Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA Agenda - 2019-07-16COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS AGENDA July 16, 2019 - 10:00 a.m. SIGN APPLICATION: Submission No.: SG 2019-010 Applicant: 2541915 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 907 Frederick Street, Units 3, 4 & 5 Legal Description: Lot 6, Plan 712, Block B, Plan 928 The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing facia sign having a width of 96% of the building elevation rather than the maximum permitted width of 90%, THE CITY OF KITCHENER Kitchener City Hall COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 King St w NOTICE OF HEARING Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 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, July 16, 2019, commencing at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber, 211d 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 — CHAPTERS 680 (SIGNS) & 630 (FENCES) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE The recommendations of the Committee of Adjustment on Minor Variances to Chapters 680 (Signs) and 630 (Fences) of the Municipal Code will be forwarded to City Council for final approval. SG 2019-014 - 150 Pioneer Drive Permission to replace the existing sign with a ground -supported sign having automatic changing copy located 59m from a residential zone rather than the required 100m; and, for the sign to have an area of 4.6 sq.m. rather than the maximum permitted 3 sq.m. SG 2019-015 — 2960-3050 Kingsway Drive Permission for an existing commercial plaza (Fairview Mall) to have three signs located on the subject property requiring variances from the Sign By-law specifically as follows: • Water Tower Ground -Supported Sign (located adjacent to Fairway Road South), having a height of 15.24m rather than the maximum permitted height of 7.5m; a sign area of 21.33 sq.m. rather than the maximum permitted 20 sq.m.; to have a separation distance from another ground -supported sign on the subject property of 15.4m rather than the required 50m; and, to have no civic address on the sign whereas the By-law requires all ground -supported signs to have a civic address; and, • Smoke Stack Fascia Sign (Located on the Fairway Road South side of the building adjacent to the former Sears Building), having a sign located on an architectural feature whereas the By-law does not permit signs on an architectural feature; and, having a maximum projection from a wall of 0.4m whereas the By-law does not permit a projection from a wall; and further, • Roof Sign (Former Sears facade Fairway Road South), having a sign area of 54.22 sq.m. rather than the maximum permitted 10 sq.m.; and, to permit the supporting structure to be visible/not screened whereas the By-law requires the support structures to be screened. APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE AND / OR CONSENT PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING ACT A 2019-059 - 364 Heritage Drive Permission to construct a walled carport and sunroom in the rear yard (defined by the Zoning By-law), which actually functions as a side yard, of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.5m rather than the required 7.5m. Page 1 of 7 A 2019-060 - 72 Archer Place Permission to convert an existing duplex into a triplex having an existing southerly side yard setback of 0.66m rather than the required 1.2m; having the required 3 off-street parking spaces located within the minimum side yard abutting Lyndhurst Drive whereas the By-law does not permit parking within the side yard; and, to permit a "Triplex" use whereas the By-law does not currently permit a "Triplex" in the existing Zone. A 2019-061 - 15 Peter Street Permission to convert an existing duplex into a triplex on a lot having a width of 11.9m rather than the required 15m; a front yard setback of 3.2m rather than the required 4.5m; a rear yard setback of 6.7m rather than the required 7.5m; and, having 1 off-street parking space (0.33 spaces/per-unit) rather than the required 3 off- street parking spaces (1.0 spaces/per unit). Permission to operate a home business out of an existing single detached dwelling having 2 employees (paid/volunteers) rather than the maximum permitted 1 employee; having the required off-street parking spaces in tandem whereas the By-law does not permit tandem parking spaces for a business; having a driveway to be located Om from the southerly side lot line rather than the required 3m; and, having a southerly side yard setback of 2.37m rather than the required 3m. B 2019-025 - 4283 King Street East Permission for a lease in excess of 21 years to the Brick (Furniture Retail) for the building they occupy (Unit 3) on King Street East within the Deer Ridge Plaza. B 2019-026 - 4285 King Street East Permission for a lease in excess of 21 years to Tim Hortons for the building they occupy (Unit 4) on King Street East within the Deer Ridge Plaza. B 2019-027 - 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Permission to grant a stormwater easement having a width of 30.98m, a depth of 69.45m and an area of 2,093 sq.m. in favour of the adjacent lands to the north, being Strasburg Creek, for the purpose of a flow- through outlet. B 2019-028 - 37 Heiman Street Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 9.15m, a depth of 27.49m and an area of 245 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 15m, a depth of 87.78m and an area of 1362 sq.m. Both parcels are intended for residential development. A previous Consent application (B 2018-023) was granted for the severance of the subject property. B 2019-029 & A 2019-063 - 4278 King Street East Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on King Street East of 14.0m, an approximate depth of 178m and an area of 0.84 hectares (2.1 acres). Permission is also being requested to grant an easement having a width of 14m and an approximate depth of 69.6m, in favour of the retained land for access. The retained land will have an approximate width on King Street East of 95.4m, a depth of 140m and an area of 1.15 hectares (2.82 acres). Permission is also being requested for minor variances on the severed lot to permit a minimum side yard of 1.2m for an existing hydro building, rather than the required 3.Om under both the Zoning By-law in current force and effect and under the new Zoning By-law currently under appeal; and, a lot width of 14m rather than the required 25m under the Zoning By-law in current force and effect/30m under the new Zoning By-law currently under appeal. Page 2 of 7 B 2019-030 & A 2019-064 - 452 Prospect Avenue Permission to sever a parcel of land in the rear yard (proposed Parcel 2 on the plan submitted with the application) having a width of 12.192m, a depth of 25.2m and an area 309.7 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 456 Prospect Avenue. The retained parcel will have a lot width on Prospect Avenue of 12.192m, a depth of 38.233 and an area of 467.2 sq.m. Permission is also being requested for minor variances on the retained parcel for an existing single detached dwelling to have a lot width of 12.12m rather than the required 13.7m, and, an easterly side yard setback for a driveway leading toward the required off-street parking space, where the parking is situated between the building and the lot line, rather than the required 3m. B 2019-031 & A 2019-065 - 456 Prospect Avenue (CORRECTION: previously noted 465 Prospect Avenue) Permission to sever a parcel of land in the rear yard (proposed Parcel 4 on the plan submitted with the application) having a width of 12.192m, a depth on Broadview Avenue of 25.2m and an area 309.7 sq.m., which will be consolidated with the severed parcel identified as Proposed Parcel 2 on the plan submitted with the application (B 2019-030 — 452 Prospect Avenue). The retained parcel will have a width of 12.12m, a depth of 38.233m and an area of 465.8 sq.m. Permission is also being requested for minor variances on the retained parcel for an existing single detached dwelling to have a lot width of 12.19m rather than the required 15m; a westerly side yard of 1.07m rather than the required 1.2m; a front yard setback of 4.48m rather than the required 4.5m; a side yard abutting Broadview Avenue with the driveway leading to the required parking to be 2.93m rather than the required 4.5m; an accessory building to be located 0.8m from the side lot line abutting Broadview Avenue whereas the By-law does not permit accessory buildings to be located within the side yard abutting a street; an accessory building to be located 0.8m from the side lot line abutting Broadview Avenue acting as a front lot line whereas the By-law does not permit accessory buildings to be closer than the front face of the building; having a minimum side yard abutting a street for a part of a building containing off-street parking to be 0.8m rather than the required 6m; having off-street parking located Om from the street line rather than the required 6m; to permit a driveway located Om from the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Broadview Avenue rather than the required 9m; to legalize the single detached dwelling having a 0.6m encroachment into the Corner Visibility Triangle (CVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the CVT. The rear portions of 452 and 456 Prospect Avenue are intended to be consolidated for residential development. B 2019-032 to B 2019-042 & A 2019-066 to A 2019-073 - 78, 84, 86, 92, 94, 104, 106, 112, 114, 116 and 122 Monarch Woods Drive Permission to create rear yard easements (4 Townhouse Blocks) in favour of adjacent townhomes for the purpose of access, including permission to grant minor variances as follows: B 2019-032 & A 2019-066 - 78 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the westerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the westerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 80 Monarch Woods Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-033 & A 2019-067 - 84 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the easterly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the easterly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 82 Monarch Woods Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. Page 3 of 7 B 2019-034 & A 2019-068 - 86 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the westerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the westerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 88 Monarch Woods Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-035 - 92 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an easement in the rear yard having a width of 5.5m and a depth of 0.91 m in favour of 90 and 94 Monarch Woods Drive. B 2019-036 & A 2019-069 - 94 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the easterly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the easterly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 90 and 92 Monarch Woods Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-037 & A 2019-070 - 104 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the westerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the westerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 106 and 108 Monarch Woods Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-038 - 106 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an easement in the rear yard having a width of 5.5m and a depth of 0.91 m in favour of 104 and 108 Monarch Woods Drive. B 2019-039 & A 2019-071 - 112 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the easterly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the easterly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 110 Monarch Woods Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-040 & A 2019-072 - 114 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the westerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the westerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 116 and 118 Monarch Woods Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-041 - 116 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an easement in the rear yard having a width of 5.5m and a depth of 0.91 m in favour of 114 and 118 Monarch Woods Drive. Page 4 of 7 B 2019-042 & A 2019-073 - 122 Monarch Woods Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the easterly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the easterly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 120 Monarch Woods Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-043 to B 2019-050 & A 2019-074 to A 2019-081 - 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive Permission to create rear yard easements (4 Townhouse Blocks) in favour of adjacent townhomes for the purpose of access, including permission to grant minor variances as follows: B 2019-043 & A 2019-074 - 110 Ian Ormston Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the northerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91 m, a depth in the northerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 112 Ian Ormston Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-044 & A 2019-075 - 116 Ian Ormston Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the southerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the southerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 114 Ian Ormston Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-045 & A 2019-076 - 118 Ian Ormston Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the northerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91 m, a depth in the northerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 120 Ian Ormston Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-046 & A 2019-077 - 124 Ian Ormston Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the southerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the southerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 122 Ian Ormston Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-047 & A 2019-078 - 126 Ian Ormston Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the northerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91 m, a depth in the northerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 128 Ian Ormston Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. Page 5 of 7 B 2019-048 & A 2019-079 - 132 Ian Ormston Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the southerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the southerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 130 Ian Ormston Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-049 & A 2019-080 - 134 Ian Ormston Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the northerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91 m, a depth in the northerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 136 Ian Ormston Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-050 & A 2019-081 - 140 Ian Ormston Drive: Permission to grant an `L' shaped easement in the southerly side yard having an overall width of 0.91m, a depth in the southerly yard of 30.03m, and a width across the rear yard of 11.02m, in favour of 138 Ian Ormston Drive. Permission is also being requested to construct a townhouse dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.91 m rather than the required 2.5m; and, a garage width of 100% of the front facade rather than the maximum permitted 70%. B 2019-051 to B 2019-054 & A 2019-082 - 83 Elmsdale Drive Permission to sever two parcels of land and retain one parcel for future mixed-use development. Permission is also being requested for various easements to facilitate the development. The development is subject to Site Plan approval application SP17/091/E/KA. B 2019-051 & A 2019-082 - Future Parcel `C' on the plan submitted with the application Width on Ottawa Street: 14.2m Depth (not including driveway access): 73.7m Area: 1.21 Hectares Permission is also being requested to grant various easements as follows: Easement 3 on the plan submitted with the application in favour of parcels A, B, D and E for access and Parcel D for water; Easement 4 in favour of parcels A, B, D and E for access and Parcel E for water; Easement 5 in favour of Parcel E for access; and, Easement 6 in in favour of parcels A, B, D and E for access; Easement 8 in favour of Parcel D for sanitary. Permission is also being requested for a minor variance on future Parcel `C' to allow a lot width of 14.2m rather than the required 30m under the Zoning By-law in current force and effect/15m under the new Zoning By-law currently under appeal. B 2019-052 - Future Parcel `D' on the plan submitted with the application Width on Ottawa Street: 83.4m Depth: 66.2m Area: 0.5517 Hectares B 2019-053 — Future Parcel `E' on the plan submitted with the application Width: 167.8m Depth 66.2m Area: 0.8937 Hectares Page 6 of 7 Permission is also being requested to grant Easement 7 on the plan submitted with the application in favour of Parcels C and D for sanitary services. B 2019-054 - Parcel 'A' on the plan submitted with the application Permission to grant an easement over Part 5 (Easement 1 approved previously through Consent Applications B 2018-017, B 2018-018 and B 2018-019) to update the servient and dominant lands and confirm the easement and its purpose being for access for Future Parcel 'E'. B 2019-055 - Parcel 'B' on the plan submitted with the application Permission to grant an easement over Part 2 (Easement 2 approved previously through Consent Applications B 2018-017, B 2018-018 and B 2018-019) to update the servient and dominant lands and confirm the easement and its purpose being for access in favour of Parcels A, C, D and E; and, for water in favour of Parcel D. CC 2019-005, CC 2019-006 and CC 2019-007 - 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Permission to change the conditions of Provisional Consent application B 2019-002, B 2019-003, and B 2019-004, granted by the Committee of Adjustment on January 15, 2019 specifically as follows: • B 2019-002 - removal of Conditions 3 and 4 and reinstating with new conditions related to the timing of the land registry transactions; and, • B 2019-003 - removal of Conditions 5 and 6; updating Condition 3 requiring the decision to be dependent on Consent Applications B 2019-002 and B 2019-004; and, correcting Condition 12 to reference Future Lot C rather than Future Lot B; and, • B 2019-004 - removal of Conditions 5 and 6; and, correcting Condition 12 to reference Future Lot D rather than Future Lot B. • 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 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal LPAT) 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 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal 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. Dated the 28th day of June, 2019. 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 JUNE 28, 2019. Page 7 of 7 Staff Report Development Services Department 1 R www.ki tch en er. c a REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 21, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Erika Kohek, Student Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7074 WARD: 1 DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-108 SUBJECT: SG2019-010 — 907 Frederick Street, Units 3, 4 and 5 Applicant — Sandeep Singh Approve with Conditions Location Map: 907 Frederick Street, Units 3, 4 and 5 *** 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 property is zoned Medium Intensity Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6) and is designated as Commercial in the City's Official Plan. City Planning staff visited the site on May 9, 2019. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 680.10.14 of the Sign By -Law to allow a fascia sign to have a width of 96% of the building elevation rather than the required 90%. Existing fascia sign The intent of Section 680.10.14 of the Sign By-law that limits fascia signs to a maximum of 90% of the width of the building elevation, or the width of an individual unit elevation in a multi -unit building on which the sign is located. A building completely covered by signage can be visually displeasing and can cause a negative impact on the pedestrian experience and view of the building. Given that the width of the building unit is approximately 21 metres, the 6% increase in the width only amounts to an approximate 1.26 metre increase. This increase will have a minimal impact on what is already permitted on the surrounding environment for pedestrians or on the view of the building from the road. Additionally, the signs on the adjacent properties are also large, meaning the scale of the proposed fascia sign conforms with the surrounding commercial plazas. The signs on the adjacent units are also set back from the edges of the subject commercial unit allowing for the signs to have separation between them and do not overcrowd the building face. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the increase in the width of the sign will not have a negative impact on the pedestrian experience or view of the building and continues to meet the intent of the Sign By-law. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the conditions outlined below in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed sign variance provided a sign permit is obtained. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. RECOMMENDATION That application SG 2019-010 seeking relief from Section 680.10.14 of the Sign By -Law to allow a fascia sign to have a width of 96% of the building elevation rather than the required 90%, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1) That a sign permit is obtained from the Planning Division. 2) That condition 1 shall be completed prior to September 21, 2019. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo May 03, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (2) 06 BENTON/Frederick Victoria Business Centre (15) 08 WEBER KIT, Kiah Group Inc. Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on May 21, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff have reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-009 — 760 Commonwealth Crescent — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-010 — 907 Frederick Street — There are no concerns to the sign variance for the sign mounted on the building, mentioned in the application. However, it is noted that there is another ground mounted business sign which is encroaching into Victoria Street right-of-way. The owner should confirm if there is an existing encroachment agreement in place. If not, the same would be required with the Region. 3. SG 2019-011 — 524 Belmont Avenue West— No Concerns. 4. A 2019-039 — 121 Arrowhead Crescent — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-040 — 18 Rosedale Avenue — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-041 — 555 King Street East — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-042 — 244-260 Shoemaker Street—No Concerns. 8. A 2019-043 — 170 Rivertrail Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-044 — 109 North Hill Place — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-045 — 52 South Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-046 — 18 Guelph Street — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-047 — 945 Robert Ferrie Drive — No Concerns. 13.A 2019-048 — 28 Stirling Avenue South— No Concerns. 14.A 2019-049 — 101-115 Margaret Avenue — No Concerns. 15.A 2019-050 — 149-151 Ontario Street North / 21 Weber Street West: There are no concerns to the minor variance application. However, the owner is advised Document Number: 2997610 Page 1 of 2 that any development application on the above development would require dedicated road widening of approximately 3.0 metre along the entire property frontage along Weber Street (RR #08). 16.A 2019-051 — 25 Vanier Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Andrew Herreman, Resource Planning Technician 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2228 E-mail: aherreman(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: May 13, 2019 YOUR FILE: See below RE: Applications for Minor Variance: SG 2019-009 760 Commonwealth Crescent SG 2019-010 907 Frederick Street, Units 3-5 SG 2019-011 524 Belmont Avenue West A 2019-038 128 Mill Street A 2019-039 121 Arrowhead Crescent A 2019-040 18 Rosedale Avenue A 2019-041 555 King Street East A 2019-042 244 and 260 Shoemaker Street A 2019-043 170 Rivertrail Place A 2019-044 107-109 North Hill Place A 2019-045 52 South Drive A 2019-046 18 Guelph Street A 2019-047 945 Robert Ferrie Drive A 2019-048 28 Stirling Avenue South A 2019-049 101-115 Margaret Avenue A 2019-050 149-151 Ontario Street North/21 Weber Street West A 2019-051 25 Vanier Drive Applications for Consent: B 2019-014 128 Mill Street B 2019-015 23-25 Wendy Crescent B 2019-016 52 Wilhelm Street B 2019-017 177 Fifth Avenue B 2019-018 69 Amherst Drive/118 Doon Valley Drive B 2019-020 28 Burgetz Avenue B 2019-021 20-24 Breithaupt Street B 2019-022 20-24 Breithaupt Street B 2019-023 26, 43, 47, 53, 55 Wellington Avenue North, 2, 12 Moore Avenue, 20-24 Breithaupt Street 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. 'These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of 2 Grand River Conservation Authority Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 'These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 2 of 2 Grand River Conservation Authority. Staff Report Development Services Department REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: REPORT #: ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: SUMMARIZED RECOMMENDATION; DATE OF REPORT: 1 KIR www.ki tch en er. c a Committee of Adjustment July 16', 2019 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Jenna Daum, Technical Assistant - 519-741-2200 ext. 7760 DSD -19-161 150 Pioneer Drive - SG 2019-014 City of Kitchener Approve with Conditions July 5t", 2019 Location Map: 150 Pioneer Drive *** 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: City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on June 25th, 2019. The subject property is zoned Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (1-1) under zoning by-law 85-1 and INS -1 under the zoning by-law 2015-1. The property is designated Institutional in the 2014 Official Plan. Proposed location of ground supported sign with automatic changing copy (location of an existing ground supported sign with automatic changing copy to be replaced) The applicant is requesting permission to install a ground supported sign with automatic changing copy, replacing an existing ground supported sign with automatic changing copy. The applicant is asking for relief from Section 680.3.29 of the Sign By-law to allow automatic changing copy on a sign that is located 58 metres from a residentially zoned lot located on the same street rather than the required minimum of 100 metres and relief from section 680.11.9 of the Sign By-law to allow for 4.60 square metres of sign area rather than the required maximum of 3.0 square metres. The intent of Section 680.3.29 of the Sign By-law is to ensure that an adequate distance is maintained between automatic changing copy signs and residential zones in order to minimize the impacts of the additional illumination and distraction of the changing sign. The intent of this regulation is also to ensure that the brightness of the screen does not cause a nuisance by casting light onto residential properties. Staff is of the opinion that the reduced setback proposed by the applicant is sufficient because the sign will not be directly in any abutting properties line of sight. The intent of the sign is that it is to be viewed from both directions of traffic on Pioneer Drive and will not directly face abutting properties. The intent of Section 680.11.9 of the Sign By-law is to ensure that signs located in an Institutional Zone are not excessively large and do not dominate the streetscape as these properties are often within areas that are primarily residential. In the opinion of Staff, the proposed increase in sign area will not dominate the streetscape and is not considered to be excessively large for the following reasons: 1) The proposed increase in sign area is 1.60 square metres and is considered to be minor by Staff. 2) Permitted sign area is determined by lot width when not in an institutional zone. If these lands were located within any other zone other than Institutional, the large size of the lot would allow for the sign to be 20 square metres in size, and the sign would comply with this section of the Sign By-law. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed sign is an appropriate size for the size of the lot. Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are appropriate development for the subject lands and surrounding area. 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 sign variance provided a sign permit is obtained prior to erection. Transportation Services Comments: The proposed sign location shall not encroach into the 4.57 metres driveway visibility triangles of the accesses to Pioneer Drive. RECOMMENDATION: That application SG 2019-014 requesting permission for: 1) Relief from section 680.3.29 of the Sign By-law to allow automatic changing copy on a sign that is located 58 metres from a residentially zoned lot located on the same street rather than the required minimum of 100 metres and relief from section 680.11.9 of the Sign By- law to allow for 4.60 square metres of sign area rather than the required maximum of 3.0 square metres, be approved, subject to the following conditions: That a Sign Permit is obtained for the proposed business from the Planning Division; 2. That the automatic changing copy shall not contain flashing, intermittent or moving lights and that the rate of change in the content of the graphics shall remain static for a minimum of six (6) seconds in accordance with the sign by-law; 3. That the automatic changing copy portion of the sign be turned off between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am; 4. That the above noted conditions 1 to 3 be fulfilled no later than November 1, 2019. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate) prior to the completion date set out in the decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. Jenna Daum Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Technical Assistant (Planning and Zoning) Senior Planner Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Holly Dyson From: Trisha Hughes <thughes@g rand river.ca > Sent: 05 July, 2019 9:28 AM To: Holly Dyson Subject: SG 2019-014 - 150 Pioneer Drive Hi Holly, The Grand River Conservation Authority has no comments or concerns regarding application SG 2019-014 for 150 Pioneer Drive. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Trisha Hughes I Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, ON NIR 5W6 P: (519) 621-2763 x2319 F: (519) 621-4844 www.grandriver. ca Staff Report AaR Development Services Department www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT #: SUBJECT: Committee of Adjustment July 16, 2019 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Katie Anderl, Senior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7987 3 July 8t", 2019 DSD -19-162 SG2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive & 220 Fairway Road South (Fairview Park Mall) Applicant — Gilda Collins (Permit World) Approve Z r .A a - _Ax Ax Np 80UrN � 55 Ali Approximate locatlon cl proposed new multl- tenant grou nd sign Smoke Stack Sears Box Facade Location Map: 2960 Kingsway Drive & 200 Fairway Road South *** 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: CF Fairview Park Mall is currently undergoing major improvements that will see the traditional retail mall transform to a higher intensity mixed-use development. The first phase of site improvements are approved and work including redevelopment of the main entrance, parking areas and former bus terminal is underway. The next phase has received Site Plan Approval in Principle and includes interior and exterior renovations to the former Sear's store, construction of new freestanding restaurant buildings, and a new 4 storey mixed-use building near the main Fairway Road South entrance. There are also longer term plans for additional office, retail, residential and structured parking, which will require future development approvals. As part of the overall redevelopment, Cadillac Fairview is rebranding the mall the "CF Grand Market District" and the developer is pursuing a brick and beam industrial aesthetic - an interpretation of Kitchener's Victorian -era industrial architecture. This design direction will be reflected in updated and new facades, and includes distinctive architectural elements including a smokestack and water tower, and also extends to the design of site signage. The smokestack and water tower have been approved as part of the site design as an architectural feature and structure (respectively) and are subject to building permits and staff review/approval of elevations and materials as part of the overall Site Plan Approval process. The applicant is proposing to utilize "CF Grand Market District" branding on a roof sign, the smokestack and the water tower, and variances are required as detailed below. Each of the signs subject to the requested variances are limited to identification of the owner "CF" and property branding name "Grand Market District" and have no individual store signage or other advertising information. The signs have been designed with a font, style and word placement typical of an early industrial era aesthetic. Additional signage is also proposed throughout the development, however all other signs will comply with the City's sign by-law, and permits will be required. Photo 1 — Existing Sear's Fagade (June 12, 2019) go JMW_ r -^ f! � Image 1 — Renovated Sears Fagade including smoke stack (with signage) and roof sign Roof Sign — Sears Facade The applicant is requesting relief from Section 680.19.6 and Section 680.19.7 of the Sign By-law to permit a roof sign with an area of 54.22 m2 rather than 10 m2, and to permit the supporting structure to not be screened, whereas the by-law requires screening. The intent of the maximum area is to ensure that a roof sign is not out of proportion with a commercial building. The subject building is much larger than most commercial buildings and has an overall length of 138 metres. The proposed roof sign is about 35 metres long and represents about 25% of the building length. Because of the scale of this fagade, the proposed sign is appropriate in the context of the redevelopment. The intent of requiring that supporting structures be screened is to provide for an aesthetically pleasing design. The proposed unscreened structure is representative of the early industrial era aesthetic and is an intentional design choice. Staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate to permit the structure without screening. Smoke Stack The applicant is requesting relief from section 680.10.16 of the sign by-law to permit a fasica sign to be located on an architectural feature. The intent of prohibiting signage from being placed on architectural features is to prevent the architecture from being obscured by the signage and so that the feature is not damaged by the installation of the signage. The proposed smokestack is new construction and will be structurally engineered and designed to accommodate the proposed signage, should the requested variance be approved. Further, the vertical component will be designed to look like painted letters on the brick, which is typical of the industrial aesthetic and commonly a feature on historic smoke stacks, which the owner is emulating. Staff is of the opinion that is it is appropriate to permit the proposed fascia signage on the smoke stack. While not specifically related to the sign variances, the applicant is proposing to design the smoke stack in such a way as to provide habitat for the chimney swift which is identified as a Threatened Species at Risk in Ontario. This species has been in decline with the removal of traditional urban habitat such as historical smokestacks and church spires, and this feature could help to provide much needed habitat and nesting sites. The applicant will continue to work with the City to design the smoke stack to provide this habitat. Photo 2 — Future location of four storey Mixed -Use Building and Water Tower (June 12, 2019). Water Tower The proposed water tower has received Approval in Principle, as a structure on the subject lands, through the Site Plan Approval process. The structure meets zoning by-law regulations as a building and will be subject to a review of the elevations, materials, structural design, etc through the Site Development and Building Permit processes. The applicant is proposing to add signage to this structure, and in so doing, the structure has been interpreted to become a `ground supported sign'. As such, the requested variances are related to this class of sign. The applicant is requesting relief from section 680.11.4 of the Sign By-law to permit the maximum height of a ground supported sign to be 15.24 metres, rather than 7.5 metres; section 680.11.4 to permit a maximum sign face area of 21.33 m2 rather than 20 m2; section 680.11.13 a) to permit a minimum separation between ground supported signs of 15.4 metres rather than 50 metres; and from 680.11.15 to permit the ground supported sign not to include the civic number/address of the property. Through discussions with City staff the overall height of the water tower has been reduced from Image 2 — Proposed water tower an original height of 21.88 metres, to the current proposal of 15.24 metres, and the sign face area was reduced from the original proposal of 36.9 m2 to 21.33 m2. The original proposal was not supported by staff. The current proposal has significantly reduced all dimensions of the water tower, proportionately to maintain scale, and has eliminated multi -tenant store signage from the legs. The overall height of the water tower is less than the height of the nearby four storey mixed-use building (about 17 metres high) located in close proximity. The intent of the maximum height of 7.5 metres for a ground supported sign is to reduce impacts to the sky line, limit the massiveness of ground supported signage and reduce visual clutter along a street, so that the signs are not the dominating features along a commercial street. While the water tower has been interpreted to be a ground supported sign for purpose of the by-law application, it functions more as an architectural feature, adding interest to the skyline of the Grand Market District and as unique location identifying feature. Staff is of the opinion that the structure's design is consistent with the vision of Cadillac Fairview for the Grand Market District, and is in keeping with the desired industrial aesthetic. The actual wording on the sign is located high up so does not cause a visual distraction at the street level, but is designed to have visual prominence from farther away, however is lower than signage which may be installed on the four storey mixed- use building (which is permitted by the Sign By-law). Further, the sign is located 6.0 metres from the streetline, which exceeds the 0.4 metres permitted by the by-law for a ground supported sign, and the Landscape Plan will provide for vegetation and screening around the base. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance is appropriate. The intent of limiting the sign face area of a ground supported sign to 20 m2 is to ensure that the face of the sign is proportional to the height. The design of the signage component is quite different from traditional ground supported signs and the calculation for a sign face is based on the complete area of the rectangle, whereas the water tower has a cylindrical surface and an irregular shape. Staff is of the opinion that increase in area per face is appropriate. Cadillac Fairview is proposing to locate a traditional multi -tenant ground supported sign as shown on the location map, in front of the 4 storey mixed use building. This sign does not require variances and complies with City regulations for a ground supported sign. However, as the water tower will be interpreted as a ground supported sign once the signage has been added, permission is required for the reduced separation between the traditional ground supported sign and the water tower ground supported sign. The purpose of requiring a minimum 50 metre separation between ground supported signs on a single property is to reduce visual clutter along the street, and reduce distractions to drivers. As these signs will serve different purposes, convey different information, and are different in style, staff is of the opinion that reducing the separation from 50 metres to 15.4 metres is appropriate. The applicant is also requesting permission to not include the civic address on the water tower ground supported sign. This information will be included on the traditional ground supported sign and staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate not to require it on the water tower 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 sign variances provided a sign permit is obtained prior to erection. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns due to nature of application. Ministry of Transportation Comments: An MTO Permit will be required prior to the issuance of Sign Permits for signage on the smoke stack and on the Sears Roof. RECOMMENDATION That application SG2019-015 requesting permission for: 1. a Ground Supported Sign (water tower) to have a height of 15.24 m rather than a maximum of 7.5 m; a sign face area of 21.33 m2 rather than 20 m2; a separation distance between ground supported signs of 15.4 m rather than 50 m, and no civic number or municipal address on the sign; 2. a Fascia Sign (smoke stack) to be located on an architectural feature; and 3. a Roof Sign (Sear's fagade) to have a sign area of 54.22 m2 rather than 10 m2; and to permit the supporting structure to not be screened, whereas the by-law requires screening. be approved subject to the following conditions: a) That Sign Permits be obtained for each sign prior to erection, and that the final sign designs and supporting structures be consistent with the overall dimensions, materials, style, and locations provided in support of sign variance application SG2019-015, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. Katie Anderl, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Holly Dyson From: Pastor, Tracy (MTO) <Tracy.Pastor@ontario.ca> Sent: 09 July, 2019 8:30 AM To: Holly Dyson Subject: SG 2019-015 2960-3050 Kingsway Drive - Committee of Adjustment Agenda July 16, 2019 Good Morning Holly, In reference to SG 2019-015 — 2960-3050 Kingsway Drive, MTO has no concerns as the proposed signs are not directly visible to the Highway 8/Fairview Ramp Terminals. No permits required. Regards, Z�racp Tracy Pastor/ Corridor Management Officer Corridor Management Section /West Region Ministry of Transportation phone - 519.873.4209 fax - 519.873-4228 Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and maybe privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation, disclosure, or other use ofthis message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email or phone, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Staff Repoil Development Services Department www.kitch ever. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 1611, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Jenna Daum — Technical Assistant - 519-741-2200 ext.7760 WARD: 1 DATE OF REPORT: July 51h, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-163 SUBJECT: A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive Owner — Aaron Huybens & Janet Huybens Approved Without Conditions Location Map: 364 Heritage Drive *** 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 364 Heritage Drive is zoned Residential Three (R-3) Zoning By-law 85-1 and is designated Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on June 251h, 2019. The applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to an existing single detached dwelling with a rear yard setback of 5.50 metres whereas 7.50 metres is required. View from Heritage Drive 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: General Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to encourage a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback is appropriate and continues to maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The current R-3 zoning requires a 7.50 metres setback from the rear lot line to ensure that there is adequate rear yard amenity space. The property in question is a corner lot and has a rear yard setback of 8.15 metres, which does not allow for an addition on the home without requiring a variance. The reduction in the rear yard setback would have minimal impacts and would continue to permit a usable rear yard amenity space. As such, staff is satisfied the requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 5.50 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Minor Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor and the approval of this application will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. The proposed reduction in the rear yard setback will be negligible due to the short lot depth and will not impact the existing neighbourhood. Appropriate and Desirable The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of the variance. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the condition outlined below in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided the building permit for the carport and sunroom enclosure is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741- 2433 with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Following comments from Transportation, Planning staff have confirmed that the 4.57 metres driveway visibility triangles are maintained for the existing driveway. RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2019-059 requesting permission to construct an addition to an existing single detached dwelling to have a rear yard setback of 5.50 metres rather than the permitted 7.5 metres, be approved without conditons. Jenna Daum Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Technical Assistant (Planning and Zoning) Senior Planner Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Staff Report Development Services Department 1 K�_W FLE. P.x www.kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16t", 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Junior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD: 1 DATE OF REPORT: July 8th, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-164 SUBJECT: A2019-060 — 72 Archer Place Applicant — Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning Recommendation: Approve with condition Location Map: 72 Archer Place REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property located at 72 Archer Place is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in the Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. Staff conducted a site inspection of the property on June 14th, 2019. The applicant is requesting to legalize the use of the property as a triplex, whereas a multiple dwelling is not a permitted use in the zone. The applicant is also requesting permission to *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. legalize a side yard setback of 0.66 metres rather than the minimum 1.2 metre side yard setback. The applicant is also requesting relief from section 6.1.1.1 d) i) to allow parking to be located between the fagade and the street line, within the minimum side yard setback. The applicant has submitted a site plan application for the triplex use that is currently under review. View of Existing Building (June 14th, 2019) 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. Addition of Use (Triplex) General Intent of the Official Plan 1. The requested variance meets the general intent of the 2014 Official Plan. The Official Plan encourages redevelopment that provides for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types to satisfy the varying housing needs of the community. In addition, it encourages the retention and rehabilitation of existing housing to maintain the housing stock, stability, and community character of established residential neighbourhoods. General Intent of the Zoning By-law 2. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The property has been used as a triplex previously and functioned without issue. The general intent of the Zoning By-law is to provide for overall low density uses in the zone. Staff is of the opinion that adding one additional unit above the maximum of 2 (duplex) in this zone will still provide for a low density use and will therefore meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law Is the Variance Appropriate? 3. The triplex use is appropriate for the neighbourhood. The applicant does not propose any alterations to the building or the site, as sufficient parking exists. The use of triplex is a low density use and can be considered appropriate in this low density neighbourhood. Is the Variance Minor? 4. The variance is considered minor. The addition of 1 unit is a small increase and is not expected to cause adverse impacts. The site conditions allowing for 3 units are already existing. Side Yard Setback General Intent of the Official Plan 1. The requested variance meets the general intent of the 2014 Official Plan. The Official Plan encourages retention of older housing to maintain community character. The existing side yard setback represents an existing condition from when the home was built while the neighbourhood was developed in the 1950s. Therefore, the requested variance to legalize the side yard setback meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law 2. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The regulation that requires a 1.2 metre side yard setback is intended to provide adequate separation and access to the rear yard. The subject property is a corner lot, so there is abundant space for access to the rear yard on the exterior side lot line facing Lyndhurst Street. The 0.66 metre side yard abuts a driveway on the adjacent lot at 78 Archer Place, which provides for adequate separation of buildings. Staff has no concerns with the existing side yard setback and are of the opinion that it meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Appropriate? 3. The proposed variance is considered desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The side yard setback represents an existing condition since construction of the dwelling over 60 years ago. Therefore, Staff considers the existing condition to be appropriate. Is the Variance Minor? 4. The variance is considered minor. The requested variance represents a small decrease in setback and a condition that is existing. Parking Location General Intent of the Official Plan 1. The requested variance meets the general intent of the 2014 Official Plan. The Official Plan encourages retention of older housing to maintain community character. The driveway location represents an existing situation that is part of the community character. Therefore, the requested variance is requesting to keep the location of the driveway and meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law 2. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The regulation that prohibits required parking between the fagade and the street line, and within the side yard setback is intended to effectively screen parking and discourage parking from being a dominant feature on the streetscape. In this situation, the driveway is existing and functions just as a 3 car wide driveway would for a single detached or duplex dwelling. Staff would not like to see the parking pushed back behind the building in this situation, as this would create a large paved area that would encompass the full width of the lot, thereby creating a more dominant parking area that would diminish the look of the streetscape, as well as reduce the amenity space on site. Staff is of the opinion that the current driveway location is the best way to ensure that parking is not a dominant feature in the streetscape and therefore the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Appropriate? 3. The proposed variance is considered desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Staff prefers the current location of the driveway in order to minimize impervious surface on site, preserve amenity space, and ensure that parking areas are not dominant to the streetscape. Is the Variance Minor? 4. The variance is considered minor. No impacts are expected as the driveway location is currently existing. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided the building permit for the change of use into a triplex is obtained to legalize the existing use. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with this application. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. RECOMMENDATION That application A2019-060 requesting permission to convert an existing duplex into a triplex having an existing southerly side yard setback of 0.66m rather than the required 1.2m; having the required 3 parking spaces located within the minimum side yard abutting Lyndhurst Drive whereas the By-law does not permit parking within the side yard; and, to permit a Triplex use whereas the By-law does not currently permit a Triplex in the existing zone be approved , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner obtain an Occupancy Certificate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning prior to December 31St, 2019. Eric Schneider, BES Junior Planner Juliane von Westerholt, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Staff Repod Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Junior Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD: 9 DATE OF REPORT: July 5, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-165 SUBJECT: A2019-061 — 15 Peter Street Applicants — Matthew Warzecha, GSP Group Inc. on Behalf of Brian Lapointe Approved with conditions Location Map: 15 Peter Street *** 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 15 Peter Street is zoned Residential Seven (R-7), with Special Regulation 136R and designated Low Rise Multiple Residential in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan of the City Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to convert a single detached dwelling to a Multiple dwelling with 3 units and cannot meet the requirements of Section 41.2.6 of the Zoning By-law. The applicant is requesting relief to permit the following: a) To contain a multiple dwelling with a lot width of 11.9 metres rather than the required 15 metres; b) A front yard setback of 3.2 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres; c) A rear yard setback of 6.7 meters rather than the required 7.5 metres; Further relief is being sought from Section 6.1.2 a) to reduce the required parking to 0.33 spaces per unit whereas 1.0 spaces per unit is required. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on July 4, 2019. 15 Peter Street 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. General Intent of Official Plan 1. The subject property is designated Low Rise Multiple Residential in the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. The intent of this designation is to encourage a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested variances to legalize the existing setbacks are appropriate and continues to maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. Staff is in support of the application as it is compatible with the established neighbourhood. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of Zoning By-law 2. The requested minor variances for a lot width of 11.9 metres rather than the required 15 metres, a front yard setback of 3.2 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, and a rear yard setback of 6.7m rather than the required 7.5m, all meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The requests for the lot width and front and rear yard variances all recognize an existing situation. The applicant has advised that all renovation work will be internal to the building and there will be no exterior modifications. The requested minor variance to reduce the required parking to 0.33 spaces per unit whereas 1.0 spaces per unit is required is warranted as the property cannot provide 3 legal parking spaces on site. Staff is of the opinion that when the conversion is complete and occupancy is permitted that future tenants are to be formally advised, that there is no parking for 2 of the units. Staff also notes that on -street parking is available on nearby side streets which can help accommodate occasional parking. Furthermore, the property is located within 500 metres of both the Queen Street and Cedar Street ION light rail stations. The proximity to these stations provides an alternative mode of transportation to the future tenants. It is the opinion of staff that the required variances meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Application is Minor 3. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are minor and the approval of this application will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. The proposed reduction in the lot width and side and rear yard setbacks will be negligible due to the fact they recognize an existing situation. Application in Appropriate 4. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variances should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved subject to the conditions outlined below in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Application has been made to change the use into a triplex and is currently under review Transportation Services Comments: As this is an existing condition, coupled with the location to the downtown and ION Rail stations, Transportation Services can support the proposed reduced parking rate for the triplex use. Environmental Comments: Environmental Planning has no concerns with this application. Heritage Comments: Heritage Planning staff has reviewed the minor variance application and do not have any concerns. Please note that 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 applicant is advised that the property municipally addressed as 15 Peter Street is located within the Cedar Hill 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. RECOMMENDATION That minor variance application A2019-061 requesting permission to permit a multiple dwelling with 3 units to have a lot width of 11.9m rather than the required 15m; a front yard setback of 3.2m rather than the required 4.5m; a rear yard setback of 6.7m rather than the required 7.5m and to reduce the required parking to 0.33 spaces per unit whereas 1.0 spaces per unit is required, be approved with conditions: 1. That a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate is obtained from the Planning Division to establish the Multiple Dwelling use on the property. 2. That all conditions shall be completed prior to May 1St, 2020. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. Tim Seyler, BES Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Junior Planner Senior Planner Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 1 Staff Report i�TTCH� N� R Community Services Department www kitchener cn REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Sheryl Rice Menezes, Planning Technician — 519-741-2200 ext. 7844 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner -519-741-2200 ext. 7157 WARD: 1 DATE OF REPORT: July 9, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-166 SUBJECT: A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place Owner — Margaret Lander Applicant — Marcel Bradbury Approve as Amended with Conditions for Variances # 1-3 Refuse for Variance #4 REPORT Planning Comments: The property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) with Special Provision 129U in By-law 85-1 and is designated as Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan. Staff visited the site on July 4, 2019. The owner is requesting permission to operate a home business in an existing single detached dwelling to: 1) permit two employees (paid / volunteer), rather than the permitted maximum of one employee (Section 5.13.2 a); 2) permit the required off-street parking spaces to be located in tandem, whereas the By-law does not permit tandem parking spaces when there is an employee(s) (Section 5.13.2 j); 3) have a driveway located 0 metres from a side lot line, rather then the required 3 metres (see below) (Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e); 4) and to have a side yard of 2.37 metres, rather than the required 3 metres when a driveway is located leading to a required parking space (Section 37.2.1). During Staff's review of the application, it was noted that item #3, referred to above, incorrectly references a measurement. Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e) requires that a driveway shall not be located closer than 0_6 metres to the side lot line. Staff recommends that item #3 be amended to read as follows: 3) have a driveway located 0 metres from a side lot line rather then the required 0.6 metres. Background In 2008, a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate was issued for a home business for an administration office for the tradesman or contractor's establishment, which also permitted indoor storage only and did not permit any employees. Staff acknowledges that a residential zone is not an appropriate location for a tradesman or contractor's establishment, therefore, the Zoning Occupancy permit as noted above, only permitted the "office" for the contractor's business, as well as only permitting some indoor storage. Since 2011, there has been a history of complaints over the outdoor storage of contractor/ building materials being stored on the site. City By-law Enforcement Staff has been out to the site on a number of occasions to address the complaints received. More recently, concerns by the neighbourhood were received by the City over employees coming and going to the site and parking in the area, as well as the parking or storage of construction vehicles/trailers on the site. The applicant has advised the City that the contractor's vehicles, as well as the building materials that have been observed on the property were for construction and landscaping work on his (the subject) property. Staff also notes that the building permits for the rear yard addition, which includes the home office portion of the house, and permits for the front yard porch remain outstanding. As a condition of the approval of the variances Staff will be requesting that the permits be closed and all work related thereto be completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. The subject lands are located on a cul-de-sac, which due to the geometry of the road results in reduced on street parking opportunities. In response to the complaints received from the neighbourhood regarding the parking of contractor's vehicles on the street and driveway, which is compounded by the already limited parking along this street, the City's Transportation Staff installed "no parking signs" along the landscaped circle inside the cul-de-sac in order to address this concern. Since early this year, City Staff has been working with the owner to confirm the uses occurring at his property and to reaffirm the inappropriateness of a tradesman/contractor's establishment in a residential zone particularly on a cul-de sac. As a result of the conversations with Staff, the original 2008 Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate was voided and in April 2019 the applicant submitted an updated Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate for a home business for office use only with no employees. As a condition of the approval of the requested variances, a new Zoning Occupancy Certificate will be required to clearly demonstrate that the home business is permitted to have a maximum of two employees at any one time. The owner has submitted a variance application to permit his home business for office use only to permit a maximum of two employees at any one time, including paid employees or volunteers for the premises. 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. Variances 1 & 2 (related to permit two employees and to permit parking spaces in tandem) General Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The proposed use as a single detached dwelling with a home business meets the intent of the designation, which encourages a full range of housing types to achieve a low-density neighbourhood. The primary land use is residential, but it is intended that complementary non-residential uses, such as a proposed home office business may be permitted provided appropriate zoning and regulations are in place. The location of a home office as a home business is intended to be located completely within the existing home with two parking spaces for the two employees located in tandem on the existing driveway. The intent of the Official Plan will be maintained as the proposed office will not be visible from the public realm and only two parking space will be permitted in the driveway, with two spaces in the garage, so as to minimize the number of parked vehicles in front of the home. Having two vehicles in the driveway would be consistent with most residential properties and therefore does not compromise the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the regulation limiting the number of employees for a home business to one is to ensure that the property has sufficient parking and that the property maintains a residential character and the business is small in scale and does not dominate the use of the subject lands. The applicant has advised that he has one paid office employee and on occasion, he has additional workers, who do not reside in the dwelling and are not paid, such as volunteers or students. Regardless of remuneration, whether the employee is being paid or not, any worker/student who does not live at the residence is considered an employee of the home business. The applicant is seeking permission to allow two employees at any one time to the property for the home office business. The parking requirement is one space for the dwelling, one space for the business and one space for an employee. The proposed two employees require two spaces for a total parking requirement at the site of four spaces. The regulation that the parking not be in tandem is to ensure that all parking spaces are accessible. However, it is noted that in a home business, the business owner is generally on-site at the same time and the movement of vehicles to access the garage should not impact the parking area. The applicant has also advised that the students who visit the site generally walk from public transit, as they do not have their own vehicles. The request to have two employees at any one time is considered to meet the general intent of Zoning By-law as sufficient parking can be provided and the increase of one additional employee at any one time continues to maintain the small scale of the home office use. In addition to the parking regulations discussed above, the By-law permits a maximum of three clients or customers to the property at any one time. Staff has consulted with the applicant, who advises that due to the nature of his business, clients do not have to attend the site. This would reduce the number of vehicles that may be on the property, which would be more in keeping with the residential nature of the neighbourhood and would minimize any congestion of on street parking on the cul-de-sac, which already has limited parking available. In order to ensure that the nature of this business does not encourage customers to come and go to the site, Staff recommends that a condition be implemented that no clients or customers are permitted directly to the site. Consequently, there will be no need for signage for a home business and Staff also recommends a condition that prohibits signage or any other type of advertising on the property. This too well help maintain the residential nature of this property within this low-density residential neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing, the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained as staff is satisfied that the home office business is at an appropriate scale. Several conditions have been tied to the variance approval to ensure that the home office business remains at an appropriate scale and impacts if any are minimal. Variances are Appropriate The proposed variances are appropriate for the development of the property and streetscape. The applicant currently has approval for a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate for a home business (office) with no employees. This variance request for two employees at any one time is considered appropriate provided they are office employees only and therefore Staff recommends a condition that no construction -related employees be permitted to the site. Based on the above, Staff considers the application appropriate for the property and surrounding streetscape. Minor The request for one additional employee at any one time continues to maintain the small scale of the home business and parking is available on-site to accommodate the employees as well as the homeowner. No additional impacts to the neighbourhood are anticipated and therefore the proposed variance is considered minor. Variance 3 (Existing Driveway Setback) General Intent of the Official Plan As indicated above the property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP) which prioritizes residential uses and the variance for a reduction in the driveway setback is recognizing an existing situation and does not compromise the general intent of the OP as the predominant use of the lands remains residential. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the regulation to have a 0.6 metres setback for a driveway from a side lot line is to ensure sufficient area for property drainage between properties from the side yard to the street. There have been no concerns received in regards to drainage on this site, nor have complaints been received regarding drainage. It is noted that only a small portion of the driveway within the subject property line abuts the side lot line that is the subject of this variance. The majority of the 0 m setback for the driveway is within the City owned boulevard. The remainder of the hard surface abutting the side lot line was originally constructed for a walkway leading to the shed in the rear yard. A hard surface walkway is permitted, provided it does not impact drainage from the site. As no complaints over drainage issues related to the walkway have been received and as the requested variance is recognizing a situation that already exists, Staff is therefore of the opinion that the general intent of the by-law is being maintained. Appropriate The existing driveway has been constructed with aesthetically pleasing materials and as noted above, only a small portion of the driveway abuts the side lot line within the subject property. The variance requested will bring the property into conformity, and little or no impacts are anticipated as a result of this variance. Therefore, the variance to allow the reduced driveway setback for a small portion of the driveway, which is a result of the irregular geometry of the site, is considered appropriate. Minor The proposed variance to reduce the driveway setback to 0.0 metres from 0.6 metres is recognizing an existing situation for which no complaints regarding drainage or other impacts have been received by the City. As such, the nature of this request is considered minor, as it does not detract from the residential use of the subject lands Variance 4 (Side Yard for a Pr000sed Drivewa General Intent of the Official Plan To reiterate, the property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP) which prioritizes residential uses and the variance for a reduction in the side yard setback leading to the shed. The general intent of the OP as the predominant use of the lands remains residential, despite the request to reduce the side yard. The merits of the request will be more closely discussed in the section analysing the general intent of the Zoning By-law below. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of this regulation in the Zoning By-law is to ensure that an adequate and appropriate hard surface area exists for the parking of vehicles. The proposed variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the existing dwelling is to permit an extension to the existing driveway along the side of the house. Transportation Staff has advised that a side yard of 2.37 metres is insufficient to provide appropriate access to the side yard for vehicles. It is noted that a portion of the 2.37 metres is currently occupied with a garden along the side of the house and should any future owner of this property or the neighbouring property construct a fence along the side lot line, then it would further impede access to the side yard. Based on the above, Staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law regarding this variance is not met. Appropriate The addition of more parking area to a relatively large parking area at the front of the house creates an increased parking area of a size larger than average for this type and size of dwelling. It is noted that the detached structure shown in the photo above was issued a building permit in 2007 as a "24 x 10 foot shed". It was not possible to obtain the permit for a detached garage because the zoning regulations for the driveway could not be met. Therefore, as the hard surface along the side of the house is a walkway and demarcated as such, it shall not be permitted to be parked on. In addition, it is noted that the parking of utility trailers is not prohibited within a side yard if they are less than 6 metres in length (Section 6.5). However, in this case, parking or storing of any size of trailer at the side of the house would create the appearance of the walkway being a part of the existing driveway and Staff is of the opinion that it is not appropriate for this property and should therefore be prohibited. Staff recommends that these terms be a condition of the approval of the variance, as noted in the Recommendations section below. It is Staff's opinion that the location of vehicles and utility trailers within a reduced side yard is not appropriate. Minor While the reduction of the required side yard from 3.0 metres to 2.37 metres appears minor when only referring to numbers, however, the potential impacts to the streetscape and overall residential nature of the neighbourhood are not minor. This final variance would result in the front of the house resembling a parking lot rather than a residential driveway through the increased storage of parked cars in the front and side yards of the home. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the impact of this variance is not minor and should not be supported. Consequently, based on comments above, Staff consulted with owner and advised that the four required parking spaces in tandem should be relocated in the garage and in front of garage only. No parking is to be permitted within the side yard. This will implement the requested variance number 2 for the permission to allow tandem parking for the two employees at any one time. As a condition of approval of the second variance, Staff will also require an updated parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning in consultation with Transportation Services. The applicant is further advised that the City will require that a new building permit for the Home Office Business be obtained and that all outstanding building permits be closed as a condition of these variances. Failure to do so will result in the variances being null and void. Based on the foregoing, Planning Staff recommends that variances #1 to #3 of this application be approved, as amended, with the conditions noted in the Recommendations section below. Planning Staff recommends that variance #4 be refused. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit for the home business is obtained. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Variance # 4 - Transportation Services cannot support the proposed tandem parking spaces along the side of the house as there insufficient width for vehicles to access the proposed spaces. Variances #1 and 2 - However, Transportation Services can support the amendment for tandem parking for up to four (4) vehicles with two (2) vehicles located within the garage, and the other two (2) vehicles located in front of the garage. Variance # 3 - As the driveway is currently an existing condition; Transportation Services has no concerns regarding the reduced driveway setback of 0 metre as opposed to 0.6 metres. Engineering Comments: No comments. Heritage Planning Comments: No concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns. RECOMMENDATION: That application A 2019-061 requesting permission to operate a home office business in an existing single detached dwelling: 1) To have two employees at any one time (paid and/or volunteer), rather than the permitted maximum of one employee (Section 5.13.2 a); 2) To have the required off-street parking spaces located in tandem, whereas the By-law does not permit tandem parking spaces when there are employees (Section 5.13.2 j); and, 3) To have a driveway located 0 metres from a side lot line rather then the required 0.6 metres (Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e); be approved, as amended, subject to the following conditions: 1) No clients/patrons are to be entering the premises; 2) No employees associated with the construction portion of the business are to be on the property; 3) No outdoor storage associated with the contractor's business is to be located anywhere on the property; 4) No parking of vehicles or utility trailers are to be located in any walkway; either at the side of the house or in front of the porch; 5) No parking of vehicles or utility trailers for the construction business are to be located in the driveway as that is required for the use of employee parking for the home office business; 6) No signage is to be permitted; 7) That an updated application for a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate to acknowledge the two office employees at any one time is to be submitted to the Planning Division for approval; 8) That an updated to scale drawing showing the amended tandem parking spaces is to be submitted to both the Planning Division and the Transportation Services Division; 9) That a building permit is to be obtained from the Building Division for the home business and that outstanding/open permits currently on file are closed; 10) That an updated Business License is to be obtained from the Licensing Division; if required, and, 11)That conditions #7 to 10 be completed by December 1, 2019. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate) prior to completion date set out in this decision. Failure to complete the conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void; and, That application A 2019-061 requesting permission for the dwelling to have a side yard of 2.37 metres rather than the required 3 metres when a driveway is located leading to a required parking space be refused (Section 37.2.1) Sheryl Rice Menezes, CPT Planning Technician (Zoning) Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Holly Dyson From: Sent: 04 July, 2019 9:44 AM To: Holl D son Cc: Subject: Application for Zoning Variance at 920 Keewatin PI Greetings, Holly. I understand that Margaret Lander and Marcel Bradbury of 920 Keewatin PI have applied for a zoning variance at the address indicated above. I want to register my concern about this application and encourage, in the strongest possible terms, that this application be rejected. There is a lot of history related to this situation and a many details that I will not go into; you will see that I have copied Eon this message. They have done a lot of good work on reviewing and researching the context around this application and have submitted, or will be submitting, a comprehensive outline of the dynamics and legalities of the application and its lack of suitability and lawfulness in our small court. They have my complete confidence in presenting the case for rejection of the 920 Keewatin PI application. Thank you for taking the concerns of the residents of Keewatin PI seriously. We want to live in a friendly, quiet residential environment that, no doubt, city planners envisaged when designing this neighbourhood. Holly Dyson From: Sent: 06 July, 2019 9:49 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: Concern Regarding the Application for Zoning Variance at 920 Keewatin PI Dear Holly, I want to register my deep concern about the variance request put forward by Margaret Lander and Marcel Bradbury of 920 Keewatin Place. My understanding when I moved here just over years ago was that this lovely small residential court was a model of what city planners had envisioned for this area of Kitchener. However, what we found was the disruptive and invasive home-based construction business of Lander and Bradbury. This business has brought: • many construction vehicles (large and small) to the court -- often blocking the court roadway and therefore blocking my movement • heavy traffic at all times of day and night including the bright lights from evening vehicles shining in our windows • pedestrian danger (my ability to walk in the court) because of the excessive speed of some of the drivers • reason for pause regarding my over-all safety This court is small with only 12 houses; the additional traffic stress and the constant unknown vehicles in the court related to the Lander and Bradbury business has disrupted the quality of life we thought we were getting by moving to Kitchener. Thank you for registering my concerns; please also register my plea to not accept the Lander and Bradbury variance request. I'm happy to speak with you further on this if you wish. Warm Regards, Holly Dyson From: Sent: 08 July, 2019 10:40 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: Variance letter Dear Holly, This message is to register my concern about the variance requested by Margaret Lander and Marcel Bradbury of 920 Keewatin Place. Over the years I have watched the Lander and Bradbury construction company take over vehicle and pedestrian movement in the court. It has been disturbing to watch how one household can hold a small court like ourshostage with their business; it affects our quality of life as well as our feeling of safety and well- being. The thought of Lander and Bradbury adding more to their home-based business is disturbing and not what we had anticipated when we moved here. Thank you for registering my concerns. I urge you reject the Lander and Bradbury variance request as well as work towards bringing them into compliance with the rules and laws of Kitchener regarding home-based businesses. Regards, Holly Dyson From: Sent: 10 July, 2019 3:07 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: A 2019-062 920 Keewatin Place To: The Committee of Adjustment, City of Kitchener July 10, 2019 Attention: Holly Dyson We are the owners of in Kitchener. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the Application for Variance (A 2019-062). We purchased this house after investigating a number of suitable properties in Kitchener. But the fact this home was on a quiet court, in a lovely residential area, was a strong deciding factor for us. We paid a premium for that, in both purchase price and in ongoing property tax. We felt the quality of life this location would afford us was worth the cost. However, shortly after moving in, we noticed the "symphony" of vehicular traffic the Applicant would orchestrate each morning, and evening, to accommodate the number of vehicles, and people (employees, tradespeople) coming and going from his residence. We were extremely disappointed to discover the Applicant runs his construction company from his home. Had we known we were moving a couple of doors down from a busy commercial operation, we doubt we would have proceeded with this particular home purchase. We are aware of at least one other submission in opposition to the Application for Variance from fellow Keewatin Place residents,■_ We are supportive of their efforts to provide a thorough and detailed submission. We would also like to bring to your attention that on April 10, 2019, we were in attendance at a meeting held at the City of Kitchener offices with Charles Zeidler, Alain Pinard, Janine Oosterveld, and three other Keewatin Place residents. The purpose of that meeting was to express our shared opposition to a request the City had received in the Spring from the Applicant for Modification of his Occupancy Certificate and a Zoning Variance. At that meeting, we were advised that among other things, the Applicant had applied for a Business Licence. We were told by these three City of Kitchener representatives that the Applicant had been operating his construction business from his residence on Keewatin Place for many years, apparently WITHOUT holding a valid business licence. We were further advised in that meeting that the Applicant had indicated on his business licence application that his intention was to act solely as a construction estimator, with NO employees and NO business activity conducted at his residence. We were told meetings with potential and existing clients, and tradespeople, would be held offsite, not at his residence. This was certainly a departure from the business activity he had been conducting from his residence for the past several years (again, we refer you to— submission to the City in this regard for details of the full extent of the business dealings the Applicant had been engaging in on this residential court). And quite frankly, if this WAS the intention of the Applicant —to run a home-based business under those new parameters — we would have been satisfied with that change in practice, with the expectation that it would most likely return this small court to the quiet, peaceful nature it was originally intended to provide. At the April 10/19, we asked IF a business licence was to be issued, under the premise of running a construction estimating practice ONLY (with no employees and no business conducted at his residence), would there be anything within the City's business licencing rules that would preclude the Applicant from quickly abandoning the estimating -only business model, and ramping his construction business back up, overtime? And would the issuance of the business licence in the Spring of 2019 protect him from further intervention, or revocation of his business licence, by the City of Kitchener, should he do so? Mr. Pinard, Mr. Zeidler and Ms. Oosterveld would not answer that question, but Ms. Oosterveld very kindly referred it to Julie Kalbfleisch, Licencing Inspector, City of Kitchener, and we had a very helpful phone conversation with Ms. Kalbfleisch on April 11, 2019. She told us that the Applicant's business licence application had been approved, and his licence was to be issued April 12, 2019. Our understanding, and our interpretation, of the information she provided to us, in response to our further questioning, was that going forward, the Applicant would have the right to CHANGE the nature of his business without notifying the City, as long as the changed business model fell within the broad -ranging definitions of the category under which this licence was issued. Our understanding and interpretation is that if the nature of the business changed in such a fashion that the business activities undertaken were in contravention of City by-laws, etc., the City would investigate and "correct" the situation, if need be. We were told this sort of investigation is typically prompted by neighbourhood complaints received by the City. Our understanding is that even if the City determined the business practices were NOT appropriate under the Applicant's current licencing, he would have the right to apply for ADDITIONAL business licences, perhaps under different categories, that COULD permit the nature of the business he decided to run from his home. So based on his recent Application for Variance, we are making the assumption that the Applicant has now decided to change the nature of his home-based business —from an estimating -only, one -man -show —to the return to a full-blown construction operation, whereby he needs more parking, more employees, and more concessions from the City, and his fellow residents. In our opinion, if this Application for Variance is approved, and the Applicant is permitted to change his business practice from one that is currently — again, according to the information provided to us — "estimating only", to revert back to the construction operation he had been conducting for several years, it will be at the expense of the peace, comfort, safety, and property values of the Applicant's neighbours. In closing, we object to, and ask the City of Kitchener to reject, the Application for Variance at 920 Keewatin Place. Due to a prior commitment, we are unable to attend the meeting to be held on July 16. We thank you for the opportunity to submit our concerns and objections in writing, and further thank you for your thoughtful consideration before rendering your decision on the Application in question. Sincerely, ler Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Dear Committee of Adjustment: My family and I have lived on Keewatin Place for many years. We have seen and experienced disruption, noise, dust, and traffic as a result of the activities of the construction company that is located at 920 Keewatin Place. We are very concerned that the variances requested at 920 Keewatin Place will make a bad situation even worse. We are concerned that 920 Keewatin Place will be turned into a commercial or industrial property by an increase in the number of vehicles and people that go there every day and turning the front yard into a parking lot. Because of the history of this construction company and its owner, it is impossible to have faith that any business being operated at 920 Keewatin Place will follow municipal laws and act in a respectful manner toward its neighbours. This is not a commercial or industrial zone, but the construction business has turned it into one. Home-based businesses are welcome in this community. But Master Trades Group is not a business meant to be operated out of a home in this neighbourhood. I have read the submission that are making to the Committee of Adjustment. I agree with it entirely and cannot add anything more to the truthful and valid points that are made. I support it completely and respectfully ask that the variances not be granted. Holly Dyson From: Sent: 10 July, 2019 4:14 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: Fw:: A2019-062 920 Keewatin Place Attachments: A 2019-062 - 920 Keewatin Place.pdf We would like to express our opinion. We are against a variance at 920 Keewatin Place as illustrated in the attachment below. These individuals have ran a construction business out of this home without a permit for years and still do as per their website. Past behaviour is always a predictor of future contact and as you can see through the many pictures and through the descriptions that this is a full-scale construction company. When we purchased our home 20 years ago we raised our three children who are now adults I never thought I would be metres away from a construction company. This is a residential street not zoned for a construction company. The city of Kitchener needs to hear the voice of the residents that live on the street and not grant this variance. Master trades group needs to find an area to operate where it is zoned for a construction company and that is not on Keewatin Place. I am hoping when this decision is rendered that all departments of the city including bylaw and zoning along with the police department have issued their reports on the many times that they have had frequent our street and 920 Keewatin Place. At anytime if you have any questions feel free to contact us directly. Yours res ectfull July 11, 2019 Attention: Committee of Adjustment, City of Kitchener RE: A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place My wife , and I oppose the Application for Variance in the strongest terms. As— neighbours to the Applicants, we stand to be adversely impacted by the variances, if granted. We further believe that the quality of life of the community in general would be eroded. We oppose the variances on the following grounds: A. The construction business operated by the Applicants is inconsistent with the character and nature of the neighbourhood. By facilitating the operations of this construction company, the variances stand to aggravate the existing situation and render the property and the business more consistent with a commercial or industrial zone than a residential one. Moreover, a construction business is not an approved business -type for a home business according to the Zoning By -Law. B. By their past behaviour, we believe that the Applicants will not abide by the parameters of the zoning by-law and any variances thereof. Rather, we believe that the variances would afford the Applicants cover or concealment to exceed the parameters of the Zoning By -Law, making it more difficult for authorities to detect infractions and conduct enforcement. C. We believe that the Applicants have not fulfilled their responsibilities under the terms of the Application for Variance by not having placed the notification sign, for a period of six days, in an area that is plainly visible. We further assert that the Application is deficient in terms of compelling rationale in support of the variances. D. In their totality, these four variances are hardly minor in nature, but rather are significantly impactful and risk altering irretrievably the character and nature of the neighbourhood. An individual and incremental consideration of the variances would provide prudent risk management in a manner consistent with stewardship role of the Committee of Adjustment. E. We believe that the Applicants may acquire the required driveway space by making minor alterations to their own property without having to incur upon the minimum setback distance on the south side of the lot. F. The variances stand to significantly degrade the appearance and normal functionality of the property to the detriment of the community. G. The variances permit the Applicants a disproportionate share of the community's resources in terms of on -street parking. 2 A. Construction Business is Inconsistent with Neighbourhood We retired to Keewatin Place in March 2018 with the reasonable expectation of living in a quiet residential neighbourhood. As depicted by the photograph below, Keewatin Place is a picturesque neighbourhood at the centre of which is a lovely landscaped and treed boulevard that offers a meeting place for neighbours and a safe zone for small children to play. There are aged persons living on the street and in the vicinity who enjoy the surroundings as well. For us, it is the "dream" home in a perfect neighbourhood. Staging of trucks, bins, trailers, equipment r - 'Xam"73 However, as the winter turned into spring, we would become devastated to discover that we had moved beside a construction company — Master Trades Group (MTG) owned and operated by the Applicants. Though the Applicants possessed neither a business license nor an Occupancy Certificate permitting the attendance of employees, the Applicants had utilized the quiet "court" and their driveway as staging and parking grounds for various bins, trailers, trucks and equipment related to the construction business. The Applicants' residence, furthermore, contained the offices of MTG where I witnessed up to seven employees in attendance at one time and where I have seen three or four work stations and related items such as photocopier, filing cabinets, stationary, etc. The photograph below depicts the placement of the offices, which are located on the ground floor of the addition to the back of the residence. 3 Please refer to Appendix "A"—Master Trades Group Operations 2018 for photographs illustrating various construction -related operations occurring at 920 Keewatin Place and on the street itself. There are two instances of construction operations that are particularly noteworthy and are illustrated in the photographs below. They show vehicles and trailers belonging to MTG driving over the boulevard in an attempt to maneuver into places that were not designed for such purposes. These examples are reflective of the Applicants' treatment of the neighbourhood generally and their apparent disregard for the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic from within the neighbourhood and outside. Above: The Applicant's truck backs a trailer onto the boulevard that is often visited by children and senior citizens. Below: To the amazement of landscapers working on my property, the Applicant drives his truck and construction bin over the boulevard. 7 j It is, moreover, a contravention of the City of Kitchener Traffic and Parking By -Law to drive on the boulevard: Driving On a Boulevard, Sidewalk or Multi -Use Trail N No person shall drive a motor vehicle or a motor - assisted vehicle on any boulevard, sidewalk or multi -use trail except at a driveway. 4 In another instance, the Applicant received a parking infraction ticket from By -Law Enforcement for having parked unattended a large construction bin such that it impeded vehicular traffic. The bin in question is the one depicted in the photograph below (although the incident itself occurred at another time). 4 As a result of the disruptive activities of MTG, all residents of Keewatin Place saw fit to sign a petition requesting that the City of Kitchener install no parking signs along the boulevard. The goal was to limit the space available for the Applicants to park their bins, trailers, trucks and equipment. To the credit of the City's Transportation Services, no parking signs were installed in a timely fashion with the intended effect. Moreover, I had made a complaint to the City's By -Law Enforcement, which took prompt action by initiating awareness and education with the Applicants. There are many additional occasions when the Applicants or vehicles associated to MTG had committed parking infractions. The photographs below are just two of these: The Applicant stops, exits the vehicle and leaves the vehicle and construction bin in the middle of the road blocking driveway egress and access. The Applicants vehicles are stopped in the middle of the roadway, the drivers apparently having a conversation. Note that the driveway's access and egress are blocked. Further note the newly installed no -parking sign. Subsection V.2.a. of the Traffic and Parking By -Law states: Unless otherwise prohibited or permitted in this by-law, no person shall park or stop a vehicle on any roadway except on the right side of the roadway, having regard to the direction in which the vehicle has been proceeding with the right front and right rear wheels or runners not more than 0.15 meters from the curb line. The operations of MTG abated during the late fall and winter 2018 as might be expected with the construction industry. I was also hopeful that the intervention of municipal officials had been impactful for the long-term. However, by January 2019, it became apparent that MTG was reviving. The screen shots below are promotional online posts of enhanced services offered by MTG. The house depicted in the advertisement is one on which Master Trades Group had worked on during 2018. Master Trades Group Jan 27, 2019 • • r • • • uu ��R S TRADESUt MAr Stay tuned. Were coming back aMaster Trades Group Jan 22, 2019 ` 5vu 5 iADA&q=master+trades+group+kitchener&btnK=Google+Search&oq=master+trades+gl rom another browser. Import favorites Stay tuned. Were coming back Master Trades Group Jan 22, 2019 FREE DESIGN IDEAS YOU CAN START WITH. MTG can lake all of your Ideas and put It on a drawing, cost R, design it, organize it and build you a great finish product. MTG has all the licensed mechanical trades and red seal carpenters to finisrt the job on time, on bugel and the ... More Call now According to the City of Guelph website Bids and Tenders, MTG had been a bid taker for a bathroom renovation at Riverside Park in January -February 2019. It appears that Master Trades Group had registered to make a bid but did not do so. Furthermore, we saw the reappearance of some construction -related equipment and illegal parking accompanied by the attendance of employees at the residence. For photographs please refer to Appendix "B"— Master Trades Group Operations 2019. M Alarmed by the resurgence of activity, I and other neighbours made complaints to By -Law Enforcement. Furthermore, in conjunction with other neighbours, written submissions were made to the City of Kitchener Planning Division, followed by a meeting with the Director of Planning and other employees. The subsequent intervention of municipal officials seemed to have had some effect as evidenced by the decline in operations at 920 Keewatin Place during March and April 2019. 1 reiterate: the Applicants had neithera business licence nor the requisite Occupancy Certificate to conduct business and have non-resident employees. Despite a lull in operations for about a few weeks, it appeared that operations had restarted at about the end of April. On April 29, 2019, 1 observed the below -noted job ad on Indeed for a Renovator -Carpenter. Renovator Carpenter Master Trades MTG - Kitchener. ON Q Kitchener, ON In Contract Master Trades Group is seeking an experienced full timelpart time, Renovator. Candidate must have at least 3 to 5 min years experience, own tools, valid drivers license, and vehicie. Reno repair experience a must. Minimal travel required. If you are interested in this position, please indicate your expected hourly rate and when you are available to start. Some cases, project pricing may be required. Estimating experience an asset. Reviews or letters of reference would be an asset Incentive bonuses are available. Remuneration is based on your experience and equipment you have. Email or Text only at: 5197164741 Joh Type: Contract Experience: Drafting: 1 year (Preferred) Windows & Doors: 1 year (Preferred) Painting: 1 year (Preferred) Construction Management: 1 year (Preferred) Commercial & Industrial: 1 year (Preferred) Home Renovations: 3 years (Preferred) Demolition: 3 years (Preferred) • Egress Windows. 1 year (Preferred) Plumbing: 1 year (Preferred) • Siding: 1 year (Preferred) Drywall: 1 year (Preferred) Faming: 1 year (Required) • Construction Sales: 1 year (Preferred) Landscaping 1 year (Preferred) Carpentry: 3 years (Required) Electrical:1 year (Preferred) Taping: 1 year (Preferred) Ventilation:1 year (Preferred) This was a surprising development since I had been informed that, as a result of intervention of the Municipality, the Applicants had apparently changed business models whereby MTG would focus on "soft" construction -related services such as estimating and project management. Indeed, the description of permitted activities as of April 12, 2019, as provided to me by Business Licensing, reads as follows: Provides soft back up services for many categories of construction industries. These services are administrative only. Services include: Bid jobs, not do physical installs, do CAD drawings, estimating job, 7 consulting, construction sale for contractors (quotes on jobs), project manage, GANTT charts, bid spec, no construction equipment. Note that the description of business activities related to the licence specifically excludes physical installs as would be performed by a Renovator -Carpenter indicated on the Indeed job post. Thereafter, we witnessed the gradual increase in attendance of the two women whom we recognized as employees previously. The identity of the woman who drives the Silver 4 -door KIA sedan is known by virtue of social media posts and information received from a former employer and client of MTG. From this information we believe that she is the office manager/bookkeeper. The identity of the woman who drives the white Nissan Rogue is unknown though we have seen her attend the residence on a daily basis during February and March 2019 with other employees. She began attending the residence at about the time that the previous construction estimator had ceased attending the residence. Since May 6, we have seen the woman from the Nissan Rogue approximately 10 times and the office manager/bookkeeper of the Silver KIA 15 times. Usually, they stayed at the residence for several hours at a time, but rarely the entire day or at the same time. This is what we just happened to see. They may have been at the residence more often and for longer times. Since June 25, furthermore, we have seen these two individuals occasionally parking in the Applicants' closed -door garage which is a practice not previously seen and may be related to the pending Application for Variance. Finally, on July 9, 1 saw the posting below on Indeed in which MTG is seeking a Construction Carpenter— Installer — Labourer. Construction Carpenter- Installer - Labourer Master Trades MTG - Mchener, ON C7 Save this job V Kitchener, ON Construction labour and carpenters needed for home renovation. Duties are varied and range from demo]ition to new installation of all aspects of renovation projects. Applicantmust have a valid drivers license with a clean abstract. Applicant must have a cell phone that can send and receive texts. Working hours are 7:30 -5:00 Monday to Friday. Wages negotiable based on experience. If you like the idea of working with a small group of knowledgeable dedicated people, in a positive and run work environment send us a message. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Job Type: Full-time Experience_ • carpentry :1 year (Preferred) - Windows & Door Install: 1 year (Preferred) Painting 1 year (Preferred) • Concrete Work 1 year (Preferred) 13—ilicn_ 1 year (Preferred) • Trade School. 1 year (Preferred) • Plumbing: 1 year (Preferred) - Siding: 1 year (Preferred) - Drywall: 1 year (Preferred) • Eaves Trough& Gutters'. 1 year(Preferred) - Equipment Operator 1 year (Preferred) • Roofing: 1 year(Preferred) • Flooring: l year (Preferred) • Landscaping: 1 year (Preferred) • Electrical: l year (Preferred) - Taping: 1 year (Preferred) Masonry & Brick Work'. 1 year (Preferred) Education - Secondary School (Preferred) Language English (Required) 22 hours ago - reponjob Geljob updA.sfmm Master Trabes WG By %electing Fnllo,v you agree to get updated infiormanm aM new jobs fm IM1is company by email. You can cancel alerts. auyr . Master Trades MTG Master Trades Group provides the onelruction trades front end eaEee and marketing while at his same time Providing back end soft busirtes_. M It is unclear from the advertisement whether it is one or several positions that are sought by MTG. Either way, the contradictions with the stated purpose of the business licence cannot be squared. That MTG is currently seeking to employ one or more Carpenter -Installer -Labourers is not at all consistent with the claim of "not do physical installs." In effect, according to the job advertisements in April and July 2019, it appears that MTG is positioning itself as a construction company and not strictly a provider of "soft back up services" as provided by the business licence. The Zoning By -Law, however, is clear that a construction company is not an approved home business type. Subsection 5.13.1 of The City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law specifies the permitted business types: 5.13 HOME BUSINESS (By-law 94-183, S.9) No person or persons shall conduct a home business except as permitted herein and in accordance with the regulations hereinafter set out: .1 Home Businesses permitted in Single Detached Dwellings and Semi -Detached Houses containing only one dwelling unit: • Academic Instruction • Artisan's Establishment (not including retail) • Canine and Feline Grooming • Health Office (not including physician, surgeon or dentist) • Office Personal Service (not including the cleaning of apparel) • Repair Service • Tourist Home (to a maximum of two bedrooms) (Amended: By-law 2012-033, S.1) (Amended: By-law 2013-124, S.15) We had every reason to believe, when we bought our home in February 2018, that the neighbourhood we chose to move into was as it appeared — a quiet residential "court". The neighbourhood reflected a character inconsistent with the operation of a construction -type business. After all, there were no business licences, signs, or zoning variances among the neighbourhood residences that would have suggested the existence of a construction company. We are not opposed to home-based businesses. There are many home-based businesses that would fit in nicely because of their unobtrusive nature and the valuable services that would be afforded to residents. In fact, just about any other business -type would be acceptable. But, a construction company in the manner operated, and likely continue to be operated, by the Applicants cannot be reasonably called a home-based business. Though the Applicants obtained a business licence for "soft backup services", the job ads of April and July 2019 suggest otherwise and, in particular, indicate an intention to run a full-fledged, operational, construction company as in the past. It must be reiterated, construction companies are not permitted home businesses according to the Zoning By -Law. B. Past Behaviour is a Predictor of Future Conduct Based on their past behaviour, I reasonably believe that the Applicants will continue to operate a business in contravention of the zoning by-law and beyond the parameters of the variances. It will not be, in my estimation, a non -obtrusive, home-based business consistent with the character of the neighbourhood. It is unlikely to bring prosperity or a valuable service to families living in the vicinity or serve a common good. I fear that it will continue to be a construction business as it has persisted since my arrival in the neighbourhood and many years previously. It will rather bring the Applicants a financial gain at the expense of the balance of 17 residents. This belief is founded on what I have perceived to be frequent and egregious contraventions of municipal by-laws related to parking, zoning, business licences, and building permits. 1. As illustrated above, the Applicants have operated a construction business without the requite business licence and occupancy certificate. The City's Zoning By -Law Subsection 5.13.2.a. is clear: only one non-resident employee is allowed in the absence of the appropriate variance (assuming appropriate parking is available): The home business shall be conducted by the person or persons resident in the dwelling unit, may include one non-resident employee and shall not attract any additional employees directly to the lot containing the home business. 2. The Applicants obtained a business licence on April 12, 2019 but only when compelled to do so. The City of Kitchener Neighbourhood By -Law Guide (2016) states the following: • All business owners are required to obtain a business license, as well as an occupancy certificate for the home based business. • Licenses and approvals must be obtained prior to operating your business. 3. The Applicants, employees, and persons associated to Master Trades Group have parked illegally on Keewatin Place and Keewatin Avenue, resulting in the issuance of parking violations and the installation of no parking signs to the detriment of all residents. 4. The activities of MTG have contravened numerous additional provisions of the zoning by-law related to home-based business as depicted in the photographs below. Construction materials stored on as trailer in front of the Applicants' staircase. Subsection 5.13.2.f. No storage or display of goods shall be visible from the street. Labourers preparing the Applicant's vehicle at the beginning of the workday. Subsection 5.13.2.a. The home business shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building. 10 Vehicles along with a trailer and construction bin are staging around the boulevard. The Pontiac Firebird between the truck and construction bin belongs to a labourer. It remains parked in that location for the entire day. Subsection 5.13.2.m. The home business shall not create noise, vibration, fumes, odour, dust, glare or radiation which is evident outside of the building. A large backhoe is stored in the Applicants' backyard. 5.13.2.e. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 5. The Applicants have had an open building permit for the construction of their addition since 2011, even though the addition has been lived and worked in for several years. Based on discussions with the building inspector, we believe that there may have been contraventions of the building code and related municipal regulations. It behooves the Committee of Adjustment to make enquiries with the building department to verify the fitness of the structure since it is being used as the offices for Master Trades Group. We believe that the Applicants may have recently (April 2019, approximately) been compelled to obtain a "retroactive" building permit for a cast -in-place staircase at the front entrance that has been in existence since before our arrival in the neighbourhood. The steps also lacked railings as required by the building code despite being used regularly. More will be said about this in the following sections. After having been warned by By -Law Enforcement about running a construction business in violation of zoning By -Laws, vehicles associated to Master Trades Group were seen parked on Keewatin Avenue suggesting, in my view, an intention to conceal continued operations and presence of employees. 11 8. Almost on a daily basis, I see the Applicants park vehicles on the stone "walk -way" that goes along the south -side of the lot, adjacent to the neighbour's property. They use the "walk -way" not only for parking but also to move vehicles in a westerly direction toward the storage garage at the back of the lot. In effect, the walk -way serves as a non -legal driveway even though there is currently no variance to permit a driveway to encroach upon the minimum sideyard set -back. The photographs depict two such instances. Upon intervention of municipal officials, the Applicants temporarily ceased or slowed down operations. However, gradually they resumed activities, especially in relation to the attendance of employees despite the 12 absence of a proper occupancy certificate or, until recently, business licence. Until July 4, 2019, we believe that there are two employees who attended the residence regularly, sometimes parking in the closed -door garage. In the Application for Variance, itself, the Applicants concede the presence of employees at the residence in the past. They state in the appendix of the Application, We have additionally have had in the past and would like to continue and improve our involvement more with students..... It is my belief that the Applicants had built the large addition in 2011 to serve as the headquarters of a construction business apparently without regard to zoning constraints. They persisted in this intention without a business license or a proper occupancy certificate. They have had multiple employees and used the neighbourhood as their staging and parking grounds. The Applicants have received at least one parking violation and caused no parking signs to be placed on the boulevard to the disadvantage of residents. The Applicants have driven over the boulevard, creating a public safety risk to children, seniors and visitors to the neighbourhood. Up until about July 4, 2019, 1 believe that the Applicants have continued to have employees on their premises without an Occupancy Certificate authorizing it or appropriate parking for them. Based on our personal experiences and observations, I find it hard to believe that the Applicants will limit themselves to two non-resident employees when the offices were built to accommodate several more and when in the past more than two had been on the premises at the same time. I find it hard to believe that the Applicants will not persist in discharging full-fledged construction operations as they have done until late winter or early spring 2019. The job ad for a renovator -carpenter of April 29 and the subsequent one of July 9, 2019 offer proof of this intention. The current lull in operations in my estimation is a calculated one to try to impress upon the City of Kitchener that their ways have changed. However, the pattern of behaviour that I have witnessed is one of contravention, followed by detection and intervention of municipal officials, followed by brief period of compliance, followed by resumption of contravening activity. I fear reasonably that the pattern will reoccur whether or not the variances are issued. However, the variances stand to make the situation worse and have the unintended effect of giving cover to contravening activity. If, for example, two non-resident employees and vehicles are permitted, it would be difficult to track who belongs there and who does not. The Applicants can easily assert that they have municipal authority to have two employees, irrespective the number that actually attends. It would be a cat - and -mouse game to try to prove otherwise. C. Terms of Application for Variance are Unfulfilled In my estimation, the Applicants have not properly fulfilled their responsibilities under the terms and conditions of the Application for Variance. On page 5 - the Acknowledgement and signing section - the Application states, 1 further acknowledge that a City -issued notification sign must be posted at the front of the subject property in a location that is visible from the street. As shown by the photographs below, the notification sign is not posted in a place that is visible from the south -side of the street. Rather, it is concealed behind the staircase up against which it is placed. Furthermore, the sign is not visible from some angles from the front of the lot because it is placed directly behind a large bush and in the shadows of bushes and vegetation behind it. The good -faith placement of the 13 sign would be directly in front of the obscuring bush and staircase. Why would the Applicants have not made the sign more conspicuous by placing it in a prominent, visible, location on the front of the lot? During the morning of July 4, 1 saw a municipal employee attend the residence and take photographs of the sign's placement. I presume that the Applicants were subsequently advised because at about 7:30 pm the Applicants had repositioned the sign to in front of the large bush as it should have been. As such, between June 28 (when the sign was to be posted) to July 4, there were 6 days in which the public was deprived of the opportunity to view the sign and learn of the Application for Variance. The spirit and intent of the notification sign is to give residents and anyone passing near the Applicants' residence reasonable opportunity to learn of the Application for Variance. If desired, opposition or support could be given and people could decide about whether to attend the public meeting to learn more about the Application and its implications. The concealment of the sign from unobstructed street view for a significant time period has effectively deprived residents and any interested party a major avenue for learning about the Application for Variance as required under municipal regulations. The Committee of Adjustment is thereby prevented from gaining salient input either in support or opposition of the Application. Accordingly, the Applicants have intentionally violated the terms of the application by concealing the sign from reasonable viewing. I believe that the Application is defective in yet one more respect. That is, the Applicants have not adequately given rationale for the request for variance. The Application asks, In your opinion, what are the reasons you are not able to comply with the Zoning By-law? In the appendix provided by the Applicants I cannot discern a direct and coherent response to this question. I view with skepticism the Applicants' claim that they are motivated by the altruistic intent of employing students, refugees and people from worn -torn countries as indicated in the appendix. Even if that were the case, several important pieces of information are missing: • The nature of the business • The availability of public transportation ( which there is plenty of) • The duties and roles of employees • The availability of on -street parking (which there is plenty of for three hour periods) • The reason for converting the walkway to a driveway on the south side of the lot 14 • The hours of operations and when employees will be present • The presence of trucks, trailers, bins, and equipment. In fact, the Applicants appear to make a case against having non-resident employees. They state in the Appendix: 1 am also focusing on using our abilities to work with these people from their homes on computer without them having to visit me for help. This is really our main focus to work from their homes not here. If the "main focus" is to have employees work from home, as clearly stated in the application, would it not suffice to have parking for just one employee instead of two? It would appear from the application that the presence of non-resident employees would be an exception rather than the rule. It might be reasonable to need the occasional attendance of one employee at a time, but not two given the information available. In all, the application is excessively vague and fails to respond adequately to a central question and requirement. D. Application is Excessively Broad The Application contains four individual requests for variance. In my view, each of these requests is problematic in the case of 920 Keewatin Place and this Application. Two employees instead of the maximum of one — the zoning bylaw allows for one employee provided that there is appropriate parking for the employee. To authorize a second employee is extraordinary and, accordingly, demands compelling justification. The application, however, does not put forth any rationale in this regard. Furthermore, it would be an exercise in due diligence to consider the request for an extra employee in the context of past conduct of the Applicants in respect of having one employee let alone two. In this case, there is no track record of the Applicant's business practices in respect of lawfully having one employee. Rather, in my estimation, the Applicant's record tells an opposite story, which does not bode favourably for having any employees at all. In -tandem parking — it is presumed that in -tandem parking is meant to provide employee parking when side-by-side parking space unavailable. If a variance is sought for that purpose, then what is the rationale to widen the driveway to the point of 0 set -back to the adjoining lot? Moreover, what is the purpose of a variance to restrict the side -lot setback to 2.37m from 3m? There is no compelling reason to do so when in -tandem parking creates sufficient parking for one or two employees. Alternatively, there is no reason for in -tandem parking when a variance is sought to widen the driveway and restrict the sideyard setback. III. To legalize the existing driveway— I do not believe that it is accurate to call the surface adjacent to the neighbour's lot on the south side a "driveway". It appears to have been intended as a walkway due to the colour, shape and orientation of the rectangular stones that divide the surface leading to the garage and the surface along the neighbour's lot. Moreover, the two surfaces are of different colour, size, and possibly different kinds of stone. 15 Walkway stones are different in size, shape and colour Bricks separating driveway from walkway This surface may have been installed in the fashion of other home owners who, to avoid obtaining a zoning variance, create a surface suitable for driving a vehicle but is a walkway in appearance. In this case, there is nothing to "legalize" as represented in the Application. To render the surface "legal", it would suffice for the Applicants to stop using it as a driveway. IV. To reduce the side-lotset back to 2.37m — Once again, the Application contains no rationale for this request. It remains unnecessary to reduce the setback for any reason related to employee parking if in -tandem parking is permitted. It would appear, as evidenced by the trailer parked on the sideyard, that the variance is to permit the sideyard to be used as driveway to store equipment and vehicles as in the past. In the event that the Applicants prefer widening of the driveway over in -tandem parking, it is possible to achieve the purpose without encroaching on the setback on the south -side. Instead, it may be possible to widen the driveway to the north with some modifications to the staircase of the front entrance and walkway. More will be said about this reasonable option below. The severance of requests into individual applications would permit their merits to be considered individually, and incrementally, in the context of the Applicants' conduct over time and their intentions as inferred by conduct. The severance of the Application would furthermore allow more fulsome rationale to be put forth that is related specifically to the variance under consideration. E. Set -Back Variances May Be Unnecessary The Applicants may be able to achieve the required parking space by re -orienting the staircase to the way that it had existed until recently. The below -noted photograph (Google Street View) depicts the pre-existing staircase, which appears to have a smaller footprint and, most importantly, may be accessed without a separate, space -intensive, walkway. It is possible, furthermore, that the new staircase may have been installed without benefit of a building permit. I believe this to be the case because in approximately April 2019 a building permit was issued by the City of Kitchener for a cast -in-place staircase (19-107222 AL) even though it had been in existence before our arrival in March 2018. Please refer to the screen shot below of the City's online permit system. 16 It further appeared that the Applicants were required to install railings as a result of the newly issued permit. My interpretation of this development is that the municipal building inspector compelled the Applicants to obtain a building permit "retroactively" after having discovered that one was built in absence of a building permit. This may be conjecture on my part because I do not have all of the details and, accordingly, I recommend that the Committee of Adjustment conduct appropriate enquiries with the Building department. Only permits applied for after January 1, 1999 will be shown Public Search -' Print Permit Num6er(e.g_ 00-0000000) Building Number Street N— OR 920 1!.,.h__]Resel Permit Number ; Project Address Q Folder Type q Sub Type q Work Type 1 Status 19-1D722\ 920 KEEWATIN PL Residential Single Detached Exterior Alteration Open Alteration Dwelling 21107 RD 920 KEEWATIN PL Residential Single Detached Addition - Res Open Building (House) Dwelling 09454 RA 920 KEEWATIN PL Residential Shed Allerationsfimprov Closed Accessory (1 or 2 ements units) Description Permit is for new cast in place concrete steps on a front porch of a single detached dwelling PERMIT IS FOR A HEATED SINGLE STOREY ADDITION WITH DECK ON TOP FORASINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. PERMIT IS FOR 24 X 10 FOOT SHED. 17 If the Applicants did not possess a building permit, they may have deprived themselves of some valuable insight from the building inspector about the implications of the modifications to the orientation of the staircase. I believe that the long walkway required for egress and ingress to the new staircase and front entrance is posing an issue for the Applicants in respect of parking space. That is, they cannot encroach on the walkway to widen the driveway because it would obstruct emergency access to the front entrance. Walkway that could be repurposed That the applicants changed the staircase, possibly without a building permit, to their determent should not be made a cost to be paid by the neighbour to the south or the neighbourhood in general. The Applicants would simply have to reorient the staircase as it existed previously. By re -orienting the staircase, it would be possible to replace the walkway with a widened driveway to the north, rather than to the south. F. Variances Would Degrade Appearance and Functionality of the Property There is barely a small sliver of grass remaining on the front yard because most space has been consumed by a large staircase and walkway leading to the staircase, on the north side, and another walkway which is currently being used as a driveway, on the south. To turn the walkways either on the south or north into an expanded driveway would render the front of the house into a veritable parking lot. There would, then, be at least two non-resident vehicles in addition to the Applicants' two vehicles on a rather small lot. The front of the property would in effect become overwhelmed by vehicles, vehicular traffic, and driveway. It is my fear that that any variances to widen the driveway would transform the Applicants' property into a commercial space in appearance and function. It would be highly inconsistent with character and design of the neighbourhood. On a more practical note, a widened driveway would leave no place for the Applicants to store snow. The current situation is testament to this expectation. Because the walkway along the side -yard on the south is being used as a driveway, space that would otherwise be used for snow storage is used for other purposes. There is little space available on the north due to presence of the new staircase and walkway. As a result, the Applicants have had to blow snow across the street and onto the boulevard. It is a predictable occurrence after every snow fall as depicted in the photograph below. These actions have stalled the passage of traffic as vehicles await the Applicants to return to the lot pushing a snow blower. Congestion on the street is IV worsened by the Applicants' practice of moving their own and employees' vehicles onto the street pending clearing of the driveway. I have also seen the Applicants shovel snow on the neighbour's side yard, too, due to having nowhere else to put it. By allowing the variances in respect of driveway expansion, the Applicants would effectively be given tacit permission to continue storing snow inappropriately and potentially in contravention of municipal by-laws and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. The Applicant blows snow across the roadway creating a visibility hazard for pedestrians and vehicles A vehicular or pedestrian accident may be an unintentional consequence of snow blowing onto the street for the mere purposes of accommodating more vehicles than the lot can now property handle. The City of Kitchener risks assuming vicarious or indirect responsibility for allowing the Applicants to have a widened driveway when to do so they must move snow inappropriately off their lot. G. Variances Excessively Onerous on the Neighbourhood There is yet one more way that the variances, if granted, could result in hardship for residents: constrained availability of on -street parking for routine residential purposes. When the Applicants' driveway is entirely full of vehicles belonging to the Applicants and non-resident employees, it may be presumed that customers and clients of the Applicants will need to park on Keewatin Place. There are, however, only 5 parking spaces that could reasonably accommodate most full-sized and/or service vehicles. There is less, when vehicles are parked inefficiently, taking up more than one spot. Hardly a day goes by when multiple parking spaces on Keewatin Place are not used by visitors, service providers, family and friends of residents. Where are they going to park when there could be up to 3 vehicles associated to the Applicants' customers and clients already taking -up parking space? There would be no choice for guests to park farther away on Keewatin Avenue or Dineen Court. This would be highly inconvenient for service providers such as plumbers, electricians, and carpenters who may need continuous access to their vehicles for tools and equipment. Moreover, the parking situation becomes more aggravated in the event that another home-based business opens on Keewatin Place. As demonstrated by the photograph below, the activities of MTG are already known to monopolize on -street parking. Three of 5 possible parking spots are taken by vehicles associated to Master Trades Group. Top: Applicant's truck and trailer Middle: Honda civic belonging to paralegal employee W.G. Side: Dodge Journey belonging to purchaser D.S. 19 It is simply unfair that the Applicants, by virtue of the variances, would be permitted a disproportionate share of the community's resources. The variances, if permitted, will allow them greater road utilization for employees and clients. The variances, moreover, would compel them to use the street and boulevard for snow storage. Finally, the Applicants stand to monopolize the street in term of parking. By not allowing any non-resident employees, the Applicants would retain sufficient space on their property for at least two customers. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, I do not believe that the Application for Variance meets the four "test" threshold. 1) Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan Master Trades Group is a construction company that has operated on Keewatin Place for many years. As recently as April 29 and July 9 2019 there have appeared advertisements on Indeed for a Renovator, Carpenter, Installer, and Labourer, although the business licence issued on April 12 is for "soft" construction services, only — "no physical installs". A construction company that is operated in the fashion that the Applicants have demonstrably done, and likely intend to continue, is inconsistent with the design and character of the residential neighbourhood. The variances, if accorded, would serve to facilitate the operation of Master Trades Group to the degradation of the community and quality of life of residents (Part "A"). 2) Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By -Law a. By my view, the job ads of April 29 and July 9, 2019 suggest the intention of running a construction company. However, the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law does not recognize a construction company as a permitted home business (Part "A"). b. The Applicants have not fulfilled their obligations under the terms of the Application because they have failed to display the notification sign in a manner that is completely visible from the street (Part "C"). c. The Applicants may have made a material misstatement on the Application by referring to the surface next to neighbour on the south as a "driveway" when it has the appearance and form of a walkway. As such, there is nothing to legalize through a variance (Part "D"). zo d. Before a variance is accorded, it would be a reasonable requirement to possess faith in the Applicants' willingness and ability to abide by the parameters of the zoning by-law and variances thereof. By their past actions, I believe that the Applicants have neither the willingness nor the ability in this regard (Part "B"). e. I believe that the variances will have the unintended consequence of promoting continued contravention of the zoning by-law. The variances stand the risk of providing cover and concealment for unauthorized activity, rendering it difficult if not impossible for enforcement officials to respond adequately to complaints (Part "B"). f. I do not believe the Applicants have provided sufficient rationale in support of their requests. Rather, it appears that they indicated that their intentions are to have employees work from home, which would render moot the need for non-resident employees and parking spaces for them (Part "C"). 3) Be Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building, or Structure a. A widened driveway, along with more dense vehicular presence and traffic, would render the residential lot more commercial in appearance and function and, accordingly, be inconsistent with the character and intent of the neighbourhood (Part "F"). A widened driveway would result in the Applicants having insufficient space to store snow, thereby compelling them to blow it onto the street and boulevard in contravention of municipal and provincial laws and to the peril of civil liability for the City (Part "F"). The Applicants may have ill-advisedly changed the orientation and size of their staircase to their own detriment and possibly without a building permit. By restoring the staircase to its original size and orientation, they may be able to repurpose the walkway on the north as a driveway without adversely affecting the appearance of the lot and space available for snow storage (Parts "E" and "F"). 4) Be Minor In Nature a. The Application for Variance is quite broad because it requests 4 variances of the zoning by- law. In my estimation, the totality of variances sought is significant rather than minor. The community would be better served by severing the Application into 4 individual applications with clearly delineated rationale for each of the requested variances (Part "D"). The variances would provide the Applicants a disproportionate share of the community's resources in terms of parking space availability on Keewatin Place (Section "G"). There is yet another test that I believe has merit. It is the "would I grant the variances if the Applicants were my neighbours" test. Given their past and current conduct, I do not think that anyone in our position would want to afford the Applicants an opportunity that might aggravate the current situation. I reiterate that there must be some confidence in the Applicants' willingness and ability to abide by municipal by-laws as a prerequisite for granting the variances. As evidenced by the concealed placement of the notification sign, I cannot see how they can be given the benefit of the doubt. There is, moreover, the continued attendance, between May 6 and July 4, of persons whom we believe are employees and who have occasionally parked their vehicles behind closed doors in the garage. The cessation of employees' attendance after July 4, furthermore, appears to coincide with the warning given by the City on that date about the concealment of the notification sign. In this case, compliance to zoning variances cannot simply be left to By -Law Enforcement. Given the Applicants' conduct, I fear that the variances themselves risk obscuring the coming and going of people and vehicles that are not authorized by the occupancy certificate and the zoning variances. How would by-law 21 officers begin to sort out "who -is -who"? There must be sufficient confidence that the Applicants will make a good faith effort in abiding by the variances and zoning by-law. While it is impossible to predict the future, it is not unreasonable to consider the past as a predictor of future behaviour. We thank the City of Kitchener and the Committee of Adjustment for having taken the time to consider this submission. We believe that our opposition to the Application for Variance has merit and we respectfully urge you to deny the Application. We may be reached anytime at Sincerely, 22 Appendix "A"— Master Trades Group Operations 2018 These photographs are representative of construction -related activities and are not meant to be an exhaustive portrayal of the situation. We took photographs when we were available, but there are many times when we were either away from home or when we felt too frustrated and tired to continue taking photographs. —rA The Applicant's truck is hitched to a construction bin and trailer while parked on the inner boulevard. A trailer with construction materials is parked in front of the Appliconts'staircose blocking egress & access. The Applicant's truck is hitched to a different construction bin and trailer while parked on the inner boulevard such that it blocks driveway access. A cement mixer is parked in the Applicants' driveway. r 4' OF A labourer is loading the Applicant's truck at the start of the work day. Labourers are preparing another of the Applicant's trucks for the workday ahead. 23 The Applicant's truck is parked unattended in the middle of the street due to insufficient parking on the driveway. The white Dodge Journey belongs to employee, purchaser D.S. Note the presence of construction materials stored on the driveway along with another truck. The Applicant loads his truck in the middle of the street, blocking driveway access. Notwithstanding the no -parking sign, the Applicant is having a conversation with someone in the vehicle that is parked in the middle of the street. 24 A pickup truck extends past the edge of the driveway while the Applicant's truck is parked unattended in the middle of the street blocking driveway access. Note the no -parking sign. The Applicant leaves his vehicle parked unattended in the middle of the street blocking driveway access. Note the no parking sign. The Applicant leaves his truck parked in a manner that partially blocks a neighbour's driveway. 25 Most parking spots are taken by vehicles associated to Master Trades Group. Top: Applicant's truck and trailer Middle: Honda civic belonging to paralegal employee W.G. Side: Dodge Journey belonging to purchaser D.S. A van is parked unattended in front of the fire extinguisher and Applicants' driveway. Applicant's truck is parked in the middle of the street blocking driveway access. 26 27 The Applicant's truck is parked in the middle of the roadway obstructing traffic. Note the Applicant's other truck is on the walkway blocking access to the front entrance. A vehicle associated to Master Trades Group is parked in the middle of the roadway, in front the fire hydrant and no -parking sign. Note that a vehicle's passage is being obstructed as a result. The Applicant's truck is hitched to a trailer. It is on the walkway on the south -side of the lot. W The Applicant leaves his truck and trailer parked in the middle of the road blocking access to two driveways. The Applicant leaves his truck parked unattended in the middle of the road as he goes back to his residence, blocking driveway access. The Applicant's truck overhangs the edge of the driveway. 29 The Applicant's two vehicles are parked in the middle of the roadway apparently having a conversation while blocking driveway access. Note the no parking sign. The Applicant's truck is parked on the walkway, blocking emergency access to the staircase and entrance to the residence. Note as well the presence of the red construction bin on the driveway. A large tractor is stored in the Applicants' backyard. Employees' Vehicles Parked on Keewatin Avenue on Wednesday August 8 @ 1:30 PM 77 Black Toyota Corolla — Project Manager F.C. M NJ ;N Pontiac Firebird — Main Labourer Red Chev—Assistan t to Project Manager 30 Brown Mini Cooper — Construction Estimator V. W. Blue Honda Civic — Paralegal W.G. The Purchaser (White Dodge Journey) D.S. was parked in the Applicants' Driveway. In total, there were 6 non-resident employees at the residence on that day. Appendix "B"— Master Trades Group Operations 2019 Similarly, these photographs are not an exhaustive portrayal of the situation. 31 The Applicant leaves his vehicle parked in the middle of the street to have a conversation with the driver of the Nissan Rogue, also parked in the middle of the street. The Nissan Rogue is there to pickup one of the Applicant's employees. Two driveways are blocked. A white pickup truck used by the Applicant is parked unattended despite the presence of no parking signs. The Applicant stops in the middle of the road to transfer materials between his vehicle and the Honda SUV. A utility trailer is moved to the road (on the wrong side) and left unattended while blocking access to a driveway. The Red construction bin overhangs the edge of the driveway. The Applicant has a long conversation in the middle of the street with the driver of the Nissan Rogue who is there to pick-up one of the employees at MTG. 32 r ■ Office Manager & Book Keeper C.R. Unknown employee Various employees of Master Trades Group in attendance at the residence where there is no business licence or Occupancy Certificate authorizing employees. Construction Estimator V. W. An individual J.H. known as the Applicant's "network guy" arrives at the residence as the passenger of the vehicle. 33 I f l b -. 34 An employee is picked up by a Nissan Rogue that idles in front of a nieghbour's driveway for approximately 10 minutes. The Applicant leaves a vehicle that he is using parked unattended in the middle of the street while he goes back to his residence for several minutes. It is parked in front of a no -parking sign (not visible). The utility trailer returns after an absence. The silver vehicle beside it belongs to the office manager/bookkeeper C.R. Holly Dyson From: Sent: 11 July, 2019 9:54 AM To: Sheryl Rice Menezes Cc: Holly Dyson; Alain Pinard Subject: RE: 920 Keewatin Place Attachments: Construction Carpenter -Installer - Labourer July 10, 2019.png; Renovator -Carpenter April 29, 2019.png Good morning, I'm sure you're tired of hearing from us, but there has been a development since yesterday that may be relevant to the City's consideration of the Application. Yesterday, July 10, 1 saw the attached job ad in which Master Trades Group is seeking a Construction Carpenter — Installer — Labourer. This is in addition to a previous job ad of April 29, 2019 in which MTG was seeking a Renovator - Carpenter. Please see the attached screen shot of the job ad. However, according to Business Licensing, the licence for MTG is for the following activities: PROVIDES SOFT BACK UP SERVICES FOR MANY CATEGORIES OF CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES. THESE SERVICES ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY. SERVICES INCLUDE: BID JOBS, NOT DO PHYSICAL INSTALLS, DO CAD DRAWINGS, ESTIMATING JOB, CONSULTING, CONSTRUCTION SALE FOR CONTRACTORS (QUOTES ON JOBS), PROJECT MANAGE, GANTT CHARTS, BID SPEC, NO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. How does one square the stated purpose of the business licence - to do "administrative" services and "not do physical installs" — with the attempt to hire two positions that are hardly administrative in nature and who would be doing "physical installs"? The contradictions in intentions cannot be ignored. They suggest to me that the Applicant intends on running a full - services construction company. However, as you know, the zoning by-law does not recognize a construction business as a an approved home business. In effect, the variances would be facilitating the further contravention of the Zoning By -Law. For your information and consideration in this matter. Regards, :.J 0 u 'a C� M _ d va p E m y Q `n v rs m o na o c a� a ., v a es q s N m N a d o 3 w — tp N V- 7 Y o 0 a T @ CA e a n n @ C > a is w a a� C O E 0 6� @ E N k. C 17 E U O 03 C O J= N 'C u4i n c aN s L? m m� v p t as w yr r- @ ` R E w @ CL a 5u N p3 N w C y N 11. d n" o' a 3 rs ami r a��s ami v V N w w 7 a` w.. 47CL 2 .a C" w W a @ a V7 N 41 d iV CL fes] p L3 N` m O 3 x x c �^ a� �r CL �r n N = m N w wp r C1 U" %y 7 a c G D d 4�.1 8 rts �. d © a w r G7 r❑ ?. d r r N N a y, C W G7 0) Ec EL c _ Vj `n C ¢mss c s� a v v p ria Q v 13 o as 2w '[7 N Q O1 ai C U 0. U ❑ H Cl G} ❑ W W CCZ. lL J W m q� g W y m ,R] ip ci C C } C E 41 O a t9 GE a � U c p � $ v d °' ; D N m = Q :.J 0 u 'a C� M _ d va p E m y Q `n v rs m o na o c a� a ., v a es q s N m N a d o 3 w — tp N V- 7 Y o 0 a T @ CA e a n n @ C > a is w a a� C O E 0 6� @ E N k. C 17 E U O 03 C O J= N 'C u4i n c aN s L? m m� v p t as w yr r- @ ` R E w @ CL a 5u N p3 N w C y N 11. d n" o' a 3 rs ami r a��s ami v V N w w 7 a` w.. 47CL 2 .a C" w W a @ a V7 N 41 d iV CL fes] p L3 N` m O 3 x x c �^ a� �r CL �r n N = m N w wp r C1 U" %y 7 a c G D d 4�.1 8 rts �. d © a w r G7 r❑ ?. d r r N N a y, C W G7 0) Ec EL c _ Vj `n C ¢mss c s� a v v p ria Q v 13 o as 2w '[7 N Q O1 ai C U 0. U ❑ H Cl G} ❑ W W CCZ. lL J W ,R] U c p IX 0 a � � m v_s C Qj 67 Pi o �r E c m rn f9 R7 � W v {[/ 02 m k §■] £ ��2 2\\m E §�E! %fg7E i/k C & \ 2 G § m & 2 k A § i 8 . > = u a c 0 J a p\ 2 E CL 7 \ _ u $ �a20■ \_ § ) 2 $ f OL) � 2 » 2 § { k - 2 / \ k 2j { )m a) k /\s A R aaA= G-��22 tsf� @ ® 7 } # )# m 7 t&} E m a 2 »� � } m E � � � ¥ � § a � . �� � ® � e ■ _ ■ 2 2 2 y,,\ u E■ E �� R)«22� CL 0E2 � U, Mn a 3 E Q o e k m m a . 2 u 2= e m 8# - a §_ %% e-\ 2 t c o g / u` m- V 0? c, n�� a c o r— tm �R - _ \ m k 02°-_-m o . \m C) § g 6 \X10 d £B§S§b�--gam%-S £ § ca ` § E y / o _ = t E 5 # K E u 3 ®w 6_ F-] 2 5 E 2 ! a § @ \ \ / » d § 2 § \ k § § k ) § ƒ § k 2 ( t E RM Staff Report vex Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 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: July 8, 2019 REPORT NUMBER: DSD -19-167 SUBJECT: Application B2019-025 4283 King Street East Owners — 1719288 Ontario Inc. Applicant — Larry R. Richardson Approve Report: The lands are designated as Commercial Campus and located within a City Node. The property is zoned as Commercial Campus Zone (C-8) with Special Regulation provision 4R. The zoning approved (but under appeal) in the City's new Zoning By-law is Arterial Commercial (COM -4). This specific building is part of a comprehensively planned development and is currently used as "The Brick" furniture retail. Staff Report Development Services Department A site visit was conducted on July 8, 2019. wwwkitchener. c a Photo: Existing "The Brick" Furniture Store This application requests permission to enter into a lease agreement for the building in Unit 3, while the surrounding lands are part of the common elements of the condominium. The original lease was for 15 years, commencing on April 1, 1996. The lease is now being extended, for a period in total of greater than 21 years. Under section 50.(3) of the Planning Act no person shall "enter into any agreement that has the effect of granting the use of or right in land directly or by entitlement to renewal for a period of twenty-one years or more unless ... (f) a consent is given to convey, mortgage or charge the land, or grant, assign or exercise a power of appointment in respect of the land or enter into an agreement in respect of the land". Staff is of the opinion that the requested consent would not have any negative impacts and support the proposed lease. Further, staff is of the opinion that the proposed lease in excess of 21 years is consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act, does not conflict with any applicable provincial plans, and conforms to the City's Official Plan. The approved zoning permits the proposed office building. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application requesting a lease agreement in excess of 21 years the building within Unit 3, being 4283 King Street East, be approved. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed application. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: No heritage comments or concerns. Staff Report KN x Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca Engineering Comments: Engineering has no comments regarding the application. Operations Comments: Parkland dedication was provided in 2008 as part of the site plan approval process. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental comments or concerns. RECOMMENDATION: That application B2014-025, requesting consent to enter into a lease agreement for a period of 21 years or more for the building within Unit 3, being 4283 King Street East, be approved. Garett Stevenson, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Juliane von Westerholt, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Planner Senior Planner Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 *Z11 P111P4.1 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 9, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-025 through B2019-050 and CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER 4283 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional staff has no objection to the application. 4285 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional Staff has no objection to the application. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 B2019-027 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Activa Holdings Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a consent application to create a stormwater easement for the purpose of receiving stormwater from the adjacent lands to the north and permitting it to flow through to the outlet (Strasburg Creek). Regional Staff has no objection to the application. B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Kiah Group Inc. c/o Sean O'Neill The owner/applicant is proposing a lot severance. The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent approval to create this lot in March 2018 via application B2018-023. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. 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 327.8 mASL 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 2019. Regional staff has no objection to the application, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-029 4278 King Street East Sportsworld Crossing Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to a lot severance. The proposed severed lot will include the existing office building and parking lot and the proposed retained lot will remain vacant for future commercial uses. The owner/applicant also requires an easement for shared use of the existing driveway. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Noise: The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed Environmental/Stationary Noise Study and secure its implementation prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands (Parcel B). The Assessment must address the possible impact of road traffic on any proposed development. In addition the Assessment must address the possible impact generated by the proposed development on all noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity and on the development itself, as well as any off-site noise sources identified by the noise consultant that may have an impact on the proposed development. The owner/applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the Region to complete the noise study prior to Site Plan and once approved amend/enter into a new agreement to implement the recommendations of that study. Regional Road Dedication: While no further road widening dedication is required along Regional Road 08 (King Street East) in accordance with the designated road width provided in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), please be advised that the King Street East corridor has been identified as the Region of Waterloo Council Endorsed, Preferred Option for Stage 2 of the Region's Light Rail Transit (ION). Under the ION Stage 2 re -construction process, further property dedications may be required in association with that project. For more information regarding the Region of Waterloo ION Stage 2 project please consult the Region of Waterloo website. (https://rapidtransit. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/stage21ON/stage2ion.asp) Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject property currently has a right -in, right -out vehicular access to King Street East which also connects internally to the #4220 King Street East property. A new mutual shared access at the northwest property limits along with a mutual shared access easement between the properties owners intended to use the new relocated access will be required. The existing right -in, right -out access on King Street East will be closed. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 A Regional Road Access Permit application with an application fee of $230 will be required for the proposed access re -location and the closure of the existing access. The access permit application is available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Access Perm it-access.pdf. No other direct access to King Street East would be allowed to the retained lands. Regional Road Reconstruction — Please be advised that this section of King Street East is scheduled for re -construction in 2021 & 2022 according to the Region of Waterloo 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program. For more information on this project please contact Mr. William Gilbert at 519-575-4603. Stormwater Management: Regional Staff would note that a detailed SWM management report would be required for any development on the proposed severed and retained lots. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to submit a detailed Environmental and Stationary Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands. 3) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant obtain an access permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. B2019-030 and B2019-031 452 and 256 Prospect Avenue William Wirtz The owner/applicant is proposing to sever the rear yard of 452 Prospect Avenue and add the severed portion to 456 Prospect Avenue. Then owner/applicant also would simultaneously sever the rear yard of 456 Prospect Avenue, including the added portion to create a new lot fronting on Broadview Avenue. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-032 to B2019-042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, Activa Holdings Inc. 122 Monarch Woods Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B2019-043 to B2019-050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, Activa Holdings Inc. 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Lino and Angela Santarosa The owner/applicant has requested revisions to the proposed conditions as a result of the current ownership of the subject parcels and the timing of clearing certain conditions. The proposed consent applications are to facilitate future development plans for the two existing lots to become four lots. In order to close proposed transactions, the conditions of approval are required to be amended. Regional Comments: Regional Staff have no concerns as the proposed changes are to City of Kitchener conditions. Regional Staff had no concerns with the proposed applications B2019-002 to B2019-004 and the Regional condition for the consent review fee is not proposed to be changed. Regional staff has no objection to the subject applications. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 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 Planner Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Staff Report vex Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 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: July 8, 2019 REPORT NUMBER: DSD -19-168 SUBJECT: Application B2019-026 4285 King Street East Owners — 1719288 Ontario Inc. Applicant — Larry R. Richardson Approve Report: The lands are designated as Commercial Campus and located within a City Node. The property is zoned as Commercial Campus Zone (C-8) with Special Regulation provision 4R. The zoning approved (but under appeal) in the City's new Zoning By-law is Arterial Commercial (COM -4). This specific building is part of a comprehensively planned development and is currently used as "Tim Hortons" restaurant. Staff Report Development Services Department A site visit was conducted on July 8, 2019. Photo: Existing "Tim Hortons" Restaurant vex wwwkitchener. c a This application requests permission to enter into a lease agreement for the building and drive through in Unit 4, while the surrounding lands are part of the common elements of the condominium. The original lease was for 20 years, commencing on July 15, 2007. The lease is now being extended, for a period in total of greater than 21 years. Under section 50.(3) of the Planning Act no person shall "enter into any agreement that has the effect of granting the use of or right in land directly or by entitlement to renewal for a period of twenty-one years or more unless ... (f) a consent is given to convey, mortgage or charge the land, or grant, assign or exercise a power of appointment in respect of the land or enter into an agreement in respect of the land". Staff is of the opinion that the requested consent would not have any negative impacts and support the proposed lease. Further, staff is of the opinion that the proposed lease in excess of 21 years is consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act, does not conflict with any applicable provincial plans, and conforms to the City's Official Plan. The approved zoning permits the proposed office building. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application requesting a lease agreement in excess of 21 years the building and drive through within Unit 4, being 4285 King Street East, be approved. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed application. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Staff Report KN x Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca Heritage Comments: No heritage comments or concerns Engineering Comments: Engineering has no comments regarding the application. Operations Comments: Parkland dedication was provided in 2008 as part of the site plan approval process. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental comments or concerns. RECOMMENDATION: That application B2014-026 requesting consent to enter into a lease agreement for a period of 21 years or more for the building and drive through within Unit 4, being 4285 King Street East, be approved. Garett Stevenson, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Juliane von Westerholt, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Planner Senior Planner Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 *Z11 P111P4.1 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 9, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-025 through B2019-050 and CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER 4283 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional staff has no objection to the application. 4285 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional Staff has no objection to the application. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 B2019-027 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Activa Holdings Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a consent application to create a stormwater easement for the purpose of receiving stormwater from the adjacent lands to the north and permitting it to flow through to the outlet (Strasburg Creek). Regional Staff has no objection to the application. B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Kiah Group Inc. c/o Sean O'Neill The owner/applicant is proposing a lot severance. The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent approval to create this lot in March 2018 via application B2018-023. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. 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 327.8 mASL 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 2019. Regional staff has no objection to the application, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-029 4278 King Street East Sportsworld Crossing Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to a lot severance. The proposed severed lot will include the existing office building and parking lot and the proposed retained lot will remain vacant for future commercial uses. The owner/applicant also requires an easement for shared use of the existing driveway. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Noise: The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed Environmental/Stationary Noise Study and secure its implementation prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands (Parcel B). The Assessment must address the possible impact of road traffic on any proposed development. In addition the Assessment must address the possible impact generated by the proposed development on all noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity and on the development itself, as well as any off-site noise sources identified by the noise consultant that may have an impact on the proposed development. The owner/applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the Region to complete the noise study prior to Site Plan and once approved amend/enter into a new agreement to implement the recommendations of that study. Regional Road Dedication: While no further road widening dedication is required along Regional Road 08 (King Street East) in accordance with the designated road width provided in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), please be advised that the King Street East corridor has been identified as the Region of Waterloo Council Endorsed, Preferred Option for Stage 2 of the Region's Light Rail Transit (ION). Under the ION Stage 2 re -construction process, further property dedications may be required in association with that project. For more information regarding the Region of Waterloo ION Stage 2 project please consult the Region of Waterloo website. (https://rapidtransit. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/stage21ON/stage2ion.asp) Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject property currently has a right -in, right -out vehicular access to King Street East which also connects internally to the #4220 King Street East property. A new mutual shared access at the northwest property limits along with a mutual shared access easement between the properties owners intended to use the new relocated access will be required. The existing right -in, right -out access on King Street East will be closed. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 A Regional Road Access Permit application with an application fee of $230 will be required for the proposed access re -location and the closure of the existing access. The access permit application is available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Access Perm it-access.pdf. No other direct access to King Street East would be allowed to the retained lands. Regional Road Reconstruction — Please be advised that this section of King Street East is scheduled for re -construction in 2021 & 2022 according to the Region of Waterloo 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program. For more information on this project please contact Mr. William Gilbert at 519-575-4603. Stormwater Management: Regional Staff would note that a detailed SWM management report would be required for any development on the proposed severed and retained lots. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to submit a detailed Environmental and Stationary Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands. 3) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant obtain an access permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. B2019-030 and B2019-031 452 and 256 Prospect Avenue William Wirtz The owner/applicant is proposing to sever the rear yard of 452 Prospect Avenue and add the severed portion to 456 Prospect Avenue. Then owner/applicant also would simultaneously sever the rear yard of 456 Prospect Avenue, including the added portion to create a new lot fronting on Broadview Avenue. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-032 to B2019-042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, Activa Holdings Inc. 122 Monarch Woods Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B2019-043 to B2019-050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, Activa Holdings Inc. 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Lino and Angela Santarosa The owner/applicant has requested revisions to the proposed conditions as a result of the current ownership of the subject parcels and the timing of clearing certain conditions. The proposed consent applications are to facilitate future development plans for the two existing lots to become four lots. In order to close proposed transactions, the conditions of approval are required to be amended. Regional Comments: Regional Staff have no concerns as the proposed changes are to City of Kitchener conditions. Regional Staff had no concerns with the proposed applications B2019-002 to B2019-004 and the Regional condition for the consent review fee is not proposed to be changed. Regional staff has no objection to the subject applications. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 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 Planner Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Staff Repoil Development Services Department www.kitch ever. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Planner — 519-741-2200 ex. 7668 WARD: 5 DATE OF REPORT: July 5, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-169 SUBJECT: B2019-027 — 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Owner — Activa Holdings Inc. Approve subject to conditions ._ yy � = 9 `+ '{.T, S . � • i" a v�` . �' 1 Strasburg Creek 4V 4 r.* Sunfish Pond y+ + 84 ' AW l7 r e , Approx..�g _ Easement Location Subject Property: 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road *** 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 lands are located on the east side of Fischer -Hallman Road, in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan Area. Rosenberg Way is planned to be extended into the lands in the future. The subject lands are currently undeveloped and are within the Strasburg Creek watershed and contain the Main Branch of Strasburg Creek (including Sunfish Pond), a coldwater stream with a known Brook Trout fishery. The Strasburg Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex (PSW) is also partly located on the subject lands. The subject lands comprise multiple Official Plan designations, including Natural Heritage Conservation, Mixed Use Two, Medium Density Residential Two, Neighbourhood Park, and Open Space. Also, the lands comprise multiple zoning classifications, including Hazard Land (P-3), Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2) with Special Use Provision 211 U, and Business Park Service Centre Zone (B-3) with Special Use Provision 18U. Planning staff visited the lands on June 19, 2019. The landowner to the north (owner of 1250-1314 Fischer -Hallman Road) is seeking a legal stormwater outlet to Strasburg Creek, in order to be able to develop its lands. The lands are subject to a site plan application to develop a mix of land uses. The City requires that before development proceeds, among other conditions, a legal stormwater outlet must be obtained. Accordingly, Activa Holdings Inc. has agreed to support the landowner to the north by requesting consent to create a stormwater easement over its lands in favour of the lands north of the creek. The purpose of the easement is to receive stormwater from adjacent lands to the north and permit it to flow through to the outlet, being Strasburg Creek. The requested easement includes Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the draft reference plan submitted with the application form. The approximate dimensions of the requested easement are as follows: • Total width: 30.98 metres • Total depth: 69.45 metres • Total area: 2,093 square metres The proposed stormwater easement is appropriate, as it allows for the most logical drainage solution. Through the site plan process, mitigation measures to protect the environmentally sensitive lands will be employed. The City's Engineering Services supports the easement. Planning staff recommends that the Consent Application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental planning issues are being addressed through development applications for 1250-1314 Fischer -Hallman Road. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Operations Comments: This application and easement responds to requirements from Site Plan SP18/083/F/AP and direction from City of Kitchener planning department in February 2019. Engineering Comments: Based on the e-mail sent June 11, 2019 from Engineering, we are satisfied with the location and size of the easement proposed. Engineering has no further concerns. RECOMMENDATION A. That Consent Application B2019-027 requesting consent to create a stormwater easement over the subject lands, as shown generally as Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the draft reference plan submitted with the application form, 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 shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies 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 Transfer Easement documents 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: a. 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); b. 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 4. 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. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Planner Senior Planner Attachment • Appendix A —Draft Reference Plan submitted with Consent Application 82019-027 Appendix A F/SCNER — HALtAdAN ROAD (RE�fONAt ROAD No. 58) z �Fk 22807 -WPI (LTi r =o -- o A i� Nm Q �� _.. Hrr•as•xsw '• �j - - 2t.58 —� re 9 ♦0 �`- x. z Iz AU z _ ffi a •A � r o NSA 52 �a I flk ?1EOT-PPi6 iLi) En y r� C � -0 �'' cy y�V6 —Ip � � � 80 � �o No NG I'I J mac r { Q �O $z m 14 01 �N E m oQ yz czcD! pz C —I�Q� b yi AZ sm _ zIlo Dmv € s^ C AZ z am, m� I FTI a � Z v O��p OODD Z Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 *Z11 P111P4.1 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 9, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-025 through B2019-050 and CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER 4283 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional staff has no objection to the application. 4285 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional Staff has no objection to the application. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 B2019-027 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Activa Holdings Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a consent application to create a stormwater easement for the purpose of receiving stormwater from the adjacent lands to the north and permitting it to flow through to the outlet (Strasburg Creek). Regional Staff has no objection to the application. B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Kiah Group Inc. c/o Sean O'Neill The owner/applicant is proposing a lot severance. The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent approval to create this lot in March 2018 via application B2018-023. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. 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 327.8 mASL 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 2019. Regional staff has no objection to the application, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-029 4278 King Street East Sportsworld Crossing Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to a lot severance. The proposed severed lot will include the existing office building and parking lot and the proposed retained lot will remain vacant for future commercial uses. The owner/applicant also requires an easement for shared use of the existing driveway. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Noise: The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed Environmental/Stationary Noise Study and secure its implementation prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands (Parcel B). The Assessment must address the possible impact of road traffic on any proposed development. In addition the Assessment must address the possible impact generated by the proposed development on all noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity and on the development itself, as well as any off-site noise sources identified by the noise consultant that may have an impact on the proposed development. The owner/applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the Region to complete the noise study prior to Site Plan and once approved amend/enter into a new agreement to implement the recommendations of that study. Regional Road Dedication: While no further road widening dedication is required along Regional Road 08 (King Street East) in accordance with the designated road width provided in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), please be advised that the King Street East corridor has been identified as the Region of Waterloo Council Endorsed, Preferred Option for Stage 2 of the Region's Light Rail Transit (ION). Under the ION Stage 2 re -construction process, further property dedications may be required in association with that project. For more information regarding the Region of Waterloo ION Stage 2 project please consult the Region of Waterloo website. (https://rapidtransit. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/stage21ON/stage2ion.asp) Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject property currently has a right -in, right -out vehicular access to King Street East which also connects internally to the #4220 King Street East property. A new mutual shared access at the northwest property limits along with a mutual shared access easement between the properties owners intended to use the new relocated access will be required. The existing right -in, right -out access on King Street East will be closed. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 A Regional Road Access Permit application with an application fee of $230 will be required for the proposed access re -location and the closure of the existing access. The access permit application is available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Access Perm it-access.pdf. No other direct access to King Street East would be allowed to the retained lands. Regional Road Reconstruction — Please be advised that this section of King Street East is scheduled for re -construction in 2021 & 2022 according to the Region of Waterloo 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program. For more information on this project please contact Mr. William Gilbert at 519-575-4603. Stormwater Management: Regional Staff would note that a detailed SWM management report would be required for any development on the proposed severed and retained lots. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to submit a detailed Environmental and Stationary Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands. 3) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant obtain an access permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. B2019-030 and B2019-031 452 and 256 Prospect Avenue William Wirtz The owner/applicant is proposing to sever the rear yard of 452 Prospect Avenue and add the severed portion to 456 Prospect Avenue. Then owner/applicant also would simultaneously sever the rear yard of 456 Prospect Avenue, including the added portion to create a new lot fronting on Broadview Avenue. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-032 to B2019-042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, Activa Holdings Inc. 122 Monarch Woods Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B2019-043 to B2019-050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, Activa Holdings Inc. 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Lino and Angela Santarosa The owner/applicant has requested revisions to the proposed conditions as a result of the current ownership of the subject parcels and the timing of clearing certain conditions. The proposed consent applications are to facilitate future development plans for the two existing lots to become four lots. In order to close proposed transactions, the conditions of approval are required to be amended. Regional Comments: Regional Staff have no concerns as the proposed changes are to City of Kitchener conditions. Regional Staff had no concerns with the proposed applications B2019-002 to B2019-004 and the Regional condition for the consent review fee is not proposed to be changed. Regional staff has no objection to the subject applications. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 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 Planner Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 P1 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner 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. 2319 Fax: (519) 621-4945 E-mail: thughes@grandriver.ca DATE: YOUR FILE: GRCA FILE: July 5, 2019 B 2019-027 B2019-027 — 1340 Fischer Hallman Rd RE: Application for Consent B 2019-027 1340 Fischer Hallman Road, City of Kitchener Activa GRCA COMMENT*: The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no objection to the above noted consent application. Please see our detailed comments below. BACKGROUND: 1. Resource Issues: Information currently available at our office indicates that a portion of the property is regulated due to Strasburg Creek, the floodplain of Strasburg Creek, slope erosion hazards, Provincially Significant Strasburg Creek Wetland Complex and the associated allowances to these features. The area of the proposed easement is within the regulated area due to the features noted above. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: Due to the above features, a portion of the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 — Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation. It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing an easement on the property for stormwater to flow from an outlet on the adjacent property (1314 Fischer Hallman Road) to Strasburg Creek. We have not reviewed the final stormwater management strategy for the adjacent property, so we trust that adequate flow width has been determined for the easement. The final stormwater management strategy for the adjacent property will be reviewed through the site plan application process, and a permit from GRCA will be required prior to any development within the regulated area on the adjacent property (e.g. development of the outlet). As no new development is being proposed within the easement and the property boundaries are not being changed, we have no objection to the proposed easement shown on the Plan of Survey prepared by Speight, Van Nostrand & Gibson Limited (no date). As this property contains GRCA regulated area, GRCA staff will participate in the review of future applications on this property. 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. Pagel of 2 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. Typically, we would charge the applicant the applicable Plan Review Fee. However, we understand that this easement is to facilitate development on the adjacent property, which we have reviewed and collected fees for under a `Major' zone change application. As such, we will not charge for review of this application. 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 cc: Activa, 55 Columbia Street East, Suite 2, Waterloo, ON N2J 4N7 Jeffrey Marshall, ONE Properties, 333 Bay Street, Suite 2710, Toronto, ON M51-1 2R2 * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority Page 2 of 2 Staff Report KN NEx Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 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: July 5, 2019 REPORT NUMBER: DSD -19-170 SUBJECT: Application B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Owners — Kiah Group Inc. Applicant — Scott Patterson, Labreche Patterson & Associates Inc. Approve Background: On March 20, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved severance applications B2018-021, B2018-022, and B2018-023 for 37 and 45 Heiman Street. The parcels approved through applications B2018-021, B2018-022 and B 2018-023 were completed, however the Owner transferred the retained land rather than the severed land. The Owner is now proceeding to re- establish a parcel of land previously approved as a separate lot. The proposed application is the same as B2018-021 - to sever Parts 3 and 4 of 58R-20182 as the severed lands, where the retained lands are Part 1 of 58R-20182. The severed lot would be addressed as 41 Heiman Street and the retained lot would be addressed as 37 Heiman Street. The Owner worked to clear all conditions of B2018-023, however the conditions are also provided as part of this approval for clarity. Report: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1. A portion of 37 Heiman Street is also within the Grand River Conservation Authority's Regulatory Limit; therefore the property also contains Special Regulation 1 R, which requires a permit from the GRCA if deemed necessary. The Low Rise Residential designation supports a full range of low density housing types including single detached, duplex, semi-detached, and low rise multiple dwellings. Policies also require that infill development complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character. 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 Six (R- 6) zone. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the Staff Report KNNh uHL 16-, Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca 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. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on July 9, 2019. 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. Separate building permit(s) will be required for the construction of any new residential buildings. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: No heritage comments or concerns. Staff Report KN x Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca 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 owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Katie Pietrzak (519- 741-2200 ext. 7135). Heiman Street is scheduled for reconstruction in 2020. As such any off-site works for this property needs to be completed (construction and restoration) before the City reconstruction begins or will have to wait until after the reconstruction is completed. Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. 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 and proposed easements will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information 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. Operations Comments: A 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 $4,209.00. Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (9.15m) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage meter. Environmental Planning Comments: The extreme south end of 37 Heiman Street is identified as an Ecological Restoration Area (ERA) in the Kitchener Official Plan (2014, under appeal). This area is located in the Two -Zone Floodplain area regulated by the GRCA, and is considered part of the riparian area of Shoemaker Greenway, a tributary of Schneider Creek. A (scoped) Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will be required. The presence of an identified Ecological Restoration Areas may place limitations or conditions on these and adjacent lands related to development, redevelopment or site alteration --especially when drainage characteristics, site grading and/or stormwater management are being undertaken. A (scoped) Environmental Impact Study will determine appropriate proximity (including grading and drainage) to the riparian area of the Shoemaker Creek, stormwater management and planting requirements. Staff Report KN NEx Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca RECOMMENDATION: That Application B2019p-028 proposing to sever a parcel of land from 45 Heiman Street with a width of 9.15 metres, a depth of 27.254 metres, and a lot area of 245 square metres, 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 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 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. 6. 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 retained lands. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street, at the cost of the Owner. Staff Report KNNh uHL 16-, Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca 10. That the Owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication on the severed parcel in the amount of $4,209.00. Park Dedication is calculated at the residential rate of 5%, for the severed lands only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (9.15 metres) and a land value of $9,200 per metre of frontage. 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 the Director of Operations, 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 (including street trees) 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 and the Director of Operations. Garett Stevenson, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Juliane von Westerholt, B.E.S., MCIP, RPP Planner Senior Planner Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 *Z11 P111P4.1 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 9, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-025 through B2019-050 and CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER 4283 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional staff has no objection to the application. 4285 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional Staff has no objection to the application. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 B2019-027 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Activa Holdings Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a consent application to create a stormwater easement for the purpose of receiving stormwater from the adjacent lands to the north and permitting it to flow through to the outlet (Strasburg Creek). Regional Staff has no objection to the application. B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Kiah Group Inc. c/o Sean O'Neill The owner/applicant is proposing a lot severance. The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent approval to create this lot in March 2018 via application B2018-023. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. 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 327.8 mASL 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 2019. Regional staff has no objection to the application, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-029 4278 King Street East Sportsworld Crossing Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to a lot severance. The proposed severed lot will include the existing office building and parking lot and the proposed retained lot will remain vacant for future commercial uses. The owner/applicant also requires an easement for shared use of the existing driveway. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Noise: The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed Environmental/Stationary Noise Study and secure its implementation prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands (Parcel B). The Assessment must address the possible impact of road traffic on any proposed development. In addition the Assessment must address the possible impact generated by the proposed development on all noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity and on the development itself, as well as any off-site noise sources identified by the noise consultant that may have an impact on the proposed development. The owner/applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the Region to complete the noise study prior to Site Plan and once approved amend/enter into a new agreement to implement the recommendations of that study. Regional Road Dedication: While no further road widening dedication is required along Regional Road 08 (King Street East) in accordance with the designated road width provided in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), please be advised that the King Street East corridor has been identified as the Region of Waterloo Council Endorsed, Preferred Option for Stage 2 of the Region's Light Rail Transit (ION). Under the ION Stage 2 re -construction process, further property dedications may be required in association with that project. For more information regarding the Region of Waterloo ION Stage 2 project please consult the Region of Waterloo website. (https://rapidtransit. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/stage21ON/stage2ion.asp) Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject property currently has a right -in, right -out vehicular access to King Street East which also connects internally to the #4220 King Street East property. A new mutual shared access at the northwest property limits along with a mutual shared access easement between the properties owners intended to use the new relocated access will be required. The existing right -in, right -out access on King Street East will be closed. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 A Regional Road Access Permit application with an application fee of $230 will be required for the proposed access re -location and the closure of the existing access. The access permit application is available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Access Perm it-access.pdf. No other direct access to King Street East would be allowed to the retained lands. Regional Road Reconstruction — Please be advised that this section of King Street East is scheduled for re -construction in 2021 & 2022 according to the Region of Waterloo 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program. For more information on this project please contact Mr. William Gilbert at 519-575-4603. Stormwater Management: Regional Staff would note that a detailed SWM management report would be required for any development on the proposed severed and retained lots. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to submit a detailed Environmental and Stationary Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands. 3) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant obtain an access permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. B2019-030 and B2019-031 452 and 256 Prospect Avenue William Wirtz The owner/applicant is proposing to sever the rear yard of 452 Prospect Avenue and add the severed portion to 456 Prospect Avenue. Then owner/applicant also would simultaneously sever the rear yard of 456 Prospect Avenue, including the added portion to create a new lot fronting on Broadview Avenue. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-032 to B2019-042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, Activa Holdings Inc. 122 Monarch Woods Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B2019-043 to B2019-050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, Activa Holdings Inc. 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Lino and Angela Santarosa The owner/applicant has requested revisions to the proposed conditions as a result of the current ownership of the subject parcels and the timing of clearing certain conditions. The proposed consent applications are to facilitate future development plans for the two existing lots to become four lots. In order to close proposed transactions, the conditions of approval are required to be amended. Regional Comments: Regional Staff have no concerns as the proposed changes are to City of Kitchener conditions. Regional Staff had no concerns with the proposed applications B2019-002 to B2019-004 and the Regional condition for the consent review fee is not proposed to be changed. Regional staff has no objection to the subject applications. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 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 Planner Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 P1 Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Management Division Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner 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. 2319 Fax: (519) 621-4945 E-mail: thughes@grandriver.ca DATE: July 5, 2019 YOUR FILE: B 2019-028 GRCA FILE: B2019-028 - 37 Heiman St RE: Consent Application B 2019-028 37 Heiman Street, City of Kitchener Kiah Group 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 this office indicates that portions of the lands to be retained are within the flood fringe and floodway of the Two Zone floodplain associated with Shoemaker Creek. The lands to be retained also contains a portion of the regulatory allowance adjacent to the floodplain. A copy of our resource mapping is attached. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications This reach of Shoemaker Creek is within a Two Zone Floodplain Policy Area. In designated Two Zone Areas, the floodplain contains two sections - the floodway and the flood fringe. The floodway is the area of the floodplain required to pass the flows of greatest depth and velocity. No new development is permitted within the floodway. The flood fringe lies between the floodway and the edge of the floodplain. Depths and velocities of flooding in the flood fringe are much less than those in the floodway, allowing for development to occur if certain criteria are met. As noted above, a portion of the lands to be retained contains floodway and flood fringe, as well as the associated regulatory allowance. It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to sever a portion of the property along Heiman Street. Based on the Plan of Survey prepared by MacDonald Tamblyn Lord Surveying (dated May 4, 2018), the lands to be severed (Part 3 and Part 4) are outside the GRCA regulated area. For the lands to be retained, there appears to be enough room outside of the regulated area for future development. As such, GRCA has no objection to the proposed severance. Pagel of 2 Please note that any future development in the regulated area will require prior written approval from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06 and is subject to 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. Please consult with GRCA for future applications on the retained parcel. We advise the applicant to direct any future development for the retained parcel outside of the floodway. 3. Plan Review Fees The GRCA applies Plan Review Fees for Planning Act applications located within GRCA areas of interest. As we recently reviewed and received a fee for a similar consent application (B2018-023) on this property, we will not be charging a fee for this Plan Review. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, --rW-w, 1k111___111__ Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority Encl. C.C. Sean O'Neill, Kiah Group Inc. (via email) Scott Patterson, Labreche Patterson & Associates Inc. (via email) * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority. Page 2 of 2 �°'I Z-<L O p N 0 `-- _ U Q : o i N� p Q mE9 .Q €3a v N 7 Q U (7 6 � O m >� m?s - n = Q (7 L Q Q 3`o E r`=v=Eo. : a�6i m U `yy -FE vm� w U � o p m L o ° U m (7 -- r p N •o (7 ° �° Q (7 ami mF y a a -'o �Ao C c _ N w Q .� Q o .� E o E EQ ° `ovo0 -w 3 C� N in s y a5 a5 U � a5 o Q Q Q o o C o W E a.>_ ?. v= 3 N U J Q o E a ao o r > o L y v_ - C (7 U (7 0 0 w o C o 0' c E` m Qin Q in .( .( .� .� Q g Y `= = A p m m m° .m Q a" ( aa) o o w w w w N��Q �� A� —_ U N a° a° a° w w Q n° n 0 n o O F o 0 0 0 o a o10 O®®®® Q Q J J J J d N N aI q N N ..46 2 2 a a a a a y SUOU°oa m \ 1 LL (n (n y m `v-o �` ie O - C ~ K E g w m LL E a)� U .q a O n �Z�m�- U '^v'^ G LL O u v', U S.S v F v 5 Z 0 t O 10 Aw O N b a o - � f 9t' C Q r f o } � w {F� o ro ,kyr ►� � - - - - r 1F m F m - U - n m Staff Report Development Services Department 1 K�-R www.ki tch en er. c a REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Planner — 519-741-2200 ex. 7668 WARD: 3 DATE OF REPORT: July 5, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-171 SUBJECT: B2019-029 and A2019-063 — 4278 King Street East Owners — Sportsworld Crossing Inc. Approve subject to conditions REPORT Planning Comments: The subject property is located at the corner of King Street East and Sportsworld Crossing Road (private street), and is included within the Sportsworld Crossing development, in the Pioneer Tower East Planning Community. The subject property is owned by Sportsworld Crossing Inc. and contains an existing one - storey, 1,745 square metre office building that was constructed in approximately 2004 (occupied by Christian Horizons), as well as a small hydro building. The property is designated Commercial Campus in the Official Plan and is classified as a Major Transit Station Area within the Urban Structure. The property is zoned Commercial Campus Zone (C-8) with *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Special Regulation Provision 449R in the Zoning By-law. Recently, City Council approved new zoning for the property [i.e., COM -4 (37)], but this has been appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal by third parties and is not force at this time. On May 31, 2019, Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the subject property. In order to facilitate the creation of a lot to contain the existing office building, and facilitate future development on the retained lands, the applicant is requesting: Approval of Consent Application B2019-029 to: a. Create a new, "flag lot" (i.e., Lands to be Severed/ Parcel A on the plan submitted with the application form) with 14.0 metres of frontage on King Street East, a depth of approximately 178 metres, and an area of 0.84 hectares. Parcel A would be irregularly shaped and would contain the existing office building, associated parking, large retaining wall, and hydro building, as well as a proposed shared driveway access for Parcel A and Parcel B (note the existing driveway access is proposed to be modified). The retained lot (i.e., Lands to be Retained / Parcel 8 on the plan submitted with the application form) would have 95.4 metres of frontage on King Street East, a depth of approximately 140 metres, and an area of 1.15 hectares. Parcel B would be irregularly shaped and would abut Sportsworld Crossing Drive at the southeast end. The retained lot is vacant and would be for future development. Access would be provided via a shared driveway, secured through an easement over Parcel A (described immediately below). b. Create an easement over Parcel A in favour of Parcel B for a shared driveway access. The easement would have a width of 14.0 metres and an approximate depth of 69.6 metres. 2. Approval of Minor Variance Application A2019-063 for Parcel A, which requests a: a. Lot width of 14.0 metres, whereas Section 13A.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum lot width of 25.0 metres (note that the COM -4 Zone, in Section 9.3 of By-law 2019-051, requires a minimum lot width of 30.0 metres), and b. Side yard of 1.2 metres for the existing hydro building, whereas Section 13A.2.1 of Zoning By- law 85-1 requires a minimum side yard of 3.0 metres (note that the COM -4 Zone, in Section 9.3 of By-law 2019-051, also requires a minimum side yard of 3.0 metres). The applicant has advised that all municipal services to the existing office building on proposed Parcel A are located within Parcel A. Also, the applicant has advised that the existing stormwater management scheme for Parcel A provides for stormwater control through the existing storm sewer network and that no overland flow is directed towards Parcel B. However, it should be noted that there is a Kitchener - Wilmot Hydro ductbank that services Parcel A and extends from King Street, over Parcel B, to the small, existing hydro building on Parcel A (see Appendix D). Although flag lots are sometimes undesirable for a number of reasons, in this case, Planning staff does not have concerns with the proposal. Planning staff offers the following comments based on considerations included within a best practices document prepared by staff to assist in the review of applications proposing flag lots: Emergency Access: Fire Services has not identified any emergency services concerns, except for addressing. However, the addressing concern can be resolved via a future site plan application (recommended as a condition of consent approval). Transportation: o The proposal facilitates the creation of a shared driveway between two development sites, both with frontage on a Regional Road. Sharing the driveway is desirable because it reduces potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts where the driveway connects to the street. o Transportation Services has stated that it has no concerns with the proposed application. Planning: o The existing building at the rear (furthest from the street) of Parcel A is already constructed. The subject Consent Application will facilitate the development of the lands in front, closest to the street (typically, the opposite is true, which is sometimes a concern). This is positive because it facilitates an opportunity for street -oriented and transit -oriented development within a Major Transit Station Area. o Although privacy is often a concern with flag lots, the existing development maintains minimum setbacks and is not located in a residential context. Planning staff does not have concerns with respect to privacy. o Planning staff also notes that Parcel A is already distinct from Parcel B due to a grade differential: Parcel A sits at a high grade/elevation, while Parcel B sits at a low grade/elevation (similar grade as King Street). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): Planning staff does not have concerns because the existing building at the rear of Parcel A is already constructed, is highly visible from bounding streets because of its high grade/elevation, and will be accessible via a new driveway. 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 offers the following comments. The uses of the resultant parcels conform to the City's Official Plan. Policy 17.E.20.5. states: Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where: a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any deficiencies; b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration lot frontages, areas, and configurations; Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested variance for lot width is appropriate (see below analysis) and that, in this specific case, the resultant lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands, and that future development is not compromised. The dimensions and shapes of the resultant parcels are appropriate. The lands are suitable for the purposes for which they are to be severed. In addition, the resultant lots will be subject to site plan control which will ensure orderly development. Lastly, the resultant parcels will be serviced with independent, adequate municipal service connections. 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 variances for minimum lot width and minimum side yard maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The requested 14.0 metre lot width is sufficient to allow all necessary site development components, including the driveway, sidewalk, lighting, landscaping, and municipal services, etc. Moreover, Planning staff recommends an approval condition to require the registration of a new site plan agreement over Parcel A to address all site development matters. The requested 1.2 metre side yard setback applies only to the hydro building and maintains an adequate buffer to the Parcel B. Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro has advised that the requested setback is adequate. The requested variances are minor since they will not cause unacceptably adverse impacts to adjacent properties. The lot width is sufficient to provide a shared driveway and associated infrastructure, while the potentially reducing pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. Also, appropriate side yard buffers are maintained from the hydro building to the side lot line. The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development (Parcel B) / use (Parcel A) of the land. The variances will facilitate the creation of Parcel A and the continued use of the existing office use, which is permitted by the C-8 and COM -4 zoning. The retained parcel does not require variances, but its creation and future development would be facilitated by the creation of Parcel A (which is dependent upon the variances). Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the Consent Application and Minor Variance Application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: Tree Management Policy requirements will be addressed through the site plan process at a later date. 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. Separate building permit(s) will be required for the construction of any new commercial buildings. Fire Services Comments: The most significant issue is the addressing of existing building. It is required that the address for the existing building be visible from the street. As part of the condition for site plan approval, the owner/applicant should be required to obtain approval of and erect a sign near the driveway entrance that clearly indicating that the driveway is for 4278 King St. E. Additional addressing signage for the development of the retained lot would be required at the time of future development. Fire route plans would be required for both properties. Fire Services notes that there is a private hydrant for the existing building. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Operations Comments: Parkland dedication is not required for this application as parkland dedication was taken via SP07/056/S/JVW in 2008. A deferral agreement was also entered into for MTO in which the deferred amount was paid in 2011. 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 servicing plan submitted with the application indicate each property already has services. Please provide confirmation that no stormwater is required to flow overland from the severed portion over the retained portion. Any new driveways are to be built and existing driveways to be removed to Region of Waterloo standards. All work is at the owner's expense. The severed portion will be required to submit a Stamp Plan `A' application and fulfill all conditions prior to severance approval. Additional Engineering comments for the severed lands will be provided through that circulation. Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro Comments: A servicing easement will be required in order to protect the existing service to #4278 (i.e., the Christian Horizons building) through the retained lot (Parcel B). The easement must be a minimum 2.Om in width and run over the entire length of the existing ductbank from the property line to the transformer enclosure building (see Appendix D). [Planning staff note: this easement will be required as a condition of consent approval]. This easement will eliminate the possibility of buildings being constructed over top of the existing duct structure. Alternatively, the owner/applicant may relocate the existing ductbank (this option would be far more costly than the easement option). If the owner/developer would like to relocate the existing service instead of granting an easement, the owner/developer will need to contact KWHI to make arrangements for the relocation. Note that, presently, the transformer enclosure building services the severed lot only (Parcel A). The proposed lot line that separates Parcel A from Parcel B is very close to the edge of the building, but is acceptable. Any changes to the transformer enclosure building will be at the customer's expense. Note that only one service is allowed per address/lot. Multiple services are not permitted. RECOMMENDATION A. That Consent Application B2019-029 requesting consent to: a. create a new lot with approximately 14.0 metres of frontage on King Street East, a depth of approximately 178 metres, and an area of approximately 0.84 hectares, and b. create an easement over the severed parcel in favour of the retained parcel for a shared driveway access with an approximate width of a width of 14.0 metres and an approximate depth of 69.6 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 shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies 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 variance application A2019-063 receive final approval. 4. That the owner shall provide confirmation that no stormwater is required to flow overland from the severed portion over the retained portion, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 5. That the Transfer Easement documents 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: a. 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); b. 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 6. 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. 7. The owner shall submit a draft copy of the proposed Transfer for the severed parcel for review and approval, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 8. The owner shall apply for, obtain approval of, and finalize a Stamp Plan "A" Site Plan Application for the severed lands, including registration on title of a new Section 41 Agreement. The Application shall, among other requirements,: a. address the following site changes, including, but not limited to, constructing a new driveway and closing the existing driveway, adding/revising address signage, relocating the sidewalk, relocating lighting, and adding landscape buffers, all within the 14m wide frontage. Note that no retaining walls will be permitted within Driveway Visibility Triangles, b. request removal of the severed lands from the existing, overall Sportsworld Crossing Section 41 Agreement, with the retained lands to remain part of said Agreement. c. propose to restore the as -built parking and loading layout to the layout approved through SP04/32/K/LT. Alternatively, the applicant may request revisions allow existing layout, and shall obtain approval, d. address any Tree Management Policy matters, e. address any zoning non-compliance matters (e.g., barrier -free parking), and f. require the owner shall obtain access permits from the Region for the new access and the closure of the existing access. 9. The owner shall convey a servicing easement over the retained lands in favour of Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro for the existing ductbank extending from King Street to the severed lands, to the satisfaction Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro, or otherwise receive a written exemption from this requirement, from Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro. B. That Minor Variance Application B2019-063 requesting relief from: a. Section 13A.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow a minimum lot width of 14.0 metres, whereas 25.0 metres is required, and b. Section 13A.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas 3.0 metres is required for an existing hydro building, be approved, without conditions. C. That Minor Variance Application B2019-063 requesting relief from: a. Section 9.3 of By-law 2019-051 to allow a minimum lot width of 14.0 metres, whereas 30.0 metres is required, and b. Section 9.3 of By-law 2019-051 to allow a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas 3.0 metres is required for an existing hydro building, be approved, subject to this minor variance becoming effective only at such time as Zoning By- law 2019-051 comes into force, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended. At such time, the variance shall be deemed to have come into force as of the date of this decision. Further, should the regulations relating to the requested variance change prior to Zoning By-law 2019-051 coming into force, this variance shall be void. Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Attachments: • Appendix A — Severance Sketch with aerial photo submitted with application form Appendix B — Severance Sketch submitted with application form Appendix C — Existing Servicing Plan submitted with application form Appendix D — Easement sketch prepared by KW Hydro (excerpt) Appendix A ly NI 71 0 77 i4 > >1 H 0 \w A E 72 6 -P4! LO L KlYowly ARC=26,2 39.6 % As PART SPOF;t -rSWCIRLD CR<) C=25,7 AR 0 '. 2. SSING R04t) 'AP rueelsras m < ;mu HN z > 0 A z 0 m CO H -n ;v, c % OOM 9 CUfT Z A 0 m -I A 3 ;u 0 Cp - 0 m > At- ml '06 m 7 > ZZ ;u m nO ART 58R-5746 121.3 70.1 —PARI` 69.6 PART 10. 5$4 18gig ly NI 71 0 77 i4 > >1 H 0 \w A E 72 6 -P4! LO L KlYowly ARC=26,2 39.6 % As PART SPOF;t -rSWCIRLD CR<) C=25,7 AR 0 '. 2. SSING R04t) 'AP rueelsras m < ;mu HN z > 0 A z 0 m CO H -n ;v, c % OOM 9 CUfT Z A 0 m -I A 3 ;u 0 Cp - 0 m > At- ml '06 m 7 > ZZ ;u m Appendix B o n �0 vi -i ni PIN 0 22732 -XO (LT) ^ G� i m Pz N C c' m4111 -RT 5F<- iY= �4Ar ` 121.3 ? 31b2/t� J4� itA8P 76.1 PART 11,51'251iP FB9.1i 1 ffAL7 f RftNEWAY A �ao�ao nsi usEnenN ...... 69.6r r 10, 0 w O o Y s =D T^ p er n r0 a � raP x n __j 'yw" a❑ c u A �h 'Con o Q h'j [nn c r ? �Y A = zN' } FA bA rmnd� 9 R =i. z y N F: 7d 5` A = "'"fid OL- Gm*� ti nmrZeOto r = 12.6 W A bN Z RI ffi n Iw SllplfC'7 m s � n N ` r..gr?7 TO 7"T Inr57xuarw7 ``*r u �N. O n �j 1• no`7 cr. KNOWN A3ARC" 26.2 30.6 :A n SF'ORTSWRLD CRe� ~ARC■25.7RnaT 3NGPIN ap-1a5!Q ROAD 207-12 SFF SNAW NQ 2 IFS lNsrRUMf Y (4TJ S1,11- M WRa191 �` 45EMfNF5 955588. 05 48276$ AND WR -31.8 co co co �d " 3 3 ��a z 74 w m > w ra � z r N C m9w-Qas p T x n na my �m Ll nmm� n a'j > 3 S O z Tz- ;n'= Ofp 5;H 'a M, zma w v�o �_y 2pp> 9p T Z e m aa O x{ mmyw Yi nmw A IT -11 4 D)S m z crm9- op 0N m vex om neon TDo m Q �i has Z o z m w S Via° Z Z SGS i 1 o n z a 3 m""� " mi w z c Z .i7 C7 m on� �o m mm c m o a Appendix C WN 51M i" % 5 / / �| _ � ' { , 9P ^ � �\�\d « ��/{){�� WN 51M i" % 5 / / �| _ � ' { , 9P Rppenaix u - � !| ' c �$ ' §`� !■| ��� k;� ■ ■|; >4 > �k B ` is §2 F) AW | �!■ I �� Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 *Z11 P111P4.1 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 9, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-025 through B2019-050 and CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER 4283 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional staff has no objection to the application. 4285 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional Staff has no objection to the application. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 B2019-027 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Activa Holdings Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a consent application to create a stormwater easement for the purpose of receiving stormwater from the adjacent lands to the north and permitting it to flow through to the outlet (Strasburg Creek). Regional Staff has no objection to the application. B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Kiah Group Inc. c/o Sean O'Neill The owner/applicant is proposing a lot severance. The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent approval to create this lot in March 2018 via application B2018-023. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. 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 327.8 mASL 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 2019. Regional staff has no objection to the application, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-029 4278 King Street East Sportsworld Crossing Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to a lot severance. The proposed severed lot will include the existing office building and parking lot and the proposed retained lot will remain vacant for future commercial uses. The owner/applicant also requires an easement for shared use of the existing driveway. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Noise: The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed Environmental/Stationary Noise Study and secure its implementation prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands (Parcel B). The Assessment must address the possible impact of road traffic on any proposed development. In addition the Assessment must address the possible impact generated by the proposed development on all noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity and on the development itself, as well as any off-site noise sources identified by the noise consultant that may have an impact on the proposed development. The owner/applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the Region to complete the noise study prior to Site Plan and once approved amend/enter into a new agreement to implement the recommendations of that study. Regional Road Dedication: While no further road widening dedication is required along Regional Road 08 (King Street East) in accordance with the designated road width provided in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), please be advised that the King Street East corridor has been identified as the Region of Waterloo Council Endorsed, Preferred Option for Stage 2 of the Region's Light Rail Transit (ION). Under the ION Stage 2 re -construction process, further property dedications may be required in association with that project. For more information regarding the Region of Waterloo ION Stage 2 project please consult the Region of Waterloo website. (https://rapidtransit. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/stage21ON/stage2ion.asp) Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject property currently has a right -in, right -out vehicular access to King Street East which also connects internally to the #4220 King Street East property. A new mutual shared access at the northwest property limits along with a mutual shared access easement between the properties owners intended to use the new relocated access will be required. The existing right -in, right -out access on King Street East will be closed. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 A Regional Road Access Permit application with an application fee of $230 will be required for the proposed access re -location and the closure of the existing access. The access permit application is available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Access Perm it-access.pdf. No other direct access to King Street East would be allowed to the retained lands. Regional Road Reconstruction — Please be advised that this section of King Street East is scheduled for re -construction in 2021 & 2022 according to the Region of Waterloo 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program. For more information on this project please contact Mr. William Gilbert at 519-575-4603. Stormwater Management: Regional Staff would note that a detailed SWM management report would be required for any development on the proposed severed and retained lots. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to submit a detailed Environmental and Stationary Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands. 3) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant obtain an access permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. B2019-030 and B2019-031 452 and 256 Prospect Avenue William Wirtz The owner/applicant is proposing to sever the rear yard of 452 Prospect Avenue and add the severed portion to 456 Prospect Avenue. Then owner/applicant also would simultaneously sever the rear yard of 456 Prospect Avenue, including the added portion to create a new lot fronting on Broadview Avenue. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-032 to B2019-042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, Activa Holdings Inc. 122 Monarch Woods Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B2019-043 to B2019-050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, Activa Holdings Inc. 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Lino and Angela Santarosa The owner/applicant has requested revisions to the proposed conditions as a result of the current ownership of the subject parcels and the timing of clearing certain conditions. The proposed consent applications are to facilitate future development plans for the two existing lots to become four lots. In order to close proposed transactions, the conditions of approval are required to be amended. Regional Comments: Regional Staff have no concerns as the proposed changes are to City of Kitchener conditions. Regional Staff had no concerns with the proposed applications B2019-002 to B2019-004 and the Regional condition for the consent review fee is not proposed to be changed. Regional staff has no objection to the subject applications. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 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 Planner Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Staff Report Development Services Department 1 K�_R www.ki tch en er. c a REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Richard Kelly-Ruetz, Technical Assistant (Planning & Zoning) 519-741-2200 ext. 7110 WARD: 2 DATE OF REPORT: July 5, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-172 SUBJECT: 452 Prospect Avenue — Applications: B2019-030 & A2019-064 456 Prospect Avenue — Applications: B2019-031 & A2019-065 Applicant: Jeremy Krygsman Owner(s): William Wirtz (452 Prospect Avenue) William Wirtz & Megan Wirtz (456 Prospect Avenue) Summarized Recommendation: Approve Consent Applications Subject to Conditions; Approve Minor Variance Applications without Conditions REPORT Planning Comments: The subject properties are located at 452 & 456 Prospect Avenue are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and Zoned Residential Three (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The properties are located near the intersection of Broadview Avenue and Weber Street East in the Stanley Park Planning Community. A site inspection was done on July 3 2019. Each lot contains an existing single detached dwelling with detached garage. The surrounding neighbourhood is composed primarily of low density residential uses. The subject properties are shown below. Existing Conditions and Location Map — 452 & 456 Prospect Avenue *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. The applicant is proposing to sever the rear portion 452 Prospect Avenue, convey this portion to 456 Prospect Avenue as a lot addition to create a new flag shaped lot, and subsequently sever the flagged shaped lot to create a new lot with frontage on Broadview Avenue to be used for future residential development. The proposal is shown on the severance sketch submitted in support of the applications. The retained portions of 452 & 456 Prospect Avenue require several variances each to legalize existing conditions to facilitate the proposed severance(s). The proposal is illustrated below. Proposed new lot fronting Broadview Avenue Existing 452-456 Prospect Ave. Proposed new lot fronting Broadview Ave. Staff note that the property known as 456 Prospect Avenue was erroneously referred to as 465 Prospect Avenue during the circulation notice. This was a typographical error and has since been clarified in a second mailing to properties within 30 metres of the subject property and corrected on the City's website. Requested Consent and Minor Variances Applications The applicant has submitted 4 Committee of Adjustment applications, summarized below: 1. Consent Application B2019-030 at 452 Prospect Avenue requesting to create: a. A new parcel of land (Parcel 2) with an approximate width of 25.2 metres, depth of 12.3 metres, and area of 309.7 square metres, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the lands to the east known as 456 Prospect Avenue. The retained lot (Parcel 1) would have an approximate width of 12.19 metres, depth of 38.2 metres, and area of 467.2 square metres. 2. Consent Application B2019-031 at 456 Prospect Avenue requesting to create: a. A new lot (Parcel 2 & Parcel 4) with an approximate width of 25.2 metres, depth of 24.49 metres, and area of 617 square metres. The retained lot (Parcel 3) would have an approximate width of 12.19 metres, depth of 38.19 metres, and area of 465.8 square metres. 3. Minor Variance Application A2019-064 at 452 Prospect Avenue requesting relief from: a. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a minimum lot width of 12.2 metres whereas the By-law requires 13.7 metres; and, b. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a side yard with a driveway leading to a required parking space to be 2.8 metres whereas the By-law requires 3 metres. 4. Minor Variance Application A2019-065 at 456 Prospect Avenue requesting relief from: a. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a minimum corner lot width of 12.19 metres whereas the By-law requires 15 metres; b. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a minimum side yard of 1.07 metres whereas the By-law requires 1.2 metres; c. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a front yard of 4.48 metres whereas the By-law requires 4.5 metres; d. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a side yard abutting a street of 2.93 metres whereas the By-law requires 4.5 metres; e. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to locate a building containing the required off-street parking space to be 0.8 metres from the street line, whereas the By-law requires 6 metres from the street line; f. Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) of the Zoning By-law to allow off-street parking to be located 0 metres from the street line, whereas the By-law requires 6 metres; g. Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow the existing building to be within the driveway visibility triangle and corner visibility triangle by 0.06 metres, whereas the By-law does not permit any encroachments within a visibility triangle; h. Section 5.5.2 c) of the Zoning By-law to allow an accessory building to have a minimum side yard abutting the street of 0.8 metres, whereas the By-law does not permit an accessory building to locate in a side yard abutting a street; L Section 5.5.2 e) of the Zoning By-law to allow an accessory building to locate between a street line and the nearest point of the principle building, whereas the By-law does not allow this; and, j. Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) to allow a driveway to be located 0 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot whereas the By-law requires 9 metres. 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. General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test All requested variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and the intent of this designation is to encourage a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested variances seek to legalize existing conditions for two existing single detached dwellings. These variances are appropriate and continue to maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. `General' Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law Test Variances for retained portion of 452 Prospect Avenue (Parcel 1) The first requested variance to allow a minimum lot width of 12.2 metres rather than the 13.7 metres meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 13.7 metres is to ensure sufficient lot width for a single detached dwelling. There is an existing single detached dwelling on the 12.2 metre lot which continues to function well, thus satisfying the general intent of the By-law. The second requested variance to allow a side yard with a driveway leading to a required parking space to be 2.8 metres rather than the required 3 metres, meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 3 metre side yard is to ensure sufficient space for a vehicle to drive though and open doors. The side yard with driveway is existing and staff are satisfied there is sufficient space for a vehicle to access the detached garage at the rear of the lot, thus satisfying the general intent of the By-law. Variances for retained portion of 456 Prospect Avenue (Parcel 3) The first requested variance to allow a minimum corner lot width of 12.19 metres rather than the required 15 metres meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 15 metre corner lot width is to allow for sufficient space on a corner lot to account for two street frontages and space for visibility triangles, in addition to a dwelling. This corner lot has been functioning with a reduced lot width and staff has no concerns with the continued use as such, as this is an existing condition and no concerns have been raised. The second requested variance to allow a minimum side yard of 1.07 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 1.2 metre side yard is to ensure sufficient space to access the rear yard of the dwelling and to maintain separation from adjacent properties. Staff is satisfied that this intent is maintained with the legalization of an existing condition. The third requested variance to allow a front yard of 4.48 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.5 metre front yard setback is to maintain a consistent streetscape for dwellings. The existing setback of 4.48 metres maintains a consistent setback and satisfies the general intent of the By-law. The fourth requested variance to allow a side yard abutting a street of 2.93 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Like the front yard requirement, the intent of the 4.5 metre side yard abutting a street is to maintain a consistent streetscape for dwellings. The existing setback of 2.93 metres maintains a consistent setback and satisfies the general intent of the By-law. The fifth requested variance to locate a building containing the required off-street parking space 0.8 metres from the street line rather than the required 6 metres and the sixth requested variance to allow off-street parking to be located 0 metres from the street line rather than the required 6 metres, meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of each regulation is to separate vehicle parking spaces from the street. In this case, the existing detached garage is located 0.8 metres from the side lot line abutting a street. While the detached garage structure is located 0.8 metres from the side lot line abutting a street, it is located well beyond 6 metres from the functioning front property line, therefore satisfying the general intent of the By-law. The seventh requested variance to allow the existing dwelling to be within the driveway visibility triangle and corner visibility triangle by 0.06 metres whereas the By-law does not permit any encroachments within a visibility triangle meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of not allowing encroachments in a visibility triangle is to maintain visibility for and of vehicles and pedestrians at the intersection. The minor encroachments into the visibility triangles are existing and staff is not aware of any concerns with the existing situation, thus satisfying the general intent of the By-law. Transportation staff is supportive of the variance to allow the encroachment. The eighth requested variance to allow an accessory building to have a minimum side yard abutting the street of 0.8 metres whereas the By-law does not permit an accessory building to be located in a side yard abutting a street, and the ninth requested variance to allow an accessory building to locate between a street line and the nearest point of the principle building, whereas the By-law does not allow this, meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. For both of these variances, the intent of not permitting an accessory building between the principle dwelling and the street line is to reduce visual clutter on the streetscape by encouraging accessory buildings to locate in the rear yard and/or side yard, as opposed to the front yard and/or side yard abutting a street. In this case, the accessory building is located in a side yard abutting a street and functions as a garage for the dwelling. The detached garage is existing and only slightly off-line from the existing house. Staff is satisfied that legalizing the existing location of the detached garage will not cause any adverse visual impacts to the streetscape and continue to function as a parking space. The tenth requested variance to allow a driveway to be located 0 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot rather than the required 9 metres meets the general intent of the Zoning By- law. The intent of the 9 metre setback is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. It is staff's opinion that legalizing the existing reduction will not impact the property or access to the intersection as the property has been functioning as such since it was developed. Transportation staff is supportive of the variance and staff is satisfied the variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. "Minor" Test All requested variances are minor because they seek to legalize existing conditions. In all likelihood, these conditions have existed since the lots were originally developed in and around 1940-1960. No changes are proposed to the existing buildings on the retained portions of 452 & 456 Prospect Avenue. Transportation Services has stated that it does not have concerns with any of the requested variances. Desirability for Appropriate Development or Use Test The requested variances seek to facilitate the development of a new lot through the legalization of existing non -compliances for the retained portions of 452 and 456 Prospect Avenue. The new lot meets the minimum area and width dimensions of the Zoning By-law and is an appropriate lot for new development. As such, the legalization of existing conditions to facilitate the creation of a new lot for development is appropriate and desirable for the use and development of the land. Consent Considerations 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 proposed consent request is not premature and is in the public interest. The proposal conforms to the City's Official Plan. The proposed lot fronts onto an established public street with adequate municipal services. The dimension and shape of the proposed new lot is consistent with surrounding lots in the neighbourhood. The severed land and new lot is suitable for future residential development and proposed to be developed with a single detached dwelling, a permitted residential use. The severed lot complies with the regulations of the Residential Three (R-3) zone and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The proposed lot and proposed land use is compatible with the existing surrounding community. Pending approval of the associated minor variance applications, the retained lots will be legalized and are also consistent with the established land uses in the neighbourhood. Staff notes that the area proposed to be the new lot previously had some tree coverage and shrubbery which appears to have been recently clear cut. There remain some existing hedges and trees that overhang the area proposed to contain the new lot. As such, staff has added a condition to be registered on the title of the land with respect to a Tree Preservation Plan to ensure the existing vegetation is protected. On this basis, Planning staff recommends that all of the above referenced applications be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: The City's standard tree protection condition is required as a condition of approval, for both the severed and retained lands. A Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan is required for the severed and retained lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, which must be submitted and approved before any building permit is issued. Building Comments: Consent 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. Separate building permit(s) will be required for the construction of all new residential buildings. Transportation Services Comments: Consent and Minor Variance Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed applications. Engineering Comments: Consent 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 owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Katie Pietrzak (519-741-2200 ext. 7135). • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. 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 and proposed easements will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information 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. Operations Comments: Consent Comments: A 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 $11,592.00 Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (25.2m) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage meter. Region Comments: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. RECOMMENDATION 1. That Consent Application B2019-030 at 452 Prospect Avenue, requesting consent: a. To create a new parcel of land (Parcel 2) with an approximate width of 25.2 metres, depth of 12.3 metres, and area of 309.7 square metres, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the lands to the east known as 456 Prospect Avenue, 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 shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies 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 Minor Variance Application A2019-064 and A2019-065 received final approval. 4) That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands immediately to the east, addressed as 456 Prospect Avenue, and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 5) That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. 2. That Consent Application B2019-031 at 456 Prospect Avenue, requesting consent: a. To create a new lot (Parcel 2 & Parcel 4) with an approximate width of 25.2 metres, depth of 24.49 metres, and area of 617 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 shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies 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 Minor Variance Application A2019-064 and A2019-065 received final approval. 5) That Consent Application B2019-030 receive final approval. 6) 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 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, building elevation drawings, 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. 7) 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. 8) 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 and retained lands, or otherwise receive relief from Engineering Services for this requirement. 9) 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. 10) That the owner prepare and submit a Development Asset Drawing (AutoCAD format) for the site (e.g., servicing, stormwater management, etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 11) That the applicant submit payment for the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00, to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 3. That Minor Variance Application A2019-064 at 452 Prospect Avenue, related to the retained lot, requesting relief from: a. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a minimum lot width of 12.2 metres whereas the By-law requires 13.7 metres; and, b. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a side yard with a driveway leading to a required parking space to be 2.8 metres whereas the By-law requires 3 metres. be approved without conditions. 4. That Minor Variance Application A2019-065 at 456 , related to the retained lot, requesting relief from: a. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a minimum corner lot width of 12.19 metres whereas the By-law requires 15 metres; b. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a minimum side yard of 1.07 metres whereas the By-law requires 1.2 metres; c. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a front yard of 4.48 metres whereas the By-law requires 4.5 metres; d. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a side yard abutting a street of 2.93 metres whereas the By-law requires 4.5 metres; e. Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to locate a building containing the required off- street parking space to be 0.8 metres from the street line, whereas the By-law requires 6 metres from the street line; f. Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) of the Zoning By-law to allow off-street parking to be located 0 metres from the street line, whereas the By-law requires 6 metres; g. Section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law to allow the existing building to be within the driveway visibility triangle and corner visibility triangle by 0.06 metres, whereas the By-law does not permit any encroachments within a visibility triangle; h. Section 5.5.2 c) of the Zoning By-law to allow an accessory building to have a minimum side yard abutting the street of 0.8 metres, whereas the By-law does not permit an accessory building to locate in a side yard abutting a street; i. Section 5.5.2 e) of the Zoning By-law to allow an accessory building to locate between a street line and the nearest point of the principle building, whereas the By-law does not allow this; and, j. Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) to allow a driveway to be located 0 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot whereas the By-law requires 9 metres. be approved without conditions. Richard Kelly-Ruetz, BES Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Technical Assistant (Planning & Zoning) Senior Planner Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 *Z11 P111P4.1 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 9, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-025 through B2019-050 and CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER 4283 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional staff has no objection to the application. 4285 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional Staff has no objection to the application. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 B2019-027 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Activa Holdings Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a consent application to create a stormwater easement for the purpose of receiving stormwater from the adjacent lands to the north and permitting it to flow through to the outlet (Strasburg Creek). Regional Staff has no objection to the application. B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Kiah Group Inc. c/o Sean O'Neill The owner/applicant is proposing a lot severance. The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent approval to create this lot in March 2018 via application B2018-023. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. 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 327.8 mASL 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 2019. Regional staff has no objection to the application, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-029 4278 King Street East Sportsworld Crossing Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to a lot severance. The proposed severed lot will include the existing office building and parking lot and the proposed retained lot will remain vacant for future commercial uses. The owner/applicant also requires an easement for shared use of the existing driveway. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Noise: The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed Environmental/Stationary Noise Study and secure its implementation prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands (Parcel B). The Assessment must address the possible impact of road traffic on any proposed development. In addition the Assessment must address the possible impact generated by the proposed development on all noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity and on the development itself, as well as any off-site noise sources identified by the noise consultant that may have an impact on the proposed development. The owner/applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the Region to complete the noise study prior to Site Plan and once approved amend/enter into a new agreement to implement the recommendations of that study. Regional Road Dedication: While no further road widening dedication is required along Regional Road 08 (King Street East) in accordance with the designated road width provided in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), please be advised that the King Street East corridor has been identified as the Region of Waterloo Council Endorsed, Preferred Option for Stage 2 of the Region's Light Rail Transit (ION). Under the ION Stage 2 re -construction process, further property dedications may be required in association with that project. For more information regarding the Region of Waterloo ION Stage 2 project please consult the Region of Waterloo website. (https://rapidtransit. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/stage21ON/stage2ion.asp) Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject property currently has a right -in, right -out vehicular access to King Street East which also connects internally to the #4220 King Street East property. A new mutual shared access at the northwest property limits along with a mutual shared access easement between the properties owners intended to use the new relocated access will be required. The existing right -in, right -out access on King Street East will be closed. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 A Regional Road Access Permit application with an application fee of $230 will be required for the proposed access re -location and the closure of the existing access. The access permit application is available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Access Perm it-access.pdf. No other direct access to King Street East would be allowed to the retained lands. Regional Road Reconstruction — Please be advised that this section of King Street East is scheduled for re -construction in 2021 & 2022 according to the Region of Waterloo 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program. For more information on this project please contact Mr. William Gilbert at 519-575-4603. Stormwater Management: Regional Staff would note that a detailed SWM management report would be required for any development on the proposed severed and retained lots. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to submit a detailed Environmental and Stationary Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands. 3) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant obtain an access permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. B2019-030 and B2019-031 452 and 256 Prospect Avenue William Wirtz The owner/applicant is proposing to sever the rear yard of 452 Prospect Avenue and add the severed portion to 456 Prospect Avenue. Then owner/applicant also would simultaneously sever the rear yard of 456 Prospect Avenue, including the added portion to create a new lot fronting on Broadview Avenue. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-032 to B2019-042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, Activa Holdings Inc. 122 Monarch Woods Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B2019-043 to B2019-050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, Activa Holdings Inc. 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Lino and Angela Santarosa The owner/applicant has requested revisions to the proposed conditions as a result of the current ownership of the subject parcels and the timing of clearing certain conditions. The proposed consent applications are to facilitate future development plans for the two existing lots to become four lots. In order to close proposed transactions, the conditions of approval are required to be amended. Regional Comments: Regional Staff have no concerns as the proposed changes are to City of Kitchener conditions. Regional Staff had no concerns with the proposed applications B2019-002 to B2019-004 and the Regional condition for the consent review fee is not proposed to be changed. Regional staff has no objection to the subject applications. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 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 Planner Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Staff Report Development Services Department REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT #: SUBJECT: 1 K�-W FLE. P.x www.kitchener. ca Committee of Adjustment July 16, 2019 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Eric Schneider, Junior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 4 July 8, 2019 DSD -19-173 and DSD -19-174 A2019-066 to 081 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive & 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive Applicant - Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning Approve B2019-032 to 050 78, 84, 86, 92, 94, 104, 106, 112, 114, 116, 122 Monarch Woods Drive & 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive Applicant - Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning Approve with Conditions 83 - BT P-2... o 76 I D R y µy T1 R 669 1- g14R 8T ;. '- AR&.WOOD 8 869R, 448 88 90 Y 9 y16tii. Htl j/6 p4 BQ 82 115 `1 u R 4 52 1 - 112 114 QQQ 119 123 a RR 120 Z tv L� 122 y, 131 34 y r-1 939 R` � 3Q 128 . 139 676 130 193 26 - 1-1 669R, 44611 147 136 1St 22 138 - 1 18 144 v Olt -�OMpg 5LE�9R Location Map *** 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: This application includes a total of 19 properties. The application numbers will correspond with the addresses as follows: 78 Monarch Woods Drive A2019-066 & B2019-032 84 Monarch Woods Drive A2019-067 & B2019-033 86 Monarch Woods Drive A2019-068 & B2019-034 92 Monarch Woods Drive B2019-035 94 Monarch Woods Drive A2019-069 & B2019-036 104 Monarch Woods Drive A2019-070 & B2019-037 106 Monarch Woods Drive B2019-038 112 Monarch Woods Drive A2019-071 & B2019-039 114 Monarch Woods Drive A2019-072 & B2019-040 116 Monarch Woods Drive B2019-041 122 Monarch Woods Drive A2019-073 & B2019-042 110 Ian Ormston Drive A2019-074 & B2019-043 116 Ian Ormston Drive A2019-075 & B2019-044 118 Ian Ormston Drive A2019-076 & B2019-045 124 Ian Ormston Drive A2019-077 & B2019-046 126 Ian Ormston Drive A2019-078 & B2019-047 132 Ian Ormston Drive A2019-079 & B2019-048 134 Ian Ormston Drive A2019-080 & B2019-049 140 Ian Ormston Drive A2019-081 & B2019-050 The 19 subject properties listed above are zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Use Provision 448U and Special Regulation Provision 669R in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan. Staff conducted a site inspection of the property on July 4t", 2019. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 40.2.5 in the Zoning By-law to allow a side yard setback of 0.91 metres, whereas the By-law requires a side yard setback of 2.5 metres for street townhouse dwellings. The applicant is also requesting relief from Section 5.5C.1 to allow for the width of a garage to be 100% of the fagade, whereas the By-law allows for a maximum garage width of 70% of the fagade. The applicant is also requesting consent to create rear yard access easements to allow residents to access their rear yards, as required by Zoning By-law 85-1. Minor Variances 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. Side Yard Setback Variance The requested variance meets the general intent of the 2014 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 variance for reduction in side yard setback does not interfere with the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the regulation that requires a side yard setback of 2.5 metres is to allow for access and to limit impacts to neighbouring properties. Staff believes that the proposed 0.91 metre setback will be adequate to provide access to the rear yard. Staff acknowledges that the part of the building proposed to be located 0.91 metres to the side lot line is a covered porch, which would have much less of an impact than if the 3 storey building itself was located at that distance to the property line. Staff believes the distinction between the impacts of a 3 storey building and a one storey covered porch is important to note and believes that a covered porch located 0.91 metres to the side lot line will not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore, the requested variance for reduction in side yard setback meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. 3. The proposed variance is considered desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Staff is supportive of the proposed large and functional porches, and believes that the proposed variance is appropriate for the development. 4. The variance is considered minor. Staff believe any impacts of a covered porch located 0.91 metres to the side property line to be minor. Garage Width Variance The requested variance meets the general intent of the 2014 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 variance for garage width does not interfere with the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the regulation that limits garage width to 70% of the width of the fagade is to maintain the character of the streetscape and to provide adequate separation between driveways. City Urban Design staff has reviewed the proposed elevation drawings submitted with the application and believes that the character of the streetscape can be maintained given the high level of articulation between end units and interior units within the proposed townhouse blocks. To address the separation between driveways, the end units are designed to flank the front porch entrances of the abutting interior units, which provides a substantial separation distance between the driveways within each proposed townhouse block. 3. The proposed variance is considered desirable and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Staff is supportive of the overall design of the proposed buildings, and believes that the proposed variance is appropriate for the development. 4. The variance is considered minor. Staff believes that the requested variance is due to the design of the proposed buildings, and believes any impacts will be minor. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that these applications be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. View of Vacant Lands for Proposed Street Townhouse Dwellings (July 4t", 2019) 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. Separate building permit(s) will be required for the construction of all new residential buildings. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. RECOMMENDATION That applications A2019-066-081 requesting permission to construct street townhouse dwellings with a side yard setback of 0.91m rather than the required 2.5m and; to have a garage width of 100% of the width of the front fagade rather than the maximum permitted garage width of 70% be approved. Consent Applications for Easements The applicant is requesting consent to create a total of 19 easements to allow for rear yard access for interior townhouse residents. The proposed easements measure 0.91 metres in width, and vary in length and depth according to varying lot sizes. Staff does not have any concerns with the applications as the easements are required by the Zoning By-law. 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 easements are considered good planning that satisfies the policies of both the City's Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Separate building permit(s) construction of all new residential buildings. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. Engineering Comments: Engineering has no concerns. of Waterloo and Area Municipal Services will be required for the Operations Comments: Parkland dedication is not required for this application as parkland dedication was taken at time of subdivision registration. RECOMMENDATION That consent applications B2019-032-050 requesting consent to create a total of 19 easements in favour of adjacent townhomes for the purpose of rear yard access 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 PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the said easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement. 3. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor. 4. The City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 5. 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. Eric Schneider, BES Junior Planner Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 *Z11 P111P4.1 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 9, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-025 through B2019-050 and CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER 4283 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional staff has no objection to the application. 4285 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional Staff has no objection to the application. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 B2019-027 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Activa Holdings Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a consent application to create a stormwater easement for the purpose of receiving stormwater from the adjacent lands to the north and permitting it to flow through to the outlet (Strasburg Creek). Regional Staff has no objection to the application. B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Kiah Group Inc. c/o Sean O'Neill The owner/applicant is proposing a lot severance. The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent approval to create this lot in March 2018 via application B2018-023. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. 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 327.8 mASL 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 2019. Regional staff has no objection to the application, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-029 4278 King Street East Sportsworld Crossing Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to a lot severance. The proposed severed lot will include the existing office building and parking lot and the proposed retained lot will remain vacant for future commercial uses. The owner/applicant also requires an easement for shared use of the existing driveway. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Noise: The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed Environmental/Stationary Noise Study and secure its implementation prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands (Parcel B). The Assessment must address the possible impact of road traffic on any proposed development. In addition the Assessment must address the possible impact generated by the proposed development on all noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity and on the development itself, as well as any off-site noise sources identified by the noise consultant that may have an impact on the proposed development. The owner/applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the Region to complete the noise study prior to Site Plan and once approved amend/enter into a new agreement to implement the recommendations of that study. Regional Road Dedication: While no further road widening dedication is required along Regional Road 08 (King Street East) in accordance with the designated road width provided in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), please be advised that the King Street East corridor has been identified as the Region of Waterloo Council Endorsed, Preferred Option for Stage 2 of the Region's Light Rail Transit (ION). Under the ION Stage 2 re -construction process, further property dedications may be required in association with that project. For more information regarding the Region of Waterloo ION Stage 2 project please consult the Region of Waterloo website. (https://rapidtransit. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/stage21ON/stage2ion.asp) Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject property currently has a right -in, right -out vehicular access to King Street East which also connects internally to the #4220 King Street East property. A new mutual shared access at the northwest property limits along with a mutual shared access easement between the properties owners intended to use the new relocated access will be required. The existing right -in, right -out access on King Street East will be closed. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 A Regional Road Access Permit application with an application fee of $230 will be required for the proposed access re -location and the closure of the existing access. The access permit application is available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Access Perm it-access.pdf. No other direct access to King Street East would be allowed to the retained lands. Regional Road Reconstruction — Please be advised that this section of King Street East is scheduled for re -construction in 2021 & 2022 according to the Region of Waterloo 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program. For more information on this project please contact Mr. William Gilbert at 519-575-4603. Stormwater Management: Regional Staff would note that a detailed SWM management report would be required for any development on the proposed severed and retained lots. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to submit a detailed Environmental and Stationary Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands. 3) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant obtain an access permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. B2019-030 and B2019-031 452 and 256 Prospect Avenue William Wirtz The owner/applicant is proposing to sever the rear yard of 452 Prospect Avenue and add the severed portion to 456 Prospect Avenue. Then owner/applicant also would simultaneously sever the rear yard of 456 Prospect Avenue, including the added portion to create a new lot fronting on Broadview Avenue. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-032 to B2019-042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, Activa Holdings Inc. 122 Monarch Woods Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B2019-043 to B2019-050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, Activa Holdings Inc. 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Lino and Angela Santarosa The owner/applicant has requested revisions to the proposed conditions as a result of the current ownership of the subject parcels and the timing of clearing certain conditions. The proposed consent applications are to facilitate future development plans for the two existing lots to become four lots. In order to close proposed transactions, the conditions of approval are required to be amended. Regional Comments: Regional Staff have no concerns as the proposed changes are to City of Kitchener conditions. Regional Staff had no concerns with the proposed applications B2019-002 to B2019-004 and the Regional condition for the consent review fee is not proposed to be changed. Regional staff has no objection to the subject applications. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 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 Planner Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Staff Repod De velopment Services Department REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: WARD: DATE OF REPORT: REPORT #: SUBJECT: REPORT J tax www.kitchenerca Committee of Adjustment July 16, 2019 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Katie Anderl, Senior Planner— 519-741-2200 ext. 7987 #6 July 10, 2019 DSD -19-175 A2019-082, B2019-051, B2019-052, B2019-053, B2019-054 83 Elmsdale Drive Owner — Novacore (83 Elmsdale) Inc. Defer + A4G f aa�rt � f •ParcelA • PART E�®ment � } ?0 a OMQ (Lr) ` l r Planning Comments: The subject lands are located at 83 Elmsdale Drive and are proposed to be developed with mix of commercial and residential uses. This large site is being developed comprehensively, having a shared private street connecting several separately owned parcels. The owner, NovaCore, previously severed the lands into three parcels with various access and servicing easements. These parcels have now been created and the deed registered. The subject applications seek to further subdivide *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Parcel C into Parcels C (severed), D (retained) & E (severed) as shown on the sketch above. These parcels will all share access over the private driveway. New easements for access and servicing are proposed over Parcels C and E, and the owner is proposing amendments to the existing easements over Parcels A & B to reflect the proposed access and servicing for the new lots. The owner is also requesting a minor variance to permit a lot width of 14.2 metres for proposed Parcel C. The subject property is designated Mixed Use (with Specific Policy Area 31). The property is zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with Special Regulation Provision 649R, Special Use Provision 436U and Holding Provision 71 H, under Zoning By-law 85-1 and MIX -1 (42) (7H) under Zoning By-law 2019-051 (under appeal). The intent of the zones under both by-laws is to permit and support development of the lands with a mix of commercial and residential uses. Future severance of this site was anticipated as a likely scenario when the zoning and designation were applied to the lands. The proposed Parcel and driveway configuration is in keeping with the layout considered by the Master Plan endorsed by Council at the time the zoning and designation were applied to the lands. The proposed size and shape of the parcels will allow for development which will generally comply with the applicable regulations and policies, however a variance is required to permit the width of Parcel C at Ottawa Street South. A range of uses is permitted by the zoning for each of Parcels C, D and E, and a Holding Provision continues to require Ministry acknowledgement of a Record of Site Condition, and that a Noise Study be completed to the satisfaction of the Region prior to sensitive uses being permitted on the lands. Development of each future Parcel will be subject to Site Plan Approval, and the parcels are proposed to be addressed from the private street(s), which will be formally named through a future Council approval. Consent Applications: The proposed consents result in parcels as follows: Parcel C (severed) is proposed to have a width on Ottawa Street South of 14.2 metres, and an area of 1.22 ha; Parcel E (severed) is proposed to have a width on Ottawa Street South of 167.8 metres and an area of 0.89 ha; and Parcel D (retained) is proposed to have a width on Ottawa Street South 83.4 metres, and an area of 0.55 ha. In addition, the applicant is requesting easements over Parcels, A, B, C, and E for the purposes mutual access, fire -routing, and servicing (water and sanitary) as shown in the table below. Easement #: Purpose: In favour of Parcels: 1 (over Parcel A, & being Parts 5 & 7 on 58R-18985) Access & Fire Route B, C, D E Servicing (water) C, E 2 (over Parcel B, & being Part 2 on 58R-18985) Access & Fire Route A, C, D, E Servicing (water) D 3 (over Parcel C) Access & Fire Route A, B, D, E Servicing (water D 4 (over Parcel C) Access & Fire Route A, B, D, E Servicing (water) E 5 (over Parcel C) Access & Fire Route E Servicing (water) E 6 (over Parcel C) Access & Fire Route A, B, D, E 7 (over Parcel E) Servicing (sanitary) C, D 8 (over Parcel C) Access & Fire Route A, B, D, E Servicing (sanitary) D From a Planning and Transportation Planning perspective staff is generally satisfied with the proposed configuration of the Parcels C, D and E and are of the opinion that the orientation and width of the shared private roadway is appropriate for a range of future uses and associated parcel configurations. A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report was submitted in support of the applications. City and Regional staff have reviewed the report and are requesting that the applications be deferred to allow additional time to work with the applicant to verify the servicing solution and to confirm the size and location of the associated servicing easements over parcels C, D and E. Based on the foregoing, staff recommend that the applications be deferred for a period of up to 3 months (October 15, 2019), but that they be permitted to return sooner. Minor Variance Application: A minor variance is requested for proposed Parcel C to permit a lot width of 14.2 metres, whereas the Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) of By-law 85-1 requires a minimum lot width of 30.0 metres, and the MIX -1 Zone of By-law 2019-051 (under appeal) required a minimum lot width of 15.0 metres. Planning staff recommends that consideration of the requested variance be deferred until such time as the associated consent applications are considered by the Committee. Operations (Design and Development) Comments: Parkland dedication for redevelopment of the parcels will be deferred to the Site Plan application process. Parkland dedication will be calculated for each redevelopment parcel in response to detailed site plan applications and according to the City's Parkland Dedication Policy. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent applications. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no objections to the proposed consent applications. Engineering Services Comments: Engineering Services staff has expressed to Planning staff that further review and consultation with the applicant is required to confirm the width and locations of the requested servicing easements. Engineering staff also acknowledge that the Region has raised concerns with the proposed sanitary outlet, and request that consideration of the application be deferred. At such time as the proposed easements are confirmed and the consent applications move forward, staff anticipates comments and conditions as follows: 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 owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Jason Brule (519-741-2200 ext. 7419). Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. 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 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: Regional Staff request deferral of consent applications B2019-051 through B2019-054 due to concerns with the proposed sanitary connection and would recommend that the owner/applicant discuss with Regional/City Staff to ensure a proper sanitary sewer is installed. Detailed comments are attached in Appendix A. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Applications A2019-082, B2019-051, B2019-052, B2019-053, and B2019-054 for a period of up to 3 months (October 15, 2019), but that they be permitted to return sooner. Katie Anderl, MICP, RPP Senior Planner Attachments: Appendix A — Region of Waterloo Comments Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner N* Region of Waterloo 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 U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterl oo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 10, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-051 through B2019-054 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER B2019-051 to B2019-054 83 Elmsdale Drive Novacore (83 Elsmdale Dr.) Inc. The subject site has previously been severed which resulted in three new parcels (132018-017 through B2018-020). The proposed consent applications are to sever the existing "Parcel U into three separate Parcels (C, D, and E) with easements for servicing and access. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff acknowledge receipt of the required consent review fee ($700.00). Stormwater Management and Site Grading: Regional Staff have reviewed the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report submitted by WalterFedy (June, 2019). The report addresses the proposed servicing for the severed/retained parcels and proposes two stormwater sewer service connections and one sanitary sewer connection to the Ottawa Street South right of way. The provided report specifies that "As design development has progressed, the Region has permitted a sanitary connection for the original Parcel C to Ottawa Street." Regional Staff have no documentation to indicate their support for the proposed connection to the existing sanitary sewer on Ottawa Street South. Regional Staff recommendation for the owner/applicant is to not connect into the sanitary line on Ottawa Street due to reasons including, but not limited to, methane being present in the Ottawa Street manholes which can cause varying levels of sanitary conveyance; previous situations where challenges arise (i.e. clogging) when sanitary lines that were designed and built based on the transference of only liquids are inundated with solids; and the potential for odours to be present. Regional Staff request deferral of consent applications B2019-051 through B2019-054 due to concerns with the proposed sanitary connection and would recommend that the owner/applicant discuss with Regional/City Staff to ensure a proper sanitary sewer is installed. Record of Site Condition: The Region's Implementation Guidelines For the Review of Development Applications On or Adjacent to Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites specifies that the completion of an RSC is required prior to final approval of a consent application. Regional Staff acknowledge that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is currently secured through a Holding Provision on Zoning By-law Amendment application ZC 13/15/E/KA and is to be submitted for the entirety of the subj ect lands. Regional Staff is satisfied with the use of a holding provision for this proposed development. Regional Road Dedication: The proposed severed and retained parcels have direct frontage onto Ottawa Street South (RR #04). Regional Staff identified a road widening dedication along Ottawa Street South for consent applications B2018-017, B2018-019 and B2018-020. This road widening dedication, receipted as WR1173649, was registered on March 15, 2019. Regional Staff advise that should road improvements be necessary, the owner/applicant may be required to dedicate the lands to implement those improvements, and be responsible for those costs associated with any land dedication and capital costs related to the road mitigation. Transportation Impact Study (TIS): The subject property has no existing vehicular access directly to Ottawa Street South (RR #04). Regional Staff and the owner/applicant have agreed to a new access location from the subject property to Ottawa Street South, directly across from the McLennan Park entrance. This shared access location is correctly identified as Part 10 on the sketches provided with the application. A second vehicular access to the subject property is located on Elmsdale Drive. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was submitted to the Region for review under the OPA/ZC applications for the subject lands. Regional Staff concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the TIS which included: an eastbound left turn lane on Ottawa Street South at Elmsdale Drive, an eastbound left turn lane on Ottawa Street South at the proposed access, and a pedestrian refuge island on Ottawa Street South at Elmsdale Drive. The TIS found that traffic signals were not warranted at either the Elmsdale Road/Ottawa Street South intersection or the proposed access from the development onto Ottawa Street South. Regional Staff are aware that the owner/applicant is completing an update to the TIS to reflect the updated development concept/design to reflect the change in built form. Regional Staff require the updated TIS to be submitted for review and approval, and if necessary, enter into an agreement with the Region to implemented required improvements to the Ottawa Street right-of- way at a future development stage (i.e. Site Plan). The Region will require the owner/applicant to complete the cost estimate, functional plan, legal agreement and appropriate funds related to the Ottawa Street South improvements identified in the existing TIS related to the overall 83 Elmsdale Drive development prior to final approval of the proposed consent applications. The required improvements to the Ottawa Street South right of way may change based on the updated TIS, if accepted and approved by the Region of Waterloo. Access Permit: A Regional Road Access Permit will be required for the proposed access location to Ottawa Street South. The Regional Road Access Permit condition can be deferred to a future Site Plan application, or may be required at the time of the opening of the access to Ottawa Street South in relation to the Ottawa Street South road improvements. The Regional Road Access Permit application can be found on the Region of Waterloo website (https://www.regionofwaterloo. ca/en/doing-business/applications-licences-and-permits. aspx), and there is a $230 fee associated with the application. Environmental Noise: A Noise Feasibility Study was completed under the previous OPA/ZC application and was reviewed by Regional Staff at this time. In accordance with the Holding Provision (H) placed on the site specific zoning By-law for the subject property, a detailed Noise Assessment for the property will be required prior to Site Plan approval. Regional Staff recommend the owner/applicant undertake the Noise Assessment as soon as possible to ensure proper setbacks and building materials are included in the site design. The detailed Noise Assessment is not a requirement of this Consent application. Other: Regional Staff would note that this section of Ottawa Street South is identified in the Region Transportation Capital Program as scheduled for major re -construction and re -habilitation in 2021 and 2022. For more information regarding this project please contact Mr. John Stephenson (519-575-4096). Regional Staff also note that any work required in the Ottawa Street South right-of-way will require Municipal Consent and a Regional Road Work Permit. Regional staff recommends deferral of the proposed consent applications as a result of the following: • The Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report submitted by WalterFedy (June, 2019) specifies that Regional Staff have permitted a sanitary connection for the original Parcel C to Ottawa Street. Regional Staff have no documentation to indicate support for the proposed connection. • Regional Staff request to discuss the proposed sanitary connection to Ottawa Street South as Staff recommend the owner/applicant not connect due to reasons including, but not limited to, methane being present in manholes; potential clogging; and odours • Regional Staff have concerns with the proposed sanitary connection and would recommend that the owner/applicant discuss with Regional/City Staff to ensure a proper sanitary sewer is installed. General Comments Regional Staff advise that comments and requirements are based on the information provided by the owner/applicant. Regional Staff advise that based on further discussions regarding these matters that comments are subject to change. 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 Planner N* Region of Waterloo 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 U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterl oo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 10, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-051 through B2019-054 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER B2019-051 to B2019-054 83 Elmsdale Drive Novacore (83 Elsmdale Dr.) Inc. The subject site has previously been severed which resulted in three new parcels (132018-017 through B2018-020). The proposed consent applications are to sever the existing "Parcel U into three separate Parcels (C, D, and E) with easements for servicing and access. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff acknowledge receipt of the required consent review fee ($700.00). Stormwater Management and Site Grading: Regional Staff have reviewed the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report submitted by WalterFedy (June, 2019). The report addresses the proposed servicing for the severed/retained parcels and proposes two stormwater sewer service connections and one sanitary sewer connection to the Ottawa Street South right of way. The provided report specifies that "As design development has progressed, the Region has permitted a sanitary connection for the original Parcel C to Ottawa Street." Regional Staff have no documentation to indicate their support for the proposed connection to the existing sanitary sewer on Ottawa Street South. Regional Staff recommendation for the owner/applicant is to not connect into the sanitary line on Ottawa Street due to reasons including, but not limited to, methane being present in the Ottawa Street manholes which can cause varying levels of sanitary conveyance; previous situations where challenges arise (i.e. clogging) when sanitary lines that were designed and built based on the transference of only liquids are inundated with solids; and the potential for odours to be present. Regional Staff request deferral of consent applications B2019-051 through B2019-054 due to concerns with the proposed sanitary connection and would recommend that the owner/applicant discuss with Regional/City Staff to ensure a proper sanitary sewer is installed. Record of Site Condition: The Region's Implementation Guidelines For the Review of Development Applications On or Adjacent to Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites specifies that the completion of an RSC is required prior to final approval of a consent application. Regional Staff acknowledge that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is currently secured through a Holding Provision on Zoning By-law Amendment application ZC 13/15/E/KA and is to be submitted for the entirety of the subj ect lands. Regional Staff is satisfied with the use of a holding provision for this proposed development. Regional Road Dedication: The proposed severed and retained parcels have direct frontage onto Ottawa Street South (RR #04). Regional Staff identified a road widening dedication along Ottawa Street South for consent applications B2018-017, B2018-019 and B2018-020. This road widening dedication, receipted as WR1173649, was registered on March 15, 2019. Regional Staff advise that should road improvements be necessary, the owner/applicant may be required to dedicate the lands to implement those improvements, and be responsible for those costs associated with any land dedication and capital costs related to the road mitigation. Transportation Impact Study (TIS): The subject property has no existing vehicular access directly to Ottawa Street South (RR #04). Regional Staff and the owner/applicant have agreed to a new access location from the subject property to Ottawa Street South, directly across from the McLennan Park entrance. This shared access location is correctly identified as Part 10 on the sketches provided with the application. A second vehicular access to the subject property is located on Elmsdale Drive. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was submitted to the Region for review under the OPA/ZC applications for the subject lands. Regional Staff concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the TIS which included: an eastbound left turn lane on Ottawa Street South at Elmsdale Drive, an eastbound left turn lane on Ottawa Street South at the proposed access, and a pedestrian refuge island on Ottawa Street South at Elmsdale Drive. The TIS found that traffic signals were not warranted at either the Elmsdale Road/Ottawa Street South intersection or the proposed access from the development onto Ottawa Street South. Regional Staff are aware that the owner/applicant is completing an update to the TIS to reflect the updated development concept/design to reflect the change in built form. Regional Staff require the updated TIS to be submitted for review and approval, and if necessary, enter into an agreement with the Region to implemented required improvements to the Ottawa Street right-of- way at a future development stage (i.e. Site Plan). The Region will require the owner/applicant to complete the cost estimate, functional plan, legal agreement and appropriate funds related to the Ottawa Street South improvements identified in the existing TIS related to the overall 83 Elmsdale Drive development prior to final approval of the proposed consent applications. The required improvements to the Ottawa Street South right of way may change based on the updated TIS, if accepted and approved by the Region of Waterloo. Access Permit: A Regional Road Access Permit will be required for the proposed access location to Ottawa Street South. The Regional Road Access Permit condition can be deferred to a future Site Plan application, or may be required at the time of the opening of the access to Ottawa Street South in relation to the Ottawa Street South road improvements. The Regional Road Access Permit application can be found on the Region of Waterloo website (https://www.regionofwaterloo. ca/en/doing-business/applications-licences-and-permits. aspx), and there is a $230 fee associated with the application. Environmental Noise: A Noise Feasibility Study was completed under the previous OPA/ZC application and was reviewed by Regional Staff at this time. In accordance with the Holding Provision (H) placed on the site specific zoning By-law for the subject property, a detailed Noise Assessment for the property will be required prior to Site Plan approval. Regional Staff recommend the owner/applicant undertake the Noise Assessment as soon as possible to ensure proper setbacks and building materials are included in the site design. The detailed Noise Assessment is not a requirement of this Consent application. Other: Regional Staff would note that this section of Ottawa Street South is identified in the Region Transportation Capital Program as scheduled for major re -construction and re -habilitation in 2021 and 2022. For more information regarding this project please contact Mr. John Stephenson (519-575-4096). Regional Staff also note that any work required in the Ottawa Street South right-of-way will require Municipal Consent and a Regional Road Work Permit. Regional staff recommends deferral of the proposed consent applications as a result of the following: • The Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report submitted by WalterFedy (June, 2019) specifies that Regional Staff have permitted a sanitary connection for the original Parcel C to Ottawa Street. Regional Staff have no documentation to indicate support for the proposed connection. • Regional Staff request to discuss the proposed sanitary connection to Ottawa Street South as Staff recommend the owner/applicant not connect due to reasons including, but not limited to, methane being present in manholes; potential clogging; and odours • Regional Staff have concerns with the proposed sanitary connection and would recommend that the owner/applicant discuss with Regional/City Staff to ensure a proper sanitary sewer is installed. General Comments Regional Staff advise that comments and requirements are based on the information provided by the owner/applicant. Regional Staff advise that based on further discussions regarding these matters that comments are subject to change. 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 Planner Region of Waterloo 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 U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 10, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-051 through B2019-054 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER B2019-051 to B2019-054 83 Elmsdale Drive Novacore (83 Elsmdale Dr.) Inc. The subject site has previously been severed which resulted in three new parcels (82018-017 through B2018-020). The proposed consent applications are to sever the existing "Parcel C' into three separate Parcels (C, D, and E) with easements for servicing and access. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff acknowledge receipt of the required consent review fee ($700.00). Stormwater Management and Site Grading: Regional Staff have reviewed the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report submitted by WalterFedy (June, 2019). The report addresses the proposed servicing for the severed/retained parcels and proposes two stormwater sewer service connections and one sanitary sewer connection to the Ottawa Street South right of way. Document Number: 3052816 Version: 1 The provided report specifies that "As design development has progressed, the Region has permitted a sanitary connection for the original Parcel C to Ottawa Street." Regional Staff have no documentation to indicate their support for the proposed connection to the existing sanitary sewer on Ottawa Street South. Regional Staff recommendation for the owner/applicant is to not connect into the sanitary line on Ottawa Street due to reasons including, but not limited to, methane being present in the Ottawa Street manholes which can cause varying levels of sanitary conveyance; previous situations where challenges arise (i.e. clogging) when sanitary lines that were designed and built based on the transference of only liquids are inundated with solids; and the potential for odours to be present. Regional Staff request deferral of consent applications B2019-051 through B2019-054 due to concerns with the proposed sanitary connection and would recommend that the owner/applicant discuss with Regional/City Staff to ensure a proper sanitary sewer is installed. Record of Site Condition: The Region's Implementation Guidelines For the Review of Development Applications On or Adjacent to Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites specifies that the completion of an RSC is required prior to final approval of a consent application. Regional Staff acknowledge that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is currently secured through a Holding Provision on Zoning By-law Amendment application ZC13/15/E/KA and is to be submitted for the entirety of the subject lands. Regional Staff is satisfied with the use of a holding provision for this proposed development. Regional Road Dedication: The proposed severed and retained parcels have direct frontage onto Ottawa Street South (RR #04). Regional Staff identified a road widening dedication along Ottawa Street South for consent applications B2018-017, B2018-019 and B2018-020. This road widening dedication, receipted as WR1173649, was registered on March 15, 2019. Regional Staff advise that should road improvements be necessary, the owner/applicant may be required to dedicate the lands to implement those improvements, and be responsible for those costs associated with any land dedication and capital costs related to the road mitigation. Transportation Impact Study (TIS): The subject property has no existing vehicular access directly to Ottawa Street South (RR #04). Regional Staff and the owner/applicant have agreed to a new access location from the subject property to Ottawa Street South, directly across from the McLennan Park entrance. This shared access location is correctly identified as Part 10 on the sketches provided with the application. A second vehicular access to the subject Document Number: 3052816 Version: 1 property is located on Elmsdale Drive. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was submitted to the Region for review under the OPA/ZC applications for the subject lands. Regional Staff concurred with the conclusions and recommendations of the TIS which included: an eastbound left turn lane on Ottawa Street South at Elmsdale Drive, an eastbound left turn lane on Ottawa Street South at the proposed access, and a pedestrian refuge island on Ottawa Street South at Elmsdale Drive. The TIS found that traffic signals were not warranted at either the Elmsdale Road/Ottawa Street South intersection or the proposed access from the development onto Ottawa Street South. Regional Staff are aware that the owner/applicant is completing an update to the TIS to reflect the updated development concept/design to reflect the change in built form. Regional Staff require the updated TIS to be submitted for review and approval, and if necessary, enter into an agreement with the Region to implemented required improvements to the Ottawa Street right-of-way at a future development stage (i.e. Site Plan). The Region will require the owner/applicant to complete the cost estimate, functional plan, legal agreement and appropriate funds related to the Ottawa Street South improvements identified in the existing TIS related to the overall 83 Elmsdale Drive development prior to final approval of the proposed consent applications. The required improvements to the Ottawa Street South right of way may change based on the updated TIS, if accepted and approved by the Region of Waterloo. Access Permit: A Regional Road Access Permit will be required for the proposed access location to Ottawa Street South. The Regional Road Access Permit condition can be deferred to a future Site Plan application, or may be required at the time of the opening of the access to Ottawa Street South in relation to the Ottawa Street South road improvements. The Regional Road Access Permit application can be found on the Region of Waterloo website (https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/doing-business/applications-licences-and- permits.aspx), and there is a $230 fee associated with the application. Environmental Noise: A Noise Feasibility Study was completed under the previous OPA/ZC application and was reviewed by Regional Staff at this time. In accordance with the Holding Provision (H) placed on the site specific zoning By-law for the subject property, a detailed Noise Assessment for the property will be required prior to Site Plan approval. Regional Staff recommend the owner/applicant undertake the Noise Assessment as soon as possible to ensure proper setbacks and building materials are included in the site design. The detailed Noise Assessment is not a requirement of this Consent application. Document Number: 3052816 Version: 1 Other: Regional Staff would note that this section of Ottawa Street South is identified in the Region Transportation Capital Program as scheduled for major re -construction and re- habilitation in 2021 and 2022. For more information regarding this project please contact Mr. John Stephenson (519-575-4096). Regional Staff also note that any work required in the Ottawa Street South right-of-way will require Municipal Consent and a Regional Road Work Permit. Regional staff recommends deferral of the proposed consent applications as a result of the following: • The Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report submitted by WalterFedy (June, 2019) specifies that Regional Staff have permitted a sanitary connection for the original Parcel C to Ottawa Street. Regional Staff have no documentation to indicate support for the proposed connection. • Regional Staff request to discuss the proposed sanitary connection to Ottawa Street South as Staff recommend the owner/applicant not connect due to reasons including, but not limited to, methane being present in manholes; potential clogging; and odours • Regional Staff have concerns with the proposed sanitary connection and would recommend that the owner/applicant discuss with Regional/City Staff to ensure a proper sanitary sewer is installed. General Comments Regional Staff advise that comments and requirements are based on the information provided by the owner/applicant. Regional Staff advise that based on further discussions regarding these matters that comments are subject to change. 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 Planner Document Number: 3052816 Version: 1 Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 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, Sth 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 No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. 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 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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 Staff Report Dcvolopment Services Department wAl—�R www.ki tch en er. c a REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner— 519-741-2200 ext. 7987 WARD: 3 DATE OF REPORT: June 28, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-176 SUBJECT: Application Nos.: CC2019-005, CC2019-006 & CC2019-007 Original Application. Nos.: B2019-002, B2019-003 & B2019-004 Address: 25 & 31 Fourth Ave. Applicant: MHBC Planning Owners: Lino and Angela Santarossa Summarized Recommendation: Approve all Applications REPORT Planning Comments: The subject lands are located at 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue, and each property currently contains a single detached dwelling. On January 25, 2019, the Committee of Adjustment approved, subject to conditions, Consent Applications B2019-002, B2019-003 and B2019-004 to reconfigure the lands from 2 lots to 4 lots. The house located at 25 Fourth Ave is proposed to be maintained on a new lot having a width of 12.8 metres, and the remainder of the lands were approved to be split into three lots, each having a width of 9.144 metres. The existing house located at 31 Fourth Avenue is proposed to be demolished. The proposed severances and resultant lots are shown on the following page. The 3 original decisions and associated conditions require that 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue be taken into identical ownership prior to issuance of the certificate in order to facilitate the creation of the new lots in one transaction at the Registry Office. Since the original approval, the vendor and purchaser have determined that they would prefer that the land conveyances proceed in a series of transactions, rather than all as one transaction. As such, the owner is requesting the conditions be changed to permit the lots to be created as outlined below, and the changed conditions reflect this. First Severance - Lot "D" to be severed from 31 Fourth Ave. (Decision 132019-004) Second Severance — Lot "A" to be severed from 25 Fourth Ave. (Decision 132019-002) Third Severance — following the first two severances, the retained portions of the lands must be consolidated and then they may be severed into Lots B & C. (Decision 132019-003) *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. SKETCH SHOWING PROPOSED SEVERANCES NO. 25 & 31 FOURTH AVENUE CITY OF KITCHENER O 2 4 6 6 I O m SCALE = V 1 300 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 METRIC PARCEL DESCRIPTION- LOTS AA B A9, REGISTERED PLAN 254 ORIGINAL LOT FABRIC RETAINED LOTS �h RESULTANT LOTS (V CV LOT 87 � — T— I PLANTER n o 1ppn At IN U.- _ - N 5T' 15' S-3° W LEANT`'rte O J d eoncner _ I 258r DRIVE. pi 6 0. 56 STUCCO W SHED tn N ni y [TO n .- '� 0 CONCRETE) REMAIN) - Lot A m__� ) STOREY DECK 1 RETAINED a N 5 CLO H0116E W _ MVIC No. zs !r PAFdCELA m Created by: 7 T. 14 IVO REMAIN) j AREA- 515.4Y? OD '� B2019-002 m pi � f N W � 40 5T F 0 o PROP051:U 5EVERANL:1 RhFAINE[} J O F- Lot B (LOT ADDITION TO 31 FORTH AVE) PARCEL B w z 4 1D;g AREA -St.3m? AREA-3WAa r` J Consolidation of N 670 14' 25" w 2" 40.257 - __ remnant parcels N 6T" 13' 4a° w RETAINED 40. 21T 0 W N OARAOE [TO @E N Lot C _ DEMOL I5HEO1 C) - ffLST2R11 a N Created by: DELK lWN�"ND PROPOSED SEVERANCE 3 ai — To aE c�1GNKos FUTURE LOT r,' W B2019-003 AREA-3e5.1m1 n - -- N 67'13'4(r w 40.251 n 0 Lot D PROPOSED SEVERANCE 2 H N p FUTURE LOT "D' O - Z J Created by: AREA - M8. Id 0 B2019-004 N 67 • 13, 40r W 40.261 I Q (T+ !1 Qttl ts, LOT 90 o �C9 J The proposed changes to the conditions are provided in the Recommendations section below. Planning staff, in consultation with the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment and Legal staff is of the opinion that the proposed sequencing of the conveyances is appropriate and desirable. Each `stage' of the sequencing of the conveyances will result in lots that conform with the Official Plan and comply with Zoning By-law regulations should subsequent `stages' not proceed. The size, shape and dimensions of the interim and ultimate lots are suitable for the use of the lands. In addition to changes to conditions impacting the sequencing of conveyances, condition 12 of Decisions B2019-003 and B2019-004 are recommended to be amended due to a clerical error in the original. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that all subject applications be approved, subject to the revised conditions. RECOMMENDATION A. That Decision 132019-002, dated January 15, 2019, be changed as follows: 1. Delete Condition 3 and replace with: That Consent application B 2019-004 shall receive final approval, and registered transfers shall be provided to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. 2. Delete Condition 5 and replace with: That the owners shall consolidate and take into identical ownership the remnant parcel with the adjacent property municipally addressed as 31 Fourth Avenue. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. B. That Decision 132019-003, dated January 15, 2019, be changed as follows: 1. Delete Condition 3 and replace with: That Consent applications B 2019-002 and B 2019-004 shall receive final approval and the registered deed shall be provided to the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. 2. Delete Condition 5. 3. Delete Condition 6. 4. Delete Condition 12 and replace with: That the owners 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: "That prior to any demolition, grading, tree removal, or the application for or issuance of a building permit, the owners shall submit the following plans for the new lot (Shown as `Future Lot C" on the severance sketch), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning: a. A plan showing the location of the proposed dwelling and driveway, and elevation drawings, illustrating that the proposed dwelling will be compatible with the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale and design, and that the plans be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit. b. A Tree Preservation Plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. The plans shall be prepared by qualified consultants. C. The owners shall further agree to implement the approved plans. No changes to the plans shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning." C. That Decision B2019-004, dated January 15, 2019, be changed as follows: 1. Delete Condition 3. 2. Delete Condition 5. 3. Delete Condition 12 and replace with: That the owners 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: "That prior to any demolition, grading, tree removal, or the application for or issuance of a building permit, the owners shall submit the following plans for the new lot (Shown as `Future Lot D" on the severance sketch), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning: a. A plan showing the location of the proposed dwelling and driveway, and elevation drawings, illustrating that the proposed dwelling will be compatible with the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale and design, and that the plans be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit. b. A Tree Preservation Plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. The plans shall be prepared by qualified consultants. C. The owners shall further agree to implement the approved plans. No changes to the plans shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning." Katie Anderl, MCI P, RPP Senior Planner Juliane von Westerholt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo Holly Dyson Committee of Adjustment City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street East Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 *Z11 P111P4.1 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reg i o nofwate rl oo. ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 File No. D20-20/19 KIT July 9, 2019 Re: Comments for Consent Application B2019-025 through B2019-050 and CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 Committee of Adjustment Hearing July 16, 2019 CITY OF KITCHENER 4283 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional staff has no objection to the application. 4285 King Street East 1719288 Ontario Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to extend an existing lease. Regional Staff has no objection to the application. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 B2019-027 1340 Fischer -Hallman Road Activa Holdings Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a consent application to create a stormwater easement for the purpose of receiving stormwater from the adjacent lands to the north and permitting it to flow through to the outlet (Strasburg Creek). Regional Staff has no objection to the application. B2019-028 37 Heiman Street Kiah Group Inc. c/o Sean O'Neill The owner/applicant is proposing a lot severance. The Committee of Adjustment previously granted provisional consent approval to create this lot in March 2018 via application B2018-023. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. 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 327.8 mASL 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 2019. Regional staff has no objection to the application, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-029 4278 King Street East Sportsworld Crossing Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing to a lot severance. The proposed severed lot will include the existing office building and parking lot and the proposed retained lot will remain vacant for future commercial uses. The owner/applicant also requires an easement for shared use of the existing driveway. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Noise: The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed Environmental/Stationary Noise Study and secure its implementation prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands (Parcel B). The Assessment must address the possible impact of road traffic on any proposed development. In addition the Assessment must address the possible impact generated by the proposed development on all noise -sensitive uses in the vicinity and on the development itself, as well as any off-site noise sources identified by the noise consultant that may have an impact on the proposed development. The owner/applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the Region to complete the noise study prior to Site Plan and once approved amend/enter into a new agreement to implement the recommendations of that study. Regional Road Dedication: While no further road widening dedication is required along Regional Road 08 (King Street East) in accordance with the designated road width provided in Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), please be advised that the King Street East corridor has been identified as the Region of Waterloo Council Endorsed, Preferred Option for Stage 2 of the Region's Light Rail Transit (ION). Under the ION Stage 2 re -construction process, further property dedications may be required in association with that project. For more information regarding the Region of Waterloo ION Stage 2 project please consult the Region of Waterloo website. (https://rapidtransit. regionofwaterloo.ca/en/stage21ON/stage2ion.asp) Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation: The subject property currently has a right -in, right -out vehicular access to King Street East which also connects internally to the #4220 King Street East property. A new mutual shared access at the northwest property limits along with a mutual shared access easement between the properties owners intended to use the new relocated access will be required. The existing right -in, right -out access on King Street East will be closed. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 A Regional Road Access Permit application with an application fee of $230 will be required for the proposed access re -location and the closure of the existing access. The access permit application is available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Access Perm it-access.pdf. No other direct access to King Street East would be allowed to the retained lands. Regional Road Reconstruction — Please be advised that this section of King Street East is scheduled for re -construction in 2021 & 2022 according to the Region of Waterloo 10 - Year Transportation Capital Program. For more information on this project please contact Mr. William Gilbert at 519-575-4603. Stormwater Management: Regional Staff would note that a detailed SWM management report would be required for any development on the proposed severed and retained lots. Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to submit a detailed Environmental and Stationary Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval for any proposed development on the retained lands. 3) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant obtain an access permit(s) to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. B2019-030 and B2019-031 452 and 256 Prospect Avenue William Wirtz The owner/applicant is proposing to sever the rear yard of 452 Prospect Avenue and add the severed portion to 456 Prospect Avenue. Then owner/applicant also would simultaneously sever the rear yard of 456 Prospect Avenue, including the added portion to create a new lot fronting on Broadview Avenue. Regional Comments: Community Planning: Regional Staff require the owner/applicant to submit the required consent review fee of $350.00 for the creation of a new lot. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Regional staff has no objection to the applications, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. B2019-032 to B2019-042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, Activa Holdings Inc. 122 Monarch Woods Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. B2019-043 to B2019-050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, Activa Holdings Inc. 134,140 Ian Ormston Drive The owner/applicant is proposing easements to provide access to the rear yard for residents. Regional staff has no objection to the applications. CC2019-005 to CC2019-007 25 and 31 Fourth Avenue Lino and Angela Santarosa The owner/applicant has requested revisions to the proposed conditions as a result of the current ownership of the subject parcels and the timing of clearing certain conditions. The proposed consent applications are to facilitate future development plans for the two existing lots to become four lots. In order to close proposed transactions, the conditions of approval are required to be amended. Regional Comments: Regional Staff have no concerns as the proposed changes are to City of Kitchener conditions. Regional Staff had no concerns with the proposed applications B2019-002 to B2019-004 and the Regional condition for the consent review fee is not proposed to be changed. Regional staff has no objection to the subject applications. Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 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 Planner Document Number: 3051281 Version: 1 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive 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 xThese 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