Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1996-02-05P E D\1996 -02 -05 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:05 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Mayor R. Christy and Councillors John Smola, K. Redman, B. Vrbanovic, T. Galloway, J. Ziegler, M. Wagner, M. Yantzi, G. Lorentz and Jake Smola. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, J. Given and Messrs. T. McKay, T. McCabe, B. Stanley, D. Snow, J. Willmer, D. Mansell and L.W. Neil. REGIONAL REPORT - BRIDGE STREET AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY - FINAL REPORT The Committee was in receipt of a copy of Regional Department of Planning and Culture Staff Report PC-96-012 dated February 13, 1996 prepared in regard to the Bridge Street Area Transportation Study. The Regional staff recommendation requests that the Region accept the study and sets out several recommendations for endorsement from the report which deal with: retention of portions of Lancaster and Bridge Street as two lane roadways, imposition of an approval limit of 300 new residential units within a designated area and urging the MTO of the need for Highway 7 New. The report summarizes the results of a transportation study undertaken for the area of Kitchener-Waterloo adjacent to the Bridge Street Corridor, from Country Squire Road to the Grand River. Mr. D. Snow advised that Ms. L. Bish, Manager of Transportation Planning for the Region was in attendance to provide the Committee with a presentation of the main aspects of the staff report. Mr. Snow indicated that he along with Councillor John Smola and Messrs. D. Corks and J. Willmer had participated in this study on behalf of the City of Kitchener. Ms. L. Bish with the aid of overhead projection provided the Committee with an overview of the conclusions within the study and what was being recommended to Regional Council as a result. She illustrated the boundaries of the study area as outlined in the staff report and identified the main localized communities affected. Ms. Bish then advised that the purpose of the Transportation Study was to examine transportation system development needs arising from the further growth of the Bridgeport North, Eastbridge and Lexington Communities so as to: better understand travel demand across the Grand River at Bridge Street; identify future transportation needs for these identified communities and link the staging and amount of development in these communities to the provision of appropriate road capacity. Also, a further issue of concern is the ability of emergency vehicles to access the identified areas during periods of congestion on Bridge Street at its crossing with the Grand River. Ms. Bish advised that in general, all of the participants of the study group were in agreement with the recommendations that have been developed. She then commented on the level of present and anticipated future development of housing units and impacts as referenced in the study. In particular, she referred to the impact of full development in the area of the Lancaster/Bridge Street intersection and noted that the main solution is the construction of Highway 7 New with its partial interchange at Bridge Street and the fact that the issue of concern is the matter of timing of construction of Highway 7 New as the MTO would not budget for it until an environmental assessment has been completed. She referred to the proposed development cap of 300 units until infrastructure was in place and advised that the allocation of 300 dwelling units between the two Cities was an issue that had to be worked out between the Twin Cities. Further, she noted that there were a number of assumptions related to the 300 unit limit and this figure could vary accordingly. Mr. T. McCabe advised that he was concerned with the process as to allocation of the 300 units for future development, noting that the City of Waterloo already has thousands of units approved and that Kitchener should receive the entire 300 unit allocation. Mr. McCabe then questioned if any warnings were given to prospective purchasers in the area with regard to the infrastructure required for future development. Ms. Bish advised that the Region has not given recent draft approvals for any lands south of Lexington Road. Councillor J. Ziegler noted that Bridge Street was a Regional Road and suggested that the recommendation should also have an additional phrase that would provide for the widening of the roadway bridge over the Grand River. Ms. Bish noted that four lanes on Bridge Street would have an impact on front lotted PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 16 - CITY OF KITCHENER REGIONAL REPORT - BRIDGE STREET AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY - FINAL REPORT (CONT'D) properties and that there was no road allowance to accommodate a widening of Bridge Street. Councillor John Smola commented that consideration must be given to the level of funding that the Region has as compared to what the Province has to undertake Highway 7 New. He advised that there was no priority in Regional Plans for Capital Funds to solve traffic infrastructure problems in this area and that Highway 7 New was a more realistic option that must be pursued at the provincial level. On motion by Councillor John Smola - it was resolved: "That the Council of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be advised that the City of Kitchener endorses the following recommendation as outlined in Regional Planning & Culture Staff Report PC-96-012: That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the report entitled "Bridge Street Area Transportation Study" as a guide to future decisions concerning the impact of new development on the east side of Bridge Street in Kitchener and Waterloo, and specifically endorse the following recommendations from the report: (a) retain Lancaster Street (Regional Road 29) from Shirk Place to Bridge Street, and Bridge Street (Regional Road 52) from south of University Avenue to Bloomingdale Road as basic two lane roadways with turning lanes; (b) impose an approval limit of 300 new residential units (i.e. not in registered or draft approved plans as of January 1, 1995) within the area generally bounded by Bridge Street, University Ave Extension, Wismer Road and the Grand River but not including lands with direct access to University Ave. Extension (as shown on Figure 2) subject to future monitoring of traffic growth and actual development in the study area, but with the understanding that the full potential development in this area can not be accommodated without the construction of Highway 7 New; and (c) advise the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) of the need for Highway 7 New, which will transfer inter-regional traffic from the Regional Road system to the Provincial Highway system, and request the MTO to continue to pursue environmental assessment approval for this important provincial facility." PD 95/125 - PROCEDURAL REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY RE: - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/125 dated January 30, 1996. The report sets out recommendations with regard to a procedural review of Council Policy in respect to public participation and alternative dispute resolution within the planning process. The text of the staff report provides an outline of the process that was followed in obtaining information to develop and support a new public participation program relative to planning matters. Councillor C. Weylie referred the Committee to a letter distributed this date from Judy-Anne Chapman responding to the report and Mr. T. McCabe advised that staff have had calls expressing interest in the report and opportunity for further consideration. Ms. C. Ladd advised the Committee that she would recommend the staff report be tabled and that the Department undertake a wider distribution so as to include all Neighbourhood Associations, K-W Homebuilders and Planning Consultants along with any other interested parties so as to obtain their input and schedule a series of meetings to deal with issues contained in the report. At the completion of that process she recommended the issue be brought back to the Committee in May 1996. Mr. T. McCabe advised that such a deferral would not cause any problems as many of the critical issues being suggested within the report were in fact already being dealt with in terms of improved procedures. 2. PD 95/125 - PROCEDURAL REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY RE: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 17 - CITY OF KITCHENER - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS (CONT'D) Councillor J. Ziegler referred to Recommendation #1 on page 1 of the report and questioned if regular standards would be established and what they would be. Also, on page 7 under Recommendation C he suggested that it was a problem in that the individuals within neighbourhoods were volunteers and there was a problem with a level of expectation in regards to volunteer participation on an across the board basis. Councillor G. Lorentz also stated that he had a concern with Recommendation C as most neighbourhood associations have a recreational focus as opposed to a development focus and in his view the recommendation was not workable as written and should be changed to deal with the issue from a different perspective. Councillor T. Galloway stated that it was his opinion that everything should flow through the neighbourhood association existing structure and not through parallel structures. Councillor M. Yantzi commented that he thought the concept of Recommendation C could at least be presented to neighbourhood associations for discussion. Councillor M. Wagner referred to page 2 of the report as to the issue of utilizing plain language and suggested this should be done in the circulation letters and text of advertisements and throughout the entire notification process. Ms. C. Ladd advised that Recommendation E addresses the matter of utilizing plain language. Councillor Jake Smola referred to Recommendation C and commented that in the Stanley Park Ward, the concept as proposed was working well and pointed out that the staff recommendation was just a suggestion that interested parties could consider. Mr. Paul Britton, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the K-W Homebuilders and advised that they were in support of the content of the staff report. A letter dated February 5, 1996 from Mr. Britton was distributed to the Committee in respect to this matter. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: "That we defer consideration of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/125 (Public Participation and Alternative Dispute Resolution in the planning process - a procedural review) and refer the matter to a meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee in May 1996, and further, That the Department of Planning and Development be instructed to undertake wide circulation of the report to Neighbourhood Associations, the K-W Homebuilders, Planning Consultants, etc., and solicit their input for consideration by the Planning and Economic Development Committee." PD 95/108 - FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION AND OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94018 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941221FILM - ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SOUTH WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Planning and Development was in receipt of applications for zone change and subdivision from Activa Development Corporation with regard to approximately 24.45 hectares of land located generally to the south and west of the intersection of Ottawa Street South and Fischer-Hallman Road Extension. The zoning change proposed is from Township Agriculture (Twp. A) according to By-law 878A to Residential Four Zone (R-4), Residential Six Zone (R-6) and Open Space Zone (P-2) according to By-law 85-1. In this regard the Committee considered Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/108 dated January 5, 1996 and the proposed by-law dated December 15, 1995 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the applicant intends to rezone the 24.45 hectare parcel of land to facilitate the development of a Plan of Subdivision which may contain between 200 and 400 lots for single detached, duplex and/or semi-detached dwellings, approximately 28 street fronting townhouse units and one block for storm water management purposes. PD 95/108 - FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION AND OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94018 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 18 - CITY OF KITCHENER - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941221FILM - ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. C. Ladd noted that the proposed subdivision represented a continuation of planning within the Laurentian West Community and requires extension of Fischer-Hallman Road. She advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report except to concur with a request from Mr. P. Britton regarding a revision proposed to Condition #67 of the subdivision agreement. The revised condition deals with the construction of a portion of the extension of Fischer-Hallman Road and allowance for building permits to be issued provided the tender for Fischer-Hallman Road has been awarded and financial security in this regard is in place. She advised that this was the same procedure as followed in other plans of subdivision. Ms. Ladd drew to the Committee's attention that Activa Avenue is a collector road but its width has been reduced from 26 metres to 20 metres. Also, she stated that the Region has provided its standard letter advising that they have no concerns with the zone change and have no objection to the by-law receiving three readings at the February 12th Council meeting. Mr. Paul Britton, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson, appeared as a delegation to advise that he was in support of the recommendations in the staff report as well as the revision to Condition #67 proposed this date. In addition, he advised that he has met with Regional staff to deal with the issue of the front ending requirement for construction of the Fischer-Hallman Road extension. Councillor T. Galloway questioned if a complete dedication of Fischer-Hallman Road was taking place and Mr. Britton advised that arrangements were being made to dedicate the entire link through Activa lands. Councillor Galloway referred to the neighbourhood response detailed in the background section of the report and questioned the informal public open house that was held with respect to the applications. Ms. C. Ladd advised that Mr. L. Masseo had participated in the open house meetings. Mr. P. Britton indicated that the meeting was held in August 1995 and was attended by Mr. Masseo. He advised that he had corresponded with each person who previously provided a written submission in respect to the applications. Councillor T. Galloway expressed concern that City staff were not directly involved in dealing with residents concerns and questioned where the line should be drawn between activity of city staff and activity of planning consultants where residents are concerned. Ms. Ladd clarified that when concerns are expressed to the City, the City planner always corresponds with the complainant. However, City staff could not exercise any control over any initiatives taken by planning consultants to resolve issues. Councillor Galloway pointed out that the problem in this situation was the planning consultant arranged meetings with residents and that the Ward Councillor was left out of the process when initiated by the consultant. Mr. T. McCabe noted that the revised public participation programs have the intention of involving the Ward Councillors very early on in the planning process. For the record, Mr. P. Britton advised that most of the comments at the information meeting were directed to the environmental assessment for Fischer-Hallman Road extension and that there was also a question as to density of development and unit types in that regard. The recommendations in the staff report were considered and it was agreed to revise Condition #67 of the subdivision agreement in accordance with the submission presented by Mr. P. Britton. The recommendations as revised were then considered. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: 'A. That Zone Change Application 941221FILM (Activa Development Corporation) requesting a change in zoning from Township Agriculture (Twp. A) according to By- law 878A to Residential Four Zone (R-4), Residential Six Zone (R-6) and Open Space Zone (P-2) according to By-law 85-1, on Part of Lot 47, German Company Tract; and, Part of Lot 1, Part of 0.305 metre Reserve "A" and Part of Towerview PD 95/108 - FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION AND OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94018 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941221FILM - ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 19 - CITY OF KITCHENER Avenue, Registered Plan 820, be approved in the form shown in the attached Proposed By-law dated December 15, 1995, subject to the Subdivision Conditions contained in recommendation (B) below. 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 Approved Municipal Plan. That Subdivision Application 30T-94018 (Activa Development Corporation) be recommended to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for draft approval, subject to the following conditions: That the Subdivider enter into a City Standard Form Residential Subdivision Agreement as approved by City Council embracing those lands shown outlined on the attached Plan of Subdivision and that the following special conditions be written therein: The Subdivider covenants and agrees: 51. That the final plans for registration purposes shall be prepared in accordance with the attached Plan of Subdivision dated December 14, 1995, provided that minor amendments to said plan, acceptable to the General Manager of Planning and Development, and not affecting the numbering of any lots or blocks may be permitted without an amendment to this agreement. Any changes affecting the numbering of lots or blocks shall require an amendment to this agreement to reflect such changes. 52. That the subdivision shall be registered in six (6) stages, with Stage 1 consisting of Blocks 1 to 30 inclusive, Stage 2 consisting of Blocks 1 to 9 inclusive, Stage 3 consisting of Blocks 1 to 8 inclusive, Stage 4 consisting of Blocks 1 to 15 inclusive, Stage 5 consisting of Blocks 1 to 4 inclusive, and Stage 6 consisting of Block 1. Further, the Subdivider agrees that plan registration will occur in accordance with the following: a) That no stage of this Plan shall be released by the City for registration until the portion of Wilderness Drive within Registered Plan 1822 has been constructed to the northwestern limit of this Plan and is open to public vehicular traffic. b) That Stages 2, 3, 4, and 6 may be registered concurrently with each other in any combination and at any time subsequent to the registration of Stage 1 of this Plan. c) That Stage 5 be registered and developed concurrently with or any time subsequent to the registration and development of Stage 4. In the event that any of Stages 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are registered concurrently with Stage 1, some or all of Blocks 22-30 (Stage 1) identified as 0.3 metres reserves will not be required. 53. To submit a Lot Grading and Drainage Control Plan for approval of the General Manager of Public Works, in consultation with the City's Department of Parks and Recreation, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario Hydro and the Grand River Conservation Authority, prior to the City's release of each stage of the Subdivision Plan for registration. PD 95/108 - FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION AND OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94018 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941221FILM - ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 20 - CITY OF KITCHENER 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. That prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to the City's release of each stage of the Plan for registration, to submit for the approval of the General Manager of Public Works, in consultation with the City's Department of Parks and Recreation, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario Hydro and the Grand River Conservation Authority, a detailed engineering design for storm water management in accordance with the approved concept plan. Said engineering design shall include an erosion and siltation control plan indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and silt maintained on-site throughout all phases of grading and construction. The Subdivider further agrees to implement all required measures as outlined in the approved final design. That the names of the streets within the Plan shall be Wilderness Drive, Activa Avenue, Bush Clover Crescent, Hackberry Street, Mountain Mint Crescent, Pine Martin Crescent, Grey Fox Drive, and Woodpoppy Court, which names shall appear on the final registered plan. That construction traffic to and from the proposed subdivision shall be restricted to using Wilderness Drive via Ottawa Street South or Activa Avenue via Fischer-Hallman Road. The Subdivider agrees to advise all relevant contractors, builders and other persons of this requirement with the Subdivider being responsible for any signage, where required, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Traffic and Parking Services. To make satisfactory financial arrangements with the General Manager of Public Works for the construction of a 1.5 metre wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Fischer-Hallman Road Extension across the entire frontage of the proposed subdivision and to construct 1.5 metre sidewalks along both sides of Wilderness Drive, Activa Avenue, Bush Clover Crescent, Hackberry Street, Mountain Mint Crescent, Pine Martin Crescent and Grey Fox Drive. To obtain, from the Grand River Conservation Authority, if necessary, a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93 and 669/94, prior to on-site grading, the installation of services and prior to the City's release of any stage of the Subdivision Plan for registration. The City agrees that the City Solicitor shall arrange for the passing of a By- law to open 0.3 metre reserve Block 34 at the easterly terminus of Grey Fox Drive and 0.3 metre reserve Block 36 at the southerly terminus of Wilderness Drive in Registered Plan 1822, as "public highway" at such time Stage 1 of this Plan has been registered and Grey Fox Drive and Wilderness Drive within Stage 1 have been constructed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works. That in consideration of the wooded character of the subdivision lands and the City's desire to minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the Subdivider agrees to comply with the following process in the development of the subdivision in accordance with the City's approved Tree Management Policy: a) prior to the City's releasing each stage of the subdivision plan for registration, the Subdivider shall submit the Detailed Vegetation Plan, for the approval of the City's Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment; PD 95/108 - FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION AND OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94018 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941221FILM - ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 21 - CITY OF KITCHENER 61. 62. b) that no area/rough grading shall occur on the lands until such time as all approved measures for protection of isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands affected by such grading have been satisfactorily implemented, the City has inspected these measures and the Subdivider has received a written authorization from the City's Department of Public Works to proceed with said grading; c) to implement and be responsible for providing all information contained in the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan, Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan (if applicable), to all of his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns in order to ensure that the requirements outlined in said plan(s) are carried out as specified; d) A Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan will be required for those lots or blocks, prior to applying for or having issued any building permits, which are subject to site plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act, corner lots (where site service locations and building type have not been predetermined), interior lots greater than 13.7 metres of street frontage, proposed building/structure that is located deeper on the lot than that approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan and/or the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; e) In the event of construction causing minor tree damage, remedial measures such as trimming, dressing, or bark doctoring shall be implemented at the Subdivider's cost and as directed by the Consultant who prepared the approved plan. In cases where major irreparable tree damage is done, liability is questionable, or the tree is judged to be unsafe in the opinion of the Subdivider's Environmental Consultant and/or the City, each such tree shall be removed and replaced with at least one tree of equal value based on the tree value formula as set out in the "Guide for Plant Appraisal" International Society of Arboraculture, Latest Edition. Tree replacements are to be located on the same lot or block as the tree requiring removal or to a location within the subdivision requiring enhancement. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved by the Department of Planning and Development and shall be satisfactorily implemented prior to occupancy of the unit or due to weather conditions by the next planting season. That the 5 percent parkland dedication required for this plan of subdivision, being 1.222 hectares, be satisfied by the registration of an agreement to defer the parkland dedication, such agreement to be registered on title of the lands legally described as Part of Lot 47, German Company Tract and Part of Lot 1 and part of 0.305 metre reserve 'A' and Part of Towerview Avenue, Registered Plan 820, prior to the registration of Stage 1. The deferred parkland shall be in addition to the parkland dedication required for lands legally described as Part of Lots 46, 47, 130, 132, 137, 138, 139 and 140 German Company Tract and Lot 8, registrar's Compiled Plan Number 1470, and contained within Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95015. To convey to the City of Kitchener the following lands for the purposes stated therein, at no cost and free of encumbrance, concurrently with the registration of the plan of subdivision: PD 95/108 - FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION AND OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94018 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941221FILM - ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 22 - CITY OF KITCHENER 63. 64. 65. 66. a) b) c) d) Block 18 (Stage 1 ) for storm water management purposes; Block 19 (Stage 1 ) for storm drainage purposes; Blocks 21-30 inclusive (Stage 1 ) for 0.3 metre reserves; and Block 15 (Stage 4) for 0.3 metre reserve. To dedicate to the City of Kitchener free of encumbrance, through plan registration, the following lands for the purposes stated therein: a) b) c) Block 9 (Stage 2) for public walkway purposes; Block 8 (Stage 3) for public walkway purposes; and Block 14 (Stage 4) for public walkway purposes. The Subdivider agrees to install a boundary identification system along the rear lot lines of Blocks 5 and 10 (Stage 1), Blocks 4 and 5 (Stage 3), and Blocks 1, 2 and 3 (Stage 4), at such time required by and to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Parks and Recreation. Further, the subdivider agrees to include a statement advising of the boundary identification system in all Offers to Purchase and Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the Blocks/Lots affected by this clause. To pair all residential driveways for all housing with less than 9.0 metres of lot width which do not use the 0 metre side yard concept within the Plan, where possible, in order to maximize on-street parking opportunities and boulevard landscaping areas. In this regard, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Subdivider is required to submit a plan showing lotting, building envelopes and driveway locations for all lots within the particular block, to be approved by the City's Director of Building, Zoning and Inspections. That the division of any lots or blocks by Part Lot Control shall be subject to compliance with the following requirements: a) To obtain approval from the General Manager of Public Works of plans for each lot or block illustrating lotting, service connections, street utility hardware and proposed grades. b) To submit a Draft Reference Plan with respect to the division of lots and blocks having a lotting pattern in conformity with the approved engineering drawings and showing all required maintenance easements and eave encroachments if the blocks are proposed for zero sideyard housing, and obtain approval of the Draft Reference Plan from the Director of Building, Zoning and Inspections prior to the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law being presented to Council. Further, to receive final approval of a Part Lot Control Exemption By- law. c) That the Draft Reference Plan approved above shall be deposited in accordance with the Land Registry Act and three copies submitted to the Director of Building, Zoning and Inspections. No building permits shall be issued until the City is in receipt of such plans and provided such lots are in compliance with the approved Reference Plan. d) Any further division of lands to create additional building parcels shall require the submission of subsequent Reference Plans to be approved in accordance with steps a) and c) as set out above with PD 95/108 - FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION AND OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94018 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941221FILM - ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) the exception of the passing of another Part Lot Control Exemption By-law. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 23 - CITY OF KITCHENER 67. To construct the extension of Fischer-Hallman Road, to a standard specified in the Fischer-Hallman Road Extension Study, from Grove Drive to Activa Avenue, to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit. Prior to the issuance of any building permits within the Plan of Subdivision, the tender for Fischer-Hallman Road shall be awarded and financial securities in place, to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This shall include any necessary arrangements with Ontario Hydro for the construction of the road across Ontario Hydro lands. 68. That access to Block 1 (Stage 1) shall be permitted only from Street Four and that no access from Activa Avenue shall be permitted. 69. To make satisfactory arrangements with Ontario Hydro for any required temporary and permanent fencing around the hydro facilities and for the relocation of or revisions to Ontario Hydro facilities if required as a result of the subdivision, prior to registration of Stage 1 of the Subdivision Plan. In this regard, the Subdivider shall present a letter to the Department of Planning and Development from Ontario Hydro confirming that satisfactory arrangements have been made with Ontario Hydro for the above matters, prior to the City's release of Stage 1 of the Plan of Subdivision for registration. The Subdivider further agrees to satisfy Ontario Hydro with respect to being responsible for the restoration of any damage to the right-of- way resulting from construction of the subdivision. 70. As part of the servicing of Activa Avenue, to construct a temporary turning circle to City Standards on Block 20 (Stage 1) as shown on the attached subdivision plan, until such time as Activa Avenue is extended through the adjacent lands to the southwest and is open to public vehicular traffic. Said turning circle shall be designed, constructed and ultimately removed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works. At such time as Activa Avenue is extended into the abutting lands, and the 0.3 metre reserve Block 21 (Stage 1) is opened by by-law, the Subdivider shall remove the turning circle. No building permits will be issued for Block 20 (Stage 1) until the turning circle is removed or is not necessary as determined by the City's General Manager of Public Works. 71. The Subdivider agrees to submit prior to the registration of each appropriate stage, a landscape plan showing the proposed grading and naturalization scheme for the future wetland buffer area adjacent to Blocks 10 and 19 (Stage 1) and Block 5 (Stage 3) for the approval of the General Manager of Parks and Recreation. The Subdivider agrees to implement the approved landscape plan subsequent to final grading and within one year of registration of the plan or at such other time as approved by the City's General Manager of Parks and Recreation. 72. To obtain approval of plans/drawings from the City's Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment, for any lots abutting Fischer Hallman Road, showing a planting strip having a minimum width of 4.6 metres and a 1.8 metre high chain link fence. Said planting strip is to be in accordance with the approved plans. Further, said planting strips shall be installed within the affected lots prior to the transfer of title of such lots to the first time occupants, or in the event of winter conditions shall installed by June 1, immediately following such transfer of title. The subdivider agrees to PD 95/108 - FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION AND OTTAWA STREET SOUTH - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94018 - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 941221FILM - ACTIVA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) attach the approved planting plan to all Offers to Purchase and Sale of Lots in which the required planting strip has not been installed due to winter PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 24 - CITY OF KITCHENER conditions. Further, if physical noise attenuation barriers are required in accordance with Section 50, installation of said barrier shall substitute for the planting strip requirement. 73. That all zero sideyard housing shall provide a 1.5 metre wide easement for maintenance and an easement allowing a maximum encroachment of 0.3 metres for eaves. The subdivider further agrees that the registration of such easements shall occur by way of grant of Easement Agreements and reference plans to be deposited at the time of the sale of either the lot granting the easement or the lot on which the easement is registered. This condition shall be regarded as part of the approval authority's draft approval conditions and as such, consent applications shall not be required for the establishment of such maintenance or eave encroachment easements. 74. That prior to the registration of Stage 1, the subdivider agrees to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works for the granting of an easement over Bush Clover Crescent in Stage 4 in order to facilitate access to storm water management Block 18 (Stage 1) and the sanitary sewer outlet under Block 14 (Stage 4). It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City. That the implementing Zoning By-law for Zone Change Application 94/22/F/LM (Activa Development Corporation) not be presented to City Council until Subdivision Application 30T-94018 has received Regional Draft Approval whereupon the amending Zoning By-law shall be presented to Council for all three readings. Alternatively, three readings of the amending Zoning By-law may be given if the City Clerk is presented with a letter from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo advising that the Region has no objections to the passing of the By-law." PD 95/121 - COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE TO BY-LAW 85-1 - TECHNICAL REGULATION RE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS PER LOT - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 951301TCIJG - CITY OF KITCHENER INITIATED The Committee was advised that the Department of Planning and Development was in receipt of a City initiated zone change relating to a technical matter. In this regard the Committee considered Staff Report PD 95/121 dated December 22, 1995 and a proposed by-law dated December 22, 1995 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the proposed zoning change would add a new regulation which would permit more than one single, semi-detached or duplex dwelling on a lot provided that only one such dwelling is located on a future lot in a reference plan associated with a registered Part Lot Control Exemption By-law. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. It was clarified in the report that the purpose of the zone change is to address a timing constraint relative to the availability of building permits for single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings to be built on either "lotless blocks" or other lots further subdivided through Part Lot Control Exemption. Mr. T. McCabe advised that the matter was a very technical zone change to address a very technical problem within the zoning by-law. PD 95/121 - COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE TO BY-LAW 85-1 - TECHNICAL REGULATION RE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS PER LOT - ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 951301TCIJG - CITY OF KITCHENER INITIATED (CONT'D) Ms. J. Given explained the purpose of the application which is to facilitate building permit issuance with regard to dwellings to be built on a lot provided that each dwelling will eventually be located on its own lot. She then circulated a revised proposed by-law dated January 30, 1996 containing PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 25 - CITY OF KITCHENER minor wording clarification with respect to sub clauses .1) and .2) of the proposed by-law and requested approval. The recommendation in the staff report was considered and it was agreed to revise the recommendation to include the changes in the proposed by-law dated January 30, 1996. The staff recommendation as revised was then considered. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That Zone Change Application 95/30/TC/JG (City of Kitchener) be approved in the form shown in the proposed By-law attached, dated December 22, 1995, as revised January 30, 1996 to reflect minor wording changes to sub-clauses. 1 ) & .2) without conditions. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." PD 96~5 - DISCUSSION PAPER - IMPLICATIONS OF REPEAL OF RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT (BILL 120) The Committee was again in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/5 dated January 15, 1996 prepared as a discussion paper to deal with implications of repeal of the Residents' Rights Act (Bill 120). The staff report was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held January 22, 1996 and referred to the meeting this date for further consideration. Mr. B. Stanley emphasized that the staff report was prepared as a discussion paper only to address the issue of second units in certain dwelling units. He advised that staff wish direction from the Committee with respect to the holding of an official public meeting. Mr. Stanley stated that at the last meeting there were a number of requests to illustrate areas that were zoned R2B under the City's previous zoning categories. Mr. J. Willmer illustrated examples of such zoning as well as lands in other zoning by-laws that permit duplexing. However, he did note that in practical terms, duplexing would not have been allowed in many of the instances and therefore would only impact primarily on singles or vacant lands. Mr. John MacDonald advised that he was appearing before the Committee as a citizen and not in his professional capacity as an architect. He noted that the proposed provincial legislation has shifted many issues to the local level, one of which is the matter of duplexing. He commented that Kitchener previously developed a reasoned approach with regard to the matter and suggested that Kitchener could extend a message of leadership as to change in this regard. Mr. MacDonald recommended that no one group of property owners be immune from change and commented that it was unfair for more compact areas to subsidize less densely developed areas. Accordingly, he requested that all property owners participate in the availability to duplex their dwellings. The Committee was in receipt of a letter dated February 1, 1996 from Mary Ann Wasilka respecting the duplexing issue. In response to Councillor K. Redman, Mr. MacDonald advised that where small single family dwellings were already concentrated on small lots, such development should be considered economically and environmentally sustainable since they already have compact form. Councillor M. Wagner raised the question of cost efficiency and Mr. MacDonald advised that the report concludes that Iow density developments do not pay their own way and pointed out that as provincial subsidies decline and disappear a greater effect would be felt on the City's PD 96/5 - DISCUSSION PAPER - IMPLICATIONS OF REPEAL OF RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT (BILL 120) (CONT'D) finances. Councillor T. Galloway commented that his concern was retroactivity with regard to duplex legislation and questioned what Mr. MacDonald's definition of Iow density development was. Mr. MacDonald advised that he saw compact density's as being 20 units per acre whereas suburban density is often 4, 5 or 6 units per acre. Councillor Galloway responded that currently there were many examples of 25 units per hectare being developed and new subdivisions were planned with 30 units per hectare, thus meeting the definition of compact density without the duplexing alternative. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 26 - CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor K. Redman indicated that she was prepared to move the alternatives that are supported by staff as listed on page 9 of PD 96/5. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he could support all the alternatives listed on page 9 except Alternative 2A which continues to permit second units in single detached dwellings in all zones where single detached dwellings are permitted, subject to the availability of municipal sanitary sewer. He commented that residents prefer the certainty of knowing that what they have bought into will remain in its present form and did not wish the neighbourhood to develop into a higher form of density. Councillor M. Yantzi commented that it would be naive to determine that there will be no change in neighbourhoods and in this regard pointed out that since duplexing was approved there has been no rampant desire for duplexing which he suggested has become an overblown issue. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that he could support the five alternatives proposed by Councillor Redman and noted that duplexing has not been a problem. He acknowledged that the provincial duplexing legislation was very poorly handled but that there was no problem with it in actual practice. Further, he suggested that the reality of duplexing instances and the need for it is very different today than compared to 20 or 30 years ago. He suggested that if it was to become a problem it could be dealt with at that time. Councillor T. Galloway commented that the issue of duplexing has resulted in significant debates over the terms of three Municipal Councils. He suggested that it was inappropriate for Council to make a decision without fully addressing the problem. Accordingly, he suggested the staff report be deferred and the matter circulated widely and advertised to solicit input from the public. Mr. T. McCabe advised that until the new provincial legislation is given royal assent there was no urgency to deal with the issue except that staff do require direction as to how the City should proceed with public consultation. As an option, he indicated to the Committee that it could decide this date to take no action on the matter if it so wished. Otherwise, he suggested that it may be appropriate to hold a special meeting in May or June following the receipt of public response to the issue. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he would support deferring the issue based on the fact that in the past the public did not favour 'as of right' duplexing but there may be a change in view point on the matter. Councillor M. Wagner was of the view that there was no reason to delay consideration and was opposed to any deferral. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that it was in the Committee's best interest to find out what residents think of the issue and allow the residents the opportunity to express themselves in this regard. Councillor B. Vrbanovic indicated that there must be clear direction on the matter in order for residents to comment on what is being proposed. Councillor M. Wagner advised that he favoured the existing law as it gives residents greater flexibility to remain in their homes as individual circumstances change. Councillor T. Galloway stated that he was opposed to Alternative 2A. He questioned the apparent accepted assumption that the downtown has higher density than the suburbs and suggested that on average the suburbs actually have a higher density than the downtown and that if all the zones are shown a disparity is apparent. Further, he stated that in 1992 he did a community survey on duplexing and residents disapproved of duplexing. He opposed the matter of retroactivity with regard to duplexing and pointed out that developers were not opposed to the 50% ratio of dwellings in new subdivisions to be designated for duplexing. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that if Alternative 2A was not supported, he would be prepared to ask for Alternative 2E to be approved as direction to staff. Monday April 22, 1996 was suggested as the date of a Public Meeting in regard to this issue. PD 96/5 - DISCUSSION PAPER - IMPLICATIONS OF REPEAL OF RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT (BILL 120) (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor K. Redman - it was resolved: "That the Department of Planning and Development be requested to prepare a proposed zoning by-law, for consideration at a special Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting to be held on April 22, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, that would implement the following proposed alternatives listed by staff on page 9 of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/5 (Implications of Repeal of Residents' Rights Act, Bill 120 - Discussion Paper): PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 1996 - 27 - CITY OF KITCHENER Alternative lB, which removes the as-of-right provisions for second units in semi- detached houses and townhouses; Alternative 2A, which continues to permit second units in single detached dwellings in all zones where single detached dwellings are permitted, subject to the availability of municipal sanitary sewer; Alternative 3C, which establishes a minimum lot size for duplexes which is greater than the requirement for small-lot single detached dwellings; Alternative 4A, which continues to permit tandem parking for duplexes, and allows one space to be provided less than 6 metres from the street line; and Alternative 5A, which continues to allow duplexing without the need to obtain a licence." A recorded vote was taken in respect to Alternative 2A. Mayor R. Christy and Councillors M. Wagner, M. Yantzi, B. Vrbanovic, K. Redman and John Smola voted in favour of Alternative #2A while Councillors G. Lorentz, T. Galloway, C. Weylie, J. Ziegler and Jake Smola opposed Alternative #2A. REPORT - ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO PLANNING TASK FORCE - RESPONSE TO BILL 20 (PROPOSED NEW LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, ETC.) For information purposes, the Committee was in receipt of a document dated January 13, 1996 from the AMO Planning Task Force discussing issues pertinant to Provincial Bill 20, Land Use Planning and Protection Act and developing AMO's response to the Bill. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk