Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 2000-01-24PED\2000-01-24 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 24~ 2000 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:05 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair with the following members present: Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors M. Yantzi, J. Ziegler, G. Lorentz, T. Galloway, J. Haalboom, and John Smola. Councillors K. Taylor- Harrison, B. Vrbanovic and Jake Smola entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd and J. Given and Messrs. J. Gazzola, B. Stanley, G. Borovilos, G. Melanson, D. Mansell, J. Witmer, Z. Janecki, L. Bensason and L.W. Neil. 1. PRESENTATION MS. KATHI SMITH RE: BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE Mr. G. Borovilos advised that Ms. K. Smith, Manager Business Enterprise Centre, would be making a presentation relative to the operation of the Small Business Enterprise Centre located in Kitchener City Hall that would highlight the past years operations covering statistics, financial issues, marketing partnerships and goals for the year 2000. Ms. Smith circulated a package of information material that the Centre typically provides to those contemplating starting a business. The material outlines the services of the Business Enterprise Centre and provides numerous documents that would assist prospective entrepreneurs. Ms. Smith then made her presentation utilizing the visual overhead system and remarked on the official opening of the Centre that took place early in 1999 and its mission statement. She provided a list of staffing within the Kitchener Centre as well as an explanation of the staffing links with smaller centres located in the Cities of Cambridge and Waterloo. Ms. Smith explained the funding support that has been received from outside organizations as well as listing private and public sector partners. Statistics were then provided relative to the Centres operation which include comparison of the number of general inquiries and the number of consultation processes undertaken between the years 1998 and 1999 which exhibit a significant increase. She also remarked on the Ontario Business Connects program which deals with business registrations and name searches and provided a breakdown of approximately 7600 inquiries that took place in 1999. Of these inquiries 29% related to the City of Kitchener, 29% to the BEC, 7% to other areas, 4% to the federal government, 30% to provincial ministries and 1% to the Region of Waterloo. Ms. Smith then presented financial highlights and noted that the Centre was in a net revenue position of $32,430 in revenue over expenses for the 1999 year operations. Ms. Smith then touched on the following topics with which the Business Enterprise Centre was engaged: · bridges to Better Business · BEC website · resource for the community · services to the community · developing community partnerships · on-line training for clients · special services to clients · services to youth clients · quarterly newsletter · professional consultations · the entrepreneurs · BEC goals for 2000 In conclusion she noted that the first anniversary of the Business Centres operation was being held on March 9th in the Rotunda. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison entered the meeting at this point. BPS 99~200 950 HIGHLAND ROAD WEST DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC99131HIPB GARO BOSTAJIAN AND BOST PROPERTIES INC. WEST WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Staff Report BPS 99/200 dated January 12, 2000. The report deals with a Demolition Control Application submitted by Garo Bostajian and Bost Properties Inc., with respect to the property known municipally as 950 Highland Road West. It was noted in the report that the applicant proposes to demolish a single family dwelling that was last used as a residence and chiropractors office. The demolition will allow the future construction of a commercial plaza. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2000 -5- CITY OF KITCHENER 2. BPS 99~200 950 HIGHLAND ROAD WEST DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC99131HIPB GARO BOSTAJIAN AND BOST PROPERTIES INC. WEST WARD (CONT'D) Ms. C. Ladd provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the application and advised that staff had nothing further to add. Mr. Victor Labreche, Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd., appeared as a delegation and indicated his support for the recommendation contained in the staff report. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC 99/3/H/PB (Garo Bostajian and Bost Properties Inc.) requesting approval for the demolition of one single detached dwelling located at 950 Highland Road West, legally described as Part of Lot 35, German Company Tract, more particularly described as Parts 3, 13 and 18 of 58R-10060 be approved without conditions." BPS 00/07 REQUEST FOR DIRECTION RE: REVIEW OF TOPSOIL RETAIL INDUSTRY FOR ADEQUACY OF POLICY/REGULATIONS (UNFINISHED BUSINESS LIST) The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Staff Report BPS 00/7 dated January 18, 2000. The report deals with a review of the topsoil retail industry as to the adequacy of policy/regulations to govern this business activity. It was noted in the report that at its June 1, 1998 meeting, City Council raised an issue relating to the storage and retail of topsoil resulting from business activity being conducted on lands located at the intersection of Fischer-Hallman Road and Ottawa Street. Staff were asked to review two specific issues; being, mechanisms which may be used to control this use through the City's planning process and the potential implications if responsibility for dust control was downloaded. The report discusses the nature of the issue relative to the storage of topsoil, development implications and possible sale of such stored topsoil in consideration of applicable legislation. It was also pointed out in the report that there had been few issues related to the storage and/or sale of topsoil in the City and that in the one incident referred to earlier, reasonable action was taken to control nuisance caused by the use. Accordingly, staff consider existing provisions relating to storage of topsoil to be sufficient and no further regulations were required. Ms. C. Ladd provided an overview of the contents of the report and noted that downloading under the Environmental Protection Act could become an issue to be addressed at a future date but pointed out that currently there was no initiative by the Ministry of the Environment to delegate responsibility at this time. In summary she commented that it would appear appropriate mechanisms were in place to deal with this issue. Councillor T. Galloway advised that he had requested the staff report under consideration and indicated that no problems were incurred in 1999. He did question what the City's role would be if the MOE was to download responsibility and Ms. C. Ladd advised that the City would have the authority to administer regulations though there were some administrative issues that would need to be clarified. Mayor C. Zehr questioned if any complaints were made to the MOE in 1999 and Ms. C. Ladd advised that she had not questioned the MOE in this regard. Councillor J. Haalboom questioned the complaint process with regard to subdivisions that were developing and Ms. C. Ladd advised that the residential subdivision agreement would address such matter. Mr. D. Mansell explained the process that is undertaken wherein the City's consultant works with the subdivision developer to prevent such problems from occurring. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: "That no further action be taken to regulate the storage and sale of topsoil." COMMERCIAL POLICY REVIEW PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2000 -6- CITY OF KITCHENER Councillor G. Lorentz noted that at a meeting of the Economic Development Advisory Committee in December it had approved a recommendation with regard to the commercial policy review. He questioned when this recommendation would be coming forward for Council consideration. Mr. B. Stanley advised that it was staff's intent to bring the Economic Development Advisory Committee recommendation to the next Planning and Economic Development Committee for consideration and recommendation to Council. Councillor Lorentz requested that staff bring the recommendation directly to Council at its January 31st meeting and Mr. B. Stanley undertook to do so. BPS 99/122 OLD MILL RD. - DURHAM ST. -AMHERST DR. - PINNACLE DR. AMENDMENT TO BLOCK PLAN 65 IVAN BIUK CONSTRUCTION LTD. DOON - PIONEER WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Staff Report BPS 99/122 dated December 22, 1999 and an appendices document attached to the report. The report deals with a request of Ivan Biuk Construction Ltd., to amend Block Plan 65 so as to allow Drummond Drive to be developed with access from Old Mill Road rather than Amherst Drive. Ms. C. Ladd provided general introductory comments with respect to the request to change Block Plan 65 so that Drummond Drive intersects with Old Mill Road rather than Amherst Drive. She pointed out that there was no public notice requirement with respect to this matter. Ms. Ladd noted that another issue relating to this matter was the configuration of lots on Drummond Drive but pointed out that the matter of a lotting plan was currently before the Committee of Adjustment and that the only issue to be considered this date was the requested amendment to Block Plan 65. Mr. Z. Janecki reviewed planning and engineering considerations that had taken place since the request was first made approximately two years ago and referenced meetings and letters and petitions that had been received from property owners located within and outside of the immediate area of Drummond Drive. He made specific reference to the May 4th 1999 informal public meeting which was attended by approximately 75 people and two subsequent evening meetings held with property owners in July 1999. The Department comments in the Staff Report reflect issues as a result of input received at the neighbourhood meetings. Mr. Janecki then reviewed the following issues that were discussed in the staff report: tree saving, heritage impact, grading, use of dwelling for single family or student housing, traffic and noise, closeness of Drummond Drive to the house at 1843 Old Mill Road and streetscape along Old Mill Road as well as considerations in respect to the new lot that could be created on Amherst Drive and the matter of whether sidewalks should be included on Drummond Drive when it develops. Mr. Janecki then commented on the four road access options listed in the report being: · Option 1 - Drummond Drive · Option 2- Drummond Drive · Option 3- Drummond Drive · Option 4- Drummond Drive access to Old Mill Road (curved alignment) access to Old Mill Road (straight alignment) access to Amherst Drive as a through street He then made reference to the applications of Ivan Biuk Construction Ltd., that are currently before the Committee of Adjustment but are deferred until such time as the issue of the possible relocation of road access to Drummond Drive has been addressed through amendment to Block Plan 65. Councillor T. Galloway raised the issue of an existing hedge on Amherst Drive and comments were provided by staff with regard to the safety concern it causes and possible legal implications in respect to a requirement for its removal. Councillor B. Vrbanovic entered the meeting at this point. BPS 99/122 OLD MILL RD. - DURHAM ST. -AMHERST DR. - PINNACLE DR. AMENDMENT TO BLOCK PLAN 65 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2000 -7- CITY OF KITCHENER IVAN BIUK CONSTRUCTION LTD. DOON - PIONEER WARD (CONT'D) Mr. Glenn Scheels, Green Scheels Pidgeon, appeared as a delegation on behalf of Ivan Biuk Construction Ltd., to request committee approval of the recommendation in the staff report which supports changing of the access to proposed Drummond Drive to Old Mill Road rather than from Amherst Drive and also asks for waiver of the requirement for the installation of sidewalks on Drummond Drive. Mr. Scheels then made a lengthy presentation commenting on the original reasoning as to why access under Block Plan 65 was to Amherst Drive and not Old Mill Road and pointing out the changed circumstances. He summarized reasons why access to Drummond Drive should be from Old Mill Road; being: - less filling and graded needed for lots to develop - shorter roadway would be less costly - additional tree saving benefits - creation of an additional lot (Drummond Drive right-of-way fronting Amherst Drive) that could be sold by the City Mr. Scheels noted that planning and engineering staff are in support of the request. He then made reference to a letter from Mr. M. Ferraz and noted that concerns outlined in the letter in respect to cost efficiencies could be addressed. Mr. Scheels made remarks respecting heritage, the functioning of Old Mill Road, and the fact that the 1977 plan contemplated the creation of four lots requested. In respect to concerns of the neighbourhood with respect to the issue of student housing, he advised that Mr. Biuk had sold three houses that were previously rented to students and that it was his intention to build and sell the proposed homes. Mr. Scheels asked that the Committee focus on the planning merits of the request and the suggested road alignment. He also commented on lotting and buffering plans and suggested that the four proposed lots fit within the neighbourhood fabric. Mr. Scheels pointed out that Mr. Peter Fitzgerald of Stantec Engineering was in attendance to answer any questions of an engineering nature. Committee members directed a number of questions to Mr. Scheels. He advised that Ivan Biuk was committed to his plans for landscaping and tree planting regardless of access to Drummond Drive and noted that to some extent the requested change did boil down to a cost efficiency development issue. He also commented on the curved design of Drummond Drive and on the lot grades which would permit rear walkouts. Councillor Jake Smola entered the meeting at this point. Mr. Manuel Ferraz appeared as a delegation to state his opposition to the proposal as outlined in his submission dated January 17, 2000 distributed with the agenda. He reviewed portions of his submission and asked that the City require development of a plan to avoid homes being built on only one side of Drummond Drive. Mr. Ferraz also noted that Mr. Biuk had supported the 1977 Block Plan. A number of questions were put to Mr. Ferraz by Committee members. He emphasized that lotting, drainage, grading and tree saving issues needed to be dealt with comprehensively within the Block Plan. Further, he indicated that he had offered to enter into land exchange discussions to create developable lots from irregular parcels with Mr. Biuk but has not received a response. In response to Councillor T. Galloway, Ms. C. Ladd noted that whatever road option was chosen did not disadvantage the final lot development. Mr. Paul Acquilina appeared as a delegation to comment on the requested change. He referred to the original reasoning that Drummond Drive access Amherst Drive. Mr. Acquilina suggested the City do what was best for the four property owners at the ends of Dummond Drive and asked that as many trees as possible be saved. He also expressed concern that development of Drummond Drive would negatively impact his well water supply. BPS 99/122 OLD MILL RD. - DURHAM ST. -AMHERST DR. - PINNACLE DR. AMENDMENT TO BLOCK PLAN 65 IVAN BIUK CONSTRUCTION LTD. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2000 -8- CITY OF KITCHENER DOON - PIONEER WARD (CONT'D) Mr. Klaus Heller appeared as a delegation in opposition to the requested change to Block Plan 65 and distributed a map outlining lotting of Drummond Drive reflecting the original plan, the existing plan and the proposed plan that was before the Committee of Adjustment. Mrs. Joan Oleskevich appeared as a delegation opposing the recommendation in the staff report as outlined in her correspondence dated January 2000 and January 13, 2000. She commented on increased traffic volumes on Old Mill Road which will be further impacted by additional development. She also noted that the width of Old Mill Road shown on the map was misleading as the actual width is much narrower. Mrs. Oleskevich raised a concern regarding her name being listed on petitions both for and against the requested change. Mr. Z. Janecki explained that students tabulating the petitions had inadvertently shown her as supporting the change through a mapping error. At this point, Ms. C. Ladd clarified earlier information she had given respecting the lotting history relative to Drummond Drive. Mr. Larry Hundt appeared as a delegation to oppose the requested change to permit Drummond Drive to access Old Mill Road which is a narrow heritage road having existing traffic problems. He stated that Amherst Drive was wider and much more conducive to accept pedestrians and traffic. He asked that the change not be made just to save some development costs or gain revenue from the City's sale of a lot fronting Amherst Drive. Ms. Carole Moore appeared as a delegation and read a submission dated January 17, 2000 opposing the requested change. Concerns were expressed as to it being: detrimental to the character of the area, loss of trees and their well water supply being jeopardized. Mr. Michael Makarchuk was registered as a delegation to speak in support of Option 1 listed in the staff report; however, he did not appear. Ms. Val Zietsma was registered as a delegation with regard to her letter received January 21,2000 in which she stated that Drummond Drive should open onto Old Mill Road; however, she was not present at the meeting. Ms. Pat Nippell appeared as a delegation and distributed a submission dated January 24, 2000. Her submission responds to each of the three recommendations in the staff report providing rationale with respect to each. She asked that the Committee oppose the requested change and accordingly asked that recommendations 1 and 3 of the staff report not be supported; however, she asked that the Committee support recommendation 2 of the report. Ms. Vanda Kelly was registered as a delegation with regard to her January 24, 2000 correspondence opposing the recommendations in the staff report; however, she was not present. Mr. Steve Grant appeared as a delegation on behalf of Doon South neighbours opposing the staff report recommendations. A submission dated January 19, 2000 was circulated with the meeting agenda. Mr. Grant made his presentation utilizing the visual overhead system. His comments dealt with the scenic heritage aspects of Old Mill Road, the road grade of Drummond Drive, numerous advantages of Drummond Drive access to Amherst Drive, size and shape of lots, minor variances and proposed design of Drummond Drive. In summary, he asked that the request be refused and a review of Block Plan 65 be undertaken in respect to development issues, particularily lot size issues. Further, he asked that such review take place prior to the Committee of Adjustment making any decisions on the severance applications of Ivan Biuk Construction Ltd., that are currently deferred. BPS 99/122 OLD MILL RD. - DURHAM ST. -AMHERST DR. - PINNACLE DR. AMENDMENT TO BLOCK PLAN 65 IVAN BIUK CONSTRUCTION LTD. DOON - PIONEER WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2000 -9- CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. Glenn Scheels responded to some of the issues raised by delegations and provided further comment with respect to grading of Drummond Drive and impact of development on well water supply, Mr. Makarchuk's letters attached as Appendices A-46 & A-51 to the report, Old Mill Road access being a less costly development alternative, heritage issues having been addressed by staff and mixed lotting sizes already existing in the area. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Mr. Scheels advised that his client would consider a deferral to allow land exchanges and grading issues to be addressed; however, he noted that the Committee of Adjustment is scheduled to consider deferred severance applications on February 8th. Mr. Steve Grant commented on the few examples of mixed housing lots in the neighbourhood. No other delegations were registered regarding this matter. Councillor J. Haalboom supported refusal of the request and asked that access to Drummond Drive from Amherst Drive be maintained in accordance with Block Plan 65. She noted that for 23 years, the community had relied on Block Plan 65 to guide development in the area and that this commitment should be adhered to. Further, she pointed out that Mr. Biuk had agreed with Block Plan 65 when it was implemented. She then commented on some of the issues that were raised this date in support of her position. Councillor Haalboom advised that she supported the recommendation in the staff report to waive the requirement for installation of sidewalks on Drummond Drive. Councillor Haalboom advised that she wished to put forward a motion to maintain access to Drummond Drive from Amherst Drive and to waive the sidewalk requirement. The Committee then considered the issue. Councillor T. Galloway stated that he did not support the request and had concerns in respect to the City's Scenic Road Policy, cost efficiency taking precedence over good planning, and the need for reliance on Block Plan 65. Councillor J. Ziegler stated that he was in agreement with the comments of Councillor Galloway and suggested the Committee of Adjustment be informed that the Planning and Economic Development Committee preference is for three lots to develop on Drummond Drive. Councillor John Smola expressed concern with regard to waiving requirements for sidewalk installation as well as the fact that a walkway would exist from Old Mill Road to the Drummond Drive roadway. Mr. G. Melanson commented that such outcome was an issue of risk management for the City and in response to a further question, Mr. D. Mansell advised that the City would assume responsibility for clearing this short pedestrian walkway. Mayor C. Zehr requested that the pedestrian walkway link between Old Mill Road and Drummond Drive be clarified as to the material that would be used for it. He then acknowledged that the lotting issue would be dealt with by the Committee of Adjustment and supported Councillor Haalboom's motion as it did not affect the development plans of the applicant. Councillor Jake Smola advised that he supported Councillor Haalboom's motion with the exception of the sidewalk waiver since waiving of the requirement benefits the developer. He suggested that if the City was to agree to waivers of sidewalk installation, a financial contribution should be made by the developer to an appropriate fund that would support projects involving public pedestrian safety goals. Councillor Ziegler supported the suggested contribution and Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented that it was not appropriate to take a retroactive approach on this particular sidewalk. It was requested that Councillor Haalboom's motion be split into two parts, voted on separately and a recorded vote taken on the first part. On motion by Councillor J. Haalboom - It was resolved: "That the access to proposed Drummond Drive from Amherst Drive be maintained in accordance with Block Plan 65." BPS 99/122 OLD MILL RD. - DURHAM ST. -AMHERST DR. - PINNACLE DR. AMENDMENT TO BLOCK PLAN 65 IVAN BIUK CONSTRUCTION LTD. DOON - PIONEER WARD (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2000 -10- CITY OF KITCHENER The motion on Drummond Drive access was carried unanimously on a recorded vote. On motion by Councillor J. Haalboom - It was resolved: "That we waive the requirement under Council Policy 1-727 (Road Allowance Widths and Sidewalk Locations in New Subdivisions) and not require installation of sidewalks when proposed Drummond Drive is constructed." Mr. D. Mansell agreed to consider the issue of a payment being required towards sidewalk/trail developments when sidewalk waivers are approved and this issue will be added to the unfinished business agenda of the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Councillor J. Haalboom proposed a motion requesting that staff undertake a full review of Block Plan 65 with respect to issues involving lotting, grading and drainage. Mr. B. Stanley commented that these concerns have been an issue for many years and that the problem for staff was one of allocation of resources in consideration of current projects and that it was unrealistic to address Councillor Haalboom's request in a timely manner. Councillor Haalboom's motion was put to a vote and lost. Councillor T. Galloway requested staff to report back whether review of Block Plan 65 should take place. 6. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk