Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1994-01-31PED\1994-01-31 PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 31, 1994 The Planning and Economic Committee met this date commencing at 3:45 p.m. under the Chairmanship of Councillor C. Weylie, with the following members present: Mayor D.V. Cardillo, Councillors T. Galloway, J. Smola, C. Zehr, B. Stortz and M. Wagner. Councillors J. Ziegler, G.L. Leadston and G. Lorentz entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials present: Mr. T. McKay, Mr. J. Wallace, Mr. S. Klapman, Mr. B. Stanley, Mr. T. McCabe, Mr. J. Witmer, Mr. D. Mansell, Ms. C. Livingston, Ms. J. Given, Mr. P. Wetherup, Mr. L. Masseo and Mr. L.W. Neil. VISION-CORPORATE STRATEGY FOR THE CITY Councillor C. Weylie indicated that it was necessary for the Committee to determine how it wished to proceed with the Visioning exercise relative to a corporate strategy for the City. Mr. T. McKay commented that the Committee has held two meetings to talk about relationships within the visioning process and now must address the issue of, whether it wishes to proceed further and if so, how it intends to develop a vision as well as the preferred format. The Committee was of the view that one full day was required to address this matter as a preference over two one-half day sessions. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner the Committee directed that staff proceed on the basis of arranging a full day visioning session with the consultant, providing the scheduling was acceptable to the majority of the Committee. = PD 94/9 - 10 BALZER ROAD TO 1295 COURTLAND AVENUE EAST - ADDRESS CHANGE - FAIRVIEW WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning & Development Staff Report PD 94/9, dated January 25, 1994, advising that a request has been received to change the address of the property known as 10 Balzer Road to 1295 Courtland Avenue East. The building on the property is situated at the corner of Balzer Road and Courtland Avenue and is oriented towards Courtland Avenue East. The Committee was advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway, it was resolved: "That Kitchener's City Council approve the property address change, for property assessment roll number 4-28-072-01, from 10 Balzer Road to 1295 Courtland Ave. E. to be effective March 1, 1994, in the form shown in the Proposed By-law dated January 25, 1994 attached to Staff Report PD 94/9." = PD 94/8 - 138 TO 140 & 142 TO 144 BLOOMINGDALE ROAD - ADDRESS CHANGE - BRIDGEPORT NORTH WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning & Development Staff Report PD 94/8, dated January 25, 1994, regarding a request to change the address of the property known as 138 Bloomingdale Road to 140 and to change the address of the property known as 142 Bloomingdale to 144 Bloomingdale Road. It was noted in the report that severance of the property has resulted in the creation of in-fill lots and in order to accommodate addressing, it is necessary to readjust the two existing numbers on Bloomingdale Road. The Committee was advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE -16- JANUARY 31, 1994 PD 94/8 - 138 TO 140 & 142 TO 144 BLOOMINGDALE ROAD - ADDRESS CHANGE - BRIDGEPORT NORTH WARD (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor J. Smola, it was resolved: "That Kitchener's City Council approve the property address change, for property assessment roll number 6-05-002 and 6-05-001, from 138 Bloomingdale Road to 140 Bloomingdale Road and 142 Bloomingdale Road to 144 Bloomingdale Road respectively, to be effective March 1, 1994, in the form shown in the Proposed By-law dated January 25, 1994 attached to Staff Report PD 94/8." PD 94/10 - ROUTINE ADDRESS CHANGE APPROVAL PROCESS The Committee was in receipt of Planning & Development Staff Report PD 94/10, dated January 25, 1994, which points out that it has been the responsibility of the Building Division to assign municipal addresses to lots and blocks of land within the City for several decades and that the practice has been successful in the past except for one incident which resulted in the Committee requesting that all address changes be brought forward for consideration. Since that point in time, there have been 13 address changes approved where no one other than the requesting party had an interest. Accordingly staff propose a more efficient and cost effective method to facilitate address changes that provides a process for affected parties and eliminates the process where none is required. The Committee was advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner, it was resolved: "That, Council pass a resolution, to be confirmed by by-law to approve the following process by which addressing and address changes are initiated within the City of Kitchener. That the Building Division be authorized to continue allocating addresses for plans of subdivision, reference plans, and severances. That, when a change of address is requested, and the proposed change of address does not affect any other property, that the Building Division be authorized to make the necessary change to the address and notify the corresponding agencies. That, when the proposed change of address does affect another party, a circulation letter be forwarded to those affected by the change and to the Ward Councillor. If no objections are received, then staff be directed to prepare a By-law to effect change of address, and be forwarded directly to Council for enactment. If objections are received, staff be directed to forward a report to Planning and Economic Development Committee for their consideration." PD 5/94 - PLANS OF SUBDIVISION AND PLANS OF CONDOMINIUM - SUMMARY OF APPROVALS GRANTED THROUGH DELEGATION OF APPROVAL AUTHORITY The Committee was in receipt of Planning & Development Staff Report PD 5/94, dated January 14, 1994. A summary of approvals granted in 1992 and 1993 was listed in the report, in accordance with Council's August 19, 1991 resolution relative to the delegation of approval authority for Plans of Subdivision and Plans of Condominium to the Region. The Committee was advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. PLANNING & ECONOMIC - 17 - JANUARY 31, 1994 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PD 5/94 - PLANS OF SUBDIVISION AND PLANS OF CONDOMINIUM - SUMMARY OF APPROVALS GRANTED THROUGH DELEGATION OF APPROVAL AUTHORITY. (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor C. Zehr, it was resolved: "That PD 5/94, Summary of Approvals granted through Delegation of Approval Authority by Council to the Commissioner of Planning and Development for Plans of Subdivision and Plans of Condominium, be received for information." WOMEN'S CORRECTIONAL FACILITY At this time, Mr. T. McCabe distributed correspondence from the architect for the Women's Correctional Facility that requests issuance of the final Site Plan Approval and provides confirmation that Correctional Service Canada intends to proceed with construction of the facility. It was noted that they were in the process of finalizing contract documents and intend to submit a Building Permit Application and necessary drawings to the City in mid-February with the intention of issuing tender documents at the end of February and construction in early April. Councillor T. Galloway advised that he had been notified by the appellants that they had received a letter from the Ontario Municipal Board advising of acceptance of their appeal of the Board's decision. He noted that according to previous advice of Mr. J. Wallace, City Solicitor, the City of Kitchener would not be in a position to issue any Site Plan or Building Permits until a decision has been completely finalized. Councillor G. Leadston entered the meeting at this point. Mr. T. McCabe commented that Mr. J. Wallace had previously advised staff to not take any action until the Federal Government insisted on it and suggested that the letter be referred to Mr. Wallace. On motion by Mayor D.V. Cardillo, it was resolved: "That the letter dated January 24, 1994 from Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects respecting the Women's Correctional Facility be referred to Mr. J. Wallace, City Solicitor, for consideration and report to City Council." STAGE 7 OF COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW RE: TIMING, CIRCULATION, FORMAT AND MEETINGS Mr. T. McCabe pointed out that Stage 6 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law was recently passed by City Council and that staff were now starting the process for Stage 7. Ms. J. Given advised that Stage 7 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law would involve 28 suburban planning communities and the zoning of approximately 35,000 properties, by application of new residential zones introduced through Stage 6 of the By-law. As well, Stage 7 would include any lands that previously were left out of the staging process and implement the provisions of the Municipal Plan within the Stage 7 areas. She advised that staff would be taking a different approach to Stage 7 that would involve consideration on a sector by sector basis. In this regard, separate public information meetings will be held for Wards 9 & 10, Wards 7 & 8, a portion of Ward 8, Wards 5 & 6, and Bridgeport and Bridgeport North area. Staff propose that these meetings be held from March through June and that residents would have the same amount of time to respond. Also, she pointed out that staff have tried to consolidate similar areas and that when the information letter is sent to residents, it would include a consolidated map that would give property owners a better idea of what was going on and list the zones in tabular form such as what was prepared toward the conclusion of the Stage 6 By-law. An example of the consolidated map was distributed. Councillor J. Ziegler entered the meeting at this point. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE -18- JANUARY 31, 1994 STAGE 7 OF COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW RE: TIMING, CIRCULATION, FORMAT AND MEETINGS. (CONT'D) Ms. Given pointed out that all of the Residential zones developed within Stage 6 will be used as well as the Commercial Residential zones. In addition, she stated that staff propose to create a zone similar to what became commonly called the R5A zone in Stage 6 and in this regard propose an R4A zone which would add duplexes only for those properties that currently have a right under R2B zoning. In addition, staff request the opportunity to review the proposed zoning in the affected wards with each Ward Councillor, prior to the circulation letters being mailed. She indicated that staff would use the summer months to resolve issues arising from the public information meetings and propose that the Planning & Economic Development Committee hold a public meeting to consider Stage 7 on Monday September 12, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. Provided the Committee agrees to this date, it will be included in the initial circulation letter to property owners. Councillor G. Leadston requested that staff ensure that the circulation letter was easy to read and easily understood by property owners. On motion, it was resolved: "That the Planning and Economic Development Committee hold a special public meeting on Monday September 12, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, as the formal public meeting required under the Planning Act, to hear representation from the public and to approve Stage 7 of the City's Comprehensive Zoning By-law." Councillor G. Lorentz entered the meeting at this point. 8. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE EXEMPTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The Committee was in receipt of a report, dated January 31, 1994, from Mr. D. Mansell, Chairman of the Development Charge Committee. Mr. Mansell's report is attached hereto and forms part of these minutes as background information. He stated that it was his understanding City Council wished to review the financial implications of providing a one time exemption of the development charge for the first addition of up to 5,000 square feet of non-residential gross floor area to an existing non-residential building. Mr. Mansell then reviewed his report with the Committee and pointed out that option #2 was preferable. In response to Councillor G. Leadston, Mr. Mansell explained how staff had arrived at a $91,000.00 estimate as the potential impact for 1993. Councillor T. Galloway questioned how much property tax that additions under 5,000 square feet would attract and it was noted that industrially the tax would be approximately $1.50 - $2.00 per square foot. In response to Councillor C. Zehr, Mr. Mansell indicated that the current non-residential development charge rate was 82 cents per square foot. Councillor Zehr pointed out that an initiative for an exemption would provide stimulation to companies to consider expanding their facilities and provide for a two year payback to the City of Kitchener through its portion of property taxes. Further, he suggested that there was a psychological reason for considering the exemption and therefore suggested that option #3 should be considered. Mr. T. McKay pointed out that over the 10 year Capital Forecast, in excess of 40 million dollars would be collected and that the exemption represents only 1 million of that total. He noted that staff intended to commence work on the Development Charge By-law this summer and could build in the first 5,000 square feet of exemption over all of the rest of the rates within the new by-law. Mr. D. Mansell stated that during the first year of exemption, shortfall funding would have to come from the capital contingency account. Councillor C. Zehr pointed out that there would be no effect on the tax levy with the proposal. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE -19- JANUARY 31, 1994 8. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE EXEMPTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. (CONT'D) Mr. J. Gazzola stated that he was led to believe that the shortfall would have to come from other tax based revenues indefinitely and that he was concerned about the long term effects. Mr. T. McCabe confirmed that the larger non-residential developer would end up paying for the cost of the exemption through the revised rate structure. On motion by Councillor C. Zehr, it was resolved: "That in respect to a proposal to allow a one time exemption of the Development Charge for the first addition of up to 5,000 square feet of non-residential gross floor area on a parcel of land to an existing non-residential building, we approve option #3 as outlined in the report dated January 31, 1994 from Mr. D. Mansell that would refer the issue to the Development Charge Committee and provide an exemption on a temporary basis until a revised Development Charge By-law is adopted." PD 94/6 - REVIEW OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS The Committee was in receipt of Planning & Development Staff Report PD 94/6, dated January 25, 1994, prepared as per the request of Council on December 13, 1993. The Department was requested to prepare a report reviewing the potential location of Hazardous Waste Transfer Stations under existing zoning and consider the possibility of designating only one site in each quadrant of the City. The Staff Report points out that the collection, storage and disposal of hazardous waste materials is becoming a growing industry that could eventually result in several such operations within the City. The Staff Report noted that presently the Official Plan and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law do not differentiate between Hazardous Waste Transfer Stations and Transfer Stations relating to other products and materials. Accordingly, a Hazardous Waste Transfer Station could legally locate in every Business Park zone and every Industrial zone save the mixed Industrial Residential zone. All Hazardous Waste Transfer Facilities are heavily regulated and require a Certificate of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act. It was the view of Staff that proximity to residential areas and accessibility to primary or secondary arterial roads were the most important land use consideration in determining an appropriate location for such uses. Mr. L. Masseo reviewed the Staff Report with the Committee and pointed out that potential future locations are fairly broadly distributed throughout the City. However, if the City wishes to restrict the uses, it would be necessary to specifically define them in either the Heavy Industrial zone or the Business Park zone which would then lead to a concentration of the uses, which was contrary to Council's intent. A general discussion then took place of issues such as minimum distance separation factors of the Hazardous Waste Transfer Facility from residential areas and from each such facility and whether the separation factor should apply only to existing approved subdivisions. Mr. B. Stanley pointed out that with a large minimum distance separation factor of 1.5 k there would be very little land left within the Huron Industrial Area that would qualify for a Hazardous Waste Transfer Site. Further he pointed out that it would be almost impossible to administer a restriction involving existing and future residential developments and that the Zoning By-law already implements distance separation (300 m). Further, he stated that these sites should be located as close as possible to major transportation networks so as to minimize movement on City Streets adjacent to residential areas. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 20 - JANUARY 31, 1994 9. PD 94/6 - REVIEW OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS. (CONT'D) Councillor G. Leadston stated that he would like to see a map of the City using the 1.5 k minimum distance separation factor suggested by Councillor Ziegler and further stated that he concurred with the importance of the transportation issue in considering site location. Councillor T. Galloway indicated that he accepts the principle that we need some separation factors between the actual Transfer Station Sites and he was relaying concerns expressed by residents relating mostly to the trucking of hazardous substances. He pointed out that the storage and processing of hazardous waste was a growth industry and there will be more companies entering the field but that he did not want to see a concentration of sites and there needs to be some control in this regard. Councillor T. Galloway acknowledged that zoning provides for separation from residential areas and he would like to see a regulation that would require a separation factor between such transfer sites. Mr. J. Wallace commented that Councillor J. Ziegler was expressing the concerns that had been voiced by the public and that it might be worthwhile to look at the issue in depth, with additional input from the M.O.E. and others. Mr. B. Stanley stated that it was important that the Committee have a clear understanding of the role that such Hazardous Waste Transfer Facilities play in the City's overall economy. He pointed out that with evermore stringent environmental regulations being put in place, there were more existing industries requiring and needing access to such Transfer Facilities. Mayor D.V. Cardillo stated that no one has yet answered his question as to whether or not more than one Hazardous Waste Transfer Facility was needed in the City. Councillor G. Leadston requested that on the mapping Staff prepare relative to potential hazardous sites, that they also incorporate what exists or could exist along the City's boundary with adjoining communities. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler, it was resolved: "That the Commissioner of Planning & Development be advised that the Planning and Economic Development Committee is prepared to regulate the location of Hazardous Waste Transfer Sites either by a minimum distance separation factor from residential areas or by a minimum distance separation factor from other Transfer Sites, and further, That Staff be requested to prepare appropriate regulations and relevant mapping of potential sites that conform to such regulations for consideration by the Committee." 10. MUNICIPAL PLAN PUBLIC MEETING - MARCH 2, 1994 Councillor C. Weylie reminded members of the Committee that Wednesday March 2, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers had been established as the date of the public meeting to consider the Municipal Plan. 11. ADJOURNMENT On motion the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk