The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCA Agenda - 2018-04-17COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS AGENDA April 17, 2018 — 9:30 a.m. MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION 1. Submission No.: A 2018-028 Applicant: Amanda Waters Property Location: 66 West Avenue Leaal Description: Subdivision of Lot 17. Part Lot 29. German Comoanv Tract Permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 3.56m rather than the required 7.5m; a front yard setback of 1.9m rather than the required 4.5m; and, and encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the DVT. CONSENT APPLICATION Submission Nos.: B 2018-006 to B 2018-009 Applicant: Bob and Alison Lafrance Property Location: 883 Doon Village Road Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Biehn's Tract, Block 1 Plan 1445 Permission to sever 4 lots for residential development and retain 1 lot. The four proposed lots will front onto Bechtel Drive and the retained land will front onto Doon Village Road. The Coach House is proposed to be relocated to the retained land closer to the existing dwelling. The proposed lots will have the following dimensions: B 2018-006 - (Lot 1 — Corner of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive Width (on Bechtel Drive) - 18.3m Depth (on Doon Village Road) - 25.1 m Area - 458 sq. m. B 2018-007 - (Lot 2) Width (on Bechtel Drive) - 18.2m Depth - 25.1 m Area - 456 sq. m. B 2018-008 - (Lot 3) Width (on Bechtel Drive) - 18.2m Depth - 25.Om Area - 456 sq. m. ...2 PAGE 2 APRIL 17, 2018 B 2018-009 - (Lot 4) Width (on Bechtel Drive) - 18.5m Depth - 25.Om Area - 462 sq. m. Retained Land Width (on Doon Village Road) - 48.1 m Depth - 73.2m Area - 3,519 sq. m. J Staff Report KIT('HEI�.TER Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: March 20, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Planner— 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD: 9 DATE OF REPORT: March 9, 2018 REPORT NUMBER: CSD -18-060 SUBJECT: Application A2018-028 — 66 West Avenue Owner — Amanda Waters Applicant — Roman Zycki Approve with conditions r 156 tsa 144 148 f � MQMEwoo4 AVE Homexootl Green I � r`— \ 117 I a 141 us / 66 49 Subject Property: 66 West Avenue RECOMMENDATION: That Application A2018-0060 requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 to permit a front yard setback of 1.92 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required and to permit a rear yard setback of 3.56 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, and relief from Section 5.3 to permit the dwelling to encroach 2.65 metres within the 4.57 metre Driveway Visibility Triangle, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1 Staff Report Ki R Community Services Department www.kifcheneua 1. That the Owner submit a site drawing and building elevation drawings for the proposed dwelling, to confirm the appropriateness of the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 2. That the Owner submit and obtain final approval of a Building Permit for the proposed dwelling by March 20, 2019. 3. That the Owner submit and receive final approval of a Development, Interference With Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Permit (Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06) from the Grand River Conservatory Authority. Report: The application is proposing to permit a front and rear yard variance for a new dwelling. The previous dwelling was destroyed by fire and the Applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with a new dwelling. Existing Property at 66 West Avenue A site visit was undertaken on February 28, 2018. J Staff Report KIT('HEItiTER Community Services Department wmkitchenerca Planning Comments: The property is designated as Low Rise Conservation in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan (Official Plan). Permitted uses are restricted to single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semidetached dwellings, multiple dwellings to a maximum of three units, small lodging houses, small residential care facilities, home businesses and private home day care. The property is currently zoned as Residential Five (R-5) with Special Regulation Provision 1 R, which permits single detached, semi-detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings (maximum 3 unit multiple dwellings). The property is also within the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area. 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 Official Plan. The Official Plan provides specific policy direction for infill residential development in established neighbourhoods. In the City's Central Neighbourhoods, the primary focus is to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. Policy 4.C.1.8.e requires that where a minor variance is requested to facilitate residential intensification the impact of the variance must be reviewed to ensure 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. The Low Rise Conservation land use designation applies to areas in the City where the aim is to retain the existing low rise, low density residential character of the neighbourhood. Development is encouraged at no greater than that existing scale and intensity of development. The requested variances do not impact the possibility of providing required vehicle parking. Adequate landscaping and amenity area can be provided within the rear yard and the overall lot coverage prescribed in the zoning by-law is not exceeded. The requested variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the front yard setback is to establish a consistent built form along the street edge. In this case, the proposed dwelling was brought further forward the street to align with the dwellings on either side. The proposed front yard setback aligns with the porches of the dwellings on either side of the subject lands. The rear yard variance is requested to accommodate a deeper storey and a half dwelling rather than a full two storey dwelling. The requested rear yard variance is measured at the closest point, and the proposed rear yard is deep enough to accommodate outdoor living and amenity space. Planning staff will require, as a condition of this approval, as per Policy 4.C.1.7 of the Official Plan, the Owner submit to the Director of Planning, Building Elevation drawing and a building Site drawing showing the design and location of the proposed new building. Planning staff will review these plans to ensure that the proposed new dwellings are compatible in terms of siting, massing, and architectural style. Through the review of the application, it was discovered that the dwelling and driveway do not meet the minimum standards for the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). Planning staff are recommending a 2.65 metre encroachment into the 4.57 metre DVT to permit a consistent built form and setback along West Avenue. The corner of the dwelling which is encroaching within the DVT contains a covered porch. Planning staff will work with the Applicant during the elevation plan review to ensure that the porch is constructed to allow visibility for drivers through the railings. J Staff Report KIT('HEItiTER Community Services Department wmkitchenerca The requested variances are minor. Kitchener City Council recently approved the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods (RIENS) Study. That study identified that character and compatibility are important when considering any new development. Some of the recommendations from the study are currently at various stages of the implementation process. Planning Staff note that the development concept implements may of the preliminary RIENS recommendations, including a reduced front yard setback and garages that do not dominate the streetscape. The variances are required because not all of the recommendations of the study have been fully implemented in the Zoning By-law. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed development will be compatible with the built form, massing, and building siting found throughout the neighbourhood. Further attention will be paid to the building height, roof line, porch design, driveway width and location, style and materials, and landscaping, as part of the approval of the Building Elevation and Site drawings. The development proposal accommodates a slight increase in density in an established community in a compatible form that provides increased housing options. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit be obtained for the single detached dwelling. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Comments: The requested variance results in a deficient driveway visibility triangle for a new build. The driveway visibility triangle should conform to the City of Kitchener minimum requirements. Heritage Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased cultural heritage landscape (CHL) conservation process. The owner of the property is advised that the property municipally addressed as 66 West Avenue is located within the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. In the Victoria Park Neighbourhood CHL, garages are typically detached, located behind the main building facade at the end of a driveway or to the rear of the dwelling, and the size and materials usually reflect the design of the principle dwelling. Consequently, Heritage Planning staff encourages the applicant to reconsider the design of the dwelling to complement the character of the Victoria Park Neighborhood CHL. The subject property is located within the Victoria Park Secondary Plan. The City will be commencing a secondary plan review in 2018. The land use and zoning of the property is subject to change. J Staff Report KIT('HEItiTER Community Services Department wmkitchenerca Environmental Planning Comments: Property is within the two zone flood fringe of the Henry Sturm Greenway and therefore Regulated by the GRCA. One tree is on site but due to location and condition, the City will not be requesting it be protected. Grand River Conservation Authority Comments (GRCA): Comments were received from the GRCA on March 12, 2018 and are attached. Upon follow up conservations with the GRCA Resource Planner, Planning staff have clarified that the GRCA does not object to the Committee of Adjustment considering the requests for minor variance in order to establish a building envelope with site specific setbacks from the front and rear lot line. The GRCA's recommendation for deferral is to acknowledge that revised plans are required, and may require additional variances. The Applicant has advised that the dwelling can be redesigned by mirroring the current concept providing safe access and removing the basement. The Applicant acknowledges that should additional variances be required, it is their responsibility to apply for a new application. Revised plans will be required by the City and through the GRCA permit review process, and conditions have been included in the recommendations in this regard. Garett Stevenson, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo March 06, 2018 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: D20-20/ VAR KIT GEN (3)/58 KIT, Bromberg, Garry, 1415 Huron Road (5, 6)/53 Fairway, Fusion Homes (7, 8) /VAR KIT, Freure North Subdivision (10)/VAR KIT, Emmanuel Bible College 70-136 Fergus Avenue Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on March 12, 2018, City of Kitchener. Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have the following comments: 1. 8 Bridge Street East (SG 2018-004): No concerns to the application. However, the owner should be made aware that any redevelopment application for these lands may require dedicated road widening up to 13.107 metres from Bridge Street centreline. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the sign be located accordingly. Otherwise, an encroachment agreement with the Region; or actual relocation of the sign would be required at the owner's cost, at such times in future. 2. 54 Queen Street North (SG 2018-005): No concerns. The sign is on private property and should comply with City of Kitchener Sign By-law. 3. 205 West Oak Trail (A 2018-022): No concerns. 4. 51 Simeon Street (A 2018-023): No concerns. 5. 2 Crossbridge Avenue (A 2018-024): No concerns. 6. 500 Rivertrail Avenue (A 2018-025): No concerns. 7. 70 Castlebay Street (A 2018-026): No concerns. 8. 150 Rockcliffe Drive (A 2018-027: No concerns. 9. 66 West Avenue (A 2018-028): No concerns. 10.110, 130 and 136 Fergus Avenue (A 2018-029): No concerns. 11.356-420 King Street West (A 2018-032): No concerns. DOCS: 2670864 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Grand River Conservation Authority Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Resource Management Division Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Fax: (519) 621-4945 E-mail: thug hes@grand river. ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: YOUR FILE: GRCA FILE: March 12, 2018 A 2018-028 — 66 West Avenue A2018-028 66 West Avenue RE: Application for Minor Variance A 2018-028 66 West Avenue, City of Kitchener Amanda Waters GRCA COMMENT*: The proposed plan does not meet City or Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) policies for development in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain. Accordingly, revised plans are required that demonstrate conformance with flood fringe policies. As it is unknown at this time if the revised plans will affect the requested variances, GRCA staff recommend deferral of the above noted application. See below for our detailed comments. BACKGROUND: 1. Resource Issues: Information currently available at this office indicates that the subject property is entirely within the floodplain of Schneider Creek. As such, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: This reach of Schneider Creek has been designated as a Two -Zone Floodplain Policy Area. In Two -Zone areas, the floodplain is comprised of two sections - the floodway and the flood fringe. The property is located within the flood fringe portion of the floodplain, meaning new development is allowed if it can be demonstrated that the applicable Two -Zone Floodplain Policy Area policies in the GRCA's Consolidated Policies for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 150/06 and the City of Kitchener Official Plan are met. The City of Kitchener Official Plan states that: 6.C.2.7 c) Where a Two Zone Policy Area has been applied, development or site alteration may be permitted in the flood fringe subject to appropriate floodproofing standards to the flooding hazard elevation. 6.C.2.9. For lands where the Two Zone Policy Area is applied, development, redevelopment or site alteration may be permitted in the flood fringe, subject to appropriate floodproofing standards to the flooding hazard elevation or another flooding hazard standard approved by the Minister of Natural Resources. Page 1 of 3 6. C. 2. 10. Further to Policy 6. C. 2.9 and except as prohibited in Policies 6. C. 2.4 and 6.C.2.6, development, redevelopment or site alteration may be permitted in those portions of natural hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety are minor could be mitigated in accordance with the Province's standards, and where all of the following are demonstrated and achieved: a) development, redevelopment or site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, Protection Works Standards, and access standards; b) vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during the times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies; c) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; d) no adverse environmental impacts will result; and, e) a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Permit (Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06) is issued by the Grand River Conservation Authority. GRCA Consolidated Policies for Implementing Ontario Regulation 150/06 states that: 8.1.31 Buildings or Structures may be permitted within the flood fringe of a Two -Zone Policy Area provided that: a) the building or structure is floodproofed to the elevation of the Regulatory flood, b) all new dwelling units are above the elevation of the Regulatory flood, c) all habitable floor space and electrical, mechanical and heating services are above the elevation of the Regulatory flood, d) no basement is proposed, or where the building contains multiple units, the basement is floodproofed to the elevation of the Regulatory flood to provide parking below grade or common amenities, and e) ingress and egress to the building or structure is "dry" where this standard can be practically achieved, or floodproofed to an elevation which is practical and feasible, but no less than "safe". 8.1.32 Development in the flood fringe of a Two -Zone Policy Area may be permitted in accordance with the policies and standards approved by the municipality and the GRCA. Based on information currently available in this office, the Regulatory Flood Elevation (RFE) for this property is 327.7 metres. We do note that the Minor Variance Sketch prepared by ACI Survey Consultants (dated February 7, 2018) shows the top of foundation (TOF) proposed above the RFE. While development plans will need to demonstrate how all the above noted requirements are met, our comments have focused on two requirements in particular that do not appear to be met based on the proposed plans — provision of safe access and no basement. The Minor Variance Sketch prepared by ACI Survey Consultants (dated February 7, 2018), shows the proposed driveway and access to West Avenue are subject to over 1 metre of flooding. Therefore the driveway in its currently proposed location would not meet the definition of safe access. It appears that safe access could be achieved if the driveway was moved to the south side of the property. This would require a revised plan which could affect the requested minor variances. Page 2 of 3 It appears that a basement may be proposed for this development based on Drawing A-3 prepared by Rafter's Drafting (dated February 12, 2018). As per Two -Zone policies, no basement is permitted. This restriction may result in the applicant adjusting their proposed plans in order to gain additional floor space by building up or out further, which could affect the requested minor variances. As it is presented in the minor variance sketch, the future dwelling does not meet our policies for new development in the flood fringe as it appears that safe access is not available at the proposed driveway location and a basement is proposed. In order to demonstrate conformance to flood fringe policies, revisions to the plans are required which may affect the requested variances. Therefore, GRCA staff recommend deferral of the above noted application. A permit from the GRCA pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06 will be required prior to construction. 3. Plan Review Fees: This application is a 'major' Minor Variance application and the applicable plan review fee is $580.00. With a copy of this correspondence, the applicant will be invoiced in the amount of $580.00. A separate fee will be required for a permit application. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Trisha Hug es Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority cc: Amanda Waters, 14 Deshane St, Guelph, ON N 1 E OE Roman Zycki, 291 Simeon St, Kitchener, ON N2H 1T4 * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority Page 3 of 3 J KITc�►��T�R Staff Report Community Services Department www.kitcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD: 9 DATE OF REPORT: April 5, 2018 REPORT NUMBER: Follow up to CSD -18-060 SUBJECT: Application A2018-028 — 66 West Avenue Owner — Amanda Waters Applicant — Roman Zycki Approve with conditions On March 20, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment deferred consideration of application A2018- 028 requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 to permit a front yard setback of 1.92 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required and to permit a rear yard setback of 3.56 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, and relief from Section 5.3 to permit the dwelling to encroach 2.65 metres within the 4.57 metre Driveway Visibility Triangle, until such time as updated Building Elevations were provided to the Committee of Adjustment. The applicant has prepared revised elevations and additional materials which are attached to this report. Planning staff remain supportive of the original recommendation of Report CSD -18- 060 with conditions listed therein. Garett Stevenson, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner Attachments Appendix "A" - Proposed Property Sketch Appendix "B" — Proposed Dwelling Rendering Appendix "C" - Proposed Elevations Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner J Staff Report KITCIIEI��ER Community Services Department www.kitchenerca Appendix "A" - Proposed Property Sketch tah �' r G m m 1 0 cl 4 fn i w S j Z e a x a l NSQ'48'28"E 26.784 �� of WOOD r o M m� W v� W o u � n M Z Ll 132 C Rf 1 I � 9.45 7x7.05 z r U N •4� / Og [ �' O - ---g--'- �v". c 327.,4 T 327M - a ma W w v N5O'4f1"3TE nsA nor oRivE I A 25.493 � C g o no -------- --- Q----------------- i g P F M > 2 rp o M 'W Y1 '� l I l) Ul ;i -V (-n m � lti++ yGG z n G m fin'^ 22 m 3 L3 p�S7CiCid Z Q + �`I S© V1 I( 6 ®a iZ rr---n >CM -A - z V] .� r f f o m in N +� p ZM in a= 3 n n (�ZmQ D y� �N m � z� TS o M a a X W rt� ,° 7 _ � Z rtN -n v V Oh m iS QN r 6p .. ��0 �z N 3 � 2 mT w J Staff Report I ITCIIE R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua Appendix "B" — Proposed Dwelling Rendering R041"N SYGQ SPEC MLLA I 1501HETRlG FRpi[i YIEy: j J Staff Report KITCIIEIVER Community Services Department www.kitchenerca rn � Q Tn r— rn { Appendix "C" — Proposed Elevations 117 a Re.R s�va�ror+s J Staff Report IZIITCIIE R Community Services Department www.kitchenerca ........... _- - .- ........ .-- z 291M ROt4AN2YGK1 �FfG lMLU gIRfi�ATKM 014�Lk� J Staff Report I ITCIIE R Community Services Department www.kitchenerca I(P �1 V 1 31- 111111 I ! "IAN ZTG1Ci 5P L BUlLR FES 31QE ELEYRT t f 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. 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 �, Staff Report ITc� R Community Services Department wm kitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: February 20, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD: 4 DATE OF REPORT: February 13, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-040 SUBJECT: Application Nos: B2018-006, B2018-007, B2018-008, & B2018-009 Address: 883 Doon Village Road Applicant: MHBC Planning Owners: Bob and Alison Lafrance Summarized Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. RECOMMENDATION That applications B2018-006, B2018-007, B2018-008, B2018-009 requesting consent to create 4 new lots: Lot 1 with an approximate lot width of 18.3 metres, a depth of 25.1 metres, and a lot area of 458 square metres; Lot 2 with a lot width of 18.2 metres, a depth of 25.1 metres, and a lot area of 456 square metres; Lot 3 with a lot width of 18.2 metres, a depth of 25.0 metres, and a lot area of 456 square metres; Lot 4 with a lot width of 18.5 metres, a depth of 25.0 metres, and a lot area of 462 square metres; be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 2. That the Owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the Owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the Owner enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, and registered on title of the severed and retained lands. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: Prior to February 20, 2019 (i.e., within 1 year of the date of decision) • That the SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of a scoped Conservation Plan in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. The scoped Conservation Plan will include direction on the conservation works that must be undertaken prior to, during and after the Hog and Hen House is relocated, including repairs and supports recommended by the SUBDIVIDERS's consulting engineer and qualified building mover. • That the SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of a letter prepared by a qualified building mover, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning, confirming that the Hog and Hen House can be moved. • That the SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of an updated Structural Engineers Report, to be coordinated with both the scoped Conservation Plan and letter from a qualified building mover, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. • That the SUBDIVIDER shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for each of the severed lots, and the retained lot, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, each of which is to be approved by the City's Director of Planning. Such plans shall include, among other matters, retention of street trees along Bechtel Drive adjacent to the proposed lots, identification of proposed driveways, proposed building envelopes / work zones, landscaped areas, proposed additional street trees, and vegetation to be preserved. Prior to Endorsement of the Deeds associated with consent applications B2018-006 to B2018-009 or February 20, 2020, whichever shall occur first • The SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of Urban Design Guidelines, prepared in accordance with the mitigation recommendations outlined in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. In addition, the Urban Design Guidelines shall reference the need for site plan and building elevation drawings to be prepared for the front and sides of each of the proposed dwellings on each of the severed lots, prior to building permit issuance, and to be implemented as part of the building permit process, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that future building designs and locations are consistent and compatible with the existing built form and the character of the established neighbourhood in accordance with Sections 4.C.1.7 and 4.C.1.9 of the City's 2014 Official Plan. Further, the approved Urban Design Guidelines shall be registered on title of the subject lands, and attached to the subdivision agreement. The SUBDIVIDER shall enter into a Heritage Covenant Agreement with the City, addressing the maintenance, relocation and rehabilitation of the former Hog and Hen House and to facilitate the taking of a letter of credit or other like security in a form and content satisfactory to the CITY's Solicitor, and in an amount equal to the value of the cost of repairing, relocating and rehabilitating the Hog and Hen House, in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, the approved Conservation Plan, and as determined by the SUBDIVIDER's consulting engineer and qualified building mover, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Further, the SUBDIVIDER shall provide any Letter of Credit, required by the Heritage Covenant Agreement, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Solicitor, in consultation with the CITY's Director of Planning. The CITY agrees that the Heritage Covenant Agreement may be removed from title at the SUBDIVIDER's expense following the completion of the repair, relocation and rehabilitation of the Hog and Hen House and following the adoption of the updated designating by-law for 883 Doon Village Road both to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. • The SUBDIVDER agrees to document and provide measured drawings of the Hog and Hen House to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. • The SUBDIVIDER agrees to retain a qualified building mover to relocate the Hog and Hen House on to the retained lands, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning and the CITY's Chief Building Official. • The SUBDIVIDER shall obtain a building permit to relocate the Hog and Hen House from the City's Building Division and actually relocate said building as part of this milestone, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning and the CITY's Chief Building Official. • That the SUBDIVIDER make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to both the severed and retained lands. This will include, but not be limited to, the extension of storm sewer(s). • That the SUBDIVIDER obtain a certificate of approval for sewage works from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, for the extension of the municipal storm sewer along Bechtel Drive, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. That the SUBDIVIDER prepare a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system for the severed and retained parcels to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Division. That the SUBDIVIDER complete and submit the Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system, in accordance with the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150, to the satisfaction of the City's to the Engineering Division. That the SUBDIVIDER make arrangements financial or otherwise for the relocation of any existing City -owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the appropriate City department and agency. • That the SUBDIVIDER make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services and Operations Division for the installation, to City standards, of paved driveway ramps on the severed lands and the retained lands. • That the SUBDIVIDER remove the existing driveway on the severed lands and reinstate landscaping, to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Division. Furthermore, the SUBDIVIDER shall install a new driveway on the retained lands, connecting Doon Village Road to the existing detached garage at the rear of the property. Prior to Grading, Tree Removal, or Building Permit Issuance • The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of trees as approved in the Tree Preservation Plan (where applicable) and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER'S Environmental Consultant to the CITY'S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY'S Tree Management Policy. No changes to the said plans shall be granted, except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits • The SUBDIVIDER agrees that Designating By-law #84-52 shall be amended to reflect the heritage attributes listed in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018 and the revised legal description for the retained lands municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit building elevation drawings, building location drawings, and lot grading drawings, for the Severed Lands as identified in the approved Urban Design Guidelines for approval by the CITY'S Director of Planning. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees that dwellings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Chief Building Official. Other Time Frames • The SUBDIVIDER agrees that no building permit shall be applied for or issued for the Severed Lands, Lots 1-4, unless the building designs are in accordance with the approved Urban Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the CITY's Chief Building Official and Director of Planning. The SUBDIVIDER and subsequent OWNER's of affected lots are advised that this requirement shall also apply to future additions, major alterations and fencing. • The SUBDIVIDER agrees to develop Lots 1-4 in accordance with the approved Urban Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. • That prior to endorsement of the deeds associated with consent applications B2018-006 to B2018-009 or February 20, 2020, whichever shall occur first, the SUBDIVIDER shall fulfill the following: • The SUBDIVIDER shall enter into a Heritage Covenant Agreement with the City, addressing the maintenance, relocation and rehabilitation of the former Hog and Hen House (previously referred to as the coach house) and to facilitate the taking of a letter of credit or other like security in a form and content satisfactory to the CITY's Solicitor, and in an amount equal to the value of the cost of repairing, relocating and rehabilitating the Hog and Hen House in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, the approved Conservation Plan, and as determined by the SUBDIVIDER's consulting engineer and qualified building mover, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Further, the SUBDIVIDER shall provide any Letter of Credit, required by the Heritage Covenant Agreement, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Solicitor, in consultation with the CITY's Director of Planning. The CITY agrees that the Heritage Covenant Agreement may be removed from title at the SUBDIVIDER's expense following the completion of the repair, relocation and rehabilitation of the Hog and Hen House to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning, and following adoption of the updated designating by-law for 883 Doon Village Road. • The SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of Urban Design Guidelines, prepared in accordance with the mitigation recommendations outlined in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. In addition, the Urban Design Guidelines shall reference the need for site plan and building elevation drawings to be prepared for the front and sides of each of the proposed dwellings on each of the severed lots, prior to building permit issuance, and to be implemented as part of the building permit process, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that future building designs and locations are consistent and compatible with the existing built form and the character of the established neighbourhood in accordance with Sections 4.C.1.7 and 4.C.1.9 of the City's 2014 Official Plan. Further, the Urban Design Guidelines shall be registered on title of the subject lands, and attached to the subdivision agreement. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property is located at the south corner of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road in the Pioneer Park Planning Community. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling that fronts onto Doon Village Road, an accessory building formerly used as a Hog and Hen House (noted on the sketch provided with the application form as "Ex. Coach House") that fronts onto Bechtel Drive, and another accessory building located behind the dwelling that is used as a garage. The property possesses approximately 73.2 metres of frontage on Doon Village Road, 73.2 metres of frontage on Bechtel Drive, and an area of 5,350 square metres. The subject property is a protected heritage property as it designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Heritage Comments, below). The lands to the northwest and southwest are composed mainly of single detached dwellings constructed in the early to mid 1980s. The lands to the southeast are composed mainly of single detached dwellings constructed in the mid 1990s. Doon Village Retirement Residence is located directly across Doon Village Road and St. Timothy Catholic School is located behind the retirement residence on Bechtel Drive. Several townhouse complexes are located on the opposite side of Doon Village Road, to the north and east. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law. Planning staff visited the property on February 2, 2018. The applicant is requesting consent to create 4 new lots fronting Bechtel Drive, while the retained lot would front onto Doon Village Road: • Severed Lot 1 (corner lot): o Lot width: 18.3 metres o Lot depth: 25.1 metres o Lot area: 458 square metres Severed Lot 2: o Lot width: 18.2 metres o Lot depth: 25.1 metres o Lot area: 456 square metres Severed Lot 3: o Lot width: 18.2 metres o Lot depth: 25.0 metres o Lot area: 456 square metres Severed Lot 4: o Lot width: 18.5 metres o Lot depth: 25.0 metres o Lot area: 462 square metres Retained Lot : o Lot width: 48.1 metres o Lot depth: 73.2 metres o Lot area: 3,519 square metres The retained lot would contain the existing single detached dwelling and the accessory building that is used as a garage. The applicant is proposing to relocate the accessory building formerly used as a Hog and Hen House from its present location (in the area of proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2) to the retained lands, in compliance with the regulations of the Zoning By-law. No minor variances are necessary to facilitate the creation of the proposed lots. With respect to the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots, Planning staff comments as follows: • Each of the proposed lots is rectangular (same general shape as the lots on the opposite side of Bechtel Drive) • A zoning analysis of the proposed lots shows that: o Each lot would be more than double the width of the minimum lot width required by the R-4 zoning (e.g., a minimum lot width of 9.0 metres is required, whereas the lot width of the narrowest proposed lot is 18.2 metres) o Each lot would be nearly double the area of the minimum lot area required by the R-4 zoning (e.g., a minimum lot area of 235.0 square metres is required, whereas the lot area of the smallest lot is 456 square metres) • Each of the proposed lots is 19% to 23% wider than the lots on the opposite side of Bechtel Drive (which range between approximately 15.0 and 15.3 metres wide), with the exception of the proposed corner lot (i.e., Lot 1) which is about 9% narrower than the existing corner lot on the opposite side of Bechtel Drive (approximately 20.2 metres wide) The owner will be required to extend the existing municipal storm sewer down Bechtel Drive as a condition of approval. All other municipal services are in place. Planning staff understands that there may be concerns from neighbouring residents that the proposed applications will add additional traffic concerns at a school crossing. Transportation Services staff has reviewed the subject proposal in light of this concern and advises that there are no issues with the application and that no traffic issues are foreseen. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels conform to the City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing and proposed use of the lands, the proposed lots front onto an established public street, and all new lots will be serviced with independent and adequate municipal service connections. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area, especially with those lots on the opposite side of the street. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that all subject applications be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Heritage Planning Comments: The property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road is a protected heritage property as it designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. A pre -submission consultation meeting was held on July 25, 2017. The submission and approval of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made a requirement of the processing of the Committee of Adjustment application in order to ensure that the proposed new lots had regard for and were consistent with Provincial, Regional and Municipal policies relating to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. A draft HIA prepared by MHBC Planning dated December 2017 was submitted and scheduled for comment by the City's Heritage Kitchener committee on Tuesday, January 9, 2018. Several Heritage Kitchener committee members expressed concern with the proposed new lots blocking views to the side elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House (previously referred to as the Coach House) from Bechtel Drive. Heritage Planning staff have considered these comments. Heritage Planning staff agrees with the conclusions of the HIA, which indicate the view from Bechtel Drive into the site is not significant. It is not significant because the views from Bechtel Drive: • are not historic — the only historic view was from Doon Village Road; • were only made available when the surrounding subdivision was built in the 1980s; • do not relate to the primary fagade of the Benjamin Burkholder House (the only heritage attribute designated under the Ontario Heritage Act); and, • to the side elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder House are limited to a narrow corridor (about 15 metres or less) and partially obstructed by landscape features (Note: the existing Bechtel Drive frontage is approximately 73 metres). Heritage Planning staff acknowledges that the Doon Village Road, Bechtel Drive and rear elevations of the Hog and Hen House can be seen from Bechtel Drive. These are not significant because the views from Bechtel Drive: • are not historic — the only historic view was from Doon Village Road; • were only made available when the surrounding subdivision was built in the 1980s; • do not relate to the primary fagade of the Benjamin Burkholder House (the only heritage attribute designated under the Ontario Heritage Act); and, • provide limited views where both the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House may be seen together. Heritage Planning staff note that the significance of the Hog and Hen House is its relationship to the Benjamin Burkholder House. Therefore, views that do not include both the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House are not significant. It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the view from Doon Village Road to the primary fagade of the Benjamin Burkholder House is significant. This view is partially obstructed by existing vegetation but will not be impacted by the proposed development of four new lots. A final HIA prepared by MHBC Planning dated January 2018 was submitted in relation to Committee of Adjustment application B2018-006 to B2018-009. The HIA concluded that the existing designating by-law should be amended to reflect a revised list of heritage attributes and to reflect the revised legal description for the retained lands. In particular, the Hog and Hen House (previously referred to as the coach house) is a heritage attribute. The HIA also concluded that the preferred conservation option includes the relocation of the Hog and Hen House to the retained lands. Potential negative impacts can be minimized or avoided by: regulating the design, scale, massing, orientation and materials of buildings on the new lots; amending the existing designating by-law; requiring a structural engineer to confirm that the Hog and Hen House may be relocated safely; requiring the Hog and Hen House to be relocated by a qualified building mover; and, requiring a scoped Conservation Plan. The existing Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House will be conserved on the retained lands. The HIA was submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval. The Director of Planning agrees with the findings of the HIA and the recommendation of staff and as a result the HIA was approved by the Director of Planning on January 29, 2018. The appropriate tools to conserve the Benjamin Burkholder House, Hog and Hen House and views to the primary fagade of the Benjamin Burkholder House include amending the designating by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act combined with consent conditions. A number of consent conditions have been prepared to ensure the conservation of the Benjamin Burkholder House, Hog and Hen House and views to the primary fagade of the Benjamin Burkholder House as part of development and site alteration. In general, the consent conditions address the following: submission, review and approval of a scoped Conservation Plan; submission, review and approval of an updated Structural Engineers Report; submission, review and approval of a letter from a qualified building mover; submission, review and approval of Urban Design Guidelines, including the review and approval of building elevations prior to issuance of building permits; entering into a Heritage Covenant Agreement addressing the maintenance, relocation and rehabilitation of the former Hog and Hen House, including associated Letter of Credit to ensure implementation; preparation of measured drawings of the Hog and Hen House; and, amending the designating by-law to reflect the revised list of heritage attributes. Based on the above comments, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed consent subject to implementation of the recommendations of the approved HIA. As a result, Heritage Planning staff recommends the following conditions: • That the owner enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: Prior to February 20, 2019 That the SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of a scoped Conservation Plan in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. The scoped Conservation Plan will include direction on the conservation works that must be undertaken prior to, during and after the Hog and Hen House is relocated, including repairs and supports recommended by the SUBDIVIDERS's consulting engineer and qualified building mover. • That the SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of a letter prepared by a qualified building mover, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning, confirming that the Hog and Hen House can be moved. • That the SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of an updated Structural Engineers Report, to be coordinated with both the scoped Conservation Plan and letter from a qualified building mover, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Prior to Endorsement of the Deeds associated with consent applications B2018-006 to B2018-009 or February 20, 2020, whichever shall occur first The SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of Urban Design Guidelines, prepared in accordance with the mitigation recommendations outlined in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Further, the approved Urban Design Guidelines shall be registered on title of the subject lands, and attached to the subdivision agreement. The SUBDIVIDER shall enter into a Heritage Covenant Agreement with the City, addressing the maintenance, relocation and rehabilitation of the former Hog and Hen House and to facilitate the taking of a letter of credit or other like security in a form and content satisfactory to the CITY's Solicitor, and in an amount equal to the value of the cost of repairing, relocating and rehabilitating the Hog and Hen House, in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, the approved Conservation Plan, and as determined by the SUBDIVIDER's consulting engineer and qualified building mover, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Further, the SUBDIVIDER shall provide any Letter of Credit, required by the Heritage Covenant Agreement, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Solicitor, in consultation with the CITY's Director of Planning. The CITY agrees that the Heritage Covenant Agreement may be removed from title at the SUBDIVIDER's expense following the completion of the repair, relocation and rehabilitation of the Hog and Hen House and following the adoption of the updated designating by-law for 883 Doon Village Road both to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. • The SUBDIVDER agrees to document and provide measured drawings of the Hog and Hen House to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. • The SUBDIVIDER agrees to retain a qualified building mover to relocate the Hog and Hen House on to the retained lands to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning and the CITY's Chief Building Official. Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits • The SUBDIVIDER agrees that Designating By-law #84-52 shall be amended to reflect the heritage attributes listed in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018 and the revised legal description for the retained lands municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road. • The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit building elevation, building location, and lot grading drawings for the Severed Lands as identified in the approved Urban Design Guidelines for approval by the CITY'S Director of Planning. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees that dwellings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Chief Building Official. Other Time Frames The SUBDIVIDER agrees that no building permit shall be applied for or issued for the Severed Lands, Lots 1-4, unless the building designs are in accordance with the approved Urban Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the CITY's Chief Building Official and Director of Planning. The SUBDIVIDER and subsequent OWNER's of affected lots are advised that this requirement shall also apply to future additions, major alterations and fencing. • The SUBDIVIDER agrees to develop Lot 1-4 in accordance with the approved Urban Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. That prior to the final approval of the plan to be registered, the SUBDIVIDER shall fulfill the following: Prior to Registration, the SUBDIVIDER shall enter into a Heritage Covenant Agreement with the City, addressing the maintenance, relocation and rehabilitation of the former Hog and Hen House (previously referred to as the coach house) and to facilitate the taking of a letter of credit or other like security in a form and content satisfactory to the CITY's Solicitor, and in an amount equal to the value of the cost of repairing, relocating and rehabilitating the Hog and Hen House in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, the approved Conservation Plan, and as determined by the SUBDIVIDER's consulting engineer and qualified building mover, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Further, the SUBDIVIDER shall provide any Letter of Credit, required by the Heritage Covenant Agreement, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Solicitor, in consultation with the CITY's Director of Planning. The CITY agrees that the Heritage Covenant Agreement may be removed from title at the SUBDIVIDER's expense following the completion of the repair, relocation and rehabilitation of the Hog and Hen House to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning, and following adoption of the updated designating by-law for 883 Doon Village Road. The SUBDIVIDER shall submit and receive approval of Urban Design Guidelines, prepared in accordance with the mitigation recommendations outlined in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated January 2018, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Further, the Urban Design Guidelines shall be registered on title of the subject lands, and attached to the subdivision agreement. Environmental Planning Comments: The standard condition to enter into an agreement to be registered on the title of both the severed and retained lands is required to ensure that a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan is submitted and approved before a building permit will be issued. (Environmental Planning notes that a Tree Management Plan has been submitted by MTE dated Dec 19, 2017. It has been reviewed but not approved). Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Should a severance be approved, additional services will be required for each individual lot — a building permit will be required for this work. A building permit shall be obtained for the location of the Coach house. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Comments: • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. If the buildings have basements and a sump pump is required, a storm outlet will be required also. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate municipal water and sanitary services are currently available to service this property off of Bechtel Drive. Storm services are not available at this time off of Bechtel Drive. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Katie Pietrzak (519-741-2200 ext. 7135). Each severed lot will require a sanitary, a storm and a water service. The retained lands (if nothing changes with the house) will need a sanitary and water service off of Doon Village Rd. If a new house is built that house will also require a storm service off of Doon Village Rd. • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing sidewalk. All works is at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street. • In accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, a certificate of approval for sewage works will be required by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Control for the extension of the municipal storm sewer along Bechtel Drive to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering. Operations Division Comments: A cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required on the severed parcel as 4 new development lots will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $32,568.00 Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lots only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (73.2m, less 2.4m difference between side yard abutting street vs. side yard interior) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage meter. A layout plan of the lot access driveways is required to be reviewed by Operations prior to construction. Four existing Norway Maple street trees must be retained and protected. Operations Department will not permit the removal of identified street trees. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Attach: Sketch Submitted with Consent Application Forms f= BECHTEL DR N 35`tTd2` C 732m 18.3m f I Ex • . I Coach Lot Lot 4 Lot 3 wl Loi 2�u (462m') r,� (456m') 16f (456m') I ( 58m') .3 I I I z IE sm Ia.2• 182m I 183m i Relocate Existing --_ Driveway NRe.'oca:ed 1.2m wbo k 10u5a Prop. Driva�' � / r 3 Ex Garage �, ^' CLij C Ex. r�wu+r,� J b I (3 � Proposed Consent LEGEND Plan Lands to be Severed {1,832rM r ---I Proposed Lots LardslobeRelained(3,519m't 883 Doon Village Road City of Kfthener Region of Walefloo DATE .s Dee.21.2017 SCALE: 1:750 FILE: 1796A car DRAWN: GC A%I"MA'A6PMtraorosEoror+sEM PLM 'A MAMfr 122018DM Region of Waterloo Mla0rem 1111381iWell Rl1:411 February 12, 2018 Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Re: B 2018-005 94 Morgan Avenue Elzbieta & Jerzy Kolosa PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg ionofwate rl oo.ca Carolyn Crozier 575-4757 ext. 3657 Comments for Consent Applications B2018-005 to B2018-015 Committee of Adjustment Hearing February 20, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for residential development. Community Planning Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Corridor Planning Noise The subject lands will be impacted by transportation noise from Fairway Road North (RR#3) and rail noise from CP Railway. The applicant is required to enter into a registered development agreement with the Region of Waterloo to provide a forced air - ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of central air conditioning, as well as include the following noise warning clauses in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements for the severed lot: 1888113 1 of 4 "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Fairway Road North (RR #53) and rail traffic from the CN railway mainline may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the applicant the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to secure the following noise attenuation measures and noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for the residential units on the severed lot: A. The dwellings will be fitted with a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants. B. The following noise warning clause will be registered on title and required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the severed lot: "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Fairway Road North (RR #53) and rail traffic from theCN railway mainline may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." 1888113 2 of 4 B 2018-006 to B2018-009 883 Doon Village Road Bob and Alison Lefrance The purpose of the application is to create four new lots for residential development. Community Planning Cultural Heritage The subject lands contain a designated (OHA Part IV) structure. As identified in the pre -submission process, an Archeological Assessment is required due to the designated structure. As per Regional Official Plan policy 3.G.9, the applicant is required to have a licensed Archaeologist complete an Archeological Assessment of the entire property, and any adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources found shall be mitigated, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, at the expense of the owner. The applicant must submit the archaeological assessment report to the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport, and once reviewed and accepted, provide a copy of the acceptance letter and assessment report to the Region of Waterloo's Planning, Development and Legislative Services Department. The completed Archaeological Assessment and Ministry Acknowledgement will be required prior to final approval of the Consent Application. Details and questions about the Archeological Assessment can be directed to: Kate Hagerman, Specialist, Cultural Heritage, at 519-575-4757 ext. 4094, or at KHagerman(a)regionofwaterloo.ca. Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant's fee for review of the consent applications was received January 31, 2018. Corridor Planning Noise Staff have reviewed the report entitled "Acoustical Impact Assessment" prepared by Walterfedy, dated January 5, 2018 and generally concur with the findings of the report. 1888113 3 of 4 The applicant is required to enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener to include the following noise attenuation measures and noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for the residential units on severed lots numbered 1 and 2: b) The dwellings will be fitted with a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants. c) The following noise warning clause will be registered on title and required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the units on lots 1 and 2: 1) Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Doon Village Road may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2) Purchasers / tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features in the development and within the building units, sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Doon Village Road may on occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 3) This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environmental and Climate Change. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following conditions of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant will submit an archaeological assessment report to the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport, and once reviewed and accepted, provide a copy of the acceptance letter and assessment report to the Region of Waterloo's Planning, Development and Legislative Services Department. 3) That prior to final approval, the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of Kitchener to secure the following noise attenuation measures and noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for the residential units on severed lots 1 and 2: 1888113 4 of 4 A. The dwellings will be fitted with a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants. B. The following noise warning clause will be registered on title and required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the units on lots 1 and 2: 1. Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Doon Village Road may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 2. Purchasers / tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features in the development and within the building units, sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Doon Village Road may on occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. 3. This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environmental and Climate Change. B2018-010 to B2018-011 and B2018-012 Block 28 and Block 29 Rockcliffe Drive Primeland Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the 3 applications is to create a total of 5 lots (severed and retained) on the 2 Blocks subject to the applications. All lots will have frontage on Rockcliffe Drive. The Region's concerns with respect to the subject lands were addressed as part of the plan of subdivision application 30T-98201 (Stage 413, Blocks 28 and 29, registered as 58M-607), and secured through an agreement with the Region (WR794499 December 11, 2013). Community Planning Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant's fee for review of the consent applications was received February 2, 2018. 1888113 5 of 4 Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B 2018-013 647 Victoria Street South Silicon North Real Estate Inc. The purpose of the application is to reestablish legal lot lines as this property has merged on title with the adjacent property at 659 Victoria Street South. Regional staff have no objection to the application. B 2018-014 and B 2018-015 185 Forfar Avenue Martea Developments The purpose of the application is to create two new lots for residential development. Community Planning Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent, for a total fee of $700.00. Corridor Planning Noise It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure the development is not adversely affected by the impacts of transportation noise from Victoria Street North (RR #55); rail noise from the CN Railway mainline (including the rail yard) north of Victoria Street, and stationary noise from adjacent businesses, including Kitchener Auto Wreckers and Denomme Automotive. In this regard the applicant must prepare an Environmental Noise Study. The noise study must be prepared in accordance with MOE NPC -300 Guideline. The noise consultant must be pre -approved by the Region of Waterloo. The noise consultant is responsible for obtaining current information, applying professional expertise in performing calculations, making detailed and justified recommendations, submitting the Consultant Noise Study Declaration and Owner/Authorized Agent Statement along with 2 hard copies and an electronic copy of the noise study to the Region of Waterloo. A $250 fee for the preparation of traffic forecasts for Regional roads and review of Environmental Noise Studies would be required. The noise consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must complete and submit a Transportation Planning Noise Assessment Fee Form and must request forecasted traffic data for the appropriate Regional roadways. The form can be found at: 1888113 6 of 4 http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/doingBusiness/resources/Noise Assessment Applicati on Fee Form.pdf As indicated on the form, traffic forecasts for noise assessments will be prepared within 15 business days of the data of the request, but will be withheld if payment has not been received. The Environmental Noise Study will be required as a condition of this consent. Additionally, the applicant, if necessary based on the findings and recommendations of the study will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the recommendations of the study. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following conditions of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 per lot created for a total of $700.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit an Environmental Noise Study, for both stationary and road noise, to the Region of Waterloo, and, if necessary, based on the findings of the study, enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the study. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Carolyn Crozier M.Sc.PI, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner 1888113 7 of 4 ' Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Beth Brown, Supervisor of Resource Planning PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2307 E-mail: bbrown@grandriver.ca DATE: January 31, 2018 YOUR FILE: See below RE. Applications for Signs: SG 2018-002 835 King Street West SG 2018-003 125 Highland Road East Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-005 12 Redtail Street A 2018-006 48 Crosswinds Drive A 2018-007 56 Crosswinds Drive A 2018-008 1087 Weber Street East A 2018-009 211 Strange Street A 2018-010 Peachwood Court A 2018-011 241-247 Ottawa Street South A 2018-012 481 Rivertrail Avenue A 2018-013 65, 71 & 79 Madison Avenue South A 2018-015 298 Mill Street A 2018-016 Rockcliffe Drive (future # 139) A 2018-017 Rockcliffe Drive (future #143) A 2018-018 647 Victoria Street South A 2018-019 659 Victoria Street South A 2018-020 185 Forfar Avenue (corner lot) A 2018-021 185 Forfar Avenue (interior lot) Applications for Consent: B 2018-005 94 Morgan Avenue B 2018-006 to 009 883 Doon Village Road B 2018-010 Rockcliffe Drive (future #155-163) B 2018-011 Rockcliffe Drive (future #159-163) B 2018-012 Rockcliffe Drive (future #139 & 143) B 2018-013 647 Victoria Street South B 2018-014 185 Forfar Avenue (corner lot) B 2018-015 185 Forfar Avenue (interior lot) 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, Beth Brown Supervisor of Resource Planning *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of 1 Grand River Conservation Authority. J -4 InternalMemo KTC HENER Community Services Department www.kitchener.ca Date: April 3, 2018 To: Committee of Adjustment From: Andrew Pinnell, Planner Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy Planner Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner (Committee of Adjustment Coordinator) cc: Dianna Saunderson, Committee Administrator Subject: Follow up to Committee of Adjustment Deferral of February 20, 2018 Application Nos: 132018-006, 132018-007, 132018-008, & B2018-009 Address: 883 Doon Village Road This memo was prepared in response to the Committee of Adjustment decision of February 20, 2018 which states: That the application of Bob and Alison Lafrance requesting permission to sever 4 lots that would front onto Bechtel Drive for residential development and retain 1 lot that will front onto Doon Village Road, on Part Lot 2, Biehn's Tract, Block 1 Plan 1445, 883 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, BE DEFERRED, to the April 17, 2018 Committee of Adjustment meeting, to allow for an opportunity for the Committee to receive additional heritage information on the subject property and allow the neighbouring community an opportunity to further review the subject applications. In response to a request from a member of the public, Planning staff agreed to host a meeting with residents and members of the public. Invitations were sent to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property and to all individuals who spoke as a delegation and/or submitted comments to the Committee of Adjustment. On March 22, 2018, Planning staff hosted a non - statutory Neighbourhood Information Meeting (NIM) at the Doon Valley Golf Course in order to provide an opportunity for the public to further review the subject applications. Planning staff provided the public with information regarding: • The history and background of the property as it relates to the subject applications • What is proposed through the applications themselves • Clarification regarding the Ontario Planning Act and Ontario Heritage Act policies and processes • The review and analysis that was conducted by staff • Next steps in the process The NIM was about 2 hours in length with approximately 80 people in attendance. The first portion of the meeting consisted of a detailed presentation by staff, while the second portion of the meeting was a question and answer period. Notes from the question and answer period are attached as Appendix 6. The February 20, 2018 Committee of Adjustment meeting minutes, the Planning staff report, the staff PowerPoint slideshow prepared for the NIM, and the link to the April 17, 2018 Committee of Adjustment meeting agenda were posted to the following City webpage on March 27, 2018: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/planninq-and-development- consultations.aspx The Committee of Adjustment requested additional heritage information (see Appendices 1 through 4), including: the Designating By-law (Appendix 1); the Heritage Impact Assessment, including recommendation and approval memos (Appendix 2); and, correspondence regarding a previous severance inquiry (Appendix 3). Heritage Planning staff have also attached a copy of the January 9, 2018 Heritage Kitchener committee minutes (Appendix 4) and the March 22, 2018 NIM PowerPoint slides (Appendix 5). The Designating By-law By-law 84-52 of the City of Kitchener is a by-law to designate part of the property municipally known as 883 Doon Village Road as being of historic and architectural value under the Ontario Heritage Act. By necessity for registration purposes, the by-law applies to the `real' property (i.e., the whole of the property); however, it describes the part of the real property that is of value. The description includes the reasons for designation and a list of character defining elements. In particular, the by-law describes Benjamin Burkholder and the architecture of the Benjamin Burkholder House. Note there is no reference to contextual value such as views or relationships between buildings within the by-law. The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) In considering the merits of a consent application under the Ontario Planning Act, heritage conservation is only 1 of 35 considerations that professional planners must review and balance. Fifteen of these considerations relate to the criteria for creating new lots. One of these fifteen considerations is the matters of provincial interest. Heritage conservation is only 1 of 20 matters of provincial interest. The Ontario Planning Act requires planners to have regard for the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) expands on the provincial interest and indicates that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The terms `significant', `built heritage resource', `cultural heritage landscape', and `conserved' are all defined. In particular, conserved is defined as: "means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments." In addition to the Ontario Planning Act and the PPS, both the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) contain policies to require the submission of a HIA in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property. In addition, the City's OP also contains policies that require the conclusions and recommendations of the HIA to be incorporated as mitigative measures and further require these mitigative measures to be implemented through conditions of the approval of any Ontario Planning Act application, such as a consent application. Based on the above policy framework, Heritage Planning staff provided the applicant with a "terms of reference" and required a HIA with the submission of a complete consent application. The property owner retained a professional planner who is a member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Heritage Planning staff circulated a draft HIA to the City's Heritage Kitchener committee for comment. After three revisions providing clarification and additional evidence, Heritage Planning staff recommended approval and the Director of Planning approved the HIA. In general, the HIA offered the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. That the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That the designating by-law should be amended to include a revised list of heritage attributes; 3. That the Hog and Hen House should be relocated to the retained lands in order to retain the historical and associative relationship between it and the Benjamin Burkholder House; 4. That a structural engineer confirm that the Hog and Hen House can be relocated; 5. That the Hog and Hen House be relocated by a qualified building mover; and, 6. That a scoped Conservation Plan for the Hog and Hen House be prepared. If the consent applications are approved as recommended by staff, all of the above recommendations will be implemented through conditions. January 9, 2018 Heritage Kitchener Committee Minutes As noted above, a draft HIA was circulated to Heritage Kitchener for comment at its January 9, 2018 committee meeting. The main concern raised was the desire to maintain views to the side elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House from Bechtel Drive. Heritage Planning staff considered whether these are significant views that must be conserved. Heritage Planning staff agreed with the conclusions of the HIA, which indicate that the views from Bechtel Drive into the site are not significant. It is important to note that Heritage Kitchener is a committee appointed by Council under the Ontario Heritage Act. Since consent applications are a matter under the Ontario Planning Act, Heritage Kitchener only provides comments for Heritage Planning staff to consider in forming their opinion. Heritage Kitchener is not the approval authority for and does not make recommendations on HIAs related to consent applications and other Planning Act applications. March 22, 2018 Neighbourhood Information Meeting PowerPoint Slides A number of heritage and general planning related PowerPoint slides were shared with the public at the neighbourhood information meeting in an effort to clarify and explain property owner rights and the different policies and processes under the Ontario Heritage Act and the Ontario Planning Act. The key heritage planning and conservation messages shared at the NIM are outlined below: • By necessity for registration purposes, the designating by-law applies to the `real' property (i.e., the whole of the property); however, the designating by-law describes the part of the real property that is of interest; • The Ontario Heritage Act provides a process for owners to alter their property; • A Heritage Permit Application was not required because the proposal to sever the property in order to create 4 new lots "is not likely to affect the property's heritage attributes"; • The Ontario Planning Act provides various processes for owners to alter their property; • The Ontario Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, Regional Official Plan and City of Kitchener Official Plan contain direction to conserve cultural heritage resources and policies to require a HIA as a supporting document to a consent application; Heritage conservation is only 1 of 35 considerations that must be reviewed and balanced; The designating by-law, the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study, and the HIA do not identify the property as a significant cultural heritage landscape; and, The significant built heritage resources (both the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House) will be conserved because the cultural heritage value or interest will be retained as follows: o The existing designating by-law protects the Benjamin Burkholder House; o The HIA recommends the following: ■ That the existing designating by-law be amended to further protect the Benjamin Burkholder House and to add new protections to the Hog and Hen House and the views to the front of the Benjamin Burkholder House from Doon Village Road; ■ Mitigative measures to ensure the successful relocation of the Hog and Hen House; and, o The recommendations of the HIA will be implemented through conditions of the consent application. In addition to the key messages, Heritage Planning staff also provided information, examples and a professional opinion on the following comments raised by residents: views to the side elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House; shadow impacts to the Benjamin Burkholder House from the proposed new dwellings; changes to the rural context; changes to the relationship between buildings; previous inquiries to alter the property; and, previous inquiries to sever the property. Correspondence Regarding Previous Severance Inquiries It is important to note that prior to 2018 staff did not receive a consent application to sever the property. Between 2006 and 2012, Heritage Planning staff did receive inquiries about severing the property. One of these inquiries proposed to create one new lot fronting on to Doon Village Road where both the retained and severed lands would have equal frontage. It was Heritage Planning staff's understanding that the end result of this proposal would be the demolition of the Hog and Hen House. Heritage Planning staff did advise that they would not be able to support this option because it would result in the demolition of the Hog and Hen House. Had a consent application been submitted prior to 2010, it would have been reviewed under the legislation and policies in place at the time. Since 2010, the following amendments or new documents became applicable: new Regional Official Plan, revised Provincial Policy Statement, and new City of Kitchener Official Plan. In particular, the changes have enabled municipalities to ask for HIAs for all forms of development, including consent applications. The HIA provided new information and evidence along with a professional opinion. Staff received a number of inquiries from real estate agents and prospective buyers when the property was for sale and advised that a HIA would be required with a complete consent application. APPENDICES: Appendix 1 — Designating By-law Appendix 2 — Heritage Impact Assessment, including recommendation and approval memo Appendix 3 — Correspondence regarding previous severance inquiries Appendix 4 — January 9, 2018 Heritage Kitchener committee minutes Appendix 5 — March 22, 2018 Neighbourhood Information Meeting PowerPoint slides Appendix 6 — Neighbourhood Information Meeting notes MMOF ILMED REASONS FOR DESIGNATION JUNE 1994 The designation described herein is recommended on historic and architectural grounds. This house was built in IS63 by Tienjarlin Burkholder, a well-known and respected teacher. In terms of architecture, the house is a fine example of the Waterloo Counry Georgian style. MICRDFiLMED BY-LATI JUNE 1994 OF THE CORPORATION OF THP CITY OF KITCRrNr,,, (Being a by-law to designate part of the property municipally known as 883 1?oon Village Road in the City of Kitchener as being of historic and architectural value) WHEREAS Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, P.S.O. Chapter 337, authorizes the Council of a Municipality to enact `W -i, -w7 to designate real property, including all buildings and structure, to be of architectural or historical value or interest; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener has caused to be served on the owner of the lands and nriY-,ises known municipally as 883 Doon Village Road in the City of Yitchenpr, and upon the Ontario Heritage Foundation, a Notice of intention to nes'2.q_nA'.,te as being of historic and architectural value that part of the, aforesai-d Y:ea.l property more particuarly hereinafter described, and has caused such ''oboe of intention to be published in a newspaper having general circujat),c; in the municipality once for each of three consecutive weeks, - AM WHEREAS no Notice of Objection to the proposed desi,cTnataon has been served upon the Clerk of the Municipality; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of tne- Cit�7 of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. There is designated as being of historic and value that part of the aforesaid real property known as RP! Doon Village Road being comprised of the three hay front. facade, the two side facades all having windows with s3,� panes, over six panes, the front door complete with trans -owl anc' side lights, the one -storey verandah with turned rosts wni-cn extends across the front of the house, the gahle roof with return eaves, the small square attic windows and tt,e two chimneys at either end of the gable roof. 2. The City Solicitor Is hereby authorized to cause a copv of this By-law to be registered against the whole of the 17ropertv described in Schedule "A" hereto (of which the said desi.qnat,-d area forms a part) in the proper land registry office. 3. The Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of tnis to be served on the owner of the aforesaid property an,! on �, I CROF C �,ME b - 2 - JUNE 1994 the Ontario Heritage Foundation and to cause notice of r passing of this By-law to be published in tete same nee; sy.,;E.per having general circulation in the community once for each of three consecutive weeks. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Yi.t&,ener "' day of this A.P. A MICROMMED SCHEDULE "A" JUNE 1994 ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises, situate, lying and being in the City of Kitchener, in tne Peiionai Municipality of Waterloo (formerly the County of Waterloo) and vyovnce of Ontario, having an area of 1.322 acres and being composed of Part of T,f-)t Number 2s in Biehn's Tract, in the said City of Kitchener, more nartxctiiariy described as followst BEARINGS herein are astronomic and are referred to the meridian tnrcu,,,n tete southwesterly angle of Lot 53, German Company Tract; COMMENCING, at a point where a standard iron bar is planted on the southwesterly limit of Doon Village Road, at the distance of 161.12 feet, measured South 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds East therealonq fron the most northerly angle of Part 1 as shown on Waterloo Description Peference Plan Number 127; THENCE South 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds Fast cortinu:i.nn along{ tare southwesterly limit of Doon Village Road, a distance of 240.00 feet to an iron bar; THENCE South 35 degrees 43 minutes and 30 seconds West, 240.00 feet to an iron bar; THENCE North 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds West, 240.00 feet tc an iron bars THENCE North 35 degrees 43 minutes and 30 seconds East, 240.00 feet to the Point of Commencement. MICROFILMED JUNE 1994 CA c cu CD C) w\oo\ zz. :—rm ms 0 m 0 rah C -3 0 tC4 0 = (D H - Itj Co x 0 m rt 14 0 ju rf 0 0 0 I -h rt W (D rn rr It r0 Gr W rt r m A 11 tj t:l 0 m 00 �a �l in (D tD linter. lcnr R COMM Services tR ent wwwfkitchenerca Date: January 26, 2018 To: Andrew Pinnell, Planner From: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning cc: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy Planner Subject: Approval Request for Heritage Impact Assessment 883 Doon Village Road Consent Applications — B2018-006 to 82018-009 Bob and Alison LaFrance This memo provides formal notice of the approval of the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning dated January 2018 in relation to 883 Doon Village Road and consent applications B2018-006 to 82018-009. The Heritage Impact Assessment has confirmed that the significant built heritage resources associated with the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road will be conserved by amending the designating by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act, and consent conditions, in accordance with regulation 9106 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and in accordance with the definition of a significant built heritage resource in the Provincial Policy Statement issued under the Ontario Planning Act. Alain Pinard, MCIP, kPP Director of Planning Attachments: Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning dated January 2018 Date: January 26, 2018 To: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning From: Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy Planner cc: Subject: Approval Request for Heritage Impact Assessment 883 Doon Village Road Consent Applications -- B2018-006 to 82018-009 Bob and Alison LaFrance This memo requests the Director of Planning to approve the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning dated January 2018 in relation to 883 Doon Village Road and consent application B2018-006 to B2018-009. These applications propose to sever the existing lot to create four new lots plus the retained lands. The property municipally addresse&as 883 Doan Village Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. t Legislative and Policy Requirements Planning Act Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Council shall have regard to matters of Provincial interest such as the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. In addition, Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Provincial Policy Statement Policy 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The Provincial Policy Statement defines significant as "resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation." Conserved is defined as "the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage.. landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments." Regional Official Plan Policy 3.G.1 of the Regional Official Plan (adopted June 16, 2009 by Regional Council) indicates that the Region and area municipalities will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of' the Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act. City's Official Plan The City's 1994 and 2014 Official Pian contains policies that require development to conserve cultural heritage resources. The relevant 2014 Official Plan policies are not under appeal. These policies also establish the requirement for the submission of studies as part of complete applications. Consent Applications B2018-005 to B2018-009 A pre -consultation meeting was held on July 25, 2017. Since 883 Doon Village Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, the submission and approval of a Heritage Impact Assessment was made a requirement of the consent applications in order to ensure that the proposed creation of four new lots plus the retained lands had regard for and was consistent with Provincial, Regional and Municipal policies relating to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. A final Heritage Impact Assessment was prepared by MHbC Planning dated January 2018 for 883 Doon Village Road and submitted in relation to consent applications B2018-006 to B2018- 009. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment The HIA concluded that the existing designating by-law should be amended to reflect a revised list of heritage attributes and to reflect the revised legal description for the retained lands. In particular, the Hog and Hen House (previously referred to as the coach house) is a heritage attribute. The HIA also concluded that the preferred conservation option includes the relocation of the Hog and Hen House to the retained lands. Potential negative impacts can be minimized or avoided by: regulating the design, scale, massing, orientation and materials of buildings on the new lots; amending the existing designating by-law; requiring a structural engineer to confirm that the Hog and Hen House may be relocated safely; requiring the Hog and Hen House to be relocated by a qualified building mover; and, requiring a scoped Conservation Plan. The existing Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House will be conserved on the retained lands. Heritage Planning Staff Comments The HIA was presented for comment at the January 9, 2018 Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting. The main concern raised was the desire to maintain views to the side elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House from Bechtel Drive. Heritage Planning staff considered whether this is a significant view that must be conserved. Heritage Planning staff agree with the conclusions of the HIA, which indicate the view from Bechtel Drive into the site is not significant. It is not significant because the views from Bechtel Drive: • are not historic — the only historic view was from Doon Village Road; • were only made available when the surrounding subdivision was built in the 1980s; • do not relate to the primary facade of the Benjamin Burkholder House (the only heritage attribute designated under the Ontario Heritage Act); and, • to the side elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder House are limited to a narrow corridor (about 15 metres or less) and partially obstructed by landscape features (Note: the Bechtel Drive frontage is approximately 73 metres). Heritage Planning staff acknowledge that the Doon Village Road, Bechtel Drive and rear elevations of the Hog and Hen House can be seen from Bechtel Drive. These are not significant because the views from Bechtel Drive: • are not historic — the only historic view was from Doon Village Road; • were only made available when the surrounding subdivision was built in the 1980s; • do not relate to the primary fagade of the Benjamin" Burkholder House (the only heritage attribute designated under the Ontario Heritage Act); and, s provide limited views where both the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House may be seen together. Heritage Planning staff note that the significance of the Hog and Hen House is its relationship to the Benjamin Burkholder House. Therefore, views that do not include both the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House are not significant. It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the view from Doan Village Road to the primary facade of the Benjamin Burkholder House is significant. This view is partially obstructed by existing vegetation but will not be impacted by the proposed development. The appropriate tools to conserve the Benjamin Burkholder House, Hog and Hen House and views to the primary fagade of the Benjamin Burkholder House include amending the designating by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act combined with consent conditions. A number of consent conditions have been prepared to ensure the conservation of the Benjamin Burkholder House, Hog and Hen House and views to the primary facade of the Benjamin Burkholder House as part of development and site alteration. In general, the consent conditions address the following: submission, review and approval of a scoped Conservation Plan; submission, review and approval of an updated Structural Engineers Report; submission, review and approval of a letter from a qualified building mover; submission, review and approval of Urban Design Guidelines, including the review and approval of building elevations prior to issuance of building permits; entering into a Heritage Covenant Agreement addressing the maintenance, relocation and rehabilitation of the former Hog and Hen House, including associated letter of Credit to ensure implementation; preparation of measured drawings of the Hog and Hen House; and, amending the designating by-law to reflect the revised list of heritage attributes. As a result, Heritage Planning staff are recommending approval of the Heritage Impact Assessment because: ■ The property is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; ■ The designating by-law will be amended to reflect the revised list of heritage attributes in accordance with O. Reg. 9106 criteria; The property meets the definition of a significant built heritage resource under' the Provincial Policy Statement; ■ The Benjamin Burkholder House will be conserved in-situ on the retained lands; ■ The Hog and Hen House will be conserved by relocating the building to the retained lands; and, ■ Consent conditions have been prepared to ensure the conservation of the Hog and Hen House as part of development and site alteration. Conclusion Heritage Planning staff recommend approval of the Heritage Impact Assessment. Heritage Planning staff support the proposed consent applications and are confident that the amended designation and conditions of consent (including the requirement for a scoped conservation plan, urban design guidelines, structural engineers report, etc.) will ensure the conservation of both the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House. The Heritage Impact Assessment has confirmed that the significant built heritage resource associated with the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road will be conserved in accordance with regulation 9106 of the Ontario Heritage Act as well as in accordance with the definition of a significant built heritage resource in the Provincial Policy Statement issued under the Ontario Planning Act. ( 1 Michelle ©rake, MASS, MCIP, RPP Senior Heritage & Policy Planner Attachments: ■ Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHBC Planning dated January 2018 HERITAGE IMPAC ASSESSMENT 883 Doon Village Road City of Kitchener Date: January, 2018 Prepared for: Bob and Alison LaFrance Ap Prepared by: MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) 200-[-,40 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N213 3X9 T: 519 576 3650 F: 519 576 0121 Our File:'] 796 A' Heritage Impact Assessment 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Table of Contents ProjectPersonnel........................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Glossaryof Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.0 Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................................................2 2.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Location...............................................................................................................................................................................................................4 2.2 Adjacent Heritage Properties.................................................................................................................................................................5 3.0 Policy Context.......................................................................................................................................................................................................6 3.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement 2014......................................................................................................6 3.2 The Ontario Heritage Act..........................................................................................................................................................................7 3.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan...........................................................................................................................................................8 3.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan.................................................................................................................................................................9 3.5 Terms of Reference....................................................................................................................................................................................12 4.0 Historical Overview.........................................................................................................................................................................................13 4.1 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township....................................................................................................................................13 4.2 Doon, Township of Waterloo..............................................................................................................................................................14 4.3 Lot 2, Biehn's Tract (883 Doon Village Road).............................................................................................................................15 5.0 Description of Site and Surrounding Features...............................................................................................................................29 5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................29 5.2 Description of Setting and Context................................................................................................................................................29 5.3 Views..................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 5.3.1 Public Realm........................................................................................................................................................................................30 5.3.2 Private Realm.......................................................................................................................................................................................31 5.4 Description of Built Features...............................................................................................................................................................32 5.4.1 Coach House........................................................................................................................................................................................33 5.4.2 Dwelling..................................................................................................................................................................................................37 5.4.3 Garage......................................................................................................................................................................................................39 6.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources.......................................................................................................................................40 6.1 Evaluation Criteria......................................................................................................................................................................................40 6.2 Evaluation of 883 Doon Village Road.............................................................................................................................................40 January, 2018 Heritage Impact Assessment 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 6.2.1 Design/Physical Value....................................................................................................................................................................40 6.2.2 Historical/Associative Value........................................................................................................................................................41 6.2.3 Contextual Value...............................................................................................................................................................................41 6.2.5 List of Identified Heritage Attributes.....................................................................................................................................42 6.3 Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation......................................................................................................................................43 6.3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................................43 6.3.2 Evaluation..............................................................................................................................................................................................44 6.4 Summary of Evaluation...........................................................................................................................................................................46 7.0 Description of Proposed Development.............................................................................................................................................47 8.0 Impacts of Proposed Development.....................................................................................................................................................49 8.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................................49 8.2 Analysis of Impacts....................................................................................................................................................................................49 8.2.1 Concept of Subdivision.................................................................................................................................................................49 8.2.2 Re -Locate Coach House to Retained Lot...........................................................................................................................51 9.0 Mitigation/Conservation Recommendations and Alternative Development Approaches ......................53 9.1 Mitigation Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................................53 9.1.1 Mitigation Recommendations for the Concept of Subdivision...........................................................................53 9.1.2 Mitigation Recommendations for Re -Location of the Coach House................................................................53 9.2 Consideration for Alternative Development Approaches................................................................................................54 9.2.1 'Do Nothing' Alternative...............................................................................................................................................................54 9.2.2 Retain Coach House and In-Situ..............................................................................................................................................54 9.2.3 Demolition of Coach House.......................................................................................................................................................56 10.0 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................................................57 11.0 Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................................................................58 AppendixA — Terms of Reference (next page).....................................................................................................................................59 Appendix B — Proposed Plan of Severance (next page)..................................................................................................................60 Appendix C — Designation By-law (next page).....................................................................................................................................61 Appendix D — Structural Assessment (Coach House) (next page)............................................................................................62 AppendixE - Curriculum Vitae (next page).............................................................................................................................................63 January, 2018 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Project Personnel Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Managing Director of Cultural Heritage Heritage Planner Glossary of Abbreviations HA MHBC MTCS OHA OHTK PPS 2014 Project Manager Research, Author Heritage Impact Assessment MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Toolkit Provincial Policy Statement (2074) January, 2018 MHBC 11 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 1.O Executive Summary In April 2017, Alison Lafrance retained MHBC to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener. The subject property is situated at the south-east corner of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is to provide an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the subject lands. This report also provides an analysis of anticipated impacts to heritage attributes of the property which may result of the proposed development and provide mitigation recommendations, where necessary. This report has demonstrated that the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Here, designation by-law no. 84-52 identifies that the dwelling is the only heritage attribute of the subject property (See Appendix Q. This HIA has evaluated the property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 and demonstrates that existing dwelling is the primary heritage attribute of the subject lands. This report identifies that the 'coach house' (formerly a hog and hen house) is a secondary attribute of the property and is accessory to the dwelling. While the coach house is not the main feature of the property, it has modest design/physical value and has a historical relationship with the dwelling. The proposed development is related to a plan of severance, creating four (4) new lots and one (1) retained lot. The retained lot includes the existing dwelling and detached garage which is not of cultural heritage value or interest. The proposed new severed lots would have frontage on Bechtel Drive. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are proposed to have 18.2 metres of frontage along Bechtel Drive, with Lot 4 having 18.6 metres of frontage along Bechtel Drive. The proposed development includes a) alterations to the site as it relates to the application for consent to sever the lands, and b) alterations to the existing coach house. This Heritage Impact Assessment provides a review of anticipated impacts as a result of both of these alterations to the subject property. There are two main options related to the conservation of the coach house being either, a) retain the coach -house in-situ and b) re -locate the coach -house to the retained lot. The preferred option includes the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot. The coach house is currently located on part of proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the plan of severance. The coach house is proposed to be re -located a short distance to the retained lot, maintaining its orientation to Doon Village Road so that it may be used in its existing capacity as a detached garage/shed. The proposed development would require that the existing driveway be re -located to the east, maintaining its north -south orientation and relationship with Doon Village Road and connected to the January, 2018 MHBC 12 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener existing garage (which is not of cultural heritage value or interest) while accommodating the coach house in its proposed new location. This report has provided a detailed review of the proposed severance as well as the proposed re -location of the coach house on the retained lot. The re -location of the coach house provides a beneficial impact, as the historical relationship between the coach house and the dwelling on the subject lands would be maintained. Neutral impacts are related to the re -location of the building a short distance on the retained lot, provided that it is demonstrated that the structure can be moved safely. The proposed plan of severance is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts as this report has demonstrated that the site is not a significant cultural heritage landscape. Potential negative impacts associated with the proposed development include the future construction of buildings on the lots proposed for severance, which can be mitigated by ensuring that new buildings on the severed lots are compatible with, subordinate to, and distinguishable from the dwelling and coach house on the retained lot. The following provides a summary of mitigation recommendations related to the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot: • That the structural integrity of the coach house and its re -location to the proposed new location on the retained lot be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer to confirm that it may be re- located safely while maintain its existing orientation; • That the coach house be moved by a qualified building mover to ensure that no damage occurs prior, during, or after the re -location; • That the proposed re -location of the coach house be subject to a scoped Conservation Plan in order to ensure that the structure is appropriately conserved. Note to the Reader: The purpose of this executive summary is to highlight key aspects of this report and therefore does not elaborate on other components. Please note that this report is intended to be read in its entirety in order to gain a full understanding of its contents. January, 2018 MHBC 13 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 2.o Introduction In April 2017, Alison Lafrance retained MHBC to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment for the property located at 883 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener. The subject property is located at the intersection of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road. The subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act as per by-law no. 84-52. (See Appendix Q. The purpose of this Heritage Impact Assessment is to provide an evaluation of the cultural heritage value of the subject lands. This report also provides an analysis of potential impacts to cultural heritage resources which may result of the proposed severance and provide mitigation recommendations, where necessary. 2.1 Location The subject property is located within the 'Pioneer Park' community, south of the Grand River within the City of Kitchener, west of the community of Doon. The subject property is located east of Bechtel Drive, south of Doon Village Road (formerly known as Manitou Drive). Low density single detached housing is located to the east and south. Figure 1: Topographic Map noting approximate Location of Subject Lands (Source: National Resources Canada, 2017). January, 2018 MHBC 14 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 2: Aerial Image noting approximate location of subject lands (Source: Google Maps, 2017). 2.2 Adjacent Heritage Properties The subject property is not located adjacent to identified cultural heritage resources as per the City of Kitchener Heritage Register (See Figure 3). The property is located west of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District. Figure 3: Map noting approximate location of subject lands and heritage status, located roughly west of the Upper Doon HCD (Source: Kitchener Interactive Map, 2017). January, 2018 MHBC 15 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 3.OPolicy Context 3.1 The Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement 2014 The Planning Act makes a number of provisions respecting cultural heritage, either directly in Section 2 of the Act or Section 3 respecting policy statements and provincial plans. In Section 2, the Planning Act outlines 18 spheres of provincial interest that must be considered by appropriate authorities in the planning process. One of the intentions of The Planning Act is to "encourage the co-operation and co- ordination among the various interests". Regarding cultural heritage, Subsection 2(d) of the Act provides that: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,... (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest,• The Planning Act therefore provides for the overall broad consideration of cultural heritage resources through the land use planning process. In support of the provincial interest identified in Subsection 2 (d) of the Planning Act, and as provided for in Section 3, the Province has refined policy guidance for land use planning and development matters in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2074 (PPS). The PPS is "intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policy areas are to be applied in each situation". This provides a weighting and balancing of issues within the planning process. When addressing cultural heritage planning, the PPS provides for the following: 2.6.7 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Significant e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property's cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Aboriginal community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers. January, 2078 MHBC 16 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act• villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance, and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site). Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. Protected Heritage Property: means property designated under Parts IV, V or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act• property subject to a heritage conservation easement under Parts II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act• property identified by the Province and prescribed public bodies as provincial heritage property under the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal legislation, and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The subject property located at 883 Doon Village Road is considered to be a protected heritage property under the consideration of the PPS as it is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 3.2 The Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.0.18 remains the guiding legislation for the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources in Ontario. This Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report has been guided by the criteria provided with Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act outlines the mechanism for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The regulation sets forth categories of criteria and several sub -criteria. January, 2018 MHBC 17 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 3.3 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Chapter 3, Section 3.G of the Regional Official Plan provides policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources which are related to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: 3.G Cultural Heritage Cultural heritage resources are the inheritance of natural and cultural assets that give people a sense of place, community and personal identity. Continuity with the past promotes creativity and cultural diversity. The region has a rich and diverse heritage, including distinctive cultures, traditions, festivals, artisans and craftspeople, landmarks, landscapes, properties, structures, burial sites, cemeteries, natural features and archaeological resources. These resources provide an important means of defining and confirming a regional identity, enhancing the quality of life of the community, supporting social development and promoting economic prosperity. The Region is committed to the conservation of its cultural heritage. This responsibility is shared with the Federal and Provincial governments, Area Municipalities, other government agencies, the private sector, property owners and the community. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 3.G.73 Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in support of a proposed development that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non- designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register. 3.G. 74 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 3.G.73 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the Area Municipality will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review. In this situation, the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the owner/applicant will be completed to the satisfaction of both the Region and the Area Municipality. 3.G.75 Where a development application includes, or is adjacent to, a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest which is not listed on a Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to submit a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the Region. 3.G.76 The Region will undertake a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and consult with the affected Area Municipality and the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee prior to planning, designing or altering Regional buildings or infrastructure that may affect a cultural heritage resource listed on the region -wide inventory described in Policy 3.G.4. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the policies in this Plan. January, 2018 MHBC 18 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 3.G.77 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to the following: (a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; (b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource, (c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; (d) assessment of development or site alteration impacts; (e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; (0 schedule and reporting structure for implementation and monitoring; and (g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations. 3.G.78 Where a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment required in this Plan relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the conservation recommendations will, wherever feasible, aim to conserve cultural heritage resources intact by.- (a) y.(a) recognizing and incorporating heritage resources and their surrounding context into the proposed development in a manner that does not compromise or destroy the heritage resource; (b) protecting and stabilizing built heritage resources that may be underutilized, derelict, or vacant; and (c) designing development to be physically and visually compatible with, and distinguishable from, the heritage resource. 3.G.79 Where it is not feasible to conserve a cultural heritage resource intact in accordance with Policy 3.G. 78, the conservation recommendations will: (a) promote the reuse or adaptive reuse of the resource, building, or building elements to preserve the resource and the handiwork of past artisans, and (b) require the owner/applicant to provide measured drawings, a land use history, photographs and other available documentation of the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. 3.G.20 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments may be scoped or waived by the Region or the Area Municipality as applicable. 3.4 City of Kitchener Official Plan Section 12 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) provides the following policies regarding the conservation of cultural heritage resources as it relates to the scope of this Heritage Impact Assessment as follows: Objectives 72.7.1. To conserve the city's cultural heritage resources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 72.7.2. To ensure that all development or redevelopment and January, 2078 MHBC 19 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved. 12.1.3. To increase public awareness and appreciation for cultural heritage resources through educational, promotional and incentive programs. 12.1.4. To lead the community by example with the identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage resources owned and/or leased by the City. Policies 12.C.1.7. The City will ensure that cultural heritage resources are conserved using the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Municipal Act. 12.C.7.2. The City will establish and consult with a Municipal Heritage Committee (MHC) on matters relating to cultural heritage resources in accordance with provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans 12.C.1.23. The City will require the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development, redevelopment and site alteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a) on or adjacent to a protected heritage property; b) on or adjacent to a heritage corridor in accordance with Policies 13.04.6 through 13.04.18 inclusive; c) on properties listed as non -designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest on the Municipal Heritage Register; d) on properties listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings; and/or, e) on or adjacent to an identified cultural heritage landscape. 12.01.24. Where a Heritage Impact Assessment required under Policy 72.C. 7.23 relates to a cultural heritage resource of Regional interest, the City will ensure that a copy of the assessment is circulated to the Region for review prior to final consideration by the City. 12.01.25. A Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan required by the City must be prepared by a qualified person in accordance with the minimum requirements as outlined in the City of Kitchener's Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans, 12.01.26. The contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will be outlined in a Terms of Reference. In general, the contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment will include, but not be limited to, the following: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; January, 2018 MHBC 110 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener b) identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d) assessment of development or site alteration impactor potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; 0 implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations. 12.C.1.27. Any conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Heritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures into the plans for development or redevelopment and into the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act. 12.C.1.28. Heritage Impact Assessments and Heritage Conservation Plans required by the City may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. Demolition/Damage of Cultural Heritage Resources 12.C.1.32. Where a cultural heritage resource is proposed to be demolished, the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re -use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. 12.C.7.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicant will be required to prepare and submit a thorough archival documentation, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or permit. 12.C.1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant cultural heritage resource, such documentation must be prepared by a qualified person and must include the following: a) architectural measured drawings, b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritage resource in its surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. 12.C.7.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register, the January, 2018 MHBC 111 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent to demolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of the cultural heritage resource will be evaluated and Council may use the 60 days to pursue designation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act any cultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significant alterations or other potentially adverse impacts. Design/Integration 12.C.1.46. The City will prepare guidelines as part of the Urban Design Manual to address the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the city and to recognize the importance of the context in which the cultural heritage resources are located. 12.C.1.47. The City may require architectural design guidelines to guide development, redevelopment and site alteration on, adjacent to, or in close proximity to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or other cultural heritage resources. 3.5 Terms of Reference This Heritage Impact Assessment has been guided by the Terms of Reference for the subject property prepared by the City of Kitchener (See Appendix A). The preparation of this report has also been guided by the Ontario Ministry of Culture (now the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport) InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans, part of the 2006 Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process document. A site visit of the property was undertaken on August 1, 2017. The site visit included a visual assessment and photographic record of the subject lands and surrounding context. January, 2018 MHBC 112 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 4.o Historical Overview This section of the report focuses on historical development and the arrival of Euro -Canadian settlers, and does not discuss pre -contact aboriginal history or archaeology, as this report is primarily concerned with the impacts of the proposed development on the existing built cultural heritage resources of the 19th and 20th centuries. 4.1 County of Waterloo, Waterloo Township The subject lands were originally located in Waterloo Township where pioneer settlement commenced in the late eighteenth century. In 1784, General Haldimand, then Governor of Quebec, acquired six miles of land on each side of the Grand River from the Mississauga Indians (Bloomfield 19, 2006). A tract of land 12 miles wide along the course of the Grand River were granted to the Six Nations Indians by the British in recognition of their support during the American Revolution. The land was later divided into four blocks; Block 2 later became Waterloo Township. Brant and the Six Nations drew up a deed for sale of Block 2 in November 1796. The deed was recorded at Newark (Niagara on the Lake) and in February 1798 the title was registered and a Crown Grant was drawn for this block (McLaughlin, 21 2007). The buyer was Colonel Richard Beasley, a Loyalist from New York, who had arrived in Canada in 1777. Beasley bought the 93160 acres of land along with his business partners, James Wilson and Jean -Baptiste Rousseaux (Bloomfield 20, 2006). The land was then surveyed by Richard Cockrell who divided the township into upper and lower blocks (Hayes 3, 1997). At this time, German Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania were scouting out farmland in the area. Several of them went back to Pennsylvania and returned with their families the following year to buy and settle the land (Hayes 5, 1997). Block 2 was divided into an 'upper', 'middle', and 'lower' parts which were surveyed by Richard Cockerell. Beasley began selling lots in the lower block, part of which became Biehn's Tract (6,750 acres) purchased by a group of Pennsylvania Mennonite families in the mid. 19th century. The first settlers came from several Pennsylvania counties, including Lancaster County. The Biehns and Bechtels were the first settlers to register title to land. Biehn's Tract (BT) was settled by John Biehn one mile west of the Grand River, and sold portions to his family. Settlement increased when 'the communication road' was constructed across southern Waterloo Township to connect Guelph with the Huron Tract in the 1850s (Bloomfield, 2006). January, 2018 MHBC 113 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 4: Map of Waterloo Township in 1831 showing settled and cultivated land. Source: Waterloo Township Through Two Centuries. Approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow. 4.2 Doon, Township of Waterloo The Village of Doon was established after a mill was constructed in the 1830s by Adam Ferrie, where Schneider's Creek meets the Grand River. Adam Ferrie named the settlement after a river in Scotland (Waterloo Historical Society, 1964). The coming of the railroad in 1870 established Doon as a large, unincorporated village. Doon's industry increased after the construction of the twine factory in the 1870s and the Doon Linen Mills in the 1880s. By the end of the 19' century, the Village of Doon had a hotel, grocer, tailors, a cooperage, blacksmith, and other industries (Bloomfield, 2006) DWN. A pont village and station of the Berlin and Preston hrmrh of the Grand Trunk Railway, in the TownNhep of Waterl-x,, mix tni!eti from Berlin, thirty-three frond 11atnilton, and mixty-Fire frons Tf+mnto. It is situated at the confluence of the Grand and �lh,r,n Itivem, and pr"'"ww., excellent manufacturing facilitiew. The Donn Mills, built of atone, eniplot'a ut veu batadRs, and iA an es tensive establishment ; the flax works of Perine brosz , employs about %ixty bands. There is one church, Vanwbt Presbyterian, built in 19,5 6, at a coast of $5,000, Rev. Maleolm McKenzie. lxtstor. The lwxt "flim was established in 1845, Robert F. Ferree, first P. M. lhuly mails. Popsslation. 2N. Figure 5: County of Waterloo Gazeteer and Directory, 1867 (Source: National Archives Canada, 2017) January, 2018 MHBC 114 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 4.3 Lot 2, Biehn's Tract (883 Doon Village Road) The property located at 883 Doon Village Road is located west of the historic Doon Village settlement. The property was formerly accessed by Old Huron Road, and subsequently Manitou Drive (now Doon Village Road) (Bloomfield, 2006). According to the 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County, the subject property was located on land owned by the Hamaker family (See Figure 7). Benjamin and Peter Hamacher are listed in the 1864 County of Waterloo Directory and Gazeteer as residing on Biehn's Tract, part of Lot 2 (See Figure 6). According to records retrieved from the land registry office (instrument no. 5647), the lands were sold from the Hamacher family to Benjamin Burkholder in 1867. It is unknown whether or not Benjamin Burkholder constructed the house prior to 1867, when the lands were sold to him as local histories commonly refer to the date of construction of the house as 1863. f Hahn, I.odwig g e t 147 f h Haha, henry g c t 14h { 1ia}trT, ,t}eilndCr h t 84 f f Iialttr, FAWRId h t 82 f f Hamer, Brnj. bet t 2f maker. Peter bet t 21 r1 Harnlpvrger. (Ito. (I Hamilton. J&=" h t 7 8 f f L[ammel, s mtd b f 19 f Figure 6: County of Waterloo 1864 Directory and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) Benjamin Burkholder purchased land on Lot 2 of Biehn's Tract from the Hamacher family and constructed the house located on the subject lands in the 1860s. Benjamin Burkholder was born in 1814 in Lancaster County. He came to settle with his parents on a small farm on German Company Tract (lot 13), north of Waterloo. He attended Abraham Erb's schoolhouse constructed in 1820. Benjamin Burkholder published a weekly newspaper at Waterloo (Der Morgenstern), from]839 to 1841 (Bloomfield, 2006). He became a teacher at the Waterloo School, and taught in 11 different schools in Waterloo Township. According to the Waterloo Historical Society, Benjamin Burkholder taught school in the home of Tobias Wanner in 1863 (Waterloo Historical Society, 1928). In the mid 1870s, Burkholder applied to the Ontario Superannuated Public School Teachers' Fund as he was unable to teach any longer due to him being 'disabled' (Waterloo Historical Society, 1928). According to the 1851 census for Waterloo County, Township of Waterloo, Benjamin Burkholder (of the United States) is listed as a teacher at the age of 37. Benjamin Burkholder is listed twice in the Waterloo Township census for 1861, in enumeration District No. 4, and enumeration District no. 10. January, 2018 MHBC 115 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener According to the 1861 census for enumeration district no. 4, he is described as a teacher residing in a 1 1/2 storey frame house. Benjamin Burkholder is listed in two different census records for the year 1861. According to the 1861 census for Waterloo Township, B. Burkholder is listed as a teacher, and is listed as residing 'out of limits' of enumeration District no. 10, at 'S.S. No. 10, W.T.', likely referring to School Section No.10, of Waterloo Township. According to Bloomfield (2006), School Section No. 10 was located in the present day City of Waterloo. Therefore, it is likely that Benjamin Burkholder was teaching in Waterloo in 1861, while living in enumeration District no. 4. The 1861 census also lists Benjamin Burkholder as residing in a 'frame house'. Benjamin Burkholder is not listed in the 1871 census for Waterloo Township, but is listed in the County of Waterloo 1870-1871 Directory and Gazeteer as residing at a farm on Bienh's Tract, Lot 2 (on the subject lands). The 1884-1885 Directory and Gazeteer for Waterloo Township also lists Benjamin Burkholder as residing on Biehn's Tract, Lot 2. Benjamin Burkholder married Barbara Kinzie Burkholder on August 13, 1860 and had two children, Asa and Sarah. Barbara died in 1866. Benjamin Burkholder died on January 5, 1898 at the age of 83 and is buried at the First Mennonite Cemetery in Kitchener. Figure 7: Excerpt of 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. January, 2078 MHBC 116 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener OD d a.' O r1feo ,\ O VILLAGE OF 0000 l[ acwtl -avis Figure 8: 1867 Map of the Village of Doon. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red (Source: Waterloo Historical Society, 1964). ur o errnj,l yeti her bft t f Burkhoi3d^r, llaniel u b 6367f Burkholder, Christian u b 123h 1 Burkholder, .Mode u b 72 f; 1 Burkner. "ottfrled u b 43h ` I Busham Wendel if r t 157 V 1 Bussing, 1AWis u b 1 1 Butler, ,Patrick b f :l'.' f I Figure 9: County of Waterloo 1864Directory and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) Bucher fico [ Erhs� ilia U. lot' tsarmer 40 Bucher Jacob I Berlin U & lot El. laborer, own a i Bullock pep. (Doon) I T. lot 2, farmer 12 Burgaezy August f8erlin) l'. R. lot 118, laborpr, owns 1 wn-c45 i%iitkhp] er Benj. (Dison) A. T. lot 2, farmer 1 Burnett Jahn (Hrealau) 1pt 114, miller, owns 17 L:amP lNary (Preston) B. F, lo! "l5, awns 1 U&ITy Wm. (Breslau) U. B. lot 54, carpenter d_Ifawau .R T.,6a Ill. -&......L h n — i,a a !u— __ — Figure 10: County of Waterloo 1884-1885Directory and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) January, 2018 MHBC 117 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener "" •" �4r+.fii�t, ii i�f Vi L` �rV"�ff#1 i. T r f .T i L + +�. — �'j li �N.1 r +7, 4 �4rn � .s •- G . t • .7 ��h < �� w { 4 �1-.: _ �R Figure 11: Waterloo County Census, Waterloo Township, 1851 (Source: Ancestry.ca) JA A I If 14 �. 11 rrRe?ir ft a' f`tGrrurw�i e Figure 12: Waterloo County Census, Waterloo Township, 1861 (Source: Ancestry -ca) --,IIS--- �---- w ..._., No......................... ray p......•.•...• 21 1 Bucholtz, Hy ...... ,..4... 3 6 f Buck, John .. ..... 3 6 h B7�1 1f# 11L� Begjn.ra-LIV. T 2 A-SuriLaulder, Daniel ... 11,3. pant 125 h - Burkholder, I"Ad......... U$ 72 f Burkholder, MOON.:..... UB 79 f Bur --et$. Jnhn------ TTR 1..1k Figure 13: County of Waterloo 1870-1871 Directory and Gazeteer (Source: Ancestry.ca) Figure 14: 1877 Illustrated Atlas of Waterloo County, Township of Waterloo. Approximate location of subject lands noted in red. January, 2018 MHBC 118 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener On. XAKN of DiOR . (1L as F.) i B6AID6AV6. _' ..�.vr �.ava, Dain as Dsatt � !� . — iiiRt4l1D t}'g �©ir1. lta w � CaMcwaoR as BraAr. 1 1, A-4 146�u A"I .. v.8. r_. , . Figure 15: Death certificate of Benjamin Burkholder, 1898. (Source: Ancestry.ca) A review of photographs of the subject property dating to 20th century confirms that the landscape has changed considerably since it was first settled in the 1860s. These photographs confirm that the subject property has evolved from a working agricultural landscape to a residential lot which does not support the use of the landscape as a working agricultural farmstead. This evolution of the property located at 883 Doon Village Road is a result of changing residential needs and land uses. The typical pattern and main components of a mid. 19th century farm are well documented for Waterloo County. This pattern is repeated in early maps, such as the 1861 Tremaine Map of Waterloo County. It should be noted that while every farm lot has a set of individual characteristics, these farm lots also share a set of distinct similarities. Typical agricultural farmsteads of the mid. 19th century include a dwelling, barn (and accessory structures), cultivated fields, hedgerows, orchards, gardens, and a circulation system (laneways and paths). Typically, the main laneway of an agricultural farmstead in Ontario is a straight line, perpendicular to the main road along an intersecting lot or concession. This laneway provides access to the farmhouse (which is often oriented towards the main street) and continues past the house to provide access to the barn and outbuildings to the rear. Orchards, fruit trees, and gardens were commonly located to the sides and rear of the dwelling, surrounded by ploughed agricultural fields. Built features associated with early agricultural settlement were placed intentionally and strategically in order to make use of natural resources (such as the availability of water, soil) as well as topography. Therefore, this pattern of settlement was based primarily on the function of the landscape for agricultural purposes. Early agricultural landscapes were not intended to be cultivated primarily for aesthetic purposes and therefore were not dominated by built and natural features which did not have a demonstrated purpose. According to photographs of the subject property dated to the first half of the 20th century, the property still functioned as a working agricultural farmstead (See Figures 16-19). These photographs clearly depict that the landscape included ploughed agricultural fields, fruit trees or an orchard surrounding the dwelling. The property also included a barn (now demolished) and displays little evidence of having ornamental plantings. The photographs also confirm that the coach house located on the subject lands has undergone alterations to the west elevation to include a new cobblestone entranceway (See Figure 22). January, 2018 MHBC 119 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener F Figures 17 & 18: (left) Early 20" century photo of subject property, looking west towards what is now Bechtel Drive. Note location of coach house in the background, (right) Present-day view of the subject property looking west towards Bechtel Drive and coach house. Note coach house is not visible due to 20" century plantings. (Source: private collection and MHBC, 2017) January, 2018 MHBC 120 ` ��„� AM► +�•(� tea,. .. � � Figure 16: Early 2W' century photo of subject lands, looking west towards what is now Bechtel Drive. Note location of coach house in the background. (Source: private collection) Figures 17 & 18: (left) Early 20" century photo of subject property, looking west towards what is now Bechtel Drive. Note location of coach house in the background, (right) Present-day view of the subject property looking west towards Bechtel Drive and coach house. Note coach house is not visible due to 20" century plantings. (Source: private collection and MHBC, 2017) January, 2018 MHBC 120 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 19: View of west elevation of dwelling, looking east. Note location of ploughed agricultural fields and fruit trees. (Source: private collection) Figure 20: Early 20" century photo of subject lands, looking south towards north elevation of dwelling (Source: Client personal collection) January, 2018 MHBC 121 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 21: Early 20" century photo of barn (now demolished), looking north *note location of coach house in the background (Source: privatecollection) Figure 22: Early 20" century photo of coach house, looking north-west towards Doon Village Road. Note the condition of the west elevation which confirms that the existing stones/entrance at the west elevation is not original to the structure (Source: private collection) January, 2018 MHBC 122 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener The change of character of the landscape at what is now 883 Doon Village Road is also confirmed as per a review of 20th century aerial photos (See Figures 23-27). According to the 1945 aerial photograph, the property included a large lot with cultivated fields. The house is clearly distinguished from surrounding features, and is located south of Doon Village Road, east of the coach house. The coach house is located west of a laneway. A barn is depicted just south of the coach house. These features of the site also appear in the 1954 and 1963 aerial photographs. It is important to note that the 1945 and 1954 aerial photographs demonstrate that the majority of ornamental plantings on the subject property did not exist at this time. The 1963 aerial photograph clearly indicates the former the barn on the property. The photograph also provides evidence that an orchard was located south of the house. This aerial photograph indicates that more ornamental plantings were part of the landscape, including linear plantings along the laneway accessed by Doon Village Road. According to the 1980 aerial photograph, the barn has been demolished and the existing garage located south of the dwelling has been constructed. At this time, the driveway on the property has been altered so that it extends east toward the house, and then south towards the existing garage. At this time, the subject property has been subdivided to facilitate the construction of single -detached houses and new roadways and cul-de-sacs. At this time, Bechtel Drive is created in order to access lots within the subdivision. The 1980 aerial photograph clearly indicates numerous ornamental plantings which were not visible in the early 20th century photographs or the 1945 aerial photograph of the property. The 1997 aerial photograph demonstrates that the subject property had been further subdivided at the east property line to facilitate the construction of the single -detached dwellings located at 895, 901, and 907 Doon Village Road. January, 2018 MHBC 123 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figure 23:1945 Aerial Photograph (Source: University of Waterloo Map Library) ,10p"-- Drive` ay accss, jj linear Dlantincis + w ft"Cultivated �' L '!House rjA Figure 24: 1954 Aerial Photograph (Source: University of Toronto Map Library) January, 2018 MHBC 124 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener r Drive*y a ss, w linear plantingsch, "Hous _ rn? s �, b _ se k atd OrChard b r Figure 25: 1963 Aerial Photograph (Source: University of Waterloo Map Library) - .,__-1.5 According to an article in the Kitchener -Waterloo Record (dated Saturday, September 22, 1984), when the property was owned by the Keller family, the barn was determined to extend three feet over a municipal boundary and was subsequently demolished (at some point between 1968 and 1980) . The barn was located south of the existing coach house, west of what is now Bechtel Drive. This is confirmed by a sketch of the lot as part of a sale agreement dated 1968 (See Figure 19). The news article adds that the barn boards were used to clad the existing contemporary garage on the subject lands. The 'coach house' is described in the article as a smaller'second garage', which was once used as a barn for hens and hogs. January, 2018 MHBC 125 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 00" ' /moi I�r r -A�" � \t \�\ - �// � � � � � � 1: � � • i � '� �� 7� `• 1 r.��.,�r. `�J J rrri� + r � r ^ v -ell } t ► + ray X r¢ I ✓�q. + 9 ttnO� t 4.11 ► t ,�•; r t e` ✓ f I �. r ; .-1� • t ��r lantingIs HbuSL� `, �t�• l . �� ,tf r J r �• I t r raCh � s ! � � I+. !d If r r Hese Fi 4M, e- I I 0 01 ,ted` �L• y �� `�^., jr �r�� t�r/1 r �.' '1, j .l ] ,• � -�• r i l ti r _ to If 777 r .. / / • r '� . �.� � _ air ` t �� % �� 1� :• I j } Figure 26: Sketch of subject lands attached to agreement of purchase and sale for subject lands (Part of Lot 2, Biehn's Tract) consisting of 18 acres (dated September 20,1968) (Source: Client personal collection) January, 2018 MHBC 126 -1,1V - , 11 06/116 P4 ff V/W AA // Y4OU �: A, ii I MAI/. Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Driveway access`, %near plantings �a Figure 28: 1997 Aerial Photograph (Source: City of Kitchener Interactive Maps) 1 12 January, 2018 MHBC 128 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 5.0 Description of Site and Surrounding Features 5.1 Introduction This section of the report will identify and describe the significant heritage features and attributes of the subject property. 5.2 Description of Setting and Context The subject property is situated at the south-east corner of the intersection of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive. The subject property is comprised of a large roughly square-shaped lot approximately 1.32 acres in size. The property is located west and north of low density single detached housing which was developed in the second half of the 20' century. The property consists of generous landscaped open space and mature trees. The property is accessed via a driveway at Doon Village Road. The driveway is located east of the coach house, which pivots east towards the house, and then south to the existing contemporary garage, which is clad in wood from the former barn on the property (now demolished). The property includes a historic dwelling, coach house, and modern garage. Linear plantings of spruce trees are located east of the existing driveway. Figures 29 & 30: (left) View of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road intersection looking north from the east side of Bechtel Drive (right) View of Bechtel Drive looking south from east side of Bechtel Drive (Source: MHBC, 2017) January, 2018 MHBC 129 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 31 & 32: (left) View of subject property looking south from north side of Doon Village Road *note location of Coach House and dwelling (right) View of Doon Village Road looking east from south side of Doon Village Road (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figures 33 & 34: (left) View of intersection of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive looking west from the south side of Doon Village Road (right) View of intersection of Doon Villlage Road and Bechtel Drive looking east from south side of Doon Village Road (Source: MHBC, 2017) 5.3 Views 5.3.1 Public Realm Views of the subject property are available from the public realm along Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive. Views of the property looking south from Doon Village Road are partially obstructed by the existing contemporary landscape features along the front lot line. These plantings are ornamental and include large landscaping stones, shrubs, and other plantings. These plantings partially block pedestrian views of the dwelling looking south from the south side of Doon Village Road. The dwelling is partially visible from the pedestrian realm along the north side of Doon Village Road (See Figures 35 & 36). While these plantings partially obstruct views of the property from Doon Village Road, this obstruction is considered temporary as these plantings are not considered heritage attributes and can be altered. January, 2078 MHBC 130 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener The west elevation of the coach house and the west elevation of the existing dwelling are visible from the public realm looking east from Bechtel Drive (See Figures 37). This view is not considered a significant attribute of the property as a) it does not offer a view of the primary edifice of the primary feature of the property, b) due to the nature of the coach house as an accessory structure, the coach house does not have a primary edifice and therefore the view of the coach house from the public realm along Bechtel drive is not considered significant. In addition to this, it is important to note that views from Bechtel Drive are not historically significant as Bechtel Drive was constructed in the 1980s. Figures 35 & 36: (left) View of dwelling looking south from north side of Doon Village Road (right) View of Doon Village Road looking east, from the south side of Doon Village Road (adjacent to the front property line) (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figures 37 & 38: (left) View of coach house (foreground) and dwelling (background), looking east from the west side of Bechtel Drive, (right) View of Doon Village Road, looking east, noting overgrown hedges and plantings along the front property line of 883 Doon Village road (Source: MHBC, 2017) 5.3.2 Private Realm Views of the primary heritage feature on the subject property are available from the private realm (i.e. on the subject lands) as opposed to the public realm (along Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive). As the north (front) elevation of the dwelling is considered the primary edifice, primary view of the property is January, 2078 MHBC 131 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener therefore located on-site, looking south towards the front elevation of the dwelling (See Figures 39 & 40). There is no primary edifice of the coach house due to its use as an accessory structure. Therefore, while the coach house is considered a secondary heritage attribute, there is no one significant view of the structure from either the public or the private realm. Figures 39 & 40: (left) View of dwelling looking south towards north (front) elevation (right) View of east elevation of the coach house looking south-west (Source: MHBC, 2017) 5 A Descri ption of Built Features The subject property includes three structures; a dwelling, a contemporary rear garage, and a 'coach house' (former hen and hog house). Figure 41: Aerial Image noting approximate boundary of subject lands (red) dwelling (green), garage (blue), and coach house (yellow) (Source: Google Maps, 2017). January, 2018 MHBC 132 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 5.4.1 Coach House The coach house is located towards the north-west corner of the property and is situated west of the existing driveway. The coach house is 1.5 storeys of stone construction with a side -gabled roof. The construction methods and materials of the coach house indicate that it was likely constructed in the early to mid. 19th century. The 'coach house' was formerly used as a hog and hen barn, according to an interview with former residents in a 1968 article in the Kitchener -Waterloo Record. North Elevation The north elevation is constructed in field stone with yellow brick quoins. A 3x3 rectangular -shaped window is located under the gable peak. This window opening displays a wood lintel above which extends a few inches past the window at either side. Yellow brick quoins are located at either side of the window. The first storey includes what is likely three former livestock entrances close to ground level. These openings may also have served as a manure chute. These openings are filled-in with field stone similar to that of the remainder of the building. However, this filled-in portion includes mortar of a slightly different colour and quality, confirming that it was originally open and filled-in later at an unknown date. Figures 42 & 43: (left) View of north elevation, looking south (right) Detail view of north elevation, noting construction materials at ground level (Source: MHBC, 2017) East Elevation The east elevation displays a 3x3 window towards the south having modern decorative shutters. The east elevation also includes a projecting stone addition which is not original to the building as confirmed by a review of early 20th century photos of the coach house (See Figure 22). This portion of the building is constructed of field stone similar to that of the rest of the building, but displays a different colour and quality of mortar. The east elevation person door includes an etching in the cement that indicates the floor was paved in 1975. January, 2018 MHBC 133 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 44 & 45: (left) View of east elevation looking south-west (right) Detail view of east elevation noting difference in materials between main part of building and door projection (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figure 46: (left) View of date etched into the stone foundation at the west elevation door (Source: MHBC, 2017) South Elevation A loft door is located at the upper level of the building under the gable peak. The south elevation displays no evidence of having window openings at the first storey. January, 2018 MHBC 134 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 47 & 48: (left) View of south elevation looking north (right) Corner view of west and south elevation, looking north-east (Source: MHBC, 2017) West Elevation The west elevation includes three window openings. These window openings include 3x3 window panes with modern decorative (un -operational) shutters. The dimensions of these windows are similar to that of the north elevation. Figures 49 & 50 (left) Corner view of north and west elevations looking south-east (right) Detail view of windows at west elevation (Source: MHBC, 2017) Interior The interior of the building has been covered with spray foam insulation at the first storey. As a result, few hand hewn beams remain visible at the interior. The interior of the building has been divided in half with a brick wall. January, 2018 MHBC 135 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 51 & 52: (left) View of interior ceiling beams looking west (right) Detail view of hand hewn beam at the interior, looking east (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figures 53 & 54: (left) Detail view of interior brick wall (right) Detail view of wood beam, first storey (ceiling) (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figures 55 & 56: (left) View of loft area, looking south towards loft door (right) View of interior of loft area, looking north (Source: MHBC, 2017) January, 2018 MHBC 136 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 57 & 58: (left) Detail view of roof construction (right) Detail view of rough cut cedar log roof joist (Source: MHBC, 2017) Figures 59 & 60: (left) Detail view of roof construction with cut nails (right) Detail view of dimensions of roof board (approx 1 ft. wide) (Source: MHBC, 2017) 5.4.2 Dwelling The dwelling located on the subject property was constructed by Benjamin Burkholder in the 1860s, in the Waterloo County Georgian architectural style. The building was constructed in a yellow/buff brick and displays 3 bays at the north elevation with a front entrance covered verandah, side -gabled roofline and paired chimneys. North Elevation The north elevation includes a covered verandah supported by 8 wood columns. The building consist of 3 bays, having two 6x6 rectangular -shaped wood frame windows at the first storey and a central door with wood frame transom and sidelights. The second storey includes three 6x6 wood frame windows similar to that of the first storey. All existing shutters are un -operational and are not original to the structure. January, 2018 MHBC 137 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener East Elevation The east elevation displays two rectangular -shaped 6x6 wood frame windows at the first storey, and two similar windows at the second storey. Two small square-shaped casement windows are located beneath the gable, which has returning eaves. Figures 61 & 62: (left) View of north elevation, looking south (right) Corner view of north and east elevations, looking south-west (Source: MHBC, 2017) South Elevation The south elevation includes a single storey board and batten addition at the first storey, which extend into a covered verandah towards the east. The board -and batten addition at the rear was reportedly used as a wood shed, according to a former resident. A double panel rectangular -shaped window having 8 window panes each is located at the first storey, west of the board and batten addition. A set of French - style doors is located at the first storey under the covered verandah. This door opening is likely not original to the structure. The second storey displays a central door (with balcony over the board and batten addition) which appears to have been converted from a window. A 6x6 wood frame window is located to the east. The window original window opening to the west displays evidence of being altered to include a smaller casement window. West Elevation The west elevation displays a small single storey board and batten addition at the first storey providing an entrance at the west elevation. This board and batten feature is likely not original to the structure. The structure appears in early 19th century photographs and was likely a mud room, pantry, or storage shed. The first storey of the original portion of the building displays a 6x6 wood frame window, with 6x6 wood frame similar windows above at the second storey. Two small square casement windows are located within the roof gable, which includes returning eaves. January, 2018 MHBC 138 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Figures 63 & 64: (left) View of south elevation, looking north *note location of former wood shed/addition in board and batten (right) View of west elevation, looking east Source: MHBC, 2017) 5.4.3 Garage The property includes a garage located south of the dwelling which was constructed at some point between 1968 and 1980. The garage includes a front-end gable and is clad in wood siding which was salvaged from the barn formerly located on the property. This structure is not of significant cultural heritage value or interest. Figures 65 & 66: (left) Corner view of garage looking south-east (right) View of west elevation of delling, with garage located to the south accessed by the paved driveway (Source: MHBC, 2017) January, 2018 MHBC 139 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 6.0 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources This section of the report evaluates the significance of the heritage resources of the subject property. This report has identified that the property located at 883 Doon Village Road is of significant cultural heritage value as per Ontario Regulation 9/06. This section of the report includes a list of significant heritage attributes. 6.1 Evaluation Criteria The following sub -sections of this report will provide an analysis of the significance of the subject property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06, being related to design/physical, contextual, and associative values. 6.2 Evaluation of 883 Doon Village Road The following provides an overview of the cultural heritage value of the subject property. This will include a list of identified heritage attributes. 6.2.1 Design/Physical Value The property located at 883 Doon Village Road is significant for its design/physical value as it includes a dwelling constructed in the Waterloo County Georgian architectural style in the 1860s. It is important to note that the existing designation by-law for the subject property identifies that the only attribute of the property which is subject to the by-law is the dwelling. The building can be described as a 2 storey brick house with three bay facade and side -gabled roofline with returning eaves. The north elevation displays a verandah supported by wood posts. The building was constructed as part of an operational farm, having a barn, smaller hen and hog barn (now referred to as the 'coach house'), cultivated fields, and likely an orchard. The barn was formerly located south of the existing coach house and has since been demolished. The only remaining features of the property related to its former agricultural use includes the coach house and a portion of the existing laneway (east of the coach house) which formerly provided access to the barn. The coach house has modest design/physical value. The coach house displays evidence of being constructed in the mid. 19th century, similar to that of the construction date of the house. Based on a review of the materials and construction materials of the coach house, it is likely that the coach house was constructed shortly after the dwelling, in approximately the late 1860s or early 1870s. The coach house can be described as a single storey building of wood frame construction with field stones, having a gabled roof. The building displays a loft style door at the south elevation and window at the north elevation. Three window openings are located at the west elevation. The east elevation has been altered to include a field January, 2078 MHBC 140 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener stone entrance which is not original to the structure. The coach house has design/physical value as it is an early and original feature of the farm complex. The coach house is representative of an early agricultural accessory structure and does not demonstrate a high degree of craftsmanship, artistic merit, or scientific achievement. Therefore, it can be concluded that the existing dwelling is the primary and feature heritage attribute of the property, and the coach house (being accessory to the dwelling), is considered a secondary heritage attribute. 6.2.2 Historical/Associative Value The property located at 883 Doon Village Road is significant for its historical/associative value as it is related to the theme of early agricultural settlement of Doon (now part of the City of Kitchener). The property includes a dwelling and former hog and hen house constructed c. 1863 by Benjamin Burkholder. Benjamin Burkholder was born in 1814 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and settled on a farm with his family on the German Company Tract lands. Benjamin Burkholder became a teacher in Waterloo Township, teaching in 11 different schools. Benjamin Burkholder retired from teaching in the mid. 1870s and resided on the subject lands. Benjamin Burkholder published a weekly newspaper at Waterloo (Der Morgenstern), from 1839 to 1841 (Bloomfield, 2006). 6.2.3 Contextual Value The property located at 883 Doon Village Road has lost the majority of its significant contextual value. This report has demonstrated that the only remaining built features associated with its historic agricultural use include the existing dwelling and coach house. The two buildings remain in-situ and retain their contextual and historical relationship to each other. Photographs provided in this report demonstrate that the barn, cultivated fields, and orchard formerly located on the subject property in the first half of the 20th century have been removed. The barn was demolished at some point between 1968 and 1980. The barn boards were salvaged and used to clad the existing garage located south of the dwelling. The 1954 aerial photographs demonstrate that the property began to include ornamental plantings at this time. The presence of ornamental plantings increased on the subject property through the second half of the 20th century. The subject property no longer retains its agricultural setting. The aerial photographs provided in this report demonstrate that the property was subdivided after 1963 to facilitate the development of single - detached houses in the surrounding context. At this point, the property was no longer related to agricultural use. The 1980 aerial photograph demonstrates that the barn was demolished by this time, and that the existing garage located south of the dwelling on the subject property was constructed. The existing driveway located east of the coach house may be in its original location as it appears to have provided access to the barn (prior to its demolition) and the dwelling. January, 2018 MHBC 141 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener The linear plantings located along the existing driveway include Norway Spruce; a planting which is commonly associated with the turn -of -the -century and is likely not an original heritage attribute of the landscape. This is confirmed by the photographs provided in this report dating to the early 20th century which demonstrate that the landscape was dominated by plantings and features indicative of a working agricultural farm such as fruit trees and ploughed agricultural fields rather than plantings for aesthetic purposes. The property is no longer functionally linked to its surroundings due to the surrounding subdivision development. The presence of the existing dwelling on the subject property set amongst contemporary structures is a visual reminder of the history of the area but does not define, support, or maintain the character of the area. 6.2.5 List of Identified Heritage Attributes By-law no. 84-52 identifies the following heritage attributes of the property: • Three bay front facade; • Two side facades; • All windows with 6x6 panes; • Front door complete with transom and sidelights; • One -storey verandah with turned posts which extends across the front of the house; • Gable roof with return eaves; • Small square attic windows; and • Two chimneys at either end of the gable roof. As the property was designated in 1984 as per By-law no. 84-52, the by-law was drafted prior to the 2005 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act which requires that the by-law include a statement of significance and a list of heritage attributes. The existing by-law does not identify that the existing coach house is a significant heritage attribute of the property. The following provides a revised list of heritage attributes for the property located at 883 Doon Village Road: Primary Heritage Attribute: Benjamin Burkholder Dwelling • Overall 2 storey massing constructed in buff/yellow brick with side -gabled roof, • Three bay front facade; • Front entrance with sidelights and transom; • Two side facades with returning eaves at the roofline and small square-shaped window openings and wood frame windows; • All window openings and wood windows with 6x6 panes; • One -storey verandah with turned posts which extends across the front of the house; • Paired brick chimneys at either end of the gable roof, • Location in-situ and orientation towards Doon Village Road. January, 2018 MHBC 142 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Secondary Heritage Attribute: 'Coach House' (former Hen & Hog Barn) • Single storey Coach House with wood frame and field stone construction, gabled roof, and original loft door and windows openings with wood frame windows; and • Historical and associative relationship to the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling. As previously stated in this report, the existing coach house has been identified as a secondary heritage attribute as the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling is the primary feature of the site. The cultural heritage value of the coach house is primarily related to its relationship to the dwelling as an accessory feature. Views • View of the north elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling looking south from the private realm (on the subject lands). As previously noted in this report, it has been demonstrated that views from the public realm along Bechtel Drive are not significant as they do not offer views of the primary edifice of the primary attribute of the subject lands. In addition, public views from Bechtel Drive were not available until the 1980s. The identified view of the north elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling looking south from the private realm ensures that the dwelling remains a prominent feature of the subject lands. As previously stated in this report, the existing coach house has been identified as a secondary heritage attribute as the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling is the primary feature of the site. The cultural heritage value of the coach house is primarily related to its relationship to the dwelling as an accessory feature. 6.3 Cultural Heritage Landscape Evaluation 6.3.1 Introduction A cultural heritage landscape is defined by Provincial Policy Statement 2014 as follows: Cultural Heritage Landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act,- villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, mainstreets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trailways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance, and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site). January, 2018 MHBC 143 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener The Ontario Heritage Toolkit identifies that a cultural heritage landscape or Heritage Conservation District may be classified as either designed (purposely planned), evolved (grown over a period of time), static/relict (evolutionary process has ended), or dynamic (continuing to evolve). Cultural Heritage Landscapes are identified and evaluated based on their associative/historical value, such as with themes or events, the identification of a grouping of heritage resources within a defined area, and its value as determined by a community based on local histories and public consultations, for example. 6.3.2 Evaluation The subject property is technically considered a cultural heritage landscape as it meets the criteria as defined by PPS 2014 as a) the property has been modified by human activity, b) the property is defined by finite geographical boundaries and legally described as part of Lot 2, Biehn's Tract and c) is identified as being valued by the community as it is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. While this is true, designation By-law no. 84-52 does not identify any landscape features or built features other than the existing 2 storey dwelling as being significant heritage attributes of the property. Cultural heritage landscapes may be evaluated for cultural heritage significance as per Ontario Regulation 9/06. This evaluation, as provided in Section 7.2 of this report demonstrates that property located at 883 Doon Village Road has been significantly altered since it was first settled in the 1860s. These alterations have resulted in the loss of the majority of landscape features typical of a mid. 19th century agricultural settlement. Therefore, while the subject property meets the criteria as a cultural heritage landscape, it is not considered a significant cultural heritage landscape. Typical agricultural farmsteads include a dwelling, barn (and accessory structures), cultivated fields, hedgerows, orchards, gardens, and a circulation system (laneways and paths). These buildings and features were placed intentionally and systematically in order to make use of the natural resources of the landscape and topography to support the function of the landscape for agricultural purposes. Alterations to the subject property include the significant reduction in lot size which formerly supported a working agricultural farm with cultivated fields. It also includes the demolition of the original barn at some point between 1968 and 1980 and the removal of other landscape features, such as fruit trees and orchards, and hedge rows. Therefore, subject property has been altered to the extent that it is not representative of the typical pattern of a mid. 19th century agricultural landscape. The only remaining features of the landscape are a) the dwelling (which is the primary heritage attribute of the subject lands), b) the former hog and hen barn (referred to as the 'coach house) and is a secondary attribute of the subject lands, and c) a portion of the laneway located east of the coach house, parallel to Bechtel Drive. This laneway retains its perpendicular orientation to Doon Village Road and continues to provide access to the coach house. However, the laneway has been altered and reduced in length. The laneway no longer provides access to cultivated fields (removed), and the barn (now demolished). January, 2018 MHBC 144 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener The property currently includes landscaped open space and a variety of plantings for aesthetic purposes. As demonstrated through an analysis of early 20' century photos of the subject lands, the vast majority of the plantings on the subject lands related to the function of the property as a farm and included agricultural fields and fruit trees. Therefore, the majority of existing plantings on the subject property are not original heritage attributes as they are not part of a mid. 19th century working agricultural landscape. Instead, they are ornamental plantings which appear to have been added to the property after the 1940s. Other plantings on the subject property which are not heritage attributes include linear plantings of Norway Spruce which were added at an unknown date, likely c. 1900s. Based on this analysis (as above), it can be concluded that the subject property has evolved over time, and is continuing to evolve based on the changing needs of rural (now urban) family life. The subject lands were first developed in the 1860s as a working agricultural farmstead complete with a barn, agricultural fields, orchards, gardens, and other components of this type of landscape. As demonstrated through photographs of the property dated to the early 20th century and aerial photographs, the property began to evolve after the mid 1900s to remove a) agricultural fields, b) orchards, and c) structures associated with agriculture. The removal of these features was necessary in order to support the subdivision of land in the vicinity of what is now 883 Doon Village Road and the construction of contemporary single -detached dwellings in the 1980s. The removal of these features was also required to adjust to a more urban form of lifestyle on the subject lands. After these features were removed, the subject lands continued to evolve with the inclusion of more ornamental plantings and landscaping. While these features (such as spruce trees and the contemporary garage) are components of this changing and evolving landscape, they are not heritage attributes which were part of the original 1860s farmstead. While remnant components of the landscape remain (including the dwelling, coach house, and a portion of the circulation system), the subject lands are not a significant cultural heritage landscape as the rare, unique, and early (original) landscape of the 1860s indicative of rural/agricultural living is not intact. Instead, the landscape has evolved and will continue to evolve in order to meet the changing needs of urban living and modern families. January, 2018 MHBC 145 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 6.4 Summary of Evaluation Ontario Regulation 9/06 833 Doon Village Road 1. Design/Physical Value YES L Rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method ii. Displays high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit Demonstrates high degree of technical or scientific achievement 2. Historical/associative value YES L Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization, institution that is significant ii. Yields, or has potential to yield information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is significant to the community. 3. Contextual value NO L Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area ii. Physically, functionally, visually, or historically linked to its surroundinas Is a landmark January, 2018 MHBC 146 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 7.0 Description of Proposed Development The proposed development of the site includes the subdivision of the subject property, creating 4 new lots and one retained lot. The retained lot includes the existing dwelling and detached garage which is not of cultural heritage value or interest. The retained lot consists of 3,517 metres square, having a frontage of 48.1 metres at the north property line along Doon Village Road and will retain the existing 73.0 metres at the east and west property line. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have frontage along Bechtel Drive. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are proposed to have 18.2 metres of frontage along Bechtel Drive, with Lot 4 having 18.6 metres of frontage along Bechtel Drive. All of the lots proposed for severance have 25.0 metres along the east and west property lines. The proposed development includes the re -location of the coach house, which is partially located on proposed Lots 1 and 2 of the plan of severance. The coach house is proposed to be re -located a short distance to the retained lot, maintaining its orientation to Doon Village Road so that it may be used in its existing capacity as a garage/shed. The coach house will be re -located to the retained lot in a location which satisfies both cultural heritage issues as well as the zoning By-law. The proposed development would also require that the existing driveway parallel to Bechtel Drive be re- located to the east, maintaining its north -south orientation and relationship to Doon Village Road (See Figure 67). This re -located driveway would be required to connect to the existing garage (which is not of cultural heritage value or interest), requiring that the driveway be sited around the south elevation of the coach house in its proposed new location. January, 2018 MHBC 147 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 11 M BECHTELDR I I I �"�" Lot 4 I LGt 3 I Lv Lot 7 (454m') I (454rW) {454rtF'} + (454m') I I � f E. Retained Lands. Proposed Consent LEGEND Plan stpq tante f � � I P'9DD6P5 LfKb M Dloon Village Road Crty & K.mt ener Regal^ ui Wak ce Figure 67: Proposed Plan of Severance (Source: MHBC, 2017) Rekxate Existing Dnvewway / 0040 , January, 2018 MHBC 148 J DATE: Dec. 19, 2017 SCALE: 1:750 FILE: 179dA DRAWN: GC January, 2018 MHBC 148 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 8.01mpacts of Proposed Development 8.1 Introduction There are three classifications of impacts a proposed development may have on an identified cultural heritage resource: beneficial, neutral or adverse. Beneficial effects may include such actions as retaining a property of cultural heritage value, protecting it from loss or removal, maintaining restoring or repairing heritage attributes, or making sympathetic additions or alterations that allow for a continued long-term use and retain heritage building fabric. Neutral effects have neither a markedly positive or negative impact on a cultural heritage resource. Adverse effects may include the loss or removal of a cultural heritage resource, unsympathetic alterations or additions that remove or obstruct heritage attributes, the isolation of a cultural heritage resource from its setting or context, or the addition of other elements that are unsympathetic to the character or heritage attributes of a cultural heritage resource. Adverse effects may require strategies to mitigate their impact on cultural heritage resources. The impacts of a proposed development or change to a cultural heritage resource may be direct or indirect. They may occur over a short term or long term duration, and may occur during a pre -construction phase, construction phase or post -construction phase. Impacts to a cultural heritage resource may also be site specific or widespread, and may have low, moderate or high levels of physical impact. 8.2 Analysis of Impacts The proposed re -development of the site includes the re -location of the existing coach house to the retained lot to be used in its existing capacity as a garage/shed. The following provides an analysis of the anticipated impacts as a result of the proposed development. 8.2.1 Concept of Subdivision The proposed development includes the severance of four rectangular -shaped lots having frontage on Bechtel Drive. Each lot proposes a minimum frontage of 18.2 metres. The approximate average frontage of properties located on the west side of Bechtel Drive, opposite the subject property is between 15 and 16 metres. The average and approximate frontage of properties located east of the subject lands along Doon Village Road is between 15 and 16 metres. The average lot frontage of properties to the south fronting Cobblestone Street is between 12 and 14 metres, with one property having approximately 20.1 metres of frontage. January, 2018 MHBC 149 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Beneficial Impacts The proposed development will not result in the demolition or any alterations to the existing single - detached dwelling of cultural heritage value or interest. The existing by-law specifies that the only heritage attribute of the property is the existing dwelling. The dwelling will be retained and continue to be maintained and conserved by the current owners. The proposed development does not include the demolition of the coach house, which is considered a secondary heritage attribute of the subject property. The coach house will be retained and conserved over the long-term, which is considered a beneficial impact. Neutral Impacts The proposed severance will result in neutral impacts. The property is not a significant cultural heritage landscape, and therefore the proposed reduction in lot size of the retained lot is considered a neutral impact. The creation of four new lots having frontage along Bechtel drive is will not result in adverse impacts as a) the dwelling of historical significance will be retained and conserved in-situ, b) the dwelling will retain its relationship and orientation to Doon Village Road, and c) the dwelling will retain its complementary setting with generous landscaped open space. In addition to this, the frontage of the lots proposed for severance is greater than those existing within the immediate context of the subject property on Bechtel Drive, Doon Village Road, and Cobblestone Street. Therefore, the proposed size and orientation of the lots proposed for severance are not anticipated to result in a markedly beneficial or adverse impact. The existing trees on the property, including linear plantings of Norway Spruce are not original heritage attributes of the property. The property was originally a working agricultural farm and the original trees as part of an orchard have been removed. The existing trees on-site are not attributes of the former agricultural use of the property, but are ornamental in nature and complement the open landscaped space. Therefore, the proposed removal of trees is considered a neutral impact. However, as trees are complementary to, and enhance the site, trees should be retained wherever possible. The proposed re -location of the laneway to the east, closer to the dwelling is considered a neutral impact. Provided that the laneway maintains its orientation parallel to Bechtel drive and access to Doon Village Road, the slight re -location of the laneway is not anticipated to cause any adverse impacts to the site as the laneway is not identified as a significant attribute of the property as it has been demonstrated that the property is not a significant cultural heritage landscape. The laneway is proposed to retain its existing orientation and relationship with the east elevation of the coach house to facilitate access to the person and garage -style doors. Adverse Impacts As the proposed development includes the severance of four lots having frontage on Bechtel Drive, the concept of subdivision poses potential adverse impacts where the future design, scale, and massing of the houses on the new proposed lots may have an impact on the character of the retained lot . Mitigation recommendations are provided in the following section of this report in order to minimize this potential January, 2018 MHBC 150 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener impact. It should be noted that provided that future buildings on the lots proposed for severance are subordinate to, distinguishable from, and complementary to the heritage site and the surrounding context, impacts can be avoided or minimized. The existing coach house currently sits between an interior lot line of proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2. Therefore, the coach house will be impacted by the proposed severance. A range of options have been considered as it relates to proposed alterations to the coach house. The remainder of impacts of the proposed development are specifically related to alterations to the existing coach house, which has been identified in this Heritage Impact Assessment as a secondary heritage attribute as it is considered accessory to the main feature of the site, which is the Benjamin Burkholder house. The following provides a review of the beneficial, neutral, and adverse impacts associated with the proposed alterations of the coach house. 8.2.2 Re -Locate Coach House to Retained Lot The proposed development includes the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot. The proponent intends to re -locate the coach house a short distance towards the dwelling to the east while retaining the existing orientation of the coach house to Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road. The proposal includes the re -location of the coach house to the retained lot so that it may be used in its existing capacity as a garage/shed. Beneficial Impacts The proposed re -location of the coach house to the retained lot would maintain the historical and associative relationship of the coach house to the dwelling. This is considered a beneficial impact as the cultural heritage value of the coach house is directly correlated to its association with the dwelling on the retained lot. Neutral Impacts The proposed re -location of the coach house would result in neutral impacts to the property. This includes the re -location of the coach house from its existing location a short distance to the east, closer to the west elevation of the dwelling. The re -location of the coach house is considered a neutral impact provided that it maintains its existing orientation and maintains a physical and historical relationship to the dwelling. The proposed re -location of the coach house will result in the reduction of space between the dwelling and the coach house. This report acknowledges that agricultural buildings (such as barns and their associated outbuildings) were historically located within the vicinity of the farmhouse, but at an acceptable distance away in order to avoid smells, noises, and other by-products related to agricultural use. Therefore, there is purpose associated with the distance between structures on a working agricultural farmstead. While this is true, the landscape has evolved and no longer supports this agricultural use. Therefore, the purpose of having buildings spaced further apart from each other is no longer a necessity. The distance between the existing buildings on the subject lands has not been identified as a significant attribute as the property is not a significant cultural heritage landscape. As such, the specific relationship, January, 2018 MHBC 151 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener distance, and setting of structures (in-situ) do not make a significant contribution to the cultural heritage value of the site. Instead, the remnant components of the landscape which are significant (limited to the dwelling and coach house) should be retained with a complementary setting. Therefore, the reduction in space between the dwelling and the coach house is considered a neutral impact as a) it will not result in the removal of identified heritage attributes of the subject lands, b) it will support the continued evolution of the subject lands, and c) it will maintain the historical relationship between the dwelling and the coach house on the retained lot. The re -location will likely require the removal of the existing stone feature surrounding the east elevation entrance of the coach house. This stone feature includes a person door and a garage -style door which are not heritage attributes, but alterations to the structure that occurred at an unknown date in the 20th century. The removal of this stone entrance feature is considered a neutral impact. Mitigation recommendations may be required in order to ensure that the east elevation of the coach house is conserved subsequent to the removal of the contemporary stones. The proposed development includes the re -location of the coach house to the east, closer to the existing dwelling. This will result in a change to the aesthetic of the site when viewed from the north. This is considered a neutral impact as the coach house is proposed to be re -located an acceptable distance away from the dwelling in order to maintain their historical relationship to each -other. In addition to this, the coach house is considerably smaller than the dwelling in terms of scale and massing and will not dominate the aesthetic of the site. The proposed development will not result in adverse impacts to identified views of the site as the north elevation of the dwelling will not be obstructed by the re -location of the coach house. The coach house will be located closer to the west elevation of the dwelling and will not overshadow the primary feature of the subject property. Adverse Impacts It is recommended that the existing stone entranceway at the east elevation of the coach house be removed. This is considered a neutral impact as it is not an original attribute of the structure. The removal of the existing stones at the east elevation of the coach house may result in potential adverse impacts to the original stones of the coach house and require conservation/repairs and remedial actions to ensure that the original material of the coach house is not adversely impacted. January, 2018 MHBC 152 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 9. 0 Mitigation/Conservation Recommendations and Alternative Development Approaches 9. ] Mitigation Recommendations The following provides a review of the mitigation recommendations in order to address the adverse impacts (and potential adverse impacts) identified in Section 9.0 of this report. 9.1.1 Mitigation Recommendations for the Concept of Subdivision As previously noted in this report, the design, scale, massing, orientation, and materials of any future buildings (and accessory structures) on the lots proposed for severance may pose a potential adverse impact on the primary and secondary heritage attributes of the subject property (those being the dwelling and the coach house). Therefore, any future buildings on the lots proposed for severance should be designed in such a way that they are subordinate to, distinguishable from, and complementary to the heritage site and the surrounding context. The proposed lots and any future buildings thereon will be required to comply with the current Zoning by-law, which limits height in an R-4 zone to 10.5 metres. Any variances to allow greater heights should consider the impact on the adjacent heritage resources located at 883 Doon Village Road. In addition, the design and materials of any future proposed houses on the proposed lots for severance should be contemporary. This will provide assurance that any proposed new houses are subordinate to, distinguishable from, and complementary to the heritage property. It is recommended that subsequent to the approval of the application for consent, that the existing By-law for the subject property be amended so that it applies only to the retained lot. It is recommended that while the 'coach house' is referred to as such in this report, that it be specifically referred to as the 'former hog and hen house' or 'former hog and hen barn' should it be included as a heritage attribute in an amended heritage designation by-law for the retained lot. The purpose of this distinction is to avoid any confusion as to the historic use of the structure. 9.1.2 Mitigation Recommendations for Re -Location of the Coach House The adverse impacts as a result of the proposed development may be avoided or minimized. This includes the impacts related to the removal of stone addition at the east elevation of the coach house and the physical re -location of the coach house. January, 2018 MHBC 153 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener In order to minimize or avoid these impacts, this report recommends the following: • The structural integrity of the coach house and its re -location to the proposed new location on the retained lot be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer to confirm that it may be re -located safely while maintain its existing orientation; • That the coach house be moved by a qualified building mover to ensure that no damage occurs prior, during, or after the re -location; • That the proposed plans for the adaptive re -use of the coach house require a scoped Conservation Plan in order to ensure that the alterations to the coach house prior to, during, and subsequent to its re -location will conserve the structure in its new location over the long-term. A structural assessment of the coach house in support of its re -location has been conducted by Tacoma Engineers and is provided in Appendix D of this report. 9.2 Consideration for Alternative Development Approaches The following sub -sections of this report provide recommendations regarding alternative development approaches as it relates to the proposed development. 9.2.1 'Do Nothing' Alternative The 'do nothing' alternative would prohibit the redevelopment of the subject property and would prevent the proposed subdivision. This option would result in maintaining the existing lot size, and the existing location of the coach house. This alternative would create no opportunity for the proposed creation of four new lots and one retained lot. This alternative would prohibit the owners from undertaking their plans for the future of their property. 9.2.2 Retain Coach House and In -Situ This option would require an alternative plan for subdivision to allow for the retention of the coach house in-situ. A variety of lot configurations have been considered as follows: a) Retain the Coach House In -Situ with the Retained Lot This option would result in altering the proposed application for consent to include the coach house with the retained lot. This could include a) the retention of lot 2 (only) which would be expanded slightly to include the entirety of the coach house, or b) the retention of proposed lots 1 and 2. The retention of both proposed Lots 1 and 2 would allow for partial retention of the existing laneway in- situ. The retention of only Lot 2 would result in the creation of a roughly T-shaped retained lot. This option would require the re -location of the existing laneway and may result in grading issues related to the construction of new dwellings on proposed lots 1, 3, and 4. This option would limit the ability of the proponent to create four (4) severed lots. January, 2078 MHBC 154 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener b) Retain the Coach House In -Situ as part of a Severed Lot Alternatively, retaining the coach house in-situ may include the combination of proposed Lots 1 and 2. This option would result in an alternative plan for subdivision, creating three severed lots (Lot 4 and Lot 3, as proposed), and one (larger) lot as a result of combing proposed Lots 1 and 2. This would result in retaining the coach house so that it may be part of a new severed lot. The coach house could remain in-situ to be either a) used in its existing capacity as a shed/garage for a new dwelling, or b) adaptively re -used so that it may become an addition to a new dwelling. This option would require that the existing laneway be re -located to the east on the retained lot. The retention of the coach house in-situ as part of a severed lot would result in the loss of the historical relationship of the structure to the dwelling and is considered a minor adverse impact. The impact is considered minor as a) the coach house would be retained and conserved in the long-term, and b) it would retain its physical relationship with the Benjamin Burkholder dwelling in terms of distance and orientation. The retention of the coach house for adaptive re -use as an addition to a new dwelling on a severed lot may result in adverse impacts. As the coach house would remain in-situ, it would likely require alterations to attach it to a dwelling at north, east, or south elevations. Should this option be considered as the preferred option, a conservation plan is recommended in order to ensure that the building is altered in such a way which would minimize adverse impacts. The preferred option to re -locate the coach house to the retained lot is contingent on the feasibility of physical re -location. Should the coach house be determined that it cannot be re -located due to either structural stability or feasibility, it is recommended that the building remain in-situ. The plan of severance could be altered to retain the coach house in-situ as either a) part of the retained lot, or b) part of a new severed lot. While the retention of the coach house on the retained lot would result in less adverse impacts, the retention of the coach house on a severed lot is considered an acceptable alteration as it a) results in the retention of the coach house, b) would maintain a physical relationship with the dwelling, and c) would result in opportunities to either retain the coach house in-situ in its existing capacity or as an addition to a new structure. Should the coach house require conservation in-situ, it is recommended that a conservation plan be required in order to minimize any potential adverse impacts. While re -locating the coach house to the retained lot is the preferred option due to the fact that it would enable the two structures to continue their historical and associative relationship to each -other, this report has demonstrated that is also acceptable that the coach house be retained in-situ. As the coach house is considered a secondary feature of the subject property, its retention in-situ as part of a new severed lot will not result in changes which will diminish the cultural heritage value of the site. Should this option be determined to be the primary option, it is recommended that a conservation plan be required in order to mitigate impacts to the coach house. January, 2018 MHBC 155 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 9.2.3 Demolition of Coach House This option would result in the demolition of a secondary heritage attribute of the property, described in this report as the existing coach house. This option would not result in significant adverse impacts to the overall property as it has been identified that the coach house is a secondary heritage attribute as it is accessory to the dwelling, which is the main feature of the property and the primary heritage attribute of the site. However, as the coach house has modest design/physical value and complements the property, mitigation recommendations would be required in order to minimize impacts. Should demolition of the coach house be proposed, it would be considered an adverse impact as it results in the permanent removal of heritage fabric and would require mitigation recommendations including (but not limited to), documentation and salvage. Should the building be demolished, it is recommended that the proponent consider salvaging the majority, if not all of the materials of the coach house and re -use them on-site. January, 2018 MHBC 156 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 10.0 Conclusions This Heritage Impact Assessment concludes that the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The existing by-law identifies that the only significant feature of the property is the existing dwelling. This Heritage Impact Assessment has evaluated the property as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 and demonstrated that while the existing dwelling is the primary attribute of the property, that the coach house should be considered a secondary attribute due to its nature as an accessory structure. This report has provided a detailed review of the proposed severance as well as the proposed re -location and of the coach house on the retained lot. The re -location of the coach house to the retained lot would result in retaining the historical and associative relationship of the coach house with the dwelling, which is considered a beneficial impact. Neutral impacts are related to the re -location of the building a short distance on the retained lot, provided that it is demonstrated that the structure can be removed safely. Potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed development include the future construction of buildings on the lots proposed for severance. The following mitigation recommendations should be implemented as part of the proposed development to re -locate the coach house to the retained lot to be used in its existing capacity as a garage/shed: • That the structural integrity of the coach house and its re -location to the proposed new location on the retained lot be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer to confirm that it may be re- located safely while maintain its existing orientation; • That the coach house be moved by a qualified building mover to ensure that no damage occurs prior, during, or after the re -location; • That the proposed re -location of the coach house be subject to a scoped Conservation Plan in order to ensure that the structure is appropriately conserved. Respectfully submitted, Vanessa Hicks, MA, CAHP Heritage Planner Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Partner January, 2018 MHBC 157 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener 11.0 Bibliography Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo Township through two Centuries. Region of Waterloo: St Jacobs Printery, 2006. Butterfield, David. Anglo -Ontario Farm Buildings: An Architectural History Theme Study, n.d. City of Kitchener. Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value, Schedule 'B I ', Homer Watson House & Gallery. n.d. Eby, Ezra. A Biographical History of Early Settlers and their Descendants in Waterloo Township. Kitchener, ON: Eldon D. Weber, 1971. English, John and McLaughlin, Kenneth. Kitchener an Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Brass Studio, 1996. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History, Waterloo, ON: Waterloo Historical Society, 1997. McLaughlin, Kenneth and Sharon Jaeger. Waterloo: An Illustrated History, 1857-2007. City of Waterloo, 2007. Ontario Ministry of Culture (Now the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport). Infosheet # 5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans. Queem's Printer for Ontario, Winter 2006. Page, Frank E. Homer Watson, Artist and Man. 1939. Sephenson, Louisa. Guide to Homer Watson House and the Village of Lowerpoon. 2006 Van Every, Jane. With Faith, Ignorance and Delight: Homer Watson. 1967. Waterloo Historical Society, Fifty Second Annual Volume of the Waterloo Historical Society, 1964. Watson, Jennifer. Homer Watson in the Kitchener -Waterloo Art Gallery. 1987. January, 2018 MHBC 158 Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix A — Terms of Reference (next page) A i. Heritage Impact Assessment A ii. Conservation Plan January, 2078 MHBC 159 City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division 883 Doon Village Road Proposed Consent to Create 4 New Lots Scoped Heritage Impact Assessment —Terms of Reference 1.0 Background A Heritage Impact Assessment is a study to determine the impacts to known and potential cultural heritage resources within a defined area proposed for future development. The study shall include an inventory of all cultural heritage resources within the planning application area. The study results in a report which identifies all known cultural heritage resources, evaluates the significance of the resources, and makes recommendations toward mitigative measures that would minimize negative impacts to those resources. A Heritage Impact Assessment may be required on a property which is listed on the City's Heritage Advisory Committee Inventory; listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register; designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, or where development is proposed adjacent to a protected heritage property. The requirement may also apply to unknown or recorded cultural heritage resources which are discovered during the development application stage or construction. These terms of reference have been scoped, based on the existing status of the property and the nature of the proposal. Sections not required are noted by strikethrough. Requirements specific to the subject property are noted in italics. Subject property should be read to include both the lot to be retained and the new lots that are proposed. 2.0 Heritage Impact Assessment Requirements It is important to recognize the need for Heritage Impact Assessments at the earliest possible stage of development or alteration. Notice will be given to the property owner and/or their representative as early as possible. When the property is the subject of a Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan application, notice of a Heritage Impact Assessment requirement will typically be given at the pre -submission consultation meeting, followed by written notification to include specific terms of reference. The notice will inform the property owner of any known heritage resources specific to the subject property and provide guidelines to completing the Heritage Impact Assessment. The following minimum requirements will be required in a Heritage Impact Assessment: 2.1 Present owner contact information for properties proposed for development and/or site alteration. 24 A written description of the buildings, structures and landscape features on the subject properties including: building elements, building materials, architectural and interior finishes, natural heritage elements, and landscaping. The los^r•;^+;^^ will also ;nvi6idea G n^1()iGaI h.ste ` ^forme-buIIdings'' development, suGh "s The report shall include a clear statement of the conclusions regarding the cultural heritage value and interest as well as a bullet point list of heritage attributes. The statement should evaluate all buildings/structures and landscape features based on O. Reg. 9/06. The statement should clearly identify significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes. The statement should include, at minimum, the heritage attributes identified in the Part IV designation by-law as well as any additional resources and their heritage attributes that meet O. Reg. 9/06. 2.4 Documentation of the subject properties to include: current photographs of each elevation of the buildings, photographs of identified heritage attributes and a site plan drawn at an appropriate scale to understand the context of the buildings and site details. Documentation shall also include, where available, current floor plans, and historical photos, drawings or other available and relevant archival material. 2.5 An outline of the proposed development, its context, and how it will impact the property (buildings, structures, and site details including landscaping). In particular, the potential visual and physical impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage attributes of the property shall be assessed. The Heritage Impact Assessment must consider potential negative impacts as identified in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit. Negative impacts may include but are not limited to: alterations that are not sympathetic or compatible with the cultural heritage resource; demolition of all or part of a cultural heritage resource; etc. The outline should also address the influence and potential impact of the development on the setting and character of the subject property, including any impact on views or site lines. The impact of the proposed severance on the existing context of the subject property, including impacts to the cultural heritage landscape and the relationship between the house, coach house, topography, natural heritage features and lanscaping. Potential impacts may include those that are visual/contextual, as well as physical/structural. Views from the east and west along Doon Village Road should be described and analysed. 2.6 Options shall be provided that explain how the cultural heritage resources may be conserved, relating to their level of importance. Methods of mitigation may include, but are not limited to preservation/conservation in situ, adaptive re -use, relocation, commemoration and/or documentation. Each mitigative measure should create a sympathetic context for the heritage resource. The potential impacts of both the relocation of the Coach House and the creation of 4 new lots should be examined. Lot configuration and building design options that mitigate the impact of the proposed severances on the heritage attributes of the subject property and surrounding protected properties should be fully explained. For example, conserving buildings in situ is always the preferred conservation option. The HIA should explore at least one option where the Coach House is conserved in situ, perhaps by retaining the Coach House in situ on its own lot (e.g. combine Lot 9 and Lot 2), or perhaps by retaining the Coach House in situ on the retained lands. Staff would be willing to explore alterations to the Coach House that would enable it to function as a separate single detached dwelling on its own lot, or a secondary dwelling unit on the retained lands. 2.7 A summary of the conservation principles and how they will be used must be included. The conservation principles may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada — Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport; and, the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). 2.8 The proposed severance and the potential construction of new dwelling units alterations and dem, 'mss must be justified and explained as to any loss of cultural heritage value and impact on the streetscape/neighbourhood context. 2.9 Recommendations shall be as specific as possible, describing and illustrating locations, elevations, materials, landscaping, etc. 2.10 The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Heritage Impact Assessment shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the heritage conservation field of study. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations The summary statement should provide a full description of: ■ The significance and heritage attributes of the subject property, including at minimum, the heritage attributes in the designating by-law. ■ The identification of any impact the proposed development will have on the heritage attributes of the subject property. ■ An explanation of what conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are recommended. ■ Clarification as to why specific conservation or mitigative measures, or alternative development or site alteration approaches are not appropriate. In particular, if the conclusion continues to favour moving the coach house, the HIA should explain why conserving the coach house in situ is not possible. 4.0 Mandatory Recommendation The consultant must write a recommendation as to whether the subject property is worthy of listing or designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the consultant not support listing or designation then it must be clearly stated as to why not. The following questions must be answered in the final recommendation of the report: 1. Do thepropeFties meet the Cityof KitGhener�GriteFia or Listing on the MR+Eipal—Heritage'peg+steF as--z,--Nen DesigRateaPFeperty of Cultural heritage Value nr Interest? Why eF why net? 2. Do additional resources on the property, beyond those already identified in the existing designating by-law, meet the criteria for heritage designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act? Why or why not? 3. Regardless of the failure to meet criteria for heritage designation, does the property warrant conservation as per the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement? Why or why not? It is acknowledged that both the lot to be retained and the 4 new lots that are proposed to be created are currently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (By-law # 1984-52). The consultant shall examine and provide a recommendation on the revisions and amendments that should be made to the designating by-law to reflect O. Reg. 9/06 and the PPS. The following question must be answered in the mandatory recommendation of the report: 1. Should the current Part IV designation of the subject property under the Ontario Heritage Act continue to apply to the 4 new lots to be created? Why or why not? It must be clearly stated as to why the 4 new lots do or don't merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (i.e. meets or does not meet the criteria for designation in Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06). 5.0 Approval Process Five (5) hard copies of the Heritage Impact Assessment and one electronic pdf format burned on CD shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies shall be marked with a "DRAFT" watermark background. The Heritage Impact Assessment will be reviewed by City staff to determine whether all requirements have been met and to review the preferred option(s). Following the review of the Heritage Impact Assessment by City staff, five (5) hard copies and one electronic copy of the final Heritage Impact Assessment ("DRAFT" watermark removed) will be required. The copies of the final Heritage Impact Assessment will be considered by the Director of Planning. Note that Heritage Impact Assessments may be circulated to the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee for information and discussion. Staff may recommend deferral of the consent applications by the committee of adjustment until such time as Heritage Kitchener has provided comment and the Director of Planning has approved the HIA. Heritage Impact Assessments, may be subject to a peer review to be conducted by a qualified heritage consultant at the expense of the City of Kitchener. The applicant will be notified of Staff's comments and acceptance, or rejection of the report. An accepted Heritage Impact Assessment will become part of the further processing of a development application under the direction of the Planning Division. The recommendations within the final approved version of the Heritage Impact Assessment may be incorporated into development related legal agreements between the City and the proponent at the discretion of the municipality. City of Kitchener Community Services Department - Planning Division Conservation Plan - Terms of Reference Introduction The following Terms of Reference shall be used to fulfill the condition regarding completion and approval of a Conservation Plan prior to the consideration of an application made under the Planning Act. The Conservation Plan shall address how the cultural heritage resources and attributes as identified and described in an approved Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), will be conserved. A Conservation Plan is a document which identifies the conservation principles appropriate for the type of cultural heritage resource/attributes being conserved; provides detailed documentation of the resource and its heritage attributes; includes an assessment of current conditions and deficiencies; and recommends conservation measures and interventions in the short, medium and long term to ensure preservation of the property's cultural heritage significance. Policy Context Section 2 of the Planning Act indicates that Council shall have regard to matters of Provincial interest such as the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. In addition, Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Policy 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement requires that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. The Provincial Policy Statement defines a built heritage resource as including resources listed by local jurisdictions. Significant is defined as resources that are valued for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people and notes that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. Conserved is defined as meaning the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments. Conservation Plan Requirements Present owner contact information for property proposed for development and/or alteration. Identification of all cultural heritage resource(s) and a clear statement of their cultural heritage value and interest, including a bullet point list of their heritage attributes. • identification of the conservation principles and guidelines to be applied for the type of heritage resource/attributes being conserved and the specific conservation work to be undertaken in order to repair, maintain and protect the heritage resources and attributes. These conservation principles and guidelines may be found in publications such as: Parks Canada — Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada; Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Building Heritage Properties, Ontario Ministry of Culture; and, the Ontario Ministry of Culture's Ontario Heritage Tool Kit (all available online). An assessment of the current condition of the cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes. The Conservation Plan must identify the physical condition and integrity of the cultural heritage resources and their heritage attributes, with a view toward making recommendations regarding appropriate repair and maintenance, in keeping with good conservation practice. Identification of the short, medium and long term vision for the conservation of the heritage resources, and of the specific conservation measures to be undertaken in the short, medium, and long-term. Such measures shall describe the documentation, stabilization, repair, monitoring and maintenance strategies required to be undertaken for each phase, and shall reference the qualifications for anyone responsible for undertaking such work. This section may include, but is not be limited to, the following: Short -Term Conservation Work • Documentation (through detailed description and photographs) of heritage attributes proposed to be demolished, removed, salvaged or otherwise irreversibly damaged. • Description and specifications for work required to be undertaken to conserve heritage attributes in need of immediate repair and stabilization to prevent further deterioration, damage and the potential loss of such attributes. monitoring strategy to protect the property from vandalism or fire (e.g. methodology for monitoring; frequency of monitoring; and process to address issues that arise through monitoring). Medium -Term Conservation Work Description and specifications for work required to be undertaken to heritage attributes as part of the proposed development and/or rehabilitation (to include demolition, removal and salvage of heritage attributes; the stabilization, repair and cleaning of heritage attributes; and the reconstruction or replacement of heritage attributes). Such work may be divided into phases. Long -Term Conservation Work Identification of a monitoring program addressing appropriate measures for the ongoing maintenance of the heritage resources and attributes, post develop ment/rehabilitation. Provide a recommended schedule for conservation work, inspections, monitoring, maintenances and phases (short, medium, and long-term). The Conservation Plan must include a cost estimate of the conservation work to be undertaken in the short-term to heritage attributes in need of immediate repair and stabilization to prevent further damage and deterioration. Such cost estimate must be prepared by a qualified individual or consultant. In order to ensure implementation of the Conservation Plan, the City may require the owner to post a Letter of Credit equal to the value of the short-term conservation work as a condition of the approval of the subject application. The qualifications and background of the person(s) completing the Conservation Plan shall be included in the report. The author(s) must demonstrate a level of professional understanding and competence in the field of heritage conservation. The report will also include a reference for any literature cited, and a list of people contacted during the study and referenced in the report. Approval Process Five hard copies of the Conservation Plan and one electronic pdf format burned on disk shall be provided to Heritage Planning staff. Both the hard and electronic copies will be marked with a DRAFT watermark. The Conservation Plan will be reviewed by Heritage Planning staff and a recommendation will be made to the Director of Planning. Approval of the Conservation Plan by the Director of Planning is required prior to issuance of approval of the application. Approval of the Conservation Plan may result in the establishment of development related legal agreements or conditions of development approval. Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix B — Proposed Plan of Severance (next page) January, 2078 MHBC 160 Proposed Consent Plan 883 Doon Village Road City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo BECHTEL DR Coach House Lot 4 I Lot 3 I Lot I Lot 1 (454m') (454m') I (454m') I (454m2) � I I X 1.2m setback 77e-� Ex. Retained Lands Building (3,517m2) LEGEND Subject Lands J I J Proposed Lots ___ Prop. Driveway M Relocate Existing Driveway Q rt W O Q J 2 O O Q Region of Waterloo, 2017 DATE: Dec.19.2017 SCALE: 1:750 �r c° FILE: 1796A DRAWN: GC Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix C — Designation By-law (next page) January, 2078 MHBC 161 (Poeinq a by-law to designate part of the property municipally known as 883 T*,%oon Village Road in the City of Kitchener as being of historic and architectural value) WHEREAS Section 29 of the Ontario 'Heritage Act, P.S.O. Chapter 337, authorizes the Council oZ a Municipality to enact to designate real property, including all buildings and structiarei,.i be of architectural or historical value or interest; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the ri.tv Kitchener has caused to be nerved on the owner of the lands and known municipally as 883 Doon Village Road in the City of Yitcren:_-, ancl upon the Ontario Heritage Foundation, a Notice of Intention to as being of historic and architectural value that part of the afcresr%:.7_1�. property more particuarly hereinafter described, and has Caused of intention to be published in a newspaper having general circ-6_JA'.at_-_-,F,.' In the municipality once for each of three consecutive weeks; AND WHEREAS no Notice of objection to the proposed cE .c t lits been served upon the Clerk of the Municipality; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the C2,t, nf- Kitchener enacts as followsi 1. There is designated as being of historic arts arc ct, value that part of the aforesaid real property, know.s Doon Village Road being comprised of the three had: facade, the two aide facades ull having windows -write. over six panes, the front door complete with tram= -.i rm lights, the one -storey verandah with turned posts extends across the front of the houses, the gable- roo,' return eaves, the small square attic windows 4n6 t!'. chimneys at either end of the gable roof, 2. The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a D -F this By-law to be registered against the whole o4 ;:ne . :Per described in Schedule "A" hereto (of which the sas,,-I area forms a part) in the proper land registry office. 1"10 Vxllw*L.Lu -..- - "-- --, passing of this By-law to be published in the same. having general circulation in the community once for three consecutive weeks. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Yj,tcken(.-.,r this day of PAP DUAL Arw birk3u.Uar, r-na-F, Uerx;1Mjn parQe.L UX: T;X-aUL- U1 LCL1'M-1' premises, situate, lying and being In the Ci" -y of Kitchener, in Municipality of Waterloo (formerly the County of Waterloo) ane Ontario, having an area of 1.322 acres and being composed of Paxn o.rl- 7,c,t Number 2, in Biahn's Tract, in the said City of Zitchener, more r!art�.c',a-!ar-i'v described as follows BEARINGS herein are astronomic and are referred to the meridian the southwesterly angle of Lot 53, German Company Tract; COMMENCING at a point where a standard iron bar is planted on the southwesterly limit of Doon Village Road, at the distance of 161812 fket, measured South 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds Fust therealonc-7 most northerly angle of Part 1 as shown on Waterloo Description Plan Number 127; THENCE South 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds EawL cortinui-nc, aio--7 t: ,e southwesterly limit of Doon Village Road, a distance of 240.00 feet cz; an iron bar; THENCE South 35 degrees 43 minutes and 30 seconds West, 240.00 feet to an iron bars THENCE North 54 degrees 16 minutes and 30 seconds West, 240.00 feet rc) -z-r, iron bars THENCE North 35 degrees 43 minutes and 30 seconds East, 240.00 feet to tne Point of Commencement. The designation described herein is recommended on hisboric _nft architectural grounds. This house was built in 1863 I -,.y. Burkholder, a well-known and respected teacher. in to -,f architecture, the house is a fine example of the Vlater`oo cc',uaty Georgian style. 7S V. ft Vi r4 0 4., > M K OL i -a 0 4 - rt Sv O LTJ K K O A� I= Y' F— O 4D u. 0 (D rt f✓• iu ��rpp *c' r+ rt 0 N" tS Q1 K � N• E ^r V Vl ctz H- al 0 1 H 0 5 Ar rt1 R u. 0 0 W ti G ::r w rt K tj C7 0 N tD 0 rh Fa K O <; N pt in tD W O q I Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix D — Structural Assessment (Coach House) (next page) January, 2078 MHBC 162 TAC(,,,,MA ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL REPORT Stone Coach House Assessment Date: January 15, 2018 No. of Pages: 2 + Encl. Project: Stone Coach House Assessment Project No.: TE -31305-18 Address: 883 Doon Village Road, Kitchener Permit No.: N/A Client: Bob and Alison LaFrance Distribution: Bob and Alison LaFrance Homeowners bobnali(arogers.com Vanessa Hicks MHBC vhicks(i�mhbcplan.com Background Tacoma Engineers has been retained by Bob and Alison LaFrance to provide a structural engineering assessment on the feasibility to move the stone coach house located at 883 Doon Village Road, Kitchener. A redevelopment plan has been proposed to see the current property severed, into several lots. It has been proposed to relocate the stone garage closer to the heritage dwelling on the main property. It is believed that the coach house was constructed in the 1860s and used as a hog and hen barn originally. The entire property at 883 Doon Village Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and has been placed on the City of Kitchener's Heritage Register since 1984. Bob and Alison LaFrance owns the building in question, and Tacoma Engineers is being retained as a Consultant directly by the Owner. This assessment is being undertaken by the Owner, and is intended to form part of the early preparation work for proposed redevelopment of the property. This report is not being prepared as a response to an Order, recommendations, or request by any regulatory body. This report is based on a visual inspection only and does not include any destructive testing. Where no concerns were noted the structure is assumed to be performing adequately. The structure is assumed to have been constructed in accordance with best building practices common at the time of construction. No further structural analysis or building code analysis has been carried out as part of this report unless specifically noted. No previous work has been completed by Tacoma Engineers on this building for this or any other owner. A preliminary visit to site was carried out by Nick Lawler of Tacoma Engineers on January Stn of 2018 to aid in the preparation of the report. No sub -consultants have been retained to participate in this assessment. Existing Construction The structure is approximately 26'-0" x 19'-0", and is a single storey with a loft / attic area. The roof is gable shaped, with the attic is accessible through a floor hatch and a ladder. The walls are approximately 18" thick, and are constructed with random coursed field stone with a natural lime based mortar. The corners are characterized with brick quoins, constructed with pressed yellow brick. Given the suspected age of the building, it is likely these quoins replaced original stone material, however this cannot be determined at this time. A central 7x8 ''/2" timber beam spans the long length of the building, and is supported by a brick wall approximately 10'-0" from the east end of the building. The attic framing consists of 2"x6" sawn timber 176 Speedvale Ave. West T: 519-763-2000 x264 Guelph, Ontario Professional Engineers F: 519-824-2000 Canada NIH 1C3 Ontario n.lawler(i�tacomaengineers.com Stone Coach House Assessment Page 2 of 2 TE -31305-18 Structural Report January 15, 2018 Stone Coach House Assessment joists, spaced at 3'-0" o.c. The roof framing consists of 4" diameter cedar logs, spaced at 3' on center, with a diagonal brace down to the attic floor. Feasibility to Move the Building Provided an experience contractor is involved, it is relatively straightforward process to relocate a structure within an existing property. When considering moving a building, the stability and structural stability must be considered. Further, the existing building should be reviewed to determine how loads are directed to the foundations, so that the new foundations and supporting structure can be provided which match the existing construction. In the case of the subject property, the supporting stone walls were found to be in good condition, with little to no deterioration. Minor cracks were noted over the windows, which is to be expected for a stone structure of this age and construction. It is recommended that all deteriorated mortar joints be repaired prior to relocating the building. Repairs should be made with a lime based mortar, compatible with the existing mortar and field stone. The wall at the south -south corner of the building was significantly out of plumb. It is unknown why this is the case, however the issue does not appear to be original, as there is evidence of significant mortar repairs in this area. This area should be repaired, or supported with external reinforcement during the move, to ensure that the wall remains structurally sound. The building is likely located on a very shallow foundation, with only the stone walls extending a few feet below grade. In order to pick up and move the building, excavation of the exterior perimeter of the building will be necessary. This excavation may impact the adjacent sidewalk and driveway. Details of this excavation, and mitigation methods would be developed during the detailed design phase by the relocation contractor. Conclusions and Recommendations The assessment of the existing building has determined that the building is structurally sound enough to be relocated within the same property. The necessary repairs to the exterior should be completed prior to undertaking such a move, such as repointing of damaged mortar joints, and supplementary support as required. An experienced contractor should be retained to perform the move, one with experience in moving older structures constructed using heritage material. Restoration of the building, both prior to and after the move should be supervised by an engineer / architect experienced in the restoration of heritage structures. �arr'E"SS1p Per Nick Lawler, M.A.Sc., PE, P.Eng. CARP k, 1 Structural Engineer, Senior Associate :3 Tacoma Engineers Inc. X0011341"1 �7 TE -31305-18 Encl. Nil. AD N-15- ��® Heritage Impact Assessment 833 Doon Village Road, City of Kitchener Appendix E - Curriculum Vitae (next page) January, 2078 MHBC 163 CU RRICU LUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP EDUCATION Dan Currie, a Partner and Managing Director of MHBC's Cultural Heritage Division, joined MHBC Planning in 2009, after having worked in various positions in the 2006 public sector since 1997 including the Director of Policy Planning for the City of Masters of Arts (Planning) Cambridge and Senior Policy Planner for the City of Waterloo. University of Waterloo Dan provides a variety of planning services for public and private sector clients 1998 including a wide range of cultural heritage policy and planning work including Bachelor of Environmental Studies strategic planning, heritage policy, heritage conservation district studies and University of Waterloo plans, heritage master plans, heritage impact assessments and cultural heritage landscape studies. 1998 Bachelor of Arts (Art History) University of Saskatchewan PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Full Member, Canadian Institute of Planners Full Member, Ontario Professional Planners Institute Professional Member, Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE MASTER PLANS, GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND POLICY STUDIES Niagara -on -the -Lake, Corridor Design Guidelines Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan Township of West Lincoln Settlement Area Expansion Analysis Ministry of Infrastructure Review of Performance Indicators for the Growth Plan Township of Tiny Residential Land Use Study Port Severn Settlement Area Boundary Review City of Cambridge Green Building Policy Township of West Lincoln Intensification Study & Employment Land Strategy Ministry of the Environment Review of the D -Series Land Use Guidelines Meadowlands Conservation Area Management Plan City of Cambridge Trails Master Plan City of Kawartha Lakes Growth Management Strategy CONTACT City of Cambridge Growth Management Strategy City of Waterloo Height and Density Policy 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, City of Waterloo Student Accommodation Study Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 City of Waterloo Land Supply Study T 519 576 3650 x 744 City of Kitchener Inner City Housing Study F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CONTACT CU RRICU LUMVITAE Dan Currie, MA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP HERITAGE PLANNING Town of Cobourg, Heritage Master Plan Municipality of Chatham Kent, Rondeau Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Kingston, Barriefield Heritage Conservation District Plan Update Burlington Heights Heritage Lands Management Plan City of Markham, Victoria Square Heritage Conservation District Study City of Kitchener, Heritage Inventory Property Update Township of Muskoka Lakes, Bala Heritage Conservation District Plan Municipality of Meaford, Downtown Meaford Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Guelph, Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District Plan City of Toronto, Garden District Heritage Conservation District Plan City of London, Western Counties Cultural Heritage Plan City of Cambridge, Heritage Master Plan City of Waterloo, Mary -Allen Neighbourhood Heritage District Plan Study City of Waterloo Rummelhardt School Heritage Designation Other heritage consulting services including: • Preparation of Heritage Impact Assessments for both private and public sector clients • Requests for Designations • Alterations or new developments within Heritage Conservation Districts • Cultural Heritage Evaluations for Environmental Assessments DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Provide consulting services and prepare planning applications for private sector clients for: 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 744 F 519 576 0121 dcurrie@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com 2 • Draft plans of subdivision • Consent • Official Plan Amendment • Zoning By-law Amendment • Minor Variance • Site Plan 140111[4 �_i Col 2016 Master of Arts in Planning, specializing in Heritage Planning University of Waterloo, School of Planning 2010 Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Historical/Industrial Archaeology Wilfrid Laurier University CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 576 0121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Vanessa Hicks,M.A.,C.A.H.P. Vanessa Hicks is a Heritage Planner with MHBC and joined the firm after graduating from the University of Waterloo with a Masters Degree in Planning, specializing in heritage planning and conservation. Prior to Joining MHBC, Vanessa gained practical experience working as the Program Manager, Heritage Planning for the Town of Aurora, where she was responsible for working with Heritage Advisory Committees in managing heritage resources, Heritage Conservation Districts, designations, special events (such as the annual Doors Open Ontario event), and heritage projects (such as the Architectural Salvage Program). Vanessa provides a variety of research and report writing services for public and private sector clients. She has experience in historical research, inventory work, evaluation and analysis on a variety of projects, including heritage conservation districts (HCDs), heritage impact assessments (HIAs), cultural heritage evaluation reports (CHERs), conservation plans, as well as Stages 1-4 archaeological assessments. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE June 2016 - Cultural Heritage Specialist/ Heritage Planner Present MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd. 2012- Program Manager, Heritage Planning 2016 Town of Aurora May 2012 - Heritage Planning Assistant October 2012 Town of Grimsby 2007- Archaeologist 2010 Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. CONTACT 540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 T 519 576 3650 x 728 F 519 576 0121 vhicks@mhbcplan.com www.mhbcplan.com CURRICULUMVITAE Vanessa Hicks,M.A.,C.A.H.P. SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (HIAs) Heritage Impact Assessment -'Southworks', 64 Grand Avenue South, City of Cambridge Heritage Impact Assessment - 47 Spring Street Waterloo, Albert/MacGregor Neighbourhood HCD Heritage Impact Assessment - 107 Concession Street, City of Cambridge Heritage Impact Assessment — 33 Laird Drive, City of Toronto Heritage Impact Assessment — Badley Bridge, part of a Municipal EA Class Assessment, Township of Centre Wellington Heritage Impact Assessment — 362 Dodge Drive, City of Kitchener Heritage Impact Assessment — 255 Ruhl Drive, Town of Milton Heritage Impact Assessment — 34 Erb Street East, City of Waterloo CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORTS (CHERs) Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - Dunlop Street West and Bradford Street, Barrie - Prince of Wales School and Barrie Central Collegiate Institute Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - Lakeshore Drive, Town of Oakville Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report - 317 Mill Street, 28/30 Elizabeth Street South, 16 Elizabeth Street South, Town of Richmond Hill Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (HCDs) Heritage Conservation District Study — Southeast Old Aurora (Town of Aurora) CONSERVATION PLANS Strategic Conservation Plan — Queen Victoria Park Cultural Heritage Landscape SPECIAL PROJECTS Artifact Display Case -Three Brewers Restaurant(275 Yonge St., Toronto) FA 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE KITCHENER / ONTARIO /N2B3X9 / T:519.576.3650 / F:519-576-0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Leon Bensason From: Jen Westfall gent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 i -1:48 AM To: Leon Bensason Subject: RE: 883 Doon Village Road No, problem - go ahead and walk the grounds and take photos. Thanks. -----Original Message ------ From: Leon.Bensason@kitchener.ca[mailto:Leon.Sensason@kitchener.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:45 AM To: Jen Westfall Subject: RE: 883 Doon Village Road Hello Jennifer, I have received your e-mail and letter attachment and we will respond. As mentioned, I will need permission to walk the grounds on the property and take photographs as part of our evaluation and analysis. Please advise. Thank you. -----Original Messaae-- - From: Jen Westfall Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:57 AM To: Leon Bensason Subject: 883 Doon Village Road As per our discussion yesterday, here is a letter outlining what we were looking to do with the property. A reply may be either emailed, faxed or mailed. Thanks for all your help. Jennifer Westfall 1 Thursday, October 12, 2006 Leon Bensason City Heritage Planner City of Kitchener Re: 883 Doon Village Road, Kitchener N21? IA I The above property has been designated as a Heritage Home and is owned by my parents who are now deceased. We (the estate) are looking at the probability of having the property severed to allow for additional building lots. The property is 240 feet by 240 feet on the comer of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive, with the frontage being on Doon Village Road. We are looking into the possibility of severing the property in half. Leaving the ]tonne with a frontage of 120 feet on Doon Village Road, and severing lots on the Bechtel Drive side which would have a frontage of 240 feet and then 120 feet in depth. I understand from our conversation that the entire property has been designated and therefore would have to be reviewed by the Heritage Comrnittee. Would you please review, and advise the process, and the feasibility of the property being severed and subdivided, in order that I may report to the other Trustees on the estate. Thank your very mach for your help in this matter. relvv ,le ifer Westfall t 54 Stonehaven rive Waterloo On N2L 6C5 Home — 519--578-0446 Michelle Drake From: Leon Bensason Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:20 PM To: Stephanie Barber Subject: FW: Draft response: 883 Doon Village Rd. suggested changes shown below would also need to alter attachment No.2 (alternative for severance) accordingly thanks From: Stephanie Barber Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:35 PM To: Leon Bensason Cc: Barbara Steiner Subject: Draft response: 883 Doon Village Rd. Hello Jennifer, Our apologies for the delayed response to your lot severance inquiry for 883 Doon Village Road. After careful consideration we can offer these comments (using the attached illustrations): 1. Attachment 1 points out the negative impacts on the heritage attributes of the property should a severance occur with frontage on Doon Village Road as described in your letter on inquiry. , The stone outbuilding, curved tree -lined driveway and views of the property would be negatively impacted should the severance occur in this way. Loss of these significant features would greatly diminish the heritage qualities of the property. The existing garage, which is not a heritage feature of the property, would remain. The mature trees in the rear yard, which are important features of the property could be retained. 2. Attachment 2 identifies an alternative option for severance. Severance with frontage on Bechtel Drive could result the creation of a lot having approximate frontage of 80 feet (or even two lots having 40 feet of frontage each). The stone outbuilding, tree -line driveway and views of the heritage property from Doon Village Road would all be retained with this option and would conserve the heritage character of the property. A rear yard of approximately 34' would be retained for the heritage house, therefore giving the house some "breathing room" between it and the new lot. With respect to the grove of mature trees on the rear portion of the property, there is an approximate distance of 65' from Bechtel Drive to the front row of trees, therefore it may be possible to locate a new dwelling on the lot and still retain many of the existing trees. A consent application to permit the severance with frontage on Doon Village Road as described in your letter would not be supported from a cultural heritage planning standpoint. The option for severance with frontage on Bechtel Drive as described above would be preferable. This option would protect the individual significant attributes of the property as well as the heritage character and context of the whole property. Given the property is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, a Heritage Permit Application would also be 1 required. Please be aware that there are other issues beyond heritage planning interests that would have to be considered in processing any consent application and you may wish to seek the advice of a professional planner. The City's Environmental Planner advises that a Tree Preservation/Enhancement plan would have to be submitted to the City given arty severance could ultimately impact the mature vegetation located on the property. ms. Barbara Steiner, Environmental Planner (519-741-2293) can provide more details on this for you. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the heritage related matters in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank -you, -Stephanie Stephaiiie Barber Assistant Heritage Plarnmer Developnient and Technical Services Departnient City of Kitchener T: 519-741-2839 F: 519-741-2624 0 §� u °•: /ear k(ƒ #2$f .a- §§/+ WU \))j U.0 §k� §\9� �%) ¢£%z 0 §� u #2$f J )22( ) 22f� ƒ2 §k� �%) I ff\ 5»\2 HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER The Heritage Kitchener Committee met this date, commencing at 4:02 p.m. Present: S. Hamoen - Vice -Chair Councillors J. Gazzola and P. Singh, Ms. A. Reid, Ms. K. Huxted and Ms. S. Hossack and Messrs. C. Farley, P. Ciuciura, R. Parnell, S. Miladinovic, S. Thomson and S. Strohack. Staff: B. Sloan, Manager Long Range & Policy Planning L. Bensason, Coordinator of Cultural Heritage Resources M. Drake, Senior Heritage & Project Planner S. Kelly, Student Planner D. Saunderson, Committee Administrator 1. WELCOME - MS. S. KELLY Ms. M. Drake introduced and welcomed Ms. S. Kelly who joined the City as a Student Planner in January 2018. She indicated Ms. Kelly has an interest in Heritage Planning and would be attending meetings in the future as part of her Co-op experience. 2. REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES The Committee considered draft documents entitled "Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources" and "Cultural Heritage Landscape Conservation", prepared by the Region of Waterloo. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of a memorandum prepared by the Region of Waterloo, entitled "Draft Regional Implementation Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) Conservation and Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources (RSCHR) — Public Consultation" dated November 17, 2017. Ms. K. Hagerman, Region of Waterloo, presented the Draft Regional Implementation Guidelines, advising the Province of Ontario, through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), requires that significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes be conserved. She indicated through the Regional Official Plan (ROP), Regional staff have been directed to prepare guidelines for reviewing Cultural Heritage Landscapes and for conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Resources. She stated the intentions of the Guidelines are to provide guidance to property owners, applicants, municipal heritage advisory committees and Regional and area municipal staff on the process for identifying, evaluating, documenting and incorporating Regionally Significant Heritage properties or landscapes within the identification and documentation into the existing Heritage review process. Ms. A. Reid entered the meeting at this time Ms. Hagerman stated the City of Kitchener already has a very robust Heritage Approval process and the guidelines are intended to provide some direction to indicate when Regional Heritage staff would like to comment on development applications where there are Cultural Heritage Resources or Regionally Heritage significant properties/features. She stated her next steps in the process for finalizing the guidelines include: meeting with stakeholders and interested parties; compiling feedback and revising the Guidelines where appropriate; have a formal public meeting under the Planning Act; and, receiving Regional Council approval on the proposed Guidelines. She stated she was in attendance this date to receive feedback on the following four questions: 1. Can the conservation processes introduced in the Guidelines be streamlined or improved in any way to better conserve CHURSCHRs? 2. Do you have any suggestions on how the Implementation Guideline documents could be improved? 3. Do you have any suggestions for RSCHR? 4. Other? Several members expressed concerns regarding overlap between the purposed Regional Guidelines and the work currently being undertaken by the City to address heritage significant properties and features. Further concerns were raised that private property owners would potentially be subjected to extended approval timelines and multiple applications to receive heritage approvals, which may add frustration to the process for heritage property owners. HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES !ALV lllel E WY610:/ E r9i:1 :1 ki 121:7 0:01101Ll/i101►Vil»:11►Vil:11Ll:fil9101Ll[r111111:14ILlI*Y[K01Ll110 In response to questions, Ms. M. Drake advised the City is the approval authority for designations. She indicated the Region of Waterloo is recognized as having interest on heritage significant features at the Regional level, and in those instances the Guidelines would provide a clearer process on when the Region should be circulated for comment on a development application. Ms. A. Reid stated in her opinion, if the Region is circulated for that reason, their comments should provide reasons qualifying their comments and their interest in the matter. She stated consideration needs to be given to respecting the development process and being mindful of approval timelines as well. Councillor J. Gazzola stated in his opinion, it seems as if the guidelines are a duplication of efforts. He indicated if the Region does not have any approval/designation authority in the Heritage process these Guidelines may add an additional approval process that may deter an individual's interest in purchasing/maintaining/restoring a Heritage property. Ms. Drake stated for clarification, the guidelines are not intended to be a duplication of efforts. She added they are intended to provide further direction to municipalities and townships for those properties or CHL's with possible Regional significance suggesting how to engage the Region's participation. She indicated there may be some overlap in the sense that Regional Heritage staff may reach out to property owners for properties that have been identified as having Regional significance, whereas the property may also be identified as being municipally significant. She noted it is still the City's choice to issue a designation if that is the preferred option identified for a property. She further advised the Region of Waterloo's ability to comment on a planning application would not impact the timelines related to a development application, as those dates are outlined in the Ontario Heritage Act and Planning Act and would still need to be adhered to. Councillor P. Singh entered the meeting at this time Questions were raised regarding the Regional Heritage Advisory Committee and their role in the approval process and whether an applicant would be required to make presentations to both committees if the Region determines a property has Regional significance. Ms. Hagerman stated the Regional Committee would only be consulted if the property was identified as having Regional significance. Ms. Hagerman further advised there are very few two-tier government structures in Ontario, adding Kitchener does not require a great deal of assistance with heritage resources. She indicated the Guidelines are intended to provide assistance to all those within the Region that may not have the resources for a heritage conservation. She stated Kitchener has been a leader in this area and it is anticipated the Region would only have a greater involvement on regionally significant heritage features. In response to further questions, she noted if a property was identified as being regionally significant, it is anticipated the property owner would only need to make an appearance at one Heritage Committee meeting, which would likely be that of the municipality, adding the Region would only comment from a staff perspective. It was noted any additional comments or suggestions members may have could be forwarded via email to KHaaerman(o)reaionofwaterloo.ca. :I �:1: �_<<3 � I Ji I �_[� r_F�y ��y ►�i l � ►: �1:1 /_\>�:�:i�l �Z�Z�1► \U I � A_C01 �:Z�7_1 The Committee considered the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prepared for 883 Doon Village Road. In addition, the Committee was in receipt this date of a written submission prepared by Ms. J. Haalboom, dated January 7, 2018 and Ms. K. Huxted expressing concerns with the findings in the HIA and the proposed severance applications. It was noted Heritage Planning staff will be seeking the Committee's feedback with regards to the HIA, which will be taken into consideration as part of staff's review and processing of the HIA. Ms. Vanessa Hicks, MHBC Planning, Ms. A. LaFrance, Mr. B. LaFrance and Ms. B. Hanson were in attendance in support of the HIA. Ms. Hicks presented the HIA, advising the property municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road was designated in 1984, which at that time was recognized for the dwelling and a number of its attributes. She stated within the By-law there are no other structures or features on the property identified as heritage attributes, HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES RIM 0l4_1W&W41ZE:we] EWY9]0:/Eto] :1:1101:11C7 {�:1:11:]Et/elr]:1111111ILY, I ATO&T&I*11 iyi1:11►Eff1:1I_\1M:1-M Blois] ►\U 111A_Cr]:111111:Z67_1NI[K0]LlE0W including the existing 'Coach House' (former hog & hen barn) now an outbuilding/garage on the property. She indicated the HIA was completed to support a future severance application, which sees the property severed into five residential lots; four new lots fronting on to Bechtel Drive and a retained lot which will consist of the residential heritage dwelling and the Coach House which will be relocated from its current location onto the retained parcel to maintain the relationship of the heritage structures. Ms. Hicks provided an overview of the HIA, advising its purpose was to provide an assessment of cultural heritage value or interest and a revised list of Heritage Attributes; identify potential impacts of the proposed development, including a review of the impacts related to the proposed Plan of Consent; and identify the impacts related to the proposed re -location of the Coach House. She presented a summary of the historic value of the property, noting the following impacts were reviewed in relation to the proposed development, including: destruction; alteration; shadows; isolation; direct or indirect obstruction; change in land use; and, land disturbances, advising the result of those reviews indicating neutral impacts were identified as a result of the creation of the lots. Ms. Hicks summarized the HIA, indicating: the proposed development is supported; the identified heritage attributes will be retained and conserved on the retained lot, maintaining the historical relationship between the dwelling and 'Coach House'; and, the proposed creation of four severed lots and one retained lot will not result in any adverse impacts to Cultural Heritage Resources as the site has been determined to have lost its contextual value and is not a significant Cultural Heritage Landscape. She further advised there are some mitigation recommendations, which address the relocation of the 'Coach House' to ensure it is appropriately conserved. Ms. K. Huxted advised she is a resident of the Doon area and she attended the subject property, referencing the photos she took of the dwelling. She stated in her opinion, the creation of four lots will block the views from Bechtel Street of the heritage dwelling. She added if the property owner wished to sever the property, she would prefer that they only created three lots, removing the creations of proposed Lots 1 and 2 to maintain the view of the subject property from Bechtel Drive. She further advised she also has concerns with the adverse impacts from the shadows resulting from the new homes. Several members expressed similar concerns with regard to preserving the view of the heritage dwelling and Coach House from the corner of Bechtel Drive and Doon Village Road. Mr. S. Miladinovic advised he had no objections to the proposed severance applications as the new lots would not have any impacts on the primary elevation of the heritage dwelling. He stated any concerns raised regarding shadows, in his opinion, would be minimal. In response to questions, Ms. Hicks advised the north elevations of both the dwelling and the Coach House are the elevations that have been identified as being historically significant. She indicated that even with the creation of the lots adjacent to Bechtel Drive, the historical views would be maintained. She stated consideration was given to the views of the property from Bechtel Drive, which were not deemed significant as Bechtel Drive was only constructed in the 1980's. Councillor P. Singh questioned how large the size of the proposed lots would be. Ms. Hicks noted the lot frontage of the severed lots is proposed to be a minimum of 18m wide, which is considerably larger than the other lots in the vicinity. She stated the lots on the opposite side of the street are approximately 14m in width. She further advised the retained land, which will contain the heritage dwelling will have a lot width of 73.2m and will have a total area of 3,517sq.m. She stated the proposed severance will not adversely impact the primary view of the heritage dwelling. Questions were raised regarding the relocation of the Coach House and whether there were any conflicts with the Building Code Act and the openings along the elevation of the structure that would be impacted by the proposed 1.2m side yard setback. Ms. Drake stated she would follow up with Building staff to confirm the Building Code requirements. Councillor P. Singh stated in his opinion, it appears the applicant has taken significant measures to protect the Heritage dwelling, the Couch House and the relationship the two HERITAGE KITCHENER MINUTES JANUARY 9. 2018 - 4 - CITY OF KITCHENER HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA) - 883 DOON VILLAGE ROAD (CONT'D) structures have with each other. He stated the retained lands are extremely large and the relocation of the Coach House and costs associated with the relocation should be commended. Ms. S. Hossack stated in her opinion one of the Heritage significances with the dwelling and the Coach House/hog and hen house are the distance separation between the two structures. She indicated it would be her preference to try to maintain the separation distance so the previous use and contextual value would not be lost. Mr. LaFrance, property owner, stated they reside at the property and they have no intention of taking away from the heritage significance of the site. He indicated they have pride in the heritage structure and it can be costly to maintain, but it is their intention to live at the subject property long-term and continue to maintain it as they have to date. Councillor J. Gazzola noted he was in conflict on the HIA, as he is aware that the property owners are Heritage -minded. The subject property is not the only heritage property they own within Kitchener, indicating they have undergone significant upkeep on their other property to maintain its Heritage status as well. Mr. S. Hamoen indicated in his opinion, the Coach House appears to be the more dominate structure on-site. He stated consideration could be given to removing some of the foliage to increase the presence of the dwelling from Doon Village Road. In response to questions, Ms. Drake advised there are other properties that have been designated where the Heritage attributes do not fully align with the property as it exists this date. She indicated it may be appropriate at this time to review and update the designating By- law, as it was passed in the 1980's and has not been reviewed since that time. Mr. C. Farley indicated it may be worthwhile as a future agenda item, to discuss designating By-laws and whether they should be reviewed if they are out of date, similar to the one in this instance. HERITAGE BEST PRACTICES — OPEN FORUM SUB -COMMITTEE UPDATES Ms. M. Drake advised there were no Heritage Best Practices updates this date. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. D. Saunderson Committee Administrator Neighbourhood Information Meeting Notes 883 Doon Village Road C of A Application B2018-006, B2018-007, 82018-008, & B2018-009 March 22, 2018 Doon Valley Golf Course 500 Doon Valley Drive 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Disclaimer: City Planning staff has prepared the following meeting notes 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. Any concerns with these meeting notes may be addressed to Andrew Pinnell, Planner, andrew.pinnell(@kitchener.ca Staff: Andrew Pinnell — File Planner Juliane vonWesterholt — Senior Planner / Facilitator Michelle Drake — Senior Heritage and Policy Planner Siobhan Kelly — Student Planner / Minutes Applicant: Robert and Alison LaFrance — Owner/Applicant Dan Currie and Rachel Martin - MHBC Planning Limited 840 Doon Village Asked if the decision has been determined and whether it is Rd. final. Questioned whether the decision is based on the owners' and City's interest to make money. Andrew Pinnell (City): Clarified that no decisions have been made except for the decision to defer the application to the April 17th Committee of Adjustment meeting. At that time, the Committee will make the final decision. Added that Planners are not the decision makers and that they prepare a recommendation that does not include the financial interests of the applicant. 58 Bechtel Dr. Highlighted that Schedule A of the original designating By-law describes the character of the lot including the acreage and questioned why City staff have not focused on this in their review and recommendation. Michelle Drake (City): Explained that under the Ontario Heritage Act, when a significant feature/property is designated, the entire property is designated. However, the By-law identifies the part of the property that is significant. Additionally, the Act provides the ability for owners to alter their properties. In this context, the By-law only identifies the main dwelling as an attribute. Even if the lot size was identified as a heritage attribute, the owner could still apply to alter the lot size under the Ontario Heritage Act. 1 11 Anvil St. Identified that the corner of Doon Village Rd and Bechtel Dr. is a heavy traffic area. Expressed concern in regards to pedestrian safety, as there will be an increase in traffic from the proposed developments. Added that the developments would interfere with visibility for vehicles turning into and out of their driveways. Andrew Pinnell (City): Clarified that he had received comments from the City's Transportation Services who advised that according to their manual (standards for North America), the results of the proposed lot severance will generate 6 trips during the morning and afternoon peak hours and a total of 50 trips over weekdays. As such the comment from Transportation staff was that the traffic generated would be negligible. Also the existing roads are not at capacity. Added that in regards to visibility, Transportation Services refer to Driveway Visibility and Corner Visibility Triangles to ensure safe ingress/egress. The proposed driveways will maintain the DVT and CVT and thus maintain appropriate visibility to ensure safety. 48 Anvil St. Highlighted that there is a Retirement Residence along Bechtel Drive and that when there are events at the residence, visitors' park along Doon Village Road. Added that this occurs frequently and that the vehicles parked along Doon Village Road interferes with traffic, affects the road's capacity, and impacts visibility. Andrew Pinnell (City): Notified the resident that the comment has been noted and staff will review. 19 Caryndale Dr. Provided additional information regarding the history of the site including the following: At one time this property was a 25 acre farm which was developed upon in the 1970s. At the time of this development, the property was designated to be maintained as a whole. When the original farm was severed, it was 100 years old. Expressed concern that additional severances will be watering down the look and feel of the property as a farm. Following the severance, she explained that fencing and the removal of trees will come, altering the original views of the home and from Doon Village Road. Added that these changes would alter what was established in 1984 with the heritage designation. Asked why the City did not allow the first development (1980s) to encroach onto the farm but today it is? Michelle Drake (City): Requested that if the resident has evidence that confirms the information she presented to provide it to Michelle for review and confirm the validity. Reiterated that under both the Heritage Act and Planning Act, owners have the right to make changes to cultural heritage resources. Added that a professional planner must consider a variety of policies and principles including the heritage considerations and balance all of them. Reiterated her professional opinion, that the property is being conserved. 1314 Doon Village Questioned why the Hog and Hen house is going to be Rd. designated but why the views are not going to be protected. Michelle Drake (City): Clarified that the HIA prepared by MHBC identified the Hog and Hen house as a significant heritage attribute but did not identify the views. For a view to be considered significant it must meet a certain criteria. Added that just because a building is in view does not mean that it is a significant view or that it should be protected. 55 Nathanial Cres. Given what was said, could the decision to not designate the view be an oversight or a mistake. Given feeling of the community surrounding the importance of the Hog and Hen house, could the views be added to the designation? Michelle Drake (City): Clarified that the documentation only talks about the main dwelling. Added that since 2006, the criteria for determining cultural heritage value and interest include: design and physical value, historic and associative value, and contextual value. The property was reviewed against the current criteria and the Hog and Hen house was identified as a significant heritage attributes however, the views were not identified. 513 Caryndale Dr. Stated that he requested information in 2007 for a severance. At that time, he was told that staff would not support any severance because it would alter the historic value. At that time, the City identified the driveway, the lot size, and Hog and Hen house were significant attributes. But now, the HIA identifies that these features are non -void. Questioned what has changed, and why the City is now permitting the creation of four new lots when in 2007, this was not permitted. Michelle Drake (City): Clarified that she was not party to inquiries about severing the property approximately ten years ago and that her understanding was that the previous inquiries involved a different proposal which would result in the demolition of the Hog and Hen house. She was party to inquiries about altering the property through the heritage permit process and more recently when the property was for sale with various real estate agents some of whom had questions about severing the property. She advised prospective buyers and real estate agents that Heritage Planning staff did have concerns with a proposed severance and if an owner wished to proceed with a consent application they would be required to submit a Heritage Impact Assessment to support the creation of new lots. Michelle Drake (City): Clarified when Heritage Planning staff received the inquiry to sever the property in 2006/2007, they would have been subject to the legislation and policies in place at that time. Since that time, there have been various amendments to the legislation and policies some of which directly relate to heritage conservation. In particular, as outlined in the presentation, the Provincial Policy Statement was amended in 2012, the new Regional Official Plan was approved in 2010, and the new City of Kitchener Official Plan was approved in 2014. These documents define important terms such as significant, built heritage resource, and conserved. There documents also provide the City with the authority to ask for a HIA to demonstrate that cultural heritage resources are conserved as part of the planning process. In addition to heritage conservation considerations, a professional planner must consider and balance 15 criteria when creating new lots as well as 20 matters of provincial interest. As a result, heritage conservation is only 1 of 35 considerations that must be considered and balanced. Added that at the time of these inquiries, Heritage Planning staff would have provided a recommendation based on the information available at that time. The HIA provides new information. Regardless of any previous concerns, the Heritage Act and Planning Act still provides processes for an owner to change their property and the owners still have the right to make an application which staff is required to review and form a recommendation based on balancing all the considerations. 52 Kilbirnie Cres: Question about process — terms of reference does not include amendments to the designating by-law. If the Committee of Adjustment makes the approval of the condition and the recommend the amendment, what happens if heritage Kitchener does not approve the amendment? (Designating By- law). Michelle Drake (City): Clarified that the Committee of Adjustment will not be amending the designating by-law. If approved by the Committee of Adjustment, Staff will draft a staff report with recommendation for the Heritage Kitchener committee to consider. Heritage Kitchener would make a recommendation to Council. If Council approves the recommendation, the City is required to provide notice of intention to designate the property and that notice is provided in the local paper, sent to the Ontario Heritage Trust, and sent to the property owner. The only person who can appeal the amendment is the property owner. If not appealed, the by-law goes back to council and the list of heritage attributes is revised. Added that Heritage Kitchener can have a different recommendation than staff. Ultimately it is City Council who decides if the designation will proceed. 12 Cobblestone St.: Identified that the Staff report recommends that the Committee of Adjustment application be approved subject to conditions one being the approved HIA. And requested clarification regarding the HIA prepared by MHBC. Michelle Drake (City): Clarified that with applications, staff receive supporting documents, for example a HIA. The supporting documents are used to assist the planners to form their professional opinion. Staff does not always agree with the recommendations and conclusions of the supporting documents; however, in this case, after three revisions staff was in support of the HIA prepared by MHBC. It should be noted that the HIA did go to Heritage Kitchener for a brief presentation and the committee provided comments. Staff then took those comments and considered them while informing their professional opinion. 1084 Doon Village Commented on the pivotal role the HIA plays in informing the Rd. recommendation and coming to a decision. Noted that it appears that there is impartiality because the owners have contracted MHBC to write the report. As such, it appears that the decision is weighted on the side of the owners rather than on the side of the community. Michelle Drake (City): Clarified that Heritage Planning staff reviewed the HIA three times for revisions before its acceptance. During those revisions, staff requested additional information and evidence to support the conclusions and recommendations. Staff was satisfied that the HIA provided sufficient information and evidence to support its conclusions and recommendations and therefore, staff recommended approval of the HIA. In addition to this, professional planners work in the interest of the public and must abide by a professional code of ethics. Added that planners are registered professional planners (RPP). Clarified that although MHBC was hired by the owner for their consulting, as professional planners they too must provide an impartial opinion based on the evidence. In addition to this, the City gave MHBC a Terms of Reference that was required to be incorporated into the HIA. 1165 Doon village Questioned why in the 1980s when the subdivision was being Rd. created the subject property was planned to be four times the size of the other created lots. Expressed the opinion that there was a reason why the subject property wasn't severed then and requested records explaining why that position was held. Andrew Pinnell (City): Clarified that subdivision control was under the jurisdiction of the Region at that time. Added that staff can check the regional files however, there is a chance that the records do not go back that far. 8 Cottonwood Cres. Asked if there are any other players in the decision making process. Michelle Drake (City): Explained that there are two heritage planners, herself and Leon Bensason. Heritage Kitchener is a committee appointed by Council. The members come from a variety of backgrounds and bring forward a variety of interests such as an architect, historian, resident, engineer, building inspector. 8 Cottonwood Cres. Questioned why the City is not informed or clear about the records of the original subdivision and previous inquiries regarding severances. Added, that it appears that this information and rationale is not recorded ie. Why the lot size was maintained in the 1980s. Michelle Drake (City): Noted that even if the lot size was retained for a particular reason the owner still has the right to make changes to the property under both the Heritage Act and Planning Act. 62 Bechtel Dr. Requested to know the likelihood of the Hog and Hen House collapsing or being damaged during the move. Michelle Drake (City): Clarified that a structural engineer has reviewed the Hog and Hen House and identified that it would be a good candidate to be moved. Added that there are precedents of structures and dwellings that have been moved which are much larger. Noted that mitigation measures will be in place to minimize the risks associated with the move. 1314 Doon Village Asked if considering the community opposition, the City Rd. Planners have talked to the owners about a negotiation regarding the number of lots. Andrew Pinnell (City): Responded that staff has not discussed a negotiation with the owners. Clarified that staff has reviewed the application and did not identify any planning -related reasons to reduce the number of lots proposed and noted that the proposed lots exceed the width and area requirements of the Zoning By-law. 48 Anvil St. Asked if the owner would be willing to keep the Hog and Hen House where it is and sever two lots opposed to four lots. In her opinion, in this scenario, the Hog and Hen House would be truly conserved as it will not be relocated. Andrew Pinnell (City): Clarified that Planning staff is of the opinion that such a request is not a planning matter and noted that the current proposal meets the requirements of the zoning By-law and has undergone extensive Heritage Review. Hol! Dyson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Andrew, You may already have this one. Holly Dyson 13 February, 2018 9:26 AM Andrew Pinnell Dianna Saunderson FW: Zone change application Doon Village Road @ Bechtel Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly. dyson@kitchener.ca From: Holly Dyson Sent: 12 February, 2018 9:09 AM To: Subject: FW: Zone change application Doon Village Road @ Bechtel Good Morning, I also need to mention this is a public meeting, so any comments provided for the Committee's consideration will be available upon request. Regards, Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services f City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holt .d son kitchener.ca aeni md", 7 N-.* u nA From: Holly Dyson Sent: 12 Februa 2018 8:58 AM To: Subject: RE: Zone c ange application Doon Village Road @ Bechtel Good Morning, Thank you for your email. I'll ensure they are available for the Committee's consideration. Regards, Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly.dyson(a)kitchener.ca a N01 KA 0 J . J From: Sent: �10 February, 18 7:01 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: Zone change application Doon Village Road @ Bechtel I believe it is the buildings, not the property, that is heritage designation. I support the application of the owner to several the property move the coach house and add more housing. I just wish it was rental. We need more rental stock in Kitchener. Sent from my Galaxy TAR A Holly Dyson From: Sent: 12 February, 2018 9:11 AM To: Holly Dyson Cc: Dianna Saunderson; Andrew Pinnell Subject: Re: I oppose the application to sever the Doon property My mailing address: Thanks Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphonc. -------- Original message -------- From: Holly.Dyson@kitchener.ca Date: 2018-02-12 9:06 AM (GMT -05:00) To: Cc: Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca, Andrew. Pinnel@kitchener.ca Subject: I oppose the application to sever the Doon property Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly.dyson@kitchener.ca UIUMMUNUffimi From: Holly Dyson Sent: 12 February, 2018 8:52 AM To: Dianna Saunderson Subject: RE: I oppose the application to sever the Doon property Good Morning, Thank you for your email. In order to provide your comments to the Committee members for consideration, I will need your mailing address. Please note that any comments made for the Committee's consideration may be shared with interested parties as this is a public meeting. Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services k City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly.dyson(a-)-kitchener.ca 0 L 0 L�]" Ld L 0 From: Sent: 09 February, 2018 8;07 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: I oppose the application to sever the Doon property I would like you to know that I oppose the application to sever the property on Doon Village road. This house is designated a heritage home and the land surrounding it should stay intact and the coach house not moved. Thank you February 12, 2018 Re: Severance of 883 Doon Village Road, Kitchener N2P 1A1 My family and I are extremely opposed to severing this property into building lots. They owned this property from roughly 1975 until 2012, and were the owners that had the home designated as a Heritage Property. They were very much in maintaining the Heritage of this property, and the area. They maintained the original windows, replaced the roof with cedar shingles (which would have been when the home was built), spent additional funds to have the down spouts on the home custom build to replicate what would have been on the home, and even choosing paint colours for the home that were of the era built. had always talked about possibly severing off building lots along Bechtel Drive After regarding the possibility of severing the lots. 19poke and met with the Heritage Committee. The gentleman I dealt with was Leon Bensason. After explaining what we wished to do, severing off the lots, Mr. Bensason after a few months advised me that after discussing this with the Heritage Committee, they would agree to allowing severance of only one lot on Bechtel, and the farthest end of the property from Doon Village Road. of only the house was designated as a Heritage Home, but the entire property, and anything on the property that makes it unique to the Heritage of the home. This was not understood by�at the time they designated the home, or the bylaw that protects the Heritage Properties was changed in the meantime. �enied being able to severe the propertyllisted the property, and maddaeal estate brokers aware of this..again met with the City, with Michelle Drake and a gentleman regarding the home, as we had several offers on the home, however they wanted to ensure that they would be able to do changes to the home they wished — both of the potential buyers approached the City and Heritage Committee, and we were unsuccessful in obtaining anything to help with the sale. The two potential buyer's requests were: 1— They wanted to put an addition on the back of the home, and just wanted a letter confirming that this was possible, subject to the approval of the design/ plans by the Heritage Committee. 2 — A gentleman wanted to convert the detached garage behind the house to a "Granny Flat" for his disabled father. As the building would be wheelchair accessible, was insulted and heated, it was the perfect option for him to be able to give his father independence, and still be close. This was DENIED, as we were informed that this would that as would be two residences, would not be allowed. Funny, this would now be a 5 residence property—far more thanUMUNIMM As a result of not being able to confirm that any changes could be made to the propert 3 years to sell the home, and not only didto sell for a value felt was far below theBlue the property was, but also were unable to keep the home which was our original intention with the severance of the lots. I would be very disappointed if the property was allowed to be severed, and with the changes that have been allowed to the property: 1— New asphalt roof was put on the home to replace the original Cedar Shingles. 2 — Renovations were done to the property on the inside of the home that completely changed the home from its original build. 3 — If the approval for severance is given based on the "Coach House" on the property being moved, to a different location on the property — it will never be the same. How do you move a 155 year old stone building, to another location on the property, and still keep the original integrity of the building. It will never be re -constructed on the property as it is now, as well as the original footprint of this "Designated Property" will be changed. I personally, cannot see any location on the property that this building could be moved to that would still reflect the heritage of this property, as once the lots would be severed off; the lot the main house will remain on would be much smaller. 4 — There was another home in Doon as well, that within the past 5 years, has asked for a change in the lot size. The person that owned this property had two lots beside each other. One was large and the other small. He wanted to severe to equal out the lot sizes, and was denied this. I would be very disappointed in the City of Kitchener as well as the Heritage Committee if the severance is allowed to happen on this property. Both the City and Heritage Committee are constantly in the paper, and news that they are protecting more Heritage Properties in our community. Let's protect the Heritage of this property which is located in the "Doon heritage District". Regards, Holly Dyson From: Sent: 14 February, 2018 6:26 PM To: Holly Dyson Cc: Dianna Saunderson; Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: 883 Doon Village Rd proposal. Get Outlook for Android From: Holly.Dyson@kitchener.ca <Holly.Dyson@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 1:00:53 PM To: Cc: Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca; Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca Subject: RE: 883 Doon Village Rd proposal. Hello. Thank you for your email. I willl need your mailing address in order for your comments to be shared with the Committee members. As this is a public meeting, any comments provided for the Committee's consideration will be available to the public upon request. Regards, Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly.dyson@kitchener.ca From: Sent:. 14 February, 2018 11:09 AM To: Holly Dyson Subject: 883 Doon Village Rd proposal. Hello, I am voicing my objection in writing to the propasal to sever this historicle properry in Doon. 1st off there is so much building being added to the neighbourhood I do not believe we need to touch this property as well and clutter this corner. It should be left as is as I believe it adds value to our unique neighbourhood. 2nd - the rules for Heritage properties seem to be favoured and not a fair process. It seems to be who is addressing the requests as apposed to rules set for these decisions. There has been some unfair desisions made already with proposals apprived in this neighbourhood. This is unjust. This request has been denied for previous owners so should also be denied for this current owner. Thank -you Concerned Doon homeowner. Get Outlook for Android Holly Dyson From: Holly Dyson Sent: 15 February, 2018 8:35 AM To: Subject: RE: Report # CSD -18-044 - Application to sever the property at 883 Doan Village Road Hi Kelli, Thank you for your comments. They will be circulated to the Committee members. Please note that any comments provided for the Committee's consideration will be available upon request. Regards, Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly.dyson@kitchener.ca FJ, From: Sent: 14 February, 2018 9:21 PM To: Holly Dyson Cc: Yvonne Fernandes, Subject: Report # CSD- - - pplication to sever the property at 883 Doon Village Road Hi Holly: I read with interest recently the application from the owners of 883 Doon Village Road (Bob and Alison Lafrance) to sever a portion of their property into 4 building lots for future use. Although I don't live in the immediate vicinity, I do walk by it often and must admit that I was very disturbed to hear of the application as I had always been under the impression that this property was fully protected under the Heritage Act. With further research and discussion with others, I have learned that this site is indeed protected including the whole of the property. The Heritage designation was very clear that it covered the house and the Hen House also fondly known as the Coach House along with the property itself and its mature trees and pleasant landscape depicting life as it was in the 1860s and beyond. This property which measures about 1 acre in size was severed off from the original farm of about 25 acres by a developer many years ago with the intent that someone would buy the house and lot to preserve the look and feel of the cultural heritage depicted from its roots. This pioneer property has become a'Landmark' in the Doon area of Kitchener. When one stops to view the property from either Doon Village or Bechtel Drive (it's a corner lot), its beauty radiates and takes one back to imagine what life must have been like during the 1800s. I would even say that the Hen House is as unique and as beautiful as the home itself. I absolutely can't imagine why anyone would want to disturb such a sight by placing additional building lots along Bechtel. Adding additional homes will detract from the beauty of the property, notwithstanding that these 4 homes will have nothing in common with the heritage structures and the current landscape. It truly will change the look of the property and make the view less accessible and disfigured from a number of vantage points. Today the Lafrance's have a unique property, one that is admired and talked about by many. Simply said, it's a piece of our cultural heritage and something that we need to hang onto. Moving the Hen House closer to the Homestead will spoil the look and feel as well. In the 1860s and beyond, people didn't place the barns or the Hen/Pig Houses close to the family residence for obvious reasons. In keeping with the history of this building, moving it would be totally inappropriate in a farm setting and once again take away the view of what was, thus in my opinion devaluing the property because it will look out of place. When the Lafrance's purchased the property in 2012, they knew that it was designated heritage. They knew that there would be strict rules around what they could/could not do with the property. This application to sever the property appears to be a way to cash in on a property on the backs of the previous owners, all of whom respected the rules and decisions of the Heritage Committee and the City. Although I expect some significant cost to move the Hen House further in on the property, if finances towards maintaining the property are a concern, I would support wholeheartedly some relief in the form of property tax reduction or grants to cover some of the costs. In a sense, we are indebted to people who take on these special homes and property to preserve them for all of us to enjoy. In summary, I wholeheartedly do not support this application and I am disappointed in the City of Kitchener Planners for approving the application subject to the conditions contained within the report. If I am being totally honest, I find it shameful that this application got this far into the process. It appears that blinders are on in terms of the value and beauty this property provides to our Doon neighbourhood, an area of town that is rich in heritage and a big reason why we choose to live in this area. Not asking for input from the public ahead of time is also a travesty as we all consider this property a piece of our'own' Doon neighbourhood. I respectfully ask that my comments be passed onto the Committee of Adjustment and that they would take a long hard look at this objection as well as the objections of many others who are passionate about preserving the very little we have left that is actually designated heritage in this City. thank you for passing on my remarks and for their consideration when reviewing the application further. Sincerely, i Holly Dyson From: Holly Dyson Sent: 15 February, 2018 12:27 PM To: Subject: RE: OBJECTION to Applications B 2018-006 to B 2018-009, Good Morning, Thank you for your email. As this is a public meeting, your comments will be available upon request. 1 will ensure the Committee members receive a copy of your email at the meeting. Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holt .d son kitchener.ca From: Sent: 15 February, 2018 12:00 PM To: Holly Dyson; andew.pinell@kitchener.ca Cc: Yvonne Fernandes Subject: OBJECTION to Applications B 2018-006 to B 2018-009. Good morning, yesterday we received the NOTICE OF HEARING that includes these applications. After reviewing their contents, we strongly object to the proposed changes to that historic setting. Holly D son From: Sent: 15 February, 2018 8;48 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Holly Dyson Cc: Yvonne Fernandes Subject: 883 Doon Village Road - Concern from a homeowner Hello Andrew, We have been advised by neighbors in regards to the application for severance to the property at 883 Doon Village Road. We are the property owners of To date (Thursday Feb 15, 2018) we have yet to receive a notice in the mail in regards to this application for severance which is surprising as we are We understand that some homeowners on Bechtel Drive and a few on Cobblestone Street have received a notice yet we have not. We strongly oppose this change to a well-established heritage landmark property in our community and will be attending the meeting on Tuesday Feb 20ch to voice our concern. Thank Holly Dyson From: Sent: 16 February, 2018 3:35 PM To: Holly Dyson Cc: andrew.pinell@kitchener.ca; Yvonne Fernandes Subject: Proposed Severance of 883 Doon Village Road Attachments: 2007 Draft correspondence between staff re severance.pdf; 2007 Draft correspondence attachment 1,pdf; 2007 Draft correspondence attachment 2.pdf Importance: High As a resident in the household of kI m!MEcompletely opposed to the severing of the property. ecided to consult the Heritage Planning Department to discuss possible severance to aid in the purchase o t e property from potential buyers. I have included the report dated January 30, 2007. In this report it is suggested that possibly 1- 80' wide lot or 2 - 40' wide lots could be considered. It states the negative impacts of the heritage attributes of severance, ranging from the views, the curved tree lined driveway, and the stone outbuilding. It also states the loss of these significant features would greatly diminish the heritage qualities of this property. The current owners are proposing 4 - 60' wide lots. This would make one lot on the corner of Bechtel Drive & Doon Village Rd. With that lot being proposed on the corner, this could be considered frontage/side yard on Doon Village Rd, in direct conflict with the reply from the Heritage Planning Department report. It then states that a consent application to permit the severance with frontage on Doon Village Road would not be supported from a cultural heritage planning standpoint. It would not protect the significant attributes of the property, as well as the heritage character and context of THE WHOLE PROPERTY. Then the proposed 4 - lots would absolutely diminish the significant attributes of the property. It goes on to say that since the property is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, a Heritage Permit Application would also be required. This report is the exact opposite to the recent Heritage Impact Assessment Report dated December 2017. 1 do not believe the Heritage Planning rules have changed since 2007. 1 would like you to please consider this, and to not allow any of the severance of 883 Doon Village Road. Regards, Michelle Drake From: Leon Bensason Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:20 PM To: Stephanie Barber Subject: FW: Draft response: 883 Doon Village Rd, suggested changes shown below would also need to alter attachment No,2 (alternative for severance) accordingly thanks From: Stephanie Barber Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12;35 PM To: Leon Bensason Cc: Barbara Steiner Subject: Draft: response: 883 Doon Village Rd. Hello Jennifer, Our apologies for the delayed response to your lot severance inquiry for 883 Doon Village Road. After careful consideration we can offer these comments (using the attached illustrations): 1. Attachment 1 points out the negative impacts on the heritage attributes of the property should a severance occur with frontage on Doon Village Road as described in your letter on inquiry. 'The stone outbuilding, curved tree -lined driveway and views of the property would be negatively impacted should the severance occur in this way. Loss of these significant features would greatly diminish the heritage qualities of the property. The existing garage, which is not a heritage feature of the property, would remain. The mature trees in the rear yard, which are important features of the property could be retained. 2. Attachment 2 identities an alternative option for severance. Severance with frontage on Bechtel Drive Could result the creation of a lot having approximate frontage of 80 feet (or even two lots having 40 feet of frontage each). The stone outbuilding, tree -line driveway and views of the heritage property from Doon Village Road would all be retained with this option and would conserve the heritage character of the property. A rear yard of approximately 34' would be retained for the heritage house, therefore giving the house some "breathing room" between it and the new lot. With respect to the grove of mature trees on the rear portion of the property, there is an approximate distance of 65' from Bechtel Drive to the front row of trees, therefore it may be possible to locate a new dwelling on the lot and still retain many of the existing trees. A consent application to permit the severance with frontage on Doon Village Road as described in your letter would not be supported from a cultural heritage planning standpoint. The option for Severance with frontage on Bechtel Drive as described above would be preferable. This option would protect the individual significant attributes of the property as well as the heritage character and context of the whole property. Given the property is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, a Heritage Permit Application would also be required. Please be aware that there are other issues beyond heritage planning interests that would have to be considered in processing any consent application and you may wish to seek the advice of a professional planner, The City's Environmental Planner advises that a Tree PreservationlEnhancernent plan would have to be submitted to the City given any severance could ultimately impact the mature vegetation located on the property. Ms. Barbara Steiner, Environmental Planner (519-741-2293) can provide more details on this for you. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the heritage related matters in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank -you, -Stephanie Stephanie Barber Assistant Heritage Ruiner Development and 'Vechnical Services Departnient City of Kitchener T: 519-741-2839 P -,M-741-2624 .41 u ))C¢ 'cc t .� � 2 ¥§|0_ &2a 3I/22 |)2f 3%2� In (i) � �!§ f)/2 �°- u k& 'cc t 7/ � 2 qn §)7K( )s : ° 0 ])k (|( ))i{ =, ) } > Pr �)��k ))} §§�f \kk §i ]]2e «k 0 February 16, 2018 Juliane von Westerholt Senior Planner Planning Division City of Kitchener Re: Severance Application: 883 Doon Village Rd. Kitchener Dear Ms von Westerholt, I am writing to object to the application 82018-006 to B2018-009 to sever the property of this local cultural heritage landscape site I am disappointed that the City Planners have let this process get this for without sending it through City Council or holding a public meeting. Some of us living near the property have received notice from the City; many have not. A few letters have trickled in over the past 2 days but that is too late. We've been given limited time to prepare for the meeting. But the wider community doesn't even know this is happening. Deferring a decision on this severance would be the fair and appropriate thing to do at this time. The small notice in the paper on Feb, 2nd identified this property by its address, not as the heritage property that most of us know it as. Residents wouldn't necessarily realize which property is at risk. This small notice and letters to a select few are not enough. This system is flawed and I respectfully request that it be changed to become more transparent allowing citizens to be more aware of what is happening in their community. I can hardly believe that something so valuable to the Doon community could be altered so drastically when this beautiful and historic landscape means so much to so many. But who knows this is happening? Only a handful of residents living nearby. The wider community affected doesn't know. I simply don't understand how the Heritage Committee can approve this plan. Severing the land will affect the grandness of this site. The farmhouse is a fine example of Georgian architecture; the "coach house" is equally as impressive and adds to the beauty and the context of this heritage landscape. But it is the land around the farmhouse, the large green space that surrounds it that sets it apart. Reducing the green space around it will surely have an impact on the cultural value of the farmhouse, The property as a whole is the very essence of boon's rural atmosphere. The property as a whole provides a beautiful rural view linking us directly back to our early history and rural roots both in this area and in Waterloo County. The property as a whole, reminds us of an early agricultural scene. It is part of our history and a cultural heritage landscape. Reducing the green space could also have a negative impact on some wildlife. If the mature trees on the site are removed or reduced in numbers some species may be at risk. I have seen warblers in those trees; a species of birds that is becoming endangered. Moving the "coach house" from the corner is a mistake. Situated as it is, it serves as a community landmark! Even though the authours of the HIA state on page 46 that it isn't, they are wrong. It is to the people who live here. The Oxford dictionary defines a landmark as "an object or feature of a landscape or town that is easily seen and recognized from a distance, especially one that enables someone to establish their location." And that is exactly what the coach house sitting at that corner is to those of us who live here. It is also very important to note that children walk by this property daily on their way to school. How many children can walk past a piece of history like this that they will later study in school? As residents most of us don't know the context of the acts and policies stated in Staff Report or in the Heritage Impact Assessment. We certainly haven't been given enough time to research and study them, to present our objections to the Committee of Adjustment in a fully prepared way. But as residents of this community, we know the implications of this severance: • this beautiful vista will be changed forever, this piece of our history compromised, • the cultural heritage landscape in the boon Village area will be diminished, and • this beautiful rural view will be gone forever unless you keep this property intact. If you permit the La Frances to sever this magnificent property you will be helping them alter the grandness of the site and change a cultural heritage design into an ordinary suburban lot. If the owners find looking after a Heritage property a financial burden then I respectfully suggest that they sell it rather than destroy it. Please forward my concerns to the Adjustment Committee members. Sincerely, ■ February 19, 2018 Julione von Westerholt, Senior City Planner, City of Kitchener Dear Ms von Westerholt, Previously I sent you a letter dated February 16th to forward to the Committee of Adjustment that provided my objections to an application to sever the property at 883 boon Village Road. Those objections were on a broader scope. Now I would like to submit another letter from a personal perspective, outlining how this plan will directly affect the way our neighbours, my husband and I live in our homes. Firstly though the poor circulation of the notice from the City has impacted us all significantly. Most of us did not receive these letters in a timely manner. The really short notice to inform the homeowners within the required 30 metres of the Heritage Property leaves us as a group very little time to prepare for the Committee of Adjustment tomorrow. We are scrambling to present a fully prepared argument against. This is hardly fair! On a personal note, my husband and I will have to put up with a significant disruption in our lives due to length of construction required for this whole plan. It's also going to take a very long time to do all that the proposal demands to the "retained site." It's going to take a long time to dig up the streets, to put in services, to grade the 4 lots, and to build 4 houses. All will require an increase in traffic, builders, inspectors etc. All will lead to a lot of dirt and dust that we will have to cope with for way too long. Our environment will be chaotic! With 4 more houses, traffic affecting us directly will increase. Apparently the average household now has 3-4 cars; a fact that will add even more 1 worries for our safety. With additional cars we will have more difficulty driving out onto the street. It is already dangerous - that will only get worse. And more importantly it will become more dangerous for the neighbourhood children who walk to school each day. They will lose the safe side of the street to walk on. If the coach house is moved from the corner, we will lose a significant landmark in our community. We use this impressive building often to direct people to our home or to other places. (E.g. "Turn right/left/go straight at the coach house"). Many people in the area see the coach house as a significant landmark, a directional beacon letting others know of their location. My eye has always been drawn to the stand of tall mature trees zoom �on this property. To sacrifice them either by taking all or some of them down will be removing safe habitats for birds and other wild life. This could possibly be catastrophic to some species. Many times I have seen species of birds that are already declining in numbers in those trees. Having lived in this house since the early nineties our biggest loss will be losing the view we have now of this serene, beautiful, rural setting We have been privileged to enjoy this view daily. It has always had a comforting and relaxing affect. losing sight of this cultural heritage landscape will be difficult. We will be losing a little piece of history right in our own neighbourhood and in our case, If the current owners change that site, this beautiful heritage design will be just like any other ordinary lot in town! I hope the owners will reconsider their application and protect this treasure in our neighbourhood. Please forward my letter to the Committee of Adjustment. At the very least I hope they will grant us a deferral at this time. Sincerely, 2 r February 19, 2018 Committee of Adjustment Panel, City of Kitchener. Dear Panel Members, cc by email: Juliane von Westerholt Andrew Pinnell Michelle Drake Holly Dyson Yvonne Fernandes Firstly these notes from my talk today are to be taken as my official objection to the Application B2018-006 to B2018-009 to sever any part of the Heritage Site at 883 Doon Village Road or to change the location of the "Coach House" on this site. I wish to speak to 3 things: The points of why the views from Bechtel Drive are not significant as presented in both the Internal Memo from the Senior Heritage and Policy Planner (Michelle Drake) to The Director of Planning, Alain Pinard and the Staff Planning Report submitted to the Committee of Adjustment for this meeting. 2. Discrepancies in the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Report dated January 2018 prepared by MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd. (MHBC). 3. Other concerns. 1. Heritage Planning Comment's third paragraph on page 9 of the Staff Report to the Committee says, and 1 quote, "Heritage Planning staff agrees with the conclusions of the HIA, which indicate the view from Bechtel Drive into the site is not significant. It is not significant because the views from Bechtel Drive:" 1.1 "are not historic — the only historic view was from Doon Village Road." This is simply not true! The HIA report itself proves this. Compare the historic east view of the west facade of the house (Fig. 19, page 21) taken early 2P century to the more modern same east view of the house as seen in Fig. 37, page 31. They are the same other than the fact that the modern photo was taken from slightly farther away thus including the impressive "coach house" and the trees are different and have grown. 1.2 "were only made available when the surrounding subdivision was built in the 1980s." This is also not true. As pointed out above, the photo of the house (Fig. 19 page 21) taken in early 20th century shows the view prior to 1980. Also from the road (now Doon Village Road) cutting diagonally across the aerial photographs as shown in the 1945, 1954, 1963 (Fig. 23, 24, & 25; page 24 and 25), the east view of the west facade of the homestead would have been seen for over 100 years by east bound travelers going from the village of Strasburg to the village of Doon in their horse drawn carriages, their Model T Fords, their VW Beetles, or their shiny new Ford Mustangs. At that time this view - unobstructed by houses or industrial buildings - could have been seen from more than 1 km away and would have been enjoyed for several minutes by the first 3 travelers who would only have gotten a passing view of the front facade of the house. The guy in the Mustang may have had a glimpse of the east facade view, but probably missed the view of the front facade completely! As an aside, my only regret with the construction of Bechtel Drive and the surrounding subdivision was that it caused the demise of the beautiful unique heritage barn which stood on the southwest corner of the property until 1978. At this time it had to be demolished due to a planning and surveying mistake which put the sidewalk on the east side of Bechtel Drive through a corner of the barn. This error only came to light after the street was built and the sidewalks were being installed! Unbelievable! Surely this mistake should have been found and corrected before the street went in and the houses built. Is there not a saying, "Measure twice and cut once"? By the way our house built in 1976 was already there when this occurred. 1.3 "do not relate to the primary facade of the Benjamin Burkholder House (the only heritage attribute designated under the Ontario Heritage Act)" Where do the words "primary" and "only" come from? By-law # 84-52 which by the way is not presented in its entirety in Appendix C of the HIA report - says, and I quote: " There is designated as being of historic and architectural value that part of the aforesaid real property known as 883 Doon Village Road being comprised of the three bay front facade, the two side facades all having windows......" There is no mention of "primary; and "only" is not true because both the east and west facades are designated as heritage attributes along with the front. 1.4 a) "to the side elevation of the Benjamin Burkholder House are limited to a narrow corridor about (15 metres or less) and partially obstructed by landscape features (Note the existing Bechtel Drive frontage is approximately 73 metres). The 15 metre claim is a drastic understatement. I walk this daily and paced it off the other day. could see the west side elevation of the house for 60 paces (approximately 45 metres) from the east sidewalk of Bechtel Drive and even a greater distance from the west sidewalk. Note that both the south (rear) and the west side elevation of the coach house could always be seen together with the west facade of the dwelling house during this time. There is some obstruction by trees, six of which were planted by the LaFrances in 2014. I have never understood why these plantings were done nor that they were even allowed by the Heritage Committee. 1b. Heritage Planning Comment's fourth paragraph on page 9 of the Staff Report to the Committee says, and I quote, "Heritage planning staff acknowledges that the Doon Village Road, Bechtel Drive and rear elevations of the Hog and Hen House can be seen from Bechtel Drive. These are not significant because the views from Bechtel Drive;" 1.4b) "provide limited views where the both the Benjamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House may be seen together. Heritage planning staff note that the significance of the Hog and Hen House is its relationship to the Benjamin Burkholder House. Therefore, views that do not include both the Beniamin Burkholder House and the Hog and Hen House are not significant." I have no idea what the introductory paragraph to the second 4 bullets means! Perhaps someone will translate it for me. The first 3 bullets after the fourth paragraph are the same as the first 3 bullets after the third paragraph and were dealt with earlier. The 4th bullet is a gem. It says that only views including both the main house and the "coach" house are significant! I paced off the distance along Doon Village Road where both structures were in view. I had to stretch it to get 40 paces (approximately 29 metres). This means that significant views of the site occur 62% of the time on Bechtel Drive and only 40% of the time on Doon Village Road. 50% more from Bechtel Drive than Doan Village Road! Yet these reports say that only views from Doon Village Road are significant! Go figure! 2 Discrepancies (errors) in the HIA report. These are insignificant to the proposal but they beg the question of what other information is discrepant? a) On page 25 it states that the barn that was demolished in 1978 was "west of what is now Bechtel Drive". That would have put the barn in the lot of 58 Bechtel Drive - which was built to my knowledge in 1976 - 2 years before the barn was demolished. See Fig. 27, page 27 the 1980 aerial view showing our house completed (dark roof) vs Fig. 25, page 25 the 1963 aerial view showing the barn and no Bechtel Drive development. b) All pictures taken by MHBC 2017 in Section 5.2 and 5.3 pages, 29-32 to describe the settings of the site were taken from the side walk except Fig. 39, page 32 showing the front facade of the dwelling house was taken from the front lawn! c) Again all pictures in Section 5.2 and 5.3 , pages 29-32 show the source to be MHBC, 2017. Take a look at the picture in Fig. 37, page 31. Note the presence of a large tree on the west side of the coach house. Now look at the pictures where the coach house is in view (Fig. 29, 30, 31, 34 and 40). Magically no tree! I know from living across the street that that tree was taken down in the summer of 2015. This picture could not possibly have been taken in 20171 Note also the Fig. 37 picture shows in the foreground 2 of the 6 new tree plantings done in 2014 as mentioned earlier. d) The red arrow in Fig. 14, page 18 shows the subject lands to be in the Strasburg Creek. They are in fact several 100 metres NW up the road. e) Section C gives an incomplete and disjointed copy of Kitchener By-law # 84-52. What does the rest say? 3. Other concerns: a) The proposed lots would need to be serviced despite what Pg. 8 of the Staff Report , 41h paragraph from the bottom says, "all other municipal services are in place." Also "the municipal storm sewers down Bechtel Drive would have to be extended." This would have a huge impact on all residents on Bechtel Drive since the street would likely need to be torn up to do this. b) By-law 484-52 as issued and signed April 9, 1984 by Mayor Cardillo clearly states "to designate real property including all buildings and structures thereon to be of architectural and historical value or interest." This property is clearly defined as a square 240 ft. (73.152 metres) a side that is clearly the entire site as described in the attachment of the Staff Report. How can the owners propose to sever and change the dimensions of a City By-law (# 84-52) designate property and amend said by-law as proposed. Yet this is a requirement that the city planning has given the subdivider before applying for any building permit.(Staff Report page 5, second last bullet) In other words a building permit cannot be issued now because it would be against the law --'so change the law to fit the crime'! In conclusion I respectfully ask, no implore, this Committee of Adjustment not to approve this application to sever or change in any way the heritage property at 883 Doan Village Road. A mistake was made in the 1970s that resulted in the demise of the unique heritage barn on this site. Let's not make another mistake that will conceal, behind a row of houses, the "Coach" House that is currently a trademark in our Doon Pioneer Park community. At its current location, prominently on the corner of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive, it is the defining feature of this site, the beacon promising more to come, pointing the way to the 19th century Benjamin Burkholder House. It has earned the right to remain undisturbed where it is! Respectfully, 4 February 20, 2018 Committee of Adjustment Kitchener City Hall 200 King St. W. Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 re: B 2018-006 to B 2018-009 — 883 Doon Village Road To whom it may concern, I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed severance of part of 883 Doan Village Road, a historic lot designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, to create four additional residential lots fronting Bechtel Dr. My husband, on whose behalf I am also writing, and I live Prior to purchasing our home, we spoke with the City of Kitchener in February 2017 to confirm that the lot was a heritage lot and our realtor confirmed that it was zoned as single family residential. The lot, and specifically the mature trees on the lot, were a factor in our decision to purchase our home. However, my concerns are not based only on my personal view from It is my understanding that a heritage designation recognizes that while the property may belong to the owner, certain limitations are imposed since the property is also a public good — one that once destroyed or augmented, cannot be replaced. It is important to note that the current owner of the property was aware of the heritage designation upon purchase of the property, and it can be assumed that they understood their limitations with the lot. The following describes some of the ways that this property in its entirety serves as a public good to the neighbourhood and the city, and how severing part of the lot would limit or eliminate its contribution to the neighbourhood, based on my experience as a resident. The open space, mature trees, and historic buildings — the main house and the hog and hen house -- contribute significantly to the aesthetic of the neighbourhood. They help to visually balance out the large retirement home and parking lot on the other side of Doon Village Road. The entire lot helps to bring together the mixed residential around the intersection of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive, without which the neighbourhood will look more divided. Currently, there is a limited view of the property and the house from Doon Village Road, and I object to the statement that the view of the property from Bechtel Drive is not a consideration in preserving the view of the property. The proposed severance of the property would limit visibility from Bechtel Drive and the corner of the existing lot would contain a residence, further blocking the view from Doon Village Road. As a public good, we should not limit the visibility of the heritage property. The trees are the largest on the street, and visible from farther down Doon Village Road and from most houses on Bechtel Dr. It is my understanding they were planted about 70+ years ago. They are visually pleasing and add an element of nature. The heritage impact assessment does state they should be preserved where possible, but mature trees will have vast and complex root systems; how many of these trees can we really expect to be preserved? Furthermore, the redevelopment of the baseball diamonds at Southwest Optimist Sports Field on Pioneer Drive has already cost the neighbourhood many trees. Planting new, young trees is not a replacement for mature trees, as it will take decades for them to reach the same level of maturity. Part of the City of Kitchener's appeal, in my opinion, is the mature neighbourhoods and integrated spaces. Especially as new residential subdivisions are built in the area, it is important that we try to preserve our heritage lots, as once destroyed these cannot be replaced. The division of 883 Doon Village Road will change the landscape of the neighbourhood and limit the ability for fellow residents to view and enjoy this historical lot. Sincerely, Presentation to Committee of Adjustment 883 Doan Village Road application it is disturbing to learn about this significant change in the landscape and cultural heritage of this community. Although the notification circulation is 30 m. as of Thursday Feb. 15 50% of the residents in that proximity had not received notifications. To receive a notification this late about an important change in your community is unacceptable. To learn that planning staff believe that spreading the message through word of mouth and social media is enough is distressing and is not transparent at all. Based on just this point and others I will present, I am going to request that the committee consider a deferral of this application. My understanding from a former city planner that notification should have been received at least a week ago. To believe that a small ad in the local paper is enough is objectionable. The following are additional reasons that I would not support this application had it come to Council. 1) A heritage expert from the Ministry of Cultural as reviewed the document and indicated to me that, cultural heritage policies in section 2.6.1 of the Provincial Plicae statement and relevant to the City's official plan states that "shall have regard for..." therefore the whole of the property should be considered not bit's and pieces. 2) In the mid 1980's original report indicates that the agricultural interest of the property was still evident. The Hog/Hen house along with the mature trees acts as a "marvelous landmark for the residents of the Doon Pioneer Park area." Her recommendation to designate the property was accepted and passed by Council. also forwarded comments to the Heritage Committee in January 2018 when the application came to that committee. She indicated in her report that " the property should not be downplayed as a property of no cultural value... and that the land developer of the Pioneer Park area in the early 1980's had provided for the preservation of the Burkholder property by setting aside an extra large lot, thus attempting to maintain a semblance of the former setting." Should this application proceed it will now become sandwiched between 4 lots of modern houses completely removing the views as you approach the site from the north on Doon Village 3) Both the Canadian Historic Places website and Waterloo Historical Society has identified this site as one of significance . 4) Has an Archeological Assessment taken place? According to comments from Regional Heritage staff this needs to be done. I see nothing in the recommendations from staff indicating that this has been completed. 5) The HIA indicates on page 41 that "the two buildings remain in --situ and retain their contextual and historical relationship to each other." By moving the Hog/Hen building a change in this contextual value will be significant to the community at large who for decades have seen this site as a landmark in the community. In summary, after reviewing the MIA, the staff report, speaking to experts at the recent Heritage Day workshop and reading the original and subsequent reports from as well as comments from staff at the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, I believe that this application should be denied or deferred to allow for a public meeting so that further public comments can be heard. Precedent for a request of deferral has been set for the Committee of Adjustment application of November 10 2017 #A2017-100 64 Margaret Ave & 217/225 and 229 Victoria St. N. No matter how many conditions are added to this application the reality is that the alteration to this site/landmark will be forever transformed. Heritage and cultural are interchangeable when discussing heritage sites. Heritage is about REAL BUILDINGS, REAL PEOPLE AND REAL HISTORY! We lose a little bit more of our history every time we accept that profit trumps heritage. ?t4o 883 Doon Village Road, Kitchener 883 Doon Village Road Is a prominent historical landmark which has contributed and continues to contribute to the history and story of the Doon area, contrary to the consultant's evaluation of 211 and 2ili historical value score. The house demonstrates the Waterloo County Georgian style of architecture. In the Doon area, it is the only one of 2 % storeys Waterloo County Georgian style to use brick. The brick came from what was the Tilt brickyard down the hill about'/ mile away from this historic house. For a house dated 1863, this Is a remarkable structure, built and designed for Benjamin Burkholder, Mennonite and one of Waterloo Townships first licensed teachers. Tilt Brickyard was a successful business in the 1860's and later. Homer Watson, international landscape artist, as well as other Doon children of the time, were taught in this house by Benjamin Burkholder. Watson's family lived across the road from the Tilt Brickyard. The Burkholder property is highlighted in the Waterloo Historical Society annual volume 54 —1966, pp.36-58, article by Marguerite Bechtel Eby "Doon 1887 — Before and After". This article served as a guide for developing the inventory of important heritage structures and sites in the Doon area, 1979-1881, by members of Kitchener's Local ' Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee(LACAC). 883 Doon Village Road was in that inventory. Also, in the statement for heritage designation, 'Benjamin Burkholdee...'teacher.'..is specifically mentioned. In the 1984 Rogers TV production "Christmas in Doon" thi property was featired. And during the 1984's, it was featured in a Doon Heritage walking tour, magazine article, Record newspaper house feature, just to name a few types of Regional recognition. The buildings and the large property gave 883 Doon Village Road its attraction for newsworthy items. This property should not be downplayed as a property of no cultural value. The remnants of the agriculture operation, although small, are there upon closer examination, namely the siting of the stone chicken and hog shed. Note the wooden ledges of the ramps for the hogs to walk into the yard on the side facing Doon Village Road. This structure is at a distance from the house, a good distance to keep farm smells and flies from the house. The barn sat beside the shed but had to be torn down because of unsympathetic engineering design standards for subdivision sidewalks along a new Bechtel Drive when pioneer Park was being developed. In the 1980's, when preparing a historical presentation of Doan and working with members of the historical committee, it came to my attention that the land developer for the Pioneer Park area had provided for the preservation of this Burkholder House by setting aside an extra large lot, thus attempting to maintain a semblance of the former setting. Why is there even a thought of allowing the development of 4 new houses adjacent to this property when in 2017, Council and the Heritage Committee gave approval for the demolition of two houses adjacent to The Joseph Schneider Haus on Queen Street in Kitchener so the view of the Haus would be improved from Queen Street. Granted, if you are driving in a car, the property at 883 Doan Village Road may be difficult to view, but a pedestrian can easily view the whole and have a comfortable feel of the past history of the house and its property. Even with the mitigation suggestions, which are generic and open to interpretation, there is no guarantee that the property will maintain Its feel. Suppose all the large old spruce trees lining the laneway have to be removed. Suppose 10 ft high solid board fences border the back of -each lot as well as separate each lot. Suppose the new dwellings fill up each lot. The old house and its coach house become a sandwich between two sets of modern houses. 883 Doon Village Road becomes just another property in the row of new houses. Holly Dyson From: Andrew Pinnell Sent: 16 March, 2018 8:56 AM To: Holly Dyson; Dianna Saunderson Cc: Michelle Drake Subject: FW: Severance of Heritage Property in at 833 Doon Village FYI see below. Also, we have about 58 RSVPs for the NIM scheduled for Thurs March 22nd. Does LS require any information from this meeting for CofA administrative/legislative purposes? Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell -.kitchener.ca 016 From: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:21 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: Severance of Heritage Property in at 833 Doon Village This letter serves as m objection to the severance of the land at 833 Doon Village Rd. I am the owner of the coach house of the heritage property. One of the resons we purchased this house was knowing that it was a heritage site and that the land as to remain untouched. With potentially four new lots his would no longer be the case. From the Heritage assessment, the view of the property is said to be best from the Doon village side, but I strongly disagree. Seeing the coach house, the open acreage, the driveway leading up to the house - the forest behind, these are all attributes best viewed from Bechtel Drive - a view that would forever be changed should any additional houses be built. This property as it stands is a community landmark property known by not just local neighbourhood citizens, but Kitchener citizens in surrounding neighbourhoods as well, and thus should be maintained as is. I Dianna Saunderson From: Dianna Saunderson Sent: March 29, 2018 8:49 AM To: Dianna Saunderson Subject: FW: the coach house at 883 Doon Village Road From: Juliane vonWesterholt Sent: March 21, 2018 2:13 PM To: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca>; Dianna Saunderson<Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca> Subject: FW: the coach house at 883 Doon Village Road Sincerely, Juliane von Westerholt , Senior Planner{ Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7157 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 iuliane.vonwesterholt(),kitchener.ca r je? 0 v m s From: Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 6:49 PM To: Juliane vonWesterholt Subject: the coach house at 883 Doon Village Road Hello Julie, Excuse my informality, but I think of you more as "Linda's daughter," than as a planner with the city of Kitchener. Regarding the property and "coach house" at 883 Doon Village Rd., I feel that the coach house is a truly attractive and notably visible structure that should not be lost as a heritage landmark in the area. More people, including me, than school children have admired that corner, and in particular the coach house, since the subdivision was built. I have planned for years, to some day do a watercolour of that beautifully constructed little building. It would be unfortunate if this "attribute" to the property, so well situated in the public view as it now sits, were lost to the community. has informed me that in sending this input to you, it will be registered as a "formal contra" to the application. This would be appreciated. I have also responded in the positive to Andrew Pinnell's invitation to the information meeting on the 22 of March. Holly Dyson From: Sent: To: Subject Dianna Saunderson Dianna Saunderson 23 March, 2018 1:08 PM Holly Dyson FW: Severance of Heritage Property Committee Administrator Finance & Corporate Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7277 77Y 1-866-969-9994 1 Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca From: Dianna Saunderson Sent: March 23, 2018 1:07 PM To: Subject: RE: Severance of Heritage Property Please pass along your husbands name and I will include him along with your comments. Does your daughter live at the same address? Dianna Saunderson Committee Administrator Finance & Corporate Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7277 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Dianna. Saunderson@kitchener.ca From: Sent: March 23, 2018 12:45 PM To: Dianna Saunderson <Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Severance of Heritage Property Yes I would be interested in being included on the list of interested parties for the meeting. My husband and daughter are also interested. My contact information is as follows: Thank you, On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:45 AM, <Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca> wrote: Good Morninl� Thank you for your email. To be included in the list of interested parties to the hearing I will also require your address. If you wouldn't mind forwarding that through, I will ensure the Committee reviews your comments at the April 17, 2018 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Thank you, Dianna Saunderson Committee Administrator I Finance & Corporate Services i City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7277 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Dianna.Saunderson kitchener.ca From: Sent: March 22, 2018 10:14 PM To: Holly Dyson <Holly.Dyson@kitchener.ca>; Dianna Saunderson <Dianna.Saunderson kitchener.ca> Subject: Severance of Heritage Property Dear Ms Dyson and Ms Saunderson, The purpose of this email is to state emphatically that I do not support any development of the property at 883 Doon Village Road. See attached list of concerns for clarification. The recent new houses already built in Doon Village display a stunning lack of regard for a heritage area and profound shortsightedness on the part of city planning. Please help protect this property, all of it, both the house/stable house and the yard with its mature trees. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. This is one of the few properties to have survived into the 21st c. intact preserving the integrity of the buildings and the yard and is in beautiful condition. Please help protect this property from any further development now and in the future. Community Information Meeting: Regarding Severance of the Heritage Property 883 Doon Village Road Concerns about proposed development: 1) It is not simply the house that should be considered as part of the heritage designation but the entire property. The out building/ carriage house is a lovely old structure built where it was on the property roughly the time the house was built clearly reflecting the lifestyle needs of the time. The building and its placement are a lovely and necessary part of the integrity of the property and its heritage and should stay where it is. a) Mature trees are a gift. In Toronto fines penalize developers who cut down healthy mature trees up to $io,000 per tree. The fact the Doon Village Road property has some lovely examples of mature trees in keeping with the original house is amazing and measures should be taken to safeguard them. Hence the property and its flora should be protected as part of the heritage designation. 3) Visibility at the corner should not be compromised. This is a busy corner with many distracted and aggressive incidents of drivers running the stop sign and speeding. I have witnessed this myself on three occasions already. There is bus/school bus traffic. There is a school just down the street (Bechtel Street) and the children need not only a dependable crossing guard at this intersection but good visibility on the corner to ensure continued safe passage to school now and in future. 4) Parking and street use is also cause for concern. Bechtel and Pioneer are both busy streets with bus traffic and steady pedestrian traffic. Ensuring there is sufficient parking for the proposed development and ensuring safe street access is essential to keeping the corner safe and accident free. It is already a busy corner with the Retirement Resort and its needed deliveries involving commercial vehicles and as such already make added driver attention and care. I appreciate your consideration of the concerns presented. The house and property are a visual delight and a rare example of an old property that has not be crassly redeveloped at the expense of the property's history, heritage status and ambiance. Please uphold the heritage designation for the entire property. Thank you for your time, Holly Dyson From: Sent: 26 March, 2018 7:50 PM To: Holly Dyson; dianna.saunderson@kitchener.com; andrew.pinnell@kitchener.com Cc: Vivienne Renaud; Brian Renaud; bobnali@rogers.com Subject: RE: Consent Application /883 Doon Village Road Good Morning My husband and I are the residents of I was in attendance at the recent Neighbourhood Information Meeting held at the Doan Valley Golf Course on Thursday March 22nd. My husband was unable to attend due to a prior commitment. We have lived in o urrent residence for approximatel and were here during the time 883 Doon Village Rd was owned by as well as watching the ome sit unoccupied for several years. Although there appeared to be much in"teres the property, it was clear that very little upkeep or maintenance had been done to the home, and there was little interest in the house itself. We were delighted when the Lafrances purchased and moved into 883 boon Village Rd. It was obvious that they took great pride in ownership and quickly started the difficult task of upgrading and repairing not only the house but the property. We have seen them working tirelessly in what must be an overwhelming, ongoing process, always keeping the Heritage designation in mind. A couple of weeks prior to the March 22nd meeting, Ifttopped in to discuss their application and told us at the time that although it wasn't (yet) a requirement to move the "Hog and Hen" house, this was something they wanted to do, as it was the right thing. We understand this is not an inexpensive undertaking. I felt the meeting held on March 22nd represented the views of some, definitely not all, members of the community. We understand there has been some door knocking, etc... trying to engage neighbours to unite in having this application declined. We were not contacted by anyone, and would be curious as to why only certain neighbours were contacted - possibly only those who would be eager to jump on the bandwagon? Having seen how the Heritage designation has been foremost in all of the upgrades made to the house at 883 Doon Village Rd. and the property at 883 Doon Village Rd, by the Lafrances, we have full confidence that the addition of 4 lots will be handled in such a manner as to only improve the community we live in. I am glad that additional families will have this same opportunity that we enjoy with our family, in living in this great community. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Holly Dyson From: Sent: 27 March, 2018 8:13 PM To: Holly Dyson; Dianna Saunderson Cc: andrew.pinnel@kitchener.ca; Annette Hak Subject: Consent Applications - B2018-006, B2018-007, B2018-008 & B2018-009 (883 Doon Village Road) We have been paying close attention to the application put forth for 883 Doon Village Road and have had people canvassing the neighbourhood in order to oppose this application. We simply want to advise you that this select group of people does not speak for the entire Doon Community. It seems to us that all the correct steps have been taken by the home owners and conditions met in order to go forth with it. We have lived in the Doon community fo and have seen many changes. This is simply another change that we hope will help sustain the heritage property at 883 Doon Village Road. Those opposed to this application may have already forgotten that the said property sat vacant for five years and became quite run down before the current owners purchased it. We can only imagine the cost involved to maintain this property while keeping within the guidelines of the heritage act. We look forward to welcoming four new households to our wonderful neighbourhood. CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this e-mail to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation. CONFIDENTIALITE : Ce courriel (y inclus les pieces jointes) est confidentiel et est destine uniquement au destinataire. Tout usage non autorisd ou revelation est formellement interdit. La revelation du contenu de ce courriel a une personne autre que le destinataire ne constitue pas un abandon de privilege. Si vous avez requ cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser immddiatement et effacer Poriginal. Nous apprecions votre coopdration. Holly Dyson From: Sent: 27 March, 2018 3:31 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: Re: coach house at 883 Doon Village Road Hello Holly, While I have already sent brief comments to Juliane and to Andrew and have attended the March 22 information meeting, I would like to be sure my thoughts are available at the meeting scheduled for April 17th and l am, as requested, including my mailing address. Regarding the property and "coach house" at 883 Doon Village Rd., the coach house is a truly attractive and notably visible structure from Bechtel Street, though less so from Doan Village Road. If the coach house is moved and homes are built along Bechtel, the view of the coach house itself will be largely obstructed. The visibility and the context of this property as a whole, will be diminished. It will be lost to the clear, easy and handsome visibility it now has on that corner. Certainly there are areas of most cities which boast large and attractive properties. My understanding is that it is not necessarily a desirable thing that such areas exist as enclaves; that a socially healthier concept of "mixed" housing should reflect varying economic levels. The existence of the property at 883 Doon Village Road is currently a tribute to this concept. In the instance of 883 Doon Village Road, historical significance has been determined. It is so unfortunate that this significance was not extended to the property as a whole when it was designated. All of the property was part and parcel of the era of its origin and the coach house no less attractive and authentic and surely utilized in its own right, as was the main house. I understand that it is a complex process which will come to bear on the decision of whether the coach house will remain as a sentinel for this entire gem of a property. I also hope for our current population, which so obviously values it, and for those yet to live in the area --though not on that specific corner! --that the property can endure as it has to this day for all of us in the present and for years to come. -----Original Message ----- From: Holly.Dyson@kitchener.ca Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:34 AM To: Cc: Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca ; Dian na.Saunderson@kitchener.ca Subject: FW: coach house at Good Morning, Thank you for your email. I will need your mailing address in order to provide your comments to the Committee members. Regards, Holly Dyson Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 holly.dyson@kitchener.ca -----Original Message ----- From: Andrew Pinnell Sent: 08 March, 2018 10:04 AM To: Dianna Saunderson; Holly Dyson Cc: Michelle Drake; Eric Schneider; Juliane vonWesterholt Subject: FW: coach house at Hi Dianna, See additional comment regarding 883 Doon Village Rd, below. I will invite this person to the NIM. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca -----Original Message ----- From: Eric Schneider On Behalf Of Internet - Planning Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 9:19 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: FW: coach house at Hi Andrew, here is an email regarding 883 Doon Village Road Eric -----Original Message ----- From: noreply@esolutionsgroup.ca [mailto:nore I esolutions rou .caj On Behalf 04� Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 4:42 PM To: Internet - Info Subject: coach house at Regarding the property and "coach house" at 883 Doan Village Rd. The coach house is a truly attractive and notably visible structure and should not be lost. More (including me) than school children have admired that corner, and in particular the coach house, since the subdivision was built. I'm still planning to do a watercolour of that beautiful little building some day! This "attribute" in its current setting and exact location should definitely be protected as part of the heritage property designation. ------------------------------------- Origin: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/city-services/"connect-with-us.aspx Dianna Saunderson From: Sent: March 28, 2018 8:35 PM To: Holly Dyson; Dianna Saunderson; Andrew Pinnell Subject: In Support of 883 Doon Village Road Hello Through social media and the local news we have been following the developments of 883 Doon Village Road and the application to sever the property to add lots. Because public views seem quite one-sided, we felt the need to reach out to you with our perspective on this situation. We have been Doon Residents since 1995 in the Wyldwoods community (Windrush Trail). Our 2 children both attended St Timothy's school, so we are quite familiar with this property and the Heritage district (Doon Village Road) Being runners and avid walkers, we have been up and down Doon Village road thousands of times over the past 23 years and have seen quite a bit of change in the deemed Doon Heritage District. We have seen many lots severed on Doon Village Road — including property. There have been many new houses built over the years on this road and to be honest, not many of them seem to have a "Heritage" look or feel to them, yet they are within this Heritage district. So what is confusing to us is why there seems to be such resistance to the owners of 883 boon Village Road for wanting to do the same thing? Why are they being held to a different standard? Where are their rights as property owners? We would assume since they have gone so far down this path, that they have followed proper procedures and approvals to get to this point. The fact that they are willing to move the carriage house at their own expense, and have clearly invested in improving their property over the years, sends a positive message that they understand the importance of owning and maintaining a heritage property and are willing to work with the City and also be accommodating to their surrounding neighbours. We do believe this will improve the neighbourhood while maintaining our history. We fully support this initiative and wish them all the best. If you would like to ask us any questions, or need further information, please feel free to contact us at the email below Holli Dison From: Andrew Pinnell Sent: 03 April, 2018 9:00 AM To: Holly Dyson; Dianna Saunderson Subject: FW: Follow up to Town Hall Meeting held at Doon Valley Golf Course - March 22nd See below comments from I believe this is different than the letter she sent. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 j andrew. innell kitchener.ca 0. ,fi ', :". From: Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 4:07 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Kelli Kuryk Subject: Follow up to Town Hall Meeting held at Doon Valley Golf Course - March 22nd Hi Andrew: As you will likely recall, I spoke at the meeting about my objection to the proposed severance of 883 Doon Village Road. My argument was based on the premise that the original developer Major Holdings, had set aside this 1.3 acres purposefully to retain the historical significance of the Benjamin Burkholder farm and that I didn't see how the City could now justify allowing the site to be altered, especially in view of its historical designation. pointed out, and with copy in hand, that the survey of the subdivision supported my remarks that the intent was to retain the larger lot and buildings. We know today that this intent was acted on as this is exactly how the subdivision was finalized and developed in the 1970s. Your response to my question was that I should submit proof of the Developer's full intent; an intent which would have been discussed with the City of Kitchener Planners and agreed upon at the time. don't have easy access to those Archives but you, as a City Planner, would. I am of the opinion that this is really the Planning Department's responsibility to go through the old records to validate the discussions at the time prior to rendering any opinion on whether the application should be considered or not. Further, given that this is not your 'run- of-the-mill' application and a heritage property, the City's due diligence is more important than ever. I trust if you have any objections to my request, you will reach out accordingly. Thank you. March 31, 2018 Holly Dyson, Planning Department City of Kitchener Attention: Committee of Adjustment Dear Committee Members, Re: Report # CSD -18-040 -Application to sever the property at 883 Doon Village Road On April 17, 2018, you are going to be asked to approve or deny an application to sever the property at 883 Doon Village Road to allow for four new building lots along Bechtel Drive for residential use. Prior to making that decision, I would respectfully ask that you give serious consideration to the following facts regarding the said property. According to information on file in public records, the City of Kitchener acquired a significant portion of land in 1968 in which lies the subject lands. Together with the developer, Major Holdings Corporation, a plan was drawn up for development of the area which began in the 1970s. The property at 883 Doon Village Road was part of a 25 acre farm originally owned by Benjamin Burkholder that had been in existence since the .1860s. On that property stood the original homestead, the Hog and Hen House (often referred to as the Coach House today) and a barn, the latter which subsequently had to be taken down to support the development of the surrounding road system. Given the significance of Benjamin Burkholder to Waterloo County, one of the earliest settlers in the area who became a prominent school teacher at the time, a collective decision was made between the City of Kitchener and the developer Major Holdings to designate the subject property to be retained as a whole, for the purpose of preserving the heritage of our rural roots in the Doon area. At the time of the severance, the farm was already over 100 years old. With this mandate, the rest of the acreage around this site was developed in the 1970s with the homes that stand today, on modest lot sizes that pale in comparison to the 1.3 acreage set aside. It is obvious, given the discussions and decisions made during that time, that the intent was to preserve the farm property as a whole to help frame what once was. In 1984, a stake was further put in the ground to protect this property by having it designated as a heritage site. This was clearly done to ensure that this significant piece of historical property be preserved and enjoyed by the community in the future. The property in question has become a landmark in the Pioneer Park community. The property is considered a large corner lot that sits at a higher elevation with views that are quite majestic from both Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive. The City Planners have stated that the views from Bechtel Drive are not significant as they were not there historically; that only the view from Doon Village Road can be considered significant and historical. I, along with many others, disagree with that conclusion. The views from Bechtel Drive have been there since the road system and homes were built in the 1970s, a time when the area was initially developed so those views have existed for over 40 years, As most people do when buying a home, they choose to purchase in an area because of its curbside appeal, its open spaces and in this case, the beauty of the said property would have been a significant factor for many also. With the proposed severance application to create 4 new building lots, this will significantly alter the site. The look and feel of the original farm will be watered down and forgotten. The views of the home and the hog and hen house will become non-existent from Bechtel Drive and the views along Doon Village Road will be significantly altered, no longer visible from the corner intersection. One of the attributes of the property that people consider unique is the existence of the large hog and hen house which sits close to the corner of the lot. Its move closer to the house, assuming it can withstand that move, will interfere with the community's enjoyment of this beautiful structure and further, as a hen and hog house, its historical purpose will be lost, notwithstanding the inappropriate distance of the structure in relation to the house. Although the structure is not used as a farm building today (we acknowledge that smells are not an issue), it's the integrity of the farm property which will be altered. No one will ever understand the purpose or heritage of this building with its move closer to the house and its charm will be difficult to notice. Also lost with this proposal will be several stands of trees, trees that have stood the test of time. The City of Kitchener's planning report has laid out conditions that it will not allow the loss of trees along the boulevard on Bechtel Drive as these 4 lots are created. So, how is it that these tall and stately trees on the property are inconsequential, trees that have for generations been homes to many unique birds and wildlife and provide a beautiful landscape around the buildings and property itself? The City's Heritage Planner, in her professional opinion, states that the actual land is not included as part of the heritage designation nor is it significant. I along with many others will agree to disagree with that opinion. We believe the intent was clear from the beginning that the whole of the property be retained as a farm setting to protect the integrity of the site and its existing buildings. This belief was further put into motion with the heritage designation in 1984. If we go back to the original City development plan which is on file in the City archives, it is very clear that the intent was to set aside the existing property at 1.3 acres. The City and developer could have chosen to add a number of additional homes on that site for financial gain, but deliberately chose to retain the property as a significantly larger lot to emphasize its size and its importance in Doom's historical roots. Simply said, its history was deemed more important. In summary, I along with a large constituency living in the Doon area respectfully ask that you deny this application respecting the fact that the original severance and its subsequent heritage designation was all done in the spirit of maintaining the whole property for it historical importance to our rural roots. In today's day and age of a throw- away society and the insatiable need for financial gain, often at the expense of others, our history is being lost and such will be the case here if this plan moves forward, History does matter...it is our legacy to our children, grandchildren and future generations to come. This is a piece of history that has existed for 155 years and continues to be adored by our community at large. We thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Copy: Andrew Pinnell, Juliane von Westerholt, Yvonne Fernandes Holly Dyson From: Sent: 03 April, 2018 9:01 AM To: Dianna Saunderson; Holly Dyson Cc: Andrew Pinnell Subject: Re: 883 Doon Village Road Hi Dianna My mailing address is Sincerely Sent from Yahoo Mail for Whone On] ucsda�, April ;. 2018. 8:41 ANI. I)ianna.Saundersonr(r kitclicner.ca \% rote: Good Morning Thank you very much for your email. For your email to be circulated to the Committee members I will need your mailing address. Please forward it at your convenience. Regards, Dianna Saunderson Committee Administrator I Finance & Corporate Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7277 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Dianna.Saunderson(g7kitchener.ca From: Sent: April 1, 2018 1:15 PM To: Holly Dyson <Holly.Dyson@kitchener.ca>; Dianna Saunderson<DiannA.Saunderson@kitchener.ca> Cc: Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell@kitchener.ca> Subject: 883 Doon Village Road Good Afternoon, I would like to thank you for the information evening that was held on March 22nd at the Doon Valley Golf Club. i attended as I wanted to understand the process around the assessment of the heritage property at 883 Doon Village Road. After the meeting, I came away understanding that a thorough and fair assessment of the property and the proposal to sever the land was completed. I believe there is a small contingency of neighbours with their own agenda that were not likely educated on the process and the steps the homeowners have taken. This meeting, in my opinion, provided this information. Adding 4 homes to that area will have more positive impact overall and that most people 1 have talked to are looking forward to adding these new families to our community. Doon/Pioneer Park has always been a welcoming community. I have lived in Doon/Pioneer Park for 30 years. We are very fortunate to have a few properties in our area that represent historical points in time. The property at 883 Doon Village Road is one of these homes. When the previous owners passed our neighbourhood saw this property sit idle and empty for over 5 years which only led to further deterioration of the property. 1 would much rather support the family in Finding ways to maintain the heritage property than to see it fall to neglect. Managing a heritage property such as this is a labour of love for whomever takes it on. In the meeting, it was stated that this property is not a museum and I think this is an important point to remember. The current family love history but they also are trying to raise a family and live in a home that has the amenities we would expect all while trying to maintain the historic buildings appeal. The proposal to sever the land appears to be well though out, professionally managed and has remained within the boundaries of the Heritage Act while considering the impact on the neighbourhood through proper studies of the area. I think this is a excellent example of the home owners doing their due diligence so they can maintaining the heritage property through adaptive reuse. The alternative could be to do nothing and watch the property or some of the buildings deteriorate which would be a greater loss than maintaining the beauty of the property. am in favor of the city approving this proposal as I have been provided the information that the home owners have invested significant time and effort to ensure their impact on the property does not decrease the historic view of the property. Sincerely April 10, 2018 Committee of Adjustment Panel, City of Kitchener. cc : Juliane von Westerholt Andrew Pinneli Holly Dyson Dianna Saunderson Yvonne Fernandes Subject: Objection to Application Nos: B2018-006 to 009 proposal to sever the Heritage Site at 883 Doon VillageRoad. Introduction: "Our community is fortunate to be made up of heritage buildings, properties and neighbourhoods that have stood the test of time - and it's our collective responsibility to conserve and protect them." (Source: City of Kitchener Heritage Webpage) This submission is in three parts: 1. Significant Views: A) From Doan Village Road. B) From Bechtel Drive. 2. Amending By -Law #84-52. Notes: 1. Any reference to Main House means the Benjamin Burkholder House. 2. Any reference to Coach House can also mean Hog and Hen House. 3. JPG files of all images in this document have been e-mailed to Holly Dyson and Dianna Saunderson. Page 1 1 1. Significant Views. A) Image Al is the current view of the subject Historical Site from the 4 -way stop east bound on Doon Village Road at Bechtel Drive. This view has not been taken into consideration for being significant by the HIA or Staff. Image A 1 This view is significant because it complies with all the criteria of By-law 84-52 and the Staff Report (Feb 20/18). + It is from Doan Village Road and hence historic. (Staff Report pg 9) + Both the Main House and the Coach House can be seen. (Staff Report pg 9) • The Main House's west facade with its small square attic windows, gable roof and chimneys, all heritage attributes designated as being of historic and architectural value per By-law 84-52, are visible though partially obstructed by tree and hedge plantings. However "obstruction of views by plantings is considered temporary as plantings are not heritage attributes and can be altered." (Section 5.3.1 pg 30 of the HIA Report.) Personally I find this obstruction of the view to be enticing, making one want to see more. If this proposal is approved, the same view would change completely, to something like the following conceptual Images A2 and A3, depending on house type and tree retention status. This `trademark' view of our Doon Pioneer Park Community would no longer be significant; it would be one! Page 12 B) Image B1 is the current view of the site from Bechtel Drive looking East toward the designated Main House's West facade heritage attribute and its 6x6 paned windows, small square attic windows, gable roof and chimney heritage attributes. (The veranda attribute can also be seen by taking several steps to the right.) Image B 1 The HIA Report (Jan 2018) and Staff Report (Feb 20/18) deem this view to be "not significant" because it is "not historic" and was "only made available when this subdivision was built in the 1980s." (The need for this view to be related to the front facade of the Main House is disputed in the Footnote below.*) I maintain that this view was always there, though not necessarily from the public realm. The need for a significant view to be from the public realm is negated by the HIA statement that the "primary view of the property is located on-site (i.e. private realm), looking south to the front elevation of the dwelling" (section 5.3). Also City Staff have stipulated this same private realm view in its "Revised list of Heritage Attributes" to be used to amend by-law #84-52. Further, this view, and all views of this property for that matter, were only made Historic and of Heritage significance by By-law #84-52's enactment in 1984! Bechtel Drive was already in place several years before 1984. Images B2 and 83 are conceptual images of this same view if this proposal is approved. The view of the site from Bechtel Drive would then certainly not be significant and it would be lost forever! Image B 2 Image B 3 Page 13 P.S. If the Committee of Adjustment or the City Planning Staff do not agree with my arguments regarding the significance of this view due to some technicality, I would suggest that since this view has been available and enjoyed by many for the last 40 years would be significance enough. Also with the City's policy on Heritage conservation and protection, as quoted earlier, City Staff's job should be to fix the technicality, not to,allow the destruction of any heritage view, whether deemed significant or not. *Footnote on view from Bechtel Drive. The HIA and Staff Report's use of the words "primary" and "only" in describing the view of the north (front) elevation of the Main House should be ignored as they are misleading and show bias. There are no limiting adjectives in By-law 84- 52's list of designated heritage attributes, hence all are of equal importance; nor is the entire Main House listed as a heritage attribute. 2. Amending By -Law #84-52. One of City Staff's pre -conditions for issuing any Building Permits to this site (Staff Report pg 5) is that the designating By-law 84-52 shall be amended to, among other things, list the Coach House as a designated heritage attribute of this property. This suggests that issuing any building permit now would go against the By-law as it stands. Also if By-law 84-52 is amended first, making the Coach House a heritage attribute, it could then not be moved as proposed in the HIA and by Staff. Respectfully, Page 14 imp April 111h, 2018 Dear Committee of Adjustment panel, On February 20' at the previous Committee of Adjustment meeting my husband Ross Hoffman, identified numerous errors in the HIA report on 883 Doon Village Road, prepared by MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited. (MHBC) The more he looks at the HIA report the more errors he continues to find. As you have access to his earlier submission I won't repeat his findings. However, I will point out just one of the many more recent errors he found as an example of its inaccuracies. Please refer to the map of Waterloo Township in 1831 on page 14 of the pdf. version of the HIA. The prominent red arrow is not even pointing to the subject propertx on the map. However, MHBC notes, "approximate location of subject property denoted by arrow." The property indicated by the red arrow is actually located in the St. Mary's Hospital area! Equally disconcerting is the fact that City staff missed this error as well as the many others. And yet, their opinions have such influence on the fate of this property of such "significant cultural heritage value," It troubles me that if something that simple is incorrect, how can this HIA authored by MHBC have any credibility to it? And how then can the City planners approve the severance of the subject property based on the HIA `s suspect findings? Given these obvious errors I asked a long term professional from the area (who wishes to remain anonymous) to review the HIA submitted by MHBC, the Staff Report dated Feb. 181h, By-law #84-52 as well as Ross Hoffman's previous submission to your committee dated Feb. 19th. 1 The professional supports our position that the HIA has many errors in it, is misleading and `biased and directly contradicts By-law # 84-52. The professional also concludes that this historic property should be protected. A summary of that review is also submitted. Key points are highlighted in green print. On behalf of the residents in this area, I respectfully urge you to deny the current owners' proposal to sever this site treasured by the Doon Pioneer Park community. I urge you to protect and preserve the heritage and cultural sanctity of this special Doon property and the historic buildings on it. If you allow this severance you will be instrumental in helping the owners turn this cultural heritage landscape into an ordinary suburban lot. Sincerely, 2 Expert Summary following review of HIA and By-law # 84-52 regarding property at 883 Doon Village Road. 1) The matter of the proposal to sever and subdivide lots from 883 Doon Village Road currently in front of the City of Kitchener's Committee of Adjustment should not be deemed, as it seems to be by virtue of the HIA, prepared by MHBC, and the City's own Staff Report, as a simple 'consent' item for Council's consideration (or for that matter, Staffs'). The MHBC 2018 HIA conveniently highlights in its document only the parts (of By- law #84-52), which promote the study's Clients' best interests for subdividing 883 Doon Village Road without addressing the true and original intent of said By-law. The By -Law's intent is clearly and succinctly documented and intended to 'protect' this Heritage property going forward in and for the overall community's interests. In fact in it's Point 2, the By -Law states " The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause it copy of this By-law to be registered Against the whole of the property described in Schedule "A" hereto (of which the said designated area forms it part) in the proper land registry office. Schedule "A" is affixed As integral part of the By-law #84-52 and reinforces the "whole property" reference by stating "ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises, situate, lying anti being in the City of Kitchener etc. etc. " and having an area of 1.322 acres, etc. etc. The metes and bounds of the 1.322 -acre lands are then described in detail in the By-law #84- 52. This fact could present legal implications for the City of Kitchener if it were to approve the current Lafrance Severance Application. So it should! The existing By- law prevented previous owners of 883 Doan Village Road from even making a formal Land Severance Application to the City on the basis of advice from City Staff. The By-law remains unamended to facilitate such severances. 2) On page 40 the IIIA itself states "the property located at 883 Doon Village Road is of significant cultural heritage value as per Ont. Reg, 9/06." Opponents to the intent to sever 883 Doon Village Road heartily agree with this statement! In paint 6.2.1 of the HIA, A misguiding statement is made implying that the existing By-law 484-52 registered oil H83 Doon Village Road [IoCl11nenk identifies "that the only attribute of the property which is subject to the By- law is the dwelling." This statement is contradicted entirely by the content/wording and intent of the By-law as noted by our above reference to point 2 of, the By-law! 1 In point 6.2.3 of the HIA the statement " the property located at 883 Doon Village Road has lost the majority of its significant contextual value." However, concerned area ratepayers, in fact, maintain it is, by virtue of all the previous lands once comprising 883 Doon Village Road and its subsequent urban development that the 1.3 -acre remnant of land both condenses and reinforces to and for the immediate community associated with the site, the cultural and heritage contextual value inherent with the site. It is the remaining property around the in situ heritage buildings, which now reflect cultural, heritage context, and therefore adds such value to the community. The remnant acreage of the former Burkholder settlement deserves the recognition and protection afforded it by By-law #84-52 for the "sense of place, of time" it provides the Doan Pioneer Community at large, never mind being part of the City of Kitchener's origins long ago. 1, therefore disagree with the HIA point 6.2.3 stating that "the property has lost the majority of its significant contextual value. " This statement is even in contradiction to the authors' of the HIA statement as noted above in my point 2. The existing views to the public at large of the remnant Burkholder land and buildings very much reinforce the context of the latter despite previous land erosion for development. The historic heritage buildings, whether relocated or in situ would become community'ghosts', lost from view by new housing units fronting on Bechtel Drive, and eliminating the heritage cultural significance by way of visual access and context of this remaining special open space within the community. 3 ) The HIA's point number 6.3.1. (pg.43) "Introduction" nays "A cultural heritage landscape is defined by Provincial Policy Statement 14 as follows "Cultural Heritage Landscape mouns a defined geographical area t/Iat may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as .structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued togetherfor their interrelationship, rrrearriug or association. " The HIA suggests, appropriately, the subject site's original land holdings have been subjected to significant alterations since first settled in the 1860's. I Iowever, I contend, it still has by virtue of its existing 1.3 acre land base and heritage buildings, maintained its historic context and significance to and for the community to date. These circumstances have been 'protected' by By-law #84-52, prudently and carefully formulated previously by City staff that acknowledged appropriate merit in such protection wisdom. 2 4 ) Despite the HIA's point 6.4 on pg. 46, a chart "Summary of Evaluation", point 3. Contextual Value, item iii, "is a landmark" receiving an "X" by MHBC , area ratepayers and others very much consider and refer to the Burkholders' (Lafrances') remnant lands and heritage buildings as it conllnunity "landmark", not separate entities, but as a'holding', it place in the community context "valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association" 5) On pg. 50 of the HIA under "Beneficial Impacts " the assessment states " the existing By-law specifies that the only heritage value attribute of the property is the existing dwelling" This is inaccurate. Please refer again to the By-law #84-52 in its entirety and that of the Provincial policy Statement 2014. The HIA also states that that there would be "Neutral Impacts" to the property, but this misconception would only relate to the buildings left in situ or relocated on a "new" remnant property as the proposed homes built along Bechtel Drive frontage would "neutralize" any future visual access to the lands/buildings contextually from this vantage point. I'ven the I I Ws statement regarding "Adverse Impacts " (1e1,I1s only with the buildings on site and not the overall context of the 1.3 -acre space as a heritage/cultural aspect within the present day community and as 'protected' by By-law tt 84-52. 6) On pg. 54 of the HIA, point 9.2.1 the "Do Nothing Alternative " would actually prohibit the development of the subject property. This option would result in maintaining the existing lot and the existing locations of buildings on site. The HIA states that "This alternative would create no opportunity for the proposed creation of four new lots and one retained one. This alternative would prohibit the owners from undertaking their plans for the future of their property." However, the Lafrances must have been aware of the Heritage encumbrances /restrictions on deed when they purchased this property, notably By-law #84- 52. In fact, it is not the "DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE " which prevents them from advancing their plans as much as it is By-law #84-52's reasonable and worthy heritage restrictions in the community's interests. CONCLUSION: The thrust of the January 2018 MHBC HIA and the February 13, 2018 Staff Report prepared for the Committee of Adjustment smacks a little of the'tail wagging the dog'. It seems apparent that By-law #84-52's amendment is considered somewhat of a foregone conclusion on the basis of the HIA's approval by the City. And that this proposed land severance application could then proceed. However, given some of the occlusions apparent in the 11IA document it may lvell behoove the City for 3 the Coll] ill unity's benefit to rethink this 'consent' approval position and follow the INTENTand INTEGRITY of By-law 484-S2 as it has in the past, though perhaps not formally, been exercised to mitigate land severance by previous owners of the Lafralice site. While the Staff report identifies numerous Municipal and Regional development requirements of the Subdivider it is not until pg. 11 of the City's specific requirements that it stipulates: " Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits ": • "The SUBDIVIDER agrees that the Designating By-law #84-52 shall be amended to reflect the heritage attributes listed in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC Planning, and dated January 2018 and the revised legal description for the lands municipally addressed as 883 Doon Village Road " • We contend that the full intent of the By-law 484-52 he addressed to preserve the 1.3 acres of the Lafrance property and its structures as "a defined geographical area" -incl "valued together" coll(exti<<illy "for their interrelationship, meaning 11 �md "association." • Given the By-law amendment has not yet occurred it feels like the stars are aligned for same in a, perhaps, municipally biased manner. Certainly, severance and subdivision would augment City coffers, both immediately ($32,568 cash in lieu of park land dedication), mid-term with enhanced Bechtel Drive infrastructure funded by the Subdivider, and long term, on a continuum, with enhanced property tax revenues from four new residential properties derived by severing lands for same from the 1.3 - acre Lafrance property. The concerned Citizens' group needs answers /clarification on the following: • how this Application process has advanced to a Committee of Adjustment "consent "position when the Property still needs By-law 84-52 to be amended to facilitate the owners' proposed severance /development intents. • for the City to provide our group a logical rationale as to why it doesn't appear the HIA was perhaps crafted cleverly to fit the Subdividers' interests rather than to meet the Intent of By -Law #84-52 itself. It appears, instead, to intend getting past the By-law for gains by the property owner and the City. • for the City to explain why preparation of the HIA by MHBC and subsequent City approval of this document, appears to insinuate a'carte blanche' amendment to By-law #84-52 is, without apparent question, the next step. 4 Please note. The concerned citizens request the City, ill fairiless and with Full transparency, heeds to provide .sincere clarification of HILI incongruences of fact5;illd, even, correlation to the existing fay -lav 484-52 as noted ill the various points/concerns noted in thu ahove text. ...End of summary... April 112018 Re. 883 Doon Village Road Proposed Severance This letter is in response to the Staff Report Updated Memo from the Public Consultation meeting March 22nd. On page #39 in the memo titled Correspondence Regarding Previous Severance Inquiries, it states that one of these inquiries was to create one new lot fronting onto Doon Village Road where both the retained and severed lands would have equal frontage. It also says that the end result of this proposal would be the demolition of the Hog and Hen House. These 2 statements are completely incorrect. An inquiry into the possible severance was emailed and discussed with Leon Bensason October 12th 2046. Included with this inquiry was a letter stating what the Estate of my deceased parents intentions were. No where does it state that it would be one lot fronting Doon Village Road. It says that we are looking at the possibilty of severing the property in half, leaving the existing home with 120ft frontage on Doon Village Road, and severing lots on the Bechtel Drive side. It also does not say anything about the demolition of the Hog and Hen House. During the Public Consultation meeting, Heritage Planner Michelle Drake insisted that our proposal was for one lot fronting Doon Village Road. Our proposal is almost exactly the same as the LaFrances proposal, yet Ours was not supported. The facts that have been included in the memo are completely incorrect and missleading to the public, This needs to be brought to the attention of the Commitee of Adjustment and to the community. I would like to know why Heritage Planning did not support our request back in 2006, but now fully supports this proposed severance. The items that they say attribute to the heritage property have not changed. The trees, the curved driveway, the views, etc. I am including copies of the original emalls and correspondence from 2006-2007.1 am asking that this severance is denied as our request was not supported. Regards, Leon Bensason From: ,len Westfall Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 200611:48 AM To: Leon Bensason Subject: RE: 883 Doon Village Road No, problem - go ahead and walk the grounds and take photos. Thanks. -----Original Message ----- From: Leon. Bensason@kitchener,ca [mailto: Leon. Bensason@kitchener.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:45 AM To: Jen Westfall Subject: RP: 883 Doon Village Road Hello Jennifer, I have received your e-mail and letter attachment and we will respond. As mentioned, I will need permission to walk the grounds on the property and take photographs as part of our evaluation and analysis. Please advise. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Jen Westfall [mailto: Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:57 AM To: Leon Bensason Sub}ect: 883 Doon Village Road As per our discussion yesterday, here is a letter outlining what we were looking to do with the property. A reply may be either emailed, faxed or mailed. Thanks for all your help. Jennifer Westfall Thursday. October 12, 2006 Leon Bensason City lieritige Planner c,iiy orKitchcrter Re: 333 Doon Village Road, Kitchener N2P IA1 The above property has been designated as a Heritage Home and is owned by my parents who are now deceased. We (tile estate) are looking at the probability of having the property severed to allow for additional building lots. ]'Ire property is 240 feet by 240 feet oil the comer of Doon Village Road and Bechtel Drive, with the frontage being on Doon Village Road, We are looking into the possibility of severing the property in hair. Leaving the home with a frontage of 120 feet on Doon Village Road, and severing lots on the Bechtel Drive side which would have a frontage of 240 feet and then 120 feet in depth. I understated from our conversation that the entire property has been designated and therefore would have to be reviewed by the Heritage Conur ittee. Would you please review, and advise the process, and the feasibility of the property being severed and subdivided, ill order that I may report to the other Tnistees on the estate. Thank your very much for your help in this matter fer Westfall 1 THE CITY OF KITCHENER Kitchener City Hall COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 King St NOTICE OF HEARING Box 1118 n Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 KITC HENF �! Pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, 519-741-2200 ext. 7594 As amended and Ontario Regulations 197/96 and 200/96, as amended. holly. dyson@kitchener.ca TAKE NOTICE THAT the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Kitchener will meet on TUESDAY, April 17, 2018, commencing at 10:00 a.m., in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener for the purpose of hearing the following applications for Minor Variance and/or Consent. Applicants must attend this meeting in person or by agent or solicitor. You have received this notice pertaining to the application number referenced on the front of your envelope as a courtesy. Anyone having an interest in any of these applications may attend this meeting. Please note this meeting is open to the public and may be recorded. Copies of written submissions and public agencies' comments are available on Friday afternoon prior to the meeting on the City of Kitchener website www.kitchener.ca. Comments will be available using the calendar of events, see the meeting date for more details. APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE AND / OR CONSENT PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING ACT A 2018-024 - 2 Crossbridge Avenue (Amended) Permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a side yard setback of 4m abutting Rivertrail Avenue rather than the required 4.5m; a rear yard setback of 6.15m rather than the required 7.5m; a driveway located 8.7m from the intersection of Rivertrail Avenue and Crossbridge Avenue rather than the required 9m setback; and, a setback of 2.75m abutting Rivertrail Avenue for a wrap-around porch rather than the required 3m. A 2018-030 - 397 Greenfield Avenue Permission to legalize a staircase located inside the attached garage reducing the size of the required off- street parking space to 5.16m by 3.58m rather than the required 5.49m by 3.04m. A 2018-031 - 20 Hurst Avenue, Unit 1 Permission to permit manufacturing and accessory retail uses within the area of the building Zoned E1 (Unit 1) whereas the By-law currently permits only a warehousing use in an E1 Zone. A 2018-033 - 14 Ellen Street West Permission to convert a single detached dwelling into a duplex on a corner lot having a width of 9.75m rather than the required 15m; a front yard setback of 1.72m rather than the required 4.5m; a westerly side yard setback of 0.5m rather than the required 1.2m; a side yard abutting Hermie Place of 1.5m rather than the required 4.5m; to have the required off-street parking spaces located 4.25m from the street line rather than the required 6m; and, to legalize the existing dwelling located within the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) and the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the CVT or DVT. A 2018-034 - 731 Huron Road/160 Rochefort Street Permission to construct a multi -residential townhouse development having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75 rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 0.6. Page 1 of 4 A 2018-035 - 47 Floyd Street Permission to reconstruct a front porch on an existing singled detached dwelling setback 3m from the front lot line having a height of 1.1 m above finished grade rather than the permitted height of 0.6m. A 2018-036 - 810 Frederick Street Permission to legalize a residential dwelling under construction having a rear yard setback of 7.43m rather than the required 7.5m. A 2018-037 - 396 Victoria Street North Permission for an existing multi -tenant commercial building Zoned C-6 to calculate the required off-street parking space ratio using an aggregate sum for each individual tenant rather than using a calculation for the overall plaza requirement. A 2018-038 - 105 Brubacher Street Permission to construct a rear yard addition and porch on an existing single detached dwelling having a side yard setback abutting Lydia Street of 3.65m rather than the required 4.5m; having a corner lot width of 12.89m rather than the required 15m; to legalized an existing driveway having a width of 1.89m and a depth or 4.56m that has 0 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 1 off-street parking space; and, to permit an encroachment into the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) and the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the CVT or DVT. B 2018-016 - 3 Chapel Hill Drive (Amended) Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 30.734m, a depth of 40.931m and an area of 1206 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 45.669m, a depth of 25m and an area of 1094 sq.m. Permission is also being requested to grant an easement over the severed land having a width of 5m, a length of 21 m and an area of 105 sq.m. in favour of the retained lands for sanitary services. Both lots will continue to be a residential use. B 2018-024 - 259, 275 and 335 Gage Avenue Permission to sever a parcel of land municipally addressed as 335 Gage Avenue having a width of 136.4m, a depth of 128.6m and an area of 1.5615 hectares. The retained land municipally addressed as 259-275 Gage Avenue will have a width of 181.2m, a depth of 125m and an area of 2.2275 hectares. The uses will continue to be warehouse/wholesale/contractor/commercial recreation. B 2018-025 - 50 Brookside Crescent Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 9.52m, a depth of 35.448m and an area of 337.46 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 46.632m, a depth of 43.464m and an area of 2037 sq.m. The heritage home will be maintained and the new lot is proposed for a single detached dwelling. B 2018-026 and B 2018-027 - 114-120 Victoria Street South Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 40.8m, a depth of 65.6m and an area of 2,673.6 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 64.9m, a depth of 65.6m and an area of 3,878 sq.m. Permission is also being requested to grant a blanket easement over the retained lands in favour of the severed lands for the purpose of stormwater management and rights of access, as well as a blanket easement over the severed lands in favour of the retained lands for rights of access. The proposed use of the subject lands are intended for office, commercial and residential. Page 2 of 4 B 2018-028, B 2018-029, A 2018-039 and A 2018-040 - Part of Rockcliffe Drive, Registered Plan 58M- 568, Block 30, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-20035. Permission to sever 2 lots for residential development and retain 1 lot. The proposed lots will be municipally addressed as 119-127 Rockcliffe Drive, and will have the following dimensions: B 2018-028 - (Severed Lot 1) Width - 10.97m Depth - 35.97m Area - 395 sq. m. Severed Lot 1 will also require a minor variance to permit a lot with of 10.97 rather than the required 11.5m B 2018-029 - (Severed Lot 2) Width - 10.97m Depth - 36m Area - 395 sq. m. Severed Lot 2 will also require a minor variance to permit a lot with of 10.97 rather than the required 11.5m Retained Width - 14.72m Depth - 36.971 m Area - 472 sq. m. B 2018-030, A 2018-041 and A 2018-042 - 151 Fifth Avenue Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 15.24m, a depth of 17.75m and an area of 271.1 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 24.99m, a depth of 17.84m and an area of 447.6 sq.m. Permission is also being requested for minor variances for the retained land to permit a rear yard setback for the existing single detached dwelling to have a rear yard setback of 2.27m rather than the required 7.5m; and, to permit the required off-street parking space to be located 2.16m from the street line rather than the required 6m. In addition, permission is being requested for a minor variance for the severed land to permit a rear yard setback for the proposed dwelling of 3.35m rather than the required 7.5m. Both parcels will continue to have a residential use. • additional information is available at the Legislated Services Department, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener (519-741-2200 ext.7594). • copies of written submissions/public agencies' comments are available on Friday afternoon prior to the meeting on the City of Kitchener website www.kitchener.ca in the calendar of events, see the meeting date for more details. • anyone having an interest in any of these applications may attend this meeting. • a person or public body that files an appeal of a consent decision of the Committee of Adjustment must make written submissions to the Committee before the Committee gives or refuses to give a Provisional Consent otherwise the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss the appeal. • any personal information received in relation to this meeting is collected under the authority s. 28(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, and will be used by the City of Kitchener to process Committee of Adjustment applications. Questions about the collection of information should be directed to Holly Dyson at holly.dyson(a)kitchener.ca. • if you wish to be notified of a decision you must make a written request to the Secretary -Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, City Hall, 200 King St. W., Kitchener ON, N2G 4G7; this request also entitles you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board hearing; even if you are the successful party you should make this request as the decision could be appealed by the applicant or another party. Page 3 of 4 Dated the 29th day of March, 2018. Dianna Saunderson Secretary -Treasurer Committee of Adjustment THIS NOTICE OF HEARING IS BEING SENT TO YOU AS A COURTESY. THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THIS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WAS PUBLISHED IN THE RECORD ON MARCH 29, 2018. Page 4 of 4 J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Siobhan Kelly, Student Planner— 519-741-2200 ext.7074 WARD: 5 DATE OF REPORT: April 11, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-071 SUBJECT: A2018-024 (Amended) — 2 Crossbridge Avenue Applicant — Milestone Developments Inc. Approve R4 50'!R Nt 50tl Subject Lands 7R. Location Map: 2 Crossbridge Avenue RA 597R 41 RECOMMENDATION: That Application A2018-024 requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a side yard setback abutting a street of 4.0 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a rear yard setback of 6.15 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres, relief from Section 6.1.1.1 (b)(iv) of the Zoning By-law to allow a corner access driveway to be located at 8.7 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot rather than the required 9.0 metres, and relief of Section 5.6A.4 (a) of the Zoning By-law to allow a porch to be setback 2.75 metres from the lot line abutting a street rather than the required 3.0 metres, be approved. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT Prior to the March 20, 2018 Committee of Adjustment meeting, the Applicant submitted a modification to the application by adding a front wrap around porch to the proposed dwelling. This modification required an additional variance to permit a setback of 2.75 metres abutting Rivertrail Avenue for the wrap around porch rather than the required 3 metres. Consequently, the application was deferred in order to allow time for staff to consider the added request and to provide proper notification of the additional variance. The Applicant has since revised the Application for Minor Variance to request the following: 1. Relief from Section 38.2.1 to allow a side yard setback abutting a street of 4.0 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres; 2. Relief from Section 38.2.1 to allow a rear yard setback of 6.15 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres; 3. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1(b)(iv) to allow a corner lot access driveway to be located at 8.7 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot rather than the required 9.0 metres; and 4. Relief from Section 5.6A.4(a) to allow a porch to be setback 2.75 metres from a lot line abutting a street rather than the required 3.0 metres. Planning staff continues to recommend approval of variances 1 to 3, in addition to the latest variance (4) as discussed below. Planning Comments: The subject property located at 2 Crossbridge Avenue is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The subject property is located at the intersection of Crossbridge Avenue and Rivertrail Avenue. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 2, 2018. 2 Crossbridge Avenue 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: Variance 1 & 2: Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback 1. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City's 2014 Official Plan and the 1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect however, a significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal and therefore, are not being relied upon for this report. Instead, Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994 Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings is being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the designation which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested variance to permit a reduced side yard setback and rear yard setback continues to maintain the low density character of the property and the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. 2. The intent of the 4.5 metres setback for side yards abutting a street is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety and to maintain a uniform and consistent building edge along the streetscape. It is the opinion of staff, that the proposed 4 metre setback provides sufficient separation between the street and the dwelling due to the presence of an open amenity space and useable porch that wraps around the corner of the dwelling. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to ensure appropriate privacy between adjacent properties and/or adequate separation between different land uses, environmentally sensitive areas, and outdoor amenity areas. Considering that the adjacent properties are all zoned R-4, it is the opinion of staff that a 6.15 metre rear yard setback provides adequate separation between the subject and adjacent properties, maintaining appropriate privacy and safety. The application meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. 3. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staffs opinion that the requested variances will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands or the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. 4. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The proposed reductions would not impact the functionality or visual appearance of the site or dwelling as they would maintain appropriate separation from adjacent properties and the street; and would maintain visibility in the corner visibility triangle and driveway visibility triangles. The proposed 6.17 metre rear yard setback and the 4 metre side yard setback maintains appropriate separation in regards to privacy and safety due to the presence of private amenity space to the rear and a useable porch that wraps the corner of the dwelling. Variance 3: Driveway Setback from Intersection 1. The requested variance to permit a driveway setback for a corner lot continues to maintain the low density character of the property and the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. 2. The intent of the 9.0 metre driveway separation requirement is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. It is the opinion of staff, that the driveway separation requirement of the Zoning By-law was developed to ensure that corner lots maintain appropriate visibility to and from an intersection so as to ensure safe ingress/egress. The proposed driveway is located to lead directly to a street and maintains appropriate DVT (4.5 metres) and CVT (7.5 metres). It should be noted that on the sketch prepared for the minor variance application, the CVT was measured as 9.0 metres rather than 7.5 metres. It is the opinion of staff that the 0.3 metre reduction meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to the provision of safety and visibility. Transportation Planning staff also indicated that they have no concerns with the requested reduction of 9.0 metres to 8.7 metres. 3. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staff's opinion that the requested variance will not impact the subject property or interfere with the functionality of the abutting intersection. 4. The variance is minor for the following reason: the proposed driveway would continue to respect the character of the neighbourhood and the surrounding corner properties as it provides the same width as the attached garage and is located to lead to the municipally addressed street. It is the opinion of staff, that an 8.7 metres driveway setback from the intersecting street lines would not impact access to the intersection for vehicular and pedestrian traffic and could be appropriately applied to the dwelling without compromising safety in the neighbourhood. Variance 4: Porch Setback 1. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested variance to permit a reduced setback from the lot line to the porch maintains the low density character of the property and the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. 2. The intent of the 3.0 metres setback requirement for porches is to ensure appropriate privacy between adjacent properties and to ensure adequate separation from the street. The subject property is a corner lot and the porch is proposed to be built on the corner of the dwelling which abuts the street. As the porch will not be located adjacent to a neighbouring property or dwelling, staff has no concerns regarding overlook and privacy. In regards to separation from the street, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed 2.75 metre setback provides sufficient separation from the street due to the presence of an open amenity space which provides a buffer between the street and porch. In addition, the proposed porch maintains both the corner visibility and driveway visibility triangles, ensuring appropriate visibility to and from the intersection at Crossbridge Avenue and Rivertrail Avenue. It is staff's opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained. 3. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it provides for an active corner. The proposed porch includes comparable high quality materials on the facades facing the public realm and offers an acceptable level of oversight to the street through the use of windows in an actively used interior space. As such, it is staffs opinion that the requested variance will not negatively impact the adjacent properties or the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. 4. The variance is minor for the following reasons: the proposed reduction would not impact the visual appearance of the porch nor the functionality of the intersection. The proposed variance maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law as it would maintain adequate separation from adjacent properties and the street to ensure safety and privacy. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit be obtained for the single detached dwelling. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Services Comments: As the proposed reduction in the vision triangle would not affect the visibility, Transportation Services have no concerns with a 0.26 meter reduction from the required 9.0 meter intersection setback to a driveway, to provide an 8.71 meter setback. Engineering Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Operations Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: No concerns with the proposed application. Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Technical Assistant (Planning and Zoning) — 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD: 3 DATE OF REPORT: April 6, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-072 SUBJECT: A2018-030 — 397 Greenfield Avenue Applicants — Octavian Rosu on behalf of 2211452 Ontario Inc. Approved with Conditions Location Map: 397 Greenfield Avenue RECOMMENDATION That minor variance application A2018-030 requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.2(e) to legalize an existing parking space with dimensions of 3.58m x 5.16m whereas 3.04m x 5.49m is required; be approved. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at 397 Greenfield Avenue is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan. The garage space requires a landing to enter the dwelling as per the Ontario Building code, the proposed landing encroaches into the required parking space. Therefore, the owner is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.2(e) to allow for an off-street parking space to be 5.16 metres in length whereas 5.5 metres is required. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 25, 2018. 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City's 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect, however a significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal and therefore are not being relied upon for this report. Instead Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994 Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings is being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate for the subject property, and meets the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. The requested off-street parking variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Parking space dimensions are standardized and are provided in the Zoning By-law to ensure a range of vehicles can be accommodated within required off-street parking spaces. The smaller length of space within the garage will continue to be able to accommodate a wide variety of personal passenger vehicles. It is not anticipated that any negative impacts on the adjacent residential properties will result from the variance required. 3. The requested variance is considered minor as it is the opinion of staff that the proposed revised garage space may accommodate most personal passenger vehicles. The property is also developed with a single car driveway which can further accommodate a vehicle for the owners. 4. The requested variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the revised garage space may accommodate most personal passenger vehicles. Staff is of the opinion that the variance will cause no negative impacts on the surrounding properties within the neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Transportation Services Comments: As the proposed reduction is minor, Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Comments: No Concerns. Heritage Comments: No Heritage planning concerns. Tim Seyler, BES Technical Assistant Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT #: SUBJECT: 9 Committee of Adjustment April 17, 2018 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Sheryl Rice Menezes, Planning Technician (Zoning) — 519-741-2200 x 7844 9 April 10, 2018 CSD 18-073 Application A 2018-031 — 20 Hurst Avenue Applicant — Thompson Tran Owner — Hanover Storage Inc. Approved with Conditions Photo 1: Aerial *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. RECOMMENDATION That application A2018-031 requesting permission to permit manufacturing and accessory retail uses within the area of the building zoned Existing Use (E-1) whereas the By-law currently permits only a warehouse use in the E-1 zoned area of the property; be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate is obtained for the proposed business from the Planning Division; 2. That Site Plan approval for parking layout is obtained from the Planning Division; 3. That a building permit is obtained from the Building Division; and, 4. That the Conditions noted above be completed no later than September 1, 2018. Photo 2: view from Kent Avenue. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at the northwest corner of Kent and Hurst Avenues. The majority of the building is located within the M-2 (General Industrial) Zone, with special provisions 1R and 159U; however, a small portion of the building and most of the parking area are zoned E-1 (Existing Use) in By-law 85-1 (see Photo #1: aerial). The property is designated General Industrial and Open Space in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Secondary Plan in the City's 1994 Official Plan. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 5, 2018. 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 request meets the general intent of the Official Plan. The subject property has two designations: General Industrial and Open Space. The requested variance is for a small portion of the building that is located in the E-1 zone and has a designation of Open Space. The designation permits all legally existing uses that were established in 1994 when the zoning was applied to the lands. For this portion of the building, the use on file at that time was `warehousing'. However, the Open Space designation does permit alternate uses provided that the uses are compatible with the surrounding land use; are not a concern with respect to increased risk to life or property and are not a specific prohibited use, such as new dwelling units. Using the E-1 portion of the building as manufacturing and accessory retail uses will be compatible with the use already established in the M-2 zoned portion of the building. In addition, the use must receive approval from the Grand River Conservation Authority and they have confirmed that there are no objections to this application. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor. The proposed request is for a small portion of the building. The remainder of the building currently permits manufacturing and accessory retail uses in the M-2 zone, provided all regulations are met. The new tenant wishes to renovate Unit 1 and locate a commercial kitchen in the area zoned E-1 to better optimize the use of his unit. The request will not impact surrounding properties in the neighbourhood as a manufacturing use (making beer kits and brewing beer) was previously established in the M-2 zone portion of the unit and the proposed use is the manufacturing of food. Therefore this request may be considered minor. The request is appropriate development for the subject lands and surrounding area. The use of manufacturing and accessory retail is already established is the M-2 zoned portion of the existing building by a previous tenant. This request to add a use will not change how the building is used nor will it impact what the public views from outside the building. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the conditions outlined above in the Recommendation section of this report. Photo 3: view of Unit 1 from City trail to north of property. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit is obtained for the proposed interior renovations and change of use. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Comments: No concerns. Heritage and Policy Planning Comments: Note that the subject property is located within the Mill Courtland Woodside Secondary Plan. The City will be commencing a secondary plan review in the future. The land use and zoning of the property is subject to change. For more information, please contact Lauren Nelson by phone (519-741-2200 ext. 7072) or by email (lauren.nelson(o)kitchener.ca). Sheryl Rice Menezes, CPT Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Planning Technician (Zoning) Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Grand River Conservation Authority Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Resource Management Division Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Fax: (519) 621-4945 E-mail: thughes@grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: YOUR FILE: GRCA FILE: April 5, 2018 A 2018-031 = 20 Hurst Avenue, A2018-031 — 20 Hurst Ave Unit #1 RE: Application for Minor Variance A 2018-031 20 Hurst Ave, Unit 1, City of Kitchener Leanne Ratford, Thompson Tran GRCA COMMENT*: The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no objection to the above noted minor variance. Please see our detailed comments below. BACKGROUND: Resource Issues: Based on information available in this office, the subject property is located within the floodplain of Schneider Creek and the property is therefore regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. This reach of Schneider Creek has been designated as a Two - Zone Floodplain Policy Area. In Two -Zone areas, the floodplain is comprised of two sections - the floodway and the flood fringe. The subject property is considered within the floodway portion of the floodplain, which is the area of the floodplain required to pass the flows of greatest depth and velocity. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: It is our understanding that this application is to allow manufacturing and accessory retail in the portion of the existing building zoned E-1, where only warehousing is permitted. The remainder of the building is zoned M-2, which would allow for the uses requested in the application. Furthermore, no changes are proposed to the exterior of the building, including no creation of new openings. Therefore, we have no objection to the minor variance. For future reference, please note that a portion of the property is identified as candidate flood fringe based on the Update of Schneider Creek Floodplain Mapping & Two -Zone Policies — Stirling Avenue to Sydney Street study, prepared by MMM Group (May 2016). However, to be considered flood fringe certain conditions need to be met on a block basis. Please note that any future development proposed within GRCA regulated areas will require prior written approval from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. If future development is proposed on the property, early consultation with GRCA is recommended to discuss the proposed development and whether it would meet GRCA policies. Page 1 of 2 " These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority 3. Plan Review Fees: This application is a `minor' minor variance application and the applicable plan review fee is $260.00. With a copy of this correspondence, the applicant will be invoiced in the amount of $260.00. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority M Leanne Ratford, 1580 Seaton Road, Cambridge, ON N1 R 5S2 Thompson Tran, PO Box 26027 RPD College, Kitchener, ON N2G OA4 Page 2 of 2 * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority J Staff Report Community Services Department www.kitcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Technical Assistant (Planning and Zoning) — 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD: 10 DATE OF REPORT: April 6, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-074 SUBJECT: A2018-033 — 14 Ellen Street West Applicants — M. Demsey Contracting Inc. Approved with Conditions Location Map: 14 Ellen Street West RECOMMENDATION That minor variance application A2018-033 requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 to convert a single detached dwelling to a duplex dwelling to allow for a lot with a lot width of 9.75 metres rather than the required 15 metres; a front yard setback of 1.72 metres *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. rather than the required 4.5 metres; an interior side yard setback of 0.5 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres; a side yard abutting a street setback of 1.5 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres. With further relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By- law to allow the one required parking space for the single detached dwelling to be located in the driveway setback 4.5 metres from the street line rather than the required 6.0 metres; Section 5.3 to legalize the existing building that encroaches approximately 3 metres within the 7.5 x 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle (CVT) and approximately 0.3 metres within the 4.57 metre x 4.57 metre driveway visibility triangle (DVT), be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A Building Permit is obtained from the City's Building Division for the conversion of the single detached dwelling to a duplex dwelling by September 1, 2018. 2. The fence located on the east side of the driveway be removed to provide a clear 4.57 x 4.57 metre DVT on the east side of the driveway. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at 14 Ellen Street West is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan of the City Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing single detached dwelling to a duplex dwelling. Relief is being sought from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow the following: a) A lot width of 9.75 metres rather than the required 15 metres; b) A front yard setback of 1.72 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres; c) An interior side yard setback of 0.5 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres; d) A side yard abutting a street setback of 1.5 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres. Further relief is being sought from: a) Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow the required parking space for the proposed duplex to be located in the driveway setback 4.25 metres from the street line rather than the required 6.0 metres; b) Section 5.3 to legalize the existing building that encroaches approximately 3 metres within the 7.5 x 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle (CVT) and approximately 0.3 metres within the 4.57 x 4.57 metre driveway visibility triangle (DVT). City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 26, 2018. Front view of 14 Ellen St. W. Rear view of 14 Ellen St. W. 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the City's Official Plan. (Secondary plan policies of the 1994 Official Plan remain in effect). This designation permits a variety of low density forms of housing including duplex dwellings. The proposed variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of housing and encourages a mix of residential uses. The proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances to legalize the existing situation, the reduced setback of the required parking space, and the encroachment of the existing building into the CVT and DVT meet the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. The requested minor variances for a lot width of 9.75 metres rather than the required 15 metres, a front yard setback of 1.72 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, an interior side yard setback of 0.5 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres and a side yard abutting a street setback of 1.5 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, a setback from the street line for the required off-street parking of 4.25 metres rather than the required 6 metres, and the legalization of the existing building to be located within the CVT and DVT, all meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law and recognize an existing situation. Staff is of the opinion that the conversion to a duplex dwelling will not adversely affect subject property nor will it interfere with the functionality of the surrounding neighbourhood. 3. Staff is of the opinion that requested variances are minor and the approval of this application will legalize the existing buildings footprints. The encroachment into the Corner Visibility Triangle does not affect the corner sightlines as there are sidewalks and boulevards between the property line and street line. The encroachment of the building into the Driveway Visibility Triangle is minimal and does not affect the driver's visibility. The fence on the east side of the property currently blocks the DVT, staff supports the variance provided that the fence be removed so there is a clear DVT on the east side of the driveway. The reduction of the setback for the required parking space of 4.5 metres will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. 4. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variances should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the footprints of the existing buildings and it will legalize the location of the required parking space on the subject property. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the conditions outlined above in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit be obtained for the proposed interior renovations and change of use of the existing single family dwelling. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Parking setback variance: As two (2) 5.5 by 2.6 metres parking spaces can fit in the parking area and the application represents an existing condition, Transportation Services support the proposed variance regarding the parking space setback of 4.25 metres rather than the required 6 metres. Corner Visibility Triangles (CVT) variance: the property line has a setback of approximately 4 metres from the sidewalk. In addition there are sidewalks and boulevards between the property and the street line. Therefore, sightlines are not affected by the porch and building encroachment to the CVT. Considering that the sightlines are not affected and the application represents an existing condition, Transportation Services support this variance application. Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) variance: The encroachment of the building to the DVT on the west side of the driveway is minimal and does not affect the drivers' visibility. However, the fences located on the east side of the driveway have blocked the DVT. Transportation Services would support this variance application subject to the condition below: • The fences located on the east side of the driveway be removed to provide a clear 4.5 by 4.5 metres DVT on the east side of the driveway. Transportation Services have no concerns regarding the other requested variances in this application. Engineering Comments: No Concerns. Heritage Comments: Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the application. The subject property is located in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Conservation District (CCNHCD) and is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. In reviewing the merits of the application, Heritage Planning staff notes that the subject property is not identified as a Group `A' building and is not listed on the Heritage Register. The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by the Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased cultural heritage landscape (CHL) conservation process. The owner of the property municipally addressed as 14 Ellen St. W is advised that the property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Please contact Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage and Policy Planner for more information. The City will be commencing a secondary plan review in 2018. The land use and zoning of the property is subject to change. Special Policy Area #58 provides the interim policy direction for how development applications will be evaluated until such time as the City completes the PARTS implementation process. The subject site is within the Influence Area for intensification and as such, the associated policies should in part inform the `intent of the Official Plan' consideration of the minor variance. Tim Seyler, BES Technical Assistant Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD: 5 DATE OF REPORT: April 5, 2018 REPORT NUMBER: CSD -18-075 SUBJECT: Application A2018-034 — 731 Huron Road Owner — Huron Creek Developments Applicant — Brandon Flewwelling, GSP Group Approve Subject Property: 731 Huron Road RECOMMENDATION: That Application A2018-034 requesting relief from Section 40.1.6 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.75 for a cluster multiple development, whereas a maximum of 0.6 is permitted, be approved. J Staff Report KIR Community Services Department www.kitcheneua Report: On December 11, 2018, Kitchener City Council draft approved Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-17201 to allow the subject lands to be developed with a residential subdivision which includes 18 street fronting townhouses, a public park, and a multiple dwelling block with a maximum of 124 units. The multiple block (future address 160 Rochefort Street) has now advanced to the site planning process and detailed plans have been prepared. A minor variance is now required to permit the proposed Floor Space Ratio of 0.75 whereas a maximum of 0.6 is permitted in the Residential Six (R-6) zone. Planning Comments: The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned as Residential Six (R-6) with Special Regulation Provision 704R. 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 Official Plan. The City's Housing objectives include planning for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. Low Rise Residential Designation accommodates a full range of housing types at an overall low intensity of use and the City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. The City encourages and supports the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form. The requested variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. At the time of the implementing zoning by-law, the final site configuration of the multiple block was subject to further refinement. Special Regulation Provision 704R was approved by Council which allows for increased height only for multiple dwellings within the subject block closest to Huron Road. Many of the main floor units within the multiple block will be VisitAble units, meaning the units will be constructed on grade without a stepped entry, feature larger doorways and passage ways, and larger accessible main floor bathrooms. These units will provide an inclusive and barrier -free housing option in the community. Due to the nature of the on -grade construction (no basements) with no stepped entry, the height of the stacked products are a full thee storeys above grade, and all floors are included in the calculation for Floor Space Ratio. The buildings along Huron Road will be four storeys in height, with a pitched roof, resulting in a need for Special Regulation Provision 704R, to permit a total height of 13.6 metres. The requested variances are minor. It was always anticipated that with VisitAble unit construction, relief would be required for the Floor Space Ratio, however the extent of the relief was not known until the detailed site planning stage. Preliminary building elevations and increased building height regulations were presented and discussed as part of the comprehensive public consultation process as part of the subdivision and zone change applications. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed residential uses are compatible with the existing community and will provide an additional residential housing option for residents. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: Comments have been provided through the subdivision process and will be addressed accordingly. Garett Stevenson, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17th, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Technical Assistant — 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD: 10 DATE OF REPORT: April 10th, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-076 SUBJECT: A2018-035 — 47 Floyd Street Applicant — Adrian Dick Approve with Condition Location Map: 47 Floyd Street RECOMMENDATION VA That application A2018-035 requesting permission to reconstruct a front porch on an existing single detached dwelling setback 3m from the front lot line having a height of 1.1m above finished grade rather than the permitted height of 0.6m; and, for the porch to encroach into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) be approved (AS AMENDED), subject to the following condition: 1. That a building permit is obtained from the Building Division for the proposed front yard porch. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at 47 Floyd Street is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. Staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 231d, 2018. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.6A.4(a) of the Zoning By-law to allow a porch to be located within a required front yard, set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from the front lot line, with a height of 1.1 metres above finished grade rather than the maximum permitted height of 0.6 metres. During the analysis and review of this application, Staff identified that the proposed porch would encroach within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). As a result, Staff has added this variance request in the recommendation section. This variance request is seeking relief from section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow a porch to encroach within the Driveway Visibility Triangle whereas no encroachments into the Driveway Visibility Triangle are permitted. 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 offer the following comments. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. The Official Plan favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The requested variances for the proposed front porch do not interfere with the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. The requested variance for increased porch height meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the regulation that requires a porch within the required front yard to be a maximum of 0.6 metres above grade is to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on the public realm by locating large built form close to the front property line. Staff is of the opinion that the increase to 1.1 metres will not have an adverse impact on the public realm. Staff notes that there is an additional 3 metres of buffer space between the front property line and the sidewalk. Staff believes this additional spaces, along with the 3 metres provided within the property will provide ample buffer space between the porch and the public realm, and therefore meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance for encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The regulation that prohibits encroachments into the DVT is to ensure there is adequate visibility for automobiles to enter/exit the property safely. As previously mentioned, this property has an additional 3 metres of land between the property line and the sidewalk that is able to provide adequate space for visibility. Transportation Services has reviewed the application and has no concerns. The proposed variances are considered appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The surrounding neighbourhood is comprised of dwellings with similar built form and porch locations. Staff does not expect the proposed porch to have adverse impacts on any abutting properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. 4. The variance is considered minor. Staff consider the 0.5 metres in additional height to be minor. With no expected impacts of the DVT encroachment, staff can consider this variance minor as well. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit be obtained for the proposed front yard covered porch. Please contact the Building Division @ 519- 741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Services Comments: The proposed porch will be located within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). However considering that the encroachment is minor and the driveway has a setback of approximately 3 meters from the edge of the roadway (Floyd Street), the impact of the proposed porch on the DVT will be negligible. Therefore Transportation Services support this application. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns. Eric Schneider, BES Technical Assistant Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. } Staff Report I TCHEI�TER Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 Ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Lisa Thompson, Planning Technician 519-741-2200 Ext. 7847 WARD: #1 DATE OF REPORT: April 11, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-077 SUBJECT: A2018-036 — 810 Frederick Street Applicant — JC Homes Inc. Approved without Conditions RECOMMENDATION That application A2018-036 requesting a minor variance to allow a 7.43 metre rear yard setback whereas Section 40.2.5 of Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard setback be approved without conditions. REPORT Planning Comments: City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 27, 2018. The 8 -unit townhouse development received site plan approval in 2017 and is presently under construction. 70 �8 7G 826 824 57 This information is available in accessible formats upon request. Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. A survey of the foundation of the townhouse block was completed by Guenther Rueb Surveying Limited. This survey identified that the foundation of the townhouse unit at the corner of Turner Avenue and Frederick Street (Lot 8) has a slightly deficient rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a 7.43 metre rear yard setback whereas Section 40.2.5 of Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard setback. TURNER AVENUE SITE STATISTICS Zcrving-R-9 CMA W1552tl4rr A-1952,42mr BulWing Coverage• 743.2W(40.12%) Lards ped Arca 38B.42m'(47.9A%) Asvh,ll; Haid &ad Area 220,77e(I1.92%) Perking Requlr d -B (p—Id. P ,,Irg cak.1.1k,.) PerkingPmvlded-B PerkingSPece Mini mum 0imeneiue-3,04m x 5Agm (In garage) Barrier Free Perking Req ulred- WA MULTI -RESIDENTIAL Numhn a Jnlls• 4 Rem Sna R.:Io- C.5,1 NOTE Paiklentl tled.et Mldkri new re dW .lunik Area of Minor Variance — Rear yard setback of 7.43 inetres rather than 7.5 metres. REvlseo' SITE PLAN APPLICATION No. SP16I0371FfLT SITE PLAN s a LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAN 971 LOT 12 OWNER'S NAME; dcncm h_, SCALE t:1A City of Kitchener CAO FI LE'. SITE ADDRESS: 31nFREDERItK�TREETRIMHEKERM DATENOVEMBER ipCOMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 5P75037FLF.PVIG .[h.20'�.E 810 Frederick Street - Approved Site Plan 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 offer the following comments. The variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and the proposed townhouse development is permitted within the low rise residential classification. The variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The Residential Six (R-6) zoning of the property requires a 7.5 metre rear yard setback to ensure adequate outdoor amenity area and to create adequate separation between buildings on abutting properties. The 0.07 metre reduction in setback is negligible, therefore meeting the general intent of the zoning by-law. 1 1 SITE STATISTICS Zcrving-R-9 CMA W1552tl4rr A-1952,42mr BulWing Coverage• 743.2W(40.12%) Lards ped Arca 38B.42m'(47.9A%) Asvh,ll; Haid &ad Area 220,77e(I1.92%) Perking Requlr d -B (p—Id. P ,,Irg cak.1.1k,.) PerkingPmvlded-B PerkingSPece Mini mum 0imeneiue-3,04m x 5Agm (In garage) Barrier Free Perking Req ulred- WA MULTI -RESIDENTIAL Numhn a Jnlls• 4 Rem Sna R.:Io- C.5,1 NOTE Paiklentl tled.et Mldkri new re dW .lunik Area of Minor Variance — Rear yard setback of 7.43 inetres rather than 7.5 metres. REvlseo' SITE PLAN APPLICATION No. SP16I0371FfLT SITE PLAN s a LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAN 971 LOT 12 OWNER'S NAME; dcncm h_, SCALE t:1A City of Kitchener CAO FI LE'. SITE ADDRESS: 31nFREDERItK�TREETRIMHEKERM DATENOVEMBER ipCOMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 5P75037FLF.PVIG .[h.20'�.E 810 Frederick Street - Approved Site Plan 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 offer the following comments. The variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and the proposed townhouse development is permitted within the low rise residential classification. The variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The Residential Six (R-6) zoning of the property requires a 7.5 metre rear yard setback to ensure adequate outdoor amenity area and to create adequate separation between buildings on abutting properties. The 0.07 metre reduction in setback is negligible, therefore meeting the general intent of the zoning by-law. The variance is minor for the following reasons. The 0.07 metre reduction in setback will not be visually apparent on the property and continues to maintain a functional outdoor amenity area on the property without impacting the abutting lot, nor does it impact the neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. Staff worked with the owner of the property on the design of the townhouse block to create a design that will fit in with the existing neighbourhood. The minimal reduction in setback does not compromise the design of the project. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved without conditions. Building Comments: No concerns. Transportation Services Comments: No concerns. Engineering Comments: No concerns. Lisa Thomspon, CPT Planning Technician Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J Staff Report Community Services Department www.kitcheneua REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT #: SUBJECT: y � 37 M-2 ` I -�y V' _ P:laele L�n�; PE FNJL,N PARK Committee of Adjustment April 17, 2018 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Siobhan Kelly, Student Planner — 519-741-2200 ext.7074 10 April 9, 2018 CSD -18-078 A2018-037 — 396 Victoria St. N Applicant — 2427100 Ontario Inc. Approve Subject to Conditions. 36 33 NURTHWARD M-2 ars CEN LFR EDERECK C 66 Subject Lands _� 5pj.507 1 a9r ass a tt .3�r� 51.E "',91 $c 19 , _ 23 ,5i; 5 G 1^� 3T7 73 I �N, ,6 342 2T N 4 �.. 2 38111j��( V '.� 20 31 diA i24�I a 351 J 21 280 } 39 G': ' A 5 T�71! Rl30 27 �' 43, rv9U-'�' Location Map: 396 Victoria Street North RECOMMENDATION That Application A2018-037 requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 b) ii) A) b) of the Zoning By-law to permit an existing multi -tenant commercial building Zoned C-6 to calculate the required off-street parking space ratio using an aggregate sum for each individual tenant rather than using a calculation for the overall plaza requirement, be approved subject to the following conditions: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. That this approval is limited to the parking requirement of the current individual uses in the building which include: the Sale, Rental, Service, Storage, or repair of Motor Vehicles; Personal Services. If the uses change and the new uses require more parking spaces above what can be legally provided on the property, the applicant must submit a new minor variance application and the parking requirement will be reassessed; and 2. That all new tenants obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at 396 Victoria Street North is zoned Arterial Commercial (C-6) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. The subject property is located in close proximity to the intersection of Lancaster Street West and Victoria Street North. The property currently contains a one -storey building with mezzanines and parking lot to the east of the building. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 b) ii) A) b) of the Zoning By-law to allow the required parking to be calculated as the aggregate sum of each individual use rather than the quantity specified for a Plaza Complex. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 6, 2018. 396 Victoria Street North 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 subject property is designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. The designation does not include provisions regarding parking however, identifies a broad range of permitted commercial and industrial business uses. The proposed uses of an automotive servicing business, personal service business, and health office are all permitted uses within the Secondary Plan. As such, it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Secondary Plan Designation in the Official Plan. 2. The Applicant has requested a variance to permit the parking requirement to be calculated based on the aggregate sum of each individual use rather than the quantity specified for a Plaza Complex. It is the opinion of staff that the intent of the parking requirement for a Plaza Complex is to ensure that a sufficient amount of parking is provided in the case that the individual uses change. In staff's review of the proposed parking, it was determined that 33 parking spaces would be required based on the individual uses which are proposed: 7 spaces required for Go Glass; 6 spaces required for Rock Spa; and 20 spaces for the vacant unit which is proposed to be a health office. The existing parking lot consists of 33 spaces. The Applicant has been advised that future uses would be limited based on the number of parking spaces they require based on the number of legal spaces on site. Transportation Planning staff has also indicated that they have no concerns with the requested change in calculating the parking requirement. The variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law as sufficient parking for the combined uses continues to be provided. 3. The variance is minor as the proposed change in calculation complies with the parking requirements based on the size of each individual use. It is the opinion of staff that this change in parking calculation will not negatively impact the adjacent properties and neighbourhood. 4. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance should not impact the surrounding neighbourhood as sufficient parking spaces have been provided within the site based on the proposed uses. If the proposed uses were to change or if new tenants were to lease the units, staff can ensure that sufficient parking is provided by requiring that new tenants obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate. As such, only uses which meet the number of legal spaces on the site would be permitted. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: No concerns to the proposed variance. Transportation Services Comments: That this approval is limited to the parking requirement of the current individual uses in the building. If the uses change and the new uses require more parking spaces above what can be legally provided on the property, the applicant must submit a new minor variance application and the parking requirement will be reassessed. Engineering Comments: No concerns with the proposed variance. Operations Comments: No concerns with the proposed variance. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns with the proposed variance. Heritage Planning Comments: No concerns with the proposed variance. Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. Holly Dyson From: Brandon Gaffoor <Brandon.Gaffoor@metrolinx.com> Sent: 03 April, 2018 11:02 AM To: Holly Dyson Subject: 396 Victoria Street North, Kitchener - Metrolinx Comments Hi Holly, Further to the Minor Variance Application for 396 Victoria Street North dated March 23, 2018, I note the subject site is located immediately adjacent to GO Transit's Kitchener Rail Corridor. I further note, the Application is to assist in the facilitation of calculating parking spaces on the subject site. Given the circumstances, I have no further comment in this regard. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact myself. BRANDON GAFFOOR, B.E.S. Intern - Rail Corridor Management Office Metrolinx 335 Judson Street I Toronto I Ontario I M8Z 1B2 T: 416.202.7294 C: 647.289.1958 :X: METROLINX This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any attachments. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17th, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Technical Assistant — 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD: 10 DATE OF REPORT: April 10th, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-079 SUBJECT: A2018-038 — 105 Brubacher Street Applicant — Paul Meier Approve with Conditions Location Map: 105 Brubacher Street RECOMMENDATION That application A2018-038 requesting permission to construct a rear yard addition and porch on an existing single detached dwelling having a side yard setback abutting Lydia Street of 3.65m rather than the required 4.5m; having a corner lot width of 12.89m rather than the required 15m; to legalize an existing driveway having a width of 1.89m and a depth of 4.56m that has 0 off-street parking spaces rather than 1 off-street parking space; and, to permit an encroachment into the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) and the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the CVT or DVT be approved, subject to the following conditions: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 1. That a building permit is obtained from the Building Division for the proposed addition and deck by December 31St, 2018. 2. That a driveway encroachment agreement is obtained between the 105 Brubacher Street and 103 Brubacher Street properties to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services. 3. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be removed and/or preserved. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan by December 31St, 2018. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property is zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Use Provision 129U in the Zoning By-law 85-1, and designated Low Rise Conservation A in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the 1994 Official Plan. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 6t", 2018. The applicant is requesting relief from section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow an addition and rear porch to have side yard abutting the street setback of 3.65 metres rather than the required minimum setback of 4.5 metres, and permission to legalize the existing corner lot width of 12.89 metres whereas the minimum corner lot width is 15 metres. The applicant is also requesting relief from section 6.1 b), ii, b) of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing driveway width of 1.89 metres whereas the minimum driveway width is 2.6 metres. The applicant is also requesting relief from Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to legalize the existing encroachment of the dwelling into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) and the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT). 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation A in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. The land use policies for Low Rise Conservation A state that the intent of this designation is to preserve the scale, use and intensity of existing development in neighbourhoods predominantly containing single -detached dwellings. The requested variance does not propose to change the use or intensity of the existing property- it is proposed to remain to be a single detached dwelling. Staff does not believe the proposed addition represents a significant increase in scale because the proposed addition is only 1 storey, whereas the existing dwelling is 2 storeys. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance meets the general intent of the policies within the Central Frederick Secondary Plan. View of Existing Dwelling (site visit April 6, 2018) 2. The requested variance for reduction in exterior side yard setback meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that there is an adequate distance to act as a buffer between the dwelling and the public realm. The current dwelling is located 3.65 metres from the exterior lot line on Lydia Street, and the applicant is proposing to keep the addition in line with the existing dwelling. There is no sidewalk on Lydia Street, and the property line is located a significant distance from the curb (approximately 6.2 metres). Staff believes that this additional space beyond the property line will provide ample buffer space between the proposed addition and the public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance for reduction in exterior side yard setback meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variances for lot width, driveway width, and Driveway Visibility Triangle & Corner Visibility Triangle encroachments are not due to the proposed addition in the rear yard but represent conditions that have existed on the property since the construction of the building in 1920. The placement of the building on the lot means it is not possible for the applicant to comply with these regulations. The property has been functioning this way for almost a century. 3. The requested variance can be considered appropriate for the development and use of lands. The use of the property is remaining the same as a single detached dwelling. Staff is of the opinion that since the proposed addition will not be located any closer to the exterior property lines than the current dwelling, the abutting properties and surrounding neighbourhood will be not be adversely impacted. View of Side Yard Abutting the Street (site visit April 6, 2018) 4. The variance for reduction in exterior side yard setback is considered minor because there is very little impact expected to the neighbouring properties. The variances for lot width, driveway width, and DVT & CVT encroachments can be considered minor because they represent existing situations. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit be obtained for the proposed rear yard addition and deck. Please contact the Building Division @ 519- 741-2433 with permit requirements and any questions. Transportation Services Comments: CVT: Considering that the sightlines will not be affected, Transportation Services have no concerns regarding this variance request. Driveway: The current driveway width is only 1.89 meters therefore the parked vehicle overhangs the adjacent property. Transportation Services would support this variance request subject to the following condition: • A driveway encroachment agreement is required between the 105 Brubacher Street and 103 Brubacher Street properties. Heritage Planning Comments: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by the Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased cultural heritage landscape (CHL) conservation process. The owner of the property municipally addressed as 105 Brubacher St. is advised that the property is located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Please contact Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage Policy Planner for more information. Consequently, Heritage Planning staff have no concerns with the application. Note that the subject property is located within the Central Frederick Secondary Plan. The City will be commencing a secondary plan review in the next 2-5 years. The land use and zoning of the property is subject to change. For more information, please contact Michelle Drake by phone (519-741-2200 ext. 7839) or by email (michelle.drakea-kitchener.ca) Special Policy Area #58 provides the interim policy direction for how development applications will be evaluated until such time as the City completes the PARTS implementation process. The subject site is within the Influence Area for intensification and as such, the associated policies should in part inform the `intent of the Official Plan' consideration of the minor variance. Environmental Planning Comments: That in light of the treed nature of the property and the proximity of trees in shared ownership, the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be removed and/or preserved. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. Eric Schneider, BES Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Technical Assistant Senior Planner Region of Waterloo April 3, 2018 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.regionofwaterloo.ca File No.: D20-20 Kit. Gen. NA Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on April 17, 2018, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment application(s) and have no comments - A2018 -024 (Amended), 2 Crossbridge Avenue A2018-030 to 042, Various 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. 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, Z_."Vwl a_ BruceErb Supervisor, Corridor Planning (519) 575-4435 Document Number: 2691987 Document Author: EBRUCE Version: 1 Document Type: XPE-PE Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J Staff Report Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT #: SUBJECT: Committee of Adjustment April 17, 2018 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Andrew Pinnell, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 4 April 9, 2018 CSD -18-080 Application No: B2018-016 Address: 3 Chapel Hill Drive Owner: Roy and Murielle Stewart Approve Subject to Conditions *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. RECOMMENDATION That Consent Application B2018-016 (Amended) requesting consent to: 1. create a new lot with an approximate lot width of 30.7 metres, a depth ranging between 34.9 and 40.9 metres, and an area of 1,206 square metres; and 2. create an easement for sanitary servicing over the severed lot in favour of the retained lot with an approximate width of 5.0 metres, a length of 21.0 metres, and an area of 105 square metres; be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 2. That the owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections (i.e., sanitary, storm, and water) to the severed lands. 5. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands, or otherwise receive relief from Engineering Services for this requirement. 6. That the owner prepare a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, prior to endorsement of the deed for the severed lands. 7. That the owner complete and submit the Development and Reconstruction As - Recorded Tracking Form along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system, in accordance with the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150, to the satisfaction of the City's to Engineering Services, prior to endorsement of the deed for the severed lands. 8. That the owner submit a site plan drawing and elevation drawings illustrating that the proposed development will be compatible and in conformity with Sections 4.C.1.7. and 4.C.1.9. of the 2014 Official Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Additionally, the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division and the above mentioned drawings shall be implemented through the building permit process, to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Division and Building Division. 9. That the owner submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Division and Transportation Services showing a functional driveway and a minimum of 1 functional parking space, for the retained lot. Furthermore, the driveway and parking space(s) shall be functional to the satisfaction of the City's Transportation Services Division and shall comply with the Zoning By-law. The owner shall implement said plan to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Division. 10. That the owner make financial arrangements, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, for 100 percent of the cost of a municipal sidewalk on Caryndale Drive, along the full width the severed lot. 11. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands which shall include the following: a) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan for the severed and retained lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. b) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted, except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. 12. That the owner shall fulfill the following conditions related to the creation of a sanitary sewer easement over the severed lot in favour of the retained lot: a. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City Solicitor, in consultation with the City's Director of Planning and Director of Engineering Services: L a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and ii. a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. b. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Caryndale Drive and Chapel Hill Drive, in the Doon South Planning Community. The area is composed of mainly single detached dwellings. Brigadoon Public School is located directly across Caryndale Drive from the subject property. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan and is zoned Residential Two (R-2) in the Zoning By-law. Planning staff visited the site on March 15, 2018. This item was scheduled to be heard at the March 20, 2018 Committee of Adjustment meeting. At that time, Engineering Services advised that the easement should be wholly located on the severed lot and that it could not support the easement, as proposed, because it was located partly on the City's Caryndale Drive right-of-way. Accordingly, prior to that meeting, the applicant requested deferral to the subject in order to allow time to amend the requested sanitary easement. Consequently, the Committee deferred the application in order to provide time for the applicant to amend the easement request. Since that time, the applicant has amended the application in accordance with Engineering Services' comments. Through the amended application, the applicant is requesting the following: 1. Consent to create a new lot. The severed lot would contain the future single detached dwelling and have an approximate width of 30.7 metres along Caryndale Drive, a depth ranging between 34.9 metres and 40.9 metres, and an area of 1,206 square metres. The retained lot would contain an existing single detached dwelling and have an approximate width of 25.0 metres along Chapel Hill Drive, a depth ranging between 40.9 metres and 45.7 metres, and an area of 1,094 square metres. 2. Consent to create an easement for sanitary servicing over the severed lot in favour of the retained lot. The easement would have an approximate width of 5.0 metres, a length of 21.0 metres, and an area of 105 square metres. The sanitary service would be located approximately in the middle of the easement and extend from the sanitary sewer within Caryndale Drive, through the severed lot, to the retained lot. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed lot and retained lot conform to the City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lot are appropriate and suitable for the existing and proposed use of the lands, the proposed lot fronts onto an established public street, and the new lot will be serviced with adequate municipal service connections. The resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. Additionally, no minor variances are necessary to facilitate the requested severance. Planning staff recommends that conditions be imposed to ensure that the proposed single detached dwelling on the proposed lot has an appropriate design, that funds are collected for parkland dedication and a future sidewalk on Caryndale Drive, and that a plan is approved and implemented for a revised driveway and parking space on the retained lot (note that the existing parking area on the retained lands does not comply with the Zoning By-law because it is not set back a minimum of 6.0 metres from the Chapel Hill property line). A condition related to tree preservation is also recommended for both the severed and retained lots. In addition, the request to create a sanitary easement is reasonable and supported by Engineering Services. It will allow the retained lot to be serviced with municipal services. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the subject application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Heritage Planning: The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased cultural heritage landscape (CHL) conservation process. The owner of the property is advised that the property municipally addressed as 3 Chapel Hill Drive is located within the Caryndale Cultural Heritage Landscape. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Please contact Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage and Policy Planner for more information. Environmental Planning: The standard condition will be required for the owner to enter into an agreement registered on title of both the severed and retained lands requiring a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan be submitted and approved before a building permit will be issued. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Should a severance be approved, additional services will be required for severed lot — a building permit will be required for this work. Separate building permit(s) will also be required for construction of new unit. Engineering Services Comments: • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. The sump pump should be connected to a service lateral going to the municipal storm sewer. If this is not possible, the City would consider a form of infiltration gallery in the rear yard. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Services Division for the installation of new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate a water municipal service is currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Natasha Prepas-Strobeck (519-741-2200 ext. 7136). • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All work are at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system and proposed easements will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Services Division prior to severance approval. The sanitary service being installed for the retained property will be a private service with easement through the severed property. The City of Kitchener will not be party to this easement. Also the easement should be shown wholly on private property. Based on the proposed depth of the future sanitary sewer between the pump and MH.A, the proposed easement 5.Om easement width is acceptable. • As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Services Division prior to severance approval. The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed application subject to the following condition: Future sidewalks are required on Caryndale Drive only along the frontage of the severed portion of lands. The applicant should pay the equivalent fee of the required sidewalks. Operations Comments: A cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication will be required on the severed parcel as a new development lot will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $14,140.40 Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (30.74m) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage meter. GRCA Comments: No concerns. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Planner Senior Planner Attach: Drawings submitted with Consent Application form Attachment: Drawings submitted with Consent Application form SEVERANCE SKETCH OF RP oPRn LOT 5 REGISTERED PLAN 1123 CITY OF KITCHENER REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO " 1lNJ� SCALE , zso MACDONALD TAMBLYN LORD SURVEYING METRIC CAN BE CONVERTED CES SHOW TO FEETBYBN DIVVIING BIN Y METRES048D KEY PLAN (NOT TO SCALE) — CHAPEL. HILL DRIVE EOCE OF ASPHALT } ASPHALT DRIVEWAY u °EcP.�1 r k HE � ORTION TO BE RETAIN AREA; N =,1776 .IL 4.61 N I STOREY 8R1CK H (NTS) (NTS) N WrTM REAR WAlKOUTP � +w' ZONE "R2` 2390 (RESIDENTIAL) o "EN DE, ^Icy n SHED N75-2:'Ib LOT 6 D N • w. , r 'f LOT 5 z F7 4' 1226 5 5,51 C � {RED P 112.E ORTION TO BE SEVERE • 7 ZONE AREA=48112045� .m � RESIDENTIAL) =12 . • 5 PROPOSED BUILDING 5.51 w ZONE m ✓i { ESDENTIAL) '^ 6.35 fi,71 � "B•SO 55 f pp CHAIN uNK :ENGE (RESDENTIAL) LOT8 HIEHN'S TRACT LEGEND NTS DENOTES NOT TO SCALE �J BsR s E CARYNDALE DRIVE S — n O � P {'::� x �' 4 � � �j4 •3�� qH �AXQ R ��s q D 0�9R j Z D 2 o= O mgo _ ZJ n N - bM 0 Region of Waterloo File No. D20-20/18 KIT April 6, 2018 Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N213 4A Canada Telephone:519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2018-016, B2018-024 to B2018-025, B2018-028 to B2018-030 Committee of Adjustment Hearing April 17, 2018 CITY OF KI TCHENER B 2018-016 3 Chapel Hill Roy and Murielle Stewart The purpose of this application is to create a new lot for residential development. The application was amended slightly in regards to the easement and location. No changes were made with the severance to this amended application. The Region's previous comments regarding B2016-016 still apply. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Corridor Planning Noise The subject lands will be impacted by transportation noise from Caryndale Drive. The applicant is required to enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of central air conditioning, as well as include the following noise warning clauses in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements for the severed lot: "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the applicant the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of Kitchener to secure the following noise attenuation measures and noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for the residential units on the severed lot: A. The dwellings will be fitted with a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants. B. The following noise warning clause will be registered on title and required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the severed lot: i. "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed Document Number: 2693646 the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." ii. "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." B 2018-024 259, 275 and 335 Gage Avenue Twin City Dry Storage Ltd. The purpose of this application is to sever 335 Gage Avenue from 259-275 Gage Avenue. The parcels will contain existing buildings and no changes to existing industrial uses are proposed. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent Michael Krause The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-030 151 Fifth Avenue Vladan Knezevic The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for future residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 327.8mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2018. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Matthew Colley Principal Planner Document Number: 2693646 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department wmkitcheneua REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Catherine Lowery, Junior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7071 WARD: 8 DATE OF REPORT: April 9, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-081 SUBJECT: Application B2018-024 — 259, 275, and 335 Gage Avenue Applicant — Trevor Hawkins, MHBC Planning Approve with Conditions I OKI 2 21 \ M114, O\ 524 ��\\ ) '11A. \ _• 56154 PNO 271 2 Subject Lands 115 \�o �525 a `,r 1U4 13s '13'1 i \yy C2-" . � TU � �� 541 �.. •� !149 _,� 189 I ao ' 145 \ ; ,.\��` •\ �� •, �/ /`� 259 �J A� 482 185•• \\\�, \1 J \ 21 1'\ �20 k 1si93 275 335 Q X325 �VICTOHW HILLS \ Jehrn,.ih'S',v'h s - 340 R 9 38 li a 44 4fi \ ]]o r 41 36o 01 Location Map: 259, 275, and 335 Gage Avenue RECOMMENDATION That Application B2018-024, requesting consent to sever the existing property addressed as 259, 275, and 335 Gage Avenue to create a new lot with lot widths of 46 metres and 25.5 metres, a depth ranging from 125 metres and 128.65 metres, and a lot area of 1.5615 hectares, be approved, subject to the following conditions: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. That the Owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the Owner shall submit a draft reference plan showing the boundaries of the lands to be conveyed for approval by the City's Director of Planning. 4. That the Owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services Division for the installation of all new service connections and the removal of redundant services to the retained lands. 5. That the Owner provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 6. That any new driveways be built to City of Kitchener standards at the Owner's expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Division. 7. That the Owner submit a complete Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form (as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150) together with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services for the retained lands. 8. That the Owner provides Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Where this cannot be achieved, the owner is required to pump the sewage via a pump and force main to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street, at the cost of the Owner. 9. That the owner obtains site plan approval for both the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development & Customer Service. 10. That the Owner obtains Zoning (Occupancy) Certificates for the severed and retained lands from the Planning Division. 11. That the Owner provide a building code assessment prepared by an architect or engineer related to exposing building faces, specifically to spatial separation calculations, for the building wall faces as they relate to the proposed severance line, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official prior to endorsement of the deed for the severed lands. In addition, the owner shall obtain a building permit to complete any remedial work/upgrade exterior walls and/or close openings recommended by the building code assessment and complete said remedial work/upgrades, pending results of the spatial separation calculation results, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official, prior to endorsement of the deed for the severed lands. 12. That the owner make financial arrangements, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, for 100 percent of the cost of a municipal sidewalk on Gage Avenue, along the full width the severed lot. REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property is designated General Industrial Employment in the City's Official Plan and zoned General Industrial Zone (M-2) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The Applicant is proposing to sever the existing property into two separate lots, each having frontage onto Gage Avenue. The existing property is currently developed with three industrial buildings and is irregularly shaped due to an existing public utility parcel owned by the City. There are currently two frontages on Gage Avenue, and as such the property has two lot widths of 207 metres and 46 metres (taken at the 6 metre setback), a depth ranging from 119.38 metres and 128.651 metres, and an area of 3.78 hectares. The purpose of this application is to sever the existing building addressed as 335 Gage Avenue from 259 and 275 Gage Avenue. The severed lot will maintain the existing irregular shape with two frontages on Gage Avenue, with lot widths of 25.5 metres and 46 metres, a depth ranging from 125 metres and 128.65 metres, and an area of 1.56 hectares. The retained lot will have a lot width of 181.5 metres, a depth ranging from 119.38 metres and 125 metres, and an area of 2.22 hectares. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance conforms to the City's Official Plan, which permits a range of industrial uses. The severed and retained lots comply with the regulations of the General Industrial (M-2) zone. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land can be serviced with independent and adequate connections to municipal services. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. To confirm there is adequate parking on site for the existing uses and that parking complies with the Zoning By-law, Planning staff recommends the Owner apply for Zoning (Occupancy) Certificates for both the severed and retained lands prior to deed endorsement. Staff further recommends that site plan approval reflecting the proposed severance be required for the severed and retained lands. City Planning Staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 28, 2018. Severed Lands — 335 Gage Avenue Retained Lands — 259 and 275 Gage Avenue Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Consent Application B2018-024 requesting consent to sever the existing property addressed as 259, 275, and 335 Gage Avenue in order to create a new lot with lot widths of 46 metres and 25.5 metres, a depth ranging from 125 metres and 128.65 metres, and a lot area of 1.5615 hectares, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed applications provided: An Architect or Engineer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall addresses such items as: o Spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face for each building, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Upgrading of exterior walls and/or closing in of openings may be required, pending spatial separation calculation results. A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/upgrades required by the building code assessment. Engineering Comments: • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. The sump pump should be connected to a service lateral going to the municipal storm sewer. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate municipal water, storm and sanitary services are currently available to service this property. Each severed lot will require a sanitary, a storm (for new foundations only) and a water service. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Natasha Prepas-Strobeck (519-741-2200 ext. 7136). • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All work is at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system and proposed easements will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application subject to the following condition: • Future sidewalks are required on Gage Avenue only along the frontage of the severed portion of lands. The applicant should pay the equivalent fee of the required sidewalk. Operations Division Comments: Park land dedication will not be required on the severed parcel, as no new development lot will be created as a result of the severance. Heritage Comments: Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the application. The Owner is advised that the property is located adjacent to the Canadian National Railway Line Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) date December 2014 and prepared by the Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased cultural heritage landscape (CHL) conservation process. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Please contact Michelle Drake, Senior Heritage and Policy Planner for more information. Environmental Planning Comments: As no redevelopment is proposed, Environmental Planning has no concerns. Catherine Lowery, BES, MCIP, RPP Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Junior Planner Senior Planner Region of Waterloo File No. D20-20/18 KIT April 6, 2018 Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N213 4A Canada Telephone:519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2018-016, B2018-024 to B2018-025, B2018-028 to B2018-030 Committee of Adjustment Hearing April 17, 2018 CITY OF KI TCHENER B 2018-016 3 Chapel Hill Roy and Murielle Stewart The purpose of this application is to create a new lot for residential development. The application was amended slightly in regards to the easement and location. No changes were made with the severance to this amended application. The Region's previous comments regarding B2016-016 still apply. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Corridor Planning Noise The subject lands will be impacted by transportation noise from Caryndale Drive. The applicant is required to enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of central air conditioning, as well as include the following noise warning clauses in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements for the severed lot: "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the applicant the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of Kitchener to secure the following noise attenuation measures and noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for the residential units on the severed lot: A. The dwellings will be fitted with a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants. B. The following noise warning clause will be registered on title and required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the severed lot: i. "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed Document Number: 2693646 the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." ii. "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." B 2018-024 259, 275 and 335 Gage Avenue Twin City Dry Storage Ltd. The purpose of this application is to sever 335 Gage Avenue from 259-275 Gage Avenue. The parcels will contain existing buildings and no changes to existing industrial uses are proposed. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent Michael Krause The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-030 151 Fifth Avenue Vladan Knezevic The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for future residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 327.8mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2018. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Matthew Colley Principal Planner Document Number: 2693646 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. l Staff Report KITCHENER Camt?11nityServi(8sDepartment wwwkrtchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Craig Dumart, Junior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7073 WARD: 5 DATE OF REPORT: April 6, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-082 SUBJECT: APPLICATION #: B2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent Applicant: Michael Krause Recommendation to approve with conditions I Sfi � 180Z2 155 tom- TW - /:5. 0 -r Location Map: 50 Brookside Crescent �W Book RECOMMENDATION That application B2018-025 requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner makes satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication in the amount of $4,379.20 equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits the Consent Application Review Fee of $700.00 to the Region of Waterloo. 5. That the owner enters into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: Prior to April 17, 2019 (i.e., within 1 year of the date of the decision) That the SUBDIVIDER shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan/ Enhancement Plan for the severed lots, and the retained lot, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, each of which is to be approved by the City's Director of Planning. Such plans shall include, among other matters, retention of street trees along Brookside Crescent adjacent to the proposed lot, identification of proposed driveways, proposed building envelopes / work zones, landscaped areas, proposed additional street trees, and vegetation to be preserved. Prior to Endorsement of the Deeds associated with consent application B2018-025 or April 17, 2020, whichever shall occur first The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement the mitigation measures, including front yard setback, building height, dwelling and garage design, materials, and colours, related to the proposed new dwelling on the severed lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Further, the approved Heritage Impact Assessment shall be registered on title of the subject lands, and attached to the subdivision agreement. Prior to Grading, Tree Removal, or Issuance of any Building Permits, whichever shall occur first The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of trees as approved in the Tree Preservation Plan (where applicable) and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER'S Environmental Consultant to the CITY'S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY'S Tree Management Policy. No changes to the said plans shall be granted, except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. E Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits The SUBDIVIDER agrees that the retained lands will be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the heritage attributes listed in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit building elevation, building location, and lot grading drawings for the Severed Lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018, for approval by the CITY'S Director of Planning. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees that dwellings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Chief Building Official. Other Time Frames The SUBDIVIDER agrees that no building permit shall be applied for or issued for the Severed Lands unless the building designs are in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment and the approved building elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the CITY's Chief Building Official and the CITY's Director of Planning. The SUBDIVIDER and subsequent OWNER's of the affected lot are advised that this requirement shall also apply to future additions and major alterations. • The SUBDIVIDER agrees to develop the severed lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment and the approved building elevation drawings, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. That prior to the final approval of the plan to be registered, the SUBDIVIDER shall fulfill the following: The SUBDIVIDER shall register the approved Heritage Impact Assessment on title of the severed lands, and attach the approved Heritage Impact Assessment to the subdivision agreement. 6. That the owner make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new services that may be required to service lands all prior to severance approval. 7. That the Owner makes arrangements financial or otherwise for the relocation of any existing City -owned street furniture, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the appropriate City department. 8. That the Owner provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services for the severed and retained lands. 9. That any new driveways be built to City of Kitchener standards at the Owner's expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Division. 10. That the Owner submit a complete Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form (as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150) 3 together with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services for the retained lands. 11. That the owner provides Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 12. In accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, an environmental compliance approval for sewage works will be required by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Control for the extension of the municipal sewer to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering prior to approval. 13. That the Owner obtain building permits for servicing and or construction of a new unit. I (,pT 16—T iOT 162 i LOT 16? i ,° Lr+ 158 �n u n - • I r _a Y _ ——H54n_42, E: J —_ I I X7459 . Sym. - LOT Y% 61 OGif '0- rt 1 i zs )T 1 STOREY 27450: LOT M # STCREY 1 SftCYiEY y. ST$E t FRAME HW3E lEl2 50 paw r _ rr ._ 7 . p� W ..._ _�___.7 __ ____________ .. - - _,.Y . 1 J,- 47782 r �. 0-52 rp¢ BROOKSVE CRESMVT Proposed lot fabric REPORT The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in the Zoning By-law. The lands are currently developed with an existing single detached dwelling. The owner is proposing to sever the lot into two lots and keep the existing single detached dwelling on the retained lot. The existing development of the 0 neighbourhood consists of a mix of single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings and street fronting townhouse dwellings. The owner is requesting permission to sever the subject lands with the intent to develop the severed lands with a single detached dwelling. The first severed lot would have a lot width of 9.52 metres, a depth of 35.448 metres, and an area 337.46 square metres. The retained lot would have a lot width of 46.632 metres, a depth of 43.464 metres, and an area of 2037 square metres. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on March 20, 2018. Existing single detached dwelling at 50 Brookside Crescent. Planning Comments: With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance conforms to the City's Official Plan and will allow for orderly development that is compatible with the existing community. The severed and retained lots comply with the regulations of the Residential Four Zone (R-4). The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land can be serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. A The existing single family dwelling on the retained lands is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been approved to ensure that the proposed new lot was consistent with Provincial, Regional and Municipal policies relating to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. For more details refer to the Heritage Planning comments below. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Consent Applications B 2018-025 requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots, be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the Recommendation section of this report. Heritage Planning Comments: The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is listed as a non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The submission and approval of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made a requirement of the processing of the Committee of Adjustment application in order to ensure that the proposed new lot had regard for and was consistent with Provincial, Regional and Municipal policies relating to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. A draft HIA prepared by CHC Limited dated February 13, 2018 was submitted and scheduled for comment by the City's Heritage Kitchener committee on Tuesday, March 6, 2018. Several members spoke in support of the HIA. A few members expressed a desire to maintain the size of the lot. Heritage Planning staff has considered these comments. Heritage Planning staff agrees with the conclusions of the HIA, which indicate that the rural and agricultural context has been lost and that views as you approach the farmhouse from either direction are partially obstructed. In addition, the views are not long or wide, and do not form part of a terminating vista. As a result, it is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the size of the lot is not a heritage attribute. A final HIA prepared by CHC Limited dated March 14, 2018 was submitted in relation to Committee of Adjustment application B2018-025. The HIA concluded that the original c. 1855 farmhouse with its summer kitchen wing is a heritage attribute of the property. The HIA also concluded that the proposed severance will not result in any loss of cultural heritage value, will have minimal impact on the streetscape and neighbourhood context, and will have no impact on the heritage attributes of the property. The HIA recommended mitigative measures to address impacts to the streetscape and neighbourhood context, including: establishing a minimum 6.0 metre setback from the front lot line; complying with all other yard setbacks outlined in the Zoning By-law; limiting the new dwelling to a height of 1 or 1.5 storeys; designing the new dwelling with a garage that is located flush or behind the front fagade; requiring building elevations to be submitted for review and approval to ensure the design, colour and construction materials are compatible with the adjacent heritage building and the broader neighbourhood; and, requiring a tree preservation plan to be submitted for review and approval. The HIA also recommended that the original c. 1855 farmhouse with its summer kitchen wing be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. As a result, the existing farmhouse will be conserved on the retained lands. The final HIA was approved by the Director of Planning on April 4, 2018. The appropriate tools to conserve the farmhouse include designating the retained lands under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and implementing the mitigative measures and M recommendations of the HIA through conditions. A number of consent conditions have been prepared to ensure the conservation of the farmhouse. In general, the consent conditions address the following: • requiring the owner to enter into a modified subdivision agreement to be registered on title of the lands in order to ensure: o the retained lands are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; o the owner designs and constructs the new dwelling in accordance with the recommendations of the approved HIA (e.g. front yard setback, building height, etc.); o the owner submits and receives approval for building elevation drawings, building location drawings, and lot grading drawings for the new dwelling; and, o the owner submits and receives approval for a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed and retained lands. Based on the above comments, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed consent subject to implementation of the mitigative measures and recommendations of the approved HIA. As a result, Heritage Planning staff recommend the following conditions: • That the owner enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: Prior to April 17, 2018 (i.e., within 1 year of the date of the decision) That the SUBDIVIDER shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lots, and the retained lot, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, each of which is to be approved by the City's Director of Planning. Such plans shall include, among other matters, retention of street trees along Brookside Crescent adjacent to the proposed lot, identification of proposed driveways, proposed building envelopes / work zones, landscaped areas, proposed additional street trees, and vegetation to be preserved. Prior to Endorsement of the Deeds associated with consent application B2018-025 or April 17, 2020, whichever shall occur first The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement the mitigation measures, including front yard setback, building height, dwelling and garage design, materials, and colours, related to the proposed new dwelling on the severed lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. Further, the approved Heritage Impact Assessment shall be registered on title of the subject lands, and attached to the subdivision agreement. Prior to Grading, Tree Removal, or Issuance of any Building Permits, whichever shall occur first The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of trees as approved in the Tree Preservation Plan (where applicable) and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER'S Environmental Consultant to the CITY'S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY'S Tree Management Policy. No changes to the said plans 7 shall be granted, except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits • The SUBDIVIDER agrees that the retained lands will be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the heritage attributes listed in the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit building elevation, building location, and lot grading drawings for the Severed Lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018, for approval by the CITY'S Director of Planning. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees that dwellings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Chief Building Official. Other Time Frames The SUBDIVIDER agrees that no building permit shall be applied for or issued for the Severed Lands unless the building designs are in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment and the approved building elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the CITY's Chief Building Official and the CITY's Director of Planning. The SUBDIVIDER and subsequent OWNER's of the affected lot are advised that this requirement shall also apply to future additions and major alterations. • The SUBDIVIDER agrees to develop the severed lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment and the approved building elevation drawings, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning. That prior to the final approval of the plan to be registered, the SUBDIVIDER shall fulfill the following: • The SUBDIVIDER shall register the approved Heritage Impact Assessment on title of the severed lands, and attach the approved Heritage Impact Assessment to the subdivision agreement. Engineering Comments: • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. The sump pump should be connected to a service lateral going to the municipal storm sewer. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate municipal water and sanitary services are currently available to service this property. Storm services are not available in front of this property off Brookside Crescent. Each severed lot will require a sanitary, a storm and a water service, therefore the storm sewer will need to be extended to the property. The retained lands (if nothing changes with the house) will not require any new services. If a new house is built that house will also require a storm service. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Natasha Prepas-Strobeck (519-741-2200 ext. 7136). • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All work is at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. R • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system and proposed easements will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street. • In accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, an environmental compliance approval for sewage works will be required by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Control for the extension of the municipal sewer to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering prior to approval. Environmental Planning Comments: The owner must enter into an agreement registered on title of both the severed and retained lands requiring a tree preservation / enhancement plan be submitted and approved before a building permit will be issued. Operations Comments: Cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required on the severed parcel as a new development lot will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $4,379.20 Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (9.52) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage meter. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Should a severance be approved, additional services will be required for severed lot — a building permit will be required for this work. Separate building permit(s) will also be required for construction of new unit. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP Junior Planner Juliane von Westerholt BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner 0 Region of Waterloo File No. D20-20/18 KIT April 6, 2018 Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N213 4A Canada Telephone:519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2018-016, B2018-024 to B2018-025, B2018-028 to B2018-030 Committee of Adjustment Hearing April 17, 2018 CITY OF KI TCHENER B 2018-016 3 Chapel Hill Roy and Murielle Stewart The purpose of this application is to create a new lot for residential development. The application was amended slightly in regards to the easement and location. No changes were made with the severance to this amended application. The Region's previous comments regarding B2016-016 still apply. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Corridor Planning Noise The subject lands will be impacted by transportation noise from Caryndale Drive. The applicant is required to enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of central air conditioning, as well as include the following noise warning clauses in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements for the severed lot: "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the applicant the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of Kitchener to secure the following noise attenuation measures and noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for the residential units on the severed lot: A. The dwellings will be fitted with a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants. B. The following noise warning clause will be registered on title and required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the severed lot: i. "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed Document Number: 2693646 the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." ii. "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." B 2018-024 259, 275 and 335 Gage Avenue Twin City Dry Storage Ltd. The purpose of this application is to sever 335 Gage Avenue from 259-275 Gage Avenue. The parcels will contain existing buildings and no changes to existing industrial uses are proposed. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent Michael Krause The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-030 151 Fifth Avenue Vladan Knezevic The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for future residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 327.8mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2018. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Matthew Colley Principal Planner Document Number: 2693646 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J Staff Report Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 WARD: 9 DATE OF REPORT: April 6, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-083 SUBJECT: Application B2018-026, and B2018-027 114-120 Victoria Street South Applicant — GSP Group Approve with Conditions Location Map: 1"14-1 LU victoria Jtreet soutn *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. RECOMMENDATIONS That application B2018-0026, requesting permission to sever a parcel of land from 114-120 Victoria Street that has a width of 40.8 metres, a depth of 65.6 metres, and an area of 2673.6 square metres and to retain a parcel having a lot width of 64.9 metres with a depth of 65.6 metres and an area of 3878 metres squared and to establish reciprocal shrinking blanket easements for the purpose of rights of access for both pedestrians and vehicles as well as parking be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and/or retained lands. 4. That the owner make financial arrangements for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 5. That a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system be provided for both the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of Engineering Services . 6. That the Zoning By-law 2018-036 be in full force and effect or that an appropriate minor variance application be submitted and approved with respect to any matters of zoning compliance to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 7. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by the City Solicitor (optional: in consultation with the City's Director of Planning): a. a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); b. a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 8. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor. 9. That the Owner submit a complete Development and Reconstruction As - Recorded Tracking Form (as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150) together with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services for the severed and retained lands. 10. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands, or otherwise receive relief from Engineering Services for this requirement. 11. That the Owner provides Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by gravity to the street sewers, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Where this cannot be achieved, the owner is required to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street, at the cost of the Owner. 12.That prior to final approval, the Region shall approve the environmental noise study entitled "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Mixed -Use Development, 114-120 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, ON" dated October 25, 2017 as prepared by HGC Engineering, and, if necessary, based on the findings of the report, the applicant shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener, to implement the recommendations of the report. 13. That the Owner submit and receive approval of all building permits including any required demolition permits for any buildings currently on site as well as permits for new construction. II. That Application B2018-027 proposing to create a blanket easement over the retained lands in favour of the severed lands for the purpose of storm water management to be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Application B2018-026 receives full and final approval. 2. That the Owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by the City Solicitor (optional: in consultation with the City's Director of Planning): a. a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); b. a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 9, 2018. Subject Property: 114-120 Victoria Street South REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property is designated `Innovation District' in the Official Plan (OP) and is located in the Central Major Transit Station Area at the future site of the Multi -modal Transit Hub. The Innovation District is characterized by many old large industrial buildings which either have been converted to loft style office, residential and other viable uses or have the potential to do so. This area of the city is expected to evolve and transform into a dense urban contemporary setting with continued growth in the high tech industry coupled with the research office uses affiliated with the nearby post- secondary institutions. The City's Official plan policy framework found in Policies 15.D.2.50 to 15.D.2.52 encourage growth in this area to occur by permitting a full range of complimentary commercial uses and encouraging high density residential uses. Through Policy 15.D.2.54 the City also recognizes the importance of conserving cultural heritage resources within the former warehouse district, now the Innovation District. The applicant has proposed the creation of a lot and the creation of blanket easements over the severed and retained lots for access and for sanitary servicing. The lands will be developed with a 6 storey office building and an addition to the existing building, which is a cultural heritage resource (former Huck Glove Building) that is being conserved through this process. The retained property will be developed with a 26 storey mixed use tower which includes residential and at grade commercial uses. The lands have recently gone through a rezoning process and a site specific zoning by- law has been passed by Council on March 19, 2018 to allow an increase in FSR from 3.0 to 7.0 through the use of Bonusing and a Section 37 Agreement, a parking reduction from 411 to 233 spaces for the entire site to be shared between all the uses and to be unbundled from the residential units, to recognize multiple setbacks that would permit the development as shown on the site plan attached to this application and finally to require a holding provision that is to be lifted by by-law once a record of site condition is completed for the subject lands and has received the MOECC approval. The last day to appeal this by-law is on April 17, 2018, which coincides with the Committee of Adjustment date. Since the by-law will not be in full force and effect by the date of the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled to deal with the consents subject to this application, staff will be requesting a condition of approval that the Zoning By-law 2018- 034 be in full force and effect or that an appropriate application for a minor variance be submitted to ensure zoning compliance for the creation of the lots. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severances conform to the City's Official Plan and will allow for orderly development that is compatible with the existing community. The severed and retained lots will both comply with the regulations of the Warehouse District Six (D-6) zone once by-law 2018- 034 is in effect. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land can be serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Consent Applications B2018- 026 and , B2018-027, requesting permission to sever a parcel of land from 114-120 Victoria Street that has a width of 40.8 metres, a depth of 65.6 metres, and an area of 2673.6 square metres and to retain a parcel having a lot width of 64.9 metres with a depth of 65.6 metres and an area of 3878 metres squared and to establish reciprocal shrinking blanket easements for the purpose of rights of access for both pedestrians and vehicles as well as parking for both the severed and retained parcels; and a second blanket easement over the retained lands in favour of the severed lands for the purpose of the provision of storm water management be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendations section of this report. View of 114-120 Victoria Street South looking south. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Should a severance be approved, additional services will be required for severed lot — a building permit will be required for this work. Separate building permit(s) will also be required for the demolition of all existing buildings, as well as construction of all new buildings. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed application. Please note that the required sidewalks are already negotiated in the Site Plan process. Engineering Comments: Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. The sump pump should be connected to a service lateral going to the municipal storm sewer. The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate municipal water, storm and sanitary services are currently available to service this property. Each severed lot will require a sanitary, a storm and a water service. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Natasha Prepas-Strobeck (519-741-2200 ext. 7136). Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All work is at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system and proposed easements will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street. Region of Waterloo Comments: The Region has no objection provided the following condition be included: That prior to final approval, the applicant provide an update to the environmental noise study entitled "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Mixed -Use Development, 114-120 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, ON" dated October 25, 2017 as prepared by HGC Engineering, and, if necessary, based on the findings of the report, enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener, to implement the recommendations of the report. Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo File No. D20-20/18 KIT April 6, 2018 Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg ionofwate rl oo.ca Carolyn Crozier 575-4757 ext. 3657 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2018-026 and B2018-027 Committee of Adjustment Hearing April 17, 2018 CITY OF KITCHENER B 2018-026 and B2018-027 114-120 Victoria Street South 114-120 Victoria Street South Inc. The purpose of the application is to sever the site into two lots and to establish reciprocal shrinking blanket easements for rights of access and stormwater management. Community Planning Fee The Region acknowledges receipt of the required Consent Application Fee of $350.00. Corridor Planning Noise The applicant has submitted an environmental noise study entitled "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Mixed -Use Development, 114-120 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, ON" dated October 25, 2017 as prepared by HGC Engineering. Document Number: 2695988 Region staff have identified several items that need clarification on the study as it pertains to stationary noise and have brought these items to the attention of the noise consultant. As such, an update to the report will be required. If necessary, based on the findings of the report, the applicant will be required to enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener to implement the recommendations of the report. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant provide an update to the environmental noise study entitled "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Mixed -Use Development, 114-120 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, ON" dated October 25, 2017 as prepared by HGC Engineering, and, if necessary, based on the findings of the report, enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener, to implement the recommendations of the report. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, n � Carolyn Crozier M.Sc.PI, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner Document Number: 2695988 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Grand River Conservation Authority Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Resource Management Division Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Fax: (519) 621-4945 E-mail: thug hes@grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: YOUR FILE: GRCA FILE: April 5, 2018 B2018-026 to 027 — 114-120 B2018-026-027 — 114-120 Victoria Street South Victoria St S RE: Application for Consent B2018-026 to B2018-027 114-120 Victoria Street South, City of Kitchener 114-120 Victoria Street South Inc. GRCA COMMENT*: The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no objection to the above noted consent application. BACKGROUND: 1. Resource Issues: Information currently available at our office indicates that a small portion of the subject property is within the flood fringe portion of the floodplain associated with Schneider Creek, as well as the 5 metre regulatory allowance to the floodplain. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to sever the subject property into two lots. We have no objection to the severance based on the sketch prepared by ACI Survey Consultants (revised January 9, 2018), as there is sufficient area on both the retained and severed lots for future development outside the regulated area. Please note that any future development proposed within GRCA regulated areas will require prior written approval from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. 3. Plan Review Fees: The GRCA applies Plan Review Fees for Planning Act applications located within GRCA areas of interest. This application is considered a 'minor' consent application. Where multiple applications are submitted for the same property, the highest fee is applied. Recently we have also commented on a minor variance application, zone change application and site plan application where we received a fee of $390. Therefore, we will not charge for our review of this consent application. Page 1 of 2 * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, //,v/ hW risha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority cc: 114-120 Victoria Street South Inc., 697 King Street West, Suite 205A, Kitchener, ON N2G 1C7 GSP Group Inc., 72 Victoria Street South, Suite 201, Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y9 Page 2 of 2 ' These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority 1 Staff Rep ort KITCHENER. CammunityServi(esDepartment wwwkitchenerw REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7987 WARD: 5 DATE OF REPORT: April 10, 2018 REPORT #: CSD -18-084 SUBJECT: APPLICATION #: B2018-028, B2018-029, A2018-039 & A2018-040 119-127 Rockcliffe Drive Applicant: MHBC Planning Consultants Approve with conditions 108 — 112 Subject lanids W 124 103 107 111 7�, 115 50 5i2 54 -Ma! t 's= _f ��a—Y—ls�l`�'�'�.�~'}~"— �_ =X~�•,I . 60128 2 11 6 132 6 136 13 140 144 '148 147 152 l 5, Location Map: 119-127 Rockcliffe Drive ti) 444' 8 4846ti a.5 65� 7- %i4 70 y+y — 7 72 %74 5 X76 = 78 8 0 RECOMMENDATIONS: A. That applications A2018-039 and A2018-040 requesting relief from Special Regulation Provision 341R of the Zoning By-law to permit lot widths of 10.97 metres (A2018-039) and 10.97 metres (A2018-040) be approved. B. That applications B2018-028 and B2018-029 requesting consent to sever the subject property into three lots, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Applications A2018-016 and A2018-017 receive full and final approval; 2. That the owner makes satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. That the owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. <e j 0 1 Com. 1'�-, Qr '004,ar o Ec Former ErAIL • -i urning Circle ►w89* � 0£ R-1no.00o '��. A=8.636 J S C -B. 634t N7'42'30"w tO R- 00 a ! rrds 44 s' be re#wined [� .3 $ �RESERVE Amnabo .,� CK 101 C— .601 PA M-568 N8156 "w 22722-1995 (Lr c, R$ Lands to be A-29.27 N severed C-24.8 N66'05' OW - Z K 3 4 �• n g Lands to � C r �; EM Severed (#2 WRB.574 N7 0¢, "395rn2 } 0?N'RB577 40 EGo_ 36 00 PART 2 5£M'FN _'WR85747 LN77-04 �� `40 "�= r`+ WRg57�7� Proposed lot fabric 2 REPORT The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) with Special Regulation 341 R in the Zoning By-law. The lands are currently vacant and were recently registered through the subdivision registration of 30T-98201, Stage 4B. The subject lands consist of a lotless block, together with a portion of a closed temporary turning circle and have been consolidated into one development parcel. The neighbourhood consists of a mix of single detached dwellings and street fronting townhouse dwellings. The owner is requesting permission to sever the subject lands with the intent to develop the lands with 3 single detached dwellings. The retained lot is proposed to have a lot width of 14.72 metres, a depth of 36.97 metres, and an area 442 metres squared, which complies with by-law regulations. The lands to be severed each have a proposed lot width of 10.97 metres, a depth of 36.0 metres and an area of 395 metres squared. A Photo: Subject Lands (April 9, 2018) 3 Planning Comments: Minor Variance Applications — A2018-039 & 2018-040 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City's 2014 Official Plan and 1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect, however as number of Low Rise Residential policies are under appeal similar policies from the 1994 are considered. The Low Rise Residential designations of both plans permit different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low intensity of use and low-rise built form, such as single detached dwellings. It is planning staff's opinion that the proposed variance to the lot widths will maintain the low intensity and low- rise character of the neighbourhood, and that general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. The requested variances to permit reduced lot widths of 10.97 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 11.5 metres minimum lot width of Special Regulation 341 R is to ensure a variety of lot widths throughout the subdivision. The overall subdivision has been developed with a variety of lot widths, and the proposed lots meet all other zoning regulations. As such, staff is satisfied that the reduction of 0.53 metres in the lot width continues to meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor and are appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The reduced lot widths will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. The proposed lots are appropriate for the context of the existing neighbourhood, and should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. Consent Applications — B2018-028 & B2018-029 With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 13, the uses of the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan, including policy 17.E.20.5 of the 2014 Official Plan. Both the retained and severed lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands and will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area, especially with those lots on the opposite side of the street. The dimensions of the resultant lots comply with the regulations of the Residential Four Zone (R-4) and Special Regulation Provision 341R, subject to the approval of minor variance applications A2018-039 and A2018-040. The configuration of the proposed lots is appropriate for the use of the lands. The proposed lots front a public street, and can be serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Consent Applications B 2018-028 and B2018-029 requesting consent to sever the subject property into three lots, be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the Recommendation section of this report. Engineering Comments: These lots were incorporated into the Civil design of Huron Woods 30T-98-201, stage 4B. The services are already designed and the drawings have been approved (shown on Dwg. C-201 and C-202). These will or have been installed as part of the subdivision and therefore Engineering has no concerns. 0 Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Should a severance be approved, additional services will be required for severed lot — a building permit will be required for this work. Separate building permit(s) will also be required. Record of site condition to be filed with MOECC required for any lots within the former turning circle. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Operations (Parks) Comments: Park land dedication will not be required on the severed parcels. Park dedication requirements have been met through subdivision process 30T-98201 through a 5% land dedication. Therefore all new land parcels have contributed to the previous park dedication, and are exempt from further dedication requirements. Katie Anderl, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Juliane von Westerholt BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner A Region of Waterloo File No. D20-20/18 KIT April 6, 2018 Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N213 4A Canada Telephone:519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2018-016, B2018-024 to B2018-025, B2018-028 to B2018-030 Committee of Adjustment Hearing April 17, 2018 CITY OF KI TCHENER B 2018-016 3 Chapel Hill Roy and Murielle Stewart The purpose of this application is to create a new lot for residential development. The application was amended slightly in regards to the easement and location. No changes were made with the severance to this amended application. The Region's previous comments regarding B2016-016 still apply. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Corridor Planning Noise The subject lands will be impacted by transportation noise from Caryndale Drive. The applicant is required to enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of central air conditioning, as well as include the following noise warning clauses in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements for the severed lot: "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the applicant the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of Kitchener to secure the following noise attenuation measures and noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for the residential units on the severed lot: A. The dwellings will be fitted with a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants. B. The following noise warning clause will be registered on title and required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the severed lot: i. "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed Document Number: 2693646 the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." ii. "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." B 2018-024 259, 275 and 335 Gage Avenue Twin City Dry Storage Ltd. The purpose of this application is to sever 335 Gage Avenue from 259-275 Gage Avenue. The parcels will contain existing buildings and no changes to existing industrial uses are proposed. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent Michael Krause The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-030 151 Fifth Avenue Vladan Knezevic The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for future residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 327.8mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2018. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Matthew Colley Principal Planner Document Number: 2693646 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority. J KITc�►��T�R Staff Report Community Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD: 3 DATE OF REPORT: April 9, 2018 REPORT NUMBER: CSD -18-085 SUBJECT: Application B2018-030, A2018-041, A2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Owner/Applicant — Vlad Knezevic Approve with Conditions ° 119 113 o ,29 0 117 Q o� 129 � � 108 4 t19 123 o „2 132 O O 115 2A 129 uz 0 247 CO O hTaT 2s0 wP 257 � 298 0 AMMON- 300 ,s r tst 285 � 155 289 1]] 2. tsz zss 152 305 �o 68 161 ]19 Subject Property: 151 Fifth Avenue RECOMMENDATION: I. That Application A2018-041 requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to permit a rear yard of 2.27 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, and requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b)i) to permit a parking space to be set back 2.16 metres from the street line whereas 6.0 metres is required, be approved. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua II. That Application A2018-042 requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to permit a rear yard of 3.35 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, be approved. III. That application B2018-030, proposing to sever a lot with a frontage of 15.24 metres, depth of approximately 17.75 metres, and an area of 271.1 square metres, be approved subject to the following conditions; 1. That Application A2018-041 and A2018-042 receive full and final approval. 2. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor. 3. That the Owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in dwg (AutoCad) or dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full size paper copy of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 5. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 6. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a. That the Owner agrees to submit and receive approval of a site drawing and building elevation drawings for the future residential building on the retained lots, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. i. That the owner shall receive approval of a final Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. J Staff Report KIR Community Services Department www.kitcheneua ii. The final Tree Preservation Plan shall include a Tree Planting Compensation Plan to that is acceptable to the city's Urban Forestry department, identifying replacement or compensation plantings for the removal of any City -owned street tree. iii. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. C. That prior to building permit issuance, the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. d. That prior to building permit issuance, the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved shared driveway ramp. e. That prior to building permit issuance, the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the removal of any redundant service connections to the (severed lands and/or retained) lands. f. That as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to building permit issuance. g. That prior to building permit issuance, the owner provide a servicing plan and grading plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. h. That prior to building permit issuance, the Owner provides Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Where this cannot be achieved, the owner is required to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer to move the sewage from the property line to the street. J Staff Report IZIITCIIE R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua 6. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the retained lands which shall include the following: a. That the owner shall receive approval of a final Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. 7. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking be provided to immediately register the modified subdivision agreements as outlined in conditions 6 and 7 above on title of the severed and retained lands and that copies be provided to the City Solicitor. Report: The application is proposing to sever the existing property into two separate lots. The retained lands will contain the existing single detached dwelling and the severed will contain a new duplex dwelling. Existing Dwelling at 151 Fifth Avenue J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua A site visit was undertaken on March 16, 2018. Planning Comments: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Permitted low density residential uses include single detached, semi-detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings. The property is currently zoned as Residential Four (R-4) which permits a range of residential uses including single detached, semi-detached, and duplex dwellings. The property is also within the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area. The owner is proposing to sever the lands into two lots. The retained lands are proposed to accommodate the existing single detached dwelling and the served lands are proposed to be developed with a new duplex dwelling. A minor variance is requested for both the severed and retained lots. Specifically, these applications request the following: Consent Application B2018-030 — To sever a lot with a frontage of 15.24 metres, depth of 17.75 metres, and an area of 271.1 square metres. Minor Variance Application A2018-041 — To request a rear yard setback of 2.27 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, and to request a parking space to be set back 2.16 metres from the street line whereas 6.0 metres is required, for the retained lands for the existing single detached dwelling. Minor Variance Application A2018-042 — To request a rear yard setback of 3.35 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, for the severed lands for the future duplex dwelling. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. While the retained and severed lands require minor variances, Planning staff is of the opinion that the size, dimension and shape of the proposed lot is suitable for the use of the lands and compatible with the surrounding community. The lands front onto two established public streets, and can be independently and adequately serviced with connections to municipal services. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 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 Official Plan. The Official Plan provides specific policy direction for infill residential development in established neighbourhoods. In the City's established neighbourhoods, the primary focus is to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing community. Policy 4.C.1.8.e requires that where a minor variance is requested to facilitate residential intensification the impact of the variance must be reviewed J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua to ensure 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. The requested rear yard variance for the retained lands is required because the rear yard is being measured opposite the Fifth Avenue street line. In this case, the larger side yard of 5.67 metres will be used for private outdoor amenity space normally provided in the rear yard. The parking setback variance for the retained lands is required because the length of the driveway is being reduced to provide outdoor amenity space in the side yard. The required parking space and one additional space (normally provided with the 6.0 metre setback) are arranged parallel, rather than in tandem. The rear yard variance for the severed lands is required in order to locate the building a similar distance from the Fifth Avenue street line, further than the minimum setback of 4.5 metres, in accordance with the recommendations from the City's Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhood Study (RIENS), which was initiated to further guide and regulate the residential infill housing policies in the Official Plan. The requested variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The driveway regulations are meant to ensure that a residential use has appropriate off-street parking arrangements to ensure that parking demand for a residential use can be provided on site. A total of six off-street parking spaces will be provided, two for the retained single detached Dwelling, and four for the proposed duplex (two within garages with two in tandem). The rear yard setback is regulated to ensure that appropriate separation is provided from adjacent residential uses, and to provide private outdoor amenity space. In this case, each of the proposed units will have direct access to separate private amenity areas and the buildings are appropriately spaced. While Planning staff are satisfied that the proposed locations of the residential buildings are appropriate, Planning staff is recommending as a condition of this approval, as per Policy 4.C.1.7 of the Official Plan, the Owner to submit Building Elevation drawings and a building site drawing showing the design and increased front yard setback of the proposed new building. Planning staff will review and approve these plans prior to the issuance of the building permit to ensure that the proposed new building is appropriate in terms of siting, height, and architectural style. The requested variances are minor. Kitchener City Council recently approved the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods (RIENS) Study. That study identified that character and compatibility are important when considering any new development. While some of the recommendations from the study are currently at various stages of the implementation process, Planning Staff notes that the development concept implements may of the preliminary RIENS recommendations, including an increased front yard setback and comparable building height. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed development will be compatible with the built form, massing, and building siting found throughout the neighbourhood. Further attention will be paid to the building height, roof line, porch design, driveway width and location, style and materials, and landscaping, as part of the approval of the Building Elevation and Site drawings. The development proposal accommodates a slight increase in density in an established community in a compatible form that provides increased housing options. J Staff Report KITc�►��T�R Community Services Department www.kitcheneua Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Should a severance be approved, additional services will be required for severed lot — a building permit will be required for this work. Separate building permit(s) will also be required for the demolition of accessory structure, as well as construction of the new residential building. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed applications. Engineering Comments: Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. The sump pump should be connected to a service lateral going to the municipal storm sewer. The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate municipal water and sanitary services are currently available to service this property. Storm services are not available in front of this property on Fifth Avenue. Each severed lot will require a sanitary, a storm and a water service, therefore the storm sewer will need to be extended to the property. The retained lands (if nothing changes with the house) will not require any new services. If a new house is built that house will also require a storm service. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Natasha Prepas-Strobeck (519- 741-2200 ext. 7136). Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All work is at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system and proposed easements will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction As -Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street. In accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, an environmental compliance approval for sewage works will be required by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Control for the extension of the municipal sewer to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering prior to site plan approval. J Staff Report KtTc�►��Tt�R Community Services Department www.kitchenerca Operations Comments: A cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required on the severed parcels as a new development lots will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $7,010.40 Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lots only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontages (15.24m) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage meter. Operations would support the removal of street trees identified if the applicant demonstrates a replacement or compensation plan that is acceptable to the city's Urban Forestry department. Heritage Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: A Tree Management /Enhancement Plan was provided with the application. The Standard conditions for implementation of the plan are required for the retained and severed lands. Garett Stevenson, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo File No. D20-20/18 KIT April 6, 2018 Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N213 4A Canada Telephone:519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2018-016, B2018-024 to B2018-025, B2018-028 to B2018-030 Committee of Adjustment Hearing April 17, 2018 CITY OF KI TCHENER B 2018-016 3 Chapel Hill Roy and Murielle Stewart The purpose of this application is to create a new lot for residential development. The application was amended slightly in regards to the easement and location. No changes were made with the severance to this amended application. The Region's previous comments regarding B2016-016 still apply. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Corridor Planning Noise The subject lands will be impacted by transportation noise from Caryndale Drive. The applicant is required to enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of central air conditioning, as well as include the following noise warning clauses in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Rental Agreements for the severed lot: "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the applicant the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of Kitchener to secure the following noise attenuation measures and noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for the residential units on the severed lot: A. The dwellings will be fitted with a forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants. B. The following noise warning clause will be registered on title and required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the severed lot: i. "Purchasers / tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Caryndale Drive may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed Document Number: 2693646 the sound level limits of the Regional of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate change." ii. "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor noise levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change." B 2018-024 259, 275 and 335 Gage Avenue Twin City Dry Storage Ltd. The purpose of this application is to sever 335 Gage Avenue from 259-275 Gage Avenue. The parcels will contain existing buildings and no changes to existing industrial uses are proposed. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent Michael Krause The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123-127) Primelands Developments (2003) Limited The purpose of the application is to create new lots from existing blocks created as part of the registration of Stage 4b within the Huron Woods subdivision. Regional staff has no objection to the application. B 2018-030 151 Fifth Avenue Vladan Knezevic The purpose of the application is to create a new lot for future residential development. Community Planning: Fee Pursuant to Region Fee By-law 17-076, the applicant is required to submit the Region's Consent Application Fee of $350.00 per new lot prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 327.8mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2018. Document Number: 2693646 Regional staff has no objection to the application subject to the following condition of approval for the consent: 1) That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Matthew Colley Principal Planner Document Number: 2693646 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: April 5, 2018 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thug hes@g randriver. ca YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: A 2018-024(amended) 2 Crossbridge Avenue A 2018-030 397 Greenfield Avenue A 2018-033 14 Ellen Street West A 2018-034 731 Huron Road A 2018-035 47 Floyd Street A 2018-036 810 Frederick Street A 2018-037 396 Victoria Street South A 2018-038 105 Brubacher Street A 2018-039 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123) A 2018-040 Rockcliffe Drive (future #127) A 2018-041 151 Fifth Avenue A 2018-042 151 Fifth Avenue Applications for Consent: B 2018-016(amended) 3 Chapel Hill Drive B 2018-024 259, 275 & 335 Gage Avenue B 2018-025 50 Brookside Crescent B 2018-028 Rockcliffe Drive (future #119-127) B 2018-029 Rockcliffe Drive (future #123 & 127) B 2018-030 151 Fifth 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, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority TH/dp *These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of ] Grand River Conservation Authority.