Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2006-01-12 KPL/CENTRE BLOCK PROJECT COMMITTEE MINUTES January 12, 2006 City of Kitchener KPL/Centre Block Project Committee met this date, commencing at 8:30 a.m., Chaired by Hans Pottkamper with the following members present: Craig Robson, Hans Gross, Rod Regier, Sonia Lewis, Ray Robinson, Marty Schreiter, Silvia Wright, Jana Miller and Sandy Curzon Approval of Minutes 1. On motion by Craig Robson, it was resolved that the minutes of January 5, 2006 be accepted and posted on the city’s website www.city.kitchener.on.ca 2.Centre Block Components 2.1 D1 Zoning ? J. Willmer, Director of Development & Technical Services provided Project Committee with an overview of the D1 By-Law Zoning and how it would affect the Centre Block site ? D1 zoning permits all types of uses other than those listed as ‘Prohibited Uses’ which are related to automotive or heavy industrial uses ? It was noted that bonusing requirements of the zoning by-law would not limit development, providing residential, heritage or amenity are used ? Mr. Willmer provided higher and lower density development scenarios to show how density provisions in the zoning by-law would work for a development concept incorporating the library, retail/ restaurants/services, residential and office uses ? As an incentive to attract residential development, residential bonus value is four times the floor area ? Amenity area bonus value is based on the area and value of the amenity. What can be done in order to maximize amenity bonus created by the new library will be investigated ? It was noted that elevating the Heritage status of the Mayfair could achieve a higher density by the heritage bonus ? The ability to provide on-site parking may be more of a limiting factor than the density regulations are Action ? Staff to include the bonusing section of the D1 Zoning By-Law together with explanatory notes, in the Request for Proposal ? KPL to work with J. Willmer on ways of maximizing amenity bonusing created by for the new central library 2.2City Objectives ? Project Committee received a Scoring Methodology based on the City’s Objectives for the Centre Block development ? Concern was raised should a proponent not meet the requirements to build a library, that proponent would not advance KPL/Centre Block Project Committee Page 1 of 3 Minutes: January 12, 2006 ? Discussion ensued around the possibility of allowing a proponent to either build or not build a library. The issue then becomes ‘how do score proponents? ? Project Committee agreed that we need to respect Council’s financial commitment and that in the event that a new library cannot be built, the proponents would just be disqualified ? Project Committee agreed that the current Scoring Methodology document would require additional criteria to address alternatives for a non-library proposal Action: ? Staff were directed to: review scoring issue of proponents building or not building a library with James o McKellar, Ethics Advisor revise the current Scoring Methodology document o th forward to Project Committee for further review on January 19 o 3.Kitchener Public Library (KPL) 3.1KPL Objectives ? S. Lewis provided a draft update on the Library’s Objectives, which was reviewed by th the KPL Board’s Facilities Planning and Building Committee on January 10. The th draft will go before KPL Board on January 18. ? Concern was raised on using the conceptual designs, approved by KPL Board on th December 14, an essential requirement. Some members felt that they (conceptual designs) were too restricting, thus not allowing for any flexibility. Ms. Lewis reminded members that the conceptual designs were based on the building program requirements. They reflect the footprint and layout needed to achieve a functional building that KPL can afford to operate. Ms. Lewis suggested instead of “reflect the conceptual designs approved”, “consistent with the conceptual designs approved”, or similar wording be adopted to indicate some flexibility was possible. Action th ? Project Committee was requested to submit their feedback to S. Lewis by January 16 th so they can be considered at KPL’s board meeting January 18. th ? Project Committee will review an update on January 19 4.Project Timeline Schedule 4.1Upcoming Meeting Schedule ? A meeting schedule covering the next 6 weeks, indicated the necessary agenda items that need to be addressed to keep the project on schedule to meet with the release of the RFP deadline ? It became apparent that additional time was required for some of the items. Project Committee agreed to extending upcoming meetings to two hours and to change the thth January 26 meeting to January 25 from 4pm-7pm Action ? S. Curzon to ensure changes to the meeting schedule are updated on the City’s website KPL/Centre Block Project Committee Page 2 of 3 Minutes: January 12, 2006 5.Other Business 5.1 Forsyth Building ? C. Ladd provided Project Committee with an overview of the events leading up to the recent announcement from the City’s Chief Building Inspector, to demolish 3 of the 5 parts of the Forsyth building. Ms. Ladd felt that further discussion was premature, pending the consultants report expected early next week ? What is done with the remaining two buildings will need further discussion/ recommendation from Project Committee ? It was noted that the May 2005 report by Walter Fedy did not indicate an unsafe condition. Action: ? Project Committee to discuss further at their meeting of January 19th 5.4Public ? Question: would building an “apartment block” on top of the library keep the cost down ? Answer: S. Lewis advised that residential use was not part of KPL’s Building Program nor part of KPL’s mandate. However, it was noted by R. Robinson that it would be up to the developer to determine if it was financial feasible Meeting was adjourned at 10:10 am Next Scheduled Meeting: Thursday, January 19th @ 8:00am – 10:00 am Conestoga Room, Main Floor, City Hall KPL/Centre Block Project Committee Page 3 of 3 Minutes: January 12, 2006