Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1999-05-25PED\1999-05-25 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 25, 1999CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:00 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair with the following members present: Councillors John Smola, J. Haalboom, B. Vrbanovic, G. Lorentz, J. Ziegler and M. Yantzi. Councillors T. Galloway and K. Taylor-Harrison entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, L. McDonald, P. Bacon and Messrs. B. Stanley, J. Willmer, J. Witmer, L. Masseo and L. W. Neil. 1.BPS 99/84- KING STREET EAST -THE BRICK FURNITURE WAREHOUSE CORPORATION RE: ILLEGAL SIGNS – DOON-PIONEER WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/84 dated May 18, 1999. The report deals with the outcome of complaints regarding illegal signs erected in 1998 advertising The Brick Furniture Warehouse, Kitchener. Mr. B. Stanley advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report other than recommend that the Committee receive it as information. On motion by Councillor J. Haalboom - It was resolved: “That Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/84 summarizing the outcome of posting of illegal signs by the Brick Furniture Warehouse Corporation, King Street East, be received for information.” 2.BPS 99/61- DRIVE -THROUGH USES IN THE CITY OF KITCHENER The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/61 dated May 10, 1999. Attached to the report was a “Proposed By-law” dated March 31, 1999 and “Proposed Design Standards for Drive-through facilities” for review by the Committee. It was pointed out in the report that City Council directed the department in August of 1997 and in May of 1998 to investigate options to regulate drive-through uses in consideration of the impact that these operations have on residential areas. Mr. B. Stanley provided background of the issue to Committee members and noted that staff were requesting authority to circulate the proposals to the business community to obtain their input and comment. Through the consultation process staff hope to have the business community buy into the regulations as well as develop a willingness to undertake retro-fit of exisiting drive-through facilities. Councillor T. Galloway entered the meeting at this point. The Committee was circulated with a memorandum this date from Councillor J. Haalboom itemizing numerous problems experienced with drive-through operations of the businesses situated at the corner of King Street East, Baxter Drive and Pioneer Drive. Councillor Haalboom commented that obnoxious conditions have been endured for the last 4 years and stated it was her hope these items were covered in the staff report. She questioned what the recourse might be in such existing situations and Mr. Stanley replied that as he had noted in his earlier comments it was the hope of staff to try and work with the industry to retro-fit existing drive-through operations. Councillor Haalboom spoke to one of the concerns which relates to the landscaping plan of the businesses referred to and pointed out that the shrubs were extremely small and were still of no benefit and questioned what could be done. Mr. Stanley advised that an appeal should be made to the owners to try and encourage them to adopt a good neighbour approach to resolve this and other concerns. He agreed that staff would contact the owners and try to set up a meeting with them and the Neighbourhood Association to address the list of concerns provided by Councillor Haalboom. Ms. C. Ladd commented on technical issues of the drive-through issue in respect to zoning and PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 25, 1999- 75 -CITY OF KITCHENER 2.BPS 99/61- DRIVE - THROUGH USES IN THE CITY OF KITCHENER (CONT’D) the prohibitions and regulations that are being proposed. In reference to Councillor Haalboom’s list of concerns, she noted that the proposals would address many of them. Councillor T. Galloway questioned what the noise decibel numbers represent in the document as related to the Ministry of the Environment sound level limits for noise from stationary sources. He stated that he was concerned about residents who live near to such drive-through operations but may not have the benefit of air conditioning to mitigate noise from such operations. Ms. C. Ladd referenced noise policy of the Region of Waterloo which establishes 60 decibels in respect to regional road traffic noise but also stated it was her understanding that order boards for drive- through operations have new technology that deals with ambient noise and makes volume adjustments. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison entered the meeting at this point. Councillor T. Galloway questioned how an acceptable level of noise would be determined and Ms. C. Ladd replied that the City does not have the authority in Section 41 of the Development Agreement to deal with noise but suggested staff could consult with the industry or another alternative might be to require minimum separation of drive-through uses from residential areas. Councillor J. Ziegler referred to the Bleams / Strasburg Roads Zone Change Application from 1997 and questioned how it would proceed; to which, Ms. C. Ladd advised that it would proceed if the applicant provided a noise study that meets or mitigates noise to the regulation levels. Councillor J. Ziegler indicated that he objected to the proposals in the staff report and recommended that a separation requirement and / or concrete barriers be included therein. As an example, he referred to drive-through operations on Fairway Road that have significant distance between them and adjacent residential areas and that no complaints have been received from these residents. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler, it was agreed to revise the recommendation in the staff report to include separation of drive-through operations from residential uses by either a 200 foot distance separation requirement or a concrete noise attenuation barrier of sufficient density and height to block noise from such operations. The recommendation in the staff report, as revised, was then considered. On motion by Councillor G. Lorentz - 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 or a concrete noise attenuation barrier of sufficient density and height to block noise from such operations; and, That the Department of the Business and Planning Services be directed to consult with appropriate representatives from the business community 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.” 3.COMPLAINTS RE: ALTITUDE OF HOT AIR BALLOONS Councillor C. Weylie advised that she has received complaints from residents regarding the low altitude levels of hot air balloons. She indicated this was causing neighbourhood disturbance particularly from barking dogs and Mr. B. Stanley advised that he thought the matter fell under the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 25, 1999- 76 -CITY OF KITCHENER 3.COMPLAINTS RE: ALTITUDE OF HOT AIR BALLOONS (CONT’D) jurisdiction of the Federal Government and that he would make inquiries with Federal authorities relative to the issue. 4.BPS 99/70-MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99/1/D/LM -INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY IN ‘LIMITED SERVICE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT’ 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 99/1/D/LM City Initiated 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 May 31, 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 99/64 dated April 22, 1999 dealing with Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP 99/1/D/LM. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for limited infill development on private water supply and individual septic systems within the Limited Service Residential District. Attached to the staff report was the report containing the proposed amendment. The report contains a background section fully describing this matter in detail. In summary, the proposed amendment would provide for new lots that meet the interpreted definition of infill development to occur within the Limited Service Residential District on both individual septic systems and private wells subject to certain approvals. Mr. L. Masseo commented that this matter dated back to consideration of the Doon South Community Plan and the Limited Service Residential designation that would require piped water supply to properties on septic systems. However a problem had been identified as to the fact that some lands would be sterilized by the requirement. He then explained the proposed Municipal Plan Amendment, its background and expansion to a City-wide policy. In response to Councillor T. Galloway, Mr. Masseo advised that at the time when the problem arose, staff did not have the resources to deal with the amendment but that the property owner did not wish to wait for City-wide consideration and filed an individual amendment. Mr. Brenton Toderian from MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Limited appeared as a delegation on behalf of their client, Mr. Merli, to indicate that they were in agreement with the staff report. He noted that the original Official Plan Amendment Application was initiated on behalf of Mr. Merli as he did not wish to wait for the City to undertake an amendment within the timing schedule of its work program. He pointed out that there was little, if any mention of Mr. Merli’s situation with respect to the amendment report which he suggested has benefitted the City by addressing a City-wide issue. Accordingly, he requested that the application fee of $1,500.00 be refunded to his client. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 25, 1999- 77 -CITY OF KITCHENER 4.BPS 99/70-MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99/1/D/LM -INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY IN ‘LIMITED SERVICE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT’ (CONT’D) Councillor J. Ziegler commented that the application would still have cost Mr. Merli $1,500.00 if it had not been expanded to apply City-wide and Mr. B. Stanley advised that this approach was consistent with many situations in the past involving the allocation of limited staff resources in relation to departmental work programs. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. In response to a comment of Councillor J. Haalboom, Mr. L. Masseo advised that prior to the new Municipal Plan and Regional Servicing hierarchy policies, severancing was never allowed outright. The recommendations in the staff report were then considered. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: “That City Council adopt Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP 99/1/D/LM (Infill Development on Private Water Supply in Limited Service Residential District - City-wide), being an Amendment to revise Part 3, Subsection 3.1.1, by adding the following new Policy 3.1.1.7: 3.1.1.7Notwithstanding Policy 3.1.1.5(I) above, the creation of new infill lots, serviced with private water supply and individual septic systems, may be permitted in the following circumstances: a)where connection to a piped municipal water supply is not feasible, as determined in accordance with Policy 10.3.1.3 of the Regional Official Policies Plan; b)where appropriate servicing studies, verifying the suitability of the soils to accommodate individual septic systems and private wells have been approved by the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; c)where the proposed infill lot(s) are surrounded on at least two sides by development existing on (date of approval), as opposed to development on lots which are set apart or would further extend an existing area of development; and, d)where the proposed lot(s) cannot reasonably be expected to develop by plan of subdivision and the creation of the proposed lot(s) would not jeopardize the orderly development of the remaining or adjacent lands. It is the opinion of this Committee that the approval of this Amendment to the Municipal Plan is proper planning for the City.” 5.ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 3:43 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk.