Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1998-09-14PED\1998-09-14 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:47 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Councillors K. Taylor-Harrison, J. Haalboom, M. Yantzi, John Smola, Jake Smola, B. Vrbanovic, J. Ziegler, T. Galloway and G. Lorentz. Mayor C. Zehr entered the meeting shortly after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, J. Given, P. Bacon, L. MacDonald and Messrs. J. Gazzola, T. McCabe, B. Stanley, J. Shivas, R. Mattice, Z. Janecki, D. Mansell, J. McBride, J. Witmer and L.W. Neil. 1. PD 98/100 828 KING STREET WEST MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP97/14/K/ZJ ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC97/39/K/ZJ WATERLOO REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD The following statement was read by Councillor C. Weylie, Committee Chair: "This is a Public Meeting under 'The Planning Act, 1996' to consider Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP 97/14/K/-ZJ (Waterloo Region District School Board). Section 17 (45) of the Planning Act allows the Ontario Municipal Board to dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if the appellant did not make oral submissions at a public meeting or did not make written submissions to the council before the plan was adopted and, in the opinion of the Board, the appellant does not provide a reasonable explanation for having failed to make a submission. In order to ensure the record includes all the names of those individuals who are making verbal submissions today for this Municipal Plan Amendment, please ensure that you clearly identify yourself before you begin your submissions and the Clerk will record your name for the record. If your name does not appear on the record, you may jeopardize any further involvement you wish to have in these matters. Any recommendation made by Planning Committee on these matters today will be considered by City Council on September 21, 1998. If City Council adopts the amendments, they will proceed to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo who has the final approval authority for Municipal Plan Amendments. They are also the body to whom appeals are sent. Further information on these procedures is available from the City's Department of Planning and Development or the Region's Department of Planning and Culture." The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of applications for Municipal Plan Amendment and Zone Change from the Waterloo Region District School Board with respect to the property known municipally as 828 King Street West, being lands formerly occupied by the Rotary Centre. In this regard, the Committee considered Business and Planning Services Staff Report PD 98/100 dated August 14, 1998 and a proposed by-law dated July 24, 1998 attached to the report. Also attached to the staff report was the Municipal Plan Amendment Report (Waterloo Region District School Board - 828 King Street West) respecting this property. It was noted in the staff report that a Special Policy is proposed to be added to the K-W Hospital Neighbourhood Secondary Plan to allow a temporary commercial parking lot on the subject lands. As well, a corresponding temporary use provision is proposed to be added to the zoning by-law to allow a commercial parking lot for a maximum three year period in the Commercial Residential Zone (CR-2). Ms. C. Ladd briefly explained the purpose of the joint applications and advised that staff had nothing further to add with respect to the report. In response to questions raised by Councillors T. Galloway and John Smola, Mr. J. McBride PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 - 129 - CITY OF KITCHENER advised that he had spoken with Mr. W. Goodall of Grand River Hospital regarding the hospital's concern of parking fees on the subject lands undercutting those of the hospitals and that Mr. Goodall had indicated that he no longer planned to attend the meeting this date. Mr. McBride PD 98/100 828 KING STREET WEST MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP97/14/K/ZJ ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC97/39/K/ZJ WATERLOO REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD (CONT'D) indicated that the hourly parking rates would be fairly competitive with those of the hospital· He also indicated that the hours of operation were expected to be 8:00 am to 12:00 am and that in response to concerns raised by St. Mark's Lutheran Church, parking charges would not commence on Sundays until noon; however, he indicated that evening charges were justified were based on parking demand and usage in the evening hours. Mr. William Goodall was previously registered to appear as a delegation on behalf of the Grand River Hospital but notified Mr. L. Neil this date to advise that he would not attend the meeting. Mr. Shawn Callon appeared as a delegation on behalf of the Waterloo Region District School Board in support of the applications. He commented that at this time the school board could not provide any information as to what future development might take place on the site. In response to Councillor T. Galloway who questioned why the Board was applying for the temporary parking use, Mr. Callon advised that the purpose was to recognize the commercial use of the lands and allow a period of time for the Board to determine if it was in the Board's interest to develop the property. Ms. C. Ladd explained that the temporary use approval was being requested because the secondary plan did not contemplate a parking use. Pastor Fred Ludolph appeared as a delegation on behalf of St. Mark's Lutheran Church in support · nd .... of h~s September 2 correspondence prowded to the Committee. He ~nd~cated that when the Rotary Centre occupied the subject lands parking had been made available to church members in the evening and Sunday mornings. Pastor Ludolph noted that approximately 350 people per week attend evening functions at St. Mark's and it was his hope that the evening parking could be free or at Iow cost. He stated that the Grand River Hospital parking garage was substantially underutilized and commented that perhaps there could be more discussion with hospital officials with respect to use by those attending church sponsored functions. Mayor C. Zehr entered the meeting at this point. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. Councillor T. Galloway questioned whether City staff had finalized arrangements with the school board to operate the parking lot and what impact could be anticipated on the hospitals parking lot revenue. Mr. J. McBride advised that at this time staff have only had discussions with the school board as to operation of the lot and that it was Mr. Goodall's view that the functioning of the school board parking lot would have the effect of being revenue neutral on the operations of the hospital parking garage. In response to Councillor J. Haalboom, Mr. McBride commented that the demand for parking in the area was so high that he did not see the service provided by this proposed parking lot as detracting from transit operations and revenue. In response to Councillor John Smola, Mr. McBride confirmed that staff would prepare a full report for consideration by the Public Works and Transporation Committee dealing with the functioning of the proposed parking lot and its hours of operation. On Motion by Councillor John Smola - It was resolved: "1) That subject to the conditions set out in 2 (1) and (2) below, City Council approve Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP97/14/K/ZJ (Waterloo Region District School Board- 828 King Street West), being an amendment to: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 - 130 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1. PD 98/100 a) add Special Policy 17 to Section 13.7.4 (K-W Hospital Neighbourhood Secondary Plan) as follows: 828 KING STREET WEST MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP97/14/K/ZJ ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC97/39/K/ZJ WATERLOO REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD - BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD (CONT'D) 17. Notwithstanding the Community Institutional designation, on lands known as 828 King Street West, a commercial parking facility shall be permitted on a temporary basis. At such time as the interim period permitting the parking facility expires, it is the intent of City Council to repeal this policy by amendment to this plan." b) amend Map 18 to add Special Policy 17, shown on Schedule 'A' attached. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this Amendment to the City's Municipal Plan is proper planning for the City. 2) That Zone Change Application ZC 97/39/K/ZJ (Waterloo Region District School Board) requesting a change in zoning by adding temporary use provision 7T to the Commercial Residential Zone (CR-2) according to By-law 85-1, on lands legally described as Part of Lot 312, Lots 309, 310 and 311, Registered Plan 385, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached, dated July 24, 1998, subject to the following conditions being satisfied prior to any readings of the By-law by Council: 1) That a site plan application for the commercial parking facility showing parking areas and associated landscaping be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning. 2) The owner acknowledges that condition 1 is required to be satisfied no later than seven months after Council having approved by resolution Zone Change Application 97/39/K/ZJ. In the event this resolution is not fulfilled within the seven month period, Council shall consider rescinding its zone change approval. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with a recommended Amendment (Waterloo Region District School Board - 828 King Street West) to the City's Municipal Plan." REGION OF WATERLOO "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CONCEPT REPORT" Mayor C. Zehr advised that further discussions would be taking place regarding the Region's Economic Development Corporation Concept Report and it was his expectation that an acceptable proposal would be brought back to the Committee for consideration. He did comment that involvement by the private sector was seen as a key aspect of the concept. PD 98/93 81 BRUCE STREET ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC971311BIZJ DR. SHARON GOODYEAR-JOHNSTON - CENTRE WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from Dr. Sharon Goodyear-Johnston to change the zoning of lands known municipally as 81 Bruce Street. It was noted in the report that the applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from Residential Five Zone (R-5) to Residential Five Zone (R-5) with a special use provision and a special regulation provision in order to permit the conversion of the existing dwelling to a health office or health clinic. In this regard, the Committee considered Staff Report PD 98/93 dated August 10, 1998 and a proposed by-law dated August 5, 1998 attached to the report. In addition to the conversion it was also noted in the report that a two storey addition is proposed to be constructed at the rear of the existing building and parking is intended to be located in the rear yard. As well, a residential dwelling unit will be retained in the building to allow for 24 hour occupancy of the premises. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 - 131 - CITY OF KITCHENER 3. PD 98~93 81 BRUCE STREET ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC971311BIZJ DR. SHARON GOODYEAR-JOHNSTON - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. C. Ladd briefly explained the purpose of the application and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. Ms. P. Bacon circulated an aerial photograph of the subject property to better orient Committee members to the location under consideration. Dr. Sharon Goodyear-Johnston appeared as a delegation in support of her application and a letter provided to the Committee with its agenda. She advised that she had purchased the property one year ago after examining approximately 25 properties for sale and described positive attributes of the property as they would relate to relocation of her business. Dr. Goodyear-Johnston suggested that area neighbours opposing her application could be divided into two groups: the first group being composed of senior citizens who reside in the apartment building at Bruce and Frederick Streets and the second group being a group effort authored by one individual. She commented on the neighbourhood meetings attended and explained how the business would function noting that it was a clean business producing no hazardous waste and that there would be no weekend hours of operation. She stated that concessions had already been agreed to with respect to the proposal and that she was aware that there were many residents wishing to appear as delegates and requested opportunity to address their concerns once heard by the Committee. A number of Councillors raised questions regarding the proposal and its impact. Dr. Goodyear- Johnston advised that she had been told the roots of two large trees would not survive the foundation excavation and should be removed. Also she advised that she had attempted to purchase the vacant commercial property at the corner but was unsuccessful. At this time, Ms. P. Bacon clarified that the parking requirement was 15 spaces plus one for the residential occupant of the property but 20 spaces were being provided as illustrated in the report. Dr. Goodyear- Johnston explained that the residential component to be retained would still occupy three levels and she proposed that her practice operate on the main floor and a second practitioner operate on the second floor of the rear of the building. Other concerns were raised regarding the impact of vehicles using the parking lot and disturbing the rear yards of adjoining residential properties and the attraction that an empty parking lot might have during off hours. As well, concerns were raised regarding snow removal operations and timing of same and the effect on neighbouring properties of salt application being applied to the parking lot during the winter. Mr. Carol Nightingale appeared as a delegation to oppose the application on the basis that the rezoning would hurt people in the immediate area. As well, he commented that the large trees should not be removed and that the majority of area residents were opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Ted Matuszek appeared as a delegation to oppose the application and advised that he had lived in the area for 12 years. He objected to any rezoning other than residential and stated that it was his view that rezoning should benefit the area and not detract from the existing residential character. He commented that there was a potential for increased accidents because of traffic utilizing the Bruce and Frederick Street intersections and the likelihood that people would stop their vehicles on Bruce Street to drop off patients utilizing the clinic. He referred to on-street parking problems existing on Ann Street due to the operations of medical buildings at Frederick and Ann Streets. Mr. Michael Forte appeared as a delegation to oppose the application and presented a submission dated September 14, 1998. He commented that the list of reasons for maintaining Bruce Street as it is has been documented in the numerous objections to the application which cover issues of: environment, property value concerns, additional street parking problems, noise, exhaust and invasion of the privacy of adjacent residential backyards. He expanded on these objections and their impact in his presentation and in summary pointed out that the business does not belong in the location. PD 98/93 81 BRUCE STREET ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC971311BIZJ PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 - 132 - CITY OF KITCHENER = - DR. SHARON GOODYEAR-JOHNSTON- CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) Councillor C. Weylie questioned why the planner responsible for the application was removed during processing and replaced by another planner. Ms. C. Ladd advised that several meetings had been held with the applicant during which all of the City's development policies were reviewed and it was felt that the property met all required criteria but that the planner was uncomfortable with continuing further involvement in the processing. Councillor T. Galloway questioned what Mr. Forte's position would be if the rear of the corner lot could be utilized for parking. Mr. Forte stated that he could not accept it and that his biggest concern had to do with potential impact from concealed parking areas. Mrs. Elizabeth Forte appeared as a delegation on behalf of Mr. Walter Butz who she advised was ill and unable to attend the meeting and read a submission he provided to her. The submission relates to the subject of a recent newspaper article and deals with negative effects of high wooden fences on properties and neighbours as well as the loss of sunlight due to a two storey building addition being extended into the rear yard. Mrs. Elizabeth Forte also appeared as a delegation on behalf of Mr. Robert Hoffele to express his opposition to the application. She read his submission in which it was stressed that his backyard was his retreat and that by opening up the applicants backyard to commercial property use and activity would negatively impact his privacy. Concerns were also expressed about the business operating beyond 5:00 pm and the effects of additional traffic and parking on Ephraim Street. Mrs. Elizabeth Forte appeared as a delegation objecting to the zone change and read a submission in this regard. She also circulated photographs depicting the subject property and surroundings. Mrs. Forte acknowledged the problem of the volume and noise of traffic that passes by the front of her house and accepts it given their alternative of a rear yard garden retreat. However, she stated that this rear yard living area would be negatively impacted by the applicants paved parking lot, vehicular movement, lighting of the parking lot, exhaust fumes from clients vehicles and obstruction of the existing views as a result of the proposed building addition and solid fencing. Further, she stated that chiropractors do operate in evening hours and it was likely this would happen in this location. In summary, she stated that the proposal negatively impacts seven adjoining households and asked that the application be refused. Mr. Harold Purchase appeared as a delegation to oppose the application. He stated that his property was adjacent to the proposed development and he read a submission dated September 14, 1998. In the submission he noted that the reasons for his opposition were contained in a previous letter that was attached to the staff report but that he wished to make several other points. He objected to the variance and setback of the building addition, building design including the roof pitch, the effects as a result of shadowing because of the building design and in summary asked that the application be refused as it was not good planning for the future nor was the additional use needed in the area. Mrs. Helen Betzner appeared as a delegation in opposition to the application and to support her comments and attached map that was included in the staff report and recirculated to the Committee with her delegation registration. She commented that many issues of concern to her had already been stated. Mrs. Betzner stated that her biggest concern had to do with vehicles exiting the underground parking garage at 88 Bruce Street and conflicting with traffic and its volume and speed along Bruce Street and more importantly that such traffic makes a quick turning movement from Frederick Street. She commented that a non-residential use that involves large numbers of vehicles utilizing the driveway of the subject property which is located directly opposite the ramp into the underground parking garage of 88 Bruce Street introduces significant and additional vehicular conflict into the Bruce Street right-of-way and was an accident location waiting to happen. Mrs. Mary Achtenberg appeared as a delegation in opposition to the application and commented that approximately 80% of the persons living at 88 Bruce Street were seniors and that the rezoning would create additional traffic problems for those residents. Further, she stated that it PD 98~93 81 BRUCE STREET ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC971311BIZJ - DR. SHARON GOODYEAR-JOHNSTON- CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 - 133 - CITY OF KITCHENER was her view that Bruce Street could not handle more traffic than it does at present. Mr. Nuno Nogueira appeared as a delegation in opposition to the application. He stated that his main concern was that the two storey building addition for the rear yard which stretched to a point that it impacts his property with windows from the office use addition invading his privacy. Further, he stated that he had objections with regard to fencing, winter salting and snow removal especially in regard to the annoyance that would be caused by the need to have the parking lot cleared in early hours so that it was ready for clients. Mr. Jim McSavaney was registered as a delegation but advised the Chair that he did not wish to make a presentation. No other delegations responded to an invitation from the Chair to address the Committee on this matter. Councillor Jake Smola questioned what the owner could do with the property without a zone change. Mr. B. Stanley advised that under the R-5 zoning the owner could legally develop a duplex, a three storey triplex or a lodging house which would require the same type of driveway access to the rear yard. He noted that the size of the property and its location suggests a high potential for redevelopment. In response to Mayor C. Zehr, Dr. Goodyear-Johnston advised that when developed the property would not have more than two practitioners at any one time. Further, she stated that she purchased the property because the proposed use fit with the Municipal Plan. Councillor T. Galloway questioned what the policies of the Municipal Plan were that support the application. Ms. P. Bacon advised that the use was seen as appropriate given the property's location on a primary arterial road, an existing established transportation network adjacent to it, the conversion plan would maintain the character of the area, there would be no loss of the dwelling unit and a mix of land uses in the immediate area already existed. Further, Ms. Bacon advised that part 3 of the Municipal Plan addresses all of these factors. She also advised that if a lodging house was developed, a maximum of 8 residents would be permitted within a larger building. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison advised that she was opposed to the application. She commented that residents have adapted to living with the traffic volumes passing their homes and the mixed use of the neighbourhood because their backyards have been utilized as a retreat from the impacts of the street they front on. She stated that because of the location of the subject property in mid-block the property was pivital to the survival of the neighbourhood and paving the entire rear yard to accommodate parking was totally contrary to the use and enjoyment of adjoining properties. She stated that the application would erode the residential use and would be the beginning of breaking up of the neighbourhood. Mayor C. Zehr commented on the complexity of the application and questioned what could be done to mitigate the effect that the proposal would have on neighbouring residents. In this regard he suggested revisiting all design and use issues and developing possible alternatives. Councillor J. Ziegler pointed out that any owner of the subject property could put up an 8 foot wooden fence immediately. He stated that he was not opposed to a deferral of the application if there was room for compromise relative to the development. Councillor M. Yantzi stated that he could not accept the rear yard being totally paved and suggested an alternative be worked out that would reduce the need for parking by reducing the number of practitioners operating from the property. Councillor Jake Smola questioned if an alternative approach could be taken to the requirement for a high wooden fence that would result in landscaping being utilized for buffering purposes rather than a solid wooden fence. Councillor J. Haalboom stated that Councillor Taylor-Harrison had remarked on many of the things that she would have pointed out. She expressed concern over the fact that the City had no control over the ultimate design and concern about the rear yard being paved for a parking lot. Further, she stated that she had concern over the philosophy that just because smaller homes were on larger lots they are seen as prime for redevelopment. PD 98/93 81 BRUCE STREET ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC971311BIZJ DR. SHARON GOODYEAR-JOHNSTON - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) Mayor C. Zehr indicated that he would introduce a motion for deferral to allow for further discussion between staff and the applicant. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 - 134 - CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. B. Stanley reminded the Committee that originally the rezoning application was for an I-1 zone. Councillor Jake Smola requested that as part of the outcome of discussions regarding any deferral, the exact use proposed for the building be absolutely clear. Mayor C. Zehr noted that the intent of a deferral motion would be so that the applicant could meet with planning staff and develop some proposals that would alleviate some of the concerns raised this date and that the matter be brought back to the meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee on September 28, 1998 if such proposals were ready and if not that it be considered at the Committee's October 26th meeting. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that he supported deferral and noted that a willingness to compromise by both sides was necessary. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr- It was resolved: "That consideration of Zone Change Application ZC 97/31/B/ZJ (Dr. Sharon Goodyear- Johnston) be deferred and referred to the September 28, 1998 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting." Councillor C. Weylie, Chair advised those in attendance that this matter would be considered by the Committee at its September 28th meeting. BPS 98/116 - ADDENDUM TO PD 98~96 ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC971191TCIJG CITY INITIATED CONFORMITY BY-LAW RE: SALE OF SPORTING GOODS The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Staff Report BPS 98/116 dated September 3, 1998 prepared as an addendum to Staff Report PD 98/96. The report deals with a portion of the City initiated Conformity By-law under zone change application ZC97/19/TC/JG dealing with the sale of sporting goods in certain zones which was deferred by Council on August 17 and referred to the meeting this date for consideration. Attached to the report was a proposed by-law dated September 2, 1998 for consideration. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. J. Given provided a brief summary explaining the proposed zoning change as described in the report. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: "1) That the clause originating in Zone Change Application ZC 97/19/TC/JG (Conformity By-law) which would add the "Sale of Sporting Goods" to the C-6, B-3, M-3 and CR-4 Zones, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached, dated September 2, 1998, without conditions. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this clause of the application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan. 2) That Council consider whether further notice under the Planning Act is required prior to the passing of the by-law." PD 98/107 142 JOSEPH STREET DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC98181JIRM JOHN MACDONALD ARCHITECT INC. - ROCKWAY-VICTORIA WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Staff Report PD 98/107 dealing with a demolition control application submitted by John MacDonald Architect Inc., with respect to the property known municipally as 142 Joseph Street. It was noted in the report that the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 - 135 - CITY OF KITCHENER applicant proposes to demolish a single family dwelling in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a multi unit development. The dwelling in question is a 1% storey brick and wood frame structure that has been vacant for a number of years. It was also noted in the report that the property is not affected by the Ontario Heritage Act. The issues that staff examined in considering and recommending approval with regard to this application were itemized in the staff report. Mr. B. Stanley provided a brief explanation of the report and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. Councillor J. Haalboom requested that as a condition of the demolition approval the applicant be asked to save and recycle the brick and brackets of the property for reuse on another building. Councillor J. Ziegler commented that such request could not form a condition of approval and could only be treated as a suggestion from Council. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler- It was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC 98/8/J/RM (John MacDonald Architect Inc.) requesting approval for the demolition of a single detached dwelling located at 142 Joseph Street legally described as Part Lot 126 of Registered Plan 375 be approved. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." PD 98/110 64-68 MARGARET AVENUE, AND 219, 221,225 & 229 VICTORIA STREET NORTH DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC98171MIRM ERWIN HOCH - CENTRE WARD The Committee considered Business and Planning Services Staff Report PD 98/110 dated August 28, 1998 dealing with a demolition control application submitted by Mr. Erwin Hoch with regard to the properties known as 64-68 Margaret Avenue and 219, 221,225 & 229 Victoria Street North. It was stated in the report that the applicant proposes to demolish 14 units contained within five converted single family dwellings to facilitate the construction of 5 townhouse units fronting Margaret Avenue and 14 apartment units fronting Victoria Street North. It was also noted in the report that the properties municipally addressed on Victoria Street are not affected by the Ontario Heritage Act. However, Heritage Kitchener has recommended that the structure at 64-68 Margaret Avenue be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and that City Council would be discussing the recommendations for designation and demolition concurrently. The issues that staff examined in considering and recommending approval with regard to this application were itemized in the staff report for each of the properties. Mr. B. Stanley provided a brief explanation of the application and confirmed that the designation recommendation from Heritage Kitchener was scheduled for consideration by City Council at its September 21 st meeting. Mr. Erwin Hoch, owner of 64-68 Margaret Avenue, an applicant for the demolition appeared as a delegation in support of the staff recommendation. He stated that neighbourhood residents were in support of the demolition which would see the replacement of substandard housing with new housing. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison commented that the community did not want to see 64-68 Margaret Avenue demolished. Councillor T. Galloway questioned if Mr. Hoch had made a decision to definitely proceed with redevelopment. Mr. Hoch stated that his redevelopment PD 98/110 64-68 MARGARET AVENUE, AND 219, 221,225 & 229 VICTORIA STREET NORTH DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC98171MIRM ERWIN HOCH - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) scheme was an all or nothing situation including all of the properties referenced in the staff report. Mrs. Viola Amoroso appeared as a delegation in support of the demolition application. She stated that nothing was architecturally pleasing about the existing building at 64-68 Margaret Avenue and PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1998 - 136 - CITY OF KITCHENER expressed the view that the redevelopment proposal would draw people back to the area. Further, she stated that there was nothing left to conserve of the original structure and requested it be demolished. Mrs. Ruth Genova appeared as a delegation and advised that she was a 25 year resident of her property and confirmed that 64-68 Margaret Avenue was already in a run down state in the early 1970's and questioned why the property was not addressed by the Heritage Committee in the 1970's. She stated that she favoured the demolition application and redevelopment of the property as proposed by the applicant. On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic- It was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC 98/7/M/RM (Erwin Hoch) requesting approval for the demolition of five converted single detached dwellings located at 64-68 Margaret Avenue and 219, 221,225 & 229 Victoria Street North legally described as Part of Lot 85, 86, 87, 88, 192 and 199, Registered Plan 374 be approved. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City." 7. BPS 98/118 - UPDATE ON BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Staff Report BPS 98/118 dated September 11, 1998. It was noted that this staff report was prepared as an information report only to update the Committee on the progress to date, sponsorship planning, design details and partnerships formed to date with regard to the business enterprise centre. Mr. T. McCabe provided brief remarks concerning visitation that has taken place to other business enterprise centres and design of the area on the main floor of City Hall. He indicated that the tender for the interior renovation work for the business enterprise centre would be placed before City Council at its September 21st meeting. Further, he commented that it was expected that the centre's operation would be at a break even point in its 3rd year. Ms. Jennifer King advised the Committee that several partnerships have been formed with public sector bodies and other partnership proposals are currently in progress. She also indicated that additional discussion was taking place with provincial government ministries. Councillor B. Vrbanovic questioned if the matter of air quality in the area where the business centre is to locate had been addressed. Mr. T. McCabe indicated that he could only advise that Mr. C. Ford has been involved with the tender documents regarding development of the area for the business enterprise centre. Further, he noted that sliding doors would be developed into the centre that would fully open to the rotunda. 8. ADJOURNMENT: On motion, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk