Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 1999-06-28PED\1999-06-28 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:57 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors Jake Smola, M. Yantzi, J. Ziegler, K. Taylor-Harrison, G. Lorentz, T. Galloway and John Smola. Councillor B. Vrbanovic entered the meeting shortly after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, P. Bacon, J. Given, J. Jantzi, L. MacDonald and Messrs. J. Gazzola, J. Shivas, B. Stanley, D. Mansell, J. Witmer, P. Wetherup and L. W. Neil. 1.BPS 99/94-WASHBURN DRIVE, HURON BUSINESS PARK -GRADING OF SITES 139, 140 AND 141 – SOUTH WARD At previous meetings of Planning Committee and Council, staff report BPS 99/94 was deferred and th was again deferred at the June 28 Special Council meeting and referred to the July 5, 1999 Council meeting for consideration. th To facilitate Council addressing this matter at its July 5 meeting the deferral recommendation is recorded herein and will be carried forward to the report of the Planning and Economic th Development Committee for Council’s July 5 meeting as follows: “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 July 5, 1999 City Council meeting for consideration.” 2.BPS 99/86-432 CHARLES STREET EAST -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 99/7/C/FS -COPPS BUILDERS SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED -ROCKWAY-VICTORIA WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/86 dated May 28, 1999. The report deals with a proposed zone change submitted by Copps Builders Supply Company Limited with respect to the property know municipally as 432 Charles Street East. It was requested that this matter be deferred. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: “That consideration of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/86 - Zone Change Application ZC 99/7/C/FS (432 Charles Street East - Copps Builders Supply Company Limited) requesting a change in zoning be deferred and referred to the August 16, 1999 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting.” 3.BPS 99/104-REQUEST FOR DIRECTION -REPORT ON SUBDIVISIONS IN GRAND RIVER SOUTH - GRAND RIVER WARD Staff report BPS 99/104 was not distributed with the agenda. The report was to deal with a request for direction relative to subdivisions in Grand River South. It was suggested that this matter be dealt with at the Committee’s August meeting. On motion by Councillor M. Yantzi - It was resolved: “That consideration of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/104 – request for direction on subdivisions in Grand River South be deferred and referred to the August 16, 1999 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting.” PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 96 -CITY OF KITCHENER 4.REPORT-STORM WATER MANAGEMENT POLICY EXEMPTIONS, AND -2727 KINGSWAY DRIVE, TRINITY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT The Committee was in receipt of a report dated June 22, 1999 from Messrs. E. Kovacs and S. Gyorffy dealing with the issue of Storm Water Management Policy Exemptions. The report deals with the recent Council action with respect to the application of revised Storm Water Management Policies and comments on the refusal by staff of a request from Trinity Village Care Centre to be exempted from Storm Water Management for a Section 41 development, the Agreement for which was registered on March 31, 1999. Councillor J. Ziegler has requested that this matter be reviewed by the Committee. It was pointed out that since the date of adoption of the new policy, staff have used the date of registration of the development agreement as the determining date for the appropriate policy to be applied and other applicatiions have been treated on this basis. It was stressed in the staff report that the exemption policy is in place on a short term basis to enable staff to review the options for a more global system and that on completion of a study there was a likelihood that a fee would be applied to such sites as an alternative to site specific works. Accordingly, the date of approval of the development agreement is considered to be a fair and reasonable approach to applying the policies in place prior to Council’s exemption. Mr. D. Mansell explained the issues with respect to this matter making reference to the benchmark dates of before and after registration of the development agreement. Mr. S. Gyorffy pointed out that the issue at hand was what date to establish for implementation of the policy and noted that staff had applied the date of registration on the development agreement. Mr. Art Schelter, Administrator of the Trinity Care Village, appeared as a delegation with respect to their request. He noted that this non-profit organization was developing an addition to the facility and referred to the change that took place to City policy in the midst of their project. Mr. Tim Shayner also appeared on behalf of the facility and advised that they were seeking consideration for exemption from the Stormwater Management Policy so as not to require installation of a stormwater management pond. In response to Councillor J. Ziegler, he advised that the surrounding area had soil that provided for good drainage that is lessening the need for a pond and that the area saved by not having to install the pond could be utilized for additional staff parking. Mr. Schelter commented that they were not informed of the proposed change in policy and that had they been made aware of it, they would have delayed signing the development agreement in order to take advantage of the new policy. Mr. D. Mansell stressed that at this time, no change was being made to the policy but rather it was relaxing the requirements on site plans for an interim period and that it should not be seen as providing for possible exemption. Councillor T. Galloway indicated that the delegation had said that the cost of the Storm Water Management was $40,000.00 and they had spent $30,000.00 and he questioned what the result would be if no further Storm Management was implemented. Mr. Mansell advised that staff would have to review the whole plan to provide an appraisal. Councillor J. Ziegler pointed out that the area was composed of sandy soil and there was never any drainage problems and asked that staff review with the applicant the value of the work done. He indicated that he had been prepared to make a motion granting exemption from the remainder of the Storm Water Management Plan but that he would instead recommend that additional information be sought with respect to the implications of granting exemption. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: “That the request of the Trinity Village Development, 2727 Kingsway Drive, for exemption from the City’s ‘Storm Water Management Policy’ as it relates to the requirement to construct a storm water management pond be deferred and referred to the July 5, 1999 Council meeting for consideration along with additional information to be provided by staff respecting this matter.” 4.REPORT-STORM WATER MANAGEMENT POLICY EXEMPTIONS, AND -2727 KINGSWAY DRIVE, TRINITY VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 97 -CITY OF KITCHENER The following staff recommendation was tabled at the June 28, 1999 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting but not dealt with and is provided herein in order that it is included on the Planning and Economic Development report for consideration by Council at its July 5, 1999 meeting. “That the recently approved Storm Water Management Policies recently adopted by Council include an amendment that Section 41 Development Applications registered before May 29, 1999, not be exempted from the Policies in effect up to that date.” 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of a subdivision application from Hallman Rosedale Limited on a parcel of land adjoining Edenbridge Drive. The Committee considered staff report BPS 99/87 dated May 26, 1999 which describes the proposal for creation of 51 large residential lots within the former school sites on Edenbridge Drive. The City’s Municipal Plan and the existing Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1) zoning both allow for the proposed use; however, revisions are required to the Grand River South (Area 1) Community Plan. The subject lands are situated on the south side of Edenbridge Drive and comprise approximately 4.91 hectares in size, being two former elementary school sites that have now been declared surplus and sold to the applicant. 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 the Committee with an explanation of the report under consideration and referenced issues that have been addressed. She pointed out that a major issue for the community was the loss of parkland that would have been utilized as part of the open space of the original school sites. Ms. Evelyn McGuffin read the contents of a submission dated June 25, 1999 distributed this date outlining concerns with regard to needed play area for area children. As well, the issue of playground equipment was raised in her letter and it was requested that the Ward Councillor undertake to find additional play area for area children. Mr. P. Wetherup advised that staff were investigating the area to the south of the subject lands and the question of finding more playground space for children. However, he indicated that their first priority was to look into acquiring additional playground equipment for Springmount Park. In response to Councillor Jake Smola, Mr. Wetherup advised that staff expected to bring a report to the Community Services Committee in September that would deal with playground needs in the Idlewood area. Mr. Jim Tait appeared as a delegation to present a submission dated June 25, 1999 distributed this date. It was pointed out in the submission that their concerns relating to the lack of open field play area and lot density have not been addressed. Mr. Tait pointed out that Springmount Park is often in a very wet condition and noted that an opportunity to comment on the grading plan in respect to the subdivision would be appreciated. Councillor Jake Smola referred to concerns expressed regarding Lots 3 – 7 and Mr. D. Mansell advised that the required grading plan would ensure engineers matched the grading of existing properties on Edenbridge Place to those on the proposed plan of subdivision. He noted that Mr. Paul Dietrich has expressed a willingness to meet with residents regarding any grading concerns. Councillor B. Vrbanovic entered the meeting at this point. Mr. B. Strauss appeared as a delegation and advised that he was the owner of Lot 38 to the east of the proposed subdivision and noted that Block 54 represented the lower elevation portion 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 98 -CITY OF KITCHENER -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) of the proposed development. He advised that during a storm the existing play area floods and is almost always wet. Mr. Strauss commented on concern with regard to small children being required to play near a ball diamond utilized by older children. He also expressed a concern in that residents have not seen a final plan for the Storm Water Management area and also have a concern whether or not the creek can handle additional water. Mr. D. Mansell advised that the entire area was planned by using large swales and advised that the storm water management proposed is sized to take the flows without affecting existing properties. With regard to comments made by the delegation in reference to the area adjacent to Edenbridge Place, Mayor C. Zehr advised that the area became a naturalized area and questioned if intent was the same for Block 54. Mr. Strauss noted that there was water running all the time in a good portion of Block 54. Mr. P. Wetherup commented on original dedications that took place relative to the creation of Springmount Park. Mayor C. Zehr pointed out that there was a great deal of discussion when the original development was approved. He suggested that if school sites are cancelled because of redundancy, the City should be entitled to a portion of the land to replace lost open space. Ms. C. Ladd referred to legislation relative to educational facilities and pointed out that the City was entitled to first right of refusal on surplus lands and had decided not to undertake a purchase from either of the school boards. Councillor J. Ziegler commented that the school boards could not be relied upon to establish permanent open space that would benefit the City through their school planning policies. Mayor C. Zehr suggested that in such new subdivision applications, a portion of redundant school sites be carved out of the subdivision for park purposes. Councillor Jake Smola requested that staff investigate options relative to this issue, such as the City holding title until school boards proceed with proposed development. Mr. B. Stanley commented that this matter has been discussed by Management Committee on a number of occasions over many years stressing that it was not a new problem and he proposed that staff review past situations and summarize the events. For the record, following the meeting Councillor Jake Smola provided a copy of a letter received from Mrs. Michele Doktor dealing with the issue of Springmount Park playground relocation. The letter will be copied and forwarded to the Committee and appropriate staff. Mr. Paul Dietrich appeared as a delegation as Planning Consultant for Hallman Rosedale Limited. He pointed out that a plan had been presented earlier for the subdivision that would carve out a parcel of land for a park and that the developer was willing to provide such if the City would purchase an additional parcel of land. He indicated that he was in support of the staff report with the exception of the requirement to install sidewalks on all sides of streets within the subdivision. He noted that a new sidewalk policy had recently come into effect that altered Council’s previous policy that would have required sidewalk on one side of the streets only. Accordingly, he requested that Condition 59 be revised in this regard. Further, he commented that the concerns expressed with regard to the park situation were not germane to the issue being considered today. In response to Councillor Jake Smola, Mr. Dietrich indicated that his client would be willing to sell a parcel of land at cost to create additional park if Council wished to do so. Councillor J. Ziegler requested that staff consider any offer to sell or trade lots in order to achieve a larger park area. He stated that he was in agreement with the sidewalk request to allow for installation on only one side. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that the issue of acquiring an additional parcel of land to add to the park dedication parcel be included on the in-camera agenda th of City Council for July 5. No other delegations were registered with respect to this matter. Ms. C. Ladd requested a slight revision to Condition 68 of the City conditions so as to change 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 99 -CITY OF KITCHENER the street reference from Templeton Crescent to Charleston Place. Mayor C. Zehr requested that any Councillors with an interest in this issue deal directly with City th staff before the July 5 Council meeting. Councillor T. Galloway stated that he would support a tradeoff of exempting part of the City’s sidewalk policy for additional lands. Further, he suggested that other Hallman lands could be part of a package of land exchange in order to achieve a larger park area. It was agreed that the possible acquisition of additional lands be the subject matter of in-camera th consideration on July 5. The staff report was then considered and it was greed to revise Condition 59 in respect to the sidewalk requirement so as to require sidewalk on only one side of all streets in the subdivision as described in more detail in the revised condition wording and to revise Condition 68 in accordance with the request of Ms. C. ladd. On motion by Councillor John Smola - It was resolved: A.That the Grand River South (Area 1) Community Plan be revised as follows: “ i) That Map No. 1, Plan Use Plan, be revised to designate the lands shown on the attached map from “School” to “Large Lot Residential”. ii) That the following new Policy 3.3.9 be added: 3.3.9That notwithstanding Policy 3.3.8 above, within the lands described as Block 13, Registered Plan 1608 and Block 79, Registered Plan 1607, a minimum lot area of 560 square metres shall be permitted for lots which back onto the Idlewood Creek Open Space System.” It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this revision to the Community Plan is proper planning for the City. 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 B-law 97-061 of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, grant draft approval to Plan of Subdivision 30T-98207 (Edenbridge Drive) in the City of Kitchener for Hallman Rosedale Limited, subject to the following conditions: 1.That this approval applies to Plan of Subdivision 30T-98207 for Hallman Rosedale Limited as shown on the plan prepared by Wright-Dietrich Limited, dated 29 March 1999 and as shown on the attached Plan of Subdivision prepared by the City of Kitchener dated May 26, 1999, as revised June 28, 1999, which shows the following: Lots 1-51-Single Detached Residential (maximum 51 units) Blocks 52, 53-walkway Blocks Block 54- Stormwater Management Block 55- Park Blocks 56, 57- Lot Additions 2.CITY OF KITCHENER CONDITIONS: 1.That the Subdivider enter into a City Standard Form Residential Subdivision Agreement as approved by City Council embracing those lands shown 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 100 -CITY OF KITCHENER outlined in the attached Plan of Subdivision and that the following special conditions be written therein: “The Subdivider covenants and agrees: 51.That the final plans for registration shall be prepared in accordance with the attached Plan of Subdivision dated May 26, 1999, as revised June 28, 1999, provided that minor amendments to said plan, acceptable to the General Manager of Business and Planning Services, and not affecting the numbering of any lots or blocks, may be permitted without amendment to this agreement. Any changes affecting the numbering of the lots and blocks shall require an amendment to this agreement to reflect such changes. 52. To submit a Lot Grading and Drainage Control Plan for the approval 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 registration of the Subdivision Plan. 53. To submit a detailed engineering design for storm water management in accordance with the approved concept plan to be approved 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. Said engineering design shall include an erosion and siltation control plan indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and silt maintained on-site both during and after grading and construction stages. The Subdivider further agrees to implement all required measures as outlined in the approved final design. 54. That landscape plans of the proposed storm water management facilitate shall be approved by the General Manager of Parks and Recreation and the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision. All landscaping of areas above the 5 year storm level shall be installed at the Subdivider’s cost, in accordance with the approved plan, during the first planting season after occupancy of the first unit. The remainder of the planting shall commence at such time as required by the General Manager of Parks and Recreation. The Subdivider shall maintain the planting for a period of one year from the completion of final planting. Landscape plans are to be prepared by an Environmental Professional acceptable to the City. 55. That prior to the Department of Public Works accepting storm water management ponds as shown on the approved landscape plan, the Subdivider agrees to erect one or more information signs at a public access(s) detailing the purpose of the pond, telephone number for further information and any other relevant information, to be approved by the General Manager of Parks and Recreation. 56. To obtain, from the Grand River Conservation Authority, if necessary, A Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93 and 669/94, prior to on-site grading, the installation of services and prior to the City’s release of any stage of the Subdivision Plan for registration. 57. That the names of the streets within the Plan shall be those shown on the 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) Plan of Subdivision. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 101 -CITY OF KITCHENER 58. That construction traffic to and from the proposed subdivision shall be restricted to using Oldfield Drive to Lackner Boulevard. 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, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation. 59. To construct 1.5 metre wide concrete sidewalks on the south side of Edenbridge Drive, the east side of Charleston Place from Edenbridge Drive to Templeton Drive and the south side of Templeton Drive from Charleston Place to Edenbridge Drive within the Plan of Subdivision, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works. 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, 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’s releasing the subdivision plan for registration, the Subdivider shall submit the Detailed Vegetation Plan, for the approval of the City’s Director of Planning; 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, the City has inspected these measures and the Subdivider has received a written authorization from the City’s Department 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 his 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 for those lots or blocks, prior to applying for or having issued any building permits, 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 greater than 13.7 metres of street frontage, proposed building structure that is located deeper on the lot than that approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan and/or 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 timing, dressing, or bark doctoring shall be implemented at the Subdivider’s cost and as directed by the Consultant who prepared the approved plan. In cases 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 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) the tree value formula as set out in the “Guide for Plant Appraisal”, International Society of Arboraculture, Latest Edition. Tree PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 102 -CITY OF KITCHENER 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 Department of Business and Planning Services and shall be satisfactorily implemented prior to occupancy of the unit or due to weather conditions, by the next planting season. 61. To convey to the City of Kitchener, at no cost and free of encumbrance, concurrent with the registration of the Plan of Subdivision: a)Block 54 for storm water management purposes; and b) Block 55 for Park purposes. 62. To dedicate to the City of Kitchener free of encumbrance, through plan registration, the following lands for the purposes stated therein: a)Block 52 for public walkway purposes; and b) Block 53 for public walkway purposes. 63. To convey Block 56 to the owner of the abutting lands to the west, identified as Lot 93, Registered Plan 1608, at fair market value for lot addition purposes, within 1 year of the registration of the Plan of Subdivision. Further, that Block 56 be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. 64. To convey Block 57 to the owner of the abutting lands to the west, identified as Lot 94, Registered Plan 1608, at fair market value for lot addition purposes, within 1 year of the registration of the Plan of Subdivision. Further, that Block 57 be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. 65. To install a permanent 1.2 metre high paige wire fence or an alternate marking system to the satisfaction of the City’s General Manager of Parks and Recreation along the rear of Lots 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 21, where such lots abut Block 55; and along the rear of Lots 7 through 13 inclusive, 21 and 22, where such lots abut Block 77, Registered Plan 1576. 66. That a plan showing driveway locations for all lots shall be approved by the City’s Director of Planning in consultation with the City’s General Manager of Public Works, prior to the installation of services within the Plan of Subdivision. 67. That no sewer and water service be installed within 1.5 metres of the centre of a proposed submersible transformer vault or within 0.9 metres of a proposed electrical service stub and that no fire hydrant be installed within 3.0 metres of a proposed street light pole or hydro pole. The Subdivider shall review the Commission’s engineering drawings and shall be responsible for ensuring that these separations are maintained. 68. That access to Lot 32 shall be permitted only from Charleston Place and that no access shall be permitted from Edenbridge Drive. 69. To undertake any measure required to ensure proper water pressure to the 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) proposed development, to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official or the City’s General Manager of Public Works.” PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 103 -CITY OF KITCHENER 3.REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CONDITIONS: 1.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 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 of lease or purchase and sale will have all conditions of draft 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 owners or their agents submit the following plans and reports to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority: a) A final Stormwater Management Report in accordance with the approved Stormwater Management Report prepared by Cumming Cockburn Limited (dated April 16, 1999), 1994 Ministry of Environment and Energy Report entitled “Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual”, and the Idlewood Creek Master Drainage Plan. b) A Final Grading Plan and 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. c) A Landscape Plan indicating a pond planting strategy and the enhancement of the creek buffer where the development is within 30 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) metres of the Idlewood Creek bank. The plan should also incorporate the impacts of the existing trail within this buffer. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 104 -CITY OF KITCHENER d) An application for Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation Permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93 and 669/94 for any storm sewer outfalls or other alterations within the floodplain of Idlewood Creek. 5.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 condition 3.1 has 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. 6.NOTES: 1. The owner/developer is advised that the provisions of the Development Charge 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 Charge 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 an 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 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) includes metric area calculations certified by an Ontario Land Surveyor for every lot and block on the plan. 2. The final plans for Registration must be in conformity with Ontario Regulation PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 105 -CITY OF KITCHENER 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 Department of Business and Planning Services of any changes in ownership, agent 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. 1990, 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. 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. Therefore, approval of the Director must be obtained under Section 52 of 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 Environment and Energy for approval. 7. The proposed storm water management system meets the definition of a “sewage works” as defined in the Ontario Water Resources Act. Prior to the construction of the proposed water supply system. Therefore, approval of the Director must be obtained under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act prior to the construction of the proposed storm water management system. The proponent must ensure that the application for approval of sewage works, and appropriate supporting information, are submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for approval. 8. The proposed sanitary sewage collection system meets the definition of a “sewage works” as defined in the Ontario Water Resources Act. Prior to the construction of the proposed water supply system. 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 Environment and Energy 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). 5.BPS 99/87-EDENBRIDGE DRIVE -REVISION TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH (AREA 1) COMMUNITY PLAN -SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-98207 -HALLMAN ROSEDALE LIMITED – GRAND RIVER WARD (CONT’D) 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 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 106 -CITY OF KITCHENER 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 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, use and stipulate that should the “Agreement for Servicing” expire prior to plan registration, a new agreement will be required. The owner/developer is to provide the Regional Municipality of Waterloo with two print copies of the proposed plan to be registered along with the written request for a servicing agreement. 11. To ensure final approval prior to year end, it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all conditions have been satisfied and the required clearance letter, agreements, mylars, fees and any other required information or approvals have been deposited with the City Planner responsible for the th file, no later than December 15. City staff can not ensure that a plan will be given final approval 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. If the plans comply with the terms of approval, and we have received an assurance from the Region that the necessary arrangements have been made, the General Manager’s signature will be endorsed on the plan and it will be forwarded to the Registry Office for registration. The following is required for registration under the Registry Act and for our use: One (1)original mylar Four (4)mylar copies Four (4)white paper prints It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this subdivision application is proper planning for the City.” Councillor Jake Smola indicated he was opposed to exempting the Developer from the sidewalk policy that requires installation of sidewalks on all sides of streets in the subdivision. 6.BPS 99/91-CEBU MISSION TO KITCHENER The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/91 dated June 28, 1999 from Ms. J. Jantzi. The report provides information with respect to the Cebu Mission to Kitchener by documenting the visit by Mr. Robert Lee, the representative of the Canadian Embassy in Cebu, Philippines. Mr. Lee toured Kitchener and Canada’s Technology Triangle on April 19 to 21, 1999. The report summarizes the structure of the economic development relationship discussed and provides suggested recommendation as to the City’s ongoing role in this matter. Mayor C. Zehr commented on the visit and noted that it was part of the continuing relationship 6.BPS 99/91-CEBU MISSION TO KITCHENER (CONT’D) with Cebu. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: “That City of Kitchener Economic Development Division staff be directed to follow up Mr. Robert Lee’s April 19-21, 1999 visit by continuing to discuss business opportunities in Cebu, Philippines with companies located in Canada’s Technology Triangle (CTT), and PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 107 -CITY OF KITCHENER further, That the City of Kitchener encourage its other municipal partners in CTT to similarly pursue companies in their communities that might prosper from the relationship being built with Cebu.” 7.BPS 99/95-WASHBURN DRIVE, HURON BUSINESS PARK, PHASE lll -RESCINDING OF OPTION TO PURCHASE – SITE 151 -DRAGO STIPLOSEK – SOUTH WARD The Committee was in receipt of Planning and Economic Development Report BPS 99/95 dated June 28, 1999. The report refers to an April 26, 1999 resolution approving an Offer to Purchase by Mr. Drago Stiplosek of Site 150 and an Option to Purchase Site 151 in Phase lll of Huron Business Park. As outlined in the report, Mr. Stiplosek is not in a position to finalize the Option to Purchase Site 151 and staff recommend the approval of the Option to Purchase be rescinded. Mr. R. Mattice briefly explained the purpose of the report. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - It was resolved: “That the City rescind its acceptance and repeal the second part only of Clause #1 of the Planning and Economic Development Committee report approved by City Council on May 3, 1999, which reads as follows: ‘That the City accept the Option of Purchase from Drago Stiplosek with respect to lands composing Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-9683 (Site 151). The subject lands have an area of about 1.23 acres on Washburn Drive and the purchase price is calculated at $75,000 per acre’.” 8.BPS 99/81-868 DOON VILLAGE ROAD -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 98/10/D/PB -J. PATRICK RESLEIN - DOON - PIONEER WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from J. Patrick Reslein to change the zoning of property known municipally as 868 Doon Village Road. The proposed change would re-zone the property to add a special use to the existing R-6 zoning that would allow for the development of a nursing home. In this regard the Committee considered Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/81 dated May 27, 1999 and a proposed by-law dated May 27, 1999 attached to the report. It was noted in the report that the subject property is located at the north east corner of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive. 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 purpose of the application. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. 8.BPS 99/81-868 DOON VILLAGE ROAD -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 98/10/D/PB -J. PATRICK RESLEIN - DOON - PIONEER WARD (CONT’D) Councillor T. Galloway advised that he had discussed the application with Councillor J. Haalboom and advised that she indicated to him her satisfaction with the recommendation. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - It was resolved: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 108 -CITY OF KITCHENER “That Zone Change Application ZC 98/10/D/PB (868 Doon Village Road - J. Patrick Reslein) requesting a change in zoning to add special use provision 262U to the existing Residential Six Zone (R-6) with special regulation provision 218R according to By-law 85-1, on lands legally described as Block 1, Registered Plan 1367, be approved, in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" attached, dated May 27, 1999 subject to the following conditions being satisfied prior to any readings of the By-law by Council: 1)To arrange for notification by letter from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to the City's Department of Business and Planning Services, that all Regional requirements have been satisfied with respect to the proposed zone change. 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 ZC 98/10/D/PB. In the event this resolution is not fulfilled within the seven month period, Council shall consider rescinding the 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 the City’s Municipal Plan.” 9.BPS 99/97-15 VICMOUNT DRIVE -EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO FULFILL CONDITIONS -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 96/34/V/PB -257913 HOLDINGS LTD. – WEST WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/97 dated June 17, 1999. The report deals with a request that has been received from Mr. Tom Schnarr on behalf of 257913 Holdings Limited for extension to the deadline to fulfill conditions relating to their zone change at 15 Vicmount Drive. It was noted in the report that the applicant is in continuing negotiations with Ontario Hydro to arrange for a leasing agreement in perpetuity for off street parking. Ms. C. Ladd provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the report. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: “That City Council grant an extension to the deadline for fulfilling the conditions of approval for Zone Change Application 96/34/V/PB (15 Vicmount Drive - 257913 Holdings Ltd.) to November 23, 1999.” 10.BPS 99/78-CENTRAL FREDERICK (FREDERICK, LANCASTER, BINGEMAN STREETS) -OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 97/10/F/JG -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 97/24/F/JG -CITY OF KITCHENER INITIATED - CENTRE WARD Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, disclosed a pecuniary interest and abstained regarding the Central Frederick applications, as Mr. Krauschaar was a business client of hers. She vacated the Chair which was assumed by Councillor M. Yantzi and left the meeting, the remainder of which was chaired by Councillor Yantzi. 10.BPS 99/78-CENTRAL FREDERICK (FREDERICK, LANCASTER, BINGEMAN STREETS) -OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 97/10/F/JG -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 97/24/F/JG -CITY OF KITCHENER INITIATED - CENTRE WARD CONT’D) Councillor M. Yantzi, Vice-Chair, read the following statement: ‘This is a Public Meeting under to consider Municipal Plan 'The Planning Act, 1996' Amendment Application MP 97/10/F/JG (Central Frederick Land Use Review) Section 17 (45) of the Planning Act allows the Ontario Municipal Board to dismiss all or part PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 109 -CITY OF KITCHENER 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 July 5, 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 99/78 dated May 28, 1999 dealing with a City Initiated Municipal Plan Amendment and Zone Change Application affecting a number of properties within the Central Frederick Secondary Plan. The amendment and zone change are the result of a review of planning policies affecting these lands which had the aim of improving the state of these lands and enhancing neighbourhood stability. The staff report provides background comment with respect to the history of the subject lands relative to activities that took place in the 1980’s, a rationale for the Land Use Review, a description of proposed changes and discussion in respect to a proposed funeral home use. In this regard, the Committee considered Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/78 dated May 28, 1999 and a Proposed By-law dated May 14, 1999 attached to the report. Also attached to staff report BPS 99/78 was the Municipal Plan Amendment report (Central Frederick Land Use Review) respecting the affected lands on Bingeman, Lancaster and Frederick Streets. The purpose of the Municipal Plan Amendment is to: -Change the designation on certain lands on Bingeman Street to Low Rise Conservation ‘A’ -Change the designation on lands on Lancaster Street to Low Rise Commercial Residential with a special policy to permit free-standing personal services in existing buildings. -Delete the special regulation permitting extra building height on the Frederick Street lands designated Low Rise Commercial Residential and replace it with a special policy permitting a funeral home only on the lands near the Frederick / Lancaster Street intersection. Ms. J. Given provided the Committee with an overview of the applications. She indicated that a study had been underway for over a year and that the land use review had been directed by City Council with the aim of improving neighbourhood stability. She acknowledged that there was not full concurrence on all issues among the property owners. Ms. Given then using the overhead projection illustrated 3 areas affected by the applications and proceeded to comment on each. She did point out that the review had earlier included the former Petro Canada site at Lancaster 10.BPS 99/78-CENTRAL FREDERICK (FREDERICK, LANCASTER, BINGEMAN STREETS) -OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 97/10/F/JG -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 97/24/F/JG -CITY OF KITCHENER INITIATED - CENTRE WARD (CONT’D) and Frederick Street but that this had been removed from consideration. In regards to the third area involving 122 Lancaster Street and 209, 215, 219, 221 and 223 Frederick Street, she advised that staff had not been intending to make changes to these lands but subsequently the funeral home proposal came about as a result of discussions. One of the key concerns of the neighbourhood in respect to this parcel of land was the ten storey height limit. She indicated that in reading some of the correspondence received from residents this date that staff’s position on the funeral home use was not related to the condition of the existing properties and that the matter was just a land use issue. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 110 -CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. Anthony Christie and Ms. Nancy Borusiewich appeared as a delegation in support of their correspondence dated June 28, 1999 distributed this date which objects to the proposed funeral home use in the area. In their submission it was noted that the neighbourhood has strengthened residentially and it was suggested that no matter what the architectural treatment of a funeral home would be, it was contrary to the scale of the neighbourhood. As well, they raised concerns with regard to traffic volumes and parking requirements and asked that the investments of all property owners be taken into account. Mr. Christie spoke in support of their submission to express the concerns outlined in their correspondence and asked that the Committee refuse the proposed funeral home use. Mr. John Ryrie appeared as a delegation to speak to the contents of a submission dated June 28, 1999 which he circulated this date. Mr. Ryrie noted that he was co-chair of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Association in the 1980’s when the Krauschaar properties were allowed to significantly deteriorate. He pointed out that he had written a letter in February expressing strong support for the subject applications but at that time, there was no suggestion of the proposed funeral home use. He expressed concern that the premise of the staff report was that the funeral home would fix the corner of Lancaster and Frederick and noted that this position had a number of flaws. Firstly, there was no guarantee the structure would blend with the neighbourhood. Secondly, he stated that allowing neglect of properties appeared to be driving the planning process and that discussion has revolved around replacing properties. Thirdly, he suggested that there was a compatibility issue respecting the funeral home use and adjoining residential properties. And fourthly, he advised that parking and traffic would be significant problems given how funeral homes operate and visitation take place. Finally in the matter of the issue of flexibility as referred to in the staff report he commented that the current zoning already provides for flexibility and there was no need for more. In reference to the zoning that currently allows for a ten storey building, he suggested it was highly unlikely such a building could go up given that the land holdings were much smaller than a number of years ago. Mr. Ryrie asked that the Committee address the issue of neglect of properties and then briefly summarized the five points in his correspondence. Mr. Peter Bufe appeared as a delegation in support of his correspondence dated June 23, 1999 distributed with the agenda, in which it was noted that he supported the proposed changes in the applications with the exception of the funeral home use. He pointed out that no one has shown that a funeral home use would be of benefit to the City or the neighbourhood and suggested that it was not the City’s obligation to reward the owners of speculative properties that have been allowed to deteriorate. In summary, he asked that the neighbourhood not be requested to suffer by imposing this use on it and that the planning in the block of lands on these streets and within the area be consistent. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison commented that even at this point no effort has been made on the part of property owners to upgrade the deteriorated properties. Councillor M. Yantzi acknowledged receipt of a letter dated June 28, 1999 from Mr. Michael Murray that was distributed this date, indicating his opposition to the funeral home use. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison indicated that she would like to propose a motion that would lower densities in the subject area of the applications and delete the funeral home use. 10.BPS 99/78-CENTRAL FREDERICK (FREDERICK, LANCASTER, BINGEMAN STREETS) -OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 97/10/F/JG -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 97/24/F/JG - CITY OF KITCHENER INITIATED - CENTRE WARD (CONT”D) Councillor Jake Smola pointed out that at the last meeting the Committee had approved the location of a funeral home that was adjacent to residential properties and determined that funeral home use was not an incompatible one for the community. He indicated he would rather see something like such a use proposed for the lands but that it be processed as an individual zone change application so that focused dialogue could take place with the neighbourhood. Ms. J. Given advised that the proponent of the funeral home did meet with the neighbours and it was indicated that only 3 of 19 were in opposition at the information meeting. Ms. Given advised that an elevation drawing was displayed at the meeting and the proponent has indicated he would like to work with the neighbourhood to design a structure that was similar to the architecture of PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 111 -CITY OF KITCHENER residential dwellings in the area. Further, she noted that the suggestion has been made as to the possibility of incorporating one of the facades of the buildings into a re-development. Comment was requested from the prospective owner / operator of the funeral home and Mr. Darren Watts appeared as a delegation representing the Watts family which he advised owns and operates funeral homes in Toronto and several other municipalities. Councillor Jake Smola inquired if Mr. Watts was willing to further discuss the development proposal in consultation with the community. Mr. Watts responded that the proposed re-zoning was a city initiated undertaking and that his firm has successfully gone through 3 re-zonings and that based on experience it was his position the property must be zoned before purchase of the property was finalized. At that point he indicated he would be willing to move forward with the planning process and undertake community involvement. Councillor Jake Smola commented that traditionally in this community funeral directors have been very community oriented with issues relating to development of their businesses and it was his view that there must be a buy in from the community through pre- discussion of any such proposed development. Councillor J. Ziegler questioned if Mr. Watts was undertaking to work with the neighbourhood if the zone change change went through and Mr. Watts advised that he was. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison advised that most applicants processing zone changes work with the neighbourhoods before approval of the zone change and noted that once a zone change was approved the City would have no guarantees and no leverage to encourage the applicant to work with the neighbourhood. Mr. Watts maintained that the costs of working with the neighbourhood were too large a commitment to make before obtaining the required zoning. Mr. B. Stanley advised that he wished to comment on some suggestions made this date that the funeral home proposal amounted to rewarding the owners of derelict properties with a re- development. However, he referred to page 9 of the report and pointed out that the proposal was consistent with good planning across the City. He also pointed out that if the zone change application was undertaken separately it would be subject to a Section 41 Agreement and the Site Plan Approval process. Councillor G. Lorentz questioned what the City could regulate under its site planning control and Mr. B. Stanley advised that such issues as parking, landscaping, screening, traffic, bulk of the building, height and lighting could be addressed. He noted that screening could be a solid fencing option or landscape approach. Councillor B. Vrbanovic pointed out that on the issue of site plan control there was no opportunity on the part of the public to involve itself and he had hoped for a similar situation to that of the recent approval that took place for a funeral home. He suggested that it was incumbent on the City to work with the residents and potential purchasers to facilitate the zone change process and that he could not support the zone change as it relates to the funeral home without neighbourhood consultation. Councillor J. Ziegler suggested that the issue of the funeral home use should be dealt with separately. Staff suggested that rather than attempting to deal specifically with the applications to isolate the funeral home use, the Committee instruct staff by way of a general resolution to delete the funeral home use and prepare revised recommendations reflecting this deletion for th consideration by Council at its July 5 meeting. 10.BPS 99/78-CENTRAL FREDERICK (FREDERICK, LANCASTER, BINGEMAN STREETS) -OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 97/10/F/JG -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 97/24/F/JG -CITY OF KITCHENER INITIATED - CENTRE WARD (CONT’D) On motion by Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison - It was resolved: “That subject to deletion of the funeral home use, we approve Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP 97/10/F/JG (Central Frederick Land Use Review) and Zone Change Application ZC 97/24/F/JG (City-Initiated) and further, That staff be directed to prepare revised recommendations and a revised ‘Proposed By- law’ incorporating the deletion for Council’s consideration at its July 5, 1999 meeting.” PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1999- 112 -CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, had previously disclosed a pecuniary interest and abstained from all discussion and voting and left the meeting, since Mr. Krauschaar is a business client of hers. 11.BPS 99/98-REGION OF WATERLOO REVISED NOISE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINE The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 99/98 dated June 21, 1999 prepared as an information report on the Region of Waterloo’s Revised Noise Policy Implementation Guideline. It was noted in the report that on January 25, 1999, the Planning and Development Committee had considered a report which outlined a number of concerns with the development of noise policies by the Region of Waterloo as they affect noise emanating primarily from roadways and to a lesser degree from rail lines. The outcome of discussions with Regional staff relative to these concerns was summarized in the staff report. On motion by Councillor G. Lorentz - It was resolved: “That staff report BPS 99/98 (Region of Waterloo’s Revised Noise Implementation Guideline) be received for the Committee's information, and that Members be advised that this Guideline will be considered by: Regional Planning & Culture Committee on ; and Regional Tuesday, July 6, 1999 Engineering Committee on .” Wednesday, July 7, 1999 12.ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 6.40 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk.