Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 2001-04-30PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 30, 2001CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:38 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair, with the following members present: Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Smola, J. Ziegler, G. Lorentz and M. Galloway. Officials Present: Ms. C. Ladd, L. MacDonald, K. Dever and Messrs. R.W. Pritchard, B. Stanley, G. Borovilos, D. Mansell, P. Wetherup, G. Richardson, B. Sloan, S. Vipond, L. Masseo and L.W. Neil. 1.BPS-01-051-26 FRANKLIN STREET SOUTH -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 01/05/F/GR -WALTENBAUER WOOD PRODUCTS -FAIRVIEW-GATEWAY WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from Waltenbauer Wood Products to change the zoning of lands known municipally as 26 Franklin Street South. The proposed rezoning would change the zoning from Residential Four Zone (R-4) to Service Commercial Zone (C-6) in order to permit a kitchen cabinet showroom and will serve to correct a past mapping error in the zoning by-law. In this regard, the Committee considered report BPS-01-051 dated March 29, 2001 and a proposed by-law dated March 29, 2001 attached to the report. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. C. Ladd advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report under consideration. Mr. Herb Epp appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant to support the recommendation in the staff report. No other delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: “That Zone Change Application ZC 01/05/F/GR (26 Franklin Street South - Waltenbauer Wood Products) requesting a change in zoning from Residential Four Zone (R-4) to Service Commercial Zone (C-6) on lands legally described as Part of Lot 140, Registered Plan 254, municipally known as 26 Franklin Street South, be approved in the form shown in the attached “Proposed By-law”, dated March 29, 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 the City’s Municipal Plan.” 2.BPS-01-047-ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL VACANCY RATE STATISTICS IN THE CITY OF KITCHENER The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services report BPS-01-047 dated April 20, 2001 as information. The report deals with an annual analysis of residential vacancy rate statistics in the City of Kitchener. The executive summary of the report highlighted the following: a decline in the City’s vacancy rate to 0.7% in 2000, a 7% average rental increase, quick absorption of any new rental units, strong interest in redevelopment of inner city industrial buildings and vacant lots into multi-residential uses, approximately 240 units being added to the inventory in 2001-2002, little affordable housing planned, and 2001 vacancy rates remaining at approximately the current 0.7% rate. In response to Councillor C. Weylie, Ms. Dever suggested that a 2-3% vacancy rate was a competitive rate within the rental market. Mayor C. Zehr referred to the 7% increase in average rent and questioned if it could be analyzed as to how increases broke down across the spectrum of the rental marketplace. In particular he was interested in the average rental increase as it relates to affordable dwelling units. Ms. Dever noted that there was some skewing with respect PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 30, 2001- 47 -CITY OF KITCHENER 2.BPS-01-047-ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL VACANCY RATE STATISTICS IN THE CITY OF KITCHENER (CONT’D) to the 7% rental increase given the activity in the more expensive luxury rental component of the marketplace. Ms. Dever indicated that she thought more detailed data could be obtained so as to provide a breakdown of rental increases within the rental range of the various types of rental units and agreed to forward this information directly to City Council. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: “That Business and Planning Services report BPS-01-047 (Annual Analysis of Kitchener Residential Vacancy Rate Statistics) be received as information.” 3.BPS-01-040-292 LAWRENCE AVENUE -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/39/L/BS -ROBERT WITTER -WEST-VICTORIA PARK WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from Robert Witter to change the zoning of lands known municipally as 292 Lawrence Avenue. The purpose of the rezoning is to add a special use provision to the current Industrial Residential (M-1) zone to permit a canine or feline grooming and training use at the subject property. It was noted in the report that staff are recommending the proposed use only be located within the existing building on the property. In this regard, the Committee considered report BPS-01-040 dated March 29, 2001 and a proposed by-law dated March 19, 2001 attached to the report. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. C. Ladd provided a brief explanation of the application and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: “That Zone Change Application ZC 00/39/L/BS (292 Lawrence Avenue - Robert Witter) requesting a change in zoning from Industrial Residential Zone (M-1), with Special Use Provision 53U to Industrial Residential Zone (M-1), with Special Use Provisions 53U and 293U, on lands legally described as Lot 74 and Part of Lot 73, Registered Plan 786, municipally known as 292 Lawrence Avenue, be approved, in the form shown in the attached “Proposed By-law”, dated March 19, 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 the City’s Municipal Plan.” 4.BPS-01-057-1285 OTTAWA STREET SOUTH -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/36/O/ZJ -GLEN & MARTHA MCNEIL - SOUTH WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from Glen and Martha McNeil to change the zoning of lands known municipally as 1285 Ottawa Street South. The purpose of the rezoning is to amend the current zoning by adding a special use provision and special regulation. It was noted in the report that the applicant requests legalization of the existing home business for canine and feline grooming, as well as parking within 0 metres of the front property line and parking within 6.0 metres of the PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 30, 2001- 48 -CITY OF KITCHENER 4.BPS-01-057-1285 OTTAWA STREET SOUTH -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 00/36/O/ZJ -GLEN & MARTHA MCNEIL - SOUTH WARD (CONT’D) side lot line. In this regard, the Committee considered report BPS-01-057 dated April 4, 2001 and a proposed by-law dated April 4, 2001 attached to the report. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. C. Ladd summarized the application and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. Councillor M. Galloway advised that nearby residents are totally opposed to the application due to the fact that the homeowners knowingly operated an illegal business. In response to Councillor Galloway, Ms. C. Ladd advised that it was her understanding the business had operated for approximately 2 years. Councillor Galloway was of the view that it was not appropriate to condone something that has operated illegally but more importantly pointed out that some animals have been allowed into the yard and subsequently escaped and posed a threat to the neighbourhood residents. Councillor J. Ziegler commented that approval should not be withheld if the requested use was one that the City would normally have approved as a home business. He suggested that any concerns or complaints of the neighbourhood could be remedied within any approval granted with respect to the application. Also, Councillor M. Galloway indicated that he would favour restrictions that would deal with the neighbours main complaints which are the on street parking and animals being allowed to roam in the backyard of the subject property which does not have fencing of sufficient height to keep them within the yard. In response to the concerns raised, Ms. C. Ladd suggested that the draft by-law could be revised to include a similar provision contained in the by-law dealing with 292 Lawrence Avenue. Such clause would permit the requested use only within the building and require 3 parking spaces to be provided as long as the use continues. During further discussion it was suggested that as an alternative to permitting use only within the building, a 6 foot high solid fence could be an alternative. Ms. C. Ladd advised that given the alternatives that were being suggested, she would prefer that the application be deferred so as to allow staff to discuss alternative options with the applicant before a recommendation was made. Councillor M. Galloway also favoured deferral so as to allow him the opportunity to discuss alternatives with residents as to what was acceptable to them. In response to Mayor Zehr, Ms. C. Ladd advised that currently there were 3 parking spaces on the subject property but that the zoning by-law only requires 2 spaces. However, a 3 space requirement could be included in the implementing zoning by-law. On motion by Councillor M. Galloway - It was resolved: “That consideration of Business and Planning Services report BPS-01-057 dealing with Zone Change Application ZC 00/36/O/SV (1285 Ottawa Street South - Glen and Martha McNeil) be deferred and referred to the May 14, 2001 Planning and Economic so as to allow staff to discuss concerns with the Development Committee meeting applicant and review alternative approaches to address these concerns within the draft proposed zoning by-law.” PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 30, 2001- 49 -CITY OF KITCHENER 5.BPS-01-055-350 WESTMOUNT ROAD WEST -EXTENSION TO TIME LIMITTO FULFILL CONDITIONS -ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 97/5/W/PB -SUNOCO INC. - WEST-VICTORIA PARK WARD The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services report BPS-01-055 dated April 11, 2001 responding to a request for an extension to the time limit for conditions to be fulfilled with respect to zone change application ZC 97/5/W/PB submitted by Sunoco Inc. with respect to the property known municipally as 350 Westmount Road West. It was noted in the report that on September 18, 2000, Council granted conditional approval of the zone change but the applicant has been unable to satisfy the condition pertaining to a Record of Site Condition. The applicant is in the process of completing it and accordingly has requested a 3 month extension to allow for submission to and acknowledgement by the Ministry of the Environment. Ms. C. Ladd briefly explained the request and advised that staff had nothing further to add to the report. She pointed out that staff were contacted by the applicant who indicated support for the staff recommendation. No delegations were registered respecting this matter. On motion by Councillor J. Smola - It was resolved: “That a 3 month extension to July 30, 2001 be granted respecting the conditional approval for Zone Change Application 97/5/W/PB (350 Westmount Road West - Sunoco Inc.).” 6.BPS-01-063-ADDENDUM TO BPS-01-044 - UPDATE RE: EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES The Committee was circulated with Business and Planning Services report BPS-01-063 dated April 30, 2001 prepared as an addendum to report BPS-01-044 in respect to Educational Development Charges (EDC’s) which were previously dealt with by Committee and Council on March 26 and April 2, 2001 respectively. Ms. C. Ladd provided an update with respect to Council’s earlier resolution and request to the two district school boards respecting EDC’s and advised that the resolution appears to have gone unheeded. She noted that the Waterloo County District School Board held a public meeting dealing with EDC’s and did not support core area exemptions but did agree to apply EDC’s to all new residential development. She advised that the Board agreed to an effective date for phase-in and implementation but selected a date that was only slightly later than the approval date. Further, the Board did not address concerns with respect to the filing of building permit applications and did not ‘grandfather’ building permits received prior to the effective date. Ms. Ladd indicated that City staff had not been contacted by staff of either Board or their consultant to discuss such issues as administration, formal complaint procedure or phase-in concerns. Mayor C. Zehr commented that he had discussions with trustees and senior staff of both district school boards and had fully expected the boards would understand the concerns that the City was expressing. Ms. C. Ladd noted that she had met with staff of Cambridge and Waterloo and advised that it would appear both cities are tentatively set to appeal this issue to the Ontario Municipal Board. In response to a comment by Mayor C. Zehr, Ms. Ladd suggested the Committee consider revising the recommendation in the staff report so as to emphasize the seriousness of its concern with respect to this issue. 6.BPS-01-063-ADDENDUM TO BPS-01-044 - UPDATE RE: EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 30, 2001- 50 -CITY OF KITCHENER On motion by Mayor C. Zehr - It was resolved: “Whereas the matter of Educational Development Charges (EDC’s) is a fundamental urban planning issue with a potential to negatively impact the rejuvenation of the downtown; and, Whereas the municipality does not wish to be put in a position of having to exhaust legal recourse in respect to EDC’s; That the Council of the City of Kitchener strongly urges the two District School Boards to effectively provide an exemption from the payment of EDC’s to the core area (downtown) and re-affirms its strong position relative to EDC’s as follows: 1) That the lands within Kitchener’s downtown, as designated in the City’s Municipal Plan and as shown on the map attached, be exempted from the imposition of Educational Development Charges by both Waterloo Region District and Waterloo Catholic District School Boards consistent with exemptions contained in the City’s Development Charge By-law and the ; Region’s Development Charge By-law 2)That the City of Kitchener supports the proposal by the School Boards to not impose educational development charges on commercial, industrial or institutional development and impose EDC’s only on new residential development; 3)That both School Boards be requested to consider an ‘effective’ date for Education Development Charge By-laws which will allow for appropriate phasing in and implementation of EDC’s by the affected municipalities. Such date should be discussed and agreed to by the Boards and Municipal staff immediately prior to the adoption of each by-law by each School Board; 4) That a formal process to deal with complaints regarding Education Development Charges under Section 257.85 be developed with each School Board to ensure that staff and resource support is available to the City in the event a formal complaint is received regarding Education Development Charge, particularly in the event of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; and further, That the position of Council be forwarded again to the Waterloo Region District School Board and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board, as well as to the Cities of Waterloo and Cambridge, and the Region of Waterloo.” 7.SMART GROWTH AND THE REGION OF WATERLOO: PLANNING FOR OUR FUTURE Councillor J. Ziegler referred to an April 11, 2001 resolution passed by the Region of Waterloo and an accompanying report from the Regional Chair on the subject of ‘Smart Growth and the Region of Waterloo: Planning for our Future’. He questioned how much influence the Township of Woolwich and the City of Kitchener would have in respect to this issue and how far the Region could take it without Kitchener’s participation. 8.CAMBRIDGE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE 653 Councillor C. Weylie raised a concern that new homeowners within the Deer Ridge subdivision were being provided with telephone exchange 653 which is a City of Cambridge exchange. This results in confusion as Kitchener residents are being listed under the City of Cambridge rather than Kitchener in the Bell Canada directory. If those residents wish to be listed under Kitchener, they must incur additional expense to have their number also listed under Kitchener in the directory. 8.CAMBRIDGE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE 653 (CONT’D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 30, 2001- 51 -CITY OF KITCHENER Mayor C. Zehr agreed to take this matter under advisement and respond to the appropriate authority. 9.ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 4:17 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk