/or maintenance) impactedtrail usemeaning that residents
were not able/willing to use trails consistently through the year.
6 - 3
User Engagement Post-Implementationof the pilot (2019):
Staff implemented an Engage Kitchener online survey for 4 weeks between early February and
early March. This was well promotedthrough the following means:
Accessible to all Engage Kitchener subscribers
Targeted Facebook advertising (to parents within 1.6km of the school)
Signs were installed along the trail seeking feedback
An afternoon of direct staff engagement; 11 staff from Parks & Cemeteries and
Transportation were available on site after school handing out contact cards
encouraging users of the trails to make comments via the Engage platform.
In total, 39 responses were received. Overall, these results recorded that:
94% of trail users use the trail throughout the year, including winter
o 52% of people use the trail daily to walk to school
o 31% of users use the trail 3-5 times a week
5% of respondents indicated they neveruse the trail system
In spring andfall, walking was significantly the highest mode of transport used by
respondents. Cycling and single family driving were the next most popular options, with
car pooling and bus use being significantly less used modes oftransport.
In winter, walking was the most regularly used mode of transport used by respondents.
Single family car use was the next most popular with car pooling and cycling, followed
by bus transportation being least favoured options
Note: there is likelysome bias to these results. While the survey was accessible to all, the
focus of attention was in gauging existing user feedback. On site promotion of the survey was
undertaken on a cold, but sunny, dry day where trails were largely bare and dry.
Thesurvey also provided a forum for written comments and responses. The highlights of these
are:
Trails continue to serve a similar value as reported in 2015; they provide a shorter
commute to school than using the sidewalks
That the paving of part of the trail has lead to inconsistency where the paved portion
and maintenance stops;
o Access across school property from the south was inconsistently available due to
a different maintenance schedule on the part of the school; this meant a slightly
longer walk to access the school from the front rather than back of the building,
or crossing through snow
o The trail system is not maintainedto access the Country Hills Community Centre
leading to some dissatisfaction to in lack of continuity of maintenance
o That trails are not always maintained prior to school starting and this is a
significant impediment to regular use
That drifting snow in open areas is a concern
Overallthe comments were extremely supportive of winter maintenance and the paved nature
of the trail. Several respondents indicated that beyond accessing the school, the trail system
6 - 4
provides for regular daily use (in some case 4 or more uses a day, every day) associated with
leisure activities such as dog walking.
Interpretation of Data
Use of the trails as a means to access the school remains largely consistent, regardless of
weather conditions. Seasonal and monthly deviations in use remain consistent; dailyuse
patterns are largely the same throughout the 4 month period, which includes months of no
winter, and months with significant winter impacts. There is slightly higher variability in use
during February, but overall average use remains consistent with other months.
This would suggest that people that access and use the trails as a means of accessing the
school are doing so regardless of weather conditions.
It appears that the EngageKitchenerresults support the data results collectedby the trail
counters – that trail use is consistent through the seasons, and provides the daily most
convenient and accessible means to access the school.
A significant number of respondents used walking as their most frequent mode of use of the
trails. During the spring/summer/fall, cycling is a mode of use that a smaller proportion of trail
users use to access the school. This drops off significantly in the winter, with an increase in
single car use.
Results
Several findings are becoming clear from this work:
The Country Hills West neighbourhood trail system around GlencairnPublic Schoolis
much valued by local residents and is a key transportation route to the school. This
value seems significant both before the improvements and after them.
The value of the trails (both pre-improvement and today) is very largely based on the
fact that they provide a more direct, quicker route to access the school.
Many of the responses and much of the feedback indicated that using the trails was the
primary form of transportation, and in some cases, the only way of getting between
home and school. More than 81% of the enrolled students are considered to be within
walking distance (defined by the school board as within 1.6km of the school).
There is evidence to suggest that the consistency of use of the trail, throughout the year
and throughout winter has increasedyear round use of the trails; i.e. people that may
have used the trails except for winter, now use them year round.
Walking is significantly the primary mode of transportused on the trails. Alternative
modes of transport for trail users is by bike. When not using the trail, single family car
and car pooling are options.
During winter, single family car is more popular than bike; this might suggest that
cycling to school is disproportionately impacted by winter.
While the focus was on school based transportation, comments often cited the much
wider community and recreational benefits of both the paving of the trail and the winter
6 - 5
maintenance with several respondents stating that they use the trails multiple times
each day for activities such as errands and dog walking.
Trail users desire additional year-round connection to destinations such as the Country
Hills Community Centre.
The improvements to the trail and the winter maintenance are comprehensively welcomed.
However, these improvements have given rise to areas of concern related to the level of
service in winter maintenance including:
That it is not consistently undertaken in time for school in the mornings
That during the day, wind blows snow back onto the trail which is not quickly cleared
That the application of salt draws vocal criticism (albeit perhaps from a small audience)
in respect to environmental concerns
That not all the trails that are in the area are cleared at the same time, leading to an
inconsistent trail experience
The school is responsible for clearing snow on school property. The trails, which
approach the school from the rear, have no single clearly defined access to the school
property, and in the absence of snow, pupils make their way onto school property at
multiple points along the trail. The school has undertaken ad hoc maintenance of a
pathway to the school from the rear. This drew some negative feedback that the City
stopped maintaining the trail to the school; and highlighted the need for a more
coordinated approach between school and City to ensure a consistent level of service
onto school property.
Future Considerations for CitywideImplementation
Staff have evaluated thepotential implications of undertaking similar trail improvements and
enhancements within other communities in the City. Working with the School Travel Planning
Supervisor at STSWR, schools with a high proportion ofstudents(greater than 81%)within
walking distance (defined by the school board as within 1.6km of the school) were identified
and are illustrated onthe map in Appendix 2. In addition to Glencairn Public School, twelve
additional schools were identified.
Trails located throughout the City are also providedon the map in Appendix 2 and are
identified based on the following types:
o Paved, not winter maintained
o Not Paved, not winter maintained
o Paved and winter maintained
Based on the findings of the work at GlencairnPublic School, staff believe that the greatest
opportunity to support consistent year round access to schools would be in areas where there
is likely an existing base of active transportation occurring.
An analysis of the length of trails and associatedcapital improvementand annual operating
costs was completedfor trailswithin a 1.6 km radius of schools with high proportion of
students. A total of 131.9 km of trail islocated within the 1.6 km radius with 34.8 km already
paved and winter maintained therefore requiring nochange to service level. There is 45.5 km
6 - 6
of trail that is currently paved and not winter maintained. Additional operating funding of
$255,000 would be required to provide winter maintenance on the trails that are already paved.
There is 51.6 km of trail that consists of granular material and would require capital investment
of $11M to upgrade the trail surface to asphalt and annual operating funding of $290,000 to
provide winter maintenance service.A summary of this analysis is in Table 3.
Table 3: Trails within a 1.6 km Radius of Schools with Highest Proportion of Walking Students
Type of TrailLength (km)Capital Cost Operating Cost
EstimateEstimate
Paved, no winter maintained45.5n/a$255,000
Not Paved, not winter maintained51.6$11M$290,000
Paved, winter maintained34.8n/an/a
Total131.9$11M$545,000
The abovecosts are provided indicatively;they are order of magnitude costs based on recent
work, including this pilot and are subject to detailed design and contingency.
Staff recommend that the prioritization and timing of trail investments are provided through the
Cycling and Trails Master Plan. The Cycling and Trails Master Plan will create a multi-year
implementation plan to allow for phased implementation in areas that achieve the greatest
benefit to cycling and trail goals. For example, undertaking enhancements to trails that could
support access to more than one school would likely deliver greatervalue than trails servicing
one school. Therefore, targeting any work in areas of a higher school density, where there is
an existing basis of use and where there is a high trail density, would likely be the greatest
impact to school active transportation.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the council /
committee meeting.
CONSULT
This report has relied on extensive consultation with members of the Waterloo Region District
School Board as well as members of the community at Glencairn Public School and the
surroundingneighbourhoods. This has included both direct communication, public and
neighbourhood community meetings, 1-on-1 discussions and surveys via the Engage
Kitchener platform.
6 - 7
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The annual operating impact to continue to winter maintain the trails in the Country Hills West
community is $14,000.Both the capital and operating costs of the pilot project were were
funded through the trails capital program and therefore it is recommended that annual
operating funding of $14,000 be added to the 2020 budget to reflect this permanent service
level.
Future investment of trails in school areas are recommended to be considered through the
Cycling and Trails Master Plan and identified in future annual budget processes.
CONCLUSION:
Overall, it is worth noting that the driver for trail use has not changed through the paving and
winter maintenance; users continue to report that the trails add value because they provide for
a non-motorised route of access to the school that is quicker than using the sidewalk network.
Therefore, staff believe that the success of any future project must be based on the presence
of an existing trail network, or the potential to develop a new trail network that offers routes
which are at least as direct, andpreferably more direct/quicker, than the existing sidewalk
network. Assuming that this ‘test’ is met;
Paving and winter maintaining the trails appears to have increased consistency of use
of the trail system and provided for more people being able to usethe trails more
regularly and consistently throughout the year
Paving and winter maintaining the trails has been welcomed by the community. The
nature of the trails and school layout in this area make the trails a critical mode of
transportation to the school with several people indicating that walking and trail use is
their only means to access the school; saving as much as a 45 minute walk if the trails
were not present.
It is not clear if overall use has increased, or whether the same level of use is being
made, just over more days, weeks, months than prior to works.
It is also worth noting that while the improvements were comprehensively welcomed, and
supported an increased consistency in use through the seasons, City staff were not able to
meet expectations around level of service by users through the winter season.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Denise McGoldrick – General Manager, Infrastructure Services
6 - 8
Appendix 1: Country Hills West Neighbourhood Trail Pilot Area
6 - 9
Appendix 2: City-wide Map of Trails and Schools
6 - 10
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 17, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Roth, Manager Community Centres,519-741-2200 ext. 7077
PREPARED BY: Angie Fritz-Walters, Project Manager,519-741-2200 ext. 7088
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All Ward(s)
DATE OF REPORT:May 29, 2019
REPORT NO.: CSD-19-016
SUBJECT: Review of Facility Booking Guidelines for non-profit groupsand the
Neighbourhood Association Affiliation Policy
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff continue to review the City’s Facility Booking Guidelines for Non-Profit Groups
(MUN-FAC-415) and Neighbourhood Affiliation Policy (MUN-FAC-324), focusing on the
preliminary findings outlined in CSD-19-016.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Facility Booking Guidelines Policy (MUN-FAC-415) and the Neighbourhood Association
Affiliation Policy (MUN-FAC-324)significantly determine how community centres are booked
and the type of programs and services that are offered to members of our community. Since the
development of these policies(over17years ago), Neighbourhood Associations have developed
and evolved uniquely. Some are smaller groups that focus on issues within their
neighbourhoods and have a board of three individuals or less and some have developed into
large complex incorporated groups that hire and manage staff, and offer a significant number of
leisure and recreation programs and events out of the City’s community centres.
In their current form, these two policies make it very difficult to support the unique needs of the
various Neighbourhood Associations, neighbourhood groups and other stakeholders that
operate, or would like to operate, out of a community centre.These two policies also do not
effectively address, and in some instances hinder, community access to our community centres.
As a result, despite the great work of Neighbourhood Associations and city staff to animate these
spaces, our community centres are currently under-utilized.In addition, the supportthe city
currently providesto Neighbourhood Associations is not meeting their unique needs. Further,
opportunities tocollaborateandprovide additionaland morediverse programming at ourcentres
is being missed.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the Council approved business plan for 2019 (ID# NB58), staff was directed to review
the use of space at the 13 community centres across the city, and the City’s Neighbourhood
Association Affiliation Policy. The use of space review was first brought forward during the 2016
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994for assistance.
7 - 1
Community Centre comprehensive service review, and was also included as an action item in
the 2017 Neighbourhood Strategy.
The facility booking guidelines for non-profit groups (MUN-FAC-415), which were approved by
City Council in 1994, outlines priority considerations when space is being booked at community
centres. Theseguidelines also outline the process for booking space at community centres,
designated times that are reserved for private rentals, as well as the criteria that is considered
when staff receive requests from other community non-profit organizations.
The Neighbourhood Association Affiliation Policy (MUN-FAC-324), which was approved by City
Council in2002, broadly outlines the support the City will provide to affiliated neighbourhood
groups that initiate and maintain a range of community based activities in our communities.It
identifies eligibility criteria of neighbourhood groups for formal affiliation, the benefits of affiliation
(including access to community centre space), as well as the process for groups to apply for,
and renew affiliation annually.
Together, these two policies significantly determine how community centres are booked and the
type of programs and services offered to the public. Affiliated Neighbourhood Associations,
considered first priority for facility space access from Monday to Friday, solely take responsibility
for the majority of the programming that occurs at community centres during the week. On
weekends, there is limited to no public accessto community centres because the current facility
booking guidelines has this time reserved for private rentals. Minor revisions to these policies
have been made over the years, however a comprehensive reviewwhich engages
Neighbourhood Associations, other community partners, City Council and City staff,has not
been done.
Since the development of thesetwopolicies(over 17years ago), Neighbourhood Associations
have developed and evolved uniquely. Some are smaller groups of neighbours providing a
limited number of programs and events to their neighbourhoods. There are also Neighbourhood
Associations that do not program or use community centre space but rather concentrate on
events or issues in their neighbourhoods.There are also Neighbourhood Associations that have
evolvedinto large complex incorporated groups that hire and manage staff, and offer a significant
number of leisure and recreation programs and events out of the City’scommunity
centres. There are also emerging groupsof neighbourhood citizens that do not want to organize
into a formal Neighbourhood Association, but arestilllooking for access to community centre
space and staff support. There are also other stakeholder organizations interested in accessing
community centre space with the goal of meeting the needs of local neighbourhoods.
In their current form, the facility booking guidelines and the Neighbourhood Association affiliation
policy make it very difficult to support the unique needs of the various Neighbourhood
Associations, neighbourhood groupsand other stakeholdersthat have evolved significantly
since the policies were first created.These policies also do not effectively address, and in some
instances hinder, residents’ access to our community centres.As a result, our community
centres are currently under-utilized.Further, opportunities to collaborate and provide additional
and more diverse programming at our centres is being missed.
7 - 2
Policy Review Objectives
In February of this year, City staff launched a preliminary review of MUN-FAC-415 (Facility
booking guidelines for non-profit groups) and MUN-FAC-324 (Affiliation – Neighbourhood
Associations), with the objectives of:
1. Increasing public use of community centres,
2.Providing more effective support of the uniqueand changingneeds of individual
Neighbourhood Associations,
3.Collaborating with a variety of community partners to meet the diverse needs of
community.
REPORT:
To begin the review of these two policies, staffcompleted a detailed analysis of theprogramming
schedulesand usage data at each of the City’s 13 community centres. In addition, staff engaged
in one-on-one meetings with representatives from 24 ofthe28 affiliated neighbourhood
associations, all members of City Council, and relevant staff within the Neighbourhood Programs
and Services Division.
1.Community Centre space use statistics
Staff reviewed the program schedules of each of the City’s 13 community centres for the
Fall 2018 programmingseason. The results reflected in this report shows overall use of
space at all 13facilities, considering all program rooms, multi-purpose rooms and
gymnasium spaces. It also considers all scheduled multi-week programs (registered and
drop in) run by Neighbourhood Associations, partners and city staff, and all recurring
rentals (e.g. faithgroups). The use statistics do notinclude any one-off programs, set up
and tear down for regular programs, or rentals that may be scheduled from time to time
at the community centres as opportunities arise. Although the statistics reviewedreflect
space use for Fall 2018 programs, there is not a significant difference in space use when
analysing Spring and Winter programming.
2.Preliminary engagement with Neighbourhood Associations
As a part of the initial stages of this policy review, staff met with each Neighbourhood
Association separately. Theassociation executive memberspresent were asked a series
of questions thatsought their insights on the work they do, their challengesas an
Association, and generally the gaps they seefrom a service and support perspective.
They were also provided with the community centre use statistics to the centre they are
associated with, and asked for their thoughts regarding opportunitiesand challenges they
see within the centre. At the end of the meeting the Neighbourhood Association
representatives were left with some questions to share with their board and volunteers
and then provide to staff as a part of this review. Generally, thosequestions askedtheir
opinion about roles and responsibilities, including areas they felt arethe responsibility of
the Neighbourhood Association, areas that they thought the City isresponsible for, and
areas they thought there wasconfusion.
7 - 3
3.Preliminary engagement with Members of City Council
Staff also met individuallywith the Mayor and all City Councillors to seek their input and
insights intothe operations of our community centres, and therelationship with
Neighbourhood Associations. Questionsdiscussed during those meetingslooked at what
is working well with the current model of operations as well as where there is room for
improvement.
4.Preliminary engagement with City Staff
Finally, City staff were also surveyed for their opinion on the current community centre
model of operations, which is largely determined bythe affiliation and facility booking
policies, including what is working well, what could be improved upon and what, if any,
gaps in service to the community that they saw.
Preliminary Findings
The following information summarizes the very preliminary findings of this policy review.Staff
will be meeting with Neighbourhood Associations at the end of June to review these findings,
continue the discussions and work collaboratively on next steps.
1. Public use of community centres
Figure 1 (below) reflects the average use of space across all of the City’s 13community centres.
The weekday usage average of 32% considers operating hours from9am to 9pm, Monday to
Friday. Generally speaking, gymnasium and large multi-purpose rooms are used the most, while
smaller meeting room spaces, or spaces that had permanent set-ups (e.g. preschool type
rooms) are used the least. Average weekend usage of 14% considers operating hours from
9am to 9pm, Saturdays and Sundays.
There is a significant increase in weekday space use during summer programming, when the
City of Kitchener’s Neighbourhood Camps, and Youth Drop In programs move into the
Community Centres to operate. As well, community centres that have a dedicated staff
programmer working with Neighbourhood Associations have much higher usage.
7 - 4
Figure 1.
COMMUNITY CENTRE COMMUNITY CENTRE
WEEKDAY USE -FALL 2018WEEKEND USE -FALL 2018
Total Hours UsedTotal Hours Available
Total Hours UsedTotal Hours Available
307.6
14%
1739.75
32%
3720.25
68%
1876.4
86%
These statistics show there is significant opportunity to increasethe public’s use of our
community centres throughout the entire week. Focusing on weekend use, the lack of
community use is largely dueto the specific limitations imposed bythe current facility booking
guidelines, which are a part of this review. Those guidelines prescribedesignated paid rental
times, reservedfrom Saturday afternoon to Sunday evening, which canremain empty unless
there is a private rental. In some instances, Neighbourhood Associationsrun programs on
Saturday mornings, and any use on Sunday morningsreflect ongoing rentals from faith groups.
Consideration of increasing operating hours to include weekends was a common themestaff
heard during the preliminary engagement of this review,and wasconsistent with Neighbourhood
Associations, Members of City Council, and city staff.
The usage statistics also show there is space capacity during weekday hours at allof the centres.
Although more work and dialoguewith our partnersneeds to occur to analyse the reasons, one
can turn to the facility booking guidelines again for clues.Within the policy, first priority for space
is designated toNeighbourhood Associations who are currently responsible for the majority of
programming. Although in some instances, there are partners and City-led programs that
contribute programming at Community Centre facilities, if the space is not filled with
Neighbourhood Association programs, then it goes unused.During initial consultations,
concerns were expressed from a number of Neighbourhood Associations and members of City
Council around the amount of work involved with running a full menu of programs at the centre
and the pressure this causes the Neighbourhood Association volunteers. There was also
significant concern raisedfrom Neighbourhood Associationswith their ability to continue to
recruit and maintain volunteers.
7 - 5
2.Supporting the unique needs of each neighbourhood association
The City of Kitchener currently has 28 affiliated Neighbourhood Associations that provide a
variety of programs, services and events in their neighbourhoods. Some Neighbourhood
Associations are relatively young, mostly located in newly developed neighbourhoods. Many
have been around for over 25 years and have developed over time based on their individual
mandates, location and boundaries they serve,capacity, access to community space and
community demographics. Some Neighbourhood Associations are small with under three
executive members, while others are complex incorporated groups with 10+ members on the
board.
During initial consultations, almost all groups interviewed recognized the uniqueness of each
Neighbourhood Association and the unique needs that each of them have. Volunteer recruitment
was an ongoing concern for many Neighbourhood Associations.Communicating with residents
was a common challenge, particularly with Neighbourhood Associationswho had large
boundaries and who had neighbourhood residents who lived in multi-residential buildings.Some
of thelarger Neighbourhood Associations, who provide many recreation programs out of
Community Centre spaces, indicated that existing staff support was highly valued and in some
instances the Associations wanted more support than was currently provided by staff dueto the
amount of work required to deliver programming. In addition, smaller Neighbourhood
Associations that do not provide recreation programming, or Neighbourhood Associations who
service a large population on a fixed income, felt theirlimitedaccess to funding, staff support
and other resources hindered what they could provide to their neighbourhoods.
The current affiliation policy is broad and does noteffectively support the unique needs of the
28 affiliated Neighbourhood Associations. Initial conversations identifiedan expressedwantby
Neighbourhood Associations, members of City Council and staff for clarification – of roles and
responsibilities, expectationsof staff and volunteers, supports available to Neighbourhood
Associations, andthebenefitsof becoming an affiliated Association.Changes are needed to
the affiliation policy that are flexible to the needs,capacitiesand uniquenessof the
NeighbourhoodAssociation as well as the neighbourhoodswe all serve.A revised affiliation
policy also needs to reflectmore fully a shared understanding that Neighbourhood Associations
are not solely responsible for animating community centresbut ratherit is a shared responsibility.
3.Collaboratingwith other community partners to meet the diverse needs of community
During initial consultations of this review, many expressed a desire to see more community
groups able to use spacesin centres, to animate spaces, bring more diversity and ensure there
is something for everyone in each centre.
Currently, the vast majority of the programming offered in community centres is delivered by
Neighbourhood Associations. Most programs focus on recreationand leisure programs (sport,
crafts, fitness etc.), are registered with a fee, and are offered over a number of consecutive
weeks.All groups engaged identified a gap in participation among diverse populations, and a
desire to explore ways to include programming that was of interest and accessible to everyone
in the community. Staff recognize that this is a shared responsibility, and thatvolunteer
Neighbourhood Associations alone cannot be expected to meet the recreational and social
7 - 6
needs of residents across theentire city.City staff and other community partners can contribute
and share their expertise tobetterserve the diverse community through community centres.
Neighbourhood Associations do a significant amount of outstanding workand dedicatemany
hours of timetocreate opportunities for residents to participate in programs, events and activities
that bring people together. However, staff heard from neighbourhood associations that it is
becoming increasinglydifficult to attract and retainnew volunteers as active members ontheir
boards. Research has shown that this trend will continue, with the current direction of
volunteerismbecoming that of short episodic opportunitiesthat individuals are looking for, rather
than long-term opportunities, like being on an executive board. However, there are other diverse
groups and stakeholders interested in providing programs and services to meet the needs of a
diverse community.Unfortunately, current policies do not provide the means to allow for
collaborative planninganddelivery ofprograms and services involving multiple stakeholders in
each centre.
Exploring ways to engage with and involve more groups (formal and informal) in the daily life of
our centres is a priority through this review.There is space within centres to support this work,
and a desire in the community to participate, as identified in the Love MyHood strategy.
Next Steps
The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the preliminary findings of this review and seek
direction to focus the future work of the review on those preliminary findings. Once staff have
received direction from Council, the following steps will occur:
Further research, review and analyseexisting policies, usage statistics, etc.
Engage Neighbourhood Associations and other stakeholders in a series of workshops
(June and September) to discussthe preliminary findings as well as the challengesand
opportunitiesfor moving forward,
Staff will draft revised policies guiding the use of space at our community centres,
focusing on the desire to increase public use ofthe centres, better support the unique
needs of Neighbourhood Associations, collaborate with other partners, stakeholders and
community groups to meet the diverse needs of the community,
Engage Neighbourhood Associations and other stakeholders to review and improve the
revised policies before bringing them to City Council for its considerationand potential
approval.
7 - 7
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority:Review of Community Centre Use of Space and the Neighbourhood
Association Affiliation Policy
Strategic Action: #NB58Thisaction comes from the Community Centre Audit and as an action
of the Love My Hoodstrategy. There is a desire in the community to review and consider
expanding the existing policy on community use of space at our community centres. Also
connected to this is the Neighbourhood Association Affiliation Policy.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None at this time.
The City of Kitchener has put significant investment into Community Centres. Operating budgets
for the 13 community centres include $4.8 million annually for administration and an average of
$1.6 M annually for operations and maintenance.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
CONSULT – Initial consultations wereheld individually with 24 of 28 Neighbourhood
Associations,staff across the Neighbourhood Programs and Services teamwith additional input
from relevant staff in other divisionsas well as one-on-one meetings with members of council
and the Mayor.FourteenNeighbourhood Associations also provided written responses to
questions regarding the current affiliation with the City of Kitchener.
Furtherworkshops will be held with Neighbourhood Associations and other stakeholders as this
review moves forward.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, DCAO, Community Services
7 - 8
REPORT TO:Community and Infrastructure ServicesCommittee
DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2019
SUBMITTED BY:Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319
PREPARED BY:Eric Schneider, Junior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7843
WARD(S) INVOLVED:ALL
DATE OF REPORT:May 21, 2019
REPORT NO.: DSD-19-075
SUBJECT:Fence Regulationson Corner Lots- By-law Review
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Fence By-law be amended to align with the regulations of other local
municipalities and allow a fence of up to 1.82 metres in height in an exterior side yard
with no setback (on the lot line)
BACKGROUND:
In November 2017, Council directed Staff to review the height and setback regulations for fences
on corner lots. Specifically, it asked that the review includea comparison of corner lot regulations
for fences in other municipalities. Staff also conducted public engagement to hear from residents
on this neighbourhood topic.
REPORT:
Kitchener’s Current Regulations for Fences on Corner Lots
(Article 5.1(c) of the Fence By-law)
The City’s current regulations for fences on corner lots (as shown on next pagein figure 1) are
structured so that two regulations vary dependent on each other (Fence Height and Setback
from Property Line). Fence height is dependent on setback to the street line, setback to the
street line is dependent on fence height. In short, privacy fences of 1.82 metres (6 feet) and 2.44
metres (8 feet) must be set back a minimum of 1.5 metres (5 feet) and 4.5 metres (15 feet)
respectively from the side lot line flanking a street.Theintent ofrequiring increased setbacks for
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
8 - 1
fences over 0.9 metres is to promote a more attractive streetscape and reduce the “wall effect”
that pedestrians can experience while walking on sidewalks adjacent to tall fences.
Figure 1.City of Kitchener Fence Brochure
Issues with Current Regulations:
Ease of Use:Staffhave experienced many instances of residents of corner lots expressing
annoyance and confusion with the current regulations and get frequent complaints of the
regulations being too convoluted.
Compact Lots: A combination of greenfield scarcity, provincial policiestargeting higher densities,
and market preferencefor low-maintenance propertieshave contributed to the homebuilding
industry trendof smaller, more compact lotsbeing developed in new subdivisions in Kitchener.
It is not unusual to see new lots planned to meet the bareminimum for lot width and yard
setbacks. Corner lot residents often do not have a functional rear yard, and use the side yard
abutting a street for amenity space. Therefore, they tend to bereluctant to give up a significant
portion of that yard in order to meet the fence setback. A typical side yard that abuts a street line
is 4.5 metresdeep. Our current regulations require a 1.5 metre setback for a 1.82 metre high
fence, resulting in the loss of functionality forapproximatelyone third of a resident’s yard. While
permitted to erect a 0.9 metrehighfence on the lot line, that heightis insufficient to achieve
privacy or protection of children and pets.
Committee of Adjustment:If a corner lot residentwould like an exception to the height/setback
regulation, they must apply for a minorvariance through the Committee of Adjustment.
Residents areoftenreluctant or unwilling to go through thisprocess, citing the cost, time delay,
and process. The time delay can be particularlyfrustrating to some residents who intendon
8 - 2
erecting their fence in the spring but are forced to wait up to 10 weeks for full approval from the
Committee of Adjustment and Council, pushing their fence construction into mid-summer.This
frequently happens with new homeowners moving to Kitchener from other communities which
have less restrictive fence regulations.
Comparison of other Municipalities Regulations for Fences on Corner Lots
Staff began with an initialreview of 6municipalities that are comparable to Kitchener by virtue
of proximity and similar population. This is detailed in the chart below:
CambridgeWaterlooGuelphWindsorLondonOakville
Maximum 2.1 m1.83 m1.9 or 2.4 m2.2 m2.13 m2.2 m
Street Side
Yard Fence
Height
Different height
NoNoYesNoNoNo
requirements
for certain
setbacks from
exterior side lot
line?
Staff found that in all other municipalities reviewed, a corner lot resident is able to erect a fence
of at least 1.83 metres in height right on an exteriorsidelot line. Although Guelphsimilarly has
regulationsfor exteriorside yard setback that varydepending on theheightof the fence, a corner
lot resident is stillable to erect a fence of 1.9 metres directly on the exterior side lot line. Staff
then actively sought out if other municipalities had regulations that would prohibit a fence of 1.8
metres from being erected on an exterior side lot line, and did not find any. The following
municipalities were also checked: Hamilton, Milton, Mississauga, Peterborough,Chatham-Kent,
St. Catharine’s, and Sarnia.
Public Engagement
Online Survey
Staff used the online EngageKitchener platform to conduct a survey. The survey was promoted
on the City’s social media pages and received 147 responses. The survey was open to any
resident regardless of whether they live on a corner lot property or not. About 50% of the
respondents live on corner lot properties.The survey also asked for any additional written
comments, which are included in appendix ‘A’.
Key Findings:
68% of respondents notice fences while walking in their neighbourhood
48% of respondents agree that fences make their neighbourhood more attractive
79% of respondents believe that corner lot property residents should be able to
fence their yard regardless of aesthetics
8 - 3
42% of respondents believe that the City’s current regulations do not help in
making their neighbourhood more attractive; 29% believe they do
57% of respondents believe current regulations for fences on corner lots are too
restrictive
Engage Kitchener Online Survey
Targeted Mail Out
Staff selected 50 residential corner lot properties from each ward, including single detached
dwellings, semi-detached dwellingsand street fronting townhomes. A survey with the same
questions from the online questionnaire was mailed to a total of 500 households and asked for
a response by mail or scanned to email. The survey received 52 responses, and again
residents were invited to provide additional writtencomments that are attached inappendix ‘B’.
Key findings:
64% of respondents notice fences while walking in their neighbourhood
61% of respondents agree that fences make their neighbourhood more attractive
73% of respondents believe that corner lot property residents should be able to fence
their yard regardless of aesthetics
42% of respondents believe that the City’s current regulations do not help in making their
neighbourhood more attractive; 27% believe they do
60% of respondents believe current regulations for fences on corner lots are too restrictive
8 - 4
Mailout Survey, 2019
Analysis:
After consideration of the public engagement and research of other municipalities, staff identified
3 main options:
Keep the regulations the same
Reduce the setback requirement by approximately 50% to 0.6 metres (2 feet), or
Align with other municipalities and remove the setback requirement
Staff are of the opinion that if current regulations remain unchanged, the issues identified in this
report would continue,and perhapsescalate with the trend of smaller lots in newer subdivisions.
In addition, feedback from both surveysindicatethat the majority of residents favour changes to
thecurrent regulations. Therefore, the no change option is not recommended. Staff considered
the option of reducing the setback to 0.6 metres (2 feet), but recognizethat this will continueto
be difficultfor residentsto understand andwill not resolvethe issues identified with ease of use.
Further, residents of corner lots wouldremain unhappy about losing a portion of their yardspace.
8 - 5
The option to align with other municipalities’ corner lot fence regulations will simplify the process
and allow corner lot residents to enjoy their full amenity space, much like a resident on an interior
lot can. Staff are confident that the results of the surveys and the background research
conducted support the option to align with other municipalities and remove the setback
requirement for fences of 1.82 metres in height within exterior side yards.
It is important to note that the regulations for maintaining sight lines within visibility triangles are
not part of this review and those regulationswillremain the same.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority #1- Open Government
Strategic Priority #3- Safe and thriving neighbourhoods
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Not applicable
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM- This report will be posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee meeting.The online survey was available on our EngageKitchener Platform. It was
promoted through the City’s social media accounts, including Facebook and Twitter.
CONSULT – Staff utilized 2 delivery formats (online, mail) to conduct surveys that ask for the
community’s opinion on the matter. The survey was first conducted on the City’s Engage
Kitchener online platform and was open to all citizens, regardless of whether they live on a corner
lot or not. Staff believe that fences contribute to the streetscape of a neighbourhood so even
people who live on interior lots or in multi-family dwellings deserve the right to share their opinion
on the matter. A paper copy of the survey was then sent specifically to corner lot property
residents as a “targeted mailout”. This survey was sent to 50 households in each ward for a
total of 500 households.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A- Written Responses. Online Survey
Appendix B- Written Responses. Mailout Survey
8 - 6
8 - 7
8 - 8
8 - 9
8 - 10
8 - 11
8 - 12
8 - 13
8 - 14
8 - 15
8 - 16
8 - 17
8 - 18
COMMUNITY & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE
Page 1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS2019-06-17
DATE TARGET
SUBJECT (INITIATOR)INITIALLYDATE/STAFF
CONSIDEREDSTATUSASSIGNED
David Bergey Drive Bike Lane Implementation deferred
pending completion of the Region of Waterloo’s Ottawa May 1, 2017B.Cronkite
2019
Street South Reconstruction project scheduled for Report INS-17-033
2018/2019
IF1 - 1