HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-21-024 - A 2021-007 - 359 Highland Rd WI
Staff Report`
Itis i z��:I�
Develo n7ent5ervicesDepartr7ent www.kitchenerca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: February 16, 2021
SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157
PREPARED BY: Kelly-Ruetz, Richard, Project Manager, 519-741-2200 ext. 7110
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT: February 2, 2021
REPORT NO.: DSD -21-024
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-007
359 Highland Road West
Owner —John Dantzer & Natalie Podolean
Applicant — Reema Masri & Louis -Pierre Belec (Masri O. Inc.)
RECOMMENDATION:
That application A2021-007 requesting relief from Section 8.3 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to
permit the ground floor street line fagade width to be 28.6% of the street line width rather than the
required 50%; Section 8.3 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR)
of 2.25 rather than the required maximum of 2.0; Table 5-3 of Section 5.6 of Zoning By-law 2019-
051 to permit a minimum of 10 parking spaces including 3 visitor spaces, whereas 31 parking spaces
including 4 visitor spaces are required; and Section 5.5 c) of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit the
width of a Class A Bicycle Parking Stall to be 0.27 metres, rather than the required 0.6 metres be
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the owner enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on
title acknowledging that parking will be rented separately from the dwelling units; and,
2) That the Owner shall ensure that this approval shall only apply to the development
proposed through Site Plan Application SP20/063/H/RK.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
Figure 1: Location Map — 359 Highland Road West
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
As part of a Site Plan application for a 31 -unit Multiple Dwelling on the subject property that has
received Approval in Principle (AIP), the following relief is requested from Zoning By-law 2019-051:
■ Section 8.3 to permit the ground floor street line fagade width to be 28.6% of the street line
width rather than the required 50%;
■ Section 8.3 to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.25 rather than the required
maximum of 2.0;
■ Table 5-3 of Section 5.6 to permit a minimum of 10 parking spaces including 3 visitor spaces,
whereas 31 parking spaces including 4 visitor spaces are required; and,
■ Section 5.5 c) to permit the width of a Class A Bicycle Parking Stall to be 0.27 metres, rather
than the required 0.6 metres.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property highlighted in Figure 1 is designated as Mixed Use in the City's Official Plan
and identified as within an Urban Corridor on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned
as Mixed Use Two (MIX -2) with Site Specific Provision (68) in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The last
known use of the existing structure on the subject property is as a Residential Care Facility (Group
Home) with up to 8 residents.
In December 2020, a 5 -storey, 31 -unit Multiple Dwelling with 10 parking spaces received Site Plan
Approval in Principle (AIP) on the subject property. The 31 units are proposed to be `compact' units.
Of the 10 proposed parking spaces, 3 are visitor, 1 is barrier -free, 2 are designed to be future electric
vehicle parking spaces, and the remaining 4 are regular parking spaces. There is approximately 200
combined square metres of indoor/outdoor amenity space on the 51h floor and rooftop, with additional
space proposed in the basement. The ground floor level contains lobby space, exit stairs, and
parking spaces. 44 bike parking spaces are provided for future residents, including 27 indoor spaces.
■oan
,r
INAn
■
it
Figure 2: Massing Diagram of Proposed 31 -unit Multiple Dwelling
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
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 the Official Plan
The property is designated Mixed Use in the Official Plan, and located within an Urban Corridor in the
City's Urban Structure. Analysis of the proposal with respect to both is below.
Urban Structure
The property is located within an Urban Corridor. Urban Corridors are generally linear in form and are
located along existing or planned transit corridors — in this case, Highland Road West. They are intended
to have strong pedestrian linkages and be integrated with neighbouring residential and employment
uses. Urban Corridors are planned to provide for a range of retail and commercial uses and transit -
supportive intensification opportunities.
This proposal advances the objectives of the Urban Corridor as it significantly intensifies the site with
31 dwelling units, whereas a single detached dwelling structure — formerly a Group Home — currently
exists. While this proposal is for residential uses, the nature of this existing stretch of Highland Road
West makes the proposal complementary to the existing uses and to the objectives of the Urban
Corridor. There is a wide -range of commercial uses on the opposite side of Highland that future
residents can walk to, reducing dependency on private motor vehicles for weekly shopping needs (as
one example). The subject property is also well -served by existing transit services and is a 20 -minute
walk to the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). The Urban Corridor is not one individual property but a
collection of properties which together form the corridor. As such, it is the opinion of staff that the
requested variances to facilitate this proposal are in line with the general objectives of the Urban
Corridor. Figure 3 shows an inset of the Official Plan's Urban Structure map.
Subject Property
XCn
Urban Corridor
IL 6X
Figure 3: Urban Corridor on Highland
Land Use Designation
The property is designated Mixed Use in the Official Plan. The purpose of the Mixed Use land use
designation is to achieve an appropriate mix of commercial, residential and institutional uses, to provide
opportunities for lands to evolve and intensify over time, and to allow for a broad range of uses, among
other objectives. This proposal is consistent with these objectives. A stand-alone Multiple Dwelling is
permitted in the implementing MIX -2 zoning, and the residential use is complementary to the range of
non-residential uses on lands located along this stretch of Highland Road West. The specific variances
to the ground floor street line fagade width, parking requirements, and bicycle parking stall width are
specific requests related to the function of the proposed building. This included the number of parking
spaces for future tenants, a driveway to access said parking spaces, and the specifications/dimensions
of an on-site bike storage locker. This will have no impact on the general intent and purpose of the
Mixed Use land use designation. Therefore, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is
maintained.
The remaining variances pertain to an increase in the FSR from 2.0 to 2.25. The Official Plan defines
FSR as the building floor area divided by the lot area. For lands designated Mixed Use and located
within an Urban Corridor, the maximum FSR is 2.0. As part of the zoning analysis of this proposal
through the Site Plan review process, all storeys of a building `count' towards the FSR —this is because
FSR is interpreted as a measure of `building mass'. Figure 2 shows that a portion of the access
driveway and parking spaces are located within the building footprint, and that the remaining building is
cantilevered above it. Because the first storey contributes to massing, this area was counted towards
the FSR in the zoning review. Figure 4 shows a breakdown of the FSR calculations.
LOT AREA
923.8 m2
1st FLOOR
402.3 m2 (322.7 m2 Driveway & Covered Parking + 79.9 m2 Indoor Area)
2nd FLOOR
400.6 m2
3rd FLOOR
400.6 m2
4th FLOOR
400.6 m2
5th FLOOR
343.8 m2
ROOF AMENITY
132.8 m2 (72.8 m2 Service Space + 60.0 m2 Indoor Amenity)
GFA
2080.7 m2
FSR
2.25
Figure 4: FSR Breakdown
Excluding the 320 square metre driveway and parking area from the FSR calculations, the FSR is 1.9,
which is below the maximum included in the Official Plan. It is the opinion of staff that this is a reasonable
exclusion as this area is not building floor area, as the Plan defines. The 0.25 increase to FSR is minimal
and in this specific case, it does not merit a more rigorous planning process. Also contributing to the
increased FSR is 60 square metres of indoor amenity space on the rooftop; this space will provide
significant value for future residents and supports a modest increase to the FSR. Through these unique
circumstances, staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained.
Contributing to the unique circumstances are several proposed changes to Zoning By-law 2019-051
and the Official Plan (not yet approved by Council) that would impact the future zoning of this property.
The changes are related to the ongoing Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) and have been
considered as general guidance for this project. The relevant proposed changes are as follows:
A new general regulation to limit building height to 12 metres within 15 metres of a low rise
residential zone;
2. A reduction in the MIX -2 maximum building height from 25 metres to 20 metres; and,
3. An increase to the maximum FSR in the MIX -2 zone from 2.0 to 3.0.
The proposed 5 -storey Multiple Dwelling is approximately 14.6 metres from a low-rise residential zone,
has an FSR of 2.25, and has a building height of 20.6 metres. By and large, the application is meeting
the intent of these draft regulations. While these regulations are not yet in effect, staff is of the opinion
that the applicant's willingness to increase the distance from low-rise residential and decrease the
building height justifies an increase in FSR in advance of the proposed changes. These changes limit
building height and mitigate impacts of development on low-rise neighbourhoods in exchange for a
modest FSR increase. There is merit in advancing these `draft' changes through the Committee of
Adjustment.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The general intent of the ground floor street line fagade width of 50% is to promote an urban form where
at least half of the frontage is occupied by a building. While the ground floor fagade width is proposed
at only 28.6% of the street line width, this is out of necessity. Driveway access to the site is required,
and it is the 6.7 metre driveway that prevents the ground floor fagade width requirements from being
met. As highlighted in Figure 2, there are no other practical locations for driveway access. Despite this,
staff is of the opinion that the proposed development maintains the primary intent of this zoning
regulation — that is, promoting an urban form. The upper stories of the building are built to the required
minimum front yard setback of 1.5 metres and this is an inherently `urban' form. Further, the street line
fagade width of the second storeys and higher is 68%, well above half of the frontage.
The general intent of the maximum FSR of 2.0 is to regulate the massing of the building. As discussed
extensively in the first test, Figure 2 shows that a significant portion of the first storey is `open -sided'. It
is this part of the building that puts the FSR above the maximum of 2.0. While this does contribute to
massing, it is not completely enclosed and therefore reduces the visual impact of `mass' enough to
clearly meet the general intent of the zoning by-law. Staff is satisfied that this test is met.
The general intent of the minimum parking space and visitor space regulations is to ensure there are
sufficient parking spaces for residents and visitors alike. 31 parking spaces (including 3 visitor spaces)
are proposed, whereas 31 spaces (including 4 visitor spaces are required). As part of the site plan
application, the applicants submitted a Parking Study and Transportation Demand Management Plan
which has been accepted by the Director of Transportation Services. To justify the reduction, 44 bicycle
parking spaces are provided, including 27 indoor spaces. Further, the site has several amenities within
walking distance (notably the adjacent commercial plazas), is well -served by transit, and is within 20
minute walking distance of the downtown. During the site plan review process, staff recognized that
many visitors remain likely to drive to the site and as such, emphasized maximizing the amount of visitor
parking spaces provided (3). Staff is satisfied that the general intent of the zoning by-law is maintained.
The general intent of the 0.6 metre width requirement for a Class A Bicycle Parking Stall (indoor) is to
ensure that there is enough space for cyclists to store and access their bike. The variance to reduce
the width to 0.27 metres pertains to the 27 Class A Bicycle Parking Stalls that are to be provided in the
basement of the proposed building. The storage system proposed to be used for the bicycle storage is
a commercial product by Dero, a designer of bicycle infrastructure. Dero's `Bike File' system is
proposed, shown in further detail in Figures 5 & 6. The `Bike File' system is compact and includes a
trolley system to maintain bike access for users. Staff is satisfied that the reduced 0.27 metre width for
each stall maintains enough space for users to access their bikes.
As such, the general intent of the By-law is maintained. Staff notes that this is a very compact system
for bike storage, and have accepted this option on a trial -basis for the purposes of having an example
to guide future proposals. One concern raised during circulation was that the trolley system may
increase chances of damage to bikes; this is part of the reason this has been accepted on a trial basis.
The `Bike File' system is a commercial product theoretically designed for safe storage of bikes, which
gives staff the confidence to proceed with a trial.
CLASS A BIKE PARKING
BASEMENT FLOOR
DEF O 'BIKE FILESYSTEM
27 SPACES
Ceiling Height: 2.5m
Bike Stall Space: 0.27m
Tro& ys &kw You to push neighborrng
hikes J, -t r?- h—gk?g or removing c
bihe
Plan view of Class A Bicycle Photos from the information manual of the `Bike File' storage system by Dero
Parking Spaces on Site Plan
Figure 5: Class A Bicycle Parking Stalls in Proposed Building
Figure 6: Photos of installed `Bike File' system by Dero. Arrow point to the trolley system.
Photo(s) provided to staff by Dero & ABC Recreation customer service representatives
Are the Variances Minor?
Staff is satisfied that the variances for the relief from the ground floor fagade width, 0.25 increase to the
FSR and the reduction in bike parking stall width are required to facilitate a practical building design. It
is the opinion of staff that the proposed building presents an `urban' form in-line with the objectives of
the MIX -2 zone, offsets the FSR increase with a partially `open' ground floor footprint as well as indoor
rooftop amenity space, and provides a functional compact indoor bike storage system.
With respect to the parking reduction, while the 21 space reduction is large in number (from 31 to 10),
staff is satisfied that the request is minor. A parking reduction study has been approved, there are a
total of 44 bike parking spaces provided, the site is served by frequent transit, and is within walking
distance to weekly shopping needs. These factors satisfy the `minor' test for the parking reduction. It is
also worth noting that the applicants have indicated that they intend to market the units to those without
the need for parking a motor vehicle which would further be a contributing factor.
Are the Variances Appropriate?
Staff is satisfied that the requested variances are desirable and appropriate for the development and
use of the land. Multiple Dwelling is a permitted as -of -right use in the MIX -2 zone, and the variances
sought are each related to specific site constraints.
Reducing the ground floor fagade to street width percentage is required to adequately provide
suitable driveway access to the property for parking spaces, bicycles, and garbage access. In order
to maintain a suitable urban form close to the street edge, the upper storeys of the building are
cantilevered over ground floor driveway and parking spaces. Though the portion of the driveway and
parking spaces beneath the cantilever are not `inside' the building, they do contribute to the FSR of
the building. Consequently, this requires relief from the FSR maximum. The FSR relief is appropriate,
as it allows a modest increase of less than 250 square metres in additional `floor area' and is offset
by the `openness' of the cantilevered portion of the ground floor and to a lesser extent, about 100
square metres of indoor rooftop amenity space provided for future residents. The rooftop amenity
space also contributes to the FSR calculation yet is valuable for this site as the size constraints of
the lot area do not make it practical to provide usable amenity space at grade.
The regular and visitor parking space reduction is appropriate as this has been justified through a
study and most importantly, is a practical reduction as there are secure bike parking stall on-site for
residents, the site is in close proximity to amenities, and is relatively walkable. Lastly, the reduction
to the width of the Class A Bicycle Parking Stalls is appropriate as the commercial bike storage
system the applicants are proposing will maintain a functional bike storage space.
Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided
building permit for the apartment building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the
Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions.
Transportation Comments: The Parking Study and Transportation Demand Management Plan
submitted by Paradigm (September 2020) has demonstrated the various walkable amenities,
existing cycling trail network, existing Grand River Transit route 204 (iXpress), coupled with
unbundling of parking and 27 long term bicycle parking spaces; alternative modes of transportation
are readily available. Therefore, Transportation Services can support the proposed parking
reductions subject to the following conditions;
a) That the owner enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on title
that acknowledges that parking will be rented separately from the dwelling units.
b) Based on the site plan submitted as part of this application, the bicycle parking shall be
provided on site at a rate of 27 Class A and 17 Class B.
This application is also seeking a reduction form the width of a Class A bicycle parking space to be
0.27 metres, from the required 0.60 metres. Transportation Services acknowledges that this is a
narrow width, and sees this as a one-time trial to facilitate a better understanding of the best
utilization of vertical bike rack systems. Therefore, Transportation Services accepts the proposed
reduced width for a Class A bicycle parking space.
Heritage Comments: No concerns
Engineering Comments: No concerns.
Operations Comments: No concerns.
Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice signed was placed on the property advising that a
Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find
additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
A Site Plan application has been filed for this property and received Approval in Principle (AIP) on
December 8, 2020. Standard conditions are required to be cleared as part of the AIP in order to
receive Full Site Plan Approval and subsequent issuance of a Building Permit. Minor Variance
approval is one such condition.
January 26, 2021
Holly Dyson
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
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
(3) / 06 HIGHLAND, 359 Highland Road West
2989943 Ontario Incorporated
Dear Ms. Dyson:
Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting February 16, 2021, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have
following updated comments:
1)
A 2021-005
— 52 South Drive — No Concerns.
2)
A 2021-006
— 4 Gildner Street — No Concerns.
3)
A 2021-007
— 359 Highland Road West — No Concerns.
4)
A 2021-008—
29 Hurst Avenue— No Concerns.
5)
A 2021-009
— 268 Louisa Street — No Concerns.
Please be advised that any development on the lands subject to the Applications noted above
are subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any
successor thereof and may require the 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 above. If a site is subject to more than one application,
additional comments may apply.
Please forward any decision on the above mentioned application to the undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Joginder Bhatia
Transportation Planner
C (226) 753-0368
Document Number: 3543119
3543119
Page 1 of 1
Ca'�and Rey r
0
0
7
��~yation P�
February 2, 2021
Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6
Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca
Holly Dyson, Administrative Clerk Via email only
Legislated Services, City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Ms. Dyson,
Re: February 16, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2021-005
50 Brookside Crescent
52 South Drive
A 2021-006
B 2021-007
4 Gildner Street
A 2021-007
202 Fifth Avenue
359 Highland Road West
A 2021-009
268 Louisa Street
Applications for Consent
B 2020-047
50 Brookside Crescent
B 2021-006
427 Old Chicopee Trail
B 2021-007
43 & 47 Sheldon Avenue
B 2021-008
202 Fifth Avenue
The above -noted consent 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 at 519-621-2763 ext. 2228 or aherremanamrand river. ca.
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 Page 1 of 1
the Grand River Conservation Authority.
Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River
Holly Dyson
From: Dianna Saunderson
Sent: 10 February, 2021 8:57 AM
To: Holly Dyson
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Minor Variance Application A2021-007 - 359 Highland Road West
For the Member's Packages.
Dianna Saunderson, AMP
Committee Administrator I Corporate Services City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7277 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca
110119'r R
From:
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 20213:25 PM
To: Dianna Saunderson <Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Minor Variance Application A2021-007 - 359 Highland Road West
Hi Dianna,
I don't necessarily want to be a delegation but I do want to voice my concerns over this "Minor
Variance".
Unless this is going to be specifically for affordable or geared -to -income housing, the requested
variance is too massive to be suitable for the lot the developer is proposing.
I realize it is adjacent to a six -storey apartment building so it doesn't detract from the landscape as
such but increasing the density of that small lot and then not providing sufficient parking or outdoor
space seems to contradict all the reasons you have building guidelines in the first place.
The location is great for public transit and walkability to stores and restaurants but most people,
including low income families, usually have a vehicle. Where are they going to park? In nearby
streets? In the plaza parking lot opposite?
The guidelines are in place for a reason and it's not usually too much of a stretch to allow some
variances but this seems to be beyond misguided to me.
Please advise if you need any additional information from me and keep me apprised of any other
submissions or reference materials.
i
nd re ards,