HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1996-09-23P E D\1996 -09 -23
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996
CITY OF KITCHENER
The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 2:10 p.m. under
Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Mayor R. Christy and Councillors John
Smola, G. Lorentz, K. Redman, T. Galloway, B. Vrbanovic, J. Ziegler, M. Wagner and Jake Smola.
Officials present:
Ms. C. Ladd, L. Pasternak, V. Gibaut and Messrs. J. Gazzola, T. McCabe, B.
Stanley, G. Andersen, D. Mansell, V. Labreche, P. Wetherup, J. Shivas, T. Clancy,
B. Arnot, T. Boutilier, B. Page and L.W. Neil.
MEMO - RESPONSE BY THE LAND PURCHASING OFFICER
PD 96/61 - VANIER DRIVE SOUTH OF CONESTOGA PARKWAY - LANE CLOSURE APPLICATION 96/1/V/VL
- PORTION OF VANIER DRIVE (FORMERLY FULTON STREET)
- HALLMAN IDLEWOOD LTD. - FAIRVIEW WARD
The Committee at its meetings held August 6 and September 9, 1996 deferred and referred
consideration of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/61 and a memorandum dated
September 4, 1996 from Mr. G. Andersen to the meeting this date. The Committee was again
circulated with the subject reports.
Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add in respect to the planning report
dealing with the Lane Application request to close a portion of Vanier Drive that was formerly
known as Fulton Street.
Mr. P. Grespan, McCarter Grespan Robson Beynon, appeared as a delegation on behalf of
Hallman Idlewood Ltd., to address Condition #3 of the staff recommendation and confirmed that he
had an opportunity to review the memorandum prepared by Mr. Andersen. He advised that from
his clients perspective there was no intention to expand the existing property as developed. He
noted that Hallman was prepared to pay $1,000 plus costs to transfer title of this remnant parcel of
land. Mr. Grespan indicated that the transaction would assist the City by relieving it from annual
maintenance costs of the land parcel.
Mr. G. Andersen advised that he had nothing further to add to his memorandum and valuation of
the property at the rate of $3.00 per sq.ft, for an approximate total asking price of $45,000.
In response to Councillor J. Ziegler, Mr. J. Gazzola advised that if the property was transferred into
private hands any additional taxes generated would be minimal. In response to Councillor B.
Vrbanovic, Mr. T. Clancy clarified that there was very little in the amount of annual maintenance
cost of the land parcel to the City. Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented that he found it hard to
accept the $3.00 per sq.ft, valuation when Mr. Grespan's client had paid $11.00 per sq.ft, for
adjoining property and expressed the view that the $3.00 rate was already deeply discounted. Mr.
D. Mansell noted that there were three services running under the subject land and that
encumbrance situation reflected the discounted price to $3.00 per sq.ft. Mr. P. Grespan noted that
the property referred to as being purchased at $11.00 per sq.ft, had contained a house on it and
pointed out that that property had been an eye sore.
Following further discussion, Councillor J. Ziegler suggested that the City not take any action at
this time on the basis that there was no urgency to deal with the land and new information may
arise. Councillor T. Galloway questioned the reference to a possible 60 additional apartment units
being developed if the land parcel was transferred to Hallman Idlewood. Mr. D. Mansell noted that
the parcel is encumbered by easements and any new units would have to be built elsewhere on
the site but would need sufficient land for required parking. In response to Councillor Galloway,
Mr. V. Labreche pointed out that the zoning of the Hallman Idlewood lands was R-9 and the parcel
if added to the total land holding would allow additional development on the existing Hallman
parcel. He noted if any additional apartment units were developed, a development charge in the
amount of $2,400 per unit would be assessed.
Mr. J. Gazzola recommended that the Committee take no action on this matter so as to allow staff
to provide more definitive information on some of the unanswered questions if the remnant parcel
was to be combined with the adjacent developed lands of Hallman Idlewood Ltd., and prepare a
report in this regard for consideration.
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 - 136 - CITY OF KITCHENER
MEMO - RESPONSE BY THE LAND PURCHASING OFFICER
PD 96/61 - VANIER DRIVE SOUTH OF CONESTOGA PARKWAY - LANE CLOSURE APPLICATION 96/1/V/VL
- PORTION OF VANIER DRIVE (FORMERLY FULTON STREET)
- HALLMAN IDLEWOOD LTD. - FAIRVIEW WARD (CONT'D)
On motion by Councillor K. Redman -
it was resolved:
"That due to lack of agreement on fair market value, no action be taken at this time
respecting Lane Application 9611NNL submitted by Hallman Idlewood Limited, as
described in Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/61 - proposed closure of a
portion of Vanier Drive, formerly Fulton Street."
RETENTION OF CONSULTANT RE PROPOSED K-W/NEW JERSEY ECONOMIC TWINNING
The Committee was in receipt of a memorandum dated September 20, 1996 from Ms. V. Gibaut
concerning a proposal for economic twinning between the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo with
the Princeton/New Brunswick area of New Jersey. She stressed that the proposal was for
consulting work to determine if strategic alliances were likely to emerge as a result of an economic
twinning agreement and that the costs to Kitchener for a consultant could be covered within the
1996 Marketing Budget of the Economic Development Division. Ms. Gibaut advised that Ms.
Robin Reenstra-Bryant of Brystra Consultants, Waterloo, was in attendance to provide details
relative to the consulting proposal. Ms. Reenstra-Bryant noted that several preliminary meetings
had taken place in June in regard to this matter and it had been concluded that the Mayor's of the
affected municipalities want assurance there would be some benefits and agreements likely before
a formal initiative was taken to enter into an economic twinning agreement. She stressed that the
purpose was to maximize business relations and trade among the participating municipalities.
Councillor M. Wagner stated that he was generally in favour but noted that it would appear some
alliances are pending in any event and he questioned why there was a need for a consultant. Ms.
V. Gibaut pointed out that each of the City of Kitchener and Waterloo would split half of the cost
and commented that the framework was in place for alliances but that more work needed to be
done. She explained that a focused and dedicated approach was required and that staff of the
Economic Development Division do not have the time to expedite this undertaking. Mayor R.
Christy commented on the realization that a lot of background work and careful research had to be
done prior to concluding any agreement. He noted that the participants each had two Universities
and suggested that he and Mayor Turnbull of Waterloo ensure that the Universities also make
contact as part of the twinning undertaking.
On motion by Councillor M. Wagner -
it was resolved:
"That the proposal submitted by Brystra Consultants, Waterloo to analyze details and
benefits of an Economic Twinning Agreement between the Cities of Kitchener and
Waterloo with the Princeton/New Brunswick area of New Jersey be approved at a total cost
not to exceed $7,500 to be shared 50~50 by Kitchener and Waterloo, and further,
That Kitchener's cost up to $3,750 be expended from the 1996 Marketing Budget of the
Economic Development Division."
PD 96/82 - HOMER WATSON BOULEVARD SOUTH OF BLOCK LINE ROAD EXTENSION - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF STREET NAME
- SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-93007
- DGF INVESTMENTS LIMITED - FAIRVIEW WARD
The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96~82 dated
September 12, 1996. It was noted in the report that at the August 12th Council Meeting a
recommendation for a street name had been defeated and the matter had been referred back to
the Committee for further consideration.
PD 96/82 - HOMER WATSON BOULEVARD SOUTH OF BLOCK LINE ROAD EXTENSION - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF STREET NAME
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 - 137 - CITY OF KITCHENER
- SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-93007
- DGF INVESTMENTS LIMITED - FAIRVIEW WARD (CONT'D)
Staff advised that they had nothing further to add to the report under consideration.
On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler -
it was resolved:
"That City Council approve the following proposed street name for Draft Plan of Subdivision
30T-93007 (DGF Investments Ltd.):
Street A - Treeline Place"
DOWNTOWN RETAIL ACTION PLAN
Councillor C. Weylie advised the Committee that she had been informed that Mrs. Nancy Brawley
was unable to make a presentation on the Downtown Retail Action Plan and had requested an
opportunity to do so at the Committee's next meeting.
PD 96~78 - FILL LINE MAPPING - STRASBURG CREEK WATERSHED
The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/78 dated
September 16, 1996 dealing with Fill Line Mapping of the Strasburg Creek Watershed. It was
noted in the report that over the last several years the Grand River Conservation Authority has
prepared detailed mapping for flood prone and sensitive lands within the Strasburg Creek
Watershed between Huron Road and Westmount Road in the Huron community. The purpose is
to delineate areas of the watershed which would be adversely affected by the indiscriminate
placement of fill. The Province has informed the GRCA that the matter of fill line mapping was
being reviewed by the Cabinet Committee dealing with regulations (Provincial Red Tape
Committee) and there may be substantial delay in registration and possibly none at all. Such
delay and potential non-registration would be a step backward to the municipality and the GRCA in
terms of the review and approvals process for new development and the ability to protect this
natural area from the impacts of urban development.
Mr. B. Stanley advised that the matter had been brought to the Environmental Committee for
discussion and the Committee had supported the proposed recommendation but recommended a
revision in that regard which was incorporated into the recommendation in the staff report. He did
point out that it would be appropriate to also include circulation to Ms. Elizabeth Witmer.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised that the letter to the Mayor from the GRCA was responded to by
both he and the Mayor.
The staff report was then considered and it was agreed to add a revision to the recommendation
so as to include Elizabeth Witmer, Waterloo MPP.
On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler -
it was resolved:
"That City Council inform Gary Leadston, Kitchener-Wilmot MPP, Wayne Wettlaufer,
Kitchener MPP and Elizabeth Witmer, Waterloo MPP, of its concern with the substantial
delay at the provincial level and the potential jeopardy of the Fill Line Mapping registration
for the Strasburg Creek Watershed and request their assistance in expediting such
registration for this critical natural area and further, that this concern be expressed directly
to the Minister of Natural Resources."
PD 96~83 - 245 STRASBURG ROAD (FORMER BEST PIPE MANUFACTURING SITE)
- REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO CONDUCT A "PEER REVIEW OF MARKET
IMPACT STUDY"
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 - 138 - CITY OF KITCHENER
- MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 96161SICL
- FAIRVIEW WARD
The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/83 dated
September 16, 1996. The subject of the report is a request for approval to conduct a peer review
of a market impact study related to an Official Plan Amendment Application for lands at 245
Strasburg Road (former Best Pipe Manufacturing Site). The lands are currently designated
Service Commercial and the application is to permit the development of a food store to a maximum
of 80,000 square feet.
Ms. C. Ladd advised that staff had serious concern about the potential impact on existing and
planned food store sites in this area of the City as they feel the area is adequately serviced and
consequently request approval to retain a consultant who specializes in retail impact and market
analysis to review the work of the applicants consultant to ensure the findings are accurate.
On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler -
it was resolved:
"That the Department of Planning and Development be authorized to retain a Consultant
with expertise in Retail and Market Analysis to conduct a peer review of the Market Impact
Assessment prepared by W. Scott Morgan in support of Municipal Plan Amendment
Application 96/6/S/CL (245 Strasburg Road); and further,
That the Department of Planning and Development be authorized to overexpend their
budget by a maximum of $6,000.00 in order to complete said peer review."
PETITION RE TACO BELL - WESTMOUNT ROAD / VICTORIA STREET SOUTH
Councillor C. Weylie tabled a petition of area residents who wish to formally complain about the
hours of operation and noise at the Taco Bell fast food outlet situate on Westmount Road between
Victoria Street South and Vicmount Drive. She stated that the residents object to the 24 hour per
day hours of operation and specifically the problems caused between 2 am and 4 am every night.
She advised that the residents were planning to make a presentation to City Council at its
September 30th meeting.
The Chair called a recess in the meeting at 2:40 pm, noting that the next item on the agenda was
scheduled for consideration at 3:00 pm.
The Committee reconvened at 3:00 pm to deal with the remaining item in its agenda this date.
PD 96~9 - REVISED DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Development Staff Report PD 96/9 (revised) dated
August 9, 1996 dealing with revised Design Principles for Storm Water Management Facilities and
the actual document report in this regard.
It was noted in the report that in 1990 Council adopted PD Report 122/89 (revised) which set out
aesthetic guidelines for the design of storm water management facilities. Subsequent to the
adoption of these guidelines, requirements were put in place for water quality treatment in addition
to water quantity retention in all storm water management designs for subdivision and site
developments. As a result of delays in the approval process being experienced, a comprehensive
review of the present guidelines was undertaken involving municipalities in the Region, the City of
Guelph and the Grand River Conservation Authority as well as representatives of the home
building industry and the development and consulting industry. Following this consultation
process, the outcome was the Design Principles for Storm Water Management Facilities
document.
Mr. T. Boutilier commented on the work that began in the Fall of 1995 and the involvement of
several City departments as well as the municipalities listed in the report.
PD 96~9 - REVISED DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
(CONT'D)
Mr. B. Page appeared before the Committee to present the principles in the document but first
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 - 139 - CITY OF KITCHENER
asked that the Committee take note of the two recommendations in Planning and Development
Staff Report PD 96/9 (revised). He explained the reason to change the previous guidelines as
both water quantity and water quality were issues of concern to all parties. After his presentation
of the principles in the document, a number of questions were forthcoming from the Committee.
Councillor T. Galloway questioned what was actually meant by the requirement for hard surface
roads leading to ponds. Mr. D. Mansell advised that staff have been dealing with this issue with
industry representatives and that there were various products that could be used but what was
needed was a product that would support the weight of a heavy truck servicing a pond. He noted
that the product would not be gravel but that staff would support a material that met the need and
blended with the general environment. Councillor Galloway recommended that staff use a
sympathetic approach. In this regard, Mr. D. Mansell advised that staff would consult with the
developers and Parks and Recreation staff to find special treatment material that meets individual
circumstance. Councillor Galloway stated that he had a broader concern with respect to the issue
of stringent requirements being imposed on small commercial land parcels and questioned if the
industry accepted this. Mr. Mansell replied that the principles allow for flexibility and relaxation of
guidelines to generally achieve the goals of the principles. Councillor John Smola questioned
what the time frame was with regard to implementation of the principles in new developments and
if the work had to be completed before any building permits were issued. Mr. Mansell advised that
the work would proceed during development and should be finalized as the actual subdivision
develops.
On motion by Councillor T. Galloway -
it was resolved:
"A)
That City Council rescind the current Council Policy 1-740 regarding Storm Water
Management Design, and adopt in place thereof, the principles contained in the
document "Design Principles for Storm Water Management Facilities, City of
Kitchener, August, 1996" as outlined below:
FOR, PLANS OF SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLANS
1)
In recognition of diverse development conditions, consideration by the City of
Kitchener will be given to all innovative approaches and/or techniques that can be
demonstrated to meet its storm water management objectives.
2)
a)
Storm water management areas for subdivisions will be on lands conveyed at
no cost to the City in addition to any lands required to be dedicated for park
purposes under the Planning Act. Construction costs will be borne by the
owner while long term maintenance of the storm water management facility
will be borne by the City.
b)
Storm water management areas, subject to site plan approval, will be on
lands retained by the owner. All costs associated with the construction and
continuing maintenance of storm water management facilities shall be borne
by the owner.
3)
Storm water management DRY PONDS shall be designed to limit the maximum
depth of water to 1.8m above the lowest point of the storm water basin. An
additional 0.3m freeboard is required above the maximum peak flow flood level. The
maximum depth of the extended detention zone shall not exceed 1.0m above the
lowest point of the pond. (see figure 1).
a)
A maximum 5:1 slope shall extend from the bottom of the pond to the limit of
maximum extended detention, with a minimum horizontal length of 3.0m. The
minimum allowable gradient on the bottom of the basin shall be 1.0% and the
maximum gradient shall be 5.0%.
PD 96~9 - REVISED DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
(CONT'D)
4) Storm water management WETLANDS shall be designed to limit the maximum
depth of water to 2.1m above the lowest point of the storm water basin excluding
micropools. An additional 0.3m freeboard is required above the maximum peak flow
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 - 140 - CITY OF KITCHENER
5)
6)
7)
8)
flood level. The maximum depth of the extended detention zone shall not exceed
1.0m above the permanent pool elevation. Maximum peak flow attenuation zone
shall not exceed 1.8m above the permanent pool elevation. The permanent pool
depth shall range between a minimum depth of 0.15m to a maximum depth of 0.3m
(see figure 1).
a)
A maximum 5:1 slope below the permanent pool level shall be permitted
around the entire storm water management pond.
b)
A maximum 5:1 slope above the permanent pool level shall be permitted
around the entire storm water management pond. The slope shall extend
from the permanent pool level, to the limit of maximum extended detention.
The horizontal distance of this slope must be a minimum of 3.0m.
c)
MICROPOOLS shall not exceed an additional maximum depth of 0.3m below
the permanent pool level. Micropools shall not exceed 5% of the total
wetland permanent pool surface area (see figure 2).
Storm water management WET PONDS shall be designed to limit the maximum
depth of water to 3.3m above the lowest point of the storm water basin. An
additional 0.3m freeboard is required above the maximum peak flow flood level. The
maximum depth of the extended detention zone shall not exceed 1.0m above the
permanent pool elevation. Maximum peak flow attenuation zone shall not exceed
1.8m above the permanent pool elevation. The permanent pool depth shall range
between a minimum depth of 1 .Om to a maximum depth of 1.5m (see figure 1 ).
a)
A maximum 5:1 slope below the permanent pool level shall be permitted
around the entire storm water management pond. The horizontal distance of
this slope must be a minimum of 3.0m. A slope commencing from this point
to the lowest point of the storm water basin shall be a maximum of 3:1.
b)
A maximum 5:1 slope above the permanent pool level shall be permitted
around the entire storm water management pond. The slope shall extend
from the permanent pool level, to the limit of maximum extended detention.
The horizontal distance of this slope shall be a minimum of 3.0m.
FOREBAYS are required for all of the above described storm water management
facilities. The permanent pool depth shall range between a minimum depth of 1.0m
to a maximum depth of 1.5m in which a maximum depth of 0.5m shall be used for
sediment accumulation. Forebays shall not exceed 33% of the total Wet Pond
surface area and 20% of the Wetland permanent pool surface area. All other
aspects regarding the design of forebays shall conform to the above Wet Pond
standards. Excluding maintenance access routes, all access to forebays shall be
discouraged through shrub plantings (see figure 3).
From the point of maximum extended detention, to the lower limits of the "Safety
Separation" area or property line where it abuts private property, slopes shall vary
between 2:1 to 6:1 and have a maximum average slope of 4:1, not including the
maximum 10:1 maintenance access slope.
Native and non-invasive trees, shrubs, ground covers and aquatic plants are
required in a Iow maintenance landscape design which has regard for the ecology of
the site and the eco-region. (see appendix A).
PD 96~9 - REVISED DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
(CONT'D)
9)
For Wet Ponds and Wetlands, all slopes 5:1 and steeper ranging from a minimum
horizontal distance of 3.0m from the permanent pool level to the property line (not
including walkways and trails) shall be planted. For Dry Ponds, all slopes 5:1 and
steeper ranging from a minimum horizontal distance of 3.0m from the pond bottom
level to the property line (not including walkways and trails) shall also be planted.
Incorporating a wide range of slopes and ponding depths into facility design that
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 - 141 - CITY OF KITCHENER
conform to the design principles is strongly encouraged and desirable in order to
facilitate a wide range of flora and fauna habitat conditions.
10)
Where trees are to be planted, they must be planted at a minimum rate of 1 tree
(40mm cal.) per 50 square metres. The density of shrub plantings, for safety
purposes, shall vary depending on the degree of slope. Shrub plantings shall
prevent public access on all 2:1 slopes and discourage access on all 3:1 slopes.
100% density equals 1 shrub per square metre, 25% density equals 1 shrub per
square metres. The purpose of the bar scale is not to encourage repetitive
landscape design but to act as a relative guide to associate shrub plant densities
with the appropriate slope.
Note:
(Original report contains illustration of Coverage Intensity of Shrub Plantings).
11 Designed pedestrian access areas shall not exceed a maximum slope of 6:1.
12)
Fencing of storm water management facilities shall be discouraged; however it may
be required as determined by the City.
13)
Notwithstanding 2, 2(a), 3, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 4, 4(a), 4(b), 5 and 11 above, in the case
of headwall designs, the depth of water related to adjoining side slopes may vary
and fencing is required for safety purposes.
14)
That in all cases, implementation of these principles shall have regard for approved
Watershed, Sub-Watershed and Master Drainage Plans.
15)
Areas subject to the collection of contaminants or spills shall be fitted with adequate
oil/grit separators.
FOR SUBDIVISION ONLY:
In addition to clauses 1 to 14 the following principles shall apply to subdivision only:
16)
That a Landscape Plan of the storm water management facilities be approved by the
Manager of Community Arenas, Athletic Design and Development prior to the
registration of the Plan of Subdivision. All landscaping of areas above the 5 year
storm level shall be installed at the subdivider's cost, in accordance with the
approved plan, during the first planting season after occupancy of the first unit. The
remainder of the planting shall commence at such time as required by the Manager
of Community Arenas, Athletics Design and Development. The subdivider shall
maintain the planting for a period of one year from the completion of final planting.
Landscape plans are to be prepared by an Environmental Professional acceptable
to the Municipality. (see appendix A for native shrub and tree selection).
17)
In the event that a community trail has been identified and/or required by the City in
the vicinity or adjacent to a storm water management pond, they shall be
implemented above the maximum extended detention level or 5 year storm level,
which ever is greater, in order to prevent frequent flooding. Trails shall have a
minimum width of 3.0m.
PD 96~9 - REVISED DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
(CONT'D)
18)
To enhance user comfort and safety, a 3.0m zone on each side of the community
trail shall be designed in such a way that sightlines are preserved. If barriers are
required, they must not interfere with visibility or create entrapment areas. In
situations where a community trail is designed within the maximum peak flow depth
zone, the 3.0m separation above the trail shall have a maximum slope of 3:1. Below
the trail, the 3.0m separation shall have a maximum slope of 6:1. This zone shall be
planted with Iow ground covers (see figure 4).
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 - 142 - CITY OF KITCHENER
Deciduous trees should be planted at a minimum distance of 1.5m from the edge of
the trail. Maintenance is required to ensure that tree canopies are raised to a
minimum of 2.2m and shrubs must be regularly prevented from naturalizing this
zone. The planting of coniferous trees within this zone is not permitted.
19)
Maintenance access requirements are to be determined on a site-by-site basis,
however, the following general criteria are recommended. Controlled maintenance
access routes shall be provided to both inlet and outlet structures and forebays. A
minimum 3.0m wide surface to accommodate maintenance vehicles with a minimum
10m turning radius (inside radius) and a flat 10m loading area is required.
Maintenance access routes shall not exceed a maximum slope of 10:1. The design
of maintenance routes and loading areas shall be to the approval of the Department
of Public Works.
20)
Prior to the Department of Public Works accepting the storm water management
pond as shown on the approved landscape plan, the Subdivider agrees to erect one
or more information signs at (a) public access point(s) detailing the purpose of the
pond, phone number for further information and any other relevant information, to be
approved by the Manager of Community Arenas, Athletics, Design and
Development, all at the cost of the Subdivider.
21
In order to prevent surcharging of storm sewers upstream, pond inlet inverts shall
not be lower than the maximum extended detention level (see figure 5).
22) Minimize the number of inlets/forebays to one (1) where possible.
FOR SITE PLANS ONLY:
In addition to Clauses 1 to 14 the following principles shall apply to site plans only:
23)
Children's play equipment shall not be permitted within storm water management
facilities.
24)
Storm water QUANTITY management strategies can be accommodated within
parking areas to a limit of 0.3m in depth.
25)
Storm water QUALITY management strategies can not be accommodated within
parking areas. Oil grit separators may only be used in conjunction with alternate
methods for water quality management (i.e. in a treatment train).
26)
In cases where storm water management facilities can not be aesthetically
accommodated at grade, underground and roof top storage shall be considered as
alternatives.
27)
Rooftop runoff shall be considered as clean storm water and shall be infiltrated as
appropriate.
B)
That principles 16 and 20 of the attached "Design Principles for Storm Water
Management Facilities", dated August, 1996 be included in the City's Standard
Residential Subdivision Agreement."
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
L.W. Neil, AMCT
Assistant City Clerk