Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1996-06-24PED\1996-06-24 JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:30 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Councillors John Smola, G. Lorentz, K. Redman, B. Vrbanovic, T. Galloway, M. Yantzi, J. Ziegler, M. Wagner and Jake Smola. Mayor R. Christy entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, V. Gibaut, J. Jantzi and Messrs. J. Gazzola, T. McCabe, B. Stanley, J. Shivas, D. Mansell, R. Mattice, P. Wetherup, G. Borovilos, L. Bensason and L.W. Neil. 1. MARKET "INSITE" PRESENTATION BY JOHN WHITNEY Ms. V. Gibaut advised that she had invited Mr. John Whitney to make a similar presentation that he had given to the Business & Industry Advisory Committee which relates to land, industrial markets and office markets within Canada's Technology Triangle (CTT). Mr. John Whitney appeared as a delegation to outline a shortened version of a market "insite" presentation that he hoped would give investors and the banking industry a better sense of what was going on in the market place and what the future held. He commented on the volume and prices of municipal land sales during the last five years and expected sales within the CTT in 1996. He noted that industrial demand was mediocre, that the worst was over and that development charges were not understood by industrial/office developers. Mr. Whitney forecast increased building sales and rental rates as a result of a shortage of industrial space. He commented on development program approaches involving design build, recycled buildings and speculative building. He noted that Kitchener's challenge was what to do with functionally obsolete buildings and referred to the market signal the City had given in this regard. Mr. Whitney stated that the office market was not in as good shape as the industrial market. He referred to the reducing but large vacancy rate in the downtown and to Kitchener's suburban office market which was small by comparative standards with other area municipalities. He pointed out that downtown space was available at a bargain price and that the negative perception problem the downtown has had appears to be changing. Mr. Whitney then addressed the future of offices in business parks and also suggested positive absorption of available vacant space would be ongoing over the next few years. Concern was expressed by Committee members regarding his comments about the development charge. Mr. Whitney stated that industrial and office developers were not accustomed to such charge at the building permit phase and were resistant to it. Councillor T. Galloway questioned if the City was losing development as a result of the development charge issue and Mr. Whitney replied that the charge does encourage investors to look to other municipalities before making an investment decision. Councillor Galloway questioned if there was anything the City could do in this regard and Mr. Whitney suggested that anything creative would help in assisting the developer in planning and executing their projects. Councillor M. Wagner also questioned the resistance regarding the development charge and Mr. Whitney suggested that deferral or spreading the payments over a longer time frame could provide project encouragement. Councillor M. Wagner also questioned the promotional activities in the four municipalities within the CTT. Mr. Whitney advised that in his view economic development offices in each municipality are necessary as they do function to promote many things but that a clearing house promoting all of the CTT would be helpful. Ms. V. Gibaut referred to the development charge issue and pointed out that new businesses to the municipality have not complained about the charges. She stated that it was local businesses undertaking expansion that lodge complaints about the charge and she suggested a one year moratorium might be helpful in assisting development. Councillor Galloway pointed out that the Region of Waterloo was currently reviewing its development charges. 2. VARIOUS EXTENSION REQUESTS FOR BUILDING IN HURON BUSINESS PARK The Committee was in receipt of a report dated June 20, 1996 from the Economic Development Division recommending that several purchasers of land in Huron Business Park be permitted an extension of their commitment to build. JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 95 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. VARIOUS EXTENSION REQUESTS FOR BUILDING IN HURON BUSINESS PARK (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That a blanket extension of Clause 2(b) of the Offer to Purchase to July 1, 1997 be granted to the following purchasers of land in Huron Business Park which have not constructed buildings to date: Site 84A Site 95 Site 109 Site 113 Site 114 Berkshire Building Corporation Joe Sukola, KSK Framing Matt Strgar and Mario Tomac Leenan Property Management Leenan Property Management" REVISIONS TO STANDARD OFFER TO PURCHASE FOR PHASE 3 OF HURON BUSINESS PARK The Committee was in receipt of a report dated June 20, 1996 from the Economic Development Division recommending that certain wording in the standard Huron Business Park Offer to Purchase for Phase 3 should be amended to address several issues outlined in the report. It was noted in the report that the proposed amendments reflect discussions between the Division and the Legal Department. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That the City's standard Offer to Purchase for Lands in the Huron Business Park - Phase III be amended in accordance with the details outlined in the report dated June 20, 1996 from the Economic Development Division." PD 96/53 - 381 PIONEER TOWER ROAD - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 96/3/P/RM - JAMES & BARBARA PINCOTT - SOUTH WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/53 dated June 4, 1996 dealing with a demolition control application submitted by James & Barbara Pincott with respect to the property known municipally as 381 Pioneer Tower Road. It was pointed out in the report that the applicant intends to demolish the residence and barn because of the age and deteriorating condition of both structures but there are no future plans for the property after the proposed demolition. It was also noted that the property is not affected by the Rental Housing Protection Act and is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. However, the residence and barn are listed on the City of Kitchener's Inventory of Significant Buildings and the property is considered the most historically significant property in the Region of Waterloo. Council has the option of either refusing or accepting the application and the demolition control by-law provides a set of criteria to assist Council in making its decision. The issues that staff examined both for and against the demolition request are discussed in the report and based on the criteria established by the demolition control by-law, staff recommend refusal of the application because of historical, heritage and architectural significance of the house and barn. Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. He referred to the significance of the property and pointed out that a recommendation of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee was scheduled for consideration by City Council at its meeting to be held July 2, 1996. Councillor T. Galloway advised that he supported refusal and questioned what the appeal procedure for the applicant would be. Mr. B. Stanley advised the applicant could appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. He also spoke to the interrelationship between the Planning Act and the Heritage Act as it relates to this property. Councillor T. Galloway suggested that refusing the application would serve to protect the home for a greater length of time than could be accomplished under the Heritage Act. PD 96/53 - 381 PIONEER TOWER ROAD - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 96/3/P/RM JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 96 - CITY OF KITCHENER - JAMES & BARBARA PINCOTT - SOUTH WARD (CONT'D) Mr. J. Shivas briefly spoke about the procedures under the Planning Act and the Heritage Act and noted that staff would follow both procedures to the letter of the law. Councillor M. Wagner pointed out that LACAC is prepared to proceed with designation of the property and expressed concern that any appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board would entangle potential purchasers of the property and affect the designation procedure. Following further discussion, it was agreed that Planning staff would meet with Legal staff to further consider the issue of how best to proceed in respect to this matter. On motion by Councillor M. Wagner - it was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC 96/3/P/RM (James & Barbara Pincott) requesting approval for the demolition of single detached dwelling and barn located at 381 Pioneer Tower Road legally described as Part Lot 11, Beasley's Broken Front Concession b.~e refused. It is the opinion of this Committee that refusal of this application is proper planning for the City." PD 96~58 - 4 DODGE DRIVE - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FULFILLING CONDITIONS OF ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 95151DNL - MINJAY HOLDINGS LTD. - SOUTH WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/58 dated June 20, 1996 advising that Minjay Holdings Ltd has requested an extension to Council's approval of their zone change to allow them to finalize the conditions of the zone change approval. It was noted in the report that the only condition was receipt of a clearance letter from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and that it relates to the Regional Health Unit verification that the septic system on the subject lands is sufficient to accommodate two dwelling units. On motion by Councillor K. Redman - it was resolved: "That Kitchener Council support an extension to the deadline of fulfilling conditions of approval for Zone Change Application 95/5/DNL (Minjay Holding Ltd - 4 Dodge Drive) to October 14, 1996." PD 96~57 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON 530 KING STREET EAST PD 96/54 - 530 KING STREET EAST - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 96/4/K/RM - MARIA PEEVER IN TRUST - CENTRE WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/57 dated June 18, 1996 and PD 96/54 dated June 10, 1996. Staff Report PD 96/57 deals with the properties known municipally as 530-550 King Street East. It was noted in the report that the subject property was the site of the old Dalton Insurance building located on King Street East between Cameron and Betzner Streets and that the existing building has been vacant and for sale for sometime. The property was recently purchased and efforts of the owner to rent the building were detailed in the report as background information for the benefit of the Committee prior to their consideration of Staff Report PD 96/54. Staff Report PD 96/54 deals with a demolition control application submitted by Maria Peever in Trust with regard to the property known municipally as 530 King Street East. It was noted in the report that the applicant proposes to demolish a mixed use residential structure to PD 96~57 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON 530 KING STREET EAST PD 96/54 - 530 KING STREET EAST - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 96/4/K/RM - MARIA PEEVER IN TRUST - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 97 - CITY OF KITCHENER provide additional parking to meet the zoning requirement for the proposed use of 550 King Street East. The residential structure has been converted to a commercial office but still contains a residential unit. The property is not affected by the Rental Housing Protection Act or by the Ontario Heritage Act. In order to make a recommendation for or against the demolition application, staff examined a number of issues which were outlined in their report and recommend approval of the application. Also it was noted in the report that abutting property owners were provided with a copy of Staff Report PD 96/54. Ms. C. Ladd provided the Committee with an explanation of activity with regard to the subject property to date and advised that the current owners now propose to develop a plaza complex and that to meet the parking requirement for such use they have applied for demolition of 530 King Street East. Mr. R. Mattice explained that when the Dalton Insurance built their new building, Council had approved demolition of 530 King Street East to provide parking but that when 542 King Street East became available it was demolished instead and the approval for demolition of 530 King Street East was rescinded. He noted that the subject property was basically surrounded by parking and the existing commercial tenant would move to the vacant Dalton building. Councillor K. Redman advised that she had visited the site and confirmed that 530 King Street East was a house surrounded by asphalt. In response to Councillor Jake Smola, Ms. C. Ladd advised that there would be multiple uses in the building. Councillor Jake Smola then questioned if staff's approach to this application was consistent with how similar requests were dealt with. Ms. C. Ladd replied that the applicant has followed all standard procedures required by the City with respect to their proposed development for which they applied and were refused and then submitted a revised plan which is the subject of consideration. Mr. Heinz Karrenbrock and Mrs. Petra Karrenbrock appeared as a delegation to oppose the application. A submission from the delegation was distributed with the Committee's agenda material. The delegation also submitted a petition this date signed by area residents which was distributed to Committee members. Mrs. P. Karrenbrock commented that the applicant would do anything to obtain approval for use of the building. It was her view the proposed parking lot and vehicular activity taking place immediately adjacent to her residence would be detrimental to her health. She suggested that the new owner of the former Dalton building should buy land on the opposite side of King Street for required parking. As well, she questioned the changing numbers as to the amount of parking space required. Mayor R. Christy entered the meeting at this point. In response to Councillor J. Ziegler, Mrs. Karrenbrock advised that she did discuss the possibility with the new owners of the former Dalton building of selling her home to them. Councillor J. Ziegler questioned if Mrs. Karrenbrock thought an extra 7 or 9 parking spaces would have such a negative effect on her. She advised that the extra 7 or 9 parking spaces would mean that additional cars were coming and going all day long and that was the issue. Councillor Ziegler also questioned if the building was open and Ms. C. Ladd advised that a building permit was issued for the portion of the building that the owner could legally operate at this time. Mr. H. Karrenbrock commented that he had estimated a significant number of vehicles per hour accessing the parking lot and noted that their home was 3 feet from the property line. Further, he referred to the several site plans that have been presented and questioned which one was going to be used. In response to Councillor K. Redman, Mr. Karrenbrock indicated that he was concerned over the number of entrance/exit movements taking place within the parking lot and not just the parking itself. PD 96/57 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON 530 KING STREET EAST PD 96/54 - 530 KING STREET EAST - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 96/4/K/RM - MARIA PEEVER IN TRUST - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 98 - CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. H. Karrenbrock appeared as a delegation and commented on the application that was submitted to the Committee of Adjustment by the owners of the former Dalton building and refused by the Committee. He stated that it was his view staff have bent over backwards to accommodate the proposed use of the property. He pointed out that other properties have had to meet the parking requirement for individual developments and suggested there was a double standard being applied. Mr. Paul Britton, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant to advise of their support for the staff recommendation. He indicated that his clients had purchased the former Dalton building plus the property known municipally as 530 King Street East and that they had bought the Dalton building on the understanding of a permissable medical use but did not take into account the parking requirement for such use. He confirmed that a building permit was issued for the upper floor of the Dalton building as use of it met the parking requirement. He noted that the Committee of Adjustment had refused an application for variance from the parking requirement and also that the position of Mr. & Mrs. Karrenbrock was somewhat contradictory in that they were both opposed to reduction of the parking requirement and opposed to the applicant meeting the parking requirement. He briefly reviewed the history of 530 King Street East and stated that his clients have attempted to address concerns expressed by the Karrenbrocks. He also pointed out that staff have indicated that they would work with abutting property owners to address any concerns relative to the control of parking. Finally, he pointed out that area businesses support the demolition and reuse of the former Dalton building. Councillor K. Redman commented that the volume of cars utilizing the parking lot was a concern of Mr. & Mrs. Karrenbrock and she questioned if an estimate was available as to the number of vehicles. Mr. P. Britton advised that the City completed a study that addresses uses such as that proposed and subsequently increased its parking requirement. He noted that under the revised proposal the medical clinic component of the building was decreasing and that the parking requirement has been lowered as a result of the use change to a plaza complex. Accordingly, the parking requirement will be set at 31 spaces or up to 35 spaces depending on final plans. He confirmed that the only entrance/exit would be to King Street and that the existing exit to Cameron Street would be removed and that this would be beneficial to the Karrenbrock property. In response to uncertainty expressed as to site plans, Mr. Britton clarified that: plan #1 relates to 24 parking spaces and was currently registered on title, plan #2 relates to 31 parking spaces and plan #3 relates to 35 parking spaces subject to approval of a minor variance. He indicated that their preference was for plan #3. Mayor R. Christy pointed out that in reference to the proposal to demolish 530 King Street East it was his recollection that the property used to contain a used car dealership and associated repair garage which was removed some years ago and that the property has actually improved over the years. He questioned the issue of landscaping and Mr. Britton advised that the agreement will have to be revised to take account of that issue as well as the King Street access only provision. Mr. David Gascho appeared as a delegation and advised that he was not opposed to the recommendation. He referred to property on Cameron Street South which he had purchased and renovated notwithstanding the fact that it fell one block away from the downtown definition which would have assisted him with renovation financing. In view of his experience, he suggested that a little leeway should be given to the new owners of the former Dalton Insurance building to undertake reuse and rental of the premises. No other delegations were registered regarding this matter. Councillor J. Ziegler supported approval of the application for the following reasons: the former Dalton building was a commercial building, the residential use at 530 King Street was a secondary use of the property, Council previously approved demolition of 530 King Street East, the use for the entire property as now proposed was appropriate and would provide PD 96/57 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON 530 KING STREET EAST PD 96/54 - 530 KING STREET EAST - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 96/4/K/RM - MARIA PEEVER IN TRUST - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) employment, the applicant has changed the proposed use to meet by-law requirements, the use represents proper planning, the entrance on King Street was beneficial to property owners on JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 99 - CITY OF KITCHENER Cameron Street, the King Street corridor was a commercial area, and that the applicants consultant developed another proposal for consideration and that consideration was not an act of favouritism on the part of staff. Councillor K. Redman stated that she supported the application for the same reasons outlined by Councillor J. Ziegler. She assured the Karrenbrock's that the new owners of the former Dalton building were willing to work with them to address any concerns and it has been noted that they would ensure that staff using the building would park their vehicles near the Karrenbrock house so as to lessen the number of vehicular movements on the portion of the parking lot immediately adjacent to the Karrenbrock's. Councillor M. Yantzi stated that he supported the application since the house was actually an island in a parking lot. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that approval of the demolition was a sound decision and it was his view the parking situation would actually improve for the Karrenbrock's with only one access point. Councillor Jake Smola questioned if a condition could be included with the approval as to what site plan would be put in place. Mr. B. Stanley advised that a condition of issuance of the demolition permit would require a landscape plan dealing with fencing and other issues and that staff would be fully addressing this matter. Councillor T. Galloway stated that overall the proposal would represent an improvement particularly the single access to King Street. Mayor R. Christy also commented that the application was an opportunity to actually improve a situation that if it had remained it could lead to deterioration. The recommendation in Staff Report PD 96/57 was then considered. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That PD 96/57, 530 - 550 King Street East (John Peever), be received for information." The recommendation in Staff Report PD 96~54 was then considered. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - it was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC 96/4/K/RM (Maria Peever In Trust) requesting approval for the demolition of single detached dwelling located at 530 King Street East legally described as Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 100 be approved. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." LETTER & PD 95/125 (REVISED) - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES & ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS The Committee was in receipt of a letter dated June 13, 1996 from Ms. C. Ladd dealing with Public Participation Procedures & Alternate Dispute Resolution in the Planning Process. Attached to her letter was Planning and Development Staff Report PD 95/125 (revised) dated June 13, 1996 which includes revisions incorporated by staff as a result of direction given by City Council at their meeting held February 12, 1996. At that time, Staff Report PD 95/125 was deferred and the Department was requested to undertake wide circulation of the report to Neighbourhood Associations, the K-W Homebuilders, Planning Consultants, etc., and to solicit their input for consideration with regard to this matter. LETTER & PD 95/125 (REVISED) - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES & ALTERNATE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS (CONT'D) The June 13th staff letter points out that an extensive consultation process has now been completed and the majority of comments received were favourable to the recommendations and only a small number of very minor changes have been proposed by staff to the original recommendation. The changes that staff propose are incorporated in Staff Report PD 95/125 (revised) and are shown in the revised report in bold type to assist the Committee in its consideration of this matter. JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 100 - CITY OF KITCHENER Ms. C. Ladd provided a brief overview of the report and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. She pointed out that existing policy was divided into three major areas and that it is proposed three old policies relating to the subject matter be repealed and replaced with one new comprehensive policy. In addition to the recommendations in respect to revised policy, staff also reviewed other associated activities and have included recommendations in this regard shown as B, C, D, E and F in the report. In response to Councillor K. Redman, Ms. Ladd advised that staff did not have a target date on development of the Citizens Guide referred to in the report. Councillor M. Yantzi questioned if staff were able to outline what was appropriate for staff to mediate in the alternative dispute resolution function. Ms. C. Ladd replied that staff found it impossible to establish guidelines in this respect and feel it was more appropriate to address each case on its own merit. Further, she noted that the experience to date has been that adversarial parties have accepted the staff role as an independent one in the mediation process. Councillor T. Galloway referred to Recommendation A1 in the staff report and questioned the reference to "The Record" for advertising purposes and suggested that it be replaced by the words "the appropriate newspaper". Mr. T. McCabe stated that he supported the revision proposed by Councillor Galloway. Councillor T. Galloway questioned how the issue of recirculation of Plans of Subdivision was handled in the recommendation. Ms. C. Ladd advised that there was provision for full recirculation of applications that had become dated. Also in response to Councillor Galloway, she advised that once approval of a subdivision has been given there was no requirement for recirculation. Councillor T. Galloway stated that he was concerned about Recommendation C as to what the expectations are in terms of neighbourhood mandates. In this regard he questioned if it was an objective that was desirable or if the City should be encouraging neighbourhood associations to become more active. Ms. C. Ladd advised that staff have met with and discussed this issue with three neighbourhood associations and staff were comfortable with either approach in Recommendation C. Councillor Galloway proposed that Recommendation C be revised so as to provide that each neighbourhood/neighbourhood association within the City be encouraged to develop a "Neighbourhood Development Committee". Dr. Judy Ann Chapman appeared as a delegation to speak on the subject report and thank staff and the Committee for formalizing the planning process as proposed in the policy contained in Staff Report PD 95/125. She confirmed total agreement with following a consensus approach to issues at the neighbourhood level before matters reached the Planning and Economic Development Committee. The recommendations in the staff report were then considered and the revisions proposed earlier by Councillor T. Galloway with regard to the appropriate newspaper in A1 and addition of reference to neighbourhood association in C were agreed to. The recommendations, as revised, were then considered. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic - it was resolved: "That the recommendations contained in Planning & Development Staff Report PD 95/125 (Public Participation and Alternative Dispute Resolution in the planning process - a procedural review) as revised, be approved as outlined below: LETTER & PD 95/125 (REVISED) - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES & ALTERNATE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS (CONT'D) That all previous Council Policy's related to public participation be rescinded including Policy Number 1-700 "Notice of Public Meetings"; Policy Number 1-705 "Public Notification Signs - Zone Change/Official Plan Amendment"; and Policy Number 1-710 "Public Notification - Zone Change & Official Plan Amendments" and be replaced with the following comprehensive policy: Public Participation in the Planninq Process PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1996 - 101 - CITY OF KITCHENER That City Council adopt the following policy in respect to dissemination of information to and involvement by the public relative to applications for Zone Changes and Municipal Plan Amendments and for new Plans of Subdivision: "That in respect to City Initiated Zone Changes and Municipal Plan Amendments which have the effect of broad policy or contextual changes, no preliminary circulation be undertaken. In these cases, the proposed changes shall be referred to the appropriate body for review (ie. K-W Homebuilders, Development Industry, Neighbourhood Associations etc.) as deemed appropriate by the Department of Planning and Development. Notice of such text or policy changes shall continue to be advertised in the appropriate newspaper in accordance with applicable Provincial legislation. Preliminary circulation shall be undertaken for all city initiated Municipal Plan Amendments and Zone Changes which are site specific and affect only a small defined area of land. All city initiated Municipal Plan Amendments and Zone Changes on private property and Zone Changes for removal of Holding By-laws dealing only with services and roadworks shall be exempt from signage requirements." That in respect to Site Specific or Proponent Initiated Zone Changes or Municipal Plan Amendments, the following process be followed: a) The Department of Planning and Development be directed to process all applications received for Municipal Plan Amendments unless, in the opinion of the General Manager of Planning and Development, the proposed amendment is considered inappropriate for processing in which case, a request to refuse the application shall be submitted to and considered by City Council; b) That notice of the receipt of an application for either a Municipal Plan Amendment or Zone Change be circulated to all property owners within 120 metres of the property subject to the application(s) and appropriate groups and agencies (ie. Neighbourhood Associations) in the form of a preliminary circulation letter generally explaining the nature of the proposal, including all permitted current and proposed land uses and the required legal changes with respect to land use designations and zoning. Every effort shall be made to use 'plain language' in the drafting of the letter so as to enable the public to generally understand the proposal that is being considered. Preliminary circulation shall not be required in the following general circumstances unless the General Manager of Planning and Development determines that it may be appropriate: If the purpose of the application(s) is to recognize an existing situation which has not been the subject of complaint; ii) If the proposal results in a city wide text change to the Municipal Plan or Zoning By-law and is not property specific; LETTER & PD 95/125 (REVISED) - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES & ALTERNATE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS (CONT'D) iii) If the application(s) is required to implement a mediated settlement reached by all parties to the original proposal and dispute and which settlement will not have an unanticipated or additional effect on the adjacent properties or immediate neighbourhood; iv) Any other such circumstance where, in the opinion of the General Manager of Planning and Development in consultation with the Ward Councillor, preliminary circulation is seen to have little purpose or benefit. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1996 - 102 - CITY OF KITCHENER c) That the proponent be required to post a notice sign on the subject lands on all public street frontages advising of the application(s). Any proposal which is considered "major" development or redevelopment in the opinion of the General Manager of Planning and Development shall require a personalized notice sign to be provided and erected by the owner of the subject lands, and shall be prepared in accordance with the following: All signs shall be constructed of metal or wood and shall be a minimum size of 1.2 meters X 1.2 metres (4 feet X 4 feet) and shall maintain a minimum ground clearance of 0.9 metres (3 feet). Portable signs shall not be permitted to be used for notification signs; ii) All signs shall consist of a white background with primarily black lettering, with red lettering being used only for specified highlighting; iii) All signs shall be consistent in content and shall include; proposed land use designation and zoning in general terms; a general description of the development proposal; the owners name; the application number(s); reference to the Department of Planning and Development and the related telephone number; and a key map. The content of the signs shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Planning and Development; iv) All sign locations shall be visible and unobstructed and shall be subject to approval by the Department of Planning and Development; v) All signs shall be maintained relative to structure and paint, said maintenance to be guaranteed by a letter of undertaking submitted by the owner to the Department of Planning and Development. All other proposals which are not considered "major" or "significant" shall require standard City issued notice signs. Where a 'major' or 'significant' proposal has more than one street frontage only one personalized notice sign shall be required, said sign to be erected on the major street frontage as determined by the Department of Planning and Development. Standard city issued zone change notice signs may be used for all other street frontages. All required notice signs are to be erected immediately prior to or concurrently with the mailing of the preliminary circulation letter; d) That community information meetings be recognized as an effective and integral part of the planning process and that the Department of Planning and Development be authorized to arrange community information meetings in consultation with the Ward Councillor in the following circumstances; (i) In coordination with the preliminary circulation of a proposal, to be determined upon receipt of an application either for a Municipal Plan LETTER & PD 951125 (REVISED) - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES & ALTERNATE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS (CONT'D) Amendment or Zone Change, where it is believed that the proposal is complicated or controversial and an information meeting at the front end of the process is deemed beneficial. Notice of such meetings in this instance will be included in the Department's preliminary circulation letter; or (ii) At the end of the preliminary circulation period where a number of issues and concerns have been raised through the circulation of the proposal; or At any stage of the process, prior to formal submission to Planning Committee, if new concerns or new information have been brought to light. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1996 - 103 - CITY OF KITCHENER All such meetings will be held within the neighbourhood subject to the proposal, where feasible. e) Where issues are raised through responses to the preliminary circulation letter or at a community information meeting, staff of the Department of Planning and Development be instructed to attempt to resolve all issues before a public meeting is advertised and held by Planning and Economic Development Committee. In this regard, the Department of Planning and Development is encouraged to use mediation or other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution to resolve the issues; f) That all staff reports pertaining to Municipal Plan Amendments and Zone Change Applications, for consideration by Planning and Economic Development Committee be finalized and signed prior to the giving of notice for a Public Meeting in the newspaper. Specifically, no authorization for the placement of notice advertisements be given until reports are completed and signed; g) The staff reports pertaining to Municipal Plan Amendments and Zone Changes, be mailed to all those persons who responded to the preliminary circulation of the application(s) or attended any public meetings, together with a copy of the notice of the Public Meeting, at the same time as the placement of the Public Meeting advertisement in the newspaper; h) That the Department of Planning and Development be directed to mail notice of the Public Meeting together with the related staff report to all persons within 120 metres of the lands subject to the application(s) under the following circumstances: if preliminary circulation of said applications occurred in excess of 1 year previous to the date of the Public Meeting by Planning and Economic Development Committee; or ii) if, in the opinion of the General Manager of Planning and Development or the Ward Councillor, there was significant interest demonstrated by the residents of the neighbourhood in which the proposal was located; or iii) if significant new development has occurred in the area of the application(s) in which case a updated list from the Property Data Base computer file of all property owners within the 120 metre (400 feet) circulation area shall be obtained. Said list shall be checked against the original preliminary circulation list and all new owners appearing thereon together with all others responding from beyond and within the circulation area shall be mailed a copy of the staff LETTER & PD 95/125 (REVISED) - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES & ALTERNATE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS (CONT'D) report and notified of the date and time of the Public Meeting to be held by the Planning and Economic Development Committee; Should an appeal be lodged to the Municipal Plan Amendment or Zoning By- law, the Department of Planning and Development be directed to attempt to resolve the appeal through acceptable Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures, where, in the opinion of the General Manager of Planning and Development, it is felt such efforts would be effective. That with respect to the development of new plans of subdivision, after draft approval has been granted by the appropriate approval authority, the following requirements be satisfied: a) That at the time of registration of the Plan of Subdivision, the Subdivider agrees to erect and maintain a billboard sign(s) at each major entrance to the JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 104 - CITY OF KITCHENER subdivision, as identified by the Department of Planning and Development, in accordance with the following criteria; · Graphics shall depict the features within the limits of the plan of subdivision including approved street layout, zoning, lotting and specific land uses, types of parks, storm water management areas, Ontario Hydro Corridors, trail links and walkways, notification regarding contacts for school sites, noise attenuation measures, environmentally sensitive areas, tree protection measure areas, water courses, flood plain areas, railway lines, hazard areas etc. and shall also make general reference to land uses on adjacent lands including references to any formal development applications all to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Development; · Billboard signs shall be located in areas conveniently accessible to the public for viewing. Landscaping and site works may be required between the sign location and public roadway in order to provide convenient accessibility for viewing; · The Subdivider agrees to maintain the billboard signs in approved locations or subsequent locations to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Planning and Development. The Subdivider agrees that such billboard signs shall be maintained in locations and on lands which may be under its title or under the title of its heirs, successors or assigns until the development of seventy-five percent complete; · The Subdivider shall ensure that the information is current as of the date of subdivision approval. Notice shall be posted on the billboard sign advising that some of the information on the plan may not be current and for updated and accurate information enquiries should be made at the City's Department of Planning and Development. b) That the Subdivider agrees to make a Grading Control Plan available for the subject lands to all relevant builders and prospective purchasers prior to building permits being issued, in accordance with the provisions contained within the standard residential subdivision agreement; c) That the Subdivider shall be responsible for distributing to prospective purchasers the land use plan for the neighbourhood in which the subdivision is located which is current as of the date of subdivision approval, including any application(s) for development on the subject or adjacent lands. Notice shall be attached advising that the plan may be subject to change and for updated information, enquiries should be made at the City's Department of Planning and Development. LETTER & PD 95/125 (REVISED) - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES & ALTERNATE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS (CONT'D) d) That the Department of Planning and Development be directed to prepare composite maps for each neighbourhood which has a significant amount of new subdivision development or the potential to have a significant amount of new development showing all newly registered, draft approved and formally submitted plans of subdivision. These composite maps shall be available from the Department of Planning and Development and each new subdivision development which has a model home or central sales office shall post such composite map in an area accessible for public viewing and shall make copies available to prospective purchasers. e) That the City standard Subdivision Agreement be modified to reflect the requirements contained in clauses a), b), c) and d) above. f) That the Department of Planning and Development continue to have ongoing discussions with the Kitchener-Waterloo Home Builders Association Liaison Committee and the Real Estate Industry for the purpose of developing and improving methods for providing information to new home buyers. JUNE 24, 1996 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 105 - CITY OF KITCHENER That City Council supports the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the resolution of issues related to planning applications and development proposals. In this regard, the following guidelines relative to Alternative Dispute Resolution is recommended: a) In the event of a dispute, staff of the Department of Planning and Development be directed to attempt to resolve outstanding issues through the use of alternative dispute resolution methods; b) In those instances where staff of the Department of Planning and Development are not accepted as being an objective party in the dispute, consideration shall be given to using external mediation services. c) On an interim basis, external mediation services shall be funded from the Department of Planning and Development's existing budget under an account reserved for OMB/Regional Fees. In this regard, the General Manager of Planning and Development be authorized to over expend this $4,600.00 account to a maximum of $2,000.00 in 1996 if required. In order to sustain mediation as a long term initiative, the Department of Planning and Development be directed to review various alternatives for funding external mediation services as part of its overall review of fees for the 1997 budget." That in consultation with the Ward Councillor, each Neighbourhood/Neighbourhood Association within the City of Kitchener be encouraged to develop a 'Neighbourhood Development Committee' similar to that which currently exists in Stanley Park, or that a representative from each Neighbourhood be selected to be responsible for planning and development issues within their appropriate neighbourhood. That no formal policy or procedural changes be initiated relative to requirements included in Bill 163 in recognition of the proposed revisions being introduced through Bill 20. That the Department of Planning and Development be directed to review their entire letter and report structure including content presentation and maps in order to ensure that all planning documents are more reader friendly and continue to maintain legally required information. LETTER & PD 95/125 (REVISED) - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES & ALTERNATE RESOLUTION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS (CONT'D) F. That the Department of Planning and Development be further instructed to prepare a citizens guide to understanding and participating in planning their neighbourhood." PD 96~59 - SAFE CITY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION - FILLING OF 2 VACANT COMMITTEE POSITIONS The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/59 dated June 20, 1996 from Mr. B. Stanley advising of a request to fill two vacant positions on the Safe City Committee. On motion by Councillor K. Redman - it was resolved: "That City Council issue instructions to the City Clerk to advertise the two vacant positions on the Safe City Committee for the term ending November 30, 1996." MEMO - 194 BLEAMS ROAD - TEMPORARY SITE SPECIFIC PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITY - PPM CANADA INC ON BEHALF OF K-W HYDRO - FAIRVIEW WARD Councillor J. Ziegler advised that he had an indirect conflict of interest in respect to this issue as PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 24, 1996 - 106 - CITY OF KITCHENER his parents own 138 Bleams Road which is adjacent to the subject property. The Committee was in receipt of a memorandum dated June 20, 1996 from Mr. L. Masseo advising that in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Management Facility Location Guidelines which were adopted by City Council on June 17, 1996, PPM Canada Inc. has made application with the Ministry of Environment and Energy for a temporary site specific PCB destruction facility at 194 Bleams Road. Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. He did note that the matter had been placed before the Committee as information in accordance with policy to provide same as soon as possible. 10. 238 KING STREET WEST - PLANET FUSION Councillor K. Redman advised that the operators of Planet Fusion have requested permission to paint the name of their facility on the building and have asked for exemption from the current by- law requirements. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he opposed the request and noted that the City could be faced with requests from other restaurants. Following further discussion, Councillor Redman indicated that she would discuss the issue with the operators and may bring the matter to City Council for additional consideration. 11. BRANDY CRESCENT - TOWNHOUSE PROJECT Councillor Jake Smola referred to a townhouse development on Brandy Crescent and questioned how staff would deal with the issue of rear yard access. Mr. T. McCabe advised that staff could encourage the developer to provide for rear yard access but could not legally require it. He indicated that staff would undertake to work with the developers to achieve rear yard access. 12. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk