Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1994-10-03PED\1994-10-03 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1994 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:25 p.m. under the Chairmanship of Councillor C. Weylie, with the following members present: Mayor D.V. Cardillo and Councillors B. Stortz, M. Wagner, M. Yantzi, J. Smola, G. Leadston, C. Zehr, J. Ziegler, T. Galloway, and G. Lorentz. Officials present: Mr. T. McKay, Mr. T. McCabe, Ms. S. Frenette, Mr. R. Mattice, Ms. V. Gibaut, Mr. G. Borovilos, Ms. J. Jantzi, Mr. J. Witmer, Mr. D. Snow, Mr. B. Stanley, Ms. C. Ladd, Mr. P. Wetherup, Mr. D. Mansell and Mr. L.W. Neil. 1.ECONOMIC DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (EDAC) AWARDS Ms. V. Gibaut appeared before the Committee to announce that the Economic Development Committee had recently received three marketing awards from the Economic Developers Association of Canada. She advised that under the category of General Purpose Brochure they received first prize with the Canada's Technology Triangle (CTT) brochure, under the Business Directory Category they received first prize with Kitchener's Business Directory, and also received a special award designated the Royal Bank Goodnews Award with respect to their Educational Excellence Program. Councillor C. Weylie extended congratulations to staff who have contributed to the development of this material. 2.PD 94/87 - 26, 28, 30, & 34 HOWE DRIVE - PROPERTY ADDRESS CHANGE PROPOSALS - SOUTH WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 94/87 dated August 30, 1994 dealing with a proposal to renumber properties on Howe Drive. The report presents two options for the Committee to consider. Mr. T. McCabe advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. Mr. J. Witmer advised that Option A was staff's recommendation since all properties would have to be dealt with sooner or later. Councillor T. Galloway advised that Option B was more acceptable to the owner of 34 Howe Drive. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor B. Stortz, it was resolved: "That Kitchener's City Council approve the property address changes, as follows: ROLL NUMBER 4-07-430 4-07-430-05 28 Howe Drive 4-07-430-05 CURRENT ADDRESS 26 Howe Drive 30 Howe Drive PROPOSED ADDRESS 12 Howe Drive 14 Howe Drive 16 Howe Drive" 3.PRESENTATION - HIGHWAY 7 BY-PASS STUDY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND MCCORMICK/RANKIN CONSULTANTS Mr. D. Snow advised that Mr. K. Anderson and Mr. M. Scott were in attendance to provide an update of planning activity with regard to the Highway 7 By-pass Study between Kitchener and Guelph. He noted that the last time the delegation appeared a number of issues were identified as being in need of resolution and as an example he referred to the Kaufman Footwear property and Riverbend Drive properties. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1994 - 187 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3.PRESENTATION - HIGHWAY 7 BY-PASS STUDY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND MCCORMICK/RANKIN CONSULTANTS (CONT'D) Mr. Keith Anderson, Project Manager for the Ministry of Transportation, London, advised that a few changes to the study had been made since September 1992. He advised that it was their intention to hold additional public information meetings on October 26 in Breslau and on October 27 in Guelph. Mr. Martin Scott, McCormick/Rankin Consultants, appeared as a delegation and commented that work on the project had commenced in 1989 and that two years ago the preliminary design was taken to the public for comment. He noted that the latest design would be presented at the public information meetings previously referred to and then illustrated preferred routing and interchanges now proposed. Mr. Scott stated that a few key issues would be brought out at the public information meetings. He advised that extensive meetings had been held with Shirley Avenue property owners and Kaufman Footwear and that the recommended plan provides for full access as well as widening of the Victoria Street bridge. He did state that a few minor issues need to be addressed and commented on the planning and approval process following the public information meetings. It was noted that council approval would be sought early in 1995. Councillor G. Leadston questioned if the traffic signal at the Bruce Street interchange would still be there and was advised this would be the case. He then asked that Members of Council be provided with copies of any meeting minutes/dialogue regarding the project so that Council remains fully informed. Councillor J. Ziegler questioned if the Bridge Street access to the new Highway 7 would be a full access and was advised that it did not provide for movement from Bridgeport to Guelph directly but it did so indirectly utilizing a short distance of regional road to a nearby interchange to the east. In reference to the Kaufman Footwear property, Councillor M. Wagner advised that the company asked for assurance that it would be able to expand and questioned if they were now satisfied. Mr. Scott responded that based on the work that has taken place with the existing plans and conversations with architects and planners of Kaufman's he was not aware of any significant objection to the alignments. Mr. T. McKay advised that it was his understanding Kaufman Footwear was happy with the present plans. In response to Councillor M. Wagner it was noted that the estimated cost of the proposed project is $85 million and that it was proceeding based on traffic volume numbers forecast for the year 2011. Mr. D. Snow advised that the plan provides for improved access for Riverbend Drive properties and pointed out that these alignment proposals were presented at a meeting held at Bingeman's last week. Mr. L. Bingeman appeared as a delegation and advised firstly that he supports the proposed expressway and secondly that there were a few other issues that should receive consideration so as to be tied in with the expressway project. He pointed out that Lackner Boulevard presently dead ends at Victoria Street and it was important to address continuation of Lackner Boulevard through the Bingeman lands and future hook up with the new service roads on Shirley Avenue which would then assist every property owner within the pocket of lands bounded by the Conestoga Parkway, Victoria Street and the Grand River. He stressed that this planning must commence as soon as possible and pointed out that in supporting the expressway a campground within the Bingeman lands was affected by the route but that it was their problem to deal with. Mr. T. McKay advised that the Lackner Boulevard extension was a designated city project in the Ten year Capital Forecast. Mr. T. McCabe advised that the extension of Wellington Street and Lackner Boulevard were addressed in detail in 1987 as part of the zoning amendment for the Bingeman property. He agreed that timing of the extensions in relation to the Highway 7 by-pass was very relevant in terms of providing proper access to properties in this section of the city. Mr. D. Mansell stated that the need for extensions of Wellington Street/Shirley Avenue was recognized and costs were included in the development charge calculations. In response to Councillor C. Zehr he noted that a short stretch of Lackner Boulevard extended could become designated as a regional road. 4. PD 94/58 - REVIEW OF DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 94/58 prepared as a review PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1994 - 188 - CITY OF KITCHENER of the effectiveness of the City of Kitchener's Demolition Control By-law and procedures for issuing a demolition control permit. Ms. S. Frenette commented that the report was developed by Mr. Mattice over a six month period and represented a compromise solution to a very difficult problem. She presented an overview of the report and first outlined the history of the adoption of the existing by-law to control demolitions. Ms. Frenette illustrated slides depicting properties in various states of disrepair and example cases of how relaxed by-law regulations could provide an attractive landscape parking lot in place of a boarded up vacant dwelling. In this regard she noted that many requests for demolition are not with the intention to construct a new building but rather to create a parking lot. Ms. Frenette pointed out that residents living near to vacant boarded up dwellings prefer to view a landscaped vacant lot or parking lot as opposed to a boarded up house. She then listed circumstances affecting demolition activity. Mr. R. Mattice advised that Section 33 of the Planning Act provides the authority to establish demolition control. He noted that where an application was made for demolition with no intent to rebuild, the application could be refused under the demolition control by-law. However, where a redevelopment scheme is proposed, a demolition permit must be issued and conditions could be imposed with issuance of the building permit. Mr. Mattice commented that the 1979 Demolition Control By-law and its strict interpretation has lead to derelict structures in the downtown area. In order to change the situation, it is suggested the effect of a proposed demolition on a neighbourhood must be evaluated under a new set of criteria and that site development be controlled after demolition. Mr. Mattice stated that staff were recommending changes to the building by-law that provide standards for every demolition permit. He then reviewed the recommendations in the report and noted that staff feel the recommendations represent a middle ground. Finally, he stressed that Council could still review each application as it currently does. Councillor M. Wagner questioned if the existing by-law was being retained and layered with recommendations #2 through 7 in the report. Mr. Mattice advised that the existing by-law was appropriate and that it was internal evaluation criteria that was being formalized as a procedural function. Councillor B. Stortz asked for clarification of how the impact of demolitions affects property assessment evaluations. Mr. Mattice noted that the Regional Assessment officials advise that there is no universal formula that addresses this question, but often a boarded up house is approximately 50% of the assessed value of a similar occupied house. However, in commercial zones, a demolished residential dwelling may actually cause a significant increase in the owners municipal property taxes. In summary he stated that it was a site specific issue. Councillor M. Wagner then raised the issue of notice of a demolition proposal which was not in the recommendation. Mr. Mattice stated that staff feel it should not be a procedure in every instance and that notice gives a false sense of recourse to the neighbourhood when in fact the demolition application was an issue between the property owner and the City. He suggested that notice be given in certain site specific cases. Councillor Wagner indicated that he was not happy with this approach. Mr. Peter Bufe appeared as a delegation in support of his submission dated September 29, 1994 distributed this date which asks that this matter be referred back to staff for re-evaluation and deferral until preferably after municipal and provincial elections. He suggested that staff were complicating a simple issue and questioned if the City wanted empty lots all over neighbourhoods. Mr. Bufe suggested a more positive approach be taken by utilizing the Property Standards Act and altering the Assessment Act to correct deficiencies brought on by speculators. In summary he referred to some 40 run down properties and requested that demolition permits not be issued until a building permit has been issued. 4. PD 94/58 - REVIEW OF DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW (CONT'D) Mrs. Grace Stoner appeared as a delegation and circulated three photographs of a 1992 demolition of 364 Queen Street South which was the first of four neighbouring properties demolished. She noted that it was considered a heritage home but was not designated. Promised development from these demolitions did not occur and she questioned how the proposal went as far as it did since the lands PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1994 - 189 - CITY OF KITCHENER are in area designated flood plain. Ms. Maryann Wasilka appeared as a delegation and stated that older homes were an obsession for her and she was unhappy with the way that this portion of housing stock has been lost. She favoured a strong demolition control/property standards approach and deferral to find a better maintenance method as making good sense. Mr. Willard Braun appeared as a delegation and advised that he has lived at 15 Bingeman Street for most of his life. His property is across the street from a group of run down houses and he has been forced to view the mess for 10 years. He appealed for something to finally be done and asked for immediate demolition. Mr. Robert Braun appeared as a delegation and advised that he grew up on Bingeman Street and it was his opinion many properties were too far gone to be rehabilitated. He noted that the neighbourhood has suffered enough and that the problem must be dealt with now. Mr. Braun stated that no one would be satisfied living beside a boarded up house and that open space was preferable. In summary, he agreed that planning initiatives be undertaken to prevent a recurrence of the Bingeman Street situation in future but stated such approach was to late for that neighbourhood. Ms. Jean Bagot appeared as a delegation and advised that she lives beside one of the boarded up houses and listed problems from it that negatively affect enjoyment of her property. She commented that many of the houses were so bad there was nothing to save. Ms. Uta Prell appeared as a delegation and advised that she moved to Bingeman Street four years ago and has spent thousands of dollars renovating her home. She recommended that there be a standard to evaluate if a house was safe and pointed out that no house should be allowed to sit vacant for ten years. Finally she stated that a number of houses on Bingeman Street were beyond repair and no investor would put money into them. Ms. Betty Minke appeared as a delegation and advised that she has lived on Bingeman Street since 1952. She stated that serious safety hazards exist with these boarded up houses along with the condition of sidewalks and lack of snow removal from the sidewalks in front of the vacant properties. The Committee then discussed the recommendations in the staff report. It was suggested a revision be made that the neighbourhood can be consulted in respect to demolition applications. Councillor B. Stortz stated that it was his view that such problems will be prevented in future as a result of rezoning undertaken through Stages 6 and 7 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. He agreed the Bingeman Street vacant houses were beyond saving. Other Councillors expressed support for the report recommendations. In response to Councillor C. Zehr, Ms. Frenette stated that the best that can be done in respect to the Bingeman Street houses is to encourage owners to demolish since they will no longer be penalized but she was not sure how this would be received. Mr. J. Witmer advised that he would bring the issue of sidewalk repair to the attention of the Public Works Department. Councillor G. Leadston asked that when any demolitions take place the Humane Society be requested to trap raccoons living in/around these properties. Councillor T. Galloway stated that he was not certain that it was necessary to revamp how the City deals with such demolition situations and expressed concern that the City may be encouraging property owners to allow buildings to deteriorate. Ms. Frenette advised that a full evaluation of demolition applications would be provided when a recommendation is made to the Committee. 4. PD 94/58 - REVIEW OF DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW (CONT'D) Councillor M. Wagner stated that the City already has a good Demolition Control By-law and that he was disturbed that the City, in effect, was being asked to bail out speculators. He questioned if the proposed approach would simply further what has been happening. The recommendations in the staff report were then considered and it was agreed to add an additional criteria providing for consultation with the neighbourhood where appropriate. On motion by Councillor B. Stortz, it was resolved: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1994 - 190 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1)"That Council retain the Demolition Control By-law 91-324 which designates the entire City of Kitchener as a demolition control area. 2)That the following criteria be used to evaluate the appropriateness of a application to demolish a residential property in circumstances where no building permit will be issued for a new building on the site: a)whether the property is subject to the Rental Housing Protection Act and/or the Ontario Heritage Act. b)whether the property has architectural or historical value or interest. c)the condition of the dwelling in terms of fire, life safety, and structural sufficiency. d)the impact of the demolition on abutting properties, streetscape and neighbourhood stability. e)timeframe of redevelopment (if applicable). f)proposed use of site in terms of zoning and compatibility with adjacent properties. g) consultation with the neighbourhood where appropriate. 3)In circumstances where a building permit has been issued for a new building on the site, Council must issue a demolition control permit and may apply a condition that the owner substantially complete the new building in at least two years or face a fine of $20,000 per demolished unit. 4)That Council endorse the procedures for processing demolition control applications presented in Appendix "A" of Staff Report PD 94/58, subject to revision of section 5 of Appendix "A" (Procedures for the Issuance of Demolition Permits under the Demolition Control By-law) so as to add an additional consideration factor providing that the neighbourhood be consulted where appropriate. 5)That Council amend the Building By-law No. 94-31, attached as Appendix "B" of Staff Report PD 94/58, to give authority to the Chief Building Official to require conditions pertaining to grading, drainage, erosion, removal of redundant services and site restoration prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Subsection 2 of Section 2.3 of the Building By-law should be amended to read: 2.3(2) Where application is made for a demolition permit under subsection 8(1) of the Act, the application shall: 4. PD 94/58 - REVIEW OF DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW (CONT'D) (a)be accompanied by a plan to confirm compliance with all zoning regulations and a detailed Grading and Drainage Control Plan including siltation, erosion control and tree protection measures to be approved by the Chief Building Official or the Commissioner of Public Works (and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo or the Ministry of Transportation, if applicable), prior to the commencement of any site grading or demolition. (b)be accompanied by satisfactory proof that arrangements, financial or otherwise have been made, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Public Works, for the removal of any redundant service connections and driveways and for the installation of all new service connections (if applicable). (c)contain the agreement of the applicant to comply with the standards for demolition as set out below: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1994 - 191 - CITY OF KITCHENER i)Remove sidewalks and driveways from the site ii)Remove all construction debris and rubble from the site iii) Remove foundation walls to a minimum of two feet below finished grade iv)Back fill and compact site to finished grade with non-organic material v)Cover site with topsoil to a minium depth of four inches with sod or seed vi)Grade in accordance with approved grading and drainage control plan set out in section 2.3(2)(a) above. 6)That Council waive the requirements to redevelop within two years of receipt of the demolition permit which was applied to the following properties as a condition of demolition: 22 Courtland Avenue West 530 & 540 Queen Street South 7)That Council direct staff to encourage the owner of 247, 245, 237, 235, 227, 223, 219-221, 215, 209 Frederick Street, 128, 130, 134, 138-140 Lancaster Street and 10, 14, 18, 22, 26,30, 32- 34, 38 Bingeman Street to resubmit an application to demolish under the Demolition Control By-law and the Rental Housing Protection Act." 5.PD 94/94 - LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE STRATEGIC PLAN The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 94/94 dated September 12, 1994 dealing with a Strategic Plan for the City of Kitchener Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee. Mr. L. Bensason advised that in 1992 the City formally established a heritage function within the Planning and Development Department. He pointed out that in the past the Committee mandate and priorities were never strongly defined and consequently the Committee's activities have changed direction from time to time resulting in a tendency to become reactive to issues. Mr. Bensason stated that the Strategic Plan was prepared jointly by LACAC members and City Staff after assessment of the current situation and consideration of directions, goals and resources. The plan provides a guide to focus the Committee's direction and generate a proactive approach to the goals. 5.PD 94/94 - LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE STRATEGIC PLAN (CONT'D) Councillor M. Yantzi questioned if the Strategic Plan document would result in streamlining of the Committee's function and Mr. Bensason stated that he considered that this would occur through the working sub-committees of LACAC. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner, it was resolved: "That City Council endorse the City of Kitchener Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Strategic Plan, and recommend implementation of the Strategic Priorities By Key Activity Area (1994-1998), subject to budget approvals." 6.PD 94/90 - PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS REVIEW - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE THE REPORT The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 94/90 dated September 15, 1994 prepared in response to Council's resolution of April 25, 1994 requesting that the Department review procedures relative to circulation notice requirements and recirculation of planning proposals. Subsequently Council granted a further extension to September 30, 1994 to complete this report. Mr. T. McCabe advised that a further extension was now being requested so as to comprehensively address existing policies and seek direct input from both the public and Committee members PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1994 - 192 - CITY OF KITCHENER respecting these policies. Ms. C. Ladd commented that an extension was also being requested so as to allow for consideration of these policies in conjunction with linkage to the City's mediation program. Further, she stated that another major issue affecting the content of proposed revisions to these policies is the amendments that are being undertaken to the Planning Act through Bill 163 which contain a number of changes to notification requirements and these will have to be incorporated in the departmental policies. In summary she stated that staff would be considering internal procedures as well as the requirements of new provincial legislation which she understands is targeted for a January 1, 1995 implementation date and that subsequently all these matters could be tied together for presentation to the Committee. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler, it was resolved: 1)"That a further extension to March 1, 1995 be granted to complete a report relative to circulation notice requirements and recirculation of planning proposals. 2)That the review and development of new public notification procedures be undertaken concurrently with the development of a local mediation program to ensure continuity between these two processes." 7. MEETING OF CHIEF PLANNING OFFICIALS OF ONTARIO Mr. T. McCabe advised that he recently attended a meeting Chief Planning Officials of Ontario and that he wished to convey to the Committee amendments which are now proposed to be incorporated into revisions to the Planning Act through Bill 163. In regard to appeals of decisions of the Committee of Adjustment he advised that the intent was now that these will still be made to the Ontario Municipal Board and not City Council as previously proposed. In respect to the matter of trees, he advised that an amendment will be proposed to provide municipalities with the authority, if they choose to accept it, to deal with the cutting of trees on private property. 7. MEETING OF CHIEF PLANNING OFFICIALS OF ONTARIO (CONT'D) Mr. McCabe indicated that he would forward any material on these matters as soon as it is available. 8.ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk