Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Minutes - 2022-02-09Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee Minutes February 9, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting Present: Mayor B. Vrbanovic Councillor S. Davey Councillor D. Schnider Councillor J. Gazzola Councillor C. Michaud Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock Councillor P. Singh Councillor B. loannidis Councillor M. Johnston Councillor D. Chapman Councillor S. Marsh Staff: D. Chapman, Chief Administrative Officer M. May, General Manager, Community Services and Deputy Chief Administrator V. Raab, General Manager, Corporate Services J. Readman, General Manager, Development Services J. Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services D. McGoldrick, General Manager, Infrastructure Services R. Bustamante, Director of Planning G. Stevenson, Manager of Development B. Rowland, Director, Corporate Communications and Marketing B. Cronkite, Director, Transportation Services D. Saunderson, Deputy Clerk S. Goldrup, Committee Administrator D. Mange, Committee Administrator 1. Commencement 1 The Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee held an electronic meeting this date chaired by Councillor D. Chapman, commencing at 6:04 p.m. 2. Consent Items 2.1 None. 3. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act (Reconvened from February 7, 2022) 3.1 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA20/005/W/JVW and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA2010131W/JVW - 660 Belmont Ave. W. - DSD - 2022 -041 The Committee considered Development Services Department report DSD -2022- 041 dated January 14, 2022, regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OPA20/005/W/JVW for 660 Belmont LP Inc., 660 Belmont GP Inc., & City of Kitchener, recessed from the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee held on Monday February 7, 2022. The Committee was in receipt of written submissions from S. Hayes, G. Lafflame, M. Hishon, B. Trotter, J. McNeil, A. Au and B. Robinson. R. Sorkin was in attendance in opposition to the staff recommendation. R. Sorkin expressed concerns with the lack of proposed family units, lack of affordable housing and sustainability. J. Ryrie, N. Carter, M. Cadotte and J. McCormack, K. Long and E. Smith were in attendance in opposition to staff recommendation. They expressed concerns with matters including but not limited to: the City and the Region intensification targets; the proposed height of the building and the interpretation of the existing zoning regulations; the lack of sustainable design; adverse traffic impacts, and access concerns related to the laneway. It was requested the Committee refuse the subject applications and retain ownership of the laneway. G. Shepherd and A. Ramsay addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposed development at 660 Belmont Avenue West. A. Ramsay noted as a means of addressing the concerns of the neighborhood, Council could consider implementing an Interim Control By-law in order to study the existing Zoning regulations and uses in Belmont Village to ensure any future developments are sympathetic to the existing character of the neighborhood. G. Shepherd and A. Ramsay spoke to the lack of clarity on whether the development is actually located within a defined major transit area and/or urban corridor. 2 B. Robinson addressed the Committee in opposition to staff recommendation, noting in her opinion, Belmont Village has not been identified as a growth area within the City. B. Robinson indicated she provided Committee a fulsome written submission outlining the rationale to support this opinion. R. Waldman attended in opposition to the subject applications. R. Waldman expressed concerns regarding the development's negative effects on the adjacent properties and the Gildner Green Park area. R. Waldman expressed further concerns with the possibility for increased noise, adverse impacts from increase traffic and pollution. P. Vieira was in attendance in opposition to the proposed development for 660 Belmont Ave. P. Vieira requested the Committee consider reviewing growth strategies of other cities that have communities similar to Belmont Village and the growth strategies that those municipalities have used to support intensification. J. Bennett expressed opposition to the subject application, stating the high level of community engagement demonstrated by the neighborhood towards the proposal needs to be taken into consideration when rendering a decision on the applications. J. Bennett expressed further concerns regarding inconsistencies within the City's planning regulations. E. McCarron attended in opposition to the subject application, noting the City is already approving development beyond the Provincial growth targets, stating the proposed development does not need to be approved to address the current housing crisis. The Committee recessed at 8:05 pm and reconvened at 8:11 pm. chaired by Councillor D. Chapman with all members present. S. Gosselin addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject applications, indicating the proposed height of the building will have an adverse impact on the adjacent community garden located in Gildner Green Park. S. Gosselin expressed further concerns with the sale of the laneway, noting consideration should be given to utilize the laneway for community purposes such as meeting space and/or increased green space. D. Bennet attended in opposition to the staff recommendation. D. Bennet stated the neighborhood has previously attempted create a working group to work with the developer to review the development and proposed designs, but those efforts of the neighborhood were unsuccessful. D. Bennet noted the motion put forward by Councillor M. Johnston to undertake a planning study of Belmont Village and was in support of that request. 3 P. Carty addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject applications, noting concerns with precedence for future developments in Belmont Village. A. Kitzmann was in attendance in opposition to the proposed development at 660 Belmont Avenue West and requested the Committee to complete the study proposed by Councillor M. Johnston motion to review the Planning regulations in Belmont Village prior to accepting or approving any development proposals. Z. Janecki expressed opposition to the proposed development and further spoke of the concept of surplus land related to the City declaring land surplus, indicating the two matters should not be consider simultaneously. M. Bowman was in attendance in support of the proposed development, noting the proposal would attract new residents to the area; increase commercial expansion; help to diversify the housing options in the area; provide less expensive single family housing; and contribute to the City's need for affordable housing through the additional funding being provided to the non -for-profit organization MennoHomes. Councillor D. Chapman left the meeting at this time and Councillor P. Singh assumed the chair at this time. P. Eglin indicated opposition to the proposed development of 660 Belmont Avenue West, noting that affordable housing will not be provided by the development industry unless it is forced by inclusionary zoning. P. Eglin requested the Committee to consider temporarily suspending private residential developments until families in the waiting list for affordable housing are adequately housed. Councillor D. Chapman re-entered the meeting at this time and resumed the Chair. C. Trotter was in attendance in opposition to the subject application, noting concerns with the Zoning and Official Plan amendments applications and whether they were sufficiently completed for the City to deem them complete under the Planning Act. C. Trotter indicated if the applications have not been fully completed as per the legislation they should be rejected. The Committee recessed at 10:00 pm and reconvened at 10:06 pm. chaired by Councillor D. Chapman with all members present. In response to questions from the Committee regarding the application forms, G. Stevenson confirmed the applications were deemed complete by the City and formalized by a letter issued on August 7, 2020 G. Stevenson indicated that an earlier version of the application had been scanned and posted on the City's 2 website. In response to questions from the Committee concerning applicable legislation that regulates the permitted height of the building, G. Stevenson indicated Policy 15.D.4.22 states that generally no building will exceed 8 storeys or 25 meters in height, whichever is greater at the highest -grade elevation. G. Stevenson further explained that Policy 15.D.4.23 allows the City to consider increases of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed-use building containing residential units. G. Stevenson confirmed Policy 15.D.4.23 does not mention the words storeys or meters and for that reason a Zoning By -Law amendment is necessary to implement the mentioned Policy but an Official Plan Amendment is not required. In response to questions regarding the publicly owned laneway, G. Stevenson indicated the staff recommendation proposes to consider the laneway as surplus and further explained that the laneway would continue to provide public access similar to how it functions this date, with the exception that the City would no longer have the obligation to maintain it. G. Stevenson confirmed the City would ensure access to the laneway and protection of services through easements at a later stage in the development process. Questions were raised regarding the possibility of allocating funds from the laneway sale to create of a special reserve intended for any required planning studies proposed related to Belmont Village, G. Stevenson indicated that the sale funds would go to the Land Reserve Fund and then the Committee could decide to direct them to a different account if considered appropriate. In response to questions regarding the possibility to establish an Interim Control By Law that limits development applications, G. Stevenson confirmed that depending on the language used in this Interim By Law it could also limit the subject application. In response to questions regarding the option to redesign the development proposal excluding the laneway, G. Stevenson indicated that the floor space ratio would have to be recalculated and the proposed design would have to be revised to accommodate a similar building in a smaller lot. G. Stevenson responded to questions concerning the wind assessment submitted as part of the subject application, indicating the study concluded conditions would be comfortable for residents. G. Stevenson noted there was a recommendation outlined in the study to install screens on the proposed patios and surrounding outdoor spaces as a mitigation measure. Questions were raised regarding on whether the subject lands are considered a Major Transit Station Area or an Urban Corridor in the Staff report. G. Stevenson responded that the subject lands are considered a Major Transit Station Area l (MTSA) in the 2014 Official Plan, indicating these lands are also shown as an Urban Corridor in the proposed Urban Structure developed through the current MTSA planning process underway which includes updates to the City's Secondary Plans for Central Neighborhoods (Neighborhood Planning Reviews project). G. Stevenson further explained that growth is planned and focused for Belmont Village because it is a planned intensification area and was identified as an MTSA in the 2014 Official Plan and shown as an Urban Corridor in the proposed Urban Structure developed through current MTSA planning process underway and stated that planning staff are of the opinion that the recommended Zoning By-law amendment conforms to the Growth Plan. Questions were raised in regard to the applicant's obligation to address the building's noise impact to offsite properties. G. Stevenson indicated that according to Section 51 of the Planning Act, the City required the applicant to complete a noise study and to implement any noise mitigation measures that are identified at the condominium registration and declaration stage. In response to questions from the Committee regarding public notice of the potential laneway sale, R. Bustamante indicated that the Municipal Act changed in 2006 and removed requirements of circulation of notice with respect to the declaration of surplus land. R. Bustamante further explained that it is a City's policy to provide notice if land is being declared surplus. R. Bustamante confirmed the City did provide notice in accordance with that policy, through an advertisement in the paper. R. Bustamante confirmed that the City provided further notice to the public of the potential laneway closure to the Utility Providers, various city departments and to the adjacent property owners. Questions were raised regarding accessible units for the aging population and multiple bedroom units destined for families. G. Stevenson indicated that planning staff is is in support of working with the developer to address these needs, noting accessible units are regulated through the Building Code. B. Cronkite responded to questions from the Committee regarding traffic and parking in the area of Gildner Green Park, indicating that the Traffic Impact Assessment study concluded there will be available parking on site and there would be no adverse traffic concerns imposed on the neighborhood. Questions were raised in regard to the focus on pedestrian streetscape G. Stevenson emphasized the recommendation is to lower the podium from three stories to two to ensure the building mass would be similar to the current scale in the upper Belmont area and to increase the setback to allow programmable space and adequate landscaping. n. On motion by Councillor D. Schnider It was resolved: "That pursuant to Section 25.4.11 of Chapter 25 (Council Procedure) of the Municipal Code, the proceedings of the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee this date shall be allowed to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. to conclude matters as listed on the agenda." Carried Unanimously. K. Muir, GSP Group and Zac Zehr, Zehr Group, were in attendance to respond to questions from the Committee. In response to questions regarding the possibility to modify the design to include three-bedroom units and accessible units. Z. Zehr confirmed they were amenable to working with City's Planning Staff to find a suitable solution to ensure diversity of the housing stock. Z. Zehr explained 15 per cent of the building units are required to be barrier free according to regulations by the Building Code, noting depending on sales specific needs could be further accommodated as requested. Questions were raised regarding the winter maintenance of the laneway, public access, the option to amend the design to an 8 -story building and the neighborhood businesses response to the proposed development. Staff agreed to follow up with the developer prior to the February 28, 2022, Council meeting to discuss these matters further. On motion by Mayor B. Vrbanovic It was resolved: "That the following recommendation be referred to the February 28. 2022 Council meeting to allow a further opportunity for staff to dialogue with the applicant related to the development including but not limited the following items: affordability, accessibility of the proposed units, proposed unit types, noise study requirements, laneway public access, and overall scale and massing of the development: "That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA20/005/W/JVW for 660 Belmont LP Inc., 660 Belmont GP Inc., & City of Kitchener requesting a Specific Policy Area, be refused; and, That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/013/W/JVW for 660 Belmont LP Inc., 660 Belmont 7 GP Inc., & City of Kitchener be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law", and "Map No. 1", attached to Report DSD -2022-041 as Appendix "A"; and, That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/013/W/JVW; and, That the portion of Belmont Lane East between Belmont Avenue West and Claremont Avenue be declared as surplus to City needs; and, That a by-law to close the portion of Belmont Lane East between Belmont Avenue West and Claremont Avenue be approved and that the by-law would not take effect until registered on title to the lane and any costs associated with said by-law would be borne by the purchaser; and further, That Realty Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, be authorized to negotiate the terms of two conditional Agreements of Purchase and Sale with the owners of 660 Belmont Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont Avenue West for the sale of the respective portions of Belmont Lane East, with fair market value to be determined immediately prior to final site plan approval of 660 Belmont Avenue West or 678-692 Belmont Avenue West, whichever comes first, where such sale is conditional on: i. Approval of the Agreement, including sale price, by Kitchener City Council; and, ii. The final decision has been made on Official Plan Amendment OPA20/005/W/JVW and Zoning By- law Amendment Application ZBA20/013/W/JVW for 660 Belmont Avenue West; and, iii. That the portions of the lane to be sold are consolidated with lands that have frontage on a public street; and, iv. Site Plan approval in principle is issued for 660 Belmont Avenue West or 678-692 Belmont Avenue West, whichever comes first; and, v. That the purchaser grant access easements over the lane lands for both 660 Belmont Avenue West and 678-692 Belmont Avenue West in favour of each property; and further, vi. That the purchaser grant, at no cost to the City, all required easements for City infrastructure and utilities." In Favour (11): Mayor B. Vrbanovic, Councillor S. Davey, Councillor D. Schnider, Councillor J. Gazzola, Councillor C. Michaud, Councillor K. Galloway-Sealock, Councillor P. Singh, Councillor B. loannidis, Councillor M. Johnston, Councillor D. Chapman, and Councillor S. Marsh Carried (11 to 0) 4. Notice of Motion - M. Johnston - Planning Review of Belmont Village It was suggested and agreed due to time constraints that the following motion be referred to the February 28, 2022, Council meeting. On motion by Councillor M. Johnston It was resolved: "That the following motion be referred to the February 28, 2022 Council meeting: "WHEREAS for the past 18 months, Council and staff have received a significant amount of correspondence from residents regarding the planning application for 660 Belmont Ave; and, WHEREAS these comments focus on the community's appreciation of Belmont Village and the community it represents, as well as an interest in how it develops as a result of their affection for Belmont Village; and, WHEREAS Council has not observed such extensive engagement from the community regarding a development application in recent years; and, WHEREAS Council has heard from many residents that Belmont Village is a unique community gem and it is worthy of further study and careful planning; 9 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That Planning staff be directed to initiate a planning study for the Belmont Village Urban Corridor which will evaluate the applicable planning policies, develop new or refined policy directions, and include a comprehensive engagement plan for residents, businesses and the community at large; THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That recommendations related to urban design and built form emerging through the planning study for the Belmont Village Urban Corridor be integrated into the City's Official Plan through the upcoming Official Plan Review which will begin in early 2023; THEREFORE IT FINALLY BE RESOLVED That the Chief Administrative Officer be directed to review the workload of the Planning Policy & Research team, including the incorporation of this planning study into the workplan, and to make resource and headcount adjustments as required to deliver on the workplan subject to the ability to fund the resources within anticipated Planning fee revenues." 5. Information Items 5.1 None. 6. Adjournment On motion, this meeting adjourned at 11:57 p.m. Daniela Mange Committee Administrator Carried 10