Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 2000-02-21PED\2000-02-21 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:40 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair with the following members present: Councillors Jake Smola, M. Yantzi, J. Ziegler, K. Taylor-Harrison, G. Lorentz, T. Galloway and John Smola. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd, Ms. L. MacDonald and Messrs. J. Gazzola, B. Stanley, J. Willmer, G. Borovilos, R. Morgan, J. McBride, D. Mansell, P. Wetherup and L.W. Neil. 1. BPS 00~22 TRILLIUM DRIVE, HURON BUSINESS PARK AGREEMENT TO AMEND OFFER TO PURCHASE - SITE 134 ST. JUDE'S SCHOOL INC. & SCHOLARS HALL INC. SOUTH WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 00/22. The report deals with an agreement to amend an offer to purchase for Site 134 in the Huron Business Park, more specifically known as Part 5, 58R-7426 on Trillium Drive. It was noted in the report that in order to accommodate the proposed development while maintaining the City's driveway access requirements, the purchaser would have to acquire a small triangular piece of land having a frontage of 3.0 metres along Trillium Drive. The 13.6 sq. metre parcel of land would be taken from the heritage elm tree site and the landscape architect is satisfied that the change would have no adverse impact on the elm tree. Mr. R. Morgan provided a brief explanation of the matter and advised that staff had nothing further to add. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - It was resolved: "That the City of Kitchener approve the agreement to amend the existing Offer to Purchase for site 134 in the Huron Business Park, more specifically known as Part 5, 58R-7426 (Trillium Drive) from St. Jude's School Inc. to include an additional 13.6 sq. metres of land. A new Reference Plan has been completed identifying the removal of the subject parcel from the parent site. The purchase price will be calculated at $75,000.00 per acre for a total purchase price of approximately $252.06; and further, That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any other necessary documentation required by the City Solicitor." BPS 00~04 AUTUMN RIDGE TRAIL / SADDLEWOOD DRIVE ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 99/25/A/GR WYLDWOODS COMMUNITY INC. DOON-PIONEER WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from Wyldwoods Community Inc., to change the zoning of lands affecting 115 lots on several streets including Autumn Ridge Trail and Saddlewood Drive. The purpose of the zone change application is to permit a maximum lot coverage of 43% rather than the required 40% for all lots intended for the development of single storey dwellings located in part of the Wyldwoods 'B' Plan of Subdivision (Registered Plans 58M-82 and 58M-83, stages 3 and 4). In this regard the Committee considered staff report BPS 00/04 dated January 18, 2000 and a proposed by-law dated January 14, 2000 attached to the report. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Councillor C. Weylie advised that Councillor J. Haalboom was unable to attend the meeting but had communicated her support of the staff recommendation by e-mail. In her e-mail Councillor Haalboom questioned reference to a GRCA letter dated January 11, 2000 in the staff report whereas the letter that she has is dated January 11, 1999. For the record she requested that planning staff clarify or correct this matter as required. Councillor Weylie also advised that Councillor Haalboom had requested that planning staff provide a map outlining heritage roads PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 -18- CITY OF KITCHENER 2. BPS 00~04 AUTUMN RIDGE TRAIL / SADDLEWOOD DRIVE ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 99/25/A/GR WYLBWOOB~ COMMUNITY INC. - BOON-PIONEER WARD ICONT'Bt and resources for review at the February 28, 2000 Council meeting. Ms. C. Ladd provided a brief explanation of the application and advised that staff had nothing further to add. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway - It was resolved: "That Zone Change Application ZC 99/251NGR (Autumn Ridge Trail / Saddlewood Drive - Wyldwoods Community Inc.), requesting a change in zoning from Residential Three Zone (R-3) and Residential Four Zone (R-4) to Residential Three Zone (R-3) with special regulation provision 319R and Residential Four Zone (R-4) with special regulation provision 319R on lands legally described as Plan 58M-82 and 58M-83, be approved in the form shown in the attached "Proposed By-law", dated January 14, 2000, without conditions. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan." Councillor C. Weylie advised those in attendance that this matter would be dealt with by Council at its meeting to be held on Monday February 28, 2000. BPS 99/191 230 EAST AVENUE MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99171EIGR ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 991221EIGR PIONEER YOUTH SERVICES CENTRE WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of Municipal Plan Amendment and Zone Change Applications from Pioneer Youth Services with respect to the property known municipally as 230 East Avenue. The proposed municipal plan amendment would add a special policy to the municipal plan in order to permit a group home for developmentally challenged children and youth at 230 East Avenue which would be located a distance of 227 metres from another group home at the corner of East Avenue and Stirling Avenue rather than the required 400 metres separation. The proposed zone change would add a special regulation provision to the existing Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I-1) for the same purpose, in addition to allowing a maximum of 10 residents in a group home rather than the maximum 8 currently permitted. In this regard the Committee considered staff report BPS 99/191 dated January 19, 2000 which recommends refusal of both applications. Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, read the following statement: "This is a Public Meeting under 'The Planning Act, 1996' to consider Municipal Plan Amendment Application 99/7/E/GR (Pioneer Youth Services). 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 BPS 99/191 230 EAST AVENUE MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99171EIGR PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 -19- CITY OF KITCHENER ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 991221EIGR PIONEER YOUTH SERVICES - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) 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 February 28, 2000. If City Council adopts the amendments, they 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 Business and Planning Services or the Region's Department of Planning and Culture." Ms. C. Ladd provided a brief explanation of the applications and advised that she had nothing further to add from the staff level. However, at the request of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board, she read a letter of objection the Board submitted with regard to the applications. Mr. Reinhold Dresler, Waterloo, appeared as a delegation in his capacity as owner and operator of Pioneer Youth Services to request approval of the official plan amendment and zone change applications. He commented that the issue to be dealt with related to accommodating mentally challenged persons who are already living in Kitchener. He suggested that the subject property was an ideal opportunity to improve their clients living conditions. He noted that the building at 230 East Avenue complies with all regulations relative to the proposed use except that of the distance separation requirement from other group homes. Mr. Dresler clarified that Pioneer Youth Services does not deal with persons requiring half way house type accommodation. He commented on licensing requirements which his firm must meet noting that the licence cannot be transferred, client placement procedure, resolving neighbourhood concerns, and pointed out that there was no intention to deal with young offenders. He indicated that he was open to any arrangement that would limit the zoning to the requested use that has been proposed. Councillor M. Yantzi questioned the intent to accommodate 10 individuals rather than a number that was more in keeping with a small family scale facility. Mr. Dresler commented that as a service provider the company was limited by the amount of funding and per diem rate. He noted that if the funding was higher they could lower the number of children proposed to be accommodated. Sister Norma Schmidt, appeared as a delegation in support of the comments contained in her February 15, 2000 letter distributed with the agenda. Sister Schmidt read her letter to the Committee which expressed her belief that conversion of the convent into a group home would be a positive and useful outcome for the facility. She also commented on the negative attitudes resulting from fear generated by rumours respecting the future residents of the facility. Mrs. Anita Rochon appeared as a delegation in support of the staff recommendation to refuse the applications. She commented that both her and her husband have worked for many years with children who need special care but was concerned with the location of the use adjacent to a school and the level of supervision of the residents in the facility. Councillor M. Yantzi questioned if she agreed persons with disability should be a part of the community. Mrs. Rochon responded that the situation she had worked in had a very protective environment and her concern was that the children of the facility were in an open custody situation and were allowed unsupervised leave. She agreed that it should be the objective of any group home to integrate into the local community. Mr. Tom Smith, Manager of Planning & Capital Construction Services for the Waterloo Catholic District School Board appeared as a delegation and referred to the letter from the Board which Ms. C. Ladd had read to the Committee. He noted that the Board's concern related to the definition of a group home and the possibility that the land if rezoned could change ownership. BPS 99/191 230 EAST AVENUE MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99171EIGR PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 20 - CITY OF KITCHENER ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 991221EIGR PIONEER YOUTH SERVICES - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) In summary he stated that they were in support of the staff recommendation to refuse the applications and commented that the documentation in the staff report was very accurate. Mr. David Schneider appeared as a delegation to support the refusal recommendation of staff. He commented that the group home did not have adequate parking and that he was concerned with the approach of Pioneer Youth Services that took place at their first presentation as it was his belief they were less than truthful respecting their intentions. He also commented that he would have further concern as to facility residents should they be on serious medication or be having problems with the law. Ms. Lisa Donkers, Co-President of the Auditorium Neighbourhood Association, appeared as a delegation to support the refusal recommendation of staff. She noted that a petition supporting refusal of the applications had been circulated to the Committee along with the letter from Ms. Lori South. She expressed concern that if the official plan amendment was passed a precedent would be set that would jeopardize the 400 metre distance separation regulation and also expressed concern that the facility was adjacent to an elementary school. Mr. Howard Rotberg appeared as a delegation to express support of the refusal recommendation of staff. His concern related to the possibility that the group home if approved could end up being something very different than what was currently under discussion and could jeopardize the students of the elementary school. Mr. Rotberg requested that the Committee be especially vigilant of such proposals as the current one in relation to the impact on downtown neighbourhoods. Mr. Boyd Nairn appeared as a delegation to support the refusal recommendation of staff. He advised that he wished to inform the Committee of information and concerns he had gathered respecting this matter. Mr. Nairn indicated that he had found an overall negative response after talking to the neighbours of six of seven group homes owned by Pioneer Youth Services. He had concern with a group home operation that potentially could house violent individuals. Also, he pointed out that most group homes try to achieve integration into the community but that the subject property does not lend itself to that outcome. Mr. Nairn commented that previous information provided by Pioneer Youth Services has been misleading and evasive and that it was his view non profit organizations provide better service to their clients in group homes. Mr. Pat Kinsella appeared as a delegation to support the refusal recommendation of staff. He read his September 26, 1999 correspondence attached as item A-7 in the appendix to the staff report. The concerns expressed in his letter relate to: children fully participating in the community rather than living in an institutional setting, the convent building being located adjacent to school property, the fact that the zoning by-law does not recognize any difference between types of group homes and that Pioneer Youth Services could not give assurances the proposed group home would not be used to house young offenders at some time in the future. Further, Mr. Kinsella suggested in his letter that the current trend for operating group homes was to operate smaller residences in order to reflect a normal family size rather than a larger facility as proposed by Pioneer Youth Services. In summary, he requested that the Committee refuse the applications. Ms. Deb Gemmell appeared as a delegation to offer comments in respect to the group home issue. She advised that she was a Waterloo resident living next door to a group home facility operated by Pioneer Youth Services. Ms. Gemmell referred to the compatibility issue and noted that her home was located 9 homes from a neighbourhood school and that she was not aware of there ever having been a compatibility problem between the group home and the school. She suggested that noise concerns from residents of the group home and vehicular traffic were overstated. As well, she indicated that what Pioneer Youth Services has stated in respect to their operating conditions was accurate and that to remain in operation the group home operator must satisfy Ministry licensing requirements. She commented that on the matter of number of clients within such a facility that the Ministry of Health was encouraging the ten client operating BPS 99/191 230 EAST AVENUE MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99171EIGR ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 991221EIGR PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 -21 - CITY OF KITCHENER PIONEER YOUTH SERVICES - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) level. Finally, Ms. Gemmell suggested to the Committee that separation of group homes was an issue that would come up again in future for the Committee to address. She stated that she supported a change in the distance separation criteria. Mr. John Lord appeared as a delegation to support the refusal recommendation in the staff report. However, he commented that the remarks contained in the report do not address the full complexity of the group home issue as it relates to the quality of life for people with disabilities. He asked that Council maintain the 400 metre distance separation requirement and noted that research shows that small group homes are the best way to integrate into any community. He suggested that the proposed facility was actually a custodial home and it was unlikely children would integrate into the community since the facility resembled an institutional operation. He recommended smaller placements in such facilities and stated that it was not appropriate to have children and adults living in the same group home. Further, he suggested that safe guards were needed to insure that quality of support was high and it was his view that such outcome is more likely with community based organizations rather than private enterprise. Finally, Mr. Lord commented that the neighbourhood was one of diversity and would welcome small group homes to their community. Mr. Gord Deeming appeared as a delegation to support planning staff's refusal recommendation. He commented that quality of life for future residents would be an issue given that the rooms are very small and the facility was not a home suited for integration into the community. Finally, he referred the Committee to comments of staff contained on page 6 of the staff report and asked that the Committee refuse the application and not reopen the 400 metre distance separation requirement for group homes. Councillor C. Weylie requested that it be noted in the minutes that a letter dated February 21, 2000 from Ms. Heather Walker was distributed this date as well as an e-mail dated February 19, 2000 being received from Mr. John Shewchuk. Councillor J. Ziegler indicated that he was prepared to move items 1 and 2 of the staff report and revise recommendation #3 to direct that no action be taken with respect to review of existing municipal plan policy relating to minimum separation distances applicable to group homes. He commented that when the group home issue was dealt with by Council a number of years ago recommendation #3 was the compromise that Council arrived at and it was his view the policy was still valid. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison questioned what the staff intent was with respect to recommendation #3 and Ms. C. Ladd advised that the intent was that the requirement potentially become more onerous respecting distance separation given that it would also apply to other sensitive of land uses. Councillor J. Ziegler concurred with that approach. Councillor T. Galloway commented that Council had been very supportive of group homes as to their need and merit but exception with respect to the distance separation requirement would jeopardize Council policy. Councillor K. Taylor-Harrison stated that in the case under consideration the issue was primarily where the group home was located being adjacent to an elementary school. She commended staff who had attentively dealt with everyone's point of view and commended their efforts in dealing with this issue. Councillor M. Yantzi commented on the issue of fear that is sometimes generated by a group home proposal but stated that in this case he supports the recommendation. However, he asked that in reviewing the policy it would be his preference that staff have regard to the arbitrary 400 metre distance separation requirement. Councillor Jake Smola requested a recorded vote. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: "1) BPS 99/191 That Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP 99/7/E/GR (230 East Avenue - Pioneer Youth Services) requesting approval to add a special policy to the City's Municipal Plan in order to permit a group home to be located at a distance of 227 230 EAST AVENUE MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 99171EIGR ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 991221EIGR PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 22 - CITY OF KITCHENER PIONEER YOUTH SERVICES - CENTRE WARD (CONT'D) metres from another group home located at 210 Stirling Avenue North be refused. It is the opinion of this Committee that refusal of this application is proper planning for the City. 2) That Zone Change Application ZC 99/22/E/GR (230 East Avenue - Pioneer Youth Services) requesting a change in zoning to permit a group home on lands located at 230 East Avenue, legally described as Part of Lots 63, 64 and 110, Registered Plan 351, be refused. It is the opinion of this Committee that refusal of the application is proper planning for the City and that the application is not in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan. 3) That staff be directed to maintain existing Municipal Plan policy relating to the minimum separation distance that applies to group homes from one another and to review other factors where distance separation may be imposed on group homes from "sensitive" land uses through the five year review of the City's Municipal Plan." In favour: Councillors K. Taylor- Harrison, M. Yantzi, John Smola, Jake Smola, J. Ziegler, T. Galloway, G. Lorentz and C. Weylie Contra: None BPS 00/13 The Committee was February 15, 2000. matters: REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS SUBDIV. APPL. 30T-97012 & ZCA 97/26/Z/JW (HALLMAN) SUBDIV. APPL. 30T-97013 & ZCA 97/27/Z/JW (HALLMAN) SUBDIV. APPL. 30T-97014 & ZCA 97/28/Z/JW (TEAKWELL) SUBDIV. APPL. 30T-97015 & ZCA 97/24/Z/JW (NORTHLAKE) GRAND RIVER WARD / CHICOPEE WARD in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 00/13 dated The report contains planning recommendations relative to the following · a revised Community Plan for the Grand River South Community · a Municipal Plan Amendment for lands within Grand River South · conditions of draft plan approval and implementing zoning by-laws for four residential Plans of Subdivision The Committee also considered an appendices document as an attachment to the staff report. These appendices are summarized on page 11 of the staff report. It was noted in the staff report that the intent was for Council's recommendations on the Municipal Plan Amendment, Draft Plans of Subdivision and Zone Changes to be provided to the Ontario Municipal Board for its consideration at the Board hearing scheduled to commence on March 9, 2000. The following comments are taken from the staff report in explanation of the purpose of the Community Plan, Municipal Plan Amendment and Subdivision and Zone Change Applications: BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 23 - CITY OF KITCHENER GRAND RIVER WARD / CHIC~PFF WARD/'C~NT'Dt Grand River South Community Plan The primary purpose of the Community Plan review is to provide for residential development on municipal sanitary sewer services, rather than septic systems as originally planned. The plan addresses the following issues: · non-residential land use within the Noise Exposure Forecast 30 Contour approved for Waterloo Regional Airport; · preservation of environmental features including Lackner Woods and Natchez Hills Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas, the flood plain of the Grand River and Idlewood Creek; · collector road network based on the alignment of the proposed Fairway Road extension as approved under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process; · allocation of sanitary sewer capacity; · number and location of school sites; and · open space and recreation (access to Grand River, community trail network, possibility of golf course, district park). Municipal Plan Amendment An amendment is proposed to revise the Transportation Plan to show the approved alignment for the Fairway Road Extension, to show the corridor for the further extension proposed for Fairway Road, and to show the proposed major and minor collector road network within the Grand River South community. Subdivision and Zone Chan.qe Applications The applicants propose to develop four parcels of land as part of the Grand River South residential community. Lands within the four plans of subdivision total 92 hectares (228 acres). A total of 831 to 1322 dwelling units are proposed, including a mix of single detached or duplex dwellings having a variety of lot widths, semi-detached dwellings and street townhouse dwellings. The plans include an elementary school site, two neighbourhood parks, a district park, natural open space, and storm water management facilities. It was explained in the appendices that the Grand River South Community Plan was comprised of approximately 450 hectares (1,100 acres) in area and was generally bounded by the Grand River, the proposed extension of Ottawa Street, Lackner Boulevard, Fairway Road and Morrison Road. It was pointed out that the existing land use was predominantly agricultural and open space. The original community plan was adopted in 1989 and designated an area of approximately 217 hectares (540 acres) for Estate Residential development as the lands could not be serviced by gravity sewer. However, these lands were redesignated Low Rise Residential in the 1994 Municipal Plan after it was determined there was capacity available in the sanitary trunk sewer system to allow for development of these lands on full services. The proposed revision updates the Community Plan to make provision for additional residential population to be generated by fully serviced development. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRAND RIVFR WARD / CHICOPFF WARD/'CQNT'DI PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 24 - CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. J. Willmer advised that the documents now before the Committee represented five years of work. He noted that his comments would firstly deal with the Grand River Community Plan revisions and secondly with the development applications and proposed rezonings. Firstly, Mr. Willmer referred to the land redesignation that took place with the 1994 Municipal Plan and commented on work that took place since that date. He referenced the major issue of extent of development in consideration of the Region's activity relative to planning the future of the airport. Mr. Willmer emphasized that staff have attempted to present issues in a balanced way. He commented that the subject lands are designated Residential in the Municipal Plan and that the City should be able to rely on Transport Canada guidelines with respect to the operations and impact of the Waterloo Airport on this future residential area. Further, he commented that the recommendations before the Committee were consistent with Provincial policy statements. In summary, with respect to the Community Plan revisions, he advised that the Technical Review Committee was generally supportive of the recommendations as well as the Chamber of Commerce. At this point, Mr. Willmer referred to his February 21, 2000 summary of revised wording requests that was distributed this date with respect to the Community Plan and the four subdivision plans. He asked that the Committee concur to the inclusion of the words and "associated supportive uses" in Policy 2.10 of the Community Plan. Mr. Willmer then commented on the proposed developments and the subdivision and zone change applications related thereto. He again referred to the February 21 summary of revised wording changes distributed this date and asked that the Committee approve the revisions which represented clarifications or implementation of details relating to each subdivision. He pointed out that the recommendations respecting the subdivision and rezoning applications were in contrast to the Community Plan recommendation as Council was not being asked to approve them but rather to recommend approval since they have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. Willmer commented that since the developers appealed their subdivision and zone change applications to the Ontario Municipal Board there has been good cooperation on these matters. He referred to a solicitor's letter and noted that one of the representatives of the applicants would also be referring to it and distributing a copy to the Committee. The letter suggests that all issues have or will be resolved shortly and the expectation is that the applicants would be in a position to recommend a settlement to the Ontario Municipal Board at its hearing to be held March 9, 2000. Again, Mr. Willmer stressed that only the Community Plan was before the Committee for approval this date; whereas, the applications for Municipal Plan Amendment, subdivision and zone change are before the Committee only to recommend approval to the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. Willmer itemized issues that have been addressed in the planning process and noted that one on going issue related to the implementation of Council's bikeway study. He noted that this matter was still being worked on and there was an understanding that only the issue of how to bring about implementation was under discussion. He indicated that the Public Works and Transportation Committee would be dealing with this issue at its meeting to be held March 6, 2000. Mr. J. Willmer advised that the next presentation this date would be made by Mr. Andy Campbell on behalf of the Region of Waterloo. He noted that Mr. Campbell was appearing because the Airport Master Plan has not been considered by Regional Engineering Committee and at this time Mr. Campbell would provide comment respecting the airport as it relates to the plans under consideration and the Airport Master Plan. Mr. Andy Campbell, Manager of Engineering and Programs, made a very lengthy presentation relative to the Waterloo Regional Airport providing detailed comments with respect to the following areas: · Benefits of the airport · economic benefits · Airport Master Plan objectives (identification of long term needs) BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRANI3 RIVFR WARI3 / CHIC~PFF WARI3 IC~NT'I3~ · evaluation of runway options PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 25 - CITY OF KITCHENER · project status re dates for consideration of Airport Master Plan · changes since 1998 re Airport Master Plan · airport operators and pilots · Transport Canada authority · Infrastructure changes to facilitate noise abatement · runway extension / 190 degree turning movements / instrument landing system · citizen issues · fear of larger planes · environmental assessment · health concerns · property values · noise contours · recommendations · upgrade passenger terminal · provide additional air side leased property · undertake infrastructure study · maintain existing management structure · update Airport Master Plan every 5 years · competitive userfees · landing fees · property leases · fuel surcharges · passenger facility charges · Airport Master Plan capital expenditure $20.6 million · normal rehabilitation $9.07 million · leased land $3.5 million · terminal building upgrade · Noise Management Committee · met 10 times, now meeting quarterly · will make further recommendations if required, after empirical evidence from noise monitoring system and enforcement of current abatement rules · slide of planning contours was displayed Councillor J. Ziegler commented that it appears the noise solution to airport operations now includes both runway extension and installation of an instrument landing system. However, he indicated that the solutions were a two-edged sword that could result in expanded use of the airport that would also allow some flights to operate with heavier loads which could result in the same noise level. He suggested that the 300 foot extension option and installation of an ILS would achieve benefits in noise reduction and avoid operations involving heavier loads. Further discussion took place involving the number of air traffic movements, noise warning, noise mitigation, community needs, land use compatibility in terms of existing residents and future residents, interim night restrictions pending an ILS, single event noise and the ROPP review. Mr. Paul Britton, MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson, appeared as a delegation acting on behalf of the proponents of the subdivision applications. As mentioned earlier by Mr. J. Willmer, Mr. Britton distributed a February 17, 2000 letter from Weir & Foulds, Barristers & Solicitors, summarizing their position as of that date in respect to the March 9, 2000 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing and possibility of a settlement on that date. At this time, Mr. Britton acknowledged the efforts of City staff and all of the other consultants to reach agreement on development issues pertaining to the subdivision applications. He noted that there was one minor issue outstanding and that had to do with the construction standard required under the Bikeway Policy and he noted that it had been agreed with staff to defer this matter to the March BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRAND RIVER WARD / CHICOPEE WARD IC~NT'DI 6, 2000 Public Works & Transportation Committee meeting for consideration. Mr. Britton referred to his August 1999 appearance before the Committee and the Ontario Municipal Board appeals PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 26 - CITY OF KITCHENER which lead to a Pre-hearing conference at which a process was agreed to by all parties. He noted · · th · that it was hoped to have a bnef Heanng on March 9 at which settlement would be achieved and the February 17, 2000 letter from C.J. Tzekas of Weir & Foulds confirms this. Mr. Britton commented on the history of the Grand River South Area in respect to the community plan, subsequent changes, subdivision proposals and the issue of land use compatibility. He noted that the recommendations that the developers have agreed to are more restrictive in their effect than what the Ontario Municipal Board has previously approved. Mr. Britton made further remarks respecting: the NEF contour line, agreement to recommendations that are more restrictive than provincial policy statements, restrictions being based on a 20 year time horizon, the fact that subdivision plans are not premised on runway extension outcome, noise warning clauses for the entire community, increased noise attenuation measures, endorsement by regional staff of the approach taken, process to establish the Fairway Road alignment, preservation of heritage aspect east of Zeller Drive, consideration given to environmental features and ESPA's, endorsements being received from all agencies and the amount of Open Space dedication. In summary, Mr. Britton indicated that the applicant's were satisfied subject to finalization of the Bikeway Policy issue. For the record, Councillor Jake Smola stated that he had difficulty with the type of planning process that took place respecting these applications given that the decision making authority was taken away from the City as a result of the applicants actions to appeal the developments to the Ontario Municipal Board. He commented that he would have preferred a timeline agreed upon by all parties to resolve issues, not the timeline mandated by the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. P. Britton commented that the applicants were not particularly comfortable with the planning process either but did agree to a timeline that afforded the opportunity for a locally based solution to these planning matters. Mr. Paul Puopolo, Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd., appeared as a delegation on behalf of abutting property owners (Rockway Holdings Ltd., Grand River Conservation Authority, Mr. & Mrs. Huber). He stated that he was in support of the Grand River South Community Plan and the conditions outlined with respect to the four plans of subdivisions. In regards to Rockway Holdings Ltd., he advised that he was in support of the sewage capacity issue that has been addressed and noted that his client had entered into an agreement with the Hallman group with regard to gravel operations. In reference to the Huber lands, he advised that he was in support of the additional condition 90 outlined in J. Willmer's February 21st memorandum respecting subdivision 30T- 97013. Referring to the Grand River Conservation Authority lands and storm water management facility he advised that he would be working with Northlake Homes in this regard. Mr. Puopolo stated that he was essentially in support of condition 93 of Northlake Homes subdivision application 30T-97015. Mr. Bill Green, Green Scheels Pidgeon, appeared as a delegation on behalf of 583018 Ontario Ltd. (Dr. Fung) which owns 43 hectares of land in the Grand River South Community to south of Old Fairway Road. Mr. Green circulated a letter dated February 21, 2000 to the Committee on behalf of his client· He pointed out that his client does not have a draft plan of subdivision application at this time but had concern in respect to reference in the Grand River Community Plan to heritage issues that affected his client's lands· He referred to 173 Woolner Drive listed in Policy 9.3 of the Community Plan and stated that the property was only included in the plan at the last minute· He requested that 173 Woolner Drive be deleted from Policy 9.3. He also asked for deferral of Policy 9.6 of the Community Plan given that a 200 metre section of Woolner Drive impacts 173 Woolner Drive· He also made reference to an upland woodlot located on his client's lands and his client's intent to protect the woodlot and intention to seek to retain development rights to the property. He noted that development would take place outside of the BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRAND RIVER WARD / CHICOPEE WARD IC~NT'DI woodlot area and that his client does not accede to any dedication requirement of the woodlot. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 27 - CITY OF KITCHENER Mr. J. Willmer commented on staff's practice relative to the addition of any property to heritage inventory and noted that 173 Woolner Drive had been included in the inventory at the request of the Planning and Economic Development Committee. In reference to the woodlot issue mentioned by Mr. Green, Mr. Willmer explained that he was pleased to hear the land owners have no objection to the woodlot being designated as Open Space but stated that it was City's preference to acquire ownership. He noted that provided the woodlot was zoned Open Space, the City would have no objection on this issue. On motion by Councillor T. Galloway, the Committee agreed to revise the Community Plan by deleting reference to 173 Woolner Drive from Policy 9.3. Mr. Steven Gadbois appeared as a delegation representing the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener & Waterloo with regard to the Waterloo Regional Airport Master Plan. He noted that the Chamber's position paper refers to a vibrant airport as a great importance to the community and he suggested that the Master Plan must be viewed in the context of impact of the airport. On the issue of notice of the airport operations as proposed in the development applications through subdivision signage and warning clauses in deeds, he indicated that the Chamber fully supported such undertaking that creates a situation where everyone was aware of the airport's nearby operation and potential noise arising from it. Mr. Gadbois questioned if the City and Region of Waterloo were dealing with the same airport NEF contour lines and suggested consideration be given to naming streets in the Grand River South Community after aircraft to further heighten awareness of airport operations. Councillor Jake Smola questioned what the position of the Chamber of Commerce was in respect to the proposed residential development in Grand River South and Mr. Gadbois commented that additional residential development was fraught with risk and there was likely to be noise complaints from the future residents. Councillor Jake Smola pointed out that noise complaints from airport operations were already a reality but stressed that most of the complaints relate to late night flights. He commented that if the proposed subdivisions proceed that the issue of restriction of late night flights would be one that would have to be addressed. Councillor J. Ziegler questioned who at the Chamber of Commerce came up with the idea of erecting warning signs in existing subdivisions relative to the airport and Mr. Gadbois commented that it probably originated from the Board rather than from the executive. Mr. Stewart Thomas appeared as a delegation and indicated that he supported the Grand River South subdivision developments proceeding. However, he referred to the Grand River South subdivisions conforming with noise contours at this point in time but expressed concern that as the airport was allowed to grow, noise levels would also grow. Accordingly, he suggested that to avoid this situation operational controls should be imposed on the airport to ensure noise levels do not grow beyond current contours. Mr. Thomas also commented that there was a flaw in how the issue of residential development and airport operations are addressed noting that the onus is placed on residential development not to impact the airport operations. He made further comments dealing with airport growth and objection to signage designation relative to airport operations being placed in residential areas. He made further remarks concerning the question of benefits from and future outcome from airport operations. Mr. Thomas opposed taxpayers support of the airport operating and capital costs and suggested that the Region should be requesting the authors of the Airport Master Plan to assess any improvement costs at the airport among airport users. In response to Councillor Jake Smola, Mr. J. Willmer advised that Provincial policy statements and Transport Canada guidelines constitute a one way method to protect the airport operations and the only approach the City could take is to forewarn residents. Mr. Thomas commented that he saw no reason why the community could not establish its own standards over and above those referred to. BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRANI3 RIVFR WARI3 / CHIC~PFF WARI3 IC~NT'I3~ Mr. Bob Lazenby appeared as a delegation regarding the Airport Master Plan and commented that 20 years ago he had addressed City Council to oppose installation of an instrument landing PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 28 - CITY OF KITCHENER system through taxpayer funded improvement at the airport. He commented that the airport was still essentially a recreational airport and the capital improvements being suggested were unjustified. He also commented on the Iow level of fees being charged at the airport and on the appointment process and composition of the airport committees suggesting there was a built-in bias. Mr. Lazenby recommended that no further changes take place at the airport until a study of the need for a commercial airport could be undertaken and if justified consideration could be given to establishing a commercial airport that would have support from the general public. At this point the meeting recessed for a short break and reconvened at 7:50 p.m. Ms. Alexis Marsden appeared as a delegation representing the R.E.A.S.O.N. Association. The Committee was in receipt of documents dated February 14 and 16, 2000 from the R.E.A.S.O.N. Association both of which deal with the Waterloo Regional Airport Draft Master Plan. The February 14th document is a text document commenting on the draft master plan for the operation and expansion of the Waterloo Regional Airport. It was pointed out that the draft master plan preferred option for the expansion of the Waterloo Regional Airport is an easterly extension of the main east-west runway 07-25 subject to NEF 30 noise contour limitations. Further, the plan does not provide for night operating restrictions at the airport. It was stated that the proposed runway expansion will have an impact on east Kitchener communities that are in a direct line with the east- west runway and the closest communities west of this installation with the easterly boundary of the closest planned residential community being 9,000 feet west of the end of the runway. The comments and the outstanding concerns of east Kitchener residents who participated on each of the Region of Waterloo Draft Master Plan and Noise Management Committee's are outlined in their response document under the following topics: · the draft master plan · residential quality of life and the role of the airport · assessment of potential impact · the public process · the environmental assessment review process · the draft master plan process · the need for the airport expansion · economic impact study · preferred development option · the preferred alternative · potential environmental impacts · noise impacts · noise: restriction of night flights · health impacts · social impacts · safety · property values · recommendations It was stated that R.E.A.S.O.N. does not support the Waterloo Regional Airport Draft Master Plan in either the level of review that it has undertaken or in its proposal for extension of the east-west runway extension. Further, R.E.A.S.O.N. does not agree with the orientation of the study that is overwhelmingly biased toward the airport economic considerations rather than the residents quality of life. The following recommendations are put forward by R.E.A.S.O.N.: Prior to any runway extension: BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRAND RIVFR WARD / CHIC~PFF WARD/'C~NT'D~ · night-time curfew on runway 07 landings between 10PM and 7AM except for medical emergencies PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 29 - CITY OF KITCHENER · reduction of airport noise through implementation of changes recommended by the Aeronautical Noise Management Committee and the Airport Advisory Committee following approval by Regional Council and regulatory agency · utilization of runway 07 on a last resort basis for daytime landings · maximum capacity of airport established at 153,000 movements · ILS on runway 07 and noise monitoring facilities installed as parallel projects on priority basis · considering noise measurements over a period of one year establish and implement benchmarks and standards considering traffic volumes and single event noise levels to ensure no increase in aircraft noise levels over Kitchener. Establish penalties for infractions. Progressive peer review funded by Region of Waterloo when benchmarks are being developed and finalized · user fees increased to levels closer to London and Hamilton airports · financial justification for any proposed extension to be provided with peer review funded by Region of Waterloo · funding of major capital projects by users rather than through property tax levies The February 16th document provided by R.E.A.S.O.N. contains a variety of information including maps and various statistical data in support of the February 14, 2000 document. In support of her presentation, Ms. Marsden displayed a number of charts on the overhead projection system. She stated that it was the association's view that the basic reason for the requested extensions was to accommodate larger aircraft which would generate more noise than those at present. She listed the kinds of planes that are generating noise and illustrated a chart depicting large plane noise decibel levels at various locations in Kitchener for landings taking place on runway 07 both currently and in the future. She also referred to single event noise contours and commented that the Airport Master Plan proposals violate what was set out in Kitchener's December 1998 Council resolution, a copy of which was circulated with the Committee agenda. She also remarked on 190 degree diversion techniques, the issue of maximum takeoff weights and asked that the Region provide noise contours that reflect maximum takeoff weights. In reference to financial considerations relative to the expansion she pointed out that there was no demand that was not currently being met and thus no need for expansion. Ms. Marsden specifically referred to page 14 of the February 16th document which provides a summary of domestic landing fees in place at Hamilton, London and Waterloo Airports. She also referred to pages 20 and 21 of the same document and asked for endorsement by the City of the contents of a draft letter to the Region of Waterloo outlined on those pages. She then referred to the issue of air pollution and asked that the City have regard to the level of increased air pollution from aircraft and requested that Council take sufficient time to evaluate the proposals in the Master Plan. Councillor T. Galloway commented on the runway extension issue noting that the extension has been put forward as a noise mitigation benefit but that the residents have concern the extended runway would only lead to larger planes utilizing the airport with no reduction in noise taking place. Ms. Marsden stated that with larger planes carrying more weight in fuel and cargo takeoff points would be approximately where they are today. Councillor Jake Smola commented that he has gone on record as being opposed to additional residential development taking place in the path of airport runways because of the impact of airport operations on existing residents such as those who are members of the R.E.A.S.O.N. Association. He questioned if the R.E.A.S.O.N. Association supported a new north-south runway and Ms. Marsden indicated they would but pointed out that this would not solve the existing problem in relation to the east-west runway. Mr. David Heil appeared before the Committee as part of the delegation from the R.E.A.S.O.N. Association. He suggested that statements to the effect that the airport was vital to a vibrant regional economy were simply rhetoric and should be scrutinized. Mr. Heil indicated that he had BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRANI3 RIVFR WARI3 / CHIC~PFF WARI3 IC~NT'I3~ expertise in supply chain management and commented on processes in this regard and made particular reference to the concept and definition of waste as corporation's view it. He suggested that the just in time philosophy does not necessarily mean utilization of air freight as a means of PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 30 - CITY OF KITCHENER transportation. Mr. Heil asked that government act to protect the interests of all parties and the quality of life and recommended that authorities not be blinded by grandiose plans. Mr. Kevin Bechard appeared as a delegation to comment on the Airport Master Plan. He noted that the issues to be focused on were the question of night operating restrictions and the need for expansion of the airport. He noted that supposedly there was a need to handle increased cargo loads but that last year the weight of cargo handled at the airport was the equivalent of three tractor trailer loads. He commented on the NEF contour lines that were developed on the basis of 153,000 movements and requested that the Region be asked to set capacity of the airport at 153,000 movements per year in keeping with the NEF contours. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. Councillor Jake Smola noted that a meeting was scheduled for Thursday February 24th regarding the Airport Master Plan and that at the February 28th City Council meeting he would be introducing a motion for consideration. Councillor Jake Smola then raised a number of questions pertaining to Policies 3.2, 3.3 and 6.1 in the Community Plan which were responded to by Mr. J. Willmer and Ms. C. Ladd. In reference to Policy 6.15, Mr. P. Britton suggested it might be appropriate that street names in the proposed subdivisions reflect an environmental theme. In response to Councillor Jake Smola respecting Policy 10 of the Community Plan and dealing with the Waterloo Regional Airport, Mr. J. Willmer advised that staff had no way of knowing whether noise contour lines would change and could only forewarn residents that the current contours may change in future. Councillor Jake Smola again stated his opposition to residential development in Grand River South and requested a recorded vote on the staff recommendations before the Committee. The recommendations in the staff report, the requested revisions in J. Willmer's Feb. 21st and revision to Policy 9.3 of the Community Plan were considered. summary On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: "1) That Council adopt the Grand River South Community Plan, as set out in Appendix 1 attached to staff report BPS 99/191 subject to the following revisions: Revised Policy 2.10: Second line should state: "...residential care facilities and associated supportive uses shall also be permitted..." Policy 9.3: Delete reference to 173 Woolner Drive That Council repeal the existing Community Plans for Grand River South Area I and Grand River South Areas 2 & 3. That Council recommend the approval of Municipal Plan Amendment 97/05/TC/JW (Hallman Brierdale Limited, Teakwell Holdings Ltd., Northlake Homes Limited), being an amendment to Revise Map 4, "Transportation" by adding Fairway Road, and major and minor collector roads within the Grand River South Community as set out in Appendix 2 attached to staff report BPS 99/191. BPS 00/13 REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 971051TCIJW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRAND RIVFR WARD / CHICt")PFF WARD 4) That Council recommend the approval of Plan of Subdivision Application 30T- 97012 and Zone Change Application 97/26/Z/JW (Hallman Brierdale Limited), in accordance with the recommendations set out in Appendices 3 and 4 attached to PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 -31 - CITY OF KITCHENER staff report BPS 99/191 subject to the following revisions to the plan of subdivision: a) Reference in Clause 1 (second reference only) and Clause 51 should state "February 16, 2000" instead of "February 10, 2000" b) Clause 85 revised: To install to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Parks and Recreation paige wire fencing or an alternative marking system along the lot lines which abut ESPA 24 OR ESPA 25 prior to occupancy of adjacent dwellings. The Subdivider further agrees to include a statement advising of the fencing/boundary identification system requirement in all Offers to Purchase and Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the lots/blocks affected by this Section. Any such fencing may substitute for the fencing required by condition 55. 5) That Council recommend the approval of Plan of Subdivision Application 30T- 97013 and Zone Change Application 97/27/Z/JW (Hallman Brierdale Limited), in accordance with the recommendations set out in Appendices 5 and 6 attached to staff report BPS 99/191 subject to the following revisions to the plan of subdivision: a) Reference in Clause 1 (second reference only) and Clause 51 should state "February 15, 2000" instead of "February 4, 2000" b) Street Five to have 16m right-of-way instead of 18m. c) Clause 69: Last line should state: "... as part of the development of Stage 2 of the plan." d) Clause 75(b): Last sentence should state: following Stage 3..." "Should Stage 2 proceed concurrently with or BPS 00/13 e) Additional clause to be added: "90. Following the registration of Stage 2 of this Plan and Draft Plan approval of the lands to the north (Huber property), the Subdivider agrees to grant easements to the City for municipal services and/or the conveyance of lands for roads along the future rights-of-ways of Streets 4 and/or 5, Stage 3, to service and/or provide access to the abutting property to the north. The granting of easements and/or the conveyance of lands is subject to the owner of adjacent lands to the north making satisfactory arrangements with the subdivider to pay all costs associated with the granting and conveyance of easements, the extension of municipal services and roads within Streets 4 and/or 5, Stage 3 of this plan. It is the City's intent that a reciprocal clause will be a draft plan approval requirement for the lands to the north (Huber property) in the event that Streets 4 and 5, Stage 3 have not been constructed at the time of draft plan approval for said lands to the north." REVISIONS TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 97/05/TC/JW HALLMAN BRIERDALE, NORTHLAKE HOMES & TEAKWELL HOLDINGS VARIOUS SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS GRAND RIVFR WARD / CHIC~PFF WARD 6) That Council recommend the approval of Plan of Subdivision Application 30T- 97014 and Zone Change Application 97/28/Z/JW (Teakwell Holdings Ltd.), in accordance with the recommendations set out in Appendices 7 and 8 attached to staff report BPS 99/191 subject to the following revision to the plan of subdivision: a) Reference in Clause 1 (second reference only) and Clause 51 should state PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 32 - CITY OF KITCHENER "February 15, 2000" instead of "February 10, 2000" 7) That Council recommend the approval of Plan of Subdivision Application 30T- 97015 and Zone Change Application 97/24/Z/JW (Northlake Homes Limited), in accordance with the recommendations set out in Appendices 9 and 10 attached to staff report BPS 99/191 subject to the following revisions to the plan of subdivision: a) Reference in Clause 1 (second reference only) and Clause 51 should state "February 15, 2000" instead of "February 10, 2000" b) Clause 67: Last line should state: "... as part of the development of Stage 1 and Stage 8 of the plan." c) Clause 75.2: Last sentence should state: following Stage 3..." "Should Stage 2 proceed concurrently with or d) Clause 86 revised: To install to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Parks and Recreation paige wire fencing or an alternative marking system along the lot lines which abut ESPA 25 and Idlewood Creek, prior to occupancy of adjacent dwellings. The Subdivider further agrees to include a statement advising of the fencing/boundary identification system requirement in all Offers to Purchase and Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the lots/blocks affected by this Section. Any such fencing may substitute for the fencing required by condition 55." In favour: Councillors K. Taylor- Harrison, M. Yantzi, John Smola, J. Ziegler, T. Galloway, G. Lorentz and C. Weylie Contra: Councillor Jake Smola The Grand River South Community Plan, including the revisions agreed to this date, is attached hereto and forms a part of these minutes. 5. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN The following policies will guide the development of the Grand River South Community. They will provide the basis for the evaluation of proposals for the future development of the area. 1. GENERAL POLICIES 1.1 That the Grand River South Community Plan shall conform to and implement the Regional Official Policies Plan and the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 33 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1.2 That the Grand River South Community Plan Land Use Plan shall comprise the land use plan for the Community. 1.3 That development within the Grand River South Community shall conform to all applicable development and implementation standards adopted by the City of Kitchener. Exceptions may be considered where appropriate to implement specific urban design proposals. 1.4 That as a condition to any Draft Plan of Subdivision, any alteration, filling or construction within a watercourse, flood plain, pond or wetland will require a "Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterway Permit" from the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to any grading or construction and prior to issuance of building permits. 1.5 That new development give consideration to the creation and enhancement of views and vistas through road layout, use of natural topography, preservation of environmental features, and the strategic siting of new community landmarks. Views of the Grand River shaft be of particular importance. 1.6 That coordinated site planning and subdivision design encourage pedestrian access between lands within and adjacent to the Secondary Nodes identified at the Lackner-Fairway intersection and the Lackner-Ottawa intersection. 2. RESIDENTIAL 2.1 That the equivalent population of the community shall be limited by the available capacity of the Ottawa-Montgomery trunk sanitary sewer. On this basis, allocation of maximum residential density within the community shall be based on developable land area as set out in Policy 8. 5. 2.2 That the Low Density Residential category permit single detached, semi-detached, duplex and street townhouse dwellings at a maximum net residential density of 25 units per hectare. Multiple dwellings may also be permitted, only where the configuration of a parcel of land makes the development of street-fronting dwellings impractical. Development within this designation should include a range of housing types and lot widths in order to provide a variety of consumer choices and housing opportunities. 2.3 That the Low Rise Multiple Residential category permit street townhouse and multiple dwellings at a net residential density range of 26 to 60 units per hectare. 2.4 That the Medium Rise Multiple Residential (100 u/ha) category permit street townhouse and multiple dwellings at a net residential density range of 26 to 100 units per hectare. 2.5 That the Medium Rise Multiple Residential (200 u/ha) category permit street townhouse and multiple dwellings at a net residential density range of 60 to 200 units per hectare. 2.6 That the High Rise Multiple Residential category permit street townhouse and multiple dwellings at a net residential density range of 100 to 400 units per hectare. GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) 2.7 That multiple residential sites be encouraged where there is direct access to public transit service and where natural features such as topography, woodlots or recharge areas would be best accommodated or preserved by development with fewer buildings and minimal site coverage rather than development with one or two unit dwellings which require extensive site coverage. 2.8 That private home day care, home businesses and small residential care facilities shall be permitted within all residential land use categories. Large residential care facilities shaft be permitted in Medium and High Rise designations, but may be limited subject to the availability of PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 34 - CITY OF KITCHENER sanitary sewer capacity. 2.9 That lands within the "Proposed Fairway Road Corridor", as shown on Map 2, not be developed until such time as the final alignment of Fairway Road has been determined in accordance with Policy 6.5 of this Plan. Lands adjacent to the proposed corridor may be developed to the extent that development does not prejudice any of the possible road alignments within the corridor. 2.10 That within the Low Rise Multiple Residential designation on the south side of Fairway Road immediately east of Idlewood Creek, residential care facilities and associated supportive uses shall also be permitted, to a maximum floor space ratio of 1.0 and a maximum height of 5 storeys. If the existing woodlot immediately to the east is conserved and established in public ownership, density of multiple dwellings and/or residential care facilities within this designation may be increased without amendment to this plan, as an incentive for such conservation, in accordance with Municipal Plan (Part 2) policy 5.3.20. Such an increase may be subject to the availability of sanitary sewer capacity. 3. INSTITUTIONAL 3.1 That Neighbourhood Institutional uses be located as shown on the Land Use Plan. Permitted uses shaft include elementary schools, religious institutions, day care facilities and small residential care facilities. 3.2 That Community Institutional uses be located as shown on the Land Use Plan. Permitted uses shaft include religious institutions, health offices or clinics, educational establishments, veterinary services, social service establishments and artisans' establishments. Convenience retail, personal services or financial establishment may be permitted as a minor component of a health clinic. For a religious institution within this designation, owing to the proximity of Waterloo Regional Airport, a detailed noise analysis shaft be conducted and required noise insulation or mitigation features considered as part of the building design. 3.3 That a secondary school site of approximately 9.3 hectares be located at the southeast corner of Fairway Road and Briarmeadow Drive. 3.4 That should the designated secondary school site be declared surplus, alternate land uses shall include all uses permitted in the Major Institutional (I-3) Zone, including residential and institutional uses. 3.5 That three elementary school sites of approximately 2 hectares each be located generally as shown on the Land Use Plan. 3.6 That should a designated elementary school site be declared surplus, alternate land uses shall include single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings in addition to other permitted Neighbourhood Institutional uses. Street townhouse dwellings may be permitted subject to the availability of sanitary sewer capacity. 3.7 That at such time as any designated school site is declared surplus, the City shall consider the need to acquire and utilize all or a portion of the site for park purposes. GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) COMMERCIAL That a Neighbourhood Commercial site be located on Fairway Road at Lackner Boulevard. A major food store is intended to be the principal occupant of this centre. As this site is within a Secondary Node, it is expected to function as a focal point for the community. Multiple residential uses would normally be encouraged on this site; such uses shall be permitted, but may be limited subject to the availability of sanitary sewer capacity. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 35 - CITY OF KITCHENER 4.2 That a Service Commercial site be located on the south side of Fairway Road east of Lackner Boulevard. When Fairway Road is constructed across the Grand River, this Service Commercial category shall also permit freestanding office uses, computer, electronic or data processing businesses, research and development establishments, and scientific, technological or communications establishments. 4.3 That Convenience Commercial facilities be located as shown on the Land Use Plan. Additional, smaller Convenience Commercial facilities shaft be encouraged to be distributed within walking distance of the majority of residents. Policy 3.2.1. of Part 3 of the Municipal Plan provides the Iocational criteria for these facilities with regard to access and land use compatibility. Specific locations will be determined through the comprehensive subdivision review process under the Planning Act, and shaft be encouraged to be clustered with community features. Housing will be permitted above these facilities at a maximum density of 40 units per hectare, subject to the availability of sanitary sewer capacity. 4.4 That site design promote the integration of commercial sites with adjacent land uses. For example, sites should be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle access; architectural design should integrate the commercial use with adjacent uses, and mixed commercial-residential develooment is encouraged 5. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES 5.1 That the Community Plan recognize, and encourage public ownership of, the following szgnificant natural resources comprising the Community's Natural Heritage System: Lackner Woods and Natchez Hills Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas (ESPAs), flood plain and valley lands associated with the Grand River, Idlewood Creek and Chicopee Creek, and the upland woodlot at the southwest corner of Zeller Drive and Woolner Drive (i.e. the Fung Woodlot). 5.2 That development within or contiguous to any Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area shall be subject to the requirements of the Regional Official Policies Plan and the City's Municipal Plan. Accordingly, any Environmental Implementation Report prepared in support of a development proposal shall also satisfy the Regional policy requirements with respect to Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas. 5.3 That all hazard lands and wetlands, including specified buffers, shall be reserved from development. These lands shall not be accepted towards fulfilment of the required parkland dedication. 5.4 That upland forest areas, excluding required wetland buffer areas, which are designated within the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan for urban development but designated on the Community Plan Land Use Plan as Open Space, shall be considered eligible as part of the required parkland dedication provided all active park areas, as shown on the Land Use Plan, can be satisfied through the required parkland dedication for each respective subdivision. If all required parkland dedication is utilized for active parks, public acquisition of such lands by other means shall be encouraged. This policy shall apply to those portions of the Fung woodlot recommended for retention and protection in the Ecoplans Woodlot Analysis (January 1997), and including the kame feature. GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) 5.5 That where feasible and appropriate, existing topography and vegetation be incorporated into the design and development of the Community. 5.6 That the Environmental Implementation Report submitted by the proponent at the time of submission of development applications include an overview of treed areas. Further, prior to any site grading or tree removal, the proponent shall submit a Grading and Tree Management Plan in accordance with the Kitchener Municipal Plan and Tree Management Policy. This plan will describe treed areas to be saved and methods by which treed areas will be protected. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 36 - CITY OF KITCHENER 5.7 That prior to grading or construction on any site, fencing shall be installed along the boundaries of all areas of environmental sensitivity, with signs placed every 45 metres stating that no dumping or filling shall be permitted within the enclosed area. 5.8 That, having given serious consideration to an analysis of the effects of peak aircraft noise levels on proposed athletic fields, a district park/district sports field of approximately 12 hectares be located on lands within the area above 30 NEF/NEP as shown on the Land Use Plan. The District Park shall include active, possibly lighted, sports fields for organized sports, including associated parking areas, and may include playground equipment for neighbourhood park purposes. Camping grounds shall not be permitted above the approved 30 NEF/NEP contour. The District Park shall be a key access point to the Grand River Corridor. 5.9 That Neighbourhood Parks of approximately 2 hectares each be located on lands designated as Active Park on the Land Use Plan. 5.10 That the elementary school/neighbourhood park campus concept shall be encouraged and may reduce total land area required for each use. At such time as an elementary school is developed, it is intended that play facilities and other recreational and/or sports facilities be developed. In the event that an elementary school is not developed, the neighbourhood park will include play facilities but may not include other recreational and/or sports facilities. 5.11 That recreational and/or sports facilities be developed in conjunction with the secondary school. 5.12 That a community trail network be established, as shown conceptually on the Land Use Plan, in order to provide continuous open space linkages between Open Space areas designated on the Land Use Plan, provide recreational opportunities and visual amenities for the public, and to provide habitat and suitable movement corridors for small wildlife. These linkages shall, where feasible, make use of hedgerows, storm water management areas, parks and school sites. The community trail network should be linked to the on-road sections of the bikeway network as shown on Schedule 3. 5.13 That opportunities be provided to the public for visual and physical access to the Grand River and its tributaries, as emphasized in the Grand River Corridor Plan. Access points to the Walter Bean Grand River Trail shall include the District Park, the south end of Zeller Drive, and the south end of Otterbein Road. 5.14 That the community trail network generally identified on the Land Use Plan be implemented at the time of development of the lands in which the proposed community trails are located or at the time of development of lands immediately abutting the proposed community trail. If sufficient development charge funds are not available to the City to construct such community trails at the time new development is under way, the development proponent shall be required to front-end finance and construct such trails with credits to be granted through the provisions of the Development Charges By-law. 5.15 That subdivision design incorporate the most appropriate access points to ESPA lands, with particular consideration given to existing trails or footpaths. GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) 5.16 5.17 That the Grand River Recreation Complex located at Ottawa Street and Heritage Drive be recognized as the recreation complex for the Grand River South Community. It is acknowledged that a "Community Centres Feasibility Study" is under way, and may determine that an additional community centre or recreation complex is warranted. If such a facility is to be developed within the Grand River South Community, it may be as part of the district park/sports field, in conjunction with a school, or within either the Lackner-Fairway node or the Lackner-Ottawa node. That lands situated south of Ottawa Street between the Natchez Hills ESPA and the Grand River may be developed as a nine-hole golf course. Vehicular access shall be provided from Ottawa Street at Otterbein Road. At the detailed design stage, this proposed recreation area will PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 37 - CITY OF KITCHENER incorporate: continuous public access along the riverbank of the Grand River; access to existing and future Regional water wells and facilities situated along the Grand River, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo; and a compatible interface between the golf course and the adjacent ESPA in accordance with the policies of this plan. 6. TRANSPORTATION 6.1 That the planning, design and construction of aft roads and walkways within the Grand River South Community have regard to protection of existing environmental features and the creation of a continuous linked open space system. 6.2 That Lackner Boulevard be recognized as Regional Road No. 54 and be designated as a Primary Arterial Road (Controlled Access Prohibited) with a right-of-way of 35 metres. 6.3 That Fairway Road, west of Lackner Boulevard, be recognized as Regional Road No. 53 and designated as a Primary Arterial Road with a right-of-way of 35 metres. 6.4 That Fairway Road, east of Lackner Boulevard, be recognized as Regional Road No. 53 and designated as a Primary Arterial Road with a right-of-way of 35 metres, and shall provide on-road bicycle lanes as recommended in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Bicycle Master Plan and the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study. 6.5 That the alignment of Fairway Road, east of a point 150 metres west of Zefter Drive, be determined by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo through the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act. 6.6 That Ottawa Street, west of Lackner Boulevard, be recognized as Regional Road No. 4 and designated as a Primary Arterial Road with a right-of-way of 35 metres. 6.7 That Ottawa Street east of Lackner Boulevard, shaft be recognized as Regional Road No. 4 and designated as a Primary Arterial Road with a right-of-way of 35 metres, and shaft provide dedicated on-road bicycle lanes as recommended in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Bicycle Master Plan and the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study. It is acknowledged that the Ottawa Street crossing of the Grand River remains in the Regional Official Policies Plan as a proposed primary road, notwithstanding the Regional Transportation Master Plan (1999) which concluded that such as crossing would not be necessary if a Fairway Road crossing is constructed. GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) 6.8 That aft Major Collector Roads be designed and constructed as front-lotted roads accommodating on-street parking and public transit and with a standard right-of-way of 20 metres. Certain intersections may require a wider right-of-way to accommodate turning lanes; this is to be determined through the subdivision review process. The width of the carriageway within the right- of-way will be determined at the time of detailed road design. 6.9 Collector roads identified on Schedule 3 as "Local On-Road Bicyle Lane" shaft provide additional road width for bicycle traffic, either as a wide shared-use lane or as a dedicated on-road bicycle lane, in accordance with the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study; this may necessitate a wider right-of- way than otherwise required. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 38 - CITY OF KITCHENER 6.10 That the road network north of the Fairway Road extension be designed so that traffic volumes on Zeller Drive at Lackner Boulevard do not exceed the current design capacity of Zeller Drive. A Traffic Impact Study may be required to be submitted by the proponent at the time of submission of development applications to determine the appropriate distribution of traffic to both Fairway Road and Zeller Drive, the number, location and status of roads intersecting Fairway Road, and the appropriate design requirements for Fairway Road and any necessary improvements for Zeller Drive at Lackner Boulevard. 6.11 That the southern leg of the Fairway-Lackner intersection provide vehicular access to residential development to the south, but that the intersection and the road network through new plans of subdivision be designed to discourage through traffic movements from the Fairway-Lackner intersection to Morrison Road. 6.12 That the primary location of vehicle access to any new development on the property of 509132 Ontario Ltd. shall be from a local street on the Northlake Homes property, rather than directly from Fairway Road. 6.13 That the primary location of vehicle access to any new development on that portion of the former Sims Estate southwest of Chicopee Creek shall be directly from Morrison Road. The existing bridge across the creek may be utilized as a secondary or emergency access, only if its structure is demonstrated to be sufficient for this purpose. 6.14 That the section of Morrison Road between Fairway Road and Chicopee Pond be renamed at such time as it is extended to the east. 6.15 That in assigning names for streets within the community, consideration be given to utilizing the Sims and Woolner names, at such time as all portions of existing Woolner Drive are closed or renamed. 6.16 That in the development of a transportation network, consideration be given to all forms of transportation including walking, cycling, public transit and the automobile. This will be accomplished through measures such as: The creation of street networks and pedestrian links suitable to alternate transportation modes. The use of site planning and urban design techniques to foster attractive pedestrian streetscapes and environments. Minimizing walking distances between housing, schools, transit stops, parks, open space and other local destinations. Development of a bikeway network including on-road and off-road sections, as set out in the City of Kitchener Bikeway Study (April 1998). GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) · Providing frequent points of public access to the community trail network. 6.17 That the cost of primary walk links, including those shown on the Land Use Plan, and which may include pedestrian bridges, providing direct links from residential areas to schools, parks, transit routes and commercial lands, be funded by the development proponent. To the extent that such links function as a community trail, a portion of the cost may be funded by development charges. Additional primary links may be identified through the subdivision review process. 7. PUBLIC TRANSIT 7.1 That lands around the intersections of Lackner Boulevard with Ottawa Street and with Fairway Road be recognized as Secondary Nodes as designated in the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 39 - CITY OF KITCHENER 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 That Lackner Boulevard and Fairway Road be recognized as Transit Corridors as designated in the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan. That subdivision design shall consider Grand River Transit's "Guidelines for the Design of New Residential Development with Respect to the Provision of Transit Service" including orientation of corner lots so that bus stops are on the flanking side of the lots. That future development in the Community recognize the proposed future transit routing as shown on Schedule 3, "Transit Service". Interim transit routes will be determined at the time of subdivision review until such time as the ultimate transportation system is constructed. That site design in the community have regard for convenient and safe pedestrian access between on-street transit facilities and buildings, particularly within the Neighbourhood Commercial and multiple residential designations. That local streets and walkways be designed to provide convenient and direct pedestrian access to transit routes. SERVICING AND UTILITIES That all new development be serviced by municipal water and storm sewers, and by municipal sanitary sewers where practical. That in accordance with the Grand River South Community Sanitary Sewage Servicing Study (1999), sanitary sewage facilities within areas not serviced by the Idlewood, Forwell or Lackner Woods pumping stations, as shown on Schedule 4, shall be provided by means of the proposed Grand River South pumping station and a forcemain to the Qttawa Montgomery trunk sanitary sewer. Provided, however, that individual property owners may investigate moving the existing Lackner Woods pumping station to their own lands and upgrading it to accommodate the existing sewage flow and any increase in flow from their lands. That the number of permanent, publicly operated pumping stations shall be minimized. That the exact location and detailed design of a sanitary sewage facility or facilities be determined in conjunction with the subdivision approvals process under the Planning Act. That the equivalent population of the community shall be limited by the available capacity of the Ottawa-Montgomery trunk sanitary sewer. In advance of the East Kitchener Trunk Sanitary Sewer Study, or if no additional capacity is found, sanitary sewer capacity shall be allocated on the basis of net developable land area (i.e. gross land area minus school sites, flood plain, ESPA lands, wetlands and steep slopes) per subdivider, as shown on Figure 1. Upon completion of the study any additional capacity may be allocated as determined by the City. As stated in Council's resolution of December 13, 1999, first priority shall be given to the maximum GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) development potential of the Grand River South area before allocation of capacity to lands outside the city. Figure 1 BEE HALLMAN 67.435 18.758 48.677 22.359% BRIERDALE PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 40 - CITY OF KITCHENER NORTHLAKE 55.298 19.494 35.804 16.446% HOMES ROCKWAY 45.865 2.879 42.986 19.745% HOLDINGS GRCA 45.055 26.489 18.566 8.528% 583018 ONT. LTD. 43.619 7.002 36.617 16.820% (FUNG) TEAKWELL 16.192 9.480 6.712 3.083% HOLDINGS OLD CHICOPEE 16.192 2.907 13.285 6.102% INC. 456941 ONT. LTD. 9.449 0.432 9.017 4.142% (SlLVESTRI) A&C HUBER 4.047 0.324 3.723 1.710% D WOOLNER 2.687 2.687 0.000 0.000% 509132 ONT. LTD. 2.675 1.213 1.462 0.672% (SCHMIDHUBER) A&G OLINSKIE 1.809 1.400 0.409 0.188% J&T WOOLNER 0.445 0.000 0.445 0.204% 8.6 8.7 That the Woolner weft field and the Pompeii weft field, as shown on Schedule 1, be recognized as vital components of the regional water supply system. Land use within wellhead protection areas may be restricted to protect the long term sustainability of these water supplies. For development of certain non-residential land uses in the immediate area of the weft fields, hydrogeological investigation may be required to assess the relationship between local ground water flow regimes and the weft fields. That lands at the southeast corner of Lackner Boulevard and Ebydale Drive be recognized as the future location of a regional water reservoir. GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) 8.8 8.9 That Idlewood Creek be recognized as a cold water stream requiring Level One protection as outlined in Ministry of Environment guidelines. The Idlewood Creek Master Drainage Plan shaft be the guiding document for storm water management for that portion of the Community within the Idlewood Creek watershed. In addition, storm water quality control shaft be required. That storm water management practices in the community be in compliance with the "Interim Storm Water Management Guidelines for New Development" and "Stormwater Management Practices, Planning and Design Manual" documents published by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy in 1994 and as may be amended. The design of storm water management facilities shaft also be in accordance with the City's "Design Principles for Storm Water Management Facilities, August, 1996". Design criteria shaft include water quality and PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 41 - CITY OF KITCHENER erosion control, water quantity control for the 2-year storm event in order to reduce erosion within Idlewood Creek, and extended detention of the 5-year storm event based on close proximity to the Grand River. 8.10 That development within the community be encouraged to share storm water management facilities so as to minimize the number of such facilities. This may necessitate the use of temporary storm water management facilities for early phases of development. The cost of permanent storm water management facilities shall be shared among land owners on a contributing volume basis. 8.11 That storm water management facilities not be developed in close proximity to elementary school sites. 8.12 That lands east of the north-south segment of existing Zeller Drive be recognized as being beyond the 4-minute first response time, as identified in the Fire Station Location Study. All new residential development in this area shaft be constructed with direct-to-fire alarm monitoring systems. 9. HERITAGE RESOURCES 9.1 That the Grand River be recognized as a Canadian Heritage River. 9.2 That the property addressed as 748 Zeller Drive (Woolner Farmstead), identified as a Heritage Resource on the Land Use Plan, be recognized as being designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Notwithstanding its Low Density Residential designation on the Land Use Plan, the plan recognizes the continued use of the property for agriculture. However, in order to promote compatibility with nearby residential use, intensive commercial-scale livestock operations shaft not be permitted. Horse boarding, a riding stable and the keeping of livestock at the scale of a hobby farm shaft be permitted. The Plan recognizes the long-term potential for the heritage resources of this property to be part of an interpretive centre or other similar cultural/recreational resource. 9.3 That the following properties, identified as Heritage Resources on the Land Use Plan, be recognized as being listed on the municipal data base of heritage resources (Inventory of Heritage Buildings): 787 Morrison Road (Sims Estate) 811 Morrison Road (Gardener's House) 9.4 That development on or adjacent to property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act or listed on the municipal data base of heritage resources be subject to Policies 5. 3.14 and 5. 3.15 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan. If required, a Heritage Impact Assessment shall be approved prior to or concurrent with the granting of draft plan approval in conformity with the City's process dealing with the conservation of heritage resources within the plan of subdivision process. The Heritage Impact Assessment shall be completed in accordance with the City of GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment Guidelines and will identify a recommended strategy for the conservation of the heritage resource. 9.5 That the scenic qualities of Zeller Drive be addressed in the planning and development of adjacent lands. In particular, development adjacent to the section of Zeller Drive south of Woolner Drive should include measures such as: · protection of the east edge of the Fung woodlot; reconstruction of the road to modified municipal standards including road surface, street lighting style, boulevard planting and sidewalk design; and · preservation of the open view southward to the Grand River. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 42 - CITY OF KITCHENER 9.6 That the scenic qualities of Woolner Drive be addressed in the planning and development of adjacent lands. It is acknowledged that the approved Environmental Assessment for the extension of Fairway Road has fixed an alignment which will eliminate most of existing Woolner Drive. At such time as Fairway Road is extended east from Lackner Boulevard, the most westerly 200 metre section of Woolner Drive will become redundant as part of the road network. At that time, the redundant section should be physically closed and the remaining section should be renamed "Fairway Road". Consideration of the disposition of the redundant section should include the following: · whether the former road would be a useful component of the Community Trail network; whether there are benefits to incorporating the former road with the adjoining commercial property; · whether existing roadside vegetation is worthy of preservation; and · whether such preservation requires public ownership. 9.7 That in accordance with Policy 5. 3.17 of the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan, consideration will be given to the effects of public works on all heritage resources identified on the Land Use Plan. 9.8 That certain lands within the Grand River South Community be recognized as having high potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. Where any significant archaeological remains are found, an Archaeological Survey and Rescue Excavation shall be required prior to any grading of such lands. 10. WATERLOO REGIONAL AIRPORT 10.1 That the Grand River South Community recognize that Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) Contours have been approved by Transport Canada for Waterloo Regional Airport, located across the Grand River to the east of the community. 10.2 That, in having regard to the Provincial Policy Statement, new residential development or other sensitive land uses shall not be permitted in the area above 30 NEF/NEP, to protect the airport from incompatible development. However, the location of the 30 NEF/NEP contour may be interpreted so as to allow for minor variations to accommodate, for example, street and lotting patterns. 10.3 That the Grand River South Community recognize that, in accordance with the Transport Canada guidelines entitled "Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports," Planning Contours have been developed by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the purpose of investigating planning GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) alternatives. Such contours may be updated from time to time as part of the Airport Master Plan review process. 10.4 That residential development between the 25 and 30 Planning Contour shaft utilize acoustic insulation features as required to achieve the indoor sound level criteria of the Ministry of the Environment. 10.5 That all lands in the area east of Idlewood Creek, and the area east or north of the Lackner Woods ESPA be established as an Airport Vicinity Protection Area, identified by permanent noise warning signage. Residential development within the area shall be subject to noise warning clauses and shall be constructed to allow for installation of central air conditioning systems. 10.6 That the Grand River South Community recognize that NEF/NEP Contours and Planning Contours are updated from time to time, and that future updates, approved subsequent to residential development, may identify incompatibility between developed residential areas and the operations PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2000 - 43 - CITY OF KITCHENER of the Waterloo Regional Airport. 10.7 That the Grand River South Community acknowledge that potential changes in the use of the airport, with or without updates to NEF/NEP contours, could result in actual noise exposure higher than forecast for approved NEF/NEP contours. 10.8 That, upon completion of the Waterloo Regional Airport 2000 Master Plan, the City of Kitchener intends to amend its Municipal Plan to redesignate lands generally within the 30NEF/NEP contour from Low Rise Residential to Open Space with a special policy to permit those non-sensitive land uses otherwise permitted in the Low Rise Residential designation. The extent of the redesignation would not necessarily coincide with the extent of the 30NEF/NEP contour or the 30 Planning Contour, as such contours may change from time to time, but would acknowledge that residential use would be inappropriate in such close proximity to the airport. The amendment would be included within the required 5-year review of the Municipal Plan. 10.9 That the height of buildings, structures or objects in the vicinity of Waterloo Region Airport shall not exceed the height limits established in the Airport Zoning Regulations registered on title by Transport Canada. 11. NOISE FROM ROADS 11.1 That Fairway Road and Lackner Boulevard be recognized as major road corridors potentially generating significant amounts of noise. 11.2 That site design, architectural design and building construction features be the preferred methods used in attenuating noise impact from major roads, and that acoustical barriers be the least preferred method. 11.3 That trucks hauling aggregate from the Rockway Holdings gravel pit are recognized as a significant noise source on Zeller Drive to Woolner Drive / Fairway Road and on Woolner Drive / Fairway Road to Lackner Boulevard. However, it is further recognized that the extraction of aggregate is an interim land use. 12. AGGREGATE RESOURCES 12.1 That lands east of the north-south segment of existing Zeller Drive be recognized as a Primary Aggregate Resource Area, as identified in the Municipal Plan. Therefore, extraction of this non- renewable resource shall be encouraged as an interim use prior to urban development. GRAND RIVER SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN (CONT'D) 12.2 That aggregate extraction (i.e. gravel pits) be recognized as a potential source of noise, dust and negative visual impact. In order to minimize land use conflict and protect the existing licensed pit from incompatible uses during extraction, residential development shaft not be permitted in close proximity to the pit, in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement and with Municipal Plan (Part 2) policy 7. 9. 12. 3 That the staging of residential development be coordinated with the sequence of extraction so as to maintain a reasonable separation between aggregate extraction and residential land use. 12.4 That final post-extraction elevations shall be coordinated with the design of sanitary sewage facilities in order to provide for servicing of lands above the Regional flood line.