The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCA - 2017-11-21 - A 2017-100 - 64 Margaret Ave & 217, 225 & 229 Victoria St N, Staff Report I Tc� ►� .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: November 21, 2017 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 APPLICATION #: A2017-100 ADDRESS: 64 Margaret Ave. & 217, 225, & 229 Victoria St. N. PROPERTY OWNER: Margaret -Victoria Holdings Inc. SUMMARIZED RECOMMENDATION: Approve DATE OF REPORT: November 10, 2017 5&239 249 60 20-0-208 \ 1761M] 49 q ST N 22J 55 225 46 217 47 Z4 45 RC�F,U Y70 $TFi 43 1 P 41 7L 9 37 35 54 \b5 \\ V r '.g Subject Property: 64 Margaret Ave. & 217, 225, & 229 Victoria St. N. Report: Application A2017-100 is seeking minor variances for the future redevelopment of this property with two multiple dwelling buildings, one 3 storey building with 17 units fronting onto Margaret Avenue and one 6 storey building with 94 units fronting onto Victoria Street North. Specifically, the following relief is being sought as part of this application; • Relief from Section 53.2.1 to permit a rear yard of 3.0 metres whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required, • Relief from Section 561 of Appendix D to permit a setback of 10.505m from Margaret Avenue whereas a minimum of 15.0 metres is required, and a side yard setback of , Staff Report I .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua 2.44m whereas 3.Om is required, and to permit a setback from 54 Margaret Ave of 10.7m whereas 15.Om is required, • Relief from Section 561 and 562 of Appendix D to permit a building height of 21.6 metres whereas 16.5 metres is permitted, and • Relief from Section 6.1.2.a to permit 73 off-street parking spaces where as 75 spaces are required. Consideration of Application A2017-100 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on October 17, 2017 to give Planning staff time to hold a public meeting to provide interested residents with additional information on the minor variance application. Similarly, consideration of the related Heritage Permit application was deferred on October 16, 2017 by Kitchener City Council. Planning staff held an informal information meeting regarding the proposed minor variance application on October 26, 2017 which was attended by approximately 30 residents. Interested residents have provided their input in writing and some have signed a petition, all of which will be provided to the Committee of Adjustment prior to the meeting held on November 21, 2017. Kitchener City Council ultimately approved the Kitchener Heritage Permit Application on November 6, 2017. Council's resolution on the Heritage Permit application was for approval with conditions, but included language that noted approval of the subject Heritage Permit application was not a comment on the proposed variance for building height. Following the informal public information meeting and the Council meeting, the Developer has prepared a revised development concept featuring the following notable changes; • the building has been redesigned to sit lower in the ground, resulting in a lower building height of 18.5 metres from highest finished grade, • the main floor ceiling height has been reduced from 4.5 metres to 4.2 metres, resulting in a lower exterior building height, • as a result of the building being lower in the ground, a portion of the front terrace is now at or near grade and the pedestrian ramp in the exterior side yard has been eliminated, the number of stairs required along Victoria Street will be reduced and may be eliminated altogether, which will be confirmed through the final grading plans, • the location of the in -ground garage and recycling collection bins have been moved to the interior of the site and out of the exterior landscape buffer, • internal changes have been made to convert four of the smaller units to larger units, and while the net amount of units has not changed, the larger units require a higher parking requirement, resulting in the need for 3 additional parking spaces on-site, resulting in a smaller landscape buffer in the southeast corner of the property, and • five additional parking spaces are provided within the surface parking lot and the underground parking garage, resulting in one barrier -free space being located closer to Margaret Avenue than the previous concept. As a result, the Applicant has revised their application as follows: • The request for relief from Section 6.1.2.a to permit a parking reduction has been withdrawn, • The request for relief from Section 561 and 562 of Appendix D to permit an increased building height has been revised to 18.5 metres from 21.6 metres. J Staff Report KITcx R Community Services Department wwwkitchenerca t F q oo --1--� r ----- I �. -- L asmmMod au -9 �� I�uNFPzsde 3m l04Wngj 1 Ir- 2,5,om nWIR5,d— Revised Development (Proposed Site Plan) Existing Context (View from Margaret Avenue) Staff Report KZTCHF :R Community Services Department im kitchenerca Planning Comments: The subject properties are designated as Mixed Use Corridor and as Medium Density Multiple Residential in the City's Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Official Plan). \\ Low Rise Residential Preservation \\\ Medium density Multiple Residential �F �tv; Mixed Use Corridor Subject Properties Boundary of Secondary Plan v.r ' Special Policy Area Primary Arterial Road Secondary Arterial Road Major Collector Road Except: Civic Centre Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use (Secondary Plan) The property is zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -1) with Special Use Provision 167U, Special Regulation Provision 561R (64 Margaret Avenue only) and 562R (217, 225, & 229 Victoria Street North only). The MU -1 zone permits a variety of residential and non- residential land uses, including multiple dwellings. Special Use Provision 167U provides additional regulations for retail and personal services. Special Regulation 561R requires a minimum setback from the property line shared with the properties municipally addressed as 54 and 30 Margaret Avenue to be 15.0 metres, permits a maximum building height of 16.5 metres, requires a minimum setback from the Margaret Avenue street line of 15.0 metres, and requires a minimum side yard setback of 3.0 metres. Special Regulation 562R permits a maximum building height of 16.5 metres. Map 2 — Existing Zoning 610R MU.1 162U, � MU 1 1fi2U, 562R MU -1 264-268 Mir 2.4101J, 556R MV 1 167U, 569R t�-�P 5i--11 MU-11621J,570R,14H\ fie 'F G 569 R, 17H � �167U, 21� MU -1 157U, 569R ]U 95 64 4 -1 1671J, 560R ,btu• Wartl 10 41 MU -1 16TU, 561R R-5 127U n` 9� 35 as \'fi5 Rd 31 MU -1 167U, 560R, 17H R� 551R 59 R3 127U Map 2 — Existing Zoning , Staff Report I .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments: The requested variances meet the general intent of the Civic Centre Secondary Plan and the City's Official Plan. Portions of the new Official Plan for the City of Kitchener are under appeal. The Civic Centre Secondary Plan is in effect and was not reviewed as part of the new Official Plan. The City will be commencing a secondary plan review in 2018. Policy 13.1.1.3 of the Civic Centre Secondary Plan references Parts 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the old Official Plan. These sections were updated or replaced by sections of the new Official Plan, which were considered as part of the analysis of the application. Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Corridors are linear in form and recognize the evolution of uses along major corridors in the inner city. These corridors are primarily intended to serve the adjacent residential neighbourhoods and employment areas and allow for intensive, transit supportive development. Mixed Use Corridors provide residential redevelopment opportunities together with appropriate commercial and institutional uses that primarily serve adjacent residential neighbourhoods. Over time it is intended that the Mixed Use Corridors shall intensify and provide a balanced distribution of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. New development may be required to orient a portion of the building mass to the street, provide for integration of cycling facilities, provide on-site pedestrian facilities, and provide pedestrian connections to abutting developments or offsite transit facilities. To achieve this objective, the City of Kitchener may also impose maximum front yard setbacks, limit vehicular parking between the building fagade and the street, and will require specific fagade treatments such as window or door openings and minimization of blank walls. New development shall be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods and will be of an appropriate height and density in relation to adjacent low rise residential development. In locations that immediately abut low rise residential land uses, new development shall be permitted having a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0. The planned function of lands designated as Medium Density Multiple Residential is to permit some integrated, medium density redevelopment on Margaret Avenue and Queen Street North while maintaining the overall residential character of the neighbourhood. Opportunities for redevelopment are provided up to a maximum density of 200 units per hectare. Permitted uses include multiple dwellings. The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 2.0. Multiple dwellings may be permitted to exceed 200 units per hectare on an individual lot provided the floor space ratio of 2.0 is not exceeded. The provision of underground parking will be encouraged in any redevelopment, and will be a requirement of apartment redevelopment. Redevelopment close to, or at, the upper permitted maximum density shall provide the majority, if not all of the required parking underground except for required visitor surface parking. With respect to the Medium Density Multiple Residential designation applied to the north side of Margaret Avenue, redevelopment should be of a height, siting and design which will prevent it from encroaching on lower density dwellings located on Ellen and Ahrens Streets. Where minor variance are requested to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, Housing Policies in the new Official Plan require that the overall , Staff Report I .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua impact of the minor variances be reviewed to ensure that any new buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood, that new buildings are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties, that appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy, that the lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site, and that the impact of each special zoning regulation or variance will be reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the one zoning requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning deficiencies. The Official Plan also requires that residential intensification within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility. The massing of the larger building has been shifted away from the adjacent low density lands and towards Victoria Street North within the Victoria Street Mixed Use Corridor, which is a planned intensification corridor as part of the Urban Structure of the Official Plan, and outside of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (HCD). As shown on the plan below, the red portion (striped) of the property is within the HCD and the yellow portion (hatched) is outside of the HCD. Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District Plan Boundary , Staff Report I .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua The building along Victoria Street will feature; large window and door openings resulting in a more pleasant building appearance at the pedestrian level, a main floor with interior ceiling heights of 4.2 metres which would allow for future non-residential uses fronting Victoria Street, a shared terrace patio space which will be buffered from Victoria Street with a landscape planting strip, and a main pedestrian entry to Victoria Street. The City's Site Plan Review Committee directed the Developer to locate the majority of the massing on the site towards Victoria Street, resulting in a shorter and smaller compatible building on the portion of the land within the HCD. This reorientation of massing results in a total built form with a FSR of 1.97, which is less than the permitted maximum of 2.0. Screening and buffering will be provided on all sides of the building with landscaping, in accordance with the City's Urban Design Manual. The design of the building has been supported with a Heritage Impact Assessment, which was supported by the Heritage Kitchener advisory committee, and ultimately Kitchener City Council with the approval of the Heritage Kitchener Permit Application. As a condition of approval, Planning staff will review samples of the proposed building materials to ensure quality and compatibility. The City is undertaking planning processes and studies in areas that are within walking distance to ION LRT station stops, known as the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) project. This work includes looking at appropriate land uses, streetscapes and infrastructure requirements to ensure the areas where stations are placed are well prepared and properly equipped. The lands are within the plan boundary of the PARTS Central Plan which was approved on May 16, 2016 by Kitchener City Council. The lands are shown with a recommended new land use designation of Medium Density Mixed Use, which would allow for development with a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 and a maximum building height of 24.0 metres. This direction will be refined and implemented through future updates to the City's Official Plan, Secondary Plans, as well as the Zoning By-law. Mixed Use High Density Medium Density Low DensiA, Residential High Pis( Medium Rise° - 'CIVI DiSTf? Park Site -Specific Policy Area Snapshot: PARTS Central Preferred Plan - Land Use Map , Staff Report I .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua The proposed development provides a mix of residential housing types and styles to the existing community. The City encourages different housing options to be dispersed both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. This development provides an opportunity for residential intensification in an appropriate location which is along a Regional Road (Victoria Street) and underutilizes a vacant parcel of land which is located along the edge of an existing community. It is Planning staffs opinion that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The requested variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested rear yard setback of 3.0 metres, whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required, is due to the orientation of the consolidated parcel. Where a lot has multiple street frontages, the shortest lot line abutting a street is identified as the front yard, and the opposite is the rear yard. In this case, the rear yard functions as a side yard, and the side yard (adjacent to 54 and 30 Margaret Avenue) functions as the rear yard. If the properties were not consolidated, the current MU -1 zoning would not require any side yard setback between the larger building and 55 Ellen Street West & 57-61 Ellen Street West/231 Victoria Street North. Relief is also requested to permit; a setback of 10.50 m from Margaret Avenue whereas a minimum of 15.0 metres is required, a side yard setback of 2.44 m whereas 3.Om is required, and to permit a setback from 54 Margaret Ave of 10.7m whereas 15.Om is required, all for the smaller building. A 13.0 metre setback from Margaret Avenue is proposed, with only the corner of the proposed building within 10.505 metres of Margaret Avenue. This setback will still achieve the objective of having an increased setback so that new development is in line with existing and proposed residential uses along this side of Margaret Avenue. A side yard setback of 2.44 metres from 70 Margaret Avenue is sufficient for the three storey building and is comparable to the existing side yard setbacks of 70 and 74 Margaret Avenue. A reduced setback from 54 Margaret Avenue is also requested for only the corner of the smaller building, where the closest point is 10.74 metres. Due to the lot configuration, the majority of the proposed building is setback beyond the 15.0 metres requirement. Relief for is also requested to permit a building height of 18.5 metres whereas 16.5 metres is permitted. At the time that the MU -1 zone was applied to the properties along Victoria Street, Planning Staff recommended the 15.0 metre "build -to" line along the edge of the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District and from existing laneways, coupled with the proposed building height of 16.5 metres, to maintain approximately a 450 angular plane from abutting low rise residential properties, meaning that the height of any portion of the new building shouldn't be greater than its distance from the property line. While not specific to this application or the subject properties, Section 6.9 of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Plan does provides direction on site design where a proposed new six storey building within the HCD is adjacent to existing low rise residential building. The Plan directs new development to have an angular plane of 450 from the shared property line. Planning staff applied this same principle to the taller building, relative to the closest residential dwelling which is designated as Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use. With a proposed building height of 19.73 metres (at lowest finished grade), which is 24.53 metres from the shared property line, the resulting angular plane , Staff Report I .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua is approximately 390. The taller building is also approximately 23 metres from the existing building at 54 Margaret Avenue. For multiple dwellings, the maximum building height is measured from the highest finished grade. The Zoning By-law permits an increase in building height from the lowest finished grade, which is a maximum of 110% of the maximum building height of the applicable zone. In this case, the maximum permitted building height is 16.5 metres from the highest finished grade and 18.15 metres (110%) from the lowest finished grade. The proposed building has a building height of 18.5 metres at the highest grade and 19.73 metres measured at the lowest grade. The total requested increase in building height is 2.0 metres from highest finished grade and 1.58 metres from lowest finished grade. Off-street parking is provided in accordance with the Zoning By-law. However, the site is identified as a Major Transit Station Area on the City's Urban Structure Map and Mixed- use Corridors are planned to be transit supportive and pedestrian orientated. Victoria Street is an existing transit corridor and is within walking distance to planned rapid transit stations. The proposed visitor parking is being provided at a rate of 20%, which meets the Zoning By-law requirement. Bicycle parking will be provided in accordance with the Zoning By-law. It is Planning staff's opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is met with these requested variances. The requested variances are minor. The zoning deficiencies can be adequately addressed through the placement and orientation of the buildings, good building design and materials, site layout, and enhanced landscaping and buffering. There is separation between the proposed building and the surrounding properties and the design features adequate on-site amenity and landscape buffers. The mass of the buildings has been arranged to meet the intent of the design objectives for this property. Therefore the variances are considered as minor. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variances will allow for the development of the property with a new residential use that is complementary to the surrounding community. The Developer has revised the proposal following the informal public meeting and the Council meeting and has incorporated many of the suggestions. While there are five remaining variances requested, Planning staff consider the overall nature and the impact of the variances, and not the number of variances, when making recommendations to the Committee of Adjustment. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the variances are appropriate. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permits be obtained for the proposed new apartment buildings. Separate building permits will also be required , Staff Report I Tc� ►� .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua for the demolition of all the existing single family dwellings and any accessory buildings. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Comments: When analysis is completed for traffic accessing a City road from a private development, the City uses the Region of Waterloo guidelines to assess traffic impacts. The general threshold for a transportation impact study (TIS) is 100 new vehicle trips during either the AM or PM peak hours. My analysis of the proposed 111 units showed that the site would generate approximately 42 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour (26 entering the site and 16 exiting the site). Based on the 42 trips being below the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips, no further investigation was completed. Generally, developments that generate less than 100 new vehicle trips in the peak hour have little impact on the surrounding road network. Engineering Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: Heritage Planning staff have no concerns with the proposed minor variances. A portion of the subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (CCNHCD) with the remainder of the lands being located adjacent to the CCNHCD. The portion located within the CCNHCD is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and subject to the policies and guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan. A copy of the District Plan. A final Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by MHBC dated August 2017 and submitted in relation to Site Plan application SP17/022/M/GS. The HIA concluded that the 6 storey building will not adversely impact the character of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and that the 2.5 storey building conforms to the policies for new construction within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. Specific to the front yard setback, the HIA indicates that the proposed new building with a 13 metre setback from Margaret Avenue: • is appropriately setback from the street at a distance which will not result in the obstruction of views; • will not be out of character, and is consistent with the immediate neighbourhood and meets the guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan; • is complementary to the maximum setback of 10 metres on vacant lands to the east along Margaret Avenue; and, • the setback is within 2.0 metres of the front yard setback of the former Breithaupt residence (now demolished), which conforms to the CCNHCD Plan. The HIA was presented for comment at the April 4, 2017 Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. Members raised concerns with the minimum setback to parking and the total amount , Staff Report I Tc� ►� .R Community Services Department wm kitcheneua of parking provided. The site plan has been revised to further setback the surface parking (behind the footprint of where the original historic building once stood) and provides landscaping to screen the parking from the sidewalk and street. Recommendations of the HIA will be implemented through Site Plan Approval in Principle conditions along with Heritage Permit conditions. The HIA was approved by the Director of Planning on September 19, 2017. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage issues. Existing trees to be evaluated and addressed through standard site plan approval process by the City's Urban Designer. RECOMMENDATION: That Application A2017-100, as revised, for the future redevelopment with two multiple dwelling buildings, one 3 storey building with 17 units fronting onto Margaret Avenue and one 6 storey building with 94 units fronting onto Victoria Street North, seeking relief from Section 53.2.1 to permit a rear yard of 3.0 metres whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required, relief from Section 561 of Appendix D to permit a setback of 10.505m from Margaret Avenue whereas a minimum of 15.0 metres is required, and a side yard setback of 2.44m whereas 3.Om is required, and to permit a setback from 54 Margaret Ave of 10.7m whereas 15.Om is required, and relief from Section 561 and 562 of Appendix D to permit a building height of 18.5 metres whereas 16.5 metres is permitted, be approved. Garett Stevenson, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner - �, Staff Report ITc>.R Community Services Department wmkitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: October 17, 2017 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 APPLICATION #: A2017-100 ADDRESS: 64 Margaret Ave. & 217, 225, & 229 Victoria St. N. PROPERTY OWNER: Margaret -Victoria Holdings Inc. SUMMARIZED RECOMMENDATION: Defer DATE OF REPORT: October 11, 2017 - 56239 "., 249 52 264-768 57-61 X731 48 229 55 225 4'+ 217 47 _ 74 45 S icy 7,3 ea 9p 41 7.1 7/ 5 37 35 33 GS % nJ n Subject Property: 64 Margaret Ave. & 217, 225, & 229 Victoria St. N. Report: Application A2017-100 is seeking minor variances for the future redevelopment of this property with two multiple dwelling buildings, one 3 storey building with 22 units fronting onto Margaret Avenue and one 6 storey building with 95 units fronting onto Victoria Street North. Specifically, the following relief is being sought as part of this application; • Relief from Section 53.2.1 to permit a rear yard of 3.0 metres whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required (adjacent to Ellen Street West properties), • Relief from Section 561 of Appendix D to permit a setback of 10.505m from Margaret Avenue whereas a minimum of 15.0 metres is required, and a side yard setback of 2.44m �, Staff Report ITc> ►�> .R Community Services Department wmkitchenerca (adjacent to 70 Margaret Avenue) whereas 3.Om is required, and to permit a setback from 54 Margaret Ave of 10.7m whereas 15.Om is required, Relief from Section 561 and 562 of Appendix D to permit a building height of 21.6 metres whereas 16.5 metres is permitted, and Relief from Section 6.1.2.a to permit 73 off-street parking spaces where as 75 spaces are required. Planning Comments: The subject properties are designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the City's Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Official Plan) and zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -1) with Special Use Provision 167U, Special Regulation Provision 561 R (64 Margaret Ave. only) and 562R (217, 225, & 229 Victoria St. N. only). Further time is required to dialogue with interested residents regarding this application, so deferral of these minor variances is recommended. IN*101LyiILyi1Ell ►IBETA 1[07►A That Application A2017-100, for the future redevelopment with two multiple dwelling buildings, one 3 storey building with 22 units fronting onto Margaret Avenue and one 6 storey building with 95 units fronting onto Victoria Street North, seeking relief from Section 53.2.1 to permit a rear yard of 3.0 metres whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required, relief from Section 561 of Appendix D to permit a setback of 10.505m from Margaret Avenue whereas a minimum of 15.0 metres is required, and a side yard setback of 2.44m whereas 3.0m is required, and to permit a setback from 54 Margaret Ave of 10.7m whereas 15.Om is required, relief from Section 561 and 562 of Appendix D to permit a building height of 21.6 metres whereas 16.5 metres is permitted, and relief from Section 6.1.2.a to permit 73 off-street parking spaces where as 75 spaces are required, be deferred to the November 21, 2017 Committee of Adjustment meeting for consideration. Garett Stevenson, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo October 03, 2017 Holly Dyson City of Kitchener 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson: PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca File: T 15-40/VAR KIT GEN (1) /VAR KIT, 552059 Ontario Inc. (2) NAR KIT, Hasiu, Simon (4) /55, Huck, Ervin (6) /28, Rino Del Bello Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on October 17, 2017, City of Kitchener. Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have the following comments: 1. 525 Belmont Avenue West (SG 2017-014): No concerns. 2. 234 Heiman Street (A 2017-098): No concerns. 3. 83 Highbarry Crescent (A 2017-099): No concerns. 4. 64 Margaret Avenue (A 2017-100): No concerns. 5. 43 Barclay Avenue (A 2017-101): No concerns. 6. 2480 Homer Watson Boulevard (A 2017-102): No Regional concerns. However, MTO authorities should be circulated regarding setbacks from the highway ramps, as deemed appropriate by the City of Kitchener staff. 7. 256 Victoria Street South (A 2017-103): Under the existing conditions, there are no concerns to this application. However, the owner must be advised that any future development application on these lands may require dedicated road widening of 3.048 metre along Victoria Street South frontage; and a 7.62 metre daylight triangle along the new property lines at the corner of Victoria Street South and Strange Street. Under those future conditions, parking spot #5 as shown on the plan would not be possible and other parking spaces may also be affected. Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these development(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. DOCS: 2526098 The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application number(s) listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application number(s) to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4757 ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Beth Brown, Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2307 Supervisor of Resource Planning E-mail: bbrown@grandriver. ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: September 28, 2017 YOUR FILE: See below GRCA FILE: N/A RE: Applications for Signs: SG 2017-014 525 Belmont Street West Applications for Minor Variance: A 2017-098 234 Heiman Street A 2017-099 83 Highbarry Crescent A 2017-100 64 Margaret Avenue A 2017-101 43 Barclay Avenue A 2017-102 2480 Homer Watson Boulevard A 2017-103 256 Victoria Street South Applications for Consent: B 2017-026 397 Greenfield Avenue B 2017-027 1775 & 1767 Glasgow Street B 2017-028 22-24 Postmaster Avenue B 2017-029 20 Postmaster Avenue B 2017-030 18 Postmaster Avenue GRCA COMMENT: The above noted applications are located outside the Grand River Conservation Authority areas of interest. As such, we will not undertake a review of the applications and plan review fees will not be required. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, D.Ii�8 Beth Brown Supervisor of Resource Planning Grand River Conservation Authority *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of l Grand River Conservation Authority. Holly Dyson From: Garett Stevenson Sent: 11 October, 2017 4:39 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: FW: Proposed Development - (A 2017-100) Hi Holly, This comment is regarding Application A2017-100 for 64 Margaret Ave. Thanks, Garett From: Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:45 AM To: Garett Stevenson Cc Subject: Proposed Development - (A 2017-100) Hi Garret, I am writing to you to discuss the de*e' s that are proposed on Victoria Street North and Margaret Avenue (A 2017-100). 1 live atnd this development will not only affect my community as a whole but it will also directly a ci Ic an y property. My residential property where the development is being proposed. The proposal includes the development of a 6 story apartment building as well as a smaller 2 '/2 story townhome complex on the land. The development company has asked for a multitude of "minor variances" to the existing bylaw rules that are in effect to protect our heritage community. One of these variations includes an increase of height restriction. Currently, the rules say a development can be no more than 16.5m in height - the company is proposing a development that will be 21.6m in height. This variance alone will have drastic effects for everyone on Ellen St. W and Margaret Ave. and the surrounding neighbourhood. The rules and regulations are in place for a reason and I expect you to uphold those rules and regulations to protect my community and myself the residential landowner. If exceptions are made in this case it could create a poor precedent for future develops in the area putting the integrity of our old growth heritage communities at risk. For homeowners backing or siding onto the property (including myself), they are proposing to decrease the setback or "buffer space" in every direction whether it is considered side or back lot - they are proposing less than half of what is required. This proximity of the building will have drastic effects both for the homeowners directly next to the development but also the views and aesthetics of the rest of the community. The rules currently state they need a 7.5 -metre bufferhey are to build the building/parking structure - they are asking for this to be ecrease to me res - ess than half what is required - THIS IS NOT OKAY. This is especially worrying with the fact that they are asking to build both higher and closer - I have looked into previous development proposals and generally, the rule is if you are MggigFerbuildiyou are required to set back further as to not affect the neighbouring single detached dwellings. They mention that because it is a "side yard" the 7.5m rule should be waved - any documentation I could find requires a setback of a minimum 7.5 metres abutting any residentially zoned land. ALSO, this is not the side yard of a neighbouring 2 story house - we are talking about a 4-6 story building depending on approvals. I get no benefit from this development - the only people who benefit are the developers who get the opportunity to sell a few more units and thus make some extra cash. The development company bought this land knowing full well what the development restrictions in our heritage community were so I challenge you to uphold these restrictions and force them to come up with a development plan that meets these regulations and will complement the unique heritage features not diminish them. The list of variances that are being requested - quite literally go in every direction - front, side -left, side -right, back, and height. It is not just one small change that they are asking for - they are trying to encroach on our heritage community in every direction they possibly could. will be at the meeting on Tuesday the 17th of October and as will a group of our neighbours. I expect to hear back from you about this development and your plan before this meeting to discuss what this means for our property, our direct neighbour's properties and our community, Cheers, � Holly Dyson From: Garett Stevenson Sent: 11 October, 2017 4:39 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: FW: minor variance application 2017-100- 64 Margaret Ave 217, 225, 229 Victoria St N Hi Holly, This comment is regarding Application A2017-100 for 64 Margaret Ave Thanks, Garett -----Ori inal message ----- From: essa a ----- From: Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 4:03 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: re: minor variance application 2017-100- 64 Margaret Ave 217, 225, 229 Victoria St N Hello Garett, Could you please contact me at this email or a have very serious concerns about the minor variance application 2017-100- 64 Margaret Ave 217, 225, 229 Victoria St N This variance requested wildly out of keeping with existing zoning and has blatant disregard for setbacks and privacy but will great impact the existing Ellen St street scape which of course is in a Heritage zone. Please contact me asap regarding my concerns. Thank you October 16, 2017 City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment c/o Holly Dyson Via email to Holly.Dyson@kitchener.ca Dear City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment: We request that the decision on application A 2017-100 (64 Margaret Avenue & 217, 225 and 229 Victoria Street North) be deferred. The matter has only recently come to our attention, and we would like more time to review the issues with neighbours and city planners. Please know that while we respect the city's Land Use Plans and zoning and, more generally, support the intensification of downtown Kitchener, we have concerns regarding the application in question. Our primary concerns include: 1. The proposed building height, which would dwarf the surrounding homes. We want the development to abide by the zoning height limit of 16.5 in. 2. The route of entry and exit for vehicular traffic. The development proposal calls for directing all the vehicles entering and exiting onto Margaret Avenue, which is a two lane road, between Victoria and Maynard, and a bus route in two directions. There is currently significant traffic congestion on Margaret at Victoria at rush hour and around Centre in the Square events. In case it be argued that a driveway off Victoria Street would be blind to traffic approaching from the south, please note that the driveways serving the current addresses on the east side of Victoria between Margaret and Ellen enter and exit off Victoria. We want all vehicular traffic serving the Victoria Street building to enter and exit off Victoria. 3. The use of corrugated siding and dark colouring on the rear and sides of the Victoria Street building. We are concerned that the foreign materials and dark colouring will compromise the aesthetic of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. 4. The proximity of the Victoria Street building to the homes on Ellen Street. We want the required rear yard setback respected. Please defer the decision so that these matters can be resolved in negotiation with city planners. cerely, Holly Dyson From: Garett Stevenson Sent: 17 October, 2017 9:09 AM To: Holly Dyson; Dianna Saunderson Subject: FW: Variance Application 64 Margaret Ave Another letter for A2017-100. -----Original Message ----- From: Sandra Santos On Behalf Of Internet - Planning Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:28 PM To: Garett Stevenson Subject: FW: Variance Application 64 Margaret Ave From our Planning e-mail. -----Original Message ----- From: info Ca7esolutioonsqroup.ca fmailto:infoOesolutionsaroup.cal On Behalf O Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 6:10 PM To: Internet - Planning Subject: Variance Application 64 Margaret Ave Hellow, Can you please send me the full variance application including the site plan and building elevations for the 64 Margaret Ave/Victoria Street Application? As�neighbors, we are not in support of the proposed 30% increase in height, from 16.5 to 21.6 meters. The building is now over 2x the height of the surrounding heritage district, which is not in keeping with the intent of the Heritage District Plan. The development height allowed by the current zoning was the result of a careful angular plane analysis by city planners. It was chosen in order to maintain balance in the massing of the building against the adjacent heritage properties while supporting appropriate intensification in the mixed- use corridor. We agree with the concept of a raised ground level floor to support future street fronting retail on that level, but not the addition of the 6th floor on the building. ------------------------------------- Origin: htto:/lwww.kitchener ca/en/businessinkitchener/CommitteeOfAdiustment.asp ------------------------------------- This email was sent to you by hrough hftQ://www.kitchener.ca/. Holly Dyson From: Sent: 17 October, 2017 11:37 AM To: Holly Dyson Cc: Garett Stevenson; Dianna Saunderson Subject: Re: FW: A 2017-100 - Victoria/Margaret Ave. development Good morning Holly, Yes, I attended the meeting this morning, so do know about the deferral until November. I would like to receive the appropriate documents via mail though, so my home address is Thanks! On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:14 AM, <Holl .D son kitchener.ca> wrote: Good Morning, Thank you for your comments. The Committee deferred Application A 2017-100 to the Tuesday, November 21, 2017 meeting. The Committee will consider all written and verbal comments at that time. To ensure the Committee considers your comments, and you receive a copy of the Decision package, please email your mailing address to me as soon as possible. Regards, Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holl .d son kitchener.ca TWIM From: Garett Stevenson —Sent:-17–October,-2017-9-29 A_M To: Holly Dyson Subject: FW: Victoria/Margaret Ave. development Another letter for A2017-100 From: Sent: Monday"0cdftt!Pe , 7 8:16 PM To: Garett Stevenson; Sarah Marsh Subject: Victoria/ Margaret Ave. development Good evening, I am writing to both of you with regards to the Variance Application put forth by the developer seeking to build on the lot where the former Breithaupt mansion was situated on Margaret Ave. After reading through the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment, Variance Application and the Staff Recommendation documents, I have concerns about encroachment on the Civic Centre Heritage District. While it appears that the developer has spent time and effort to make the building that faces onto Margaret Ave. sympathetic to the surrounding Heritage character of the homes on either side, as well as those in the rest of the district, the 6 story apartment or condominium that is proposed for the property facing Victoria St. does not appear to have been as well thought out. It is my understanding that Victoria St. is part of a mixed use corridor, and so does not fall into the Heritage district nor have as stringent requirements as new buildings within the district, still is is right on the edge of the district and will certainly be a visible property. My concerns can be summarized as follows: 1. The height variance sought, while not "huge" in terms of other developments within Kitchener, would in my opinion, have a negative impact in so far as easing the restriction for this building would set a poor precedent when otherro erties on the fringes or edges of the district are redeveloped. This has direct bearing on my own property at � ince Hermie's Place runMou "Juan and the adjacent property that faces onto Victoria St. An exception granted here Me use oeption for development behind my own property. 2. The multiple variances sought for the set backs from the various property sides on the proposed development also present the same potential negative impacts towards future developments as the height variance would. Again, each variance in and of itself would seem to be "minor" but when taken collectively they pose a significant threat to the integrity of the Heritage district by opening the conversation towards leniency when discussing future developments. 3. While I am not against intensification of the core population, it must not come at the cost of the character of our heritage districts. The proposed development is seeking to build a total of 112 residential units on this plot of land. They propose only 95 parking spaces, which will intensify the current parking issues of the neighbourhood, as well as present quite a lot of traffic passing by the home at 54 Margaret Ave. After living for 14 years ram the high rise at 175 Queen St. N., I can attest to the noise pollution that comes from a busy parking area. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, let alone the traffic nightmare that having the main ingress/egress for this property will present at that particular junction on Margaret Ave. 4. This development proposal, if granted all the variances requested, will set an unfortunate precedent for any future developments, including whatever is finally put forward for the empty space further down Margaret Ave. If the "minor" variances are given to this developer, what is to stop the developer there from seeking similar favours that will have an even greater negative impact on our neighbourhood? Thank you for taking the time to read through my concerns. I trust that they will be carefully considered as the Committee of Adjustment considers what to do for this particular developer, and also moving forward as further development occurs around the edges of our district. Sincerely, Virus -free. www.avast.com Holly Dyson From: Sent: 16 November, 2017 8:15 AM To: Holly Dyson Cc: Dianna Saunderson; Sarah Marsh; Mayor Subject: Application A 2017-100 I am a resident o since 1994, just down the street from the proposed development at 64 Margaret & on Victoria. As a resident and a public health epidemiologist and veterinarian) I have a strong interest in the developments at 64 Margaret and on the linked property on Victoria. I am very much in favour of increased urban density both to save our farmland and to make public transport and other city services more cost effective. I also think that the developer has made good efforts to address many concerns that have been raised and to fit the building into the area. I have a few questions, however. 1) Are the properties on Margaret and Victoria considered separately, or as one? If as a single property, does it not fall under heritage designation? 2) The developer has requested what s/he calls a "minor variance". However the change of "Minimum rear yard" from 7.5 metres to 3.0 metres represents a decrease of 60%. While this may not seem like a lot, it will certainly influence the adjacent yards, esp on on Ellen, and will make it more difficult to maintain green spaces and walkways, which this neighbourhood is known for, and which, in the face of climate changes that are coming in the next decades, are becoming increasingly important for air quality, health and livability. A few metres here and there add up and can have substantial cumulative effects; they all count. 1 understand that maintaining external green spaces affects the internal design of the building, but there is no necessary relationship between the two. A building is not at all like silly putty, which, if squeezed, necessitates increased height for instance. 3) If the building facing Victoria will be having commercial spaces on the main floor, where will visitors park? If there is a florist, or a coffee shop, or a professional office, visitors will likely park on Ellen or around the corner on Margaret or Maynard. While not necessarily part of this application for variance, such expected consequences should be anticipated and addressed. Finally, a recent accident in front of our house in which it looked like two vehicles coming from opposite directions clipped each other at what must have been considerable speed (considering the damage I saw) raised again for me the problems of traffic flow along the street. All these new developments in the area (see 3 above) will affect traffic, parking etc.and these downstream effects should be anticipated and planned for. Thanks Holl Dyson From: Sent: 15 November, 2017 10:55 PM To: Holly Dyson; Dianna Saunderson; Sarah Marsh; Garett Stevenson; adeline@sympatico.ca; Victoria Boyle; Scott Davey; Dave Schnider; John Gazzola; Yvonne Fernandes; Kelly Galloway-Sealock; Paul Singh; bill.ioannidis@kitchener.ca; Zyg Janecki; Frank Etherington; Mayor; hzjaeger@gmail.com Subject: 64 Margaret Ave. Good evening, I am writing about the proposed development at 64 Margaret Ave. As council is aware, a multi -unit residential development is scheduled to be built on this property. The pro ert has several unique qualities that have caused some concerns to myself and my husband. We live at , within the Civic Centre Heritage District, and how the development at 64 Margaret Ave. is allowed to proceed could have direct impacts on our property in the future although we do not live directly adjacent to the proposed current development, since the properties directly behind our property are also classified as MU -1 like the subject property. The developer is seeking several variances from the current city plan, and to our minds, these variances set a precedent for any future development along the Victoria St. mixed use corridor. Particularly concerning is the fact that the developer is seeking variances on all lot sides and on the building height. When taken as a package, these variations as a whole are not minor, but rather major. And while the developer has just recently submitted a plan that has addressed some of the concerns raised by those living directly adjacent to the development, they still have not budged on the variances along the lot lines. On what is considered the "rear" line, but is in the side lot line closest to Ellen St., they are seeking to reduce the distance from the lot line to the building by over half - going from the required 7.5m down to just 3m! For those of us who think better in imperial measurements, that is going from 24 feet down to a mere 9.6 feet. That hardly feels minor, especially to those whose properties will now be overshadowed by the proposed 6 story building. Similar spacing reductions are requested for most of the other lot lines, although no other request goes over about a 35% reduction in spacing. Also, traffic is a concern given the egress/exit point for the property. Livin from the driveway for 175 Queen St. N., we are well aware of the volumes of traffic produced �aaultip e unit dwelling. While the property at 64 Margaret will not have the unit density of that across from us, there will still be a steady stream of vehicles in and out of the property. Given that this egress point is actually very close to both the curve in Margaret Ave. and the Maynard St. intersection, and with the significant uptick in vehicles taking Margaret Ave. through to Otto St. to access Frederick St., there is a definite potential for serious accidents. It was explained that the development proposal did not qualify for a traffic study, but certainly this should be a consideration. As well, with the new bus shelter erected this summer very close to the egress point, sight lines could become an issue, especially once it becomes winter and snow banks develop along both the driveway and the roadway. Another issue would be noise. You can not have over 100 new residential units placed into an area previously occupied by just 5 dwellings without an increase in the overall noise levels. Just the traffic in and out of the parking area will impact those living directly around the property. There will also be the individual air conditioning units of each unit working away each summer. Not to mention the noise produced by those utilizing the balconies of the units - many of which will directly overlook the back yards of properties on Ellen St. And given that some of those balconies will only be slightly over 9 feet away from the lot line, that could get quite noisy! The city heritage plan requires buildings or developments that occur on the fringes or boundaries of the heritage districts to be respectful of the flavour of the heritage district it impinges on. The sum total of the minor variances being asked for by this developer do not feel very respectful of the nature of our district. With an area characterized by full tree canopies, wide lots, brick homes and an old world charm vibe, this building will stick out like a sore thumb. The developer plans to clad his building in corrugated steel, painted charcoal and yellow, none of which is displayed in the district. The developer also plans to remove mature trees, cutting back on the green canopy of the area, and with the reduced green space on the sides of the lot, it will be difficult if not impossible to plant similar tree varieties to return some semblance of what is taken away. We would ask that the sum total of the variances be examined as a whole, rather than in a piece meal fashion, as the sum total is what will make this development an unsuitable precedent setting example for those following behind. While the developer has certainly made alterations since the last plan, we contend that allowing these variances to stand as is will simply become the thin edge of the wedge that will turn our charming, heritage district into just another cold urban tower filled city center, lacking heart and vibrancy. Once lost, the ambience and flavour of this neighbourhood will not return and we urge that caution is used when the final decision is made. Sincerely,