HomeMy WebLinkAboutDev & Tech Svcs - 2006-01-23DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006 CITY OF KITCHENER
The Development and Technical Services Committee met this date, commencing at 1:35 p.m.
Present: Councillor C. Weylie -Chair
Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Smola, G. Lorentz, J. Gazzola and M. Galloway.
Staff: C. Ladd, Chief Administrative Officer
P. Houston, General Manager of Financial Services & City Treasurer
R. Browning, Interim General Manager of Development & Technical Services
A. Pappert, General Manager of Community Services
R. Regier, Executive Director of Economic Development
R. Shamess, Director of Engineering Services
J. Willmer, Director of Planning
J. McBride, Director of Transportation Planning
F. McCrea, Assistant City Solicitor
J. Given, Project Manager
T. Boutilier, Senior Planner
L. Bensason, Heritage Planner
J. Billett, Committee Administrator
1. DTS-06-009 - DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC 05/14/P/AP
- 527 PIONEER TOWER ROAD
- 340268 ONTARIO LIMITED
- FAIRVIEW-GATEWAY WARD
The Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-
009, dated January 12, 2006, regarding a demolition application for 527 Pioneer Tower Road.
Mayor C. Zehr disclosed a pecuniary interest and abstained from all discussion and voting
regarding this matter as he owns property within the circulation area.
On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola -
itwas resolved:
"That demolition control application DC 05/14/P/AP requesting permission to demolish
one single family dwelling located at 527 Pioneer Tower Road, owned by 340268 Ontario
Limited, legally described as Con Beasleys Broken Front Pt Lot 12, be approved, without
conditions."
2. DTS-06-008 - HOMER WATSON BLVD/FOUNTAIN STREET/HWY 401 INTERCHANGE
IMPROVEMENTS
- CITY OF KITCHENER NOISE BY-LAW EXEMPTION
- FAIRVIEW-GATEWAY WARD & SOUTH WARD
The Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-
008, dated January 6, 2006, regarding a request from the Ministry of Transportation for a noise
exemption in regard to reconstruction and improvements of the interchange of Homer Watson
Boulevard /Fountain Street /Highway 401.
On motion by Councillor M. Galloway -
itwas resolved:
"That the Ministry of Transportation and its contractor(s) be exempt from the provisions of
Article 6 (Construction Work) of Chapter 450 (Noise) of the City of Kitchener Municipal
Code, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for the period from May 1, 2005 to
December 31, 2007, during the reconstruction and improvements of the interchange of
Homer Watson Boulevard /Fountain Street /Highway 401 in the City of Kitchener."
3. DTS-06-010 -REGIONAL ILLUMINATION POLICY
The Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-
010, dated January 18, 2006, regarding a draft Regional Illumination Policy. It is noted in the
DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006 - 11- CITY OF KITCHENER
3. DTS-06-010 -REGIONAL ILLUMINATION POLICY (CONT'D)
report that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Region) has prepared the draft policy in
conjunction with three local hydro utilities and five area municipalities, and a number of
differences of opinion still exist with respect to the provision of decorative and pedestrian scale
lighting. Comments from the local municipalities are being requested by the Region prior to
holding public information centres and approval of a final illumination policy.
Mr. J. McBride reviewed the recommendations of staff, including: continued responsibility for
illumination on Regional roads by the Region; consideration by the Region to provide illumination
on all Regional roads within the developed urban boundary; use of the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America illumination design guidelines instead of the Transportation Association
of Canada guidelines for new roadway lighting of adjacent sidewalks; contribution of the
proportional life cycle cost of standard street lights for decorative lights with the City to fund the
remaining cost; contribution of 50% of the cost of pedestrian scale lights with the City to fund the
remaining cost; and continued funding of all energy costs, regardless of lighting style, on
Regional roads by the Region.
Councillor J. Gazzola commented that sidewalks should be considered an integral part of the
transportation system and as such, expressed the opinion that the Region should pay all
illumination costs for sidewalks on Regional roads. Mr. McBride advised that the cost sharing
arrangement is proposed because decorative lighting exceeds the minimum standard.
Councillor Gazzola agreed that the City should pay the difference over and above the lighting
standard but suggested at minimum the Region should pay full cost for the standard lighting.
Mayor C. Zehr questioned responsibility for funding sidewalks on back-lotted streets adjacent to
Regional roads and Mr. R. Shamess advised that through a recent agreement, the Region will
now fund the initial capital costs while the City will fund all future maintenance costs. Councillor
G. Lorentz raised concerns regarding inconsistency of illuminating sidewalks on Regional roads,
suggesting that in the interest of pedestrian safety and access to bus stops, standards should be
applied equally in regard to sidewalks and lighting installations.
At the suggestion of Mr. J. McBride, it was agreed to revise the staff recommendation to provide
that where decorative lights are proposed the Region pay the cost of standard street lights, with
the City to fund all remaining costs, and where pedestrian scale lights are proposed the Region
pay 100% of the cost.
On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola -
itwas resolved:
"That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Region) continue to be responsible for
illumination on Regional roads; and,
That the Region consider providing illumination on all Regional roads within the
developed urban boundary; and,
That the Region reconsider the use of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America illumination design guidelines instead of the Transportation Association of
Canada guidelines when new roadway lighting has been justified by the proposed
warrants with respect to the illumination of the adjacent sidewalks; and,
That where decorative lights are proposed on Regional roads within the defined
Downtown core of the City of Kitchener, or other City Council approved areas where lights
currently exist, the Region contribute the cost of standard street lights with the City
funding the remaining cost; and,
That where pedestrian scale lights are proposed on Regional roads within the defined
Downtown core of the City of Kitchener, or other City Council approved areas, the Region
contribute 100% of the cost of the pedestrian scale lights; and further,
That the Region continue to fund all energy costs of lighting, regardless of the style, on
Regional roads."
DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006 - 12- CITY OF KITCHENER
3. DTS-06-010 -REGIONAL ILLUMINATION POLICY (CONT'D)
Councillor J. Gazzola questioned if the Region is aware of the City's sidewalk requirements on
Regional roads and if a plan is in place to move forward with the installations. Mr. R. Shamess
advised that a listing of City roads requiring sidewalks within the Regional road network has
been provided to the Region.
On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola -
itwas resolved:
"That City staff have discussion with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in regard to
establishing a timeframe for installation of required sidewalks on identified City roads
within the Regional road network."
4. DTS-06-012 - PLACES TO GROW -BETTER CHOICES, BRIGHTER FUTURE
PROPOSED GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE
CITY OF KITCHENER FINAL RESPONSE
The Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-
012, dated January 17, 2006, regarding the City's formal response to the Ministry of Public
Infrastructure Renewal Places to Grow (PTG), the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe. The plan provides a framework for implementing the Province's vision for building
stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth and will guide decisions on a wide
range of issues in the interest of promoting economic development (ie. transportation,
infrastructure, land use planning, urban form, housing, natural heritage and resource protection).
Ms. J. Given advised that this will be the final comments from the City on the PTG and
highlighted three key areas, beginning with Recommendations 1 and 9, dealing with
Growth/Population Forecasts and Water/Wastewater. Ms. Given pointed out that preliminary
allocations indicate a population increase in Kitchener to 309,000 by 2031. The population
projections are based on infrastructure being in place and given this Region is one of the largest
urban areas relying on ground water for drinking water, significant investment in long term
solutions is needed before such growth can be realized. Accordingly, staff are recommending
that priority should be given to undertaking sub-area assessment on water and wastewater
capacity as early as possible, and any required adjustments to the population forecast be made.
This ties in with Recommendation 9 which asks the Province to recognize the need for long term
water and wastewater solutions in the Region of Waterloo, with budgeting of appropriate
funding.
In regard to Recommendations 4 and 5, dealing with Employment Lands, Ms. Given noted that
in comparison to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the PTG is unclear and inconsistent in
regard to the process in determining criteria for the redesignation of employment lands.
Accordingly, it is recommended that either document be amended to clarify the pre-requisites for
redesignation; and the PTG be further revised to provide definition for "prime industrial lands"
and add additional criteria relative to the suitability of the topography or other physical site
constraints for employment land development.
Ms. Given then commented on Recommendation 12, dealing with the role of upper/lower tier
municipalities, pointing out that the Ministry is assuming considerable responsibility for creating a
uniform implementation methodology, with all assessments to be done in consultation with
"upper and single tier" municipalities. There is no formal consultation or collaboration with
respect to lower tier municipalities mentioned; however, the background to the plan
acknowledges that successful implementation depends on all levels of government and the
private sector working together in a "collaborative" way. Staff recognize that the role of the lower
tier municipality must remain strong and not be undermined by Provincial consultation with only
upper tier municipalities. Accordingly, it is recommended that the phrase "in consultation with
upper and single tier municipalities" be replaced with "in collaboration with municipalities", where
appropriate.
At the request of Councillor J. Gazzola, it was agreed that the wording of Recommendation 12
be revised to specifically include reference to lower tier municipalities, in addition to upper and
single tiers, to emphasize that lower tier municipalities also have a vested interest in the
DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006 - 13- CITY OF KITCHENER
4. DTS-06-012 - PLACES TO GROW -BETTER CHOICES, BRIGHTER FUTURE
PROPOSED GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE
CITY OF KITCHENER FINAL RESPONSE (CONT'D)
proposed collaboration. In addition, it was agreed to preface the recommendation with a
statement to recognize the City's position with respect to the importance of lower tier
municipalities in having a strong role in land use planning matters.
Mayor C. Zehr referred to Recommendations 2, 3 and 6, dealing with Intensification/Density
Targets and Designated Greenfield Areas. Ms. J. Given advised that wording of the policy, "plan
to achieve" and use of the term "target", suggests that there is no penalty if the City cannot meet
the 40% intensification target. Mr. J. Willmer stated that meeting the target will be a challenge
and homebuilders have expressed concerns as to how the City will attempt to achieve the goal.
He noted that one method would be to restrict greenfield development to encourage infill. In this
regard, he pointed out that developers believe the City is not doing enough greenfield
development; however, the City currently has 7.5 years supply of street fronting lots approved in
draft plans even though it is only obligated to have a 3 year supply. He added that multiple unit
lots in approved draft plans have not been factored into the 7.5 year supply, and given
developers appear to be only interested in single/semi-street fronting lots, the Province's
approach is welcomed in respect to providing consistency to intensification across the Province.
Councillor C. Weylie advised that any recommendation arising from the Committee with regard
to this matter would be forwarded for consideration to the Special Council meeting to be held
later this date.
On motion by Councillor J. Gazzola -
itwas resolved:
"That staff Recommendation 12 (Role of Upper-Tier / Lower-Tier Municipalities)
contained in Development & Technical Services Department report DTS-06-012 (City of
Kitchener Final Response to Places to Grow, the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe), be revised to read as follows:
'The City of Kitchener strongly emphasizes the importance of local municipalities in
having a key role in matters of land use planning; and further,
In light of the role of upper and single tier municipalities, as proposed in the
proposed Places to Grow plan, the phrase "in consultation with upper- and single-
tier municipalities" be replaced with "in collaboration with upper-, single- and lower-
tier municipalities", where appropriate.' ;and further,
That report DTS-06-012, as amended, be endorsed by Kitchener Council and submitted
to the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal as the City of Kitchener's formal response
to Places to Grow, the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe."
5. DTS-06-014 - BILL 51 -PROPOSED PROVINCIAL PLANNING & OMB REFORM
The Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-
014, dated January 11, 2006, regarding Government Bill 51 which proposes Provincial Planning
and Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) reforms. The report outlines details of the changes
proposed with staff comments to facilitate the City's response to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing.
Mr. T. Boutilier advised that Bill 51 received 1st Reading in the Legislature on December 12,
2005 and the Ministry is requesting comments by February 26, 2006. He noted that the report
represents staff's initial comments and prior to finalizing the City's response to Bill 51,
clarification on a number of the changes proposed will be requested at an information session to
be held in early February.
Mr. Boutilier highlighted proposed changes to the Planning Act, advising of the following: the
OMB in making decisions will be required to have regard for decisions made by Municipal
Councils; Council may by by-law appoint a local appeal body for certain local land use planning
DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006 - 14- CITY OF KITCHENER
5. DTS-06-014 - BILL 51 -PROPOSED PROVINCIAL PLANNING & OMB REFORM
(CONT'D)
matters; the public participation process will require at least two public forums, one information
session and one for the purpose of making presentations; OMB hearings will be limited to the
information and parties that made oral and/or written submissions to the Council whose decision
is appealed; Official Plans will be required to be updated every five years; scope and powers of
Community Improvement Plans will expand to include upper tier municipalities; municipalities will
be permitted to regulate density of development and impose prescribed conditions on
buildings/structures; and in respect to site plans, regulate exterior design. Mr. Boutilier
commented on the financial impact of the proposed changes, noting that additional resources
will be required to maintain an up-to-date Municipal Plan and to organize/staff additional public
information meetings. Potential long term savings could be realized with introduction of financial
incentives at the Regional level for community improvement activities and should a local appeal
board be appointed there will be costs associated with its operation but may also produce
revenues.
In response to questions, Mr. Boutilier advised that the Region's ability to participate financially in
local community improvement plans (CIP) was hampered by existing definition in the Planning
Act; which is to be corrected through the proposed changes. He noted that a steering committee
is in place to consider a Regional contribution toward CIP's and approximately $2.5M is
proposed for 2006. He added that in light of other Regional governments going ahead of the
legislation to participate in CIP's, he has encouraged the Region of Waterloo to do likewise;
however, to date they have not agreed to do so.
Mayor C. Zehr questioned the merit of appointing an appeal body locally given it removes the
decision from Council only to another body, than that of the OMB. He questioned if the decision
of the local appeal body could be appealed to the OMB, in which instance he suggested it would
only add another bureaucratic step. Mr. Boutilier advised that he would ask the Province for
clarification on this issue.
On motion by Mayor C. Zehr -
itwas resolved:
"That Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-014 (Bill 51:
Proposed Provincial Planning and Ontario Municipal Board Reform), be received for
information and the comments, concerns and questions of Kitchener staff and City
Council be communicated to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in a timely
manner."
6. DTS-06-011 - TRAFFIC CALMING CRITERIA & FUNDING
The Committee considered Development and Technical Services Department report DTS-06-
011, dated January 18, 2006, regarding criteria for traffic calming measures and proposed
funding. It was noted in the report that concerns were raised at the December 12, 2005 Council
meeting regarding phasing in traffic calming measures over a two to three year period and staff
were directed to provide further clarification as to the criteria to be used in the selection process;
how funding would be applied; and the project timing.
Mr. J. McBride outlined the criteria to be used in the selection process, being: speed; volume of
traffic; number of collisions; and safety issues. He noted that the criteria has been applied
against all streets considered for traffic calming and the three highest rated are recommended
for the 2006 program, being: Chandler Drive, Bradley Drive and Chopin Drive.
In regard to funding, Mr. McBride advised that $100,000 has been allocated in the Capital
Budget fora 10 year period (2005-2014). The funding is not sufficient to complete the 2005
program on a permanent basis and accordingly, temporary measures are being installed with the
intent to install permanent measures over two or more years. Cost savings may be realized by
temporary installation as it will allow monitoring that may result in a reduction in the number of
devices installed. Staff recommend that the annual budget of $100,000 be maintained,
recognizing that the cost of future programs is anticipated to be less given the highest rated
streets are being dealt with first and that most permanent measures could be installed after one
DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006 - 15- CITY OF KITCHENER
6. DTS-06-011 - TRAFFIC CALMING CRITERIA & FUNDING (CONT'D)
season of temporary measures. In addition, certain works could be undertaken at time of road
improvements. Mr. McBride advised that on completion of the 2006 traffic calming studies and
permanent installation of the 2005 measures, staff will report back to the Development and
Technical Services Committee to update on funding projections and timing of future permanent
installations.
In response to questions, Mr. McBride advised that the intent is to keep the program moving
forward with the funding available and if needed, additional funding will be requested. Councillor
G. Lorentz questioned the status of lobbying the Province for local use of photo radar and was
advised that a response has not yet been received from the Province in regard to this issue.
On motion by Councillor G. Lorentz -
itwas resolved:
"That the existing Capital Budget funds of $100,000. annually be maintained for the
implementation of traffic calming measures; and further,
That a report be prepared for a future Development and Technical Services Committee
meeting on completion of the 2006 traffic calming Environmental Assessment studies and
the permanent installation of the 2005 traffic calming measures, to update the Committee
on the funding projections and the timing of future permanent installations."
7. UPDATE - DTS-05-213 -LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTY OF CULTURAL
HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE HERITAGE REGISTER
- CRPS-06-009 -AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL POLICY 1-110 (HERITAGE
KITCHENER -TERMS OF REFERENCE) -INCLUSION OF NON-
DESIGNATED PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HERITAGE REGISTER
At the January 16, 2006 Council meeting consideration of a recommendation contained in staff
report CRPS-06-009 (D. Gilchrist), regarding the addition of non-designated property to a
Heritage Register, was deferred pending further public consultation with industry representatives.
In light of the deferral, Mr. L. Bensason requested clarification in advance of the February 7,
2006 Heritage Kitchener meeting as to how Council intends to proceed with the Committee's
recommendation to list the Centre Block properties (both City and privately owned) on the City's
Heritage Inventory. He provided three options for consideration, including:
• defer consideration of Heritage Kitchener's recommendation until the public consultation
process regarding adding non-designated property to a Heritage Register is completed;
• proceed to consider the recommendation only in respect to the City-owned properties (11
Young Street -Mayfair Hotel; 156-158 King Street West -former Hymmen Hardware; and
48 Ontario Street North -former Legion building) and defer consideration of privately
owned properties pending completion of the public consultation process regarding adding
non-designated property to a Heritage Register; and,
• proceed to consider the recommendation in its entirety later in February as initially
proposed.
Mr. Bensason advised that if Option 1 is chosen, it is unlikely the broader public consultation will
be completed prior to Council considering the Request for Proposal (RFP) on the Centre Block,
which is expected to be presented by the Centre Block Steering Committee (CBSC) by the end
of February. Consequently, the approved RFP would not contain information regarding any
properties of cultural/heritage value or interest on the block. He asked that should Option 2 or 3
be chosen, clarification be given in respect to property being added to the Heritage Inventory or
to a Heritage Register. Mr. Bensason recommended that the properties be added to a Heritage
Register as non-designated property of cultural/heritage value or interest, as the effect is the
same under the Provincial Policy Statement regardless of which list is utilized.
A discussion was then entered into with respect to an appropriate course of action. Mayor C.
Zehr suggested that consideration of the City-owned properties on the Centre Block could be
considered at the same time as the RFP, and the issue of adding non-designated properties to a
DEVELOPMENT & TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006 - 16- CITY OF KITCHENER
7. UPDATE - DTS-05-213 -LISTING OF NON-DESIGNATED PROPERTY OF CULTURAL
HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST ON THE HERITAGE REGISTER
- CRPS-06-009 -AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL POLICY 1-110 (HERITAGE
KITCHENER -TERMS OF REFERENCE) -INCLUSION OF NON-
DESIGNATED PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HERITAGE REGISTER
(CONT'D)
Heritage Register be dealt with separately following the consultation process. Councillor J.
Gazzola expressed the opinion that a decision should be made on all properties rather than
considering City-owned properties in isolation, so all information is included in the RFP. Mr. R.
Regier suggested that a statement could be included in the RFP such that it would be
understood by developers that the City-owned properties should be treated as though identified
as having cultural/heritage value or interest, without formalizing such action. Ms. C. Ladd added
that such a statement should also include privately owned properties in the event any proponent
may wish to assemble additional properties outside the formal boundary of the Centre Block site.
Councillor M. Galloway agreed that consideration should proceed as suggested by Mayor Zehr,
as it was his opinion information on the City-owned properties should be included in the RFP but
the larger issue of adding non-designated property to a Heritage Register should not dictate
development on the Centre Block.
Following further discussion, it was agreed to proceed on the basis that only the City-owned
properties on the Centre Block site (ie. 11 Young Street, 156-158 King Street West and 48
Ontario Street North) would be considered within a timeframe that would allow them to be dealt
with prior to finalizing the RFP; and the issue of adding non-designated properties to a heritage
register would proceed following the broader public consultation process.
On motion by Mayor C. Zehr -
itwas resolved:
"That at the February 6, 2006 Development and Technical Services Committee meeting,
Council proceed to consider Heritage Kitchener's recommendation regarding only the
City-owned properties located within the Centre Block, being 11 Young Street (Mayfair
Hotel), 156-158 King Street West (former Hymmen Hardware) and 48 Ontario Street
North (former Legion building); and further,
That consideration of the listing of privately owned properties within the Centre Block be
deferred until such time as the process for public consultation regarding adding non-
designated properties to a Heritage Register has been completed."
8. ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 3:42 p.m.
J. Billett, AMCT
Committee Administrator
