Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1999-06-14PED\1999-06-14 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:45 p.m. under C. Weylie, Chair with the following members present: Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors Jake Smola, J. Ziegler, K. Taylor-Harrison, T. Galloway, J. Haalboom and John Smola. Councillors M. Yantzi, G. Lorentz and B. Vrbanovic entered the meeting shortly after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, P. Bacon, J. Given, L. MacDonald, J. Jantzi and Messrs. J. Gazzola, B. Stanley, Z. Janecki, D. Mansell, J. Witmer, P. Wetherup, D. Snow and L. W. Neil. 1.VACE INVESTMENTS, HIDDEN VALLEY - SECOND MEANS OF ACCESS Messrs. Paul Dietrich and Vern Heinrichs were registered as a delegation to address concerns regarding the Bridle Path Estates Development in Hidden Valley. Mr. Dietrich noted that the problem in proceeding further with the development was the achievement of a second means of access and advised that assistance and direction was needed from the City in this regard. Mr. Vern Heinrichs pointed out that a second means of access to Hidden Valley was a condition limiting the issuance of building permits to a maximum of 15 lots out of the 58 lot development. However, he commented that a series of circumstances have impacted the development since agreement was reached in this regard. He noted that the issue was Wabanaki Drive extension and the need to find a better alternative that makes sense in both the short and long term. Further, he indicated that it was 5 years since the Fairway Road Study was completed. Mr. Heinrichs advised that the development has sold 15 lots but of these only 7 lots have been built upon and permits were expected to be requested for 2 to 3 lots in the near term but that no building activity was anticipated with respect to the remaining 5 lots out of the 15. He indicated that his point was that the development has not used up the 15 building permit allocation and that he wished to request permission to arrange to sell 5 lots per year while various studies were still going on. In response to Mayor C. Zehr, he advised that 14 of the 15 lots have closed the sale transaction and that at the beginning of the development there was a restriction put on lots in respect to a requirement to undertake construction but that this was not the case now. Ms. C. Ladd pointed out that a condition of development approval prohibited issuance of any building permits until a second means of access was developed but subsequently upon appeal by the developer this was altered to allow issuance of 5 building permits and later raised to a maximum of 15 building permits. Mayor C. Zehr questioned if such delay could have been anticipated in respect to the development proceeding and was advised that no one thought the environmental process would take so long. Councillor J. Ziegler questioned if the developer would be willing to finance some of the road if the Environmental Assessment was completed and alignment of Wabanaki Drive was settled. Mr. Heinrichs advised that the developer would finance approximately $500,000.00 towards the road but could not justify a portion of the road which in effect would be a heavy trucking route. Mr. B. Stanley commented that the applicant had asked for a change respecting the second means of access so as to link it with Fairway Road and that this had brought on the necessity for an Environmental Assessment which he advised was started at the beginning of 1999 and should be complete in September for consideration by the Committee. He advised that precise location of the required roadway would then allow for a better understanding of development costs and it was staff’s recommendation that to act on Mr. Heinrichs request was premature at this time. He pointed out that upon expiry of the 30 day Environmental Assessment waiting period all issues could then be considered. Mr. D. Mansell concurred that once the Environmental Assessment was completed, defined costs on the road could be established and at that point discussion of funding issues could take place in relation to the City’s Capital Works deliberations. Councillor J. Ziegler commented that on the other issue raised by the delegation as to the possibility of acquiring more building permits, he reminded Council of the negative reaction from area residents when Council previously made changes in this regard. Accordingly, he suggested that the developer work with the residents to inform them on this issue and that he would be happy to assist in any discussions between the developer and the residents. He agreed that it was necessary to complete Wabanaki Drive. Mr. Heinrichs indicated that he would be pleased to work with Councillor J. Ziegler and area residents respecting the entire issue. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 79 -CITY OF KITCHENER 2.BPS 99/82-EASTFOREST TRAIL AT HIGHLAND ROAD WEST -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 99/13/E/CL -CITY OF KITCHENER - WEST WARD The Committee was advised that the department had undertaken a City initiated zone change to remove a holding provision from a block of lands situated on the west side of Eastforest Trail at its intersection with Highland Road. In this regard, the Committee considered Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/82 dated May 17, 1999 and a proposed by-law dated May 19, 1999 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the holding provision prohibited any new development from occurring until such time as full municipal services including the construction of Eastforest Trail were completed. It was pointed out 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 staff report. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - It was resolved: “That Zone Change Application ZC 99/13/E/CL (Eastforest Trail - City of Kitchener) to remove holding provision 8 (h) from lands zoned Residential Six (R-6) legally described as Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 1725, be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached, dated May 19, 1999, without conditions.” It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City.” 3.BPS 99/73-EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of a subdivision application from First Suburban Homes Inc. to develop lands by extension of Huntington Place. In this regard, the Committee considered Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/73 dated May 25, 1999. It was pointed out in the report that the applicant is proposing to subdivide a parcel of land 2.20 hectares in size to facilitate the development of a new subdivision involving the extension of Huntington Place and the creation of 22 single family lots. The plan also includes the conveyance of park and storm water management blocks and a number of small blocks of land that would be conveyed to abutting owners as lot additions. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Mr. Z. Janecki presented background information relative to the development and summarized the application. Mr. B. Green, Green Scheels Pidgeon, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant and noted that Mr. C. Robson, solicitor for Mr. B. Barnhart and Mr. Barnhart were also in attendance to answer any questions if required. Mr. Green illustrated the proposed lotting arrangement of the subdivision and advised that they fully comply with the R3 zoning. A letter dated June 9, 1999 from Mr. Green was previously distributed to the Committee with its agenda material. Mr. Green advised that he wished to address 4 issues being: emergency access, land titles, sidewalk requirement and trees. With regard to emergency access Mr. Green advised that planning staff have supported an exemption to Council Policy I-652 to permit the cul-de-sac without emergency access and he asked for the Committees approval noting that the length exceeds the requirement by 34 metres. 3.BPS 99/73-EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 80 -CITY OF KITCHENER -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD (CONT’D) With regard to matters involving land title, Mr. Green advised that the developer had undertaken to identify and resolve encroachments through lot additions to abutting property owners and that this was reflected in the staff recommendation B1 where there was reference to blocks 25 – 39 as lot additions and in condition 57. However he advised that the possibility existed that these lot additions would not be accepted by abutting owners and accordingly recommended that condition 57 be re-worded as outlined in his letter and that recommendation B1 be changed to refer to blocks 25 – 44 as lot additions rather than blocks 25 – 39. On the matter of sidewalks he advised that condition 58 requires the construction of a 1.5 metre sidewalk on both sides of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Green advised that the application was made under Council’s previous policy which would not have required installation of sidewalks and requested exemption on the basis that if this staff report had been before the Committee a month ago for consideration the new policy would not apply. Mr. Green then referred to the matter of tree retention and pointed out that most trees were at the edges of the development and that they had met the requirements of the Tree Management Plan. He referred to the contents of his letter dated February 8, 1999 listed on pages A-14 and 15 of the report and noted that with respect to lot 16 coniferous trees could be relocated. Further, he pointed out that the location of the bulb had been a concern of a resident but advised that the bulb was off centre because of intent to save trees at the rear of lots 10 and 11. Mr. Green pointed out that a resident may ask that the bulb be shifted but that if the Committee was to move it, more trees could be lost on the opposite side of the bulb. He noted that on lot 16, six trees were to be removed and 6 to be replanted closer to the lot lines. In response to Councillor C. Weylie he advised that the Tree Management Plan identified the trees that would be within the building envelope. Councillor J. Haalboom questioned what guarantees could be given with regard to tree removals and replanting and Mr. Green responded that something could be written into the tender for replacement planting should the trees fail to survive. Councillor Jake Smola commented that the size of the lots was such that most lots exceed the depths of average size lots. Councillor C. Weylie stated that if sidewalks were to be included on one side of the cul-de-sac she preferred that location to be the south side. Mrs. B. Szubra appeared as a delegation in regards to the contents of a letter which she submitted to the Committee. She advised that she was the owner of lot 65 fronting Westwood Drive which backs onto lot 16 of the proposed subdivision. She maintained that there were more trees on lot 16 which would be impacted by the development and Mr. Z. Janecki noted that there were numerous small young trees and that it was also difficult to tell where the boundary line between lot 16 and 17 would be in terms of a tree count. Ms. Szubra pointed out that there were few trees on the north side of the plan and questioned why the bulb could not be shifted. Councillor J. Ziegler questioned what the wavy line on the Tree Management Plan represented and was advised that it was the boundary line of vegetation and that there were significant trees on the north side of the plan within the boundary line. In response to Councillor T. Galloway, Mr. Green referring to lot 16 advised that it was not known if 2 trees need to be removed and commented on alternatives in this regard. Ms. C. Ladd noted that in reference to the change requested to recommendation B-1 and Condition 57 it would also be necessary to revise the date of the subdivision plan in appropriate places that would reflect the Committees revisions. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. Councillor J. Ziegler indicated that he was prepared to make a motion dealing with revisions to the recommendation in the staff report pertaining to emergency access, sidewalk and the issue of the significant trees. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler, the Committee accepted recommendation A in the staff report to exempt the requirement for provision of emergency access. A motion was introduced by Councillor J. Ziegler to not require the provision of sidewalks on the cul-de-sac and to delete Condition 58 in this regard. Mr. D. Mansell clarified Councils previous 3.BPS 99/73- EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 81 -CITY OF KITCHENER -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD (CONT’D) policy that required sidewalk on one side of a cul-de-sac if there was a connection link to the cul- de-sac. Mayor C. Zehr then inquired as to the length of time taken to process the subdivision application and Ms. C. Ladd advised that in her opinion, the eight month time period was not unreasonable. Mayor C. Zehr commented that he felt that the one month interval between the change in Council’s sidewalk policy was punitive in this case. Councillor Jake Smola requested a recorded vote on Councillor Ziegler’s motion pertaining to sidewalks. The motion was carried with Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Ziegler, Jake Smola, C. Weylie, J. Haalboom, T. Galloway, B. Vrbanovic, K. Taylor-Harrison voting in favour of the motion and Councillors M. Yantzi, G. Lorentz and John Smola voting in opposition. Councillor J. Ziegler then dealt with the issue of transplanted trees and guarantees and proposed a motion which was accepted and numbered as new Condition 64 requiring the subdivider guarantee to replace any transplanted trees, as outlined on the Tree Management Plan, with a significant mature tree having a large trunk should the transplanted tree not survive 3 years. The recommendations from the staff report incorporating the foregoing revisions as well as the revisions introduced by Mr. Green and by staff, were then dealt with. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: “A.That City Council grant an exemption to Policy I-652 for emergency access to allow the maximum length of a cul-de-sac without an emergency access to be 184.5 metres rather than the maximum 150 metres set out in the policy. B.That the City of Kitchener pursuant to Section 51(31) of the Planning Act R.S.O.1990, c.p. 13, as amended, and Delegation By-law 97-601 of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo grant draft plan approval to Plan of Subdivision 30T-98206 (Huntington Place) in the City of Kitchener for First Suburban Homes Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. That this approval applies to Plan of Subdivision 30T-98206 for First Suburban Homes Inc. as shown on the plan prepared by Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants dated October 13, 1998 and as shown on the attached Plan of Subdivision prepared by the City of Kitchener dated May 25, 1999, as revised June 14, 1999 which shows the following: Blocks 1-22 - Single Detached Residential (maximum 22 units) Block 23 - Park Block 24 - Storm Water Management Blocks 25-44 - Lot Additions CITY OF KITCHENER CONDITIONS 2.That the Subdivider enter into a City Standard Form Residential Subdivision Agreement as approved by City Council embracing those lands shown outlined on the attached Plan of Subdivision and that the following special conditions, which may be re-numbered, be written therein: 51.That the final plan for registration purposes shall be prepared in accordance with the attached Plan of Subdivision dated, revised June 14, 1999 providing that minor amendments to said plan, acceptable to the General Manager of Business and Planning Services and not affecting the numbering of lots or blocks may be permitted without an amendment to this agreement. Any changes affecting the numbering of lots or blocks shall require an amendment to this agreement to reflect such changes. 3.BPS 99/73-EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 82 -CITY OF KITCHENER -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD (CONT’D) 52.To submit a Lot Grading and Drainage Control Plan for approval by the City's General Manager of Public Works, in consultation with the City's General Manager of Parks and Recreation, and the Grand River Conservation Authority, prior to any grading or construction on site or registration of the subdivision plan. Said engineering design shall include erosion provision for any required erosion and siltation control features to be installed both during and after grading and construction stages. The Subdivider further agrees to implement all required measures as outlined in the approved final design. 53. To prepare a detailed engineering design for storm water management to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Public Works in consultation with the City’s General Manager of Parks and Recreation, and the Grand River Conservation Authority, prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to registration of the plan. Said engineering design shall include an erosion and siltation control plan indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized on site throughout all phases of grading and construction. The Subdivider further agrees to implement all required measures as outlined in the final design. 54. That construction traffic accessing this subdivision shall be restricted to using Westwood Drive southwesterly to Glasgow Street to Fischer-Hallman Road. The Subdivider agrees to advise all relevant contractors, builders and other persons of this requirement, with the Subdivider being responsible for any signage, where required by and to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works. 55.That the street name within the plan shall be Huntington Place as shown on the Plan of Subdivision. 56. To convey to the City the following lands for the purposes stated herein, at no cost and free of encumbrance, concurrently with the registration of the Plan of Subdivision: (a) Block 23 for park purposes; and (b) Block 24 for storm water management purposes. 57. That Blocks 25 to 44 be designated as lot additions available for conveyance to abutting lots in Plan 1273 or added to the proposed lots within this plan to resolve encroachments. 58. (Condition deleted by Planning and Economic Development Committee). 59.To install to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Parks and Recreation a 1.2 metre high paige wire fence or an alternative marking system along the property lines of Block 23. 60.That in consideration of the wooded character of the subdivision lands and the City’s desire to minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the Subdivider agrees to comply with the following process in the development of the subdivision in accordance with the City’s approved Tree Management Policy: a) prior to the City releasing the Subdivision Plan for registration, the Subdivider shall submit the detailed vegetation plan for the approval of the City’s General Manager of Business and Planning Services. 3.BPS 99/73-EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 83 -CITY OF KITCHENER b) that no area/rough grading shall occur on the lands until such time as all approved measures for protection of isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands affected by such grading have been satisfactorily implemented, and inspected by the City and the Subdivider has received a written authorization from the City’s General Manager of Public Works to proceed with said grading. c) to implement and be responsible for providing all information contained in the approved detailed vegetation plan, tree preservation/enhancement plan (if applicable), to all of its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns in order to ensure that the requirements outlined in said plan(s) are carried out as specified. d) a tree preservation/enhancement plan will be required prior to applying for or having issued any building permits for those lots or blocks which are subject to site plan approval under Section 41 of The Planning Act, corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been predetermined, interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres, proposed buildings that are located deeper on the lot than approved on the detailed vegetation plan and/or on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the detailed vegetation plan. e)in the event of construction causing minor tree damage, remedial measures such as trimming, dressing or bark doctoring shall be implemented at the Subdivider’s cost and as directed by the Subdivider’s Environmental Consultant who prepared the approved plan. In cases where major irreparable tree damage is done, liability is questionable, or the tree is judged to be unsafe, in the opinion of the Subdivider’s Environmental Consultant and/or the City, each such tree shall be removed and replaced with at least one tree of equal value based on the tree value formula as set out in “Guide for Plan Appraisal” of the International Society of Arboriculture, latest edition. Tree replacements are to be located on the same lot or block as the tree requiring removal or to a location within the subdivision requiring enhancement. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved by the City’s General Manager of Business and Planning Services and shall be satisfactorily implemented prior to occupancy of the units or, due to weather condition, by the next planting season . 61.In consideration of the removal of a portion of Vegetation Unit 8 as shown of the approved Tree Management Plan, a new wooded edge shall be re- established in Lot 1 to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. In addition, the Subdivider is also responsible for the removal of any dead or dangerous trees within Block 23, as determined by the General Manager of Parks and Recreation, for a period of three years after the registration of the plan of subdivision. 62.That the conveyance of Block 23 which has an area of 0.12 hectares fulfils the park dedication requirements under the Planning Act. 63.That subsequent to the registration of the plan of subdivision and following the completion of the construction of Huntington Place to the satisfaction of the City’s Department of Public Works, the City Solicitor shall arrange for the passing of a By-law opening the 0.3 metre reserve, legally described as 3.BPS 99/73-EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 84 -CITY OF KITCHENER Block “P”, Registered Plan 1273 as public highway. 64.That the subdivider guarantee to replace any transplanted trees, as outlined on the Tree Management Plan, with a significant mature tree having a large trunk should the transplanted tree not survive 3 years. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CONDITIONS 3. That the Subdivider satisfy the following requirements to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo: 1. That the owner prepare a Noise Study to indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, methods to be used to abate rail noise levels for the Canadian National Railway main line, and if necessary, shall enter into an agreement with the Region and/or the City of Kitchener to provide for implementation of the approved study attenuation measures prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. a)That the owner enter into an Agreement for Servicing with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to preserve access to municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment services prior to final approval or any agreement for the installation of underground services, whichever occurs first. Where the owner has already entered into an agreement for the installation of underground servicing with the area municipality, such agreement shall be amended to provide for a Regional Agreement for Servicing prior to registration of any part of the plan. The Regional Commissioner of Engineering shall advise prior to an Agreement for servicing that sufficient water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity is available for this plan, or the portion of the plan to be registered. b) That the owner include the following statement in all agreements of lease or purchase and sale that may be entered into pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning Act, prior to the registration of this plan: “The lot, lots, block, or blocks which are the subject of this agreement of lease or purchase and sale are not yet registered as a plan of subdivision. The fulfilment of all conditions of draft plan approval, including the commitment of water supply and sewage treatment services thereto by the Region and other authorities, has not yet been completed to permit registration of the plan. Accordingly, the purchaser should be aware that the vendor is making no representation or warranty that the lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement or lease or purchase and sale will have all conditions of draft plan approval satisfied, including the availability of servicing, until the plan is registered.” 4. Other Agency Conditions: 1. That prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to registration of the Plan, the owner prepare an Erosion and Siltation Control Plan in accordance with the Grand River Conservation Authority’s Guidelines for sediment and erosion control, indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and silt maintained on-site throughout all phases of grading and construction. 3.BPS 99/73-EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 85 -CITY OF KITCHENER Clearance Conditions: 1. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the City’s General Manager of Business and Planning Services, the City of Kitchener is to be advised by the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture that Conditions 3.1 and 3.2 have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The clearance letter from the Region shall include a brief statement detailing how such condition has been satisfied. 2.That prior to the signing of the final plan by the City’s General Manager of Business and Planning Services, the City of Kitchener is to be advised by the Grand River Conservation Authority that Condition 4.1 has been carried out to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority. The clearance letter from the Authority shall include a brief statement detailing how the condition has been satisfied. 5. Notes: 1.The owner/developer is advised that the provisions of the Development Charges By-laws of the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality adopted in accordance with the Development Charges Act, S. O. 1989 apply to this draft approval and are to be satisfied as follows: a) Inquiries regarding the application of the area Municipal Development Charges By-law should be directed to the City of Kitchener. b)In accordance with subsection 5(2) of Regional Development Charge By-law, 91-91 as amended, ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS CAN BE UTILIZED: i) at the time of entering into a subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener, the owner/developer may pay 100% of the “Hard Service” development charge component as calculated in accordance with Section 1 of Schedule “C” of By-law 91-91, directly to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; or ii) prior to entering into a subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener, the owner/developer may enter into a agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to defer payment of the “Hard Service” development charge component in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule “C” of By-law 91-91. c)The owner/developer is to provide the Regional Municipality of Waterloo with two print copies of the proposed plan to be registered in conjunction with a written payment calculation request made under b) above. In addition to the normal registered requirements, this plan must either include or be accompanied by a listing that includes metric are calculations certified by an Ontario Land Surveryor for every lot and block on the plan. 2. The final plans for Registration must be in conformity with Ontario Regulation 43/96, as amended, under The Registry Act. 3. It is the responsibility of the owner of this draft plan to advise the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener Business and Planning 3.BPS 99/73-EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 86 -CITY OF KITCHENER Services Department of any changes in ownership, agent, address and phone number. 4. Most of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo conditions can be satisfied through an agreement. The onus is on the owner to contact Regional staff in writing to request the preparation of such an agreement. A copy of a reference plan showing the lands to be registered that are affected by the agreement and the conditions to be covered by the agreement should be provided. The fees for the preparation and registration of this agreement, payable to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, are currently $375.00 and $50.00 respectively. 5. The owner/developer is advised that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo has adopted By-law 96-025, pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. c. p. 13, to prescribe a tariff of fees for application, recirculation, draft approval, modification to draft approval and registration release of plans of subdivision 30T-98206. 6. The proposed water distribution system meets the definition of a “water works” as defined in the Ontario Water Resources Act. Prior to the construction of the proposed water supply system. The proponent must ensure that the application for approval of water works, and appropriate supporting information are submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. 7. The proposed stormwater management system meets the definition of a "sewage works" as defined in the Ontario Water Resources Act. Therefore, approval of the Director must be obtained under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act prior to the construction of the proposed stormwater management system. The proponent must ensure that the application for approval of sewage works, and appropriate supporting information are submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. 8. The proposed sanitary sewage collection system meets the definition of a "sewage works' as defined in the Ontario Water Resources Act. Therefore, approval of the Director must be obtained under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act prior to the construction of the proposed sanitary sewage collection system. The proponent must ensure that the application for approval of sewage works, and appropriate supporting information are submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. 9. This draft plan was received on or after May 22, 1996 and shall be processed and finally disposed of under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. p.13, as amended by S.O. 1996, c.4 (Bill 20). 10. The owner/developer is advised that draft approval is not a commitment by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to water and wastewater servicing capacity. To secure this commitment the owner/developer must enter into an "Agreement for Servicing" with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo by requesting that the Region's Planning and Culture Department initiate preparation of the agreement. When sufficient capacity is confirmed by the Region's Commissioner of Engineering to service the density as defined by the plan to be registered, the owner/developer will be offered an "Agreement for Servicing". This agreement will be time limited, define the servicing commitment by density and use. Should the "Agreement for Servicing" expire prior to plan registration, a new agreement will be required. 3.BPS 99/73-EXTENSION OF HUNTINGTON PLACE -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98206 -FIRST SUBURBAN HOMES INC. - WEST WARD (CONT’D) The owner/developer is to provide the Regional Municipality of Waterloo with PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 87 -CITY OF KITCHENER two print copies of the proposed plan to be registered along with the written request for a servicing agreement. 11. To ensure that a Regional Release is issued by the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture to the City of Kitchener prior to year end, it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all fees have been paid, that all Regional conditions have been satisfied and the required clearance letters, agreements, prints of plan to be registered, and any other required information or approvals have been deposited with the Regional Planner responsible for the file, no later than December 15th. Regional staff can not ensure that a Regional Release would be issued prior to year end where the owner has failed to submit the appropriate documentation by this date. 12. When the survey has been completed and the final plan prepared, to satisfy the requirements of the Registry Act, they should be forwarded to the City of Kitchener. If the plans comply with the terms of approval, and we have received an assurance from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and applicable clearance agencies that the necessary arrangements have been made, the [enter title of person(s) authorized to sign plan], signature will be endorsed on the plan and it will be forwarded to the Registry Office for registration. The following is required for registration and under The Registry Act and for our use: One(1)Original mylar four(4)Mylar copies four(4)White paper prints ends.” It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City.” 4.BPS 99/94-WASHBURN DRIVE, HURON BUSINESS PARK -GRADING OF SITES 139, 140 AND 141 – SOUTH WARD Ms. J. Jantzi distributed a copy of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/94 dated June 14, 1999. The report deals with the issue of an extremely steep slope and unusual grading affecting 139, 140 and 141 on Washburn Drive in Huron Business Park. Staff are recommending that the City begin a tender process to undertake re-grading of Sites 139, 140 and 141. Ms. Janzi provided background information on the difficulty that has been experienced in attempting to market these sites and explained the reasoning for the recommendation. Councillor B. Vrbanovic inquired if the work could be done by Public Works staff and Ms. Jantzi indicated that was possible and she could approach to Public Works Department in this regard. In response to Councillor T. Galloway, Ms. Jantzi advised the cost would be in excess of $300,000.00 to re-grade over 5 acres of land. It was noted that the other option would be to discount the selling price of the sites to reflect the grading problem. Councillor Galloway questioned if part of site 140 could be utilized for grading transition as an alternative to full re- grading and Ms. Jantzi advised that staff did not consider that option. Mayor C. Zehr questioned if there was urgency in regard to site 139 and Ms. Jantzi advised that the owner was attempting to deal with tenants and leasing issues. Councillor Jake Smola asked that staff consider an in-house approach to resolution of the grading problem. 4.BPS 99/94-WASHBURN DRIVE, HURON BUSINESS PARK -GRADING OF SITES 139, 140 AND 141 – SOUTH WARD (CONT’D) On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 88 -CITY OF KITCHENER “That Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/94 dealing with proposed re- grading of Sites 139, 140 and 141 fronting Washburn Drive in Huron Business Park be deferred and referred to the June 21, 1999 City Council meeting for consideration.” 5.BPS 99/68-50 AND 60 LANCASTER STREET WEST -MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99/4/L/GR -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 99/5/L/GR -GRAEME JANS – BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, read the following statement: ‘This is a Public Meeting under to consider Municipal Plan 'The Planning Act, 1996' Amendment Application MP 99/4/L/GR (50 & 60 Lancaster Street West - Graeme Jans) 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 If City Council adopts the amendments, they June 21, 1999 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 in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/68 dated May 6, 1999 dealing with applications submitted by Graeme Jans for Municipal Plan Amendment and Zone Change pertaining to 50 and 60 Lancaster Street West. The purpose of the Municipal Plan Amendment is to deal with a proposal to add a special policy to the existing Mixed Use Industrial - Residential designation to permit the retail sales and installation of automobile parts as accessory to wholesaling on property located at 50 and 60 Lancaster Street West. The proposed zoning change would add a special use provision to the existing Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) to permit the retail sales of automobile parts as part of wholesaling of automobile parts, in addition to the installation of parts sold for retail purposes on the subject property. In this regard, the Committee considered Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/68 dated May 6, 1999 and a proposed by-law dated April 23, 1999 attached to the report. Ms. C. Ladd provided an explanation of the purpose of the applications and pointed out that relocation of an existing business was involved as well as a request for permission to conduct accessory sales. Further, she pointed out that the building on the subject lands was constructed in 1979 for a similar purpose but that it had lost its legal non-conforming status in the intervening years. She noted that retail sales of tires was a minor component representing 25% of the wholesaling of tires, including the installation of tires sold for retail purposes. She stated that the 5.BPS 99/68-50 AND 60 LANCASTER STREET WEST -MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99/4/L/GR -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 99/5/L/GR -GRAEME JANS – BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD (CONT’D) building contained 1 service bay and that there would be no outdoor operation. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 89 -CITY OF KITCHENER Ms. Catherine May appeared as a delegation in opposition to the applications. She stated that another tire business was not needed in the area and that there was not enough room for the parking requirements of customers of the business. She commented that the neighbourhood was very unhappy with the applications and that they had been told by Councillor John Smola the business would involve only wholesaling of tires. Ms. C. Ladd acknowledged that there was limited parking on the site but that the proposed use requires very little parking especially since there was only 1 service bay and noted that the largest proportion of the business related to wholesaling. Ms. C. May commented that there was a business that she considered to be a mess across from her house and that the same thing would happen at the subject location. She stated that there was trouble with the business at 399 Breithaupt Street and an ongoing problem with on-street parking that leaves no room for others to utilize. Staff noted that the proposed occupant has negotiated additional parking at the Orion property. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. Councillor John Smola advised that he had surveyed the issues referred to earlier this year and confirmed that City staff were working on ways to deal with noise issues originating from the business located across from the residence of Ms. May. He indicated he supported the subject application which was primarily a wholesaling business. On motion by Councillor John Smola - It was resolved: “1)That City Council approve Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP 99/4/L/GR (50 & 60 Lancaster Street West – Graeme Jans) being an amendment to: a) add Special Policy 7 to Section 13.8.3 (North Ward Neighourhood Secondary Plan) as follows: 7. Notwithstanding the Mixed Industrial-Residential designation, on lands known as 50 and 60 Lancaster Street West, the retail sales and installation of automobile parts may also be permitted as accessory to the wholesaling of automobile parts, subject to the regulations set out in the zoning by-law governing the size and location of such uses. b) amend ‘Map 19 – Plan for Land Use’ for the North Ward Neighbourhood Secondary Plan by adding special policy 7 as shown on Schedule ‘A’ attached. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City. 2)That Zone Change Application ZC 99/5/L/GR (Lancaster Street West - Graeme Jans) requesting a change in zoning from Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) to Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) with special use provision 267U, on lands legally described as Part Lots 5 and 6, Registered Plan 82, more particularly described as Parts 3 and 4, on Plan 58R-2174, be approved in the form shown in the “Proposed By-law” attached, dated April 23, 1999, without conditions. 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 (50 & 5.BPS 99/68-50 AND 60 LANCASTER STREET WEST -MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99/4/L/GR -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 99/5/L/GR -GRAEME JANS – BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD (CONT’D) 60 Lancaster Street West) to the City’s Municipal Plan.” PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 90 -CITY OF KITCHENER 6.BPS 99/71-OTTAWA STREET NORTH / OLDFIELD DRIVE / EBYDALE DRIVE / HERITAGE DRIVE -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 97/33/H/PB -HALLMAN BRIERDALE LIMITED - GRAND RIVER WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from Hallman-Brierdale Limited to change the zoning of a parcel of land bounded by Oldfield Drive, Ottawa Street North and Heritage Drive. In this regard, the Committee considered Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/71 dated June 2, 1999 and a proposed by-law dated April 29, 1999 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the applicant proposes to re-zone the property to allow a variety of institutional and commercial uses, including office; however, it is the owners intent to develop the property with a funeral home. 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 provided a brief explanation of the report noting that the property was currently zoned R 3 and confirming that there was intent to develop the property as a funeral home. Mr. P. Britton, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant to advise they were in support of the recommendation in the staff report. Mr. Britton acknowledged that he had worked with staff and the neighbourhood to resolve issues relative to this matter and expressed his appreciation for the efforts of Councillor Jake Smola and Ms. P. Bacon. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor Jake Smola - It was resolved: “That Zone Change Application ZC 97/33/H/PB (Oldfield Drive / Ottawa Street / Heritage Drive - Hallman Brierdale Limited) requesting a change in zoning from Residential Three Zone (R-3) to Community Institutional Zone (I-2) with special use provision (230U) and special regulation provision (310R) according to By-law 85-1, on lands legally described as Lots 63-73 inclusive, Block 74 and 75, Registered Plan 1589, be approved, in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached, dated April 29, 1999 without conditions. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City.” 7.BPS 99/77-ADDENDUM TO BPS 99/61 - PROPOSED BY-LAW AND PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/77 dated June 10, 1999 prepared as an addendum to report BPS 99/61. It was noted in BPS 99/77 that City st Council at its meeting held May 31 had deferred and referred a previous Committee recommendation pertaining to “Proposed Design Standards for Drive-through Facilities” to the meeting this date for further consideration. The staff report dealt with the consideration of the issue and the approach that staff took with regard to this matter. 7.BPS 99/77-ADDENDUM TO BPS 99/61 - PROPOSED BY-LAW AND PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES (CONT’D) Ms. C. Ladd briefly reviewed the contents of the staff report which provides some additional information to Committee members relative to the matter. Mr. Victor Labreche, Planning and Engineering Initiatives Limited, Kitchener, appeared as a PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 91 -CITY OF KITCHENER delegation representing the TDL Group Limited and property owners that would be affected by the recommendation pertaining to drive-throughs. He noted that the industry was mindful of the issues involved but expressed concern that tabling of a proposed by-law had the effect of establishing a benchmark with regard to the subject matter and it was his opinion there should have been input before development of a proposed by-law. He urged the Committee not take any further action with regard to regulation at this time and move directly to consultation on this matter. Mr. Labreche summarized his concerns with respect to the by-law and requested the Committee not table the by-law in order to allow for input and consultation without establishing the benchmark he referred to. Ms. C. Ladd commented that the by-law was already tabled and explained why staff tabled it, being firstly, to inform Councillors and secondly, to ensure the proposal suitably met Council wishes regarding this matter. She pointed out that staff would bring back all input from the discussion / consultation process. Mr. Mark Bodrug, appeared as a delegation on behalf of Tim Hortons and pointed out that the issues of noise and traffic from drive-through operations were inter-related. He spoke on the importance of quality of site design and advised that on the issue of noise, that his firm was working with acoustical engineers to narrow the band of sound relating to outside speaker ordering systems. He acknowledged that his firm has similar interests and concerns in terms of traffic and noise to those that had been expressed. Councillor J. Haalboom questioned what action the neighbourhood should take when it was being negatively impacted by a retail drive-through operation and Mr. Bodrug requested that the issue be brought to his attention so that he could make arrangements for problems to be dealt with. Councillor T. Galloway commented on concerns that had been expressed in the past regarding light migration off of sites and suggested that distance separation was also being considered because of the negative impact resulting from on-site lighting. Mr. Bodrug favoured the site plan including reference to fencing requirements that would assist in addressing lighting and other issues. Mr. Mike Davies, appeared as a delegation representing the Pinegrove Association and pointed out that area residents have been affected by some of the problems mentioned this date. He stated that he supported the efforts of the Committee to deal with standards and that he was in agreement with suggested changes that had been advanced but stressed that the neighbourhood was still looking for solutions to problems of: noise, lights, parking of heavy trucks, traffic disruption from delivery trucks, odours, garbage, unsightly appearance of the rear of drive-through operations and the general parking provisions. Ms. C. Ladd responded that staff would be pleased to include any neighbourhood group that has an interest in finding solutions to matters involving drive-throughs. Mr. Davies commented that he felt fencing would not resolve some of the problems to the degree that a noise attenuation wall would. Further, he noted that residential property values were reduced by such drive-through operations. Councillor C. Weylie commented that the more Tim Hortons expands its product line beyond just coffee and donuts, the longer its customers were parking and therefore generating the need for additional parking spaces as they remain longer in the facility. Mr. Bodrug stated that Tim Hortons was undertaking studies of the impact of their products as it relates to customer service and convenience. It was requested that when the design standards are considered as part of the consultation process, the issue of traffic stacking be addressed given the fact that presently drive- through operations back up at peak hours and spill out on to streets blocking traffic. Mayor C. Zehr questioned whether distance separation was measured from the building or the 7.BPS 99/77-ADDENDUM TO BPS 99/61 - PROPOSED BY-LAW AND PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES (CONT’D) property line and Ms. C. Ladd advised that it was usually from the property line. st Councillor J. Ziegler introduced the motion that was deferred by Council on May 31 and incorporated the following revisions: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 92 -CITY OF KITCHENER - after the words distance separation, include the words ‘in addition to the proposed design standards’. -after the word noise, add the words ‘garbage and lights’. -after the words business community, add the words ‘neighbourhood associations and the Environmental Committee’. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: “That the “Proposed By-law” dated March 31, 1999 and the proposed “Design Standards for Drive-through facilities (DS-A-10.1)” attached to staff report BPS 99/61 be tabled; and That staff be directed to make appropriate revisions to the proposed by-law and proposed design standards to separate drive-through operations from residential uses by either a 200 foot distance separation requirement in addition to the proposed design standards or a concrete noise attenuation barrier of sufficient density and height to block noise, garbage and lights from such operations: and That the Department of the Business and Planning Services be directed to consult with appropriate representatives from the business community, neighbourhood associations and the Environmental Committee regarding the “Proposed By-law” and “Proposed Design Standards for Drive-through facilities”; and That results of the consultation process be brought back to the Planning and Economic Development Committee for consideration at its meeting to be held October 25, 1999.” 8.BPS 99/88-REPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE -DISTANCE SEPARATION FOR LODGING HOUSES IN THE DOWNTOWN The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/88 dated th May 28, 1999. It was noted that the Downtown Advisory Committee on May 13 discussed the issue of whether lodging houses presently permitted in the downtown should be controlled through the implementation of a minimum distance separation and adopted a recommendation in that regard. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: “That the Department of Business and Planning Services be requested to prepare a report to look at the planning, zoning and administrative issues and implications involved in implementing a distance separation for lodging houses presently permitted in the downtown and the opportunities and challenges that go along with it.” 9.BPS 99/89-RESPONSE TO COUNCIL DIRECTION -RE: HAZARDS OF ELEVATED AND ROOF TOP SIGNS The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/89 dated June 4, 1999. The report was prepared after Councillors raised several issues related to signs at th the April 19, 1999 Council meeting and at the April 26 Finance and Administration Committee meeting. 9.BPS 99/89-RESPONSE TO COUNCIL DIRECTION -RE: HAZARDS OF ELEVATED AND ROOF TOP SIGNS (CONT’D) Councilor J. Ziegler introduced a motion to take no action with respect to recommendation #1 of the report relative to consideration of passing a by-law to prohibit roof signs for a temporary period and to approve recommendation #2 of the report as written. Councillor J. Haalboom objected to the motion for no action on recommendation #1 in the report and Mayor C. Zehr questioned what precipitated the staff recommendation. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 93 -CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor Haalboom advised that there was a situation in the Gateway Plaza with no policy regulating the number of signs and she had a concern as to the possibility of very large signs being erected on roof tops. Mr. B. Stanley noted that the subject had come forward because it seemed to have an element of urgency based on discussion that took place at Council and Committee. Mayor C. Zehr expressed some concern with regard to the approach on this matter. Councillor T. Galloway questioned what was actually allowed for roof top signs and Ms. J. Given advised that the permitted size was relative to the dimensions of the building and in some cases a sign could be huge. Councillor Galloway urged the Committee to support the recommendation in the staff report on this matter. The motion of Councillor J. Ziegler pertaining to no action regarding recommendation #1 of the staff report was put to the vote and lost. A motion by Mayor C. Zehr to approve recommendation #1 of the staff report, together with insertion of additional wording after the words temporary period, that reads ‘where other identification signage exists on the same property’ was supported. The staff recommendations, as revised, were then considered. It was resolved: “1)That Council pass a by-law to prohibit roof signs for a temporary period where other identification signage exists on the same property to allow for the completion of a full review of the appropriate regulations in the sign by-law. 2)That a full report dealing with the sign matters of concern, as contained in the May 3, 1999 resolution of Finance and Administration Committee, be brought to the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting of September 27, 1999.” 10.BPS 99/79-CITY OF KITCHENER “ECONOMIC TRENDS REPORT, APRIL 1999” The Committee was in receipt of an ‘Economic Trends Report for the City of Kitchener’ dated April 1999 prepared by the Department of Business and Planning Services. The Economic Trends Report is the second in a series of reports designed to provide information on the demographic, economic and social fabric of the City. The first report in the series ‘Demographic Trends’, presented in 1997, examined trends in population and age structure of the City for the period 1976 to 2016 at the City and census tract level. The purpose of the Economic Trends Report is to examine trends for a number of economic variables for the City with the intent that it facilitate decision-making related to planning, economic development, investment and social service delivery at the local level. The report is organized into two sections with the first examining the economic base of the City and the second section examining the labour force. Ms. B. Newell provided an overhead PowerPoint display and commentary of significant features in the report. The summary section of the report points out that Kitchener’s economy is stable, that the majority of new development is in single family home format, that average household income has declined, that the employment base is shifting from manufacturing to service and 10.BPS 99/79-CITY OF KITCHENER “ECONOMIC TRENDS REPORT, APRIL 1999” (CONT’D) that the labour force is mobile. Following the presentation is was requested that arrangements be made for an abbreviated st presentation to be made at the June 21 Council meeting. Councillor Jake Smola requested that reference in staff remarks be made to the demographics involved. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 1999- 94 -CITY OF KITCHENER It was resolved: “That Council receive for information the report entitled “City of Kitchener, Economic Trends” dated April 1999 prepared by the Department of Business and Planning Services.” 11.GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY APPEALS TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD RE: APPLICATIONS FOR OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE & SUBDIVISION Ms. C. Ladd advised the Committee that several applications were pending in respect to applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Plan of Subdivision in the Grand River South Community. She pointed out that the applicants have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under the 90 day provision regarding Refusal to Act and that staff would prepare a report for consideration of available options by the Planning and Economic Development th Committee at its June 28 meeting Councillor T. Galloway questioned what standing the City’s Staging of Development Report had in relation to these subdivisions. Ms. Ladd advised that staff recommend Year 2000 draft approval but favoured early consideration in 2000. She noted that the Ontario Municipal Board may take the staging of development report into consideration when it deliberates on the matter and that she would forward copies of the appeals to members of Council. 12.ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 6.37 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk.