HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 2001-09-24PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001CITY 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: Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors M.
Galloway, B. Vrbanovic and J. Smola. Councillors G. Lorentz and J. Ziegler entered the meeting after its
commencement.
Officials Present: Ms. C. Ladd, L. MacDonald, M. Morrison and Messrs. F. Pizzuto, G. Borovilos, L.
Bensason, D. Mansell, J. Witmer, E. Theodore and L.W. Neil.
1.BPS-01-113-21 KRUG STREET
-MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 01/03/K/ET
-ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/25/K/ZJ
-LEN GIBSON
-BRIDGEPORT-CENTRE WARD
The Committee was advised that the Development and Technical Services Department was in
receipt of applications for municipal plan amendment and zone change submitted by Len Gibson
for the purpose of legalizing an existing 6 unit multiple dwelling located at 21 Krug Street. The
proposed municipal plan amendment would amend the King Street East Secondary Plan by
adding a new special policy to permit a 6 unit multiple dwelling and the proposed zoning by-law
would add a new special regulation provision to the existing R-5 Zone to permit a 6 unit multiple
dwelling subject to specific regulations. In this regard, the Committee considered Development
and Technical Services Department report BPS-01-113 and a proposed by-law dated August 28,
2001 attached to the report.
Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, read the following statement:
‘This is a Public Meeting under to consider Municipal Plan
'The Planning Act, 1996'
Amendment Application 01/03/K/ET.
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
yourself before you begin your submissions and the Clerk will record your name for the record. If
your name does not appear on the record, you may jeopardize any further involvement you wish to
have in these matters.
Any recommendation made by Planning Committee on these matters today will be considered by
City Council on . If City Council adopts the amendments, they will proceed to the
October 2, 2001
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 Development and Technical
Services Department or the Region's Department of Planning and Culture.‘
Ms. C. Ladd summarized the purpose of the report and advised that staff had nothing further to
add.
Mr. Ronald Zid, an abutting property owner, appeared to advise that he was not opposed to the
applications but to request that a six foot privacy fence be erected around the property as a
condition of the zone change and also in order to comply with parking regulations.
Mr. Len Gibson appeared in support of the recommendations in the staff report and advised in
response to Mr. Zid that it was his intent to erect the fence upon approval of the zone change.
Councillor G. Lorentz entered the meeting at this point.
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001- 104 -CITY OF KITCHENER
1.BPS-01-113-21 KRUG STREET
-MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION MP 01/03/K/ET
-ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/25/K/ZJ
-LEN GIBSON
-BRIDGEPORT-CENTRE WARD (CONT’D)
Councillor B. Vrbanovic referenced the fact that the property had been the subject of numerous
neighbourhood complaints as a result of the inaction of previous property owners to properly
maintain the property. Mr. Gibson indicated that he was taking a hands on approach to upgrade
the property, had already completed numerous improvements in this regard and intended to
undertake further upgrades to the property with the approval of the zone change. In response to
Councillor J. Smola, Ms. C. Ladd advised that the zoning by-law required installation of a six foot
fence.
No other delegations were registered respecting this matter.
On motion by Councillor J. Smola -
It was resolved:
“A.That Council approve Municipal Plan Amendment Application MP 01/03/K/ET (21
Krug Street - Len Gibson), being an amendment to the King Street East Secondary
Plan to:
i) Add new Policy 13.2.3.5 (Part 3), thereto as follows:
“13.2.3.5.Notwithstanding the Low Rise Conservation land use
designation on the lands known as 21 Krug Street, a multiple
dwelling having a maximum of 6 dwelling units shall be
permitted.”
ii) Revise Map 10, King Street East Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, by adding
special policy area “5” to the property known as 21 Krug Street.
It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning
for the City.
B.That Zone Change Application ZC 00/25/K/ZJ (21 Krug Street - Len Gibson)
requesting the addition of a new Special Regulation Provision 362R to the existing
Residential Five Zone (R-5) on the land legally described as Part of Lot 24,
Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract,
municipally known as 21 Krug Street, be approved, in the form shown in the
“Proposed Zoning By-law”, dated August 28, 2001, 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 a recommended Amendment (MP 01/03/K/ET)
to the City’s Municipal Plan.”
2.BPS-01-120-UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN
-APPLICATION OF LAND USE RELATED POLICIES WITHIN DRAFT PLAN
OF SUBDIVISION 30T-95018 (DOON MILLS)
-MONARCH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
-SOUTH WARD
The Committee was in receipt of Development and Technical Services Department report BPS-01-
120 dated August 30, 2001 which deals with application of land use related policies in the Upper
Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan within Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018 (Doon Mills -
Monarch Construction Limited).
Mr. L. Bensason pointed out that the Committee and Council’s reaffirmation was being sought as
to land use related policies in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan not being
applicable to certain lands within Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-95018. He then made a detailed
2.BPS-01-120-UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001- 105 -CITY OF KITCHENER
-APPLICATION OF LAND USE RELATED POLICIES WITHIN DRAFT PLAN
OF SUBDIVISION 30T-95018 (DOON MILLS)
-MONARCH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
-SOUTH WARD (CONT’D)
and lengthy presentation utilizing the overhead projection system in which he provided a summary
of the content in staff report BPS-01-120. He also indicated that he would be referencing and
displaying maps designated as Appendix A, B & C attached to the report.
Mr. Bensason noted that By-law 88-17 passed in 1988 established the boundary of the Upper
Doon Heritage Conservation District and also adopted the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation
District Plan. He noted that the purpose of a District Plan is to provide guidance respecting
conservation of the Heritage District’s character. Mr. Bensason pointed out that the Upper Doon
Heritage Conservation District Plan contains a number of guiding policies pertaining to the design
of future development and land use related issues. He further pointed out that the Plan also
acknowledged that there would be opportunities for in-fill development to take place and in this
regard specifically referenced development on Oregon Drive.
Councillor J. Ziegler entered the meeting at this point.
Mr. Bensason referenced Ontario’s Heritage Conservation District guidelines published by the
Ministry of Culture and Communications pointing out that the permit application process does not
control land use and that land use issues within a Conservation District Plan are controlled by
other legislation and not by the District Plan.
Mr. Bensason then pointed out that because of a number of heritage issues within Subdivision
30T-95018, submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was required. He stated that the
HIA acknowledged that Monarch Construction was proposing to develop one cul de sac with
access from Oregon Drive and a second cul de sac with access from the new Doon Village Road,
within the limits of the Heritage Conservation District. Mr. Bensason displayed Appendix ‘B’ of the
staff report showing figure 4.2 from the HIA and noted that figure 4.2 illustrated that the Oregon
Drive cul de sac (Street D) met the intent of the land use related policies of the District Plan,
whereas the new Doon Village Road cul de sac (Street E) did not. The outcome of this was that
the HIA recommended that the boundary between the Conservation District coincide with the
southern limits of the cul-de-sac off of Oregon Drive. This recommendation was presented to and
endorsed by Heritage Kitchener and approved by the Assistant General Manager of Business and
Planning and ultimately reflected in the design of subdivision conditions of Plan 30T-95018.
However, Mr. Bensason noted that recently it has been suggested the City was improperly advised
in respect to development issues within the boundary of the Heritage Conservation District Plan
with the parties being of the view that the development does not meet the District Plan policies.
Mr. Bensason reiterated that land use issues are not to be implemented through the Heritage
Conservation District Plan and noted that to address any possible misinterpretation of the HIA,
staff had replaced an earlier report with a new report that was discussed with Heritage Kitchener.
The new report advises that reference in the HIA as to a new interpreted Upper Doon Heritage
Conservation District boundary is removed and rescinds any apparent approval granted in respect
to revision of the District boundary.
In summary, Mr. Bensason noted that guidelines relative to land use related policies of the District
Plan were considered in the HIA for Subdivision 30T-95018 and that implications of the
recommendations of the HIA were discussed in detail with Heritage Kitchener before final City
approval. He acknowledged one of the recommendations of the HIA related to interpretation of a
boundary shift of the Heritage District that should have been more appropriately interpreted as the
land use related policies of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan not applying to
lands within the Heritage District boundary located south of the cul-de-sac off of Oregon Court and
forming part of Subdivision 30T-95018. Mr. Bensason commented that staff believe it was
appropriate for Council to formally reaffirm the intent of the Heritage Impact Assessment and the
implementation of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan relative to the subject lands
located within Subdivision 30T-95018.
2.BPS-01-120-UPPER DOON HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PLAN
-APPLICATION OF LAND USE RELATED POLICIES WITHIN DRAFT PLAN
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001- 106 -CITY OF KITCHENER
OF SUBDIVISION 30T-95018 (DOON MILLS)
-MONARCH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
-SOUTH WARD (CONT’D)
For the record Council was circulated with September 24, 2001 correspondence from Mr. R.
Haalboom prior to consideration of this staff report. In his correspondence, Mr. Haalboom
requests that consideration of staff report BPS-01-120 be adjourned until such time as either the
Ontario Municipal Board or the Courts have given a decision respecting an earlier appeal and all
appeal periods for such decisions have expired.
No delegations were registered respecting this matter.
Councillor M. Galloway indicated that he was prepared to put forward a motion approving the
recommendation in the staff report as it was his belief Council had fully understood all of the facts
with respect to what has taken place in regards to this issue.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented that he also supported the staff recommendation and pointed
out that countless hours have been devoted to this issue in order to ensure that the concerns that
have been expressed received a comprehensive and fair hearing.
On motion by Councillor M. Galloway -
It was resolved:
“That Council reaffirm that land use related policies of the Upper Doon Heritage
Conservation District Plan not apply to lands located within the heritage district boundary
situated south of the cul de sac off of Oregon Court and forming part of Draft Plan of
Subdivision 30T-95018 (Doon Mills - Monarch Construction Limited), as shown on the map
attached as Appendix “C” to Development and Technical Services Department report BPS-
01-120.”
3.REPORT-PRESENTATION BY MIKE SULLY, CHAIR, COMPASS KITCHENER
-DIRECTION #1 - RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee was in receipt of a report dated September 20, 2001 prepared by the Compass
Kitchener Committee dealing with Compass Kitchener Direction #1 (City/Citizen Relationship)
recommendations.
Mr. Mike Sully, Chair, Compass Kitchener, advised that the Compass Kitchener Committee’s
mission is to facilitate and support processes that ensure that the Compass Kitchener Vision,
Guiding Principles, Values and Directions are fulfilled. He noted that in this regard the Committee
had created adhoc working groups for each of the five strategic directions that have been
established. Direction #1 (City/Citizen Relationship) Working Group is the first of five groups to
come forward with a report and recommendations. Mr. Sully advised that in developing the
recommendations in the report the Committee had drawn on the community’s input from Compass
Kitchener, Committee discussion and observations as well as results of the Direction #1 Kitchen
Table Talks. He stated that their intention was to give general guidance so as to provide for a
clear process for public input and that the recommendations were broad. As well, he readily
acknowledged that Council may not be able to act in totality on the suggested recommendations.
Mr. Sully then reviewed each of the eight recommendations in the report and commented on their
relevance. For the record the recommendations are listed hereunder:
1) improve experience for those calling City Hall
2) improve experience for those visiting City Hall
3) as indicated in the ‘next steps’ of the Advisory Committee Review, explore, create and
implement a process for advisory committees to think cross-sectorally about issues
3.REPORT-PRESENTATION BY MIKE SULLY, CHAIR, COMPASS KITCHENER
-DIRECTION #1 - RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT’D)
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001- 107 -CITY OF KITCHENER
4) explore and develop further processes to give voice to and integrate thinking from
Neighbourhood Associations into municipal processes and decision-making
5) the Committee encourages the City to expedite its development of City and Department
communication plans
6) explore and develop Corporate inclusion policies and procedures to provide options for
greater access to programs, services and municipal governance structures
7) explore and develop ways in which a set of questions such as those listed in Appendix ‘A’
attached to the Compass Kitchener Committee report can be incorporated into City of
Kitchener decision-making
8) explore options for developing a standard Corporate Action Planning Model
Mayor C. Zehr referenced recommendation #2 and noted that currently there was a City
sponsored program for Grade 5 students and that out of that initiative a number of tours were
coming through City Hall. He questioned the meaning of recommendation #6 and Ms. M. Morrison
advised that the intent was to ensure efforts were made to reach out to those who City Hall would
not typically hear from.
Councillor B. Vrbanovic suggested the recommendation in the report be revised to provide that
staff report back by December 2001 as to what recommendations could be implemented in the
short term. It was acknowledged that some of the recommendations may involve significant
funding but that any recommendations that could take advantage of volunteerism were
inexpensive solutions.
The recommendation in the report and the suggested revision proposed by Councillor B.
Vrbanovic was then considered.
On motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic -
It was resolved:
“That Council consider the recommendations of the Compass Kitchener Committee as
outlined in Compass Kitchener Committee Report, dated September 20, 2001 and relating
to Direction #1 (City/Citizen Relationship); and,
That following consideration by Council, and where appropriate, the recommendations be
referred to staff or an advisory committee for further exploration and/or implementation;
and,
That staff report to Council by December 1, 2001 as to what recommendations can be
implemented in the short-term; and further,
That in September 2002, a staff report be presented to Council indicating progress on the
recommendations.”
Councillor C. Weylie questioned where the Compass Kitchener Committee would go from here.
Mr. M. Sully advised that the Committee’s focus was on process and in that regard they would
continue work on the established Directions. Further, he noted that Compass Kitchener was
willing to undertake additional activities more specifically, if that was City Council’s wish. He
commented that Compass Kitchener was performing a valuable role for Council through its
interpretation of citizen views. Councillor B. Vrbanovic suggested that at a future date Council
consider undertaking additional dialogue with the Compass Kitchener Committee, ideas from
which Council could take back to senior management.
4.ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001- 108 -CITY OF KITCHENER
It is noted for the record that this is the last meeting of the Planning and Economic Development
Committee and that as of October 1, 2001, the Development and Technical Services Committee
would be dealing with business and planning services; engineering services; and fire services, in
accordance with the restructured standing committee format established by Council resolution on
August 27, 2001.
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
L.W. Neil, AMCT
Assistant City Clerk