HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-16-012 - Zone Change Application - ZC15-10-W-AP - 42 West Acres Crescent - Huron Creek Holdings Corp.
REPORT TO: Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 7, 2016
SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Planner 519-741-2200 x7668
WARD INVOLVED: Ward 7
DATE OF REPORT: February 17, 2016
REPORT NO.: CSD-16-012
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC15/010/W/AP
42 WEST ACRES CRESCENT
2297868 ONTARIO INC.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
2 - 1
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That Zone Change Application ZC15/010/W/AP (42 West Acres Crescent;
2297868 Ontario Inc.) for the purpose of changing the zoning from
Residential Four Zone (R-4) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special
Regulation Provision 676R, and Special Use Provision 455U, and Property
Detail Schedule No. 40, on the lands specified on the attached Map No. 1
and Map No. 2-February
8, 2016,attached to Report CSD-16-012 as,be approved.
Appendix A
B. That the Urban Design Brief for 42 West Acres Crescent,dated January
2016, attached to Report CSD-16-012 as ,be adoptedand
AppendixC
provide the basis for future site development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting a zone change to facilitate the development of the lands
with multiple dwellings (stacked townhouse dwellings).An urban design brief,
submitted as part of the application, includes a proposed site plan with 27 dwelling units
divided between two buildings. Planning staff hosted a Neighbourhood Information
Meeting in June 2015 in which approximately 50-60 community members attended,
mainly in opposition to the application. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed zone
change is desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and
recommends that the zone application be approved and the urban design brief be
adopted.
REPORT:
Site Context
The subject property is located on the northern boundary of the Forest Heights Planning
Community, near the intersection of Westheights Drive and Highland Road West. The
property has two frontages: one on Highland Road West and one on the curve of West
Acres Crescent. The property is approximately ½ hectare (1 acre) in area and is
composed of two parcels: a remnant parcel from the surrounding subdivision that
contained a derelict house until it was demolished last year, and a former road
allowance that was recently purchased by the applicant from the City. The property is
currently vacant.
The surrounding area, both north and south of Highland Road, is composed of low rise
residential development; one and two storey single detached dwellings are the
predominant land use. Further west on Highland Road, multiple residential
developments, including stacked townhouse dwellings, are planned and expected to be
under construction this spring. The corner of Highland Road at Westheights Drive
contains a neighbourhood commercial plaza and a townhouse complex.While some of
the surrounding area was constructed earlier, the majority of the dwellings were
constructed during the 1980s and 1990s.The immediately abutting properties on West
Acres Crescent to the west and south each contain a single detached dwelling, the
attached garages of which are adjacent to the subject property.
2 - 2
Current Zoning
The subject property andsurrounding properties are currently zoned Residential Four
(R-4). This zoning allows smaller-lot, low density residential development with a
maximum height of 10.5 metres (approximately 3 storeys). Specifically, the R-4Zone
allows the following uses:
Coach House Dwelling Unit
Duplex Dwelling
Home Business
Private Home Day Care
Residential Care Facility
Semi-Detached Duplex Dwellings (existing only)
Semi-Detached Dwelling
Single Detached Dwelling
Proposed Zone Change
The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the property from Residential Four
(R-4) to Residential Six (R-6) in order to allow multiple dwellings in the form of stacked
townhouse dwellings.Astacked townhouse dwellingis a type of multiple dwelling that
is divided both vertically into 3 or more sections by common walls like a townhouse, and
horizontally by common floors, in a manner that establishes two or three dwelling units
per section.
The proposed site plan is discussed in the Site Plan Application and Urban Design Brief
section of this report and is attached as Appendix D.While the applicant is seeking to
develop only stacked townhouse dwellings, the proposed R-6 Zone would allow all of
the above R-4 uses, plus the following: Multiple Dwelling, Hospice, Lodging House,
Semi-Detached Duplex Dwelling (new and existing), and Street Townhouse Dwelling.
In order to ensure that the only additional permitted land use is stacked townhouse
dwelling (in accordance with the proposed site plan that was shown to the public at the
Neighbourhood Information Meeting), Planning staff included a special use provision to
limit the uses to only those permitted in the R-4 Zone, plus stacked townhouse
dwellings.Apartment buildings would not be permitted.
Additionally, staff increased minimum setbacks in the R-6 Zone in accordance with the
setbacks shown in the proposed site plan. The proposal now includes a special
regulation provision to ensure that any proposed building is located at least 4.6 metres
from the nearest single detached dwelling to the west, rather than 2.5 metres as
specified in the R-6 Zone. To the east, where the grades are to behigher compared
with adjacent single detached dwellings, the minimum setback to such uses has been
increased to 21.5 metres from the 7.5 metres specified in the R-6 Zone. To the south,
the minimum setback has been increased to 22.0 metres from the 2.5 metres specified
in the R-6 Zone. This special regulation provision will ensure that the increased
setbacks shown in the proposed site plan are not reduced.
Planning staff notes that the maximum building height regulations are the same in the
R-6 Zone as in the adjacent R-4 Zone (maximum 10.5 metres or approximately 3
2 - 3
storeys); therefore, no greater height benefit would be achieved as a result of the
proposed zoning.
In summary, a proposed special regulation provision increases the minimum setback to
adjacent single detached dwellings, the proposed maximum height regulation is the
same as the current and surrounding zoning, and the uses permitted have been limited
to those in the surrounding zoning plus stacked townhouse dwellings.
Site Plan Application and Urban Design Brief
The proposed site plan application shows 27stacked townhouse dwelling units: 12 units
in one building and 15 units in another, all of which are oriented to Highland Road (see
Appendix D). Regarding building massing, the proposal has a Floor Space Ratio of
0.57 (less than the maximum 0.6 FSR specified in the proposed zoning). Access to the
parking area is on West Acres Crescent only.As previously mentioned, these multiple
dwellings would take the form of stacked townhouse dwellings. The proposed
development complies with regular, visitor, and accessible parking space requirements.
Walkways to both West Acres Crescent and Highland Road are provided. Minimum 2.8
metre landscaped areas and1.8 metre high wood privacy fences are proposed where
parking areas abut residential development. A decorative entrance feature would be
installed at the West Acres Crescent driveway entrance. As stated above, the proposed
minimum setbacks to adjacent properties are significantly greater than required in the
R-6 Zone.
In support of their zone change application, the applicant submitted an urban design
brief (UDB). The UDB provides direction to the site plan application,and specifies
anticipated building design and materials. The UDB includes preliminary elevation
drawings that demonstrate a traditional design for the future development of the site.
Staff is satisfied that the design will integrate well in to the existing neighbourhood. The
UDB is attached as Appendix C. Staff is recommending that the UDB be adopted as
part of this report.
Official Plan Conformity
The subject and surrounding properties are designated Low Rise Residential in the
Low Rise Residential districts are intended toaccommodate
a full range of housing types. In these districts the City favours the mixing and
integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use.A
maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.6 is to be applied to multiple dwellings and no
residential building shall exceed three stories in height at street elevation.
Additionally, Housing policies of the Official Plan are applicable to the
proposed zone change:
The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of
housing types both across the City as a whole and within neighbourhoods. To
support the successful integration of different housing types the City shall apply
principles of community and site design emphasizing compatibility of building form,
with respect to massing, scale, design and the relationship of housing to adjacent
2 - 4
buildings, streets and exterior areas and ensure that both appropriate parking areas
and appropriate landscaped areas are provided on site.
Under the new Official Plan (currently under appeal), the subject lands are designated
Low Rise Residential. The applicable policies under the new Official Plan are
substantially similar to those within the current Official Plan.
Planning staff is satisfied that the proposed zoning and proposed site plan for future
development conform to the official plans. The proposed zoning would allow
redevelopment of the property with a new, low density housing type a new housing
option within the neighbouhood. The proposal would allow development that is
compatible with surrounding land uses, with respect to massing and scale.
Department and Agency Comments
The following departments and agencies have no concerns with the proposed zone
change: City Urban Design Staff, City Environmental Planning, City Heritage Planning,
City Building Division, City Engineering Services, City Transportation Services, Region
of Waterloo, Grand River Conservation Authority, Bell, Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro.
Detailed department and agency comments are attached as Appendix E.
Community Comments
Preliminary circulation of the zonechange was undertaken in April 2015 to all property
owners within 120 metres of the subject lands and a Neighbourhood Information
Meeting (NIM) was held on June 23, 2015. In response,staff received approximately
43letters, mostly stating concerns with the proposal, and a petition was also submitted
(see Appendix G).The minutes from the NIM are attached as Appendix F.
The main comments expressed by the community are summarized and grouped by
theme,with staff responses below:
1. Access Location and Traffic Generation
Community Concern
A concern was raised that access to the site is proposed to be on West Acres
Crescent, not Highland Road. If the access is constructed on West Acres
Crescent, excessive traffic generated by development will spill out onto West
Acres Crescent and the surrounding single detached neighbourhood.
safety may be compromised and noise may become an issue due to this excess
traffic. Also, the proposed multiple dwellings should be accessed from Highland
Road only, since they do not fit with the surrounding development. If there is going
to be a development at all, the access should be on Highland Road only.
2 - 5
Planning Staff Response
Staff and the applicant seriously considered the request of several community
members for the sole access to be located on Highland Road. Based on a
number of challenges, including both safety and technical challenges, a Highland
Road access is not supportable.
Planning staff met with the applicant and with applicable departments and the
Region to determine if such an access was feasible. The option of providing an
access to both Highland Road and West Acres Crescent was also considered.
Highland Road is a Regional road. Regional Transportation Planning management
confirmed that the Region does not support residential vehicular access to
Highland Road and that access should be gained from West Acres Crescent.
Area municipal roads typically have lower speeds and lower traffic volumes than
Regional roads and therefore are more appropriate for access to residential
properties such as the development proposed on these lands. The posted speed
limit on Highland Road in this area is 60 km/h and most motorists are likely
matching or exceeding this limit. This section of Highland Road is entirely back-
lotted and there are no existing accesses between the intersections of Westforest
Trail/Westheights Drive and Eastforest Trail/Westheights Drive more than a 1.1
kilometre stretch. Many drivers would not expect vehicles to exit a driveway in this
location, which poses a safety issue.
City Engineering Services staff commented that it is problematic to design an
access to this section of Highland Road because of the steep grade from the road
to the on-site parking area. If it was feasible, significant grading works and
retaining walls would likely be required, which may impact the number of parking
spaces that could be provided (possibly triggering a request for a parking
reduction from the zoning regulations) and the developable area.
es not believe it is possible for
the developer to meet the maximum slope requirements per the Emergency
Services policy. Additionally, the developer would have to provide a large on-site
turnaround since the fire route exceeds the maximum distance in the Emergency
Services Policy.This turnaround would consume approximately 10 percent of the
site, necessitating a complete redesign of the site plan, including the possibility of
reduced setbacks and parking requirements. In conclusion, Fire Services stated
that the access should be provided on West Acres Crescent.
Transportation Services staff commented that an access to both Highland Road
and West Acres Crescent is not desirable, nor in the interests of the residents on
West Acres Crescent, because the greater community may use the subject site as
a cut-through.
City Transportation Services staff also prepared
generation calculation based on the proposed 27 dwelling unit proposal. The
2 - 6
results show that during the peak weekday morning hour 5 vehicles would enter
and 13 would exit the site. This equates to 1 vehicle every 3.3 minutes. During
the peak weekday afternoon hour 12 vehicles would enter and 9 would exit the
site. This equates to 1 vehicle every 2.9 minutes. In conclusion, Transportation
Services staff stated that the number of vehicle trips generated would be minor
and would probably go unnoticed by residents on West Acres Crescent.
Staff understands the concern that there will be additional traffic, however,
municipal roads are meant to accommodate traffic in neighbourhoods and
appropriate development ensures efficient use of this existing infrastructure.
Planning staff also worked with the applicant to achieve a building design for the
future development that would not only be compatible with, but also similar in
many respects, to the surrounding development (e.g., building materials would be
comparable, building heights would not greatly exceed those in the
neighbourhood, etc.).The proposed development, as outlined in the UDB, would
integrate well into the surrounding, established neighbourhood.
Furthermore, in these districts the City favours the mixing and integration of
different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. By providing
access to Highland Road over West Acres, the development would not be truly
integrated into the existing neighbourhood. It would instead become a separated
enclave.
After reviewing the Highland Road access request in detail, Planning staff is of the
opinion that while this is a neighbourhood preference, access to West Acres
Crescent is the supportable option from a safety perspective and represents good
planning. Planning staff often seek to work with the neighbourhood and applicant
to achieve mutually acceptable solutions to such issues. Ultimately, if such issues
cannot be resolved, Planning staff look to the broader public interest, established
planning principles, and input from technical staff.
In this case, at the request of the community, Planning staff sought to give the
Highland Road access request fair consideration.Staff reviewed this option with
technical staff and the applicant and has concluded that, even if technical
challenges were able to be solved to allow such an access, the result would not be
in the public interest and is not supported by Regional staff from a public safety
perspective.
2. Property Values
Community Concern
Concerns were raised that surrounding property values will be reduced as a result
of the proposed zoning and future development.
2 - 7
Planning Staff Response
The effect of land use planning decisions on the market value of surrounding
properties is not a consideration in land use planning recommendations by
professional planners. Factors such as privacy, compatibility, and impact are
planning considerations. Planning staff cannot comment on how the proposed
development may impact the market value of surrounding properties as this is a
personal choice based on any number of considerations / factors.
3. Site Design
Community Concern
Concerns were raised regarding stormwater runoff, light pollution, garbage storage
and collection, shadow impact, noise from service vehicles, etc.Comments were
also raised that there would be overflow parking onto municipal streets.
Planning Staff Response
The site plan process seeks to ensure that the site/development can appropriately
accommodate the residents living there without impacting adjacent development.
For instance, parking requirements take into account the need for visitor
parking and on-site amenity space. Many of the factors mentioned will be
reviewed through the site plan process, for instance:
Grading and stormwater management plans are reviewed to ensure that
stormwater does not encroach onto neighbouring properties.
Lighting plans are reviewed to ensure that lighting is respectful to adjacent
properties. Cut-off fixtures are often used to ensure that light does not
encroach onto other properties.
The proposed site plan shows deep-well garbage and recycling facilities
that are set back well from adjacent properties. Such facilitiesas less
obvious than traditional dumpsters and can significantly reduce odours.
Planning staff acknowledges that service vehicles will utilize the site for
snow clearing/removal and garbage disposal. However, it is not anticipated
that the proposed development will cause unacceptable increases in noise
for the surrounding residents.Planning staff further notes that parking
areas will be buffered from surrounding properties by fencing, and
landscaping will be provided along the perimeter.
4. Compatibility / Land Use / Density
Community Concerns
A different type of home will be introduced into the neighbourhood (i.e.,
multiple dwelling).
Any multiple dwelling constructed should face Highland Road.
Concerns that sight lines may create privacy issues with existing
development.
Single detached or semis are preferable.
Concern that the population will rise dramatically.
2 - 8
Planning Staff Response
The term compatible means that land uses and building forms are mutually tolerant
and capable of existing together in harmony without causing unacceptable adverse
impacts.Compatible
Compatibility is a principle that Planning staff seek to
uphold in all land use recommendations. Although the proposal would allow for
greater building mass than what is permitted in surrounding zones, future
development of the site would still be considered compatible low rise residential
development:
The building height of the proposed stacked townhouse dwellings would be
no higher than the maximum building height permitted in the surrounding R-3
and R-4 zoned areas.
The proposed minimum setbacks for future development are significantly
greater than what the R-3, R-4, and stock R-6 zones allow.
Minimum 2.8 metre landscape buffers between parking and adjacent
properties are proposed.
Future development would be oriented towards Highland Road, not West
Acres Crescent.
The preliminary elevation drawings within the UDB show a traditional building
design that takes many queues from the surrounding neighbourhood,
including, for example: brick / siding cladding combination, pitched roofs, and
gables (see Figure 1, below):
Figure 1
Staff is satisfied that the proposed stacked townhouse dwellings are not only
compatible with, but in many ways similar to, the surrounding development.
Based on density estimates for multiple dwellings found in the Kitchener Growth
Management Strategy Background Study,Planning staff estimates that less than 50
people would reside within the proposed development.
Planning staff acknowledges that a new type of dwelling would be introduced to the
neighbourhood through this proposal. While this would be a change, it may be a
2 - 9
positive one, because it would provide a new housing choice that is not currently
available in the neighbourhood. As an example, it may allow an older adult who
wants to downsize the opportunity to remain in her community and enjoy less
maintenance than a single detached house. Alternatively, it may allow a single
parent to remain in his school boundary area while paying less for housing.
PLANNING ANALYSIS
The proposed zone change would facilitate the development of a new, low density
housing form within the existing community and
to mix and disperse a full range of housing types within the neighbourhood. The
proposal would make better use of the local infrastructure, including roads and
servicing, and would have a negligible impact on neighbourhood traffic. The zone
change would only allow uses permitted in the surrounding zoning plus stacked
townhouse dwellings, with no increased height benefit. The proposed increase to
minimum setbacks to adjacent residences, larger landscape buffers, and entrance
feature will help to ensure successful integration of the new use. In addition to being
compatible, the proposed urban design brief shows a building design that is similar in
many ways to the single detached dwellings in the neighbourhood. The proposed zone
change would allow a new housing choice that may provide an opportunity for existing
Forest Heights residents to remain in their neighbourhood. Planning staff is of the
opinion that the proposal would allow development that compliments and integrates well
into the surrounding, established neighbourhood.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
vision through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications to the City.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM & CONSULT - The proposed zone change application was originally circulated
to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands in April 2015. Azone change
notice sign was posted on the property at that time.In response, staff received 43
letters which are summarized in the Community Comments section of this report, as
well as a petition.These letters and petition are attached as Appendix G.
The City hosted a Neighbourhood Information Meeting (NIM) onJune 23, 2015 in order
to inform community members of the details of the zone change and to receive
feedback on the application. Approximately 50-60 community members attended the
meeting. Minutes of this meeting are attached as Appendix F.Information about the
A courtesy notice will be circulated to all property owners within 120 metres that
contains follow-up information to the NIM held in June 2015 and the details of the
statutory public meeting. Notice of the public meeting was printed in The Record on
2 - 10
February 12, 2016, and a copy of the Notice is attached as Appendix B.This report will
meeting.
CONCLUSION:
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed zone change represents good planning
and is in the public interest. Accordingly, staff recommends that the zone change be
approved and the urban design brief be adopted.
REVIEWED BY:
Della Ross, Manager, Development Review
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department
Attachments:
Appendix A Proposed Zoning By-law including Maps No.1 and No. 2
Appendix B Newspaper Notice
Appendix C Urban Design Brief, dated January 2016
Appendix D Proposed Site Plan, January 21, 2016
Appendix E Department and Agency Comments
Appendix F Minutes of Neighbourhood Information Meeting
Appendix G Community Comments
2 - 11
CSD-16-012 - Appendix A
PR O P O S E D B Y L A W
February 8, 2016
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended,
known as the Zoning By-law of the City of Kitchener 2297868 Ontario Inc.
42 West Acres Crescent)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener
enacts as follows:
1. Schedule Number 20of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1is hereby amended
by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated
as Area 1 on Map No. 1 attached hereto, from Residential Four Zone (R-4)to
Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Use Provision 455U, Special Regulation
Provision 676R and Property Detail Schedule No. 40.
2. Schedule Number 20-law Number 85-1is hereby further
amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1
attached hereto.
3.-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Property Detail
Schedule No. 40, which is attached hereto as Map No. 2.
4.-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 455U thereto
as follows:
455. Notwithstanding Section 40.1 of this by-law, within the lands zoned R-6,
Hospice, Lodging House, Semi-Detached Duplex Dwelling, and Street
Townhouse Dwelling shall not be permitted uses. Theonly type of
Multiple Dwelling that shall be permitted is a Multiple Dwelling divided a)
vertically into 3 or more sections by common walls which prevent internal
access between the sections in the format of a townhouse, and b)
horizontally by common floors, in a manner that establishes two or three
dwelling units per section
2 - 12
CSD-16-012 - Appendix A
5.-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 676R thereto
as follows:
. Notwithstanding Section(s) 40.2.6 of this by-law, within the lands zoned
R-6, shown as affected by this subsection on Schedule 20 of Appendix
, the following regulations shall apply:
a) No building or structure including, but not limited to
balconies and stairs, shall be erected within 2.6 metres of
the defined area containing Region-owned piezometers as
shown in Property Detail Schedule No. 40 of By-law 85-1.
a) The minimum westerly side yard, as measured from the
property line shared with Lot 156, Plan 1448 (34 West
Acres Crescent), shall be 4.6 metres.
b) The minimum southeasterly side yard, as measured from
the property line shared with Part Lot 10, Plan 864 being
Part 3, 58R-6191(52 West Acres Crescent) and Part Lot
10, Plan 864, Part Block A, Plan 1448 being Parts 1 and 8,
58R-5428 (74 High Acres Crescent), shall be 22.0 metres.
c) The minimum rear yard,as measured from the
northeasterly lot line shared with Lot 240, Plan 1448 (70
High Acres Crescent), shall be 21.5 metres.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of
2016.
_____________________________
Mayor
_____________________________
Clerk
2 - 13
CSD-16-012 - Appendix A
2 - 14
MAP NO. 2
SCHEDULE No. 40
93.4 m² land
2.6 m buffer
A
Piezometers
A
A
A
2 - 15
METRIC SCALE
DETAIL from SCHEDULE NO. 20 of APPENDIX 'A'
012345
Date: February 1, 2015
Meters
CSD-16-012 - Appendix B
PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED
TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW
UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE PLANNING ACT
42 West Acres Crescent
The purpose of this application is to change the zoning of 42 West Acres Crescent from Residential Four Zone (R-4) to
Residential Six Zone (R-6) with special zoning provisions.The proposed zoning would allow the development of the
property with 27 stacked townhouse dwelling units. Minimum setbacks to adjacent properties are proposed to be
increased though special regulations.
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
The public meeting will be held by the , a Committee of Council which deals
with planning matters, on:
MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016 at 7:00 P.M.
nd
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2 FLOOR, CITY HALL
200 KING STREET WEST, KITCHENER.
Any person may attend the public meeting and make written and/or verbal representation either in support of, or in
If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at this public
opposition to, the above noted proposal.
meeting or make a written submission prior to approval/refusal of this proposal, the person or public body is not
entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, and may not be added as a party to the hearing of
an appeal unless there are reasonable grounds in the opinion of the Board.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
is available by contacting the staff person noted below, viewing the report contained in the
agenda(posted 10 days before the meeting at www.kitchener.ca - click on the date in the Calendar of Events and select the
th
appropriate committee), or in person at the Planning Division, 6 Floor, City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener between
8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Monday to Friday).
Andrew Pinnell
,Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 (TTY: 1-866-969-9994), andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca
2 - 16
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
2 - 17
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
2 - 18
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
2 - 19
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
2 - 20
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
2 - 21
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
2 - 22
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
2 - 23
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
Throughout the neighbourhood there is a mix of building heights
Acres Crescent where a 2.5- 3 storey home abuts both a single storey and two storey home. (Aug
2 - 24
99.7
LEGEND
Figure 3
DATE:
November 2015
Subject Lands
Distance to Abutting
FILE:
Y325AI
Properties
SCALE
1 : 1,000
DRAWN:
CAC
K:\Y325AI-HURON CREEK HOLDINGS-42 WEST ACRES RD\RPT\DISTANCE TO ABUTTING
PROPERTIES.DWG
42 West Acres
City of Kitchener
2 - 25
Region of Waterloo
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
This single-detached home immediately abuts the southern propert
from the subject lands by a detached garage. The garage is appr
proposed buildings. (August 2014)
The above home on West Acres Crescent is the closest to the prop
line. A garage separates the habitable portion of the home fro
vegetation between the home and proposed development. (August 2014)
2 - 26
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
The two abutting homes on High Acres Crescent are relatively rem
located a distance of 27.8 (91 feet) and 31.3 m (103 ft) from the proposed stacked townhouse development. (August 2014)
Varying grades in the area results in some of the homes on West
High Acres Crescent. For the subject lands this grade change w
elevation of the proposed development will likely be lower than
Crescent. (August 2014)
2 - 27
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
SUBJECT
LANDS
Above: Back split style homes along West Acres Crescent, east o
2 - 28
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
The home immediately abutting the southern property boundary has
subject lands. The predominant building material for the garage
Two homes on High Acres Crescent abut the southern and eastern p
on these homes is vinyl siding.
2 - 29
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
Above: Homes east of the subject lands are constructed with bri
Above: Homes south of the subject lands are larger than those e
lines are mixed in with two storey, more traditional style homes
2 - 30
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
Above: These West Acres homes, just north of the intersection o
sizes and greater setbacks from the street. (Google Street Vi
This home features clean roof lines and shingles applied to the These back splits have low profile roof lines and are
building façade. (Google Street View) constructed primarily of brick. (Google Street View)
This two storey home has more traditional building elements and This two storey home has a low profile roof, fairly flat
more articulated roof line when compared to other homes on the façade and is constructed of brick and siding. (Google
street. Stucco has been incorporated along with brick. (Google Street View)
Street View)
2 - 31
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
This post-modern ranch style bungalow features stone This home would have been considered a more
detailing and siding. The roof line is clean with minimal modern design when constructed. It features an
articulation. (Google Street View) unusual roofline and vertical siding. (Google Street
View)
Preliminary building elevations show a mix of three building mat
2 - 32
CSD-16-012 - Appendix C
2 - 33
CSD-16-012 - Appendix D
2 - 34
CSD-16-012 - Appendix E
2 - 35
CSD-16-012 - Appendix E
2 - 36
CSD-16-012 - Appendix E
2 - 37
CSD-16-012 - Appendix E
2 - 38
CSD-16-012 - Appendix E
2 - 39
CSD-16-012 - Appendix E
2 - 40
CSD-16-012 - Appendix E
2 - 41
CSD-16-012 - Appendix F
42 West Acres Crescent Neighbourhood Information Meeting
Forest Heights Community Centre (1700 Queens Blvd)
June 23, 2015
Participant Comments
Address P=Participant, A=Andrew Pinnell, Planner (City), G=Garett
Stevenson, Senior Planner / Meeting Facilitator (City), S=Sandro
Bassanese, Urban Designer (City), D=Della Ross, Manager of
Development Review (City), E=Carlos Da Silva, Eastforest Homes
(Owner), B=Ward 7 Councillor Bil Ioannidis
64 High Acres P: Have you talked to the region about the proposal on Highland
Road?
A: We did and response was that it was feasible.
P: What if there was a fire?
A: Through the future site plan application emergency access will
be looked at. There would be a fire route plan required that
would ensure that emergency access is feasible.
P: Concern about access from Highland Road.
property fronts onto, or where the fire exit is. Since there is
frontage on either street, it can be addressed either way.
56 West Acres P: Questions the final price of unit
E: Estimated $205-220
24 Summerhill P: Is it a 2 and a half or potentially a 3 story building?
A: Maximum height
to max out that provision. Building height is measured from the
highest grade, to highest point of the roof.
P: This image is a proposal. Not what it is going to look like e
correct?
A: Correct.
52 West Acres P: I live adjacent to the property and all of the parking is goi
be along that line beside my house. Concerned about the increase
number of cars. I do not want to look at and listen to a parking
lot. Is there consideration for married couples or families with
more than one car? I believe the number of cars will be more
than 18.
A: City has minimum parking standards for multiple dwellings. 1.
parking spaces per unit is the requirement (Note: upon further
review, the ratio is actually 1.75 parking spaces per unit). There
will be a new iXpress station stop at West Heights as well.
Regulations are established with the intent that the site will b
self-contained (e.g., to provide sufficient on-site parking so so
there is no overflow of cars).
P: There will be an increase in noise and pollution, and animals
will be in danger. With the access onto West Heights, traffic wi
increase, as well as increased snow plowing and service vehicles
Comment that they live there because it is a nice quiet area and
2 - 42
CSD-16-012 - Appendix F
P: We live on the same level as the subject property. All of the
will travel into our lawn and cause problems.
A: The Region has a department that is involved in implementing
a salt management plan at the condominium approvals stage.
This requirement seeks to reduce the amount of salt and manage
it in an effective way.
G: The site plan process would require grading and stormwater
management approvals. This would ensure that all stormwater is
accommodated on the subject property and does not flow onto
adjacent properties.
construction will be going on for?
E: 6 months?
P: Concerned about the number of vehicles. It is not uncommon
to have visitors, where are they going to go?
A: A minimum number of visitor parking spaces is required under
the zoning by-law. These minimums are established to help
ensure that visitor parking does not overflow onto City streets.
P: Will there be any sound barriers between property and
adjacent ones?
A: There will likely be no sound barrier. We do have requirement
to put fences where parking lots are adjacent to residential
properties (6 foot high fence).
26 West Acres P: Third house up that street. There is a grade. In the winter i
difficult to get up the narrow street. Likes the quiet
neighbourhood.
477 Bankside P: Only the zoning of this property is changing. What happens
Drive when everyone else wants to change their zoning as well?
34 West Acres P: How much distance between properties is required?
A: 2.5 metres side yard setback.
G: Side yard regulations are within the proposed R-6 zone. The
side yard setback in the current R-4 zone is 1.2 metres.
is this your interpretation or are the people reviewing the repo
going to see the individual comments?
A: In my report, typically we will do a thematic summary to
respond. We will also include every comment received as an
appendix to the report. City councillors will be able to see the
well.
P: Feels bad for the adjacent property not having a sound barrie
A: There is no legislative requirement to put in a sound barrier.
Noise barriers are only installed because of traffic or stationa
noise that exceed provincial noise levels.
P: What about any barrier at all?
G: We will consider this comment in consultation with the
2 - 43
CSD-16-012 - Appendix F
developer.
S: A visual barrier would be required. 6 foot high fence. Also,
landscaping requirements would include a vegetated barrier- a
two tier approach is considered
79 West Acres P: This is all about money, and if you think we believe that you
have our best intere
money.
Andrew is here tonight to gather your input and information to
bring them to Council. No decision has been made.
P: A lot of people have lived in this neighbourhood for a long
time. We would not have expected this to happen. Is there going
to be a stop sign or a speed bump?
A: As far as speed bumps, there are no plans.
P: Concerned about child safety as their child has a hearing
problem. Traffic will become denser. Does not believe the parking
stats given. Concerned with parking, noise pollution, fuel
pollution.
112 West Acres P: This area is too small for this huge monstrosity. My question
does it really matter what we are saying?
Too many units for this established community. Been living there
for 28 years. Should I get a lawyer and fight the millionaires?
G: Suggests filling out a comment form.
75 West Acres
penalized?
A: We will follow up with the Region and the developer on this
possibility.
P: The city of Kitchener is building upwards and not outwards. I
this proposal required to incorporate green space?
A: The propose R-6 zone does regulate the minimum amount of
landscaped area. A minimum of 20% is required. The majority of
landscaping is sod.
S: Also, in the Urban Design Manual there are requirements for
amenity area.
74 High Acres P: We will have numerous people cutting through our property.
They will jump over wooden fences. We need a barrier wall of
sturdier materials.
S: We can suggest some more solid barriers. Intent would be to
work with applicant and make sure trespassers cannot get
through.
31 West Acres P: You are getting the sense that people are concerned that the
driveway is on West Acres and not Highland.
E: Slope is going down to Highland. Once we are into our detaile
engineering design we can address this issue.
P: Who owns the small triangle in the property?
A: The City sold the right-of-way to Eastforest Homes. Eastforest
is currently in the process of trying to acquire the daylight tr
2 - 44
CSD-16-012 - Appendix F
from the Region.
P: When you spoke about the fencing were you referring that it
would just be along the parking spaces only?
S: Fencing is required to be installed around only the parking area
as per the Bylaw, however, we will discuss the possibility of
installing a fence around the whole property with Eastforest
Homes.
P: Timeline of 6 months is given. What are the specific dates?
G: A timeline for next steps will be shown later on in the
PowerPoint presentation.
P: Does Council have to consider adjacent land uses and
compatibility. Do you think that this setting is appropriate for
zone change?
A: We are here today to discuss compatibility aspect of the
proposal. The zoning would have to conform the Official Plan. We
do have many examples of R-4 zones adjacent to R-6 zones.
P: What could it take to stop this?
G: I will outline the next steps.
this money to just roll the dice? You are all here setting up th
G: We are gathering information to be considered by council.
P: All of the people paying property tax should be taken into
consideration by a public vote before the City decides. It is on
democratic and fair who invested money, time, and memories to
have their say.
34 West Acres P: When was the property that was owned by the City (the former
right of way) purchased?
A: In the past two years. There is a protocol with adjacent
property owners to have priority to purchase.
D: Other government agencies would be offered, but the next
obvious people are adjacent properties.
G: Andrew will take it back in and look at the process.
P: Property values would be affected. I used to live across from
empty lot they said vegetation would be kept, but a building wen
up and my property was affected It wouldn
P: Retirement town homes would be much more acceptable than
this development.
P: Currently there are 3 city wells on the property, will they s
be city wells?
A: These piezometers will continue to be controlled by the
access rights to the piezometers.
generation estimate, everyone here from West Acres Crescent to
2 - 45
CSD-16-012 - Appendix F
Westheights Drive can tell you that it is very busy. Highland Ro
is supposed to be widened and it will only get busier. Our
commute in the morning will be delayed. How much time was
invested in the vehicle trip generation estimate?
P: (To ward councilor) What are your thoughts?
B: The purpose of this meeting is for you to engage with staff.
am willing to discuss my thoughts with you after the meeting if
you wish.
2 - 46
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 47
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 48
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 49
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 50
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 51
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 52
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 53
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 54
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 55
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 56
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 57
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 58
2 - 59
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 60
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 61
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 62
2 - 63
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 64
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 65
2 - 66
2 - 67
2 - 68
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 69
2 - 70
2 - 71
2 - 72
2 - 73
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 74
CSD-16-012 - Appendix G
2 - 75
2 - 76