The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEcon Development - 2001-05-23ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES May 23, 2001 11:00 am – 1:00 pm Conestoga Room, Main Floor, Kitchener City Hall Attendance: Glenn ScheelsJane Jantzi Lawrence BingemanMayor, Carl Zehr Mike SullyPeter Benninger Henrik NoesgaardPeter Cook Manfred Conrad Staff: George BorovilosBrock Stanley David CorksJohn McBride Marie Morrison Recording Secretary: Sandy Curzon Regrets: Councillor, Christina WeylieCouncillor, John Smola Councillor, Berry VrbanovicHans Pottkamper Ray RobinsonScott Baird Jeff WillmerShawky Fahel th 1. Approval of Minutes of April 28 , 2001 th Minutes of April 28, 2001 were approved as written. Moved by Peter Benninger Seconded by Henrik Noesgaard Carried. 2. Proposal for Special Committees of Council Restructuring Mayor Zehr introduced the Advisory Committee Review. The main concerns are related to the overlap of individuals and issues of these committees. Brock Stanley then reviewed the current structure and the Draft Advisory Committee Mandates and Report for discussion. The following is a summary of the discussion that took place: Committees have membership from each of three healthy communities sectors Ø (environment, economic and social) If the groups include membership and viewpoints from each healthy community Ø sector they may be too different and loose focus Expertise would be diluted if you had to add members from other sectors and Ø remove current complement – still need to keep groups to a reasonable size - minority viewpoint could also be marginalized Integrating the various perspectives is the role of Council – Council’s role is to Ø balance – this does not need to be done at the committee level where expertise in a particular area can be offered Perhaps the balance of the three sectors could occur at the problem solving team Ø or working group level. Specific groups offer their expertise (i.e. Environmental and EDAC and Safe City) and then a few members from each of these groups come together to consider the problem and do some of the compromise up-front before it goes to Council Central debate is at what level should the balancing of three sectors be Ø considered – individual committees, something in between, Standing Committees, Council? Should it just happen at one level? Council’s Role Does Council need to be at all the meetings? Ø Need a Council link or liaison Ø Appreciate Council participation because they often provide information that in Ø turn speeds up the process Don’t need three Council Members appointed - two that could spell each other Ø off would be fine Comments on Draft Committee Structure If committees mandate is too broad may not be able to hold member’s interests. Ø If mandate too large there is not enough time to handle Ø Other Comments In order to reduce Council and Staff time in making multiple presentations could Ø present information one time and either videotape or have a group representative attend the presentation and then share this information with their individual group Consider creating virtual committee discussion areas to save time – some Ø thought that people would not engage in this way Where is common thread between all Committees? Council fills that role. Maybe Ø need someone that co-ordinates information between them Staff need to ensure that the ideas presented to Committees have already taken Ø into consideration the three healthy communities sectors 3. Downtown Parking Garage Proposal John McBride, Director of Traffic & Parking provided Committee with Council Report PW-01-055 which addresses the Executive Summary of the Parking Garage Feasibility Study prepared by a consortium of consultants headed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited. The summary is being presented to make Committee aware of the findings in the study and to obtain their support prior to the study being presented to City Council June 11, 2001. 2 EDAC Minutes May 23, 2001 Over the past 2 years, tenants in the Downtown has increased substantially creating a need for additional parking especially long term (monthly). The consultants, in their study address four areas: i. Identify Need to encourage continued economic growth in the downtown Ø if adequate supply of parking is not provided, businesses will locate Ø elsewhere present need exceeds 650 additional parking spaces Ø long term need could escalate to 4500 spaces Ø ii. Evaluate Alternatives Encourage more ridesharing/public transit Ø Develop more city-owned parking structures Ø Do nothing Ø iii. Location Analysis Francis/Charles – existing city-owned surface parking Ø Charles/Water – existing surface parking privately owned Ø Charles/Benton – combined retail/parking facility Ø Grand River Transit Terminal – joint use facility Ø iv. Traffic Impact and Implementation Strategy Phase I – Immediate – 525 parking spaces on existing city-owned surface Ø parking lot – Charles & Benton Street at a cost of $8-$11 million. Staff will also work towards securing private sector partnerships with current downtown business owners Phase II – Short Term – within the next three years, 760 parking spaces Ø on existing city-owned parking lot – Francis & Charles Street at a cost of $12-$14 million Phase III – Long Term – over the next 10 –20 years – 380 additional Ø spaces – Charles & Benton to King Street with retail street frontage Currently, Mr. McBride and staff are gathering public input in order to provide a recommendation at the next Public Works & Transportation Committee meeting of thth June 4 and for Council resolution on June 11. If the schedule goes as planned, we could see a new structure on the Charles & Benton sites by fall of 2002. During a question and answer session it was noted that: It costs $15-$20,000 per space to build a parking structure Ø Epton site has approximately 300 surface parking spaces Ø Kaufman site could provide an additional 200 short term parking spaces Ø All new structures are required to provide parking Ø 3 EDAC Minutes May 23, 2001 RECOMMENDATION That Economic Development Advisory Committee supports Public Works & Transportation Committee Report PW-01-055, dated April 27, 2001 as it stands Motion by Peter Benninger Seconded by Manfred Conrad Carried 4. Information Items a. Annual Report – Committee received the Economic Development Annual Report for 2000 5. New Business a. 90 Woodside Avenue – former Canada Blower/Howden Fan building has been purchased by General Environmental Group Inc. In order to develop this property to a residential standard; up to 75,000 tons of silica sands would have to nd be removed from the site. On May 22, a delegation of 250+ descended upon th Council. The closing deadline has been extended from May 20 for 30 days. There will be a public open house within the next two weeks to provide information and receive public concerns to the applications before the Ministry of the Environment. th b. On May 24,Tricar Group will give a press release on the construction of a residential 18-storey high rise to be built at Weber and Queen Street. Occupancy is slated for fall 2002 of these 850-1400 sq.ft. Luxury suites. Meeting adjourned at 1:10p.m. Moved by Jane Jantzi Seconded by Henrik Noesgaard Carried ………………………………………………. Sandy Curzon, Recording Secretary Economic Development Advisory Committee Department of Business & Planning Services th Next meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. st Conestoga Room, 1 Floor, City Hall 4 EDAC Minutes May 23, 2001