Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1999-05-10PED\1999-05-10 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 10, 1999CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 4:23 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair with the following members present: Councillors M. Yantzi, J. Ziegler, K. Taylor-Harrison, T. Galloway, J. Haalboom and John Smola. Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors G. Lorentz and B. Vrbanovic entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd and Messrs. J. Gazzola, J. Shivas, B. Stanley, T. Boutilier, K. Mayer, D. Mansell, J. Witmer, J. Hancock, B. Kuntz and L. W. Neil. 1.APPOINTMENT OF GENERAL MANAGER Councillor C. Weylie announced that Mr. Brock Stanley had been appointed General Manager of the Department of Business and Planning Services. 2.REPORT - RESULTS OF CIRCULATION TO DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY -REVISIONS TO PROPOSED SIDEWALK POLICY & PROPOSED RIGHT -OF-WAY POLICY The Committee was in receipt of a report dated April 19, 1999 from Mr. K. Mayer, Co-ordinator of Traffic Planning dealing with the results of a circulation that had taken place to the development industry regarding revisions to the Proposed Sidewalk Policy. Also attached to his report was Traffic and Parking Division Report DOPWR-97-9 dated October 30, 1997 as revised by City Council on November 2, 1998. Mr. K. Mayer referred to previous consideration by Committee and Council on this issue in October and November 1998 and the discussion that had focused on the issue of 16 metre roads as regards the proposed requirement for sidewalks on both sides of all roads including 16 metre. He noted that a summary of responses received with respect to the circulation requested by Council was included in the report and that the individual responses were attached. Mr. Craig Robson appeared as a delegation on behalf of the K-W Homebuilders Association to present the Association’s position as outlined in his December 17, 1998 correspondence which points out that they disagree with 16 metre streets requiring sidewalks on both sides and favour the recommendation put forward by staff. He stated that if it could be shown that sidewalks on both sides were needed for safety reasons he would be in full support. However, he pointed out that no data has been presented to show that sidewalks on both sides of small streets increase safety and he suggested that it was inappropriate to make a presumption to increase safety in this regard. Accordingly, purchasers of new homes would encounter increased costs as well as the City in the longer term in order to maintain these additional sidewalks. Further, he stated that many residents have stated that they did not want sidewalks since they result in small lots looking smaller and result in reduced capability to park vehicles in driveways because of the sidewalk. Also he noted that many people do not favour sidewalk installation because of the requirement that they be cleared of snow and he asked that this issue not be ignored. In summary he asked that the Committee consider the question of balance over the perceived benefit in respect to this matter and stated that he would not argue against placing sidewalks on one side of these small streets but that sidewalks should not be required on both sides. He also suggested that in situations where there was a sidewalk on one side but that densities of a particular street were becoming significant then it would be acceptable to give consideration to installation of sidewalk on both sides where higher densities occur. Councillor M. Yantzi commented that he considered sidewalks to be a pedestrian as well as an amenity within a subdivision and that installing a sidewalk on one side of the street did not serve all residents, particularly very small children. In response, Mr. Robson questioned if the safety issue that Councillor Yantzi was referring to was a presumption or if there was data to support that viewpoint. Councillor G. Lorentz entered the meeting at this point. Councillor J. Haalboom stated that she was not in support of requiring sidewalks on both sides of 16 metre roads given that traffic volume was limited and that the sidewalk would require extra 2.REPORT - RESULTS OF CIRCULATION TO DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 10, 1999- 69 -CITY OF KITCHENER -REVISIONS TO PROPOSED SIDEWALK POLICY & PROPOSED RIGHT -OF-WAY POLICY (CONT’D) land and result in additional cost to new home purchasers. Councillor T. Galloway stated that 16 metre roads were small streets and he could not support requiring sidewalks on both sides given that lot widths and setbacks had been reduced and as a result, the streetscape is affected to the point that only a small front yard and very short driveway is available that would be further impacted by a sidewalk. He stated that he considered a sidewalk on one side of a 16 metre street to be sufficient as a good balance on this issue. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he did not support installation on both sides and was in agreement with the views expressed by Councillor Galloway. Councillor G. Lorentz stated that he supports sidewalks on both sides of 16 metre streets and noted that most agencies support the requirement and that it was his view safety must be paramount. Mayor C. Zehr entered the meeting at this point. On motion by Councillor M. Yantzi - It was resolved: “1)That Council Policy Number I-727 (Road Allowance Widths and Sidewalk Locations in New Subdivisions) dated October 9, 1979 be repealed and a new policy be approved as indicated on Appendix "A", "", outlined in Road Right-Of-Way Widths (4) below; and further, 2)That a new Council Policy be approved relative to "" as Sidewalk Requirements indicated on Appendix "B", outlined in (5) below; and further, 3)That the City of Kitchener Subdivision Manual be revised to reflect all changes made to the applicable criteria as approved by Council. 4)APPENDIX "A" SUBJECT: ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS CLASSIFICATIONDEFINITIONRIGHT-OF-WAY A.A.D.T. Secondary Arterial RoadsGenerally, the function of26 m12,000 to 20,000 Secondary Arterial Roads is to distribute large volumes of traffic between other Arterial Roads and Major Collector Roads. The primary purpose of such roads is to carry through traffic within the municipality. Direct access to abutting properties may be permitted. Major Collector RoadsGenerally, the function of Major20 m8,000 to 12,000 Collector Roads is to collect and distribute traffic between Local Streets, other Collector Roads and the Arterial Road system. The primary purpose of such roads is to carry through traffic between neighbourhoods. Direct access to abutting properties may be permitted. Minor Collector RoadsThe function of Minor Collector18 m2,000 to 8,000 Roads is to collect and distribute traffic between Local Streets and other Collector Roads. They are not generally intended to carry through traffic between neighbourhoods. 2.REPORT - RESULTS OF CIRCULATION TO DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 10, 1999- 70 -CITY OF KITCHENER -REVISIONS TO PROPOSED SIDEWALK POLICY & PROPOSED RIGHT -OF-WAY POLICY (CONT’D) SUBJECT: ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS CLASSIFICATIONDEFINITIONRIGHT-OF-WAY A.A.D.T. Local StreetsLocal Streets generally serve only18 m or 16 m *up to 2,000 the abutting properties and are not intended to carry through traffic. SUBJECT: ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS * Local streets with a 16m right-of-way may be permitted for cul-de-sacs containing a maximum of 30 NOTE units having direct vehicular access, and all other roads containing a maximum of 60 units per street block having direct vehicular access. Exemptions It is acknowledged that there may be instances where an exemption to the requirements of this policy may be warranted. In these instances, unique design alternatives may be considered based on review by the City under good planning, engineering and transportation principles, or as otherwise provided for in Secondary or Community Plans. The authority for exemptions to the requirements set out in this policy shall be delegated to the General Manager of Public Works. 5) APPENDIX "B" SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS Sidewalk will be constructed in accordance with the following requirements which shall apply to all land uses unless specified otherwise herein. 1.Location of Sidewalk a)Roads 16 meters and greater: Sidewalk is required on both sides, except on roads in business park/industrial areas. b)Downtown: Notwithstanding a) above, sidewalk is required on both sides of all roads within the Downtown Districts as designated in the Municipal Plan, with the exception of public lanes. c)Scenic Roads: Sidewalk is not required on designated scenic roads. d)Heritage Conservation Districts For roadways contained within a Heritage Conservation District, sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with the respective District approved policies. 2.REPORT - RESULTS OF CIRCULATION TO DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY -REVISIONS TO PROPOSED SIDEWALK POLICY & PROPOSED PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 10, 1999- 71 -CITY OF KITCHENER RIGHT -OF-WAY POLICY (CONT’D) 2.Exemptions a)It is acknowledged that there may be instances where an exemption to requirement 1. above may be warranted. In these instances, unique design alternatives may be considered based on review by the City under good planning, engineering and transportation principles, or as otherwise provided for in Secondary or Community Plans. b)The authority for exemptions to sidewalk requirements set out in this policy shall be delegated to the General Manager of Public Works in the case of lands within Plans of Subdivision, and to the Director of Planning, for lands subject to Site Plan Approval. Where there is a disagreement between the owner/developer and the General Manager of Public Works, the final decision will be made by Council. c)Notwithstanding the requirements of this policy, sidewalk requirements set out in plans of subdivision which are draft approved prior to (date of Council approval of this policy) shall take precedent. d)Notwithstanding the requirements of this policy, sidewalk requirements set out in site plans approved prior to (date of Council approval of this policy) shall take precedent. 3.Costs a)All costs for the required sidewalk installation on roads adjacent to the lands being developed will be the responsibility of the owner/developer of lands being subdivided or the owner of lands being developed. b)Notwithstanding 3.a) above, in instances where existing development is to be expanded and where sidewalk is required under 1. of this policy, the required financial contribution from the owner/developer for sidewalk will be in direct proportion to the proposed increase in floor area. c)Where sidewalk is required under 1. of this policy and where lands abut only one side of the road, which includes back-lotting, the owner/developer shall be responsible for sidewalk on the abutting side only. d)In the case of sidewalk requirements in plans of subdivision, the owner/developer may be required to extend sidewalk beyond the limits of the subdivision to a reasonable extent where deemed necessary in order to provide a connection with existing pedestrian facilities (e.g. sidewalk, walkway, trail, bus stop) or with other land uses which generate pedestrian activity.” 2.BPS 99/70-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Councillor B. Vrbanovic entered the meeting at this point. The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/70 dated th April 29, 1999. The report deals with recommendations from the April 14 meeting of the Economic Development Advisory Committee relative to appointments of Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: “That City Council accept the nominations from the April 14, 1999 Economic Development 2.BPS 99/70-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 10, 1999- 72 -CITY OF KITCHENER Advisory Committee meeting of Hans Pottkamper as Chair and Glenn Scheels as Vice- Chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee.” 3.BPS 99/69-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE USE OF SECTION 39 OF THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/69 dated April 29, 1999. The report deals with a recommendation by staff to investigate Section 39 of the Ontario Heritage Act with respect to designated Adaptive Re-use Sites which are also designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The report itemizes targeted sites under the City’s Adaptive Re-Use Program and indicates which of those sites were within the Downtown Community Improvement Plan. The community improvement plan is a method under which a number of the Adaptive Re-Use Sites can be considered for eligibility to receive additional incentives to foster redevelopment. However, the remaining properties presently do not qualify. Accordingly, it has been suggested consideration be given to extending the package of incentives to properties outside the limits of the community improvement plan which are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Councillor J. Haalboom referred to a memorandum dated May 10, 1999 distributed this date th advising of a recommendation passed at the May 7 meeting of Heritage Kitchener in which it supported the recommendations in the staff report and also added a further recommendation that Heritage Kitchener partner with the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) in the identification of designated sites being included as Adaptive Re-Use Sites to benefit from the package of development incentives. Mr. T. Boutilier noted that the initial recommendation had originated at the Economic Development Advisory Committee which had asked for Heritage Kitchener involvement in the process and that staff were supportive of this position. In response to Councillor C. Weylie, Mr. Boutilier advised that EDAC works with prospective property owners that might qualify and informs them of Councils consideration of any issues. However, he noted that when properties change hands, the new property owner may or may not agree with the initiatives being taken by the City on a property owners behalf. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison strongly supported the direction in the report but suggested it did not go far enough. Mr. T. Boutilier explained the procedure as to the identified sites and the necessity to concentrate staff resources to improve targeted properties. He noted that staff see an opportunity under Section 39 of the Ontario Heritage Act to broaden the Adaptive Re-Use Program and that the intent of the report was to undertake such broadening and thereby look at other opportunities. Following further discussion, Mr. Boutilier advised that staff of Planning and Legal proposed to develop a more detailed report for the Committees consideration. On motion by Councillor J. Haalboom - It was resolved: “That Staff of the Business and Planning Services Department be directed to investigate the expansion of the current Section 28 Downtown Community Improvement Area, and the use of Section 39 of the Ontario Heritage Act to extend the Adaptive Re-Use package of development incentives for designated Adaptive Re-use Sites which are also designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and further, That Heritage Kitchener partner with the Economic Development Advisory Committee in the identification of designated sites to be included as adaptive re-use sites to benefit from the package of development incentives.” 4.CONSIDERATION OF 2 ADDITIONAL PEDC MEETING DATES Alternative dates were listed on the agenda that would provide the Committee with the opportunity to hold 2 additional meetings in 1999. 4.CONSIDERATION OF 2 ADDITIONAL PEDC MEETING DATES (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 10, 1999- 73 -CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. B. Stanley noted that in consideration of projects on the Committees Unfinished Business list as well as other items that were known to be coming forward, it was clear that there were too many items to be dealt with at too few meetings for the remainder of the year. He asked that the th Committee reserve the evening of June 14 in order that it could extend its regular afternoon th meeting or the afternoon of June 15 and that an additional meeting be held on Monday October th 18 in the afternoon that would deal with either a number of Unfinished Business items or possibly the Commercial Hierarchy Policy. On motion by Councillor John Smola - It was resolved: “That we approve the following revisions to the 1999 meeting schedule of the Planning and Economic Development Committee: th a)If required, the regular afternoon meeting of Monday June 14 recess for a dinner break and reconvene in the evening. b)An additional meeting be held on Monday October 18, 1999 commencing at 3:00 p.m.” 5ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:06 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk.