Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1995-11-20PED\1995-11-20 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 4:00 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Councillors John Smola, K. Redman, T. Galloway, M. Yantzi, J. Ziegler, M. Wagner and Jake Smola. Mayor R. Christy and Councillors B. Vrbanovic and G. Lorentz entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, Ms. J. Given and Messrs. T. McKay, T. McCabe, B. Stanley, J. Shivas, T. Boutilier, J. Willmer, L. Bensason, R. Mattice, D. Mansell, V. Labreche, Z. Janecki and L.W. Neil. PD 95/102 - 35 CAPRICE COURT - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION APPLICATION CD/95/005 - RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT, 1989 - ROBERT REID BARNHART -WEST WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/102 dated October 5, 1995. The report deals with Condominium Conversion Application CD/95/005 submitted under the Rental Housing Protection Act by Robert Reid Barnhart with respect to lands known municipally as 35 Caprice Court. It was noted in the report that the subject property is a rental townhouse complex with a total of ten units all of which have three bedrooms. The applicant is requesting approval under the RHPA as a precondition for the conversion of the property to condominium tenure. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. He generally explained the purpose of the application and noted that the Department did hold the tenants information meeting and no one attended to express any concerns. Mr. Craig Robson, McCarter Grespan Robson, appeared applicant to answer any questions relative to the application. with the recommendations contained in the staff report. as a delegation on behalf of the He indicated that his client agreed No other delegations responded to the invitation of the Chair to address the Committee on this matter. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: "That Council approve application CD/95/005 (Robert Reid Barnhart) subject to the Owners entering into an Agreement under Section 12(1) of the Rental Housing Protection Act, which shall be executed and registered against the title to the lands at 35 Caprice Court as part of any subsequent condominium agreement. The Agreement shall contain the following conditions: a) The Owner agrees to supply the City's Policy, Research and Housing Division with a list of the names and addresses of all the tenants who occupy the residential units which now exist upon the subject lands, hereinafter called the "Existing Units", as of the date Council's approval of this Agreement under the Rental Housing Protection Act. Further, the Owner shall supply the City's Policy, Research and Housing Division with the names and addresses of any new tenant who commences to occupy an Existing Unit between the date of Council's approval of the Agreement and the date of registration of the final plan of condominium. All tenants referred to above are hereinafter called "the Tenants". b) The Owner agrees to give notice to the Tenants of their rights under the terms of the Agreement, within 30 days following the date of registration of the final plan of condominium, by providing them with a copy of this agreement and by filing proof of notification with the City's Policy, Research and Housing Division, either by a sworn affidavit of service or by a copy of this agreement signed by the Tenant as acknowledgement of receipt. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 179 - CITY OF KITCHENER PD 95/102 - 35 CAPRICE COURT - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION APPLICATION CD/95/005 - RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT, 1989 - ROBERT REID BARNHART - WEST WARD (CONT'D) c) This Agreement shall confer no rights whatsoever upon any new tenant who enters into a lease agreement with the Owner and occupies an Existing Unit after the date of registration of the final plan of condominium (hereinafter called a "Post- Registration Tenant"). The Owner shall give notice of this agreement to all Post- Registration Tenants, at the time they enter into their leases, and provide proof of notification to the Policy, Research and Housing Division, either by a sworn affidavit of service or by a copy of this agreement signed by such tenants as acknowledgement of receipt, following which such tenants shall be deemed to have notice that they do not have any rights under this agreement. d) The Owner agrees that, in the event a Tenant wishes to continue to rent and occupy his or her Existing Unit, or to rent it until such time as he or she might exercise his or her right to purchase, the following conditions apply: The Tenant shall be entitled to continue to rent the unit which he or she is currently renting and occupying for a period of up to five years following the date of registration of the final plan of condominium (herein after called the "Five Year Rental Period"). Throughout the Five Year Rental Period, the applicable rent for a given unit shall not exceed the lawful maximum rent which could be charged for that rental unit under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, R.S.S. 1990, c. R.29, as amended (hereinafter called the "RRR Act") and any increases to that rent throughout the Five Year Rental Period shall be subject to the RRR Act. At the Tenant's discretion, the Owner and Tenant shall enter into a lease, leases, renewal or renewals for all or part of the Five Year Rental Period for such term or terms as is agreed to from time to time by the Tenant and the Owners, provided that the total term thereof does not exceed the Five Year Rental Period. The Owner agrees to supply the City's Policy, Research and Housing Division with an executed copy of the lease, and any subsequent renewals thereof during this five year period. e) The Owner shall provide the Tenant or Tenants occupying an Existing Unit with the right of first refusal to purchase it during the Five Year Rental Period. To establish that a Tenant has foregone or waived his or her right of first refusal to purchase, the Owners shall provide the Policy, Research and Housing Division with a written waiver of such right executed by the Tenant, witnessed and dated subsequent to the date of registration of the final plan of condominium. If, at any time during the Five Year Rental Period, the Owner receives a bona fide, arms length offer to purchase an Existing Unit which the Owner is willing to accept and if the Tenant or Tenants of such unit have not waived their rights of first refusal to purchase, the Owners shall notify the Tenant or Tenants of such unit by providing them with a true copy of the offer to purchase and the Tenant or Tenants shall have the right, during the ten days immediately following the receipt thereof, to purchase the unit by delivering to the Owner a signed offer to purchase for the price and upon the terms and conditions contained in the original offer, which the Owner shall accept immediately. The Owner shall provide proof of notification to the City's Policy, Research and Housing Division, either by a sworn affidavit or service or by a copy of the original offer to purchase signed by the Tenant as acknowledgement of receipt. If the Tenant or Tenants do not deliver an offer to purchase to the Owner within ten days, the Tenant or Tenants shall be deemed not to have exercised the right of first refusal and the Owner may accept the original offer to purchase. If for any reason the Tenant or Tenants do not 1. PD 95/102 - 35 CAPRICE COURT PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 180 - CITY OF KITCHENER - CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION APPLICATION CD/95/005 - RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT, 1989 - ROBERT REID BARNHART - WEST WARD (CONT'D) exercise the right of first refusal and the Owner does not complete the offer to purchase which had been received, the right of first refusal of the Tenant or Tenants shall continue in effect. f) It is hereby agreed that the Tenant shall lose his or her rights under this Agreement if: the Tenant vacates the Existing Unit with or without due notice to the Owner; the Tenant sublets the Existing Unit; or the Owner obtains a writ of possession to the Existing Unit, all rights of appeal in respect thereof have expired and the Owner files a copy thereof with the Policy, Research and Housing Division. g) The Owner agrees to engage the services of a consultant with qualifications acceptable to the City's Chief Building Official, to conduct an audit of the condition of the Premises, prior to draft approval of any plan of condominium on the lands, and to file the results of the audit with the City of Kitchener Policy, Research and Housing Division. The Owner shall correct, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, deficiencies identified in the audit which relate to the Building Code, Building By-law, Fire Code, or Property Standards By-law. Upon correction, the City's Chief Building Official will notify the Owner in writing that the deficiencies have been corrected to his satisfaction. h) Prior to the sale of any of the Existing Units, the Owner shall notify potential purchasers that the results of the audit are available for their consideration. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." The Chair advised that this recommendation would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Monday, November 27, 1995. PD 95/101 - 868 DOON VILLAGE ROAD AT BECHTEL DRIVE - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95131DVIZJ - J. RESLEIN & B. WHITELEY - SOUTH WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Planning and Development was in receipt of an application from J. Reslein & B. Whiteley to change the zoning of lands known municipally as 868 Doon Village Road situate at the intersection of Bechtel Drive with Doon Village Road. The zoning change proposed is from Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with special regulation provision 218R according to By-law 85-1. In this regard the Committee considered Staff Report PD 95/101 dated October 18, 1995 and the proposed by-law dated October 11, 1995 attached to the report. It was noted in the report the subject property is located at the southeast corner of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive and consists of approximately 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres) in size and that the applicant proposes to rezone the property in order to allow the development of 18 multiple units. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Mr. T. McCabe explained the purpose of the application and pointed out that it has undergone circulation and meetings with the residents. As a result of concerns expressed by the neighbourhood, restrictions have been placed in the by-law to resolve these concerns. Mrs. Jean Haalboom appeared as a delegation before the Committee speaking on behalf of Doon Village Road neighbours. She stated that her prime concern with the proposed rezoning is the additional traffic that would be generated and would further aggravate traffic and speeding problems on Doon Village Road. She commented on the fact that Doon Village Road is used PD 95/101 - 868 DOON VILLAGE ROAD AT BECHTEL DRIVE - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95131DVIZJ - J. RESLEIN & B. WHITELEY - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 181 - CITY OF KITCHENER as a through access to reach Homer Watson Boulevard via Doon South Road and that peak time commuter traffic makes it difficult for Doon Village residents to exit from their driveways. Further, she stated that there was no relief from such traffic volumes on weekends and that there was a safety issue for pedestrians attempting to cross the road. In response to Councillor M. Yantzi, Mrs. Haalboom advised that traffic problems were caused by traffic proceeding through the local area of their subdivision. Councillor Yantzi commented that he did not consider that an 18 unit townhouse development would have a major impact on the existing volumes of traffic. Councillor G. Lorentz entered the meeting at this point. Councillor Jake Smola questioned what other uses might apply to the subject property and Mr. T. McCabe advised that other permitted uses could include school, church and daycare with their associated traffic impacts. Councillor Jake Smola questioned if Mrs. Haalboom thought institutional uses would add more or less traffic. Mrs. Haalboom stated that a real concern as it relates to traffic is the future completion of the Doon extension. Mr. T. McCabe advised that it was shown in the 1998 Capital Budget for construction but this would be dependent on the progress of subdivision development in the area. Councillor T. Galloway commented that there was no question that there were serious traffic problems relating to traffic volume and speed in consideration of the nature of the roadway and roadbed. He pointed out that what Mrs. Haalboom was referring to was the real need for the new road diversion to be completed and pointed out that as Council approves more developments, each has an impact on the traffic volumes as they affect the neighbourhood. In respect to the zone change application itself, he commented that the neighbourhood in the circulation area appeared to be satisfied with the outcome though they still have some concern with respect to building form and that the existing owner might simply sell the property to another owner. Accordingly, three restrictions have been included in the by-law dealing with maximum height, minimum building floor area and maximum number of dwellings to address concerns. Ms. Barbara Whiteley appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant to answer any questions of the Committee. She indicated that the owners were satisfied with the townhouse use proposed and were agreeable to settling for 18 units rather than 24. However, she did indicate that the owner would consider resale of the property if presented with an attractive offer. Councillor B. Vrbanovic entered the meeting at this point. No other delegations responded to the invitation of the Chair to address the Committee on this matter. In response to Councillor K. Redman, Mr. Z. Janecki advised that most residents appear to be satisfied with the staff recommendation and he confirmed that he has not received any indication of outstanding concerns. On motion by Councillor Jake Smola - it was resolved: "That Zone Change Application 95/3/DV/ZJ (J. Reslein & B. Whiteley) requesting a change in zoning from Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with special regulation provision 218R according to By-law 85-1 on Block I, Registered Plan 1367, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached, dated October 11, 1995 without conditions. It is the opinion of this Committee that the approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan." PD 95/101 - 868 DOON VILLAGE ROAD AT BECHTEL DRIVE - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95131DVIZJ - J. RESLEIN & B. WHITELEY - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) The Chair advised that this recommendation would be considered by City Council at its meeting to PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 182 - CITY OF KITCHENER be held on Monday, November 27, 1995, PD 95~99 - BRIARMEADOW DRIVE AT FAIRWAY ROAD NORTH - REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH AREA 1 COMMUNITY PLAN - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95/15/B/JW - ICI REALTY DEVELOPMENT INC. - CHICOPEE WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Planning and Development was in receipt of an application from ICI Realty Development Inc., to change the zoning of a 0.68 hectare parcel of land situate at the northwest corner of Briarmeadow Drive and Fairway Road. Also accompanying the rezoning request is a proposed revision to the Grand River South Area 1 Community Plan. The proposed zoning change is from Residential Six (R-6) with Special Use Provision 179 to Community Institutional (I-2) with Special Use Provision 215 according to By-law 85-1. In this regard the Committee considered Staff Report PD 95/99 dated October 23, 1995 and the proposed by-law dated October 10, 1995 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the applicant intends to rezone the subject lands to permit Community Institutional uses in addition to the Low Rise Multiple Residential uses now permitted. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Mr. T. McCabe presented the application to the Committee and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. He did note that a specific site plan has not been received. Mr. B. Clarkson, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson, appeared as a delegation representing the applicant and confirmed that the applicant did not have a specific development proposal at this time. Mr. Clarkson pointed out that the reason for the application had to do with the awkward size and configuration of the site. He did comment that the I-2 uses requested actually were a limited range of uses and were consistent with the Official Plan. Mr. Clarkson advised that further discussions had been held with the one property owner who previously expressed concerns relative to the application and he did not expect that owner to make further comment. No other delegations responded to the invitation of the Chair to address the Committee on this matter. Councillor T. Galloway was advised by staff that the application had a neutral effect as far as density was concerned. Mr. J. Willmer pointed out that the I-2 zone has a higher height limit and technically a higher density but practically speaking no change was expected other than the development height could range from three to five storeys. Mayor R. Christy entered the meeting at this point. Councillor Jake Smola stated that he did not feel the change in zoning represented good planning that would allow buildings of such height to adjoin the property of lots developed as single family dwellings. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "A. That the Grand River South Area 1 Community Plan be revised as follows: 1) That Map No. 1 "Land Use Plan" be revised to change the designation of a 0.68 hectare parcel of land situate at the northwest corner of Fairway Road and Briarmeadow Drive from "Multiple Residential (40 units per hectare)" to PD 95~99 - BRIARMEADOW DRIVE AT FAIRWAY ROAD NORTH - REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH AREA 1 COMMUNITY PLAN - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95/15/B/JW - ICI REALTY DEVELOPMENT INC. - CHICOPEE WARD (CONT'D) "Community Institutional" as shown on the revised Map No. 1 attached, dated PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 183 - CITY OF KITCHENER October 1995. 2) That the title of Section 3.4 be changed from "School and Park Facilities" to "School, Park and Institutional Uses". 3) That the following policy be added to Section 3.4: "3.4.5 THAT a Community Institutional site of approximately 0.68 hectares be located at the northwest corner of Fairway Road and Briarmeadow Drive as shown on Map 1. Residential uses shall include Multiple Dwellings and Street Townhouses but not Single Detached, Semi-detached or Duplex Dwellings. Convenience Retail, Financial Establishment and Personal Services shall only be permitted as secondary uses within a mixed use building." That Zone Change Application 95/15/B/JW (ICI Realty Development Inc.) requesting a change in zoning from Residential Six (R-6) with Special Use Provision 179 to Community Institutional (I-2) with Special Use Provision 215 according to By- law 85-1, on Block 34, Registered Plan 1799, be approved in the form shown in the attached "Proposed By-law", dated October 10, 1995, without conditions. It is the opinion of this Committee that the approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan." The Chair advised that this recommendation would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Monday, November 27, 1995. PD 95/100 - 1461, 1471 & 1487 OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95/06/O/VL - H. DROST, L. HOY, L. RULLER - SOUTH WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Planning and Development was in receipt of an application from H. Drost, L. Hoy and L. Ruller to change the zoning of lands known municipally as 1461, 1471 and 1487 Ottawa Street South. The proposed zoning change is from Residential One Zone (R-l) to Residential Three Zone (R-3) according to By-law 85-1. In this regard the Committee considered Staff Report PD 95/100 dated October 23, 1995 and the proposed by-law dated September 27, 1995 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the subject lands are located on the east side of Ottawa Street at the intersection of Grove Drive and that the applicants propose to rezone the properties in order to facilitate the severance of three existing lots for an additional three lots to allow the development of single-detached dwellings. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Mr. T. McCabe introduced the report and explained the nature of the application. He pointed out that currently the existing properties were estate type but that with the proposed change the new properties would fit more closely with the subdivision properties being developed behind the subject properties. No delegations responded to the invitation of the Chair to address the Committee on this matter. PD 95/100 - 1461, 1471 & 1487 OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95/06/O/VL - H. DROST, L. HOY, L. RULLER - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: 'A. That the Laurentian West Community Plan, as revised and dated November 25, 1993, be further revised by adding the following new policy: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 184 - CITY OF KITCHENER "2.13 That notwithstanding Section 2.12 herein, those lands municipally addressed as 1461, 1471 and 1487 shall be permitted to create one additional residential lot having direct access onto Ottawa Street South." That Zone Change Application 95/6/0NL (H. Drost, L. Hoy, L. Ruller) requesting a change in zoning from Residential One Zone (R-l) to Residential Three Zone (R-3) according to By-law 85-1 on lands legally described as Part of Lot 8 and Lots 9 and 10, Registered Plan 1820, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached, dated September 27, 1995, subject to the following conditions. That the owners agree to arrange for notification by letter from the Regional municipality of Waterloo to the City's Clerk that all Regional requirements have been satisfied with respect to the proposed zone change, prior to any readings of the amending zoning by-law by the City Clerk. ii) The owner acknowledges that Condition 1 hereof, is required to be satisfied no later than (7) seven months of Council having approved by resolution, the amending zoning by-law relative to Zone Change Application 95/6/0NL. In the event this requirement is not fulfilled within the seven month period, Council shall consider rescinding its zone change approval. It is the opinion of this Committee that the approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan." The Chair advised that this recommendation would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Monday, November 27, 1995. PD 95/103 - 73 & 75 WELLINGTON STREET NORTH - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95/11/W/VL - RICHARD KENNELL - BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Planning and Development was in receipt of an application from Richard Kennell to change the zoning of lands known municipally as 73 & 75 Wellington Street North. The proposed zoning change is from Residential Five Zone (R-5) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) according to By-law 85-1. In this regard the Committee considered Staff Report PD 95/103 dated October 24, 1995 and the proposed by-law dated October 6, 1995 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the applicants propose to amend the zoning by-law in order to allow the conversion of the existing building which currently contains three apartment units and six lodging units into a six unit dwelling. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Mr. T. McCabe introduced the report and advised that staff had nothing further to add to it. No delegations responded to the invitation of the Chair to address the Committee on this matter. PD 95/103 - 73 & 75 WELLINGTON STREET NORTH - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95/11/W/VL - RICHARD KENNELL - BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor John Smola - it was resolved: "That Zone Change Application ZC 95/11ANNL (Richard Kennell), 73 and 75 Wellington Street North, requesting a change in zoning from Residential Five Zone (R-5) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) according to By-law 85-1 be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached, dated October 6, 1995, without conditions. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 185 - CITY OF KITCHENER It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan." The Chair advised that this recommendation would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Monday, November 27, 1995. PD 95/115 -ADDENDUM TO PD 95~38 - 33 CEDAR STREET SOUTH - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 94/10/C/RM - CITY OF KITCHENER - VICTORIA PARK WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/115 dated November 7, 1995 prepared as an update to report PD 95/38 which dealt with a recommendation to demolish the single detached dwelling located at 33 Cedar Street South. At the Committee's meeting held May 1, 1995 it was agreed to defer consideration of a recommendation in Staff Report PD 95/38 to demolish the single detached dwelling at 33 Cedar Street South. The intent of the deferral was to allow Habitat for Humanity an opportunity to investigate the potential of obtaining the property and rehabilitating the house; however, Habitat officials have indicated they have no interest. Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC 94/10/C/RM (City of Kitchener) requesting approval for the demolition of a single detached dwelling located at 33 Cedar Street South legally described as Part Lot 1, Plan 265 be approved. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." The Chair advised that this recommendation would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on Monday, November 27, 1995. PD 95~65 - CONSERVATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES WITHIN THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION PROCESS The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/65 dated November 10, 1995 dealing with conservation of heritage resources within the plan of subdivision process. It was noted in the report that some of Kitchener's heritage resources listed on the municipal database of heritage resources and located on lands for which plan of subdivision applications have been made, have been negatively impacted by the design of the subdivision and as a result have been demolished. In some cases the permanent loss of these heritage resources could have been avoided if a formal process was put in place. The recommendations and process described in the staff report in part serve to address the intent of policy relative to conservation of heritage resources within the plan of subdivision process. PD 95~65 - CONSERVATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES WITHIN THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION PROCESS (CONT'D) Mr. B. Stanley advised that the staff report has been reviewed by the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and by the Municipal Liaison Committee of the K-W Homebuilders and both organizations were in support of the recommendations in the report. He briefly referred to issues of pregrading and heritage impact assessment as discussed in the report. As well, he made specific reference to recommendation #5 which provides for delegation of approval authority subject to any disagreement being referred to City Council for consideration. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 186 - CITY OF KITCHENER "1) That LACAC use the Community Planning process and each year's approved Staging of Development Report to prioritize the review of heritage resources which may be impacted by future plans of subdivision. 2) That where a property is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the municipal database of heritage resources, pre-grading of the lands containing the heritage resource or the lands adjacent to those containing the heritage resource, shall not be authorized until approval to proceed with pre-grading is provided by the Public Works Department in consultation with the Assistant General Manager of the Department of Planning and Development. 3) That where a property is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the municipal database of heritage resources, a Heritage Impact Assessment may be required by the City for any Plan of Subdivision application submitted for lands containing the heritage resource or lands adjacent to those containing the heritage resource. 4) Heritage Impact Assessments shall comply with the Department of Planning and Development "Heritage Impact Assessment Guidelines". 5) That City Council delegate approval authority for Heritage Impact Assessments to the Assistant General Manager of the Department of Planning and Development, with the understanding that should the Subdivider disagree with the decision of the Assistant General Manager, the matter shall be referred to City Council for consideration. That Heritage Impact Assessments receive final approval prior to or concurrent with draft plan of subdivision approval. 7) That where an approved Heritage Impact Assessment recommends the retention either in full or in part of the heritage resource, the following condition be included in the conditions for draft plan of subdivision approval for the lands containing the heritage resource or the lands adjacent to those containing the heritage resource; 'Prior to any demolition, grading, release of the Plan for registration or other disturbance which may impact the heritage resource(s) identified in the Heritage Impact Assessment; the recommendations of the Assessment as approved, shall be fulfilled by the Subdivider to the satisfaction of the Assistant General Manager of the Department of Planning and Development'. 8) That immediately following registration of the subdivision plan, where an approved Heritage Impact Assessment recommends the retention either in full or in part of the heritage resource located within the Plan, and where such heritage resource is listed on the municipal database of heritage resources, consideration shall be given to formal designation of the heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act, with the designating By-law to be registered against the specific lot(s) or block(s) created by the plan of subdivision as recommended in the approved PD 95~65 - CONSERVATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES WITHIN THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION PROCESS (CONT'D) Heritage Impact Assessment. Where the heritage property was previously designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and the designating By-law has been registered against lands that do not conform to the lot(s) or block(s) on which the heritage resource should be located, at the request of the property owner, Council may repeal the old designating By-law and re-designate, pass and register a new designating By-law against the specific lot(s) or block(s) created by the plan of subdivision, as recommended in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment." PD 95/116 - UPDATED AND REVISED CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 187 - CITY OF KITCHENER The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/116 dated November 10, 1995 dealing with the updated and revised City of Kitchener Strategic Plan for the Environment. Also provided to the Committee was a copy of the new Strategic Plan. Mr. B. Stanley advised that during 1995 the Environmental Committee undertook a revision process to update the 1992 Kitchener Strategic Plan for the Environment. In this regard the Committee received extensive input from staff, Committee members and the general public. He confirmed the input received from members of the community has been built into the Strategic Plan. Also included in the revised Strategic Plan is a new numbering system suggested by Councillor J. Ziegler, a new section involving environmental education including community outreach programs and documentation of completed initiatives. Mr. Stanley pointed out that over 70% of the Level 1 initiatives in the original plan were achieved. Councillor G. Lorentz expressed his support for the Plan and indicated that he did have a question why recycling bins were not located in most City parks and whether this could be included within the Strategic Plan. Councillor J. Ziegler replied that he had had discussion with Mr. T. Clancy on this issue and pointed out that in facilities where there were full-time attendants the City did have a recycling program as part of the facility operations. However, it has been determined that it is not cost effective to have such recycling containers in facilities where there were not full-time attendants. Mr. B. Stanley also commented that the Environmental Study Group has discussed this issue. Councillor Lorentz accepted that explanation but pointed out that in certain active parks it is known ahead of time that in fact certain dates would be extremely busy with scheduled tournaments and other functions and questioned if the City could at least include a recycling bin for soft drink containers. In response to Councillor K. Redman, Mr. B. Stanley advised that the new Plan provides for a continuous update process so as to keep Council fully informed. Councillor T. Galloway commented on the almost year long review and advised that he had taken the newest revised version of the Strategic Plan to Japan and had shown it to other delegates who indicated they had not seen any similar undertaking. Councillor Galloway thanked Mr. B. Stanley and Mr. L. Masseo for their work on producing the comprehensive review as well as members of the Environmental Study Group and Environmental Committee appointees. Councillor M. Wagner commented that he had a concern as to what staff would be responsible to consider changes that were being proposed to the Planning Act that would affect environmental issues. In this regard he pointed out that the media has been suggesting the provincial government would be relaxing environmental legislation and he would like to be advised of what changes were proposed and how they would affect municipalities within the scope of the local environment. Mr. T. McCabe advised that he had just distributed the most recent changes to the Planning Act that the province is undertaking and he would like to provide a presentation to the Committee in this regard. The staff report was then dealt with. PD 95/116 - UPDATED AND REVISED CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - it was resolved: "That, City Council endorses the Revised Updated City of Kitchener Strategic Plan for the Environment and recommend implementation of the Strategic Plan subject to Budget approvals." 9. MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS & HOUSING - NEWS RELEASES Mr. T. McCabe provided the Committee with documents which he had just received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing. The first document prepared as a news release discusses major changes to Ontario's planning system which are intended to promote economic recovery by cutting red tape and getting rid of obstacles to growth. The second document was labelled as a Media Kit relative to the Land Use Planning & Protection Act and contained a description of what PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 188 - CITY OF KITCHENER 10. is proposed as well as the legislation. Mr. T. McCabe provided brief comment on the Development Charge Act, the repeal of Bill 120 and pointed out that it appeared too late for the City to influence the legislation as was recently proposed by Council. In particular, he commented that small counties have full planning authority whereas in areas with regional government such full authority was lacking to the local municipality but he did indicate that there was provision in the legislation for the Region to provide certain exemptions. Mr. McCabe also spoke to the changes proposed with regard to the method in which the Committee of Adjustment operates and renders its decisions along with the related appeal procedure. He suggested that the Committee support planning staff consulting with the Legal Department and other departments as required and prepare a staff position paper on the Planning Act changes that would be placed before the Planning and Economic Development Committee for consideration in January 1996. Councillor C. Weylie questioned the status of the City's Zoning By-law as it relates to second units in single, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. Mr. T. McCabe advised that that issue could be included as part of the full staff position paper to be considered in January. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he would like the zoning to revert back to what it had been prior to the provincial government legislating the legalization of second units in dwellings. In this regard, Mr. J. Shivas recommended that planning staff be directed to prepare a report for consideration of this issue at a public meeting. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That the Department of Planning and Development be requested to review the implications of the repeal of the requirement in the Residents Rights Act (Bill 120) requiring municipalities to allow second units in detached, semi-detached and row houses. And further, that the Department prepare a staff report incorporating any recommendation for zoning change relative to removal of the as of right entitlement to a second unit for consideration at a "Public Hearing" of the Planning and Economic Development Committee in January 1996." MAYOR'S OFFICE - SPECIAL EVENT EXPENDITURES Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised the Committee that in a Committee meeting held earlier this date he had taken a position in support of dealing with expenditures of the Mayor's Office for special events on Monday, November 27th, 1995. However, given that detailed information had now been circulated to Members of Council he would prefer that the Committee hold an open and complete discussion on the matter at this time. Several Members of Council were of the view that the matter should be discussed at a special meeting on November 27th. 10. MAYOR'S OFFICE - SPECIAL EVENT EXPENDITURES (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: "That in view of the expenditure information regarding recent special events sponsored by the Mayors Office, as supplied by Councillor J. Ziegler, the matter of costs for these special events be discussed at this time so as to eliminate the need for a special meeting of the Finance and Advisory Committee on November 27, 1995." Councillor J. Ziegler advised that he had arranged for staff from the Mayor's Office to circulate Members of Council this date with details of expenditures made with regard to the Kitchener Remembers special event which commemorated the conclusion of the Second World War 50 years ago and the visit to the City by Lord Kitchener who is the great nephew of Lord Kitchener. He commented that the holding of such special events should conform to a matter of process. In this regard he suggested guidelines should be established as part of the budget process and a budget should be established for such events. If a special event was not provided for in the budget there should be consultation with Council as well as when the cost of such special event would be in excess of $2,000. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 189 - CITY OF KITCHENER Mayor R. Christy agreed that there should be guidelines with respect to special events and in this regard suggested a line be established in the Mayor's Office budget for same. He also indicated that the 48 hour notice requirement in the Procedural By-law might be changed to accommodate situations when urgent Council approval is required. Mayor Christy then recounted the timing difficulties encountered recently with these special events which he stated required that he make some quick decisions to ensure success. He suggested that the part of the reason for the recent controversy had to do with the fact that two special events occurred back to back. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that firstly he would like to see a policy established for special events that would provide the Mayor with a certain flexibility and also establish a budget approval mechanism. Secondly, he stated that an open discussion of the activities surrounding the recent events would assist to clarify the situations and assist in the creation of future policy to govern such events. Members of Council provided their viewpoints and concerns on the recent special events and focused on the lack on consultation and communication from the Mayor in that regard which eliminated potential debate of planning details for these events and resulted in Councillors being informed only after decisions had already been made. Councillors expressed concern that the decisions made solely by the Mayor reflect on all Members of Council. In response to Councillor K. Redman, Mr. T. McKay commented that the style of every Mayor is different and that applies to what expenditures are made. He indicated that the total budget should be looked at with consideration given to allow for flexibility to reallocate how budget funds are spent. He supported Council authorizing discretionary spending by the Mayor for special events. Further Council discussion followed and comments were made regarding the need for discretionary funds in the Mayor's budget, the need for more communication possibly through monthly round table type meetings and the need for more open frank discussion. Mayor R. Christy commented that from time to time events arise that require special action, particularly when such events are not connected to any particular ward. It was his assumption that most of the special event expenditures were going to be looked after by an outside agency and by departmental budgets; however, this was not the case and he acted to ensure the success of these events. Councillor Jake Smola questioned if it was legal for banquet costs to be deducted from outstanding taxes and Mr. J. Shivas, City Solicitor, confirmed that the right of such offset does exist. Further, he commented that the Mayor, as Chief Executive Officer, provides a leadership role subject to a budget and should be provided a latitude of discretion within his budget. 10. MAYOR'S OFFICE - SPECIAL EVENT EXPENDITURES (CONT'D) The following motion was put forward by Councillor J. Ziegler: "That a $2,000 limit be established immediately for a single special event expenditure which can be authorized by the Mayor subject to the costs falling within the overall Mayors Office budget without over-expenditure. Further, that a line item be established in the Mayors Office budget covering the above discretionary expenditures commencing with 1996 budget. Further, such expenditures in excess of $2,000 must be either itemized specifically in the budget or first require Council endorsement. And further, that the Council Procedural By-law be amended to change the notice requirement for calling of a special Council meeting from 48 hours to 24 hours." It was a general view of the Committee that budget issues should be dealt with during the Council's budget deliberations for 1996. On motion by Councillor John Smola - it was resolved: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1995 - 190 - CITY OF KITCHENER "That the following matter be deferred and referred to the 1996 budget meeting of the Finance and Advisory Committee: "That a $2,000 limit be established immediately for a single special event expenditure which can be authorized by the Mayor subject to the costs falling within the overall Mayors Office budget without over-expenditure. Further, that a line item be established in the Mayors Office budget covering special event discretionary expenditures commencing with the 1996 Budget. Further, such expenditures in excess of $2,000 must be either itemized specifically in the budget or first require Council endorsement." On motion it was agreed to defer the remainder of Councillor J. Ziegler's motion to change the notice requirement for calling of a special Council meeting from 48 hours to 24 hours and refer it to the next Finance and Administration Committee meeting. However, such referral is redundant as the Council Procedural By-law was previously amended in this regard. 11. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk