Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1996-05-13PED\1996-05-13 MAY 13, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:40 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Councillors John Smola, K. Redman, B. Vrbanovic, T. Galloway, M. Yantzi, J. Ziegler, M. Wagner and Jake Smola. Mayor R. Christy and Councillor G. Lorentz entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, J. Given, V. Gibaut, J. Jantzi and Messrs. T. McKay, T. McCabe, B. Stanley, D. Mansell, J. Shivas, J. Witmer, J. Willmer, L. Masseo, Z. Janecki, R. Mattice, T. Boutilier and L.W. Neil. OFFER TO PURCHASE - HURON BUSINESS PARK, SITE 106 - ANCHOR GROUP (BLM DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS) The Committee was in receipt of a report dated May 7, 1996 from J. Jantzi providing details in regard to an Offer to Purchase submitted by Anchor Group (BLM Distribution Systems) relative to Site 106 in Huron Business Park. She advised that staff had just received a revised offer and noted that extra wording was necessary in respect to Section 41 Agreement requirements. She asked that the Committee approve the staff recommendation subject to all affected Departments being satisfied with wording as it relates to the Letter of Credit. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: "That the City accept the Offer to Purchase from Anchor Group dated May 7, 1996 with respect to lands composed of Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-5840 having an area of about 1.47 acres on McBrine Place at the purchase price of $78,000 per acre for a total purchase price of $114,660. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any other necessary documentation required by the City Solicitor." OFFER TO PURCHASE - HURON BUSINESS PARK, SITE 98B - PREMIER MACHINE & GEAR LIMITED The Committee was in receipt of a report dated May 7, 1996 from Ms. J. Jantzi providing details with respect to an Offer to Purchase submitted by Premier Machine & Gear Limited for Site 98B located on Mclntyre Drive in Huron Business Park. Ms. Jantzi pointed out that as noted in the staff recommendation, Jenson Technologies Inc., is entitled to first right of refusal to purchase the property and has 14 days to respond with a matching offer to purchase to that submitted by Premier Machine & Gear Limited. Councillor T. Galloway questioned what other possible locations might be suitable for Premier Machine & Gear Limited. Ms. Jantzi advised that possible alternate locations were Site 119 and Site 95 which the City would have to re-acquire. Councillor Galloway suggested that staff try to interest Premier Machine & Gear Limited in an alternate site given the likely interest of Jenson Technologies in exercising their rights with respect to Site 98B. Councillor G. Lorentz entered the meeting at this point. On motion by Councillor John Smola - it was resolved: "That the City accept, subject to Jenson Technologies Inc. not exercising its first right to purchase the property, the Offer to Purchase, dated May 1, 1996, submitted by Premier Machine & Gear Ltd. with respect to land in Phase 2 of the Huron Business Park and being composed of Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-9489 and consisting of approximately 1.127 acres at a total purchase price of $87,906.00 calculated at the rate of $78,000/acre. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any other necessary documentation required by the City Solicitor." 3. REVISION OF TERMS OF REFERENCE - BUSINESS & INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MAY 13, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 63 - CITY OF KITCHENER The Committee was in receipt of a copy of the current Terms of Reference for the Business & Industry Advisory Committee. Councillor B. Vrbanovic questioned the composition of the Committee in respect to the 8 members to be appointed from the business community at large. He recommended that the number from the business community be reduced and that members from the Visitor and Convention Bureau and the Downtown Business Association be appointed. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: "That the Terms of Reference for the Business and Industry Advisory Committee be amended to reduce the number of members from the business community at large from 8 to 6 members and to appoint 1 representative from the Visitor and Convention Bureau and 1 representative from the Kitchener Downtown Business Association." PD 96~39 - 1610 WESTMOUNT ROAD EAST - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 95/8/W/RM - CARAR INVESTMENTS LTD. - SOUTH WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/39 dated April 17, 1996. The report deals with a Demolition Control Application submitted by Carar Investments Ltd., with respect to the property known municipally as 1610 Westmount Road East. It was noted in the report that the applicant proposes to demolish a single detached dwelling on the property to facilitate future land development. The property is not affected by the Rental Housing Protection Act and has not been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. However, the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee has the property on its inventory of historically significant buildings since the house was built in 1867. LACAC has examined the residential structure and has no concerns with its demolition but wishes to salvage the barn and may wish to salvage the smokehouse located behind the dwelling and intends to work with the owner in this regard. The report discusses the issues staff considered in their recommendation to approve the demolition. Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. He did make reference to the interest of LACAC as documented in the report. Mr. Mike Ulmer, Ulmer Construction, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant to advise of support for the application. No other delegations were registered regarding this matter. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC 95/8AN/RM (Carar Investments Ltd.) requesting approval for the removal of a single detached dwelling located at 1610 Westmount Road East legally described as Part of Lot 157 German Company Tract be approved. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." PD 96/42 - 736 KING STREET EAST - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 95/6/K/RM - DR. MARK PUS - CENTRE WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/42 dated May 2, 1996. The report deals with a Demolition Control Application submitted by Dr. Mark Pus with respect to the property known municipally as 736 King Street East. It was noted in the report that the applicant proposes to demolish a commercial building with two apartment units in order to provide parking for a proposed dental clinic located at 720 King Street East. It was explained 5. PD 96~42 - 736 KING STREET EAST - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 95/6/K/RM MAY 13, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 64 - CITY OF KITCHENER - DR. MARK PUS - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) in the report that the demolition relates to a commercial building previously occupied by Core Literacy with two apartment units. The property is not affected by either the Rental Housing Protection Act or the Ontario Heritage Act. The report discusses the issues staff considered in their recommendation to approve the demolition. Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. He did point out that some concerns had been expressed regarding the condition of retaining walls and the effects of demolition work on the retaining walls. He advised that concerns in this regard could be handled through the demolition permit issuance process. Mr. Donald Bode appeared as a delegation and advised that the retaining wall on the subject property which abuts his property was in danger of collapsing and questioned what the applicant intended to do to rectify the danger posed by this situation. Councillor M. Yantzi commented that proper grading and retaining walls should be required as part of any conditions relative to the granting of a permit. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Mr. J. Witmer advised that as part of staff's procedure to review the application, the grading plan will be addressed and staff will ensure that grading differential is properly maintained. Councillor M. Yantzi, suggested that staff inspect the existing situation as soon as possible. Mrs. Shari Pus appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant and advised that he was agreeable to undertaking necessary repairs to the retaining wall. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC 95/6/K/RM (Dr. Pus) requesting approval for the demolition of a commercial building with two apartment units located at 736 King Street East legally described as Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 77 be approved. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." PD 96~32 - 1541 HIGHLAND ROAD WEST - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94001 - YORK NURSERY LIMITED - FOREST WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Planning and Development was in receipt of a Subdivision Application submitted by York Nursery Limited in regard to the lands known municipally as 1541 Highland Road West. It was noted in the report that the applicant proposes to subdivide the rear portion consisting of approximately 0.83 hectares of land of the 1.30 hectare property and develop a subdivision out of the rear land parcel consisting of one cul-de-sac containing 7 semi-detached lots and one walkway block. In this regard the Committee considered Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/32 dated April 26, 1996. Mr. T. McCabe advised that the reason this plan of subdivision was before the Committee for consideration was due to the fact that the proposed cul-de-sac length was not in compliance with Council's Emergency Access Policy since the distance of the cul-de-sac was 156 metres rather than a maximum of 150 metres. Mr. R. Hardie appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant and advised the Committee of his clients support of the recommendations contained in the staff report. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. PD 96~32 - 1541 HIGHLAND ROAD WEST - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94001 - YORK NURSERY LIMITED - FOREST WARD (CONT'D) MAY 13, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 65 - CITY OF KITCHENER On motion by Councillor G. Lorentz - it was resolved: "That Subdivision Application 30T-94001 (York Nursery Limited) be recommended to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for draft approval subject to the following conditions. That the Subdivider enter into a Standard Form Residential Subdivision Agreement embracing those lands shown outlined in the attached Plan of Subdivision and that the following conditions shall be written therein. The Subdivider covenants and agrees: 51) That the final plan for registration purposes shall be prepared in accordance with the attached Plan of Subdivision dated February 21, 1996, providing that minor amendments to said plan, acceptable to the General Manager of the Department of Planning and Development and not affecting the numbering of lots or blocks may be permitted without an amendment to this agreement. 52) To submit a Lot Grading and Drainage Control Plan for the approval of the City's General Manager of Public Works, in consultation with the Department of Parks and Recreation, Ontario Hydro and Grand River Conservation Authority, prior to registration of the Plan of Subdivision. 53) To submit for the approval of the Grand River Conservation Authority 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 prior to any grading or construction on site and prior to registration of the plan. 54) That the street name within the plan of subdivision shall be "Rauch Court" and such name shall appear on the final registered plan. 55) To dedicate by plan registration Block 8 as "Public Highway" to be used as a public walkway. 56) That construction traffic to and from the proposed subdivision shall use Rauch Court to Penelope Drive to Cora Drive to Trussler Road or through York Nursery property to Highland Road. All construction traffic shall be prohibited from using other internal residential streets in the community. The Subdivider agrees to advise all relevant contractors, builders and other persons of this requirement and the Subdivider being responsible for any signage where required all to the satisfaction of the Director of Traffic and Parking Services. 57) 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, 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 releasing the subdivision plan for registration, the Subdivider shall submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan for the approval of the City's Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment. 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 PD 96~32 - 1541 HIGHLAND ROAD WEST - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94001 - YORK NURSERY LIMITED - FOREST WARD (CONT'D) satisfactorily implemented, and inspected by the City and the MAY 13, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 66 - CITY OF KITCHENER Subdivider has received a written authorization from the City's General Manager 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 its 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, prior to applying for or having issued any building permits for those lots or blocks, 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 having a street frontage greater than 13.7 metres, proposed buildings that are located deeper on the lot than approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan, and/or on which 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 Subdivider's Environmental 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 "Guide for Plant Appraisal" of the International Society of Arboriculture, 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 City's Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment and shall be satisfactorily implemented prior to occupancy of the units, or due to weather conditions, by the next planting season. 58) To make a cash contribution to the City of Kitchener Park Trust Fund Account in lieu of land for park purposes and in fulfilment of the Planning Act's Park Dedication requirement. Said contribution shall be equivalent to 5% of the value of the land being subdivided with said value and contribution being determined as of the day before the day of draft approval of the plan and paid immediately prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision. 59) To make satisfactory arrangements with Ontario Hydro for any required permanent and temporary fencing around the hydro facilities, if required, and for the relocation of, or revisions to Ontario Hydro facilities, if required, as a result of the subdivision, prior to registration of the plan of subdivision. In this regard, the Subdivider shall present a letter to the General Manager of the Department of Planning and Development confirming that satisfactory arrangements have been made with Ontario Hydro for the above matters, prior to the City's release 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. PD 96~32 - 1541 HIGHLAND ROAD WEST - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-94001 - YORK NURSERY LIMITED - FOREST WARD (CONT'D) 60) That as the Subdivider wishes to temporarily continue the garden centre nursery operation on Lots 1, 2 and 3, the Subdivider shall install a minimum PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - 67 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1.8 metre high screening and/or fencing across the frontages of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the northerly flankage of Walkway Block 8 to the satisfaction of the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment for the purpose of screening the existing garden centre nursery operation from the adjacent residential development. No building permits will be issued for Lots 1-3 inclusive until such time as use of the land for garden centre nursery purposes has ceased on all three lots. At such time as the operation has ceased and the temporary fencing/screening has been removed, the Subdivider may apply for building permits. 61) That in accordance with Clause 68 of the Residential Subdivision Agreement registered on title on October 30, 1989 under Instrument No. 1014606 for Registered Plan 1712, the Subdivider agrees to remove the temporary turning circle on Blocks 110 and 111, of Registered Plan 1712 at the time of installation of municipal services for this subdivision and to fully restore Blocks 110 and 111 including landscaping on both private and City lands, driveway ramps, curbs and gutters, all at its cost, all to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works. Further, the Subdivider shall be responsible for all legal and survey costs pertaining to the conveyance of Blocks 110 and 111, currently under the City's ownership, to the abutting owners on Rauch Court. That City Council grant an exemption to its emergency access policy to allow the maximum length of a cul-de-sac without an emergency access to be 156 metres rather than the maximum 150 metres set out in the policy. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." 7. PD 96/21 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES - LOCATION STUDY The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/21 dated April 15, 1996 dealing with Hazardous Waste Management Facilities - Location Study. History of this issue commencing on December 13, 1993 was reviewed in the report leading to a resolution passed on February 7, 1994 relative to regulating location of hazardous waste transfer sites either through a minimum distance separation factor from residential areas or by a minimum distance separation factor from other transfer sites. As well, staff were requested to prepare appropriate regulations and relevant mapping of potential sites for consideration by the Planning and Economic Development Committee. The Department then undertook a comprehensive study of the broader environmental and economic issues associated with municipal regulation of hazardous waste facilities. The staff report dealt with the following issues relative to the Department's study of hazardous waste facilities: (a) Existing Regulatory Framework (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) City of Kitchener Province of Ontario Application for Certificate of Approval and Approvals Process Occupational Health and Safety Act Waste Generator Registration 7. PD 96/21 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES - LOCATION STUDY (CONT'D) (b) Environmental and Economic Issues/Considerations (i) (ii) Locational Issues Economic Issues and Industry Growth PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - 68 - CITY OF KITCHENER (iii) Environmental Issues (c) Options for Further Regulation at the Municipal Level Mr. B. Stanley advised that he had nothing further to add to the recommendations in the staff report. He did advise that the report was considered by the Environmental Committee at its May 1st meeting. Supplementary to the recommendations in the staff report, the Environmental Committee passed a recommendation requesting Planning and Economic Development Committee endorsement relative to consideration of involvement by Kitchener Fire Department in the inspection of hazardous waste management facilities. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - it was resolved: "1. That Planning and Economic Development Committee take no action with respect to further regulating the location of hazardous waste management facilities through the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. That Planning and Economic Development Committee adopt the following specific guidelines setting out the City's objectives for locating new hazardous waste management facilities, with such guidelines to be used by staff when providing comments to the Ministry of Environment and Energy on applications for Certificates of Approval for hazardous waste management facilities: i) The separation distance between new hazardous waste management facilities and existing or planned residential areas shall be maximized where possible and practical. ii) Concentrations of hazardous waste management facilities which would substantially increase the amount of hazardous waste vehicle traffic within or adjacent to existing or planned residential areas shall be avoided; iii) Transport vehicles travelling to and from a proposed hazardous waste management facility shall be restricted to using routes which provide the most direct access to the provincial highway system but avoid using roads with front lotted residential development; iv) That the appropriate Ward Councillor be immediately advised of all applications for Certificates of Approval for hazardous waste management facilities; and v) That all applications for Certificates of Approval be brought to Planning and Economic Development Committee for information as soon as possible after the M.O.E.E. request for municipal comments." On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That further to the guidelines recommended in Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/21 (Hazardous Waste Management Facilities), the Planning and Economic Development Committee request the City's Management Committee to consider and report to Planning and Economic Development Committee on the following: That Management Committee consider legal liability and other issues relative to a proposal requesting the Ministry of Environment & Energy to accept involvement by the 7. PD 96/21 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES - LOCATION STUDY (CONT'D) Kitchener Fire Department as part of its Certificate Approval process for hazardous waste management facilities that would authorize Fire department staff to: 1) co-inspect such facilities with MEE staff MAY 13, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 69 - CITY OF KITCHENER = = 2) inspect such facilities on a regular basis as a supplement to MEE inspection with any identified unresolved problems being conveyed to the MEE." UPDATE - WESTMOUNT ROAD AND FISCHER-HALLMAN ROAD EXTENSION - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-93005 - MAX BECKER ENTERPRISES LIMITED - SOUTH WARD At the meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee held February 19, 1996 consideration of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/13, Subdivision Application 30T- 93005 (Max Becker Enterprises Limited) was deferred to allow the applicant to submit certain engineering reports for analysis by the Department of Public Works following which further negotiations would be undertaken before the matter was referred back to the Planning and Economic Development Committee. Ms. C. Ladd provided a brief update on this matter and advised that the applicant's have indicated they are no longer in disagreement with the dedication of the Fischer-Hallman Road extension alignment. Accordingly, a Commissioner's Approval of the subdivision application has been issued and she advised that there was now no further need for consideration of this matter by the Planning and Economic Development Committee. Councillor T. Galloway indicated that he had participated in meetings respecting this issue and questioned if the required engineering reports have been submitted. Mr. D. Mansell advised that staff have undertaken detailed review of the reports and held further meetings with Mr. M. Code. He advised that some concerns were identified by staff and Mr. Code has been requested to recalculate certain data. He indicated that it was his belief the City and the applicant were close to concluding this matter. Also in response to Councillor Galloway, Mr. Mansell stated that he could not comment on ultimate trunk connections as the necessary assessment of this issue must be finalized. - WILSON AVENUE PUBLIC SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION - REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION - CHAPTER 450 {NOISE) OF MUNICIPAL CODE - MMMC INC. ARCHITECTS - FAIRVIEW WARD The Committee was in receipt of letters dated May 2 & 10, 1996 from Mr. J. David Heintz, MMM Inc. Architects, which is the firm overseeing the reconstruction of Wilson Avenue Public School. The City has been requested to extend the hours of construction within the noise by-law to accommodate the school reconstruction and the latest letter requests only the evening hours be extended from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday for the period May 22 to August 30, 1996. Councillor J. Ziegler advised that he has discussed the issue with Mr. Heintz and has no objection to the request. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That we grant the request of Mr. J. David Heintz, on behalf of MMM Inc. Architects for an exemption from the provisions of Chapter 450 - (Noise) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code, Article 6 covering the hours 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday for the period May 22, 1996 to August 30, 1996, relative to the reconstruction of Wilson Avenue Public School, 122 Wilson Avenue, Kitchener." 10. PD 96/30 - 108-112 DUKE STREET EAST - SEVERANCE APPLICATION SE/96/001 - RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT, 1989 - LLOYD SHIMENS LIMITED - CENTRE WARD The Committee was advised that a severance application under Section 5(1) of the Rental Housing Protection Act has been received from Lloyd Shimens Limited with regard to the property known municipally as 108-112 Duke Street East. In this regard the Committee considered Planning and Development Staff Report Pd 96/30 dated April 2, 1996. It was noted in the report MAY 1 3, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 70 - CITY OF KITCHENER 11. 12. that the applicant requests approval under the RHPA as a precondition for the severance of 108- 112 Duke Street East into two parcels. The severance would then create two properties being: 108 Duke Street East with two units and 112 Duke Street East with four units. The comments in the report pointed out that all the units at these addresses are currently subject to the Rental Housing Protection Act. However, with the proposed severance, the two dwellings would cease to be subject to most of the provisions of the RHPA. The criteria under which Council considers such applications was reviewed in the report and staff are of the view that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the supply of affordable housing. Further, it was noted in the report that due to an oversight by the owner the two properties had merged into one property and the owner seeks the severance to restore the original property lines to make the properties more attractive in the real estate market. Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration and noted that the matter has gone to the Committee of Adjustment for consideration. He also pointed out that the zoning was Commercial Residential. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: "That Council approve Rental Housing Protection Act Severance Application SE/96/001 (Lloyd Shimens Limited) for consent to sever the property known as 108-112 Duke Street East, legally described as Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 364." ST. MARK'S SCHOOL - LETTER OF APPRECIATION Councillor C. Weylie advised the Committee that Mayor R. Christy had received a letter dated April 9, 1996 from Paul Hicknell, Principal, St. Mark's School, expressing appreciation of the school community for the assistance that was given to them by Messrs. T. McCabe, B. Page and Z. Janecki to develop a curriculum study unit entitled "Community Design". Mayor R. Christy has responded to the school's letter and also expressed appreciation to staff for their community involvement. CITY OF KITCHENER RESPONSE TO REGION OF WATERLOO - PROPOSED REGIONAL OFFICIAL POLICIES PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE TOPPER WOODS AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE POLICY AREA 12. Mr. L. Masseo distributed a draft letter dated May 13, 1996 addressed to K. Seiling, Chair, and Members of Regional Council. The letter refers to the consideration given by the Regional Planning and Culture Committee respecting a proposed Regional Official Policies Plan Amendment to designate Topper Woods as an environmentally sensitive policy area. Councillor C. Weylie advised that this issue was scheduled for consideration by Regional Council at its meeting to be held on May 16th and she had requested that staff bring this to the Committee's attention in order that all Kitchener Regional Councillors would be fully informed of the matter. Ms. C. Ladd commented that the status of Topper Woods was one of the local issues under discussion with regard to planning for the Doon South community. She advised that staff had concern that the process taking place at the Regional level was jumping ahead of local community planning. Accordingly, Ms. Ladd requested that Kitchener Regional Councillors CITY OF KITCHENER RESPONSE TO REGION OF WATERLOO - PROPOSED REGIONAL OFFICIAL POLICIES PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE TOPPER WOODS AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE POLICY AREA (CONT'D) amend the Planning and Culture Committee recommendation to allow for the local municipality to address community planning issues. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 -71 - CITY OF KITCHENER "That in respect to a proposed Regional Official Policies Plan Amendment to designate Topper Woods, City of Kitchener, as an Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area, as recommended by the Regional Planning and Culture Committee at its meeting held May 7, 1996, the Kitchener Planning and Economic Development Committee requests the Council of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to defer its Public Meeting required under the Planning Act in order to provide the local municipality with the opportunity to address community planning issues as well as the subdivision review process, or alternatively, hold its Public Meeting at such time so as to allow for concurrent consideration of these planning matters by the local municipality." 13. PD 96/43 - IMPLICATIONS OF COUNCIL DIRECTION RE DUPLEXlNG The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/43 which discusses implications of direction given by Council with regard to duplexing. It is noted in the report that at the April 29, 1996 Council meeting, the recommendation of Planning Committee to approve a proposed by-law attached to Staff Report PD 96/23 was considered and defeated. The zone change application was referred back to staff to address the implications of the following alternative suggestions: - review of duplexing in all zones from pre-stages 6 & 7 rezonings - 100% duplexing only in new plans of subdivision - waiver of fees for site specific duplex zone change applications - any applicable by-law not taking effect until September 1, 1996 Mr. T. McCabe advised that as a result of direction received at Council's April 29th meeting, staff had made every attempt to accommodate Council's request in the simplest possible format. Mr. McCabe noted, that should more specifics be requested, it would likely lead to more mapping being required, more public consultation being required and more staff time dedicated to the entire issue. In summary, he advised the Committee that staff require direction with regard to the matters itemized in the summary on Page 5 in report PD 96/43. Mr. McCabe pointed out that the simplest approach for the most part to achieve what Council has requested would be a text change to the zoning by-law with regard to the R-2 and R-3 zones. Mayor R. Christy entered the meeting at this point. Councillor J. Ziegler contended that the change requested by Council was not as complicated as staff have suggested and that mapping should not be an issue. Mr. McCabe pointed out that any change to the proposed by-law that was made after the official public meeting would require the holding of a new public meeting to consider a new by-law. Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented that the issues of concern he had are: that neighbourhoods zoned for single detached and affected by duplexing be restored to their status prior to Provincial Bill 120, that duplexing be permitted in 100% of new subdivisions, that fees be waived for site specific zone change applications for duplexes and that some issues dealt with in Stage 6 of the comprehensive rezoning be revisited as previously suggested by Councillor T. Galloway. For the information of the Committee, zoning maps of the City were displayed illustrating R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 residential zones as well as another zoning map illustrating zoning under the previous by-law. Mr. T. McCabe stressed that deletion of duplexing was not a straight translation between the previous zoning and the current zoning. Councillor J. Ziegler noted that when the duplex issue was dealt with by the Committee earlier, there was consensus on all issues on all alternatives except Alternative 2A which was the only 13. PD 96/43 - IMPLICATIONS OF COUNCIL DIRECTION RE DUPLEXlNG (CONT'D) one that was controversial. Accordingly, he suggested that the only point of discussion should be with respect to second units in single detached dwellings and the alternatives that were originally proposed in that regard. Before hearing the delegations, Councillor J. Ziegler tabled a motion requesting the Committee reconfirm the decisions which were previously agreed to on April 22, 1996 approving: MAY 1 3, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 72 - CITY OF KITCHENER - Alternative lB, which deletes the provisions allowing a second unit in semi-detached houses and townhouses - Alternative 3C, which provides for a minimum lot width of 10.5 m (34.4 ft.) and a minimum lot area of 325 sq.m. (3500 sq.ft.) for duplexes - Alternative 4A, which does not propose any change to the by-law and allows continuation tandem parking and one parking space to be provided less than 6 metres from the street line - in place of Alternative 5, directing the Planning and Economic Development Department to investigate the feasibility of administrative procedures and fee structure related to requiring registration for duplex dwellings and to report to the Planning and Economic Development Committee of Councillors M. Yantzi and John Smola advised that they were opposed to the above decisions made earlier. Councillor K. Redman was absent from the meeting at this point. Councillor B. Vrbanovic questioned if the major issues could be separated and dealt with in several by-laws. Mr. T. McCabe advised that it would be staff's preference to incorporate all of the issues into one by-law. Mr. John Schnarr appeared as a delegation representing the Kitchener Waterloo Home Builders Association which submitted a letter dated May 9, 1996 on the subject of duplexing. It was noted in the letter that one of the advantages of duplexing in existing areas is the efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. However, this will be lost when duplexing is no longer recognized as "as of right" in a zone between the inner City zone and suburban zones. He commented on the fact that proposals for duplexing were cost sensitive and impacted by processing regulations. It was also suggested that this approach could result in illegal duplexing and further strengthen the underground economy. Ms. Sally Gunz appeared as a delegation and commented that she was confused by the Committee's approach to the duplexing issue. She stated that her community as part of the Stage 6 planning process had carefully participated and negotiated zoning which was considered appropriate. She could not understand what had happened to bring the current situation about and why the City would be considering rezoning in advance of the required five year review. Ms. Gunz stated that the existing zoning was put in place irrespective of the policies of the former provincial government as a result of a detailed planning and public meeting process that took place. She suggested that opening up the zoning process without any clear direction would end up being a costly undertaking. Councillor C. Weylie stated that Stage 6 rezonings were completed before duplexing became a City wide issue and advised that she had not supported duplexing in the Stage 7 rezonings simply because the provincial government had passed the "as of right" legislation. Ms. Gunz commented that many municipalities chose to include duplexing within their zoning and that in Kitchener, staff had persuaded residents as well as Council to accept duplexing. Councillor Jake Smola stated that the decision being referred to was one that was made by the previous Council and that he did not feel bound to it. Ms. Gunz stated that she had concern that duplexing would only be removed from certain areas. Councillor T. Galloway stated that prior to the Stage 6 issues, previous Council's as a matter of policy did deny "as of right" duplexing. He suggested that the rezonings under Stage 6 and 7 with regard to duplexing had more to do with immanency of provincial legislation than real support. Mr. T. McCabe clarified that the rezonings within Stage 6 were just an implementation of inner city secondary plans and it was only in the middle of the rezoning process with respect to Stage 7 that duplexing became an issue. 13. PD 96/43 - IMPLICATIONS OF COUNCIL DIRECTION RE DUPLEXlNG (CONT'D) Ms. Judy-Anne Chapman appeared as a delegation to support the content of her letter dated May 9, 1996 distributed to the Committee. She stated that she had been actively involved in extensive meetings that took place within the Stage 7 planning process. She confirmed that it was the City's position that planning decisions such as the duplexing issue were better left at the municipal level rather than the provincial level. She pointed out that residents of her neighbourhood were unanimously against duplexing and that they had requested R-1 zoning under the Stage 7 rezonings in order to prevent duplexing as provided in the R-2 zone. In summary, she requested the Committee correct the planning that was done on the duplex issue with a minimum of work. Mr. T. McCabe commented that some peculiar situations would be encountered as it relates to PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - 73 - CITY OF KITCHENER duplexing if previous zoning was resurrected. As an example, he pointed out that on Silvercrest, Stage 7 designated R-2 zoning but the old zoning permitted duplexing. Councillor K. Redman suggested that the duplexing issue not be dealt with and that instead it be placed as a question on the ballot for the next municipal election in November 1997. She suggested a Council decision at this time would result in a bad decision and a referendum would allow the citizens to decide the matter. On the issue of planning process required at this point, Mr. T. McCabe advised that the minimum legislative requirement would be for the municipality to place an ad in the newspaper summarizing the effect of any proposed by-law in regard to the duplex issue. Ms. C. Ladd advised that if any proposed by-law was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, it could very well be at least 12 months before a Hearing was held and Council's decision on the matter would have to be represented by someone other than staff. In response to Councillor M. Yantzi, Ms. C. Ladd advised that in any appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, currently staff are still working under Bill 163, Planning Act, and related policies but it was expected that Bill 20 would be proclaimed at anytime which would then introduce a new set of policies. A motion by Councillor K. Redman to refer the duplexing issue to the November 1997 municipal election as a question to be added on the election ballot was voted on and lost. Councillor J. Ziegler's earlier motion respecting Alternatives lB, 3C, 4A and investigation of registration of duplexes and direction to hold a public meeting to deal with the issue of second units in single detached dwellings was put to a vote and carried. Mr. T. McCabe then requested direction from the Committee in regard to deletion of duplexes from the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, noting there was a major problem with the R-4 zone that would involve remapping. Councillor J. Ziegler requested that duplexes be permitted wherever they were permitted previously. Mr. T. McCabe advised that existing duplexes could be dealt with by either: confirming legal non conforming status, legalized on a site specific basis or legalized by a vacuum clause in the new by-law. Mr. McCabe stated that his preference was a vacuum approach in a new by-law. Councillor B. Vrbanovic questioned how difficult it would be to correspond with owners in former R- 2B areas and R-4 areas. Ms. C. Ladd replied that it would be difficult, labour intensive as to mapping and also require analysis of the impacts. Councillor K. Redman questioned how areas such as Cedar Hill would be treated and Councillor John Smola commented that areas designated R-5 would request R-4 zoning. Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, commented that preliminary circulation of Stage 7 and Central Frederick was dealt with under the comprehensive rezoning by-law after passing of the provincial "as of right" legislation; whereas, rezonings under Stage 6 were completed in January 1994. Councillor J. Ziegler noted that as of February 1, 1994, there was agreement with all zoning and with R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning proposed for Stage 7. Ms. Ladd noted that when Stage 7 was circulated it had zoning to permit duplexes in R-4A zones but the provincial legislation 13. PD 96/43 - IMPLICATIONS OF COUNCIL DIRECTION RE DUPLEXlNG (CONT'D) imposed duplexing City wide. She pointed out that it would be necessary to recreate the R-4A zoning where it was proposed but this would require a city wide advertisement. At this point, the Committee considered unresolved issues and the direction requested by staff in PD 96/43. A series of motions were considered and agreed to that: - include a vacuum provision for existing duplexes in the proposed by-law - waive signage requirements for site specific zone change applications for duplexes - waive zone change application fees in areas where duplexing was permitted in Stage 6 & 7 but is now to be prohibited - apply duplexing to new plans of subdivision receiving draft approval after proclamation of Bill PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - 74 - CITY OF KITCHENER 120 (May 31, 1994) - retains zoning of the inner city as zoned with the passing of Stage 6 of the comprehensive zoning by-law - provides notice only by advertisement of a public meeting to be held on October 7, 1996 to consider a proposed by-law with no direct circulation nor public consultation prior to the official public meeting - prohibits duplexes in R-2 and R-3 zones - makes no change to R-4 zones with respect to permitted uses On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That with regard to City Council's April 29, 1996 referral of Zone Change Application 96/09/TC (City of Kitchener), we approve the following as direction to staff in the preparation of a new proposed by-law, policies and procedures for duplexing: (a) the proposed by-law shall: - delete duplexes as a permitted use in R-2 and R-3 zones - increase the minimum lot width for duplexes in the R-4 zone to 10.5 metres (34.4 ft.) and require a minimum lot area of 325 square metres (3500 sq.ft.) - prohibit second units in semi-detached dwellings and street townhouses - introduce a vacuum provision for existing duplexes - be advertised for a public meeting to be held October 7, 1996 (b) policies/procedures: - notwithstanding Council's zone change notice sign policy, all signage requirements for zone change applications to permit duplexes shall be waived - all application fees shall be waived for zone change applications for duplexes within those areas previously zoned to permit duplexes (R-2 and R-3) - all new plans of subdivision receiving draft approval after the proclamation of Bill 120 (May 31, 1994) shall continue to be zoned to permit duplexes and all new plans of subdivision from this date forward shall be zoned to permit duplexes" A recorded vote was taken and Councillors J. Ziegler, Jake Smola, C. Weylie, T. Galloway, B. Vrbanovic and G. Lorentz voted in favour while Mayor R. Christy and Councillors M. Wagner, M. Yantzi, K. Redman and John Smola voted in the negative. 14. NEW BUSINESS Councillor K. Redman introduced an item as new business with regard to the possible purchase of Randerson Parkette. On motion by Councillor K. Redman - it was resolved: "That Planning, Legal and Parks staff be directed to review the possibility of acquiring Randerson Parkette into City ownership, including possible land acquisition from the Park Trust Fund." 15. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk