HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-16-035 - Official Plan Amendment OP15-04-H-AP - Zone Change Application ZC15-014-H-AP
REPORT TO: Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2016
SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning
PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Planner 519-741-2200 x7668
WARD INVOLVED: Ward 3
DATE OF REPORT: May 20, 2016
REPORT NO.: CSD-16-035
SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OP15/04/H/AP,
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC15/014/H/AP, AND
HIDDEN VALLEY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT
1054 and 1070 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
1232118 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 Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/04/H/AP (1232118 Ontario
Inc.,1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road) requesting a change to Part 3,
Policy 12.3 , be adopted; and
not
B. That Council not request that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend
section 15.D.12.2.a) of the Final New Official Plan; and
C.That Zone Change Application ZC15/014/H/AP(1232118 Ontario Inc., 1054
and 1070 Hidden Valley Road) for the purpose of changing the zoning from
Residential One Zone (R-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) withSpecial Use
Provision456Uand Special Regulation Provision 678R,be refused; and
further
D.That the request of 1232118 Ontario Inc.for 1054and 1070Hidden Valley
Roadto modify Policy 3.3of the Hidden Valley Residential Community
Plan,be refused.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting to change the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Community
Plan to allow townhouses on municipal services at a maximum density of 17 units per
hectare.
private road having access to Hidden Valley Road. The current policies/regulations
allow only estate lots for single detached and duplex dwelling use. In September 2015
Planning staff met with the community at a Neighbourhood Information Meeting. As
part of the application review, staff considered the policy/by-law amendment requests,
technical studies, and community feedback. Planning staff weighed the merits of the
applications and is not supportive on the basis that the proposal would reduce
housing diversity, that the area is an ideal place to retain large lot development, and that
Community Plan policies continue to have relevance for the area.
REPORT:
Site Context
The subject lands are located in the Hidden Valley Planning Community, on Hidden
Valley Road, east of River Valley Drive. The lands are 2.4 hectares (6 acres) in area
and are composed of two unserviced abutting lots:
1. 1054 Hidden Valley Road, which is 2.0 hectares (5 acres) in area and contains a
large inhabited bungalow,and
2. 1070 Hidden Valley Road which is 0.4 hectares (1 acre) in area and contains a
derelict single detached dwelling.
The surrounding neighbourhood is composed of single detached dwellings spread out
along Hidden Valley Road and single detached dwellings within the estate lot
subdivisions to the east (Bridle Path Estates) and south (Hidden Valley Estates),and
undeveloped residential lands on the north side of Hidden Valley Road (Pearl Valley
Development Corporation).
It should be noted that the subject lands were previously the subject of Subdivision
Application 30T-11204 which was withdrawn by the previous owner of the lands prior to
consideration by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee in June 2013.
2 - 2
Current City Policy Context and Proposed Amendments
The applicant is requesting an Official Plan Amendment, Community Plan Amendment,
and Zoning Change in order to facilitate the development of
40municipally serviced cluster townhouse dwellings on a private road having access to
Hidden Valley Road. While water service is already available at Hidden Valley Road,
sanitary and storm sewer services would have to be extended from River Valley Drive
(to the west), as part of a future site plan process.Also, the applicant submitted several
technical studies as justification for the applications.
City Official Plans
Official Plan Designations
Under the current Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Limited Service
Residential with Special Policy Area #3. These policies state that municipally serviced
single detached dwellings are permitted where a municipally-provided wastewater
collection system is determined to be feasible. Any such development shall be
compatible with the estate lots in the Hidden Valley Residential Community to a
maximum net residential density of 4 units per hectare.It should be noted that such a
municipal wastewater collection system is available.
Under the final new Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential
with Specific Policy Area #2.The effect of these policies is essentially the same as of
those in the current Official Plan, except that duplexes are also permitted.
Proposed Official Plan Amendments
The applicant is proposing to amend both the current and new final Official Plans to add
townhouses as a permitted use and to increase the density maximum from 4 to 17
residential units per hectare.
Community Plan
Current Community Plan Policies
The Hidden Valley Residential Community Plan designates the subject lands as Estate
Residential. The residential policies of this plan mirror the policy outlined in the current
and new final Official Plans.
Proposed Community Plan Amendment
The applicant is proposing to amend the Community Plan to add townhouses as a
permitted use and to increase the density from 4 residential units per hectare to 17
residential units per hectare.
Zoning By-law
Current Zoning
The subject lands are currently zoned Residential One (R-1). This zoning allows
primarily single detached dwellings on large lots (minimum 30 metres / ~100 feet wide;
minimum 0.4 hectares / ~1 acre in area). The R-1 Zone also allows small residential
care facilities, private home daycares, and home businesses. It should be noted that
2 - 3
the R-1 Zone is primarily intended to accommodate estate lot development on private
services, though estate lots on municipal services are also permitted.
The R-1 Zone is the same zone found in the Bridle Path Estates (BPE) subdivisions,
located east of the subject lands. The BPE subdivisions were registered in 1992 and
have been slowly built out since that time.
Proposed Zoning
The applicant is proposing to change the zoning of the property from Residential One
(R-1) to Residential Six (R-6) with a Special Use Provision to limit the R-6 uses to the
following:
Multiple Dwelling (Cluster Townhouse Dwelling only);
Duplex Dwelling;
Home Business;
Private Home Day Care;
Residential Care Facility;
Single Detached Dwelling;
Street Townhouse Dwelling.
The following other R-6 uses would be prohibited:
Coach House Dwelling Unit;
Hospice;
Lodging House;
Multiple Dwelling (except Cluster Townhouse Dwellings);
Semi-Detached Duplex Dwelling;
Semi-Detached Dwelling.
The applicant is also proposing to increase the maximum building height requirements
through a Special Regulation Provision from 10.5 metres (34.5 feet) to 11.63 metres (38
feet). This increase would allow for roofline styles and heights that are typical of the
Hidden Valley neighbourhood.
Future Development Concept
The applicant has clarified that if the applications are approved, the owner would
develop
terms of sizes and finishes, in keeping with the nature of the surrounding community.
The proposed units will range in size from 1,800 2,400 square feet and will provide a
ne
Urban Design staff reviewed an Urban Design Brief (UDB) submitted by the applicant,
dated May 2016 that shows a preliminary design concept and preliminary renderings
(see pages 6 and 9 of the UDB, attached as Appendix E). The townhouses would
principally be 2-storeys, although some blocks would have 3-storey elevations with
walkouts to reflect grades in certain locations. The townhouses would have high roof
lines. The concept shows short blocks that are 3-4 units in length. There would be
options for both one and two car garages.
2 - 4
The concept shows an internal private driveway and abutting sidewalk that loops
through the site with two connection points at Hidden Valley Road. A central visitor
parking area is provided internal to the site.
Amenity space would be provided in the rear yards of individual units, rather than as a
common amenity area.
Stone masonry products are proposed to be used as the main cladding material.
Elevations are proposed to employ a series of architectural elements to achieve a
varied style in keeping with the character and form of the community.
Planning Concerns with Requested Amendments
Planning staff has concerns with the requested amendments and is of the opinion that
the subject lands should be retained for large (estate) lot development for the following
reasons:
1. Reduction of City Housing Diversity
The subject proposal would reduce the diversity of the residential lot / housing
choice within the city because there is little land zoned to allow large lots (e.g., R-1
zoned lots). A residential land inventory conducted by staff reveals that there are
only slightly more than 100 R-1 zoned properties within the city. This represents
only 0.18% of all residential properties within the city or 1.27% based on land area
devoted to the R-1 Zone. There are only 3 pockets of R-1 zoned land within the city:
a. Huron Road/Fischer-Hallman Road: the six R-1 zoned properties at this busy
intersection of two arterial roads will likely soon be rezoned to allow mixed use
development on the east side of Fischer-Hallman and a City community facility
on the west side.
b. Pinnacle Drive/New Dundee Road: several strips of R-1 zoned land line the
streets near this intersection. It is not anticipated that these lots will be re-zoned.
c. Hidden Valley Residential Community: this area represents the best example of
contiguously zoned R-1 land and arguably the only true estate lot neighborhood
in the city. The vast majority of R-1 zoned land within the city is found here.
A zone change from R-1 to R-6 would permanently remove a significant portion
(approximately 5%) of R-R-1land inventory. It is highly
unlikely that new areas of the city will be zoned for estate lot development, whether
through City-initiated zone changes or through private applications.
framework, both in Kitchener and throughout the Province. The Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe, states that greenfield areas must achieve a
minimum of 50 residents and jobs per hectare. Recently announced proposed
changes to the Growth Plan would increase the designated greenfield area density
target to 80 residents and jobs per hectare. This, combined with the way servicing is
now funded, makes the opportunity to create new estate lot areas extremely difficult
or impossible.
2 - 5
The current o provide
opportunities for a wide variety of housing options with the aim that all residents in
the City of Kitchener in all income ranges are able to afford adequate safe and good
quality housing in an appropriate community setting which meets their needs.
also states that o increase housing supply consistent withneeds
Retaining estate lot potential ofthe subject propertieswill help to ensure that this
housing option is not lost. Retaining the current designation and zoning will help to
at least maintain the current estate lot housing potential of the subject lands.
Additionally, Part 2, Policy 1.1.1 of the Official Plan statesThe City favours a land
use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing typesboth across the
City as a whole and witThe subject applications would have
the beneficial effect of mixing a new residential housing type into theHidden Valley
community. However, in this case, the greater objective of achieving a mix of
housing types across the City would be compromisedbecause of the lost estate lot
potential.
It should also be noted that tivision commented
on the subject application, stating: It is important to have a variety of residential
building lot inventory in the City including large estate lots, to support our talent
attraction and retention initiatives. Accordingly, recognizing that there is a limited
amount of large estate lot inventory in the City of Kitchener, we support (Planning
commendation to retain the large lot inventory in Hidden Valley.
Retaining the estate lot potential of the subject lands ensures that this finite resource
is not lost.
2.Ideal Location to Retain Estate Residential Lot Potential
The subject area is an ideal place to retain large lot development potential since it
does not contain, and is not likely to contain in the future, key community services
and amenities and commercial development to support increased density. In fact,
the subject area is far removed from these services and amenities. In this regard,
the subject property is:
a. Isolated in all directions from community services and amenities (e.g., community
centres, schools, parks), and commercial development (e.g., Fairview Park Mall)
by several barriers, including:
i. East and south: the Grand River
ii. North: Core Environmental Feature,Provincial Highway 8, railway tracks,
and a major arterial road / truck route (Fairway Road North),
iii. West: heavy industrial lands and an arterial road used by heavy industrial
traffic (Wabanaki Drive)
b. More than 1.5km from the closest planned LRT / Ion station stop, and is not
within the 10 minute walking distance to be considered being part of a Focus or
Influence area as identified in the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations study.
2 - 6
In addition, the above noted barriers would further reduce the possibility of
consideration.
c. Not located near public transit (Route #10 is located 1.0km away, to the west;
Routes #1, 7B, 8, 27, 52, and 200 are located 1.1km away, to the north)
d. Not located near local elementary schools. Also, the above noted barriers apply:
i. Howard Robertson PS (WRDSB elementary school): 2.3km walking
distance (eligible for bus transportation)
ii.St. Aloysius (WCDSB elementary school:2.6km walking distance (eligible
for bus transportation)
e. Not located near local secondary schools. Also, the above noted barriers apply:
i. Eastwood Collegiate Institute (WRDSB secondary school): 4.6km walking
distance (eligible for bus transportation)
ii.y School (WCDSB secondary school): 3.7km walking
distance (eligible for bus transportation)
f. Isolated from City parks. There are no City parks within Hidden Valley, though
there are City-owned lands (Open Space off Hidden Valley Crescent and land at
the south end of the Hidden Valley Community). The City will be reviewing these
lands in consultation with the community to determine how these lands will be
used in the future based on community needs and site conditions.
3.Relevance of Previous Public Process and Established Policies
Aformal public planning process determined that the Community Plan should
contain policies that limit density to 4 single detached units per hectare in this area.
This figure was determined through balancing two objectives: 1) making better use
of recently planned/constructed municipal infrastructure (e.g., sanitary and storm
sewers, water service), and 2) ensuring compatibility with the estate lots within the
Hidden Valley community. These policies were added to the Community Plan in
2005 through an amendment. The Community Plan policies that were developed
through extensive public engagement should not be overlooked; these policies
continue to have relevance for this area.
4. Urban Design Related Concerns
Urban Design and Planning staff have outstanding design-related concerns. The
applicant has declined to provide the following information / updates to the Urban
Design Brief as part of the review of the subject applications:
a. Additional information from the applicant is necessary to confirm whether the
proposed maximum building height increase will create unacceptably adverse
overlook impacts on the existing properties fronting onto River Birch Street.
This information may determine that a revised building design to reduce the
rear yard elevations to two storeys is warranted.
b. Staff is concerned that the preliminary elevations for the building façade
facing Hidden Valley Road present a subordinate façade treatment as
compared to the front elevation facing the internal road. Staff is of the opinion
that the design of the building façade facing Hidden Valley Road should
resemble a front façade.
2 - 7
The applicant has declined to provide a revised version of the UDB that addresses
these concerns as part of the subject applications; however, there is general agreement
from the applicant to if the
subject applications are approved.
Provincial Policy Statement (2014) (PPS)
While the PPS contains policies to intensify municipalities, it is not intended that
intensification take place in every area or in every circumstance. On the contrary, it
states:
1.1.3.3 Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote
opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be
accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including
brownfield sites,and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure
andpublic service facilities required to accommodate projected needs.
The PPS is clear in directing planning authorities to identify appropriate locations for
intensification, taking into account the existing context and suitability of public services,
facilities, and amenities need to support projected needs.
As has been demonstrated above, the subject area is not appropriate for significant
intensification, but is best suited for retention of large lot residences.
(P2G)
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006
P2G contains policies to ensure that generally lands subject to the Plan intensify and
that growth is directed to built-up areas. The subject lands are within the built-up area
of the city and are subject to P2G; however, it is intended that the key focus for
development and intensification is within intensification areas.
Intensification areas include: urban growth centres, intensification corridors, major
transit station areas, and other opportunities that may include infill, redevelopment,
brownfield, expansions/ conversions, and greyfield opportunities. The subject lands are
not located within an intensification area. In fact, as outlined, above, the lands are
separated from the closest intensification area (i.e., Fairway Road / Fairview Mall Area)
by numerousand significantbarriers.
Through the Kitchener Growth Management Plan and Official Plan, the City has
identified many intensification areas which are the main focus for
intensification. The subject lands are not one of these areas.
It should also be noted that P2G plans for a range and mix of housing. The requested
applications would reduce the range and mix of housing within the city by removing
zoning that provides a rare and unique housing option; whereas maintaining the existing
designation and zoning would help to maintain a mix of housing when considering the
city as a whole.
2 - 8
Beneficial Aspects of the Proposal
Planning staff acknowledges certain beneficial aspects of the proposal, though on
balance, staff is of the opinion that the planning arguments against outweigh the
benefits.The main benefits of the proposal are:
1. Would provide housing diversity and housing choice within a monoculture
neighbourhood of large lot single detached dwellings;
2. Would provide a new housing choice for Hidden Valley Community residents that
allow them to remain in their neighbourhood while downsizing, reducing
maintenance, reducing costs, etc.;
3. The increased density would help to optimize existing under-utilized infrastructure
within the neighbourhood (e.g., new pumping station and stormwater management
pond).
Despite the beneficial aspects of the proposal, the arguments against it (outlined in the
Planning Concerns with Requested Amendments section) are greater.
Planning Analysis
Planning staff is concerned that the applications would remove a significant portion of
to retain large lot
development since it is isolated due to numerous barriers, and does not contain several
key services and amenities. Furthermore, the Community Plan policies that were
developed through extensive public engagement should not be overlooked; these
policies continue to have relevance for this area.
It should be noted that the context of the subject applications is very different than other
residential intensification situations. The subject applications are focused in an estate
lot district that contains restrictive policies / regulations which greatly limit unit density
(maximum 4 units per hectare) and lot width (minimum 30.0 metres or 98.4 feet).In this
regard, the Hidden Valley community is unique because the estate lot potential that
exists there is a finite resource, during a time when the establishment of new estate lot
areas is becoming a thing of the past (as mentioned in the Reduction of City Housing
Diversity section of this report).
In contrast, most residential intensification applications are focused in well serviced Low
Rise Residential districts that are close to amenities, and which do not contain
maximum density policies. Additionally, the supply of average sized residential lots is
not threatened. For instance, based on current MPAC data, staff estimates that there
are approximately 16,400 residential lots that possess a 12.2 metre (40 foot) to 15.2
metre (50 foot) lot width within R-1 to R-6zones (generally those properties designated
Low Rise Residential).Also, there are approximately 20,500 residential lots within the
Low Rise Residential districts that possess widths 12.2 metres (40 feet) or less.It
is expected that an adequate supply of small to average size residential lots will be
available for many years into the future.Furthermore, it is possible and likely that
residential lots in the 12.2 metre to 15.2 metre width range will be added to the
inventory.In this regard, the overall supply of small to average, serviced residential lots
2 - 9
is not a significant concern when considering intensification applications. However, the
supply of estate lots is a significant concern.
For these reasons, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested applications are
not justified and do not represent good planning.
It should also be stated that Planning staff would be willing to consider a new
development application submission for the lands to allow more density than what
currently exists, as long as large lot zoning is retained.
Should Committee Decide to Recommend Approval
f the Committee decides to
recommend adoption/approval, the following wording is provided to assist the
Committee in formulating its recommendation:
1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/04/H/AP (1232118 Ontario Inc.,
1054 &1070 Hidden Valley Road) requesting a change to Part 3, Policy 12.3 of
Official Plan,be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan
Amendment attached to Report CSD-16-035 as Appendix A, and accordingly
forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for approval; and
2. That Council request that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo amend section
-16-035 as Appendix B; and
3.That Zone Change Application ZC15/014/H/AP (1232118 Ontario Inc., 1054&
1070 Hidden Valley Road) for the purpose of changing the zoning from
Residential One Zone (R-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Use
Provision 456Uand Special Regulation Provision 678R,be approvedin the form
posed By-May 9, 2016 attached to Report CSD-16-
035as AppendixC;and
4.That the request of 1232118 Ontario Inc. for 1054&1070 Hidden Valley Road to
modify Policy 3.3 of the Hidden Valley Residential Community Plan, be
approved.
5. That the Urban Design Brief for 1054 & 1070 Hidden Valley Road, dated May
2016, attached to Report CSD-16-035as Appendix E,be adoptedand provide
the basis for future site development.
Staff has prepared the above noted draft Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law, and
Community Plan Amendment in consultation with the applicant and has reviewed the
Urban Design Brief that was prepared by the applicant. These documents, if approved,
would accurately applicant has revised
significant portions of the Urban Design Brief at the request of staff in order to make it
refusal recommendation by staff. However, staff
does still have some outstanding concerns with the Urban Design Brief, as outlined in
the Urban Design Concerns section of this report.
2 - 10
Department and Agency Comments
Urban Design Comments:See the Urban Design Related Concerns section of this
report.
The following departments and agencies do not have any concerns with the subject
proposal: City Heritage Planning; City Environmental Planning, City Building Division,
City Engineering Services, City Transportation Services, City Operations Division;
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Waterloo Region District School Board; Grand River
Conservation Authority; Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
Detailed department/agency comments are attached as Appendix F.
Community Comments
Preliminary circulation of the Zone Change was undertaken on June 30, 2015 to all
property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands. In total, 22 written responses
were received plus asigned form letter from 37 households (see Appendix G).In
addition, Planning staff hosted a Neighbourhood Information Meeting at the Kitchener
Operations Facility on September 22, 2015. The minutes of this meeting, including
comments received from the community, are attached as Appendix H). The majority of
the comments received were in opposition to the proposal.
The main comments expressed by the community are summarized and grouped by
theme, with staff responses below:
Property Values
Community Comment:
Property values will be negatively affected by the proposal
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. Market
value is dependent on personal choice andis influenced by any number of
considerations / factors. Planning staff cannot comment on how the proposed
development may impact the market value of surrounding properties.
Compatibility
Community Comments
Hidden Valley is a unique neighbourhood that should be preserved. The
character of the neighbourhood would be damaged by the subject proposal
Townhouses are not compatible with single detached houses
40 units at this location is too much density
A larger buffer is necessary between proposed townhouses and single detached
houses
2 - 11
Concern about loss of privacy, including shadow impact and overlook issues,
especially for those existing properties with a lower elevation (e.g., properties on
River Birch Street)
Staff Response
The term compatibility refers to land uses and building forms that are mutually tolerant
and capable of existing together in harmony within an area without causing
unacceptable adverse impacts. Compatibility does not
Planning staff acknowledges that the introduction of townhouses into the
Hidden Valley Community would be a change in terms of the form of development and
density; however, staff is of the opinion that townhouses can be designed to be fully
compatible with single detached houses.
One of the benefits of introducing townhouses into the neighbourhood is that they would
provide a new housing choice that may allow those who want to remain in the
neighbourhood, but would otherwise be unable to do so because of maintenance, size,
or cost of the existing, limited housing options, to do so.The applicant has stated that
the townhouses will be geared to an upper end of the townhouse market in terms of
sizes and finishes, in keeping with the nature of the surrounding community.The
applicant has further stated that theproposed units wouldrange in size from 1,800
2,400 square feet.
Regarding design, the conceptual architecture of the townhouses shown in the Urban
Design Brief submitted by the applicant appears to closely mimic the materials and
design of the single detached dwellings in Hidden Valley Estates (e.g., stone, high
pitched roofs, high quality materials, etc.).While staff has some concerns about the
interface of the townhouses onto Hidden Valley Road, in general, staff is of the opinion
that the design is compatible with the neighbourhood.
In general, staff does have concerns with potential overlook concerns as outlined in the
Urban Design Related Concernssection of this report.
Notwithstandingthat townhouses could be arranged so as to be
compatible with single detached dwellings, staff is not in support of the Zone Change for
other reasons described in the Planning Concerns with Requested Amendmentssection
of this report and expresses some concerns with the significant density increase.
Traffic
Community Comment:
Concern that proposed development will lead to congestion during peak times
Concern with noise increases due to traffic generation
Safety concern due to the access location near top of ahill
Safety concern due to lack of sidewalks and street lights along this section of
Hidden Valley Road
2 - 12
Staff Response:
A vehicle trip generation analysis
Division, based on a development concept of 40 townhouses, estimates that during the
weekday PM peak hour, a maximum of 31 vehicles would enter/exit the site (1 vehicle
every 1.9 minutes).Transportation Services stated that the numberof vehicle trips
being generated by the site isminor and would have a negligible impact on traffic
operations along Hidden Valley Road.
If the subject applications are approved, funds for a sidewalk/other walkway along the
frontage of the subject lands would be taken by the City through a future site plan
sidewalk/walkway along the south side of Hidden Valley Road, westward to Wabanaki
Drive.
With respect to the access issue,if the applications are approved, Transportation
Services staff will require the applicant to submit aStopping Sight Distance (SSD) study
for both proposed access points shown in the Urban Design Brief in order to determine
the appropriateness of these accesses. The applicant has expressed a willingness to
provide this information as part of the future site plan process.
Loss of Wildlife Habitat
Community Comment
Concernabout impact on the natural environment, including loss of wildlife habitat
Staff Response
Any habitat on the subject property represents general habitat for wildlife species only. It
areas and are very adaptive under these circumstances.
Precedent
Community Comment
Concern that a precedent will be set if these applications are approved and more
properties will develop townhouses
Staff Response
Development applications are reviewed independently, in their own context, and on their
own planning merits. Approval of an Official Plan Amendment / Zone Change in one
location does not necessarily mean a similar request, in a different location is
appropriate.
Community Plan
Community Comment
The Community Plan which was established through extensive community engagement
should remain unchanged
2 - 13
Staff Response
There is a well-established Community Plan that has been in place for about 25 years.
The Plan is based on private servicing, though a Plan update in 2005 introduces
policies that speak to municipal servicing. Over the years there have been some
changes to the area, including the addition of a municipal pumping station. The owner
of the subject property is now proposing a change to the Community Plan. This is not a
City initiative.It is the applicant
Plan.
Having stated this, Planning staff has some reservations about the proposed changes to
the Community Plan, including the significant density increase. Further staff comments
regarding this issue may be found in the Planning Concerns with Requested
Amendments section of this report.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The recommendation of this
vision through the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications to the City.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM & CONSULT - The proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change
Application, and Community Plan Amendment were originally circulated to property
owners within 120 metres of the subject lands on June 30, 2015. In response, staff
received approximately 22 letters and 37 individually signed copies of a standardized
letter which are attached as Appendix G.These comments are summarized in the
Community Comments section of this report.Information about this project was also
nes throughout the review period. A
Neighbourhood Information Meeting was hosted by the City at the Kitchener Operations
Facility on September 22, 2015 which was attended by approximately 90-100
community members (meeting minutes are attached as Appendix H).
A standard Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change notice sign was posted on the
property. A courtesy notice of the statutory public meeting will be circulated to all
property owners who responded to the original circulation and who attended the
Neighbourhood Information Meeting. Notice of the public meeting will be printed in The
Record on May 20, 2016, and a copy of the Notice is attached as Appendix D.This
report will be posted
Council/Committee meeting.
CONCLUSION:
Planning staff recommends that the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
andCommunity Plan Amendment to allow townhouses at density of 17 units per
hectare be refused.
2 - 14
REVIEWED BY:
Della Ross, Manager, Development Review
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Michael May, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department
Attachments:
Appendix A Proposed Official Plan Amendment to the Current Official Plan
Appendix B Proposed Official Plan Amendment to the Final New Official Plan
Appendix C Draft Zoning By-law & Map No.1
Appendix D Newspaper Notice
Appendix E Urban Design Brief
Appendix F Department and Agency Comments
Appendix G Community Comments
Appendix H Neighbourhood Information Meeting Minutes
2 - 15
CSD-16-035 - Appendix A
AMENDMENT NO. XXTO THE OFFICIALPLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
1232118 ONTARIO INC.
1054 and 1070HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
2 - 16
CSD-16-035 - Appendix A
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
1232118 ONTARIO INC.
1054 and 1070 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
INDEX
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee of June 13, 2016
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee June 13, 2016
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council June 27, 2016
2
2 - 17
CSD-16-035 - Appendix A
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener.
This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive.
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
This Official Plan Amendment proposes to add Section ix) to Part 3, Section 12.3 of the Official Plan which
would permit townhouse dwellings on municipal services at a maximum density of 17 units per hectare on
the subject lands, being addressed as 1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road, described as Lots 3 and 4, Plan
1519.
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject lands are currently designated Limited Service Residential with Special Policy Area #3.
Policy 12.3.iv) states:
Notwithstanding Policy 3.1.1.2 of the Limited Service Residential designation within the Hidden
Valley Residential Community, municipally serviced single detached dwellings shall also be
permitted where a municipally-provided wastewater collection system is determined to be
feasible as approved by the Development and Technical Services Department. Any such
development shall be compatible with the estate lots in the Hidden Valley Residential
Community to a maximum net residential density of 4 units per hectare.
Presently, only singled detached dwellings are permitted on municipal services to which a maximum net
residential density of 4 units per hectare applies.The applicant is requesting to amend the official plan to
permit townhouse dwellings at a maximum density of 17 units per hectare. The ultimate vision of the
applicant is to construct 40 cluster townhouses with frontage on a private road having access to Hidden
Valley Road.
The basis of this Official Plan Amendment shall
regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/04/H/AP.
3
2 - 18
CSD-16-035 - Appendix A
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
1.The City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
a.Part 3, Section 12.3 is amended by adding ix) as follows:
ix)Notwithstanding Policy 3.1.1.2 of the Limited Service Residential designation within
the Hidden Valley Residential Community, fully serviced townhouse dwellings shall also
be permitted on the lands addressed as 1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road, described as
Lots 3 and 4, Plan 1519. Any townhouse dwellings shall be compatible with the estate
lots in the Hidden Valley Residential Community and shall be developed at a maximum
density of17units per hectareon the lands described above.
4
2 - 19
CSD-16-035 - Appendix A
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee of June 13, 2016
Placed in The Record May 20, 2016
PLANNING MATTERS:
PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED
TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW
UNDER SECTIONS 17, 22, AND 34 OF THE PLANNING ACT
1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road
The City of Kitchener has received applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Community Plan
Amendment. The purpose of these applications is to permit townhouses at a density of 17 units per hectare (6.9 units per
acre). This would allow the applicant to construct 40 cluster townhouses with frontage on a private road having access to
Hidden Valley Road. A special zoning provision would allow a maximum building height of 11.63 metres.
The public meeting will be held by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee, a Committee of Council which
deals with planning matters on:
th
MONDAY, JUNE 13AT 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
opposition to, the above noted proposal. If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at this public
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
5
2 - 20
CSD-16-035 - Appendix A
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Committee June 13, 2016
6
2 - 21
CSD-16-035 - Appendix A
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council June 27, 2016
7
2 - 22
CSD-16-035 - Appendix B
AMENDMENT TO THE (FINAL NEW) OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
1232118 ONTARIO INC.
1054 AND 1070 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
2 - 23
CSD-16-035 - Appendix B
AMENDMENT TO THE (FINAL NEW) OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
1232118 ONTARIO INC.
1054 AND 1070 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
INDEX
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
2 - 24
CSD-16-035 - Appendix B
AMENDMENT TO THE (FINAL NEW) OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment shall be referred to as an Amendment to the (FINAL NEW) Official Plan of the City of
Kitchener.This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive.
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
This amendment to the Final New Official Plan proposes to add Section iv) to Section 15.D.12.2.a)which
would permit townhouse dwellings on municipal services at a maximumdensity of 17 units per hectare on
the subject lands, being addressed as 1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road, described as Lots 3 and 4, Plan
1519.
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential with Specific Policy Area #2. Policy 15.D.12.2.
states:
a)Notwithstanding the Low Rise Residential land use designation on lands within the Hidden
Valley Residential Community, it is recognized that portions of the community have limited
access to municipal sanitary services and contain estate residential lots. Accordingly the
following will apply:
ii) where a municipally-provided wastewater collection system is determined to be available
by the City, only single detached and duplex dwellings will be permitted to a maximum
net residential density of 4 units per hectare. Any such development will be compatible
with the estate lots in the Hidden Valley Residential Community;
Presently, only singled detached and duplex dwellings are permitted on municipal services to which a
maximum net residential density of 4 units per hectare applies.
The applicant is requesting to amend the official plan to permit townhouse dwellings at a density of 17
units per hectare. The ultimate vision of the applicant is to construct 40 cluster townhouses with frontage
on a private road having access to Hidden Valley Road.
The basis of this Official Plan Amendment shall be complete
regarding Official Plan Amendment Application OP15/04/H/AP.
3
2 - 25
CSD-16-035 - Appendix B
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
1.The City of Kitchener (NEW FINAL) Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
a)Policy 15.D.12.2.a) is amended by adding iv) as follows:
iv) Notwithstanding 15.D.12.2.a)ii) where a municipally-provided wastewater collection
system is determined to be available by the City,townhouses will also be permitted
on the lands addressed as 1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road, described as Lots 3
and 4, Plan 1519. Any townhouse dwellings shall be compatiblewith the estate lots
in the Hidden Valley Residential Community and shall be developed at a maximum
density of 17 units per hectare on the lands described above.
4
2 - 26
CSD-16-035 - Appendix C
PR O P O S E D B Y L A W
May 9, 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 1232118 Ontario Inc.
1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 for the lands specified
above;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener
enacts as follows:
1. Schedule Number 242 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1is hereby
amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and
illustrated as the Subject Area onMap No. 1 attached hereto, from Residential
One Zone (R-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Use Provision 456U
and Special Regulation Provision 678R.
2. Schedule Number 242-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 Section 456U thereto
as follows:
456. Notwithstanding Section 40.1 of this by-law, within the lands zoned R-6,
shown as affected by this subsection on Schedule 242
Coach House Dwelling Unit, Hospice, Lodging House, Multiple Dwelling
(except Cluster Townhouse Dwellings), Semi-Detached Duplex Dwelling,
andSemi-Detached Dwelling shall not be permitted uses.
4.-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 678R thereto
as follows:
Notwithstanding Section 40.2 of this by-law, within the lands zoned R-6,
2 - 27
CSD-16-035 - Appendix C
the maximum building height for all permitted uses shall be 11.63
5. This By-law shall come into effect only upon approval by the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, or his/her delegate, of Official Plan Amendment No. ______,
(1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road), but upon such approval, the provisions
hereof affecting such lands shall be deemed to have come into force on the date
of passing hereof.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of
2016.
_____________________________
Mayor
_____________________________
Clerk
2 - 28
CSD-16-035 - Appendix C
SCHEDULE 241
SCHEDULE 218
2 - 29
CSD-16-035 - Appendix D
Placed in The Record May 20, 2016
PLANNING MATTERS:
PROPERTY OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED
TO ATTEND A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW
UNDER SECTIONS 17, 22, AND 34 OF THE PLANNING ACT
1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road
The City of Kitchener has received applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Community Plan
Amendment. The purpose of these applications is to permit townhouses at a density of 17 units per hectare (6.9 units per
acre). This would allow the applicant to construct 40 cluster townhouses with frontage on a private road having access to
Hidden Valley Road.A special zoning provision would allow a maximum building height of 11.63 metres.
Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
The public meeting will be held by the , a Committee of Council which
deals with planning matters on:
th
MONDAY, JUNE 13AT 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 - 30
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 31
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 32
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 33
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 34
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 35
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 36
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 37
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 38
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 39
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 40
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 41
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 42
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 43
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 44
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 45
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 46
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 47
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 48
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 49
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 50
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 51
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 52
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 53
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 54
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 55
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 56
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 57
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 58
CSD-16-035 - Appendix E
2 - 59
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 60
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 61
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 62
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 63
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 64
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 65
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 66
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 67
CSD-16-035 - Appendix F
2 - 68
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 69
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 70
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 71
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 72
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 73
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 74
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 75
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 76
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 77
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 78
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 79
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 80
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 81
CSD-16-035 - Appendix G
2 - 82
CSD-16-035 - Appendix H
Neighbourhood Information Meeting Minutes
September 22, 2015
Site-Specific Hidden Valley Residential Kitchener Operations Facility
Community Plan Amendment131 Goodrich Drive, Kitchener
Official Plan Amendment OP15/04/H/AP
6:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m.
Zone Change Application ZC15/014/H/AP
Disclaimer: City Planning staff has prepared the following meeting minutes to the best of
its ability. These do not represent a verbatim account of statements made at the
meeting, but rather the main ideas presented. While every effort has been made to
ensure the accuracy of the information and statements recorded herein, City staff does
not make any guarantees regarding their accuracy or assume liability for any errors and
omissions. Any concerns with these minutes may be addressed to Andrew Pinnell,
Planner, andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca.
Staff Present: Andrew Pinnell (Planner)
Garett Stevenson (Facilitator)
Lenore Ross (Urban Designer)
Alicia Monteith (Student Planner/Minutes)
Garett:Opening remarks and welcomed community members. Introduced
Andrew Pinnell as the Staff Planner, himself as the Facilitator of the
meeting, Lenore Ross as the Urban Designer, and Alicia Monteith
as the Planning Student. Advised community members that Alicia
would be taking minutes and that information collected is pursuant
to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act. Discussed the purpose of the meeting. Introduced Councillor
John Gazzola.
CouncillorThanked community members for their participation in the meeting.
Gazzola:Explained the role of Council with respect to the applications.
Encouraged communicationbetween community members and the
Planner and their Councillor.
Garett:Welcomed Andrew.
Andrew:Introduced himself, reviewed background information regarding the
applications, reviewed the role of planners, and the application
review process (see Presentation).
Garett:Advised of the discussion protocol for the Question and Answer
period of the meeting and welcomed community members to
provide comments or ask questions.
2 - 83
CSD-16-035 - Appendix H
Residentof2015 Concerned about the environmental impact the development and
Hidden Valley increased traffic will have on deer populations that frequent the
Cres.property and neighbourhood.
Resident of 2043 Concerned that a change in the zoning and Official Plancould
Hidden Valley allow any development type permitted under the R-6 zoning
Cres.classificationto be built should the developer change their designs
or abandon the project, not just the townhouses shown in the
concept plans. Suggested that a 120 metre circulation was
insufficient. Commentedthat the neighbourhood is unique.
Resident of 2082 Concerned about changing property from an R-1 zone to an R-6
Hidden Valley zone in a neighbourhood where R-6 type developments are not
Cres.currently permitted. Also concerned with the potential impact on
deer and increased traffic on the road. Suggested that the
application should not be processed by the City.
Garett:Explained the obligation of the City to review every
development application under Provincial legislation and
Residentof548 Commented that the developer purchased the property with the
Wissler Rd, knowledge that it was in the R-1 zone and that the land should
Waterloomaintain that zoning. Suggested there are other suitable locations
within the City for R-6 development.Also commented that the
neighbourhood is unique and that the 120m circulation was
insufficient.
Resident of 50Concerned with the volume and speed of traffic on the roads,
Paddock Ct.potential pedestrian conflict and inadequate lighting along the
roadway. Advised of poor winter road conditions due to blowing
snow. Suggested monitoring and improvements to the roads.
Andrew:Explained that Transportation Services has commented
on the application and will require a Sight Line Study for
both proposed access points be conducted.
Residentof 26Commented on a consensus of opposition from fellow neighbours.
River Valley Dr.Questionedthe opportunities for community members to voice their
opposition to the proposal during the review process.
Andrew:Explained the application process, statutory public
meeting requirements, processing of comments and
letters, and the opportunity to present to City Council at
the statutory public meeting.
Resident of 74Advised that he was the developer of the Kruse subdivisionand
2 - 84
CSD-16-035 - Appendix H
River Valley Dr.questioned the appropriateness of the proposed densities given
previous neighbourhood opposition to a low density subdivision.
Questioned how many times Andrew had met with the developers.
Commented that townhouses were not suitable and will not
integrate into the neighbourhood design. Commented stating he
owned property abutting the development and did not receive
notification of the proposal.
Residentof 2121 Commented that the application was being considered by City staff
Hidden Valley for the purpose of increasing the tax base.
Cres.
Resident Questioned if the R-6 zone allowed for the development of an
(address apartment building. Concerned about less expensive townhouses
unknown)being located next to more expensive single detached houses and
the potential impact on property values.
Andrew:Explained that there was the opportunity through the
zoning to control the type of development by
implementing a more restrictive, site-specific R-6
provision that would not permit an apartment building.
Resident of253 Concerned with drainage and sited existing issues with drainage
River Birch St.within the neighbourhood due to a high water table. Commented on
the large tax base existing in the neighbourhood.
Resident of 42Concerned that the development will be located atop a hill,
River Valley Dr.overlooking the neighbourhood, potential shadows and privacy
issues. Commented that 40 units is too much. Also commented that
the neighbours were required to conform to building height
requirements and the development should be required to conform
to similar heights.
Resident Questioned who paid for the Environmental Study and whether it
(address was detailed enough. Also, requested to know if the community
unknown)could fund its own Environmental Study. Concerned about traffic
volume and speed.
Andrew:Explained that the Environmental Studywaspaid for by
the owner of the property and conducted by an
independent consultant.
Resident of 205 Advised that he purchased and is building a home at the bottom of
River Birch St.the hill, abutting the subject property. Concerned with privacy
issues and suggested moving lot line back or removing rear most
proposed townhouse.
2 - 85
CSD-16-035 - Appendix H
Resident of 996 Commented that she was opposed to the application. Questioned
Hidden Valley whether the City has previously processed an R-1 to R-6 zoning
Rd.application and approved it.
Andrew:Advised that he has no recollection of a previous
application similar to the proposed application.
Residentof845 Commented that the neighbourhood is unique and townhouse
Hidden Valley developments would attract young couples and families as starter
Rd.homes. Commented that that was undesirable and wants to keep
the current atmosphere of the neighbourhood.
Residentof38
Canters Closewhen the Planner is preparing a recommendation to Council.
Questioned which planning criteria are given more weight than
others. Commented that the development is not compatible with the
existing neighbourhood.
Andrew:Explained that planning recommendations only consider
planning criteria.Responded that planning
recommendations consider criteria such as privacy and
compatibility, among others.
Resident of 74Questioned whichcommunity members showed support for the
Canters Closeapplications. Questioned what planning arguments could be made
in support of the applications.
Andrew:Explained that it was premature to discuss at this stage of
the process.
Resident of 2043 Concerned that by approving the application, a precedentcould be
Hidden Valley set and could result in more,similar developments in the future.
Cres.
Resident of 2015 Thanked Planners for providing the community the opportunity to
Hidden Valley comment on theapplications. Commented that the neighbourhood
Cres.is unique, iconic, that residents pay for the opportunity to live in the
unique neighbourhood and it should be preserved.
Resident of 50Concerned that the 40 units could result in 80 children in a
Paddock Ct.neighbourhood without a school within walking distance and
insufficient sidewalks. Concerned with the potential buses
conflicting with traffic and pedestrians.
2 - 86
CSD-16-035 - Appendix H
Resident of 205 Questioned whether there wereupper levels of government
River Birch St.pressure to increase the density of the neighbourhood.
Andrew:Explained applicable Planning legislation encouraging
intensification anddiversity of housing options in
appropriate areas.Explained that intensification and
housing diversity are to be considered on a community-
wide scale, not a site-specific scale.There is no specific
Provincial requirement for the City tointensify or diversify
atthis particularlocation.
Garett:Explained the appeal process and the role of the Ontario Municipal
Board.
Andrew:Explained that the option to appeal the decision is available after
Council makes a decision on the applications.
Garett:Requested members to provide comments to Andrew by October
th
6, 2015.
2 - 87