The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCA Agenda - 2021-05-18COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS AGENDA May 18, 2021 - 10:00 a.m. MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION: Submission No.: A 2021-031 Applicants: Varinder Purewal and Rajvinder (Bobbie) Chatha Property Location: 660 Avondale Avenue Legal Description: Lot 16 & Part Lot 17, Plan 349 The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback 4.7m rather than the required 7.5m. The existing dwelling will be demolished. CONSENT APPLICATIONS: Submission No.: B 2020-047 Applicants: Michael Krause Property Location: 50 Brookside Crescent Legal Description: Part Blocks O & 87, Registered Plan 1334, being Parts 1 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-20390 The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land on the westerly edge of the property (future municipal address 52-54 Brookside Crescent), having an approximate width of 16.2m, a depth of 33.5m and an area of 542.7 sq.m. The retained land will be irregular in shape having an approximate width of 35m, a depth of 43.5m and an area of 1523 sq.m. The severed lot is intended for a semi-detached dwelling. THE CITY OF KITCHENER Kitchener City Hall COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 King St w NOTICE OF HEARING Box Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 4G7 1"', R Pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P. 13, 519-741-2203 As amended and Ontario Regulations 197/96 and 200/96, as amended. CofA@kitchener.ca TAKE NOTICE THAT the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Kitchener will meet electronically on TUESDAY, TUESDAY, May 18, 2021 commencing at 10:00 a.m. as an electronic meeting for the purpose of hearing the following applications for Minor Variance and/or Consent. 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 register to participate electronically as a delegation or submit comments for Committee consideration. Please note this electronic meeting is a public meeting and will be recorded. PLEASE NOTE: Due to COVID-19 and recommendations by Waterloo Region Public Health to exercise physical distancing, City Hall is only open for select services. Members of the public are invited to watch in this meeting electronically by accessing the meeting live -stream video at kitche ner. ca/watch now. Information on how you can participate or submit written comments for any matter on this agenda are provided below. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: ➢ All applications must be represented by an applicant or agent to be considered by the Committee. Please follow the registration information as listed below to confirm the most up-to-date contact information. As in-person meetings are not an option at this time, you can view or participate in a meeting as follows: • To participate you can register no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday May 17, 2021. To register please email CofA(a�kitchener.ca or via phone at 519-741-2203. When registering you must provide your full contact name including mailing address, email address, phone number and application you would like to comment on. Once you are registered you will receive an email including information on how to connect to the Zoom meeting (i.e. weblink of conference call number); • You can provide a written submission no later than 8:30 a.m. Tuesday May 18, 2021, which would be circulated to the Committee for consideration. All written submissions MUST include your full name, mailing address, phone number and email address if possible. Failure to include your contact information will prevent it from being circulated to the Committee. Even if you are unsure whether you would like to speak but would rather listen and watch the meeting with the option to comment on a particular application, please register with the Secretary -Treasurer (information provided above). You will not be required to speak if you choose not to. Copies of written submissions and public agencies' comments are available 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. lel»I191A9Is] kiPs9101zaLTA llki Eel :AT/ANF_1ki Eel zr_1kiU101:ZK97ki61121ki1111111111LZ&ikr_1ki III S110111:I:111111UA_1ki1kiIIki[r1_[oI A 2021-035 - 659 Stirling Avenue South Permission for an existing 6 -storey mixed -used building currently containing 30 -units to covert the ground level commercial space into 3 additional residential units whereas the By-law does not permit residential units on the ground floor. A 2021-036 - 30 Simeon Street Permission for a single detached dwelling having an existing front porch with a front yard a setback of 1.85m from the property line rather than the required 3.07m, to convert the roof over the porch to a second -floor walkout balcony. A 2021-037 - 40 Prueter Avenue Permission for an existing public school to have a maximum of 55 off-street parking spaces whereas the By- law permits a maximum of 33 off-street parking spaces. A 2021-038 - 47 Kilkerran Crescent Permission to construct an addition in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 1.2m rather than the required 7.5m; the proposed addition to have a side yard abutting Kilbernie Court of 1.147m rather than the required 4.5m; and, to allow the off-street parking to be located in the proposed driveway on Kilbernie Court to be located 3.162m from the property line rather than the required 6m. A 2021-039 - 78 Shanley Street Permission to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a duplex having the two required off-street parking located side-by-side Om from the property line rather than the required 6m. Pagel of 3 A 2021-040 - 59 Bechtel Drive Permission to construct a single detached dwelling on Lot 3 on the plan submitted with the application having a rear yard setback of 4.5m rather than the required 7.5m; and, a driveway width of 10.2m rather than the permitted maximum width of 8m. A 2021-041 - 63 Bechtel Drive Permission to construct a single detached dwelling on Lot 4 on the plan submitted with the application having a rear yard setback of 4.5m rather than the required 7.5m; and, a driveway width of 10.2m rather than the permitted maximum width of 8m. A 2021-042 - 29 Gruhn Street Permission to construct a 2 -storey addition in the rear yard of an existing duplex dwelling having an existing easterly side yard setback of 2.3m rather than the required 3m; an existing westerly side yard setback of 0.7m rather than the required 1.2m; and, an existing off-street parking space locating in the front fapade of the building having a length of 5.3m rather than the required 5.5m. A 2021-043 - 10 Eastwood Drive (WITHDRAWN) Permission to construct an addition in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 4.62m rather than the required 7.5m; and, a driveway to have a maximum width of 12.394m rather than the permitted maximum 8m. A 2021-044 - 54 Park Street Permission to convert an existing duplex into a multiple dwelling with 3 -units on a lot having an area of 478 sq.m. rather than the required 495 sq.m.; to have 2 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 3 off- street parking spaces; to provide the required off-street parking in tandem whereas the By-law does not permit the required spaces to be in tandem; and, to permit parking to be located between the front fapade and the lot line whereas the By-law does not permit parking between the front fapade and the lot line. A 2021-045 - Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4, Registered Plan 58M-654) Permission to construct a 49 -unit stacked townhouse development having a parking rate of 1.14 off-street parking spaces per-unit rather than the required 1.75 off-street parking spaces per-unit. A 2021-046 - 162 Greenbrook Drive Permission to construct an addition in the front yard abutting Forest Hill Drive having a front yard setback of 5.5m whereas the By-law requires a front yard setback to be between 7.5m and 9.5m. B 2021-025 - 20 Sylvia Street Permission to sever a parcel an "L Shaped" parcel of land having a width at the street of 1.55m, an overall width of 13.72m, a northerly depth of 54.87m and an area of 304.7 sq.m. currently containing a shed, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 24 Sylvia Street. The retained land will be rectangular in shape having a width of 15.29m, a depth of 54.87m and an area of 838.9 sq.m. B 2021-026 - 41 Ardelt Place Permission to sever an irregular shaped parcel of land having access on Ardelt Place having a width on Ardelt Place of 21.3m, an approximate depth of 304.8m and an area of 3.6 hectares. The retained land will have a width of 165.5m, a westerly depth of 225.7m and an area of 3.1 hectares. The use of the severed and retained land is industrial. B 2021-027 - 418 Alice Avenue Permission to sever a parcel of land so each half of a semi-detached residential dwelling can be dealt with separately. The severed land will have a width of 7.62m, a depth of 50.6m and an area of 385.55 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of 7.62m, a depth of 50.6m and an area of 385.55 sq.m. B 2021-028 - 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West Permission to sever a parcel of land municipally addressed as 592 Belmont Avenue West having a width of 25.9m, a depth of 60.1m and an area of 1573.3 sq.m. The retained land municipally addressed as 564 Belmont Avenue West will have a width of 151.4m, a depth of 56.2m and an area of 8742 sq.m. The use of the severed land is to be determined; the retained land will continue to be commercial. • additional information is available at the Legislated Services Department, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener (519-741-2203). • 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 online Council and Committee calendar; 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. Page 2 of 3 • 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 CofA(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 30th day of April, 2021. 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 APRIL 30, 2021. Page 3 of 3 'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Pinnell, Andrew, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8 DATE OF REPORT: May 9, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-84 SUBJECT: A2021-031 - 660 Avondale Ave Owners: Purewal, Varinder; Chatha, Rajvinder Approve Subject to Conditions RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Minor Variance Application A2021-031, for 660 Avondale Ave, requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 of By-law 85-1 to allow a minimum rear yard setback of 6.0 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres, to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling, be approved, subiect to the following conditions: 1) That the new dwelling to which the variance applies shall be constructed in general accordance with the site plan drawings, building elevation drawings, and floor plans attached to Report DSD -2021-84, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official and Director of Planning. 2) That in light of the treed nature of the property and the proximity of trees in shared ownership, the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any demolition, tree removal, grading 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 removed and/or preserved. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Subject Property, in Context REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend conditional approval of a minor variance to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling with a reduced rear yard setback. • This report supports the delivery of core services. • There are no financial implications to the City. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: This report is being brought forward to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling with a reduced rear yard setback. Figure 2. View of subject property from Avondale Avenue REPORT: The subject property is located on the east side of Avondale Avenue, between Claremont Avenue and Glasgow Street, in the Westmount Planning Community. Belmont Village is located to the east. The property contains a single detached dwelling, constructed in approximately 1952. The immediate neighbourhood contains mainly low-density residential uses, including primarily one, one -and -a -half, and two storey single detached dwellings. The dwelling immediately to the north has a two-storey form, while the property to the south has a 1.5 storey form. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned R-3 in By- law 85-1 (the property is currently not subject to By-law 2019-051). City Planning staff conducted several site inspections of the property. The photos within this report were taken on April 8, 2021. It should be noted that this property is within an area that is subject to Appendix H.- Residential :Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area of By-law 85-1. Properties in this area are subject to minimum front yard requirements that are based upon the average of the front yards of the abutting lots, minus 1.0 metre, rather than on a set distance. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single detached dwelling (Planning staff notes that this will require Demolition Control Approval from the Planning Division, in addition to a Demolition Permit from the Building Division) and to construct a new single detached dwelling in its place. To facilitate the construction of the new dwelling, the applicant is requesting a variance for relief from the required 7.5 metre minimum rear yard setback. The application was deferred at the April 20, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting until the May 18, 2021 Committee meeting, to allow additional time for staff to review a tree preservation plan. It should be noted that on May 5, 2021, the applicant changed the application to lessen the severity of the requested rear yard setback from 4.7 metres to 6.0 metres. The requested variance now requests relief from the R-3 Zone to allow a minimum rear yard of 6.0 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres (a variance of 1.5 metres). The applicant also provided numerous plans and drawings that show the proposed development that would be facilitated by the variance, including site plan drawings, elevation drawings, and floor plans. These drawings show that the only portions of the dwelling that would encroach into the 7.5 metre rear yard setback are a 1.5 metre deep by approximately 10 metre long swath of a main floor dining room and main floor covered amenity area. All upper storey portions of the dwelling are set back more than the required 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. In addition, the large set of upper storey windows facing the rear yard do not have a view of the rear yard (they simply allow light down to the main floor). The only other upper storey rear facing window is a bathroom window that is set back 13.5 metres from the rear lot line. In addition, at the request of Planning staff, the applicant provided a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by an arborist. City Urban Design staff has reviewed and signed -off on this plan. Staff is recommending a condition to ensure implementation of the plan. In addition, any removal or pruning of trees in common ownership will require consent from the adjacent property owner. The proposed dwelling complies with all zoning regulations, except the rear yard setback requirement for which relief is being sought. The proposed dwelling complies with the maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and the RIENS-specific minimum front yard setback requirement (calculated at 9.08 metres): The City received 15 letters from the community in opposition to the proposal. The main concern expressed by the community is the large size of the proposed dwelling and that it is not in character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Other main concerns identified were loss of natural light in adjacent rear yards, loss of privacy, loss of `sense of open space', and inconsistency with heritage neighbourhood. It must be emahasised that the arimary issue at hand is not determinina whether the aroaosed dwellina is aaaroariate. but rather determinina whether the reauested rear vard setback is setback appropriate. While these two issues are related, they are not the same. The following sections focus on the four tests for minor variances as they relate specifically to the request for a reduced rear yard setback. General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test A number of Official Plan policies are applicable to the requested variance, for example: Section 4. C.1.8. Requirement Provided I Compliance? under R-3 Zone Proposed Min Lot Area 411 s .m. 669 s .m. Yes Min Lot Width 13.7m 18.3m Yes Min Front Yard 9.08m 9.08m Yes for lands Identified on A endix `H' Max Front Yard 11.08m 9.08m Yes for lands Identified on A endix `H' Min Side Yard 1.2m 1.8m Yes Min Rear Yard 7.5m 6.Om Reason for Variance Max Building 10.5m 10.49m Yes Height Max Lot 55% 47.5% Yes Coverage Off -Street 1 space 2 spaces Yes Parkin The City received 15 letters from the community in opposition to the proposal. The main concern expressed by the community is the large size of the proposed dwelling and that it is not in character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Other main concerns identified were loss of natural light in adjacent rear yards, loss of privacy, loss of `sense of open space', and inconsistency with heritage neighbourhood. It must be emahasised that the arimary issue at hand is not determinina whether the aroaosed dwellina is aaaroariate. but rather determinina whether the reauested rear vard setback is setback appropriate. While these two issues are related, they are not the same. The following sections focus on the four tests for minor variances as they relate specifically to the request for a reduced rear yard setback. General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test A number of Official Plan policies are applicable to the requested variance, for example: Section 4. C.1.8. Where ... minor variance(s) is/are requested, proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. b) ... C) ... d) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site... In this case, the only portion of the dwelling that requires zoning relief is a 1.5 metre deep swath of the main floor dining room and covered amenity space. Planning staff does not anticipate any unacceptably adverse impacts to result from such an insignificant encroachment. Notwithstanding, implementation of a Tree Preservation Plan will help to ensure a visual buffer along the rear property line. In addition, there are no overlook issues as a result of the house design for the upper storey. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. General Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law Test In this case, the only portion of the dwelling that is proposed to encroach into the rear yard setback is a 1.5 metre deep by approximately 10 metre long swath of the main floor. The uncovered porch, located immediately beside the covered porch, does not form part of the dwelling and complies with the Zoning By-law. Except for minimum rear yard setback, the proposed dwelling will comply with all zoning regulations. One reason for the minimum rear yard requirement is to provide rear yard landscaped / amenity area. As a result of the large lot width, the amount of outdoor, rear yard amenity space proposed is approximately 125 square metres, which exceeds the amount that could be provided if the minimum R-3 zoning requirements were implemented (i.e., 13.7m x 7.5m = 102.75 sq.m.). Also, the covered rear porch provides an additional 15 sq.m. of amenity area in the rear yard. Another reason for the minimum rear yard requirement is to ensure adequate privacy and buffering between dwellings. As aforementioned, the 1.5 metre deep swath of main floor building is the only encroachment. Overlook is not a concern. It should be noted that through Stage 2 of the City's Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy), the following regulation is proposed, which, if effected would render compliant the covered rear porch: "...covered decks attached to the principal building, and unenclosed, may be located within a required rear yard provided that they are located a minimum of 4 metres from the rear lot line and meet the side yard setback regulations required for the dwelling in the applicable zone." Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. "Minor" Test The variance is minor in that they will not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent uses or lands. The proposed setback is adequate for privacy and buffering purposes, especially if staff's recommended condition for implementation of a Tree Preservation Plan is approved. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance is minor. Desirability for Appropriate Development of the Land Test The variance will facilitate construction of a single detached dwelling, which is a permitted use in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The dwelling will accommodate an elderly parent to move in on a full-time basis. Apart from rear yard setback relief, the dwelling that would be facilitated by the subject variance complies fully with the Zoning By-law. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. For the abovementioned reasons, Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance request is justified, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the new single detached house is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Services Comments: Engineering has no comments. Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental Planning has no comments. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. 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 and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The property municipally addressed as 660 Avondale Avenue is located within the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood CHL. The CHL Inventory does not have formal status under the Ontario Heritage Act and there are no CHL -specific policies or guidelines in place within the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood at present. 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. Timing to undertake a review of the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood is not known at this time. Staff's focus to date has been on the CHLs located within the City's central neighbourhoods within the Secondary Plan areas. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget or 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 was also placed in The Record. In addition, notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. A notice sign 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Section 45, Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P.13 ATTACHMENT: Attachment A — Revised Site Plan Drawings, Elevation Drawings, Floor Plans Attachment B — Tree Preservation Plan May 5,2021 To City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustments, In regard to the minor variance application for 660 Avondale I hereby formally request a rear yard setback of 6.0 metres rather than 4.7m as originally proposed on the application submitted Sincerely, Jon O'Malley s. Tzazi Tz�-aa�Torarimq\��-os� ssA A -, Aye - - q -.l.g IITE PLAN s- y- 1 1. 11. 11 11 8.29m [60� EX SHRUBS 6.00m6mZONNOR OS(M VARIANCE 50m _ 7.5m ZONING SETBACK w 13.51m r---- COVERED UNCOVERED PORCH PORCH Q EXTENTS OF 2nd FLOOR w O N Y L- _ v E m PROPOSED DWELLING Im ,6 N F.F. 339.80 w n n T.F. 339.50N \ o U.S F36336.66 Iz \ N, I IE EX HOUSE to #664 � I a EX HOUSE J I� I #652 I � GARAGE I COVERED 1ia0m - 1.asf,l PORCH _ _ _ 9.08m ZONING SET 0 10.83m 3 9.3 m0 9.08m _ w 18.29m 60] w Ek HEDGE EX SIDEWALK EX 0.3 DIA. DEC EX LIGHT STANDARD EX BACK OF CURB ❑ EX EDGE OF ASPHALT S IN V. 336.14 EX 250mm SANITARY SEWER INV, 336.410 A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E eR`N� SITE PLAN PCI r �0 660 AVONDALE AVENUE O{ • • >, REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER Y SITE INFORMATION JOa NUMBER O O 11,71w LOT AREA: 6702 Aq.m- SCALE 21-08] K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED NOOSE AREA 475 sq.m. COVERAGE : 3182% GATE .1c>H.ANNF C'L S CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS SITE BENCHMARK SITE MAY 6, 2021 N� R710(3 NT AT SWWCORNER OF AVONDALE TO OF FIRE AAVENUE 4m 0 1:200 KITCHENER SUDBURY oanwlrvc rvurvem ELEA 340.049 1 OF 3 s. Tzazi Tz�-aa�Torarimq\��-os� ssA A -, Aye - - q -.l.g IITE PLAN s- y- 1 1. 11. 11 11 I 111 1-11 e 1,. — 11-19 11- awg [x 11. NEI s— y— 1 1. sa. 11 11 18.29m [60'] 6m ZONING SETBACK MINOR VARIANCE _ Z5m ZONING SETBACK ---- __COVERED I COVERED I UNCOVERED PORCH PORCH I EXTENTS OF 2nd FLOOR I I I o YI L — _ _ U E E PROPOSED I< O HOUSE n EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHES 0.11m n #660 L vi INTO SIDEYARD ZONING SETBACK Z EX HOUSETO z \ o BE REMOVED F EX HOUSE NII VE X664 EX HOUSE #/652 GARAGE I I 1.Sm 1.85m COMEK 1.2m 0.87m =F ORCH 9.08m ZONING SETBA K I� ai Q � o EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHES 0.33m } > INTO SIDEYARD SETBACK Q o w > Iwo 18.29m 60'] A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E Lt "` EXISTING VS. PROPOSED SIDEYARD SETBACKS Pc� r �0 660 AVONDALE AVENUE 0C4.{ >, REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER y .C; JOB NUMBER O�1 y SCALE 21-083 AViyO K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED DATE J11H.SNNF CUIMAI2AL:S CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MAY 6, 202 N� fr71063 KITCHENER SUDBURY 0 1.200 Orn o—l- rvuNem 3 OF 3 I 111 1-11 e 1,. — 11-19 11- awg [x 11. NEI s— y— 1 1. sa. 11 11 ........................... 57M R -10N 30099 27559 ....................... ...................................................................................... . A, .....................................................-- 5 511.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 355.6 04 A,, UNEXCAVATED .................................................................................. A A - ................ ................................................................... • 4:' A,•, .............................. ................................... ..... .... .... .... ... ......... ..................... .......... ... .. . . .......... .. ... 77 ... ............................. A 0 UNEXCAVATED 6902.5 3 633 3119.5 ............. ............... a ............................ A, "R . . ................................ ............................ UNEXCAVATED ........................... ............. ........... ............. ................... . ................ ........................... 3 7M 4 3 850 1 5748 9812 1 15. 3 556 — . 505.2 14 53 04 N -E. OTIESIMSE ALL I I NOTED IS, ALL INTERIOR A'S (.UNLESS NOTED OTHEI-ISE ALL STEEL ANGLE LINTELS 3-112"s3-112"— JULE-N-E.CTIE111, AE"UNSSLTUE_SEN T ED ILL STRUCTURAL LINTELS TO D — LE 0 131LENIU—N— TINT1,11ATE—.- Aj MAIN FLOOR LAYOUT 2260 SQ. FT. 1"aLE.-T.NI ,ER�000N ei�� e�,�2y=® 6 D19.8 8 610.6 3009.9 3009.9 24384 4032.3 2140 ------------------------------- e COVERED PORCH UNCOVERED PORCH aa DINING ROOM 14'_8 x 12' 0" 13,_6" x 12,_0" M 18._0"x 12_U' ,__________ --------------------- p U -------------- ❑ ---------------- GREAT 23,-6"x 18'-6! m, Y m oe, 0 z mwA—Eiurvo __ _ ----- ----- LINE ur uaaEre r�uure ---------------- -------- ., OL � IN OWORKSHOP 1r-1a°x1T_O" MUD ROOM BEDROOM . oEt>i� -----------------' FOYERGARAGE OPEN TO ABOVE 23'-0" x 21'-0"(21 '_0") OFFICE '- 12'-0" x 14'-5" COVERED PORCH m —12 2 095.5 2 095.5 1447.. 1 447.8 2 019.3 20193 1 524 19812 4 191 2 895.6 4 033.6 3 505.2 146304 MAIN FLOOR LAYOUT 2260 SQ. FT. 1"aLE.-T.NI ,ER�000N ei�� e�,�2y=® UPPER FLOOR LAYOUT 1467 SQ.FT. ,�TExINMo a =T' TEl—aN �� 'I 1",��a22 , 7 Dass 7 aazz 085.8 5 981 7 5 302 3 2140 HIGH LEVEL WILLOVI OPEN Ll BELOW ENSUITE 11'-0" x 12'-1" D C� 0 ».— V/ _ MASTER SUITE - 14'-0" x 17-10" -H N 11TINI-1 F��oROR.„ ___________________181.6 _________________-o e FT� OPEN 10 BE—V BEDROOM#3 11'-2"x.13'-0" BEDROOM #2 11' 6" x 12'-8" 1574.8 14418 2N 9.3 2 019.3 1 524 1111.2 39243 30226 40385 3 505 2 145304 UPPER FLOOR LAYOUT 1467 SQ.FT. ,�TExINMo a =T' TEl—aN �� 'I 1",��a22 , 9 99L Z OOZE £Z9L E 9W89L Z " TME '85 8'85£ 989L Z COZ£ £Z9l E 'rte COZ 9'2922 E'Z9LE 2 H 9 291 Z L OZ£ EZ9L £ 9 89G z L OZ£ E z96 E '9s TREE PROTECTION FENCE \ 14m HIGH WHITE SPRUCE (WITH 4m DRIPLINE) IN FAIR/POOR CONDITIONS TO BE REMOVED :X 10m HIGH ASH SPECIES (WITH 4m DRIPLINE) IN POOR CONDITION TO BE REMOVED X 8m HIGH WHITE SPRUCE (WITH 3m DRIPLINE) IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE REMOVED EX HOUSE #664 I City of Kitchener Planning Division TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED 1 KITCHEP ER Signature: sandrob Date: 05/07/2021 EX SIDEWALK EE PRESERVATION AN PREPARED BY: rly Van Daele k Certified Arborist ON -2346A vandaele@gmail.com EX 8m BLUE SPRUCE (WITH 2m DRIPLINE) IN GOOD CONDITION TO REMAIN EX 7m HIGH ORNAMENTAL FRUIT TREE (WITH 5m DRIPLINE) IN FAIR CONDITION TO REMAIN 8.29m [60 TREE PROTECTION ZONE tt EX SHRUBS / 7.5m ZONING SETBACK _ _ _ COVERED I UNCOVERED PORCH PORCH Y EXTENTS OF 2nd FLOOR O U� L E m= PROPOSED w= n N HOUSE 0: #660 zi z o= N N o i GARAGE w Z COVERED _PORCH • 9.08m ZONING SET •....... �' w... *....... LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION C TREE PROTECTION FENCE w _ 18.29m 60'] ED 0.3 DIA DEC A V 0 N D A L GENERAL NOTES 660 AVONDALE AVENUE ALL PRUNING IS TO BE SUPERVISED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST, MITIGATION MEASURES ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST FOR ALL VEGETATION TO BE RETAINED AND NOTED ON THE TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ALL VEGETATION ARE TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS PER CURRENT INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE STANDARDS UNDER ARBORIST SUPERVISION, NOTES FOR TREES BEING RETAINED THIS PLANA TO TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY. ALL REMOVALS MUST BE FELLED INTO THE WORK AREA TO ENSURE THE DAMAGE DOES NOT OCCUR TO THE TREES WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE, TREES LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED WILL HAVE TREE PROTECTION FENCING INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE ACTIVITY. THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION EX LIGHT STANDARD EX 10m HIGH BLUE SPRUCE (WITH 3m DRIPLINE) IN FAIR CONDITION TO BE REMOVED EX HOUSE #652 EX 10m HIGH BLACK WALNUT (WITH 5m DRIPLINE) w IN GOOD CONDITION TO REMAIN E A V E N U E FENCE WILL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENDED, SOILS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. AREAS PROTECTED BY FENCING SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED AND WILL NOT BE USED FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE, PLACEMENT OR EXCAVATION OF FILL, TOP SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, OR DEBRIS. IF WORK MUST BE CONDUCTED WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ZONE THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND MECHANICAL ROOT DAMAGE BY APPLYING 15 — 30 CM OF MULCH TO AREA, UPON COMPLETION REMOVE EXCESS MULCH LEAVING A 10 CM DEPTH LAYER OF MULCH. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHEN POSSIBLE; IF ROOT PRUNING IS UNAVOIDABLE, SEEK FURTHER DETAILS. ANY LIMBS DAMAGED OR BROKEN DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PRUNED CLEANLY. Ltz"` TREE PRESERVATION PLAN r �0 660 AVONDALE AVENUE 0{ >, • • REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER � Y SITE INFORMATION JOB NUMBER O O a LOT AREA: sTz 54. m. SCALE 21-DaT K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED HOUSE AREA: 318.2 1— DATE COVERAGE: 47.5% .111H.ANNR CUIMA0 L S CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS SITE BENCHMARK MAY 6, 2021 N� R710(3 NT AT SIN CORNER OF AVONDALE TO OF FIRE AAVENUE 4m 0 1:200 KITCHENER SUDBURY oanwirvc rvurrem ELEV. 340.049 2 OF 3 s:\2121\21-111YD-1119\21-151 111 11.11 e — - 1-119 Pia 1, Taff PaESEaVATT1N s- Y- 1 2:1122 P1 i Staff Report �T R Dbvelo n7entServicesDepartment www. kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 20, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Pinnell, Andrew, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8 DATE OF REPORT: April 13, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-57 SUBJECT: A2021-031 - 660 Avondale Ave Owners: Purewal, Varinder; Chatha, Rajvinder Approve Subject to a Condition RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Minor Variance Application A2021-031, for 660 Avondale Ave, requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 to allow a rear yard setback of 4.7 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres, to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling, be deferred to provide an opportunity for the owner to prepare and submit a satisfactory Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan, in advance of a decision by the Committee of Adjustment. Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Subject Property, in Context *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend deferral of a minor variance requesting relief from a minimum rear yard requirement, to allow an opportunity for the owner to prepare and submit a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan, in advance of a decision by the Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. • There are no financial implications to the City. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: This report is being brought forward to recommend deferral of a minor variance requesting relief from a minimum rear yard requirement, to allow an opportunity for the owner to prepare and submit a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan, in advance of a decision by the Committee. Figure 2. View of subject property from Avondale Avenue REPORT: The subject property is located on the east of Avondale Avenue, between Claremont Avenue and Glasgow Street, in the Westmount Planning Community. Belmont Village is located to the east. The property contains a single detached dwelling, constructed in approximately 1952. The immediate neighbourhood contains mainly low-density residential uses. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned R-3 in By- law 85-1 (the property is currently not subject to By-law 2019-051). City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 8, 2021. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and construct a new, larger single detached dwelling in its place. To facilitate the construction of the new dwelling, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a rear yard of 4.7 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres. Planning staff is concerned that not enough information has been provided with the application to justify support for the application. More information is necessaryto understand how the proposed dwelling (and reduced rear yard) would impact on -property trees and adjacent, off -property trees, before a decision is made. Among other considerations, such trees may assist in providing an adequate buffer for adjacent properties — one of the purposes of the minimum rear yard setback regulation. The above concern is directly related to the requested variance. Accordingly, in light of the treed nature of the property and the proximity of trees in the rear yard, Planning staff requests the application be deferred to provide an opportunity for the owner prepare and submit a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan (TP/EP) for the lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. The TP/EP should include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, building elevation drawings, all treed vegetation to be removed and/or preserved, including species, condition, size (height and DBH) and precise location including driplines, and the methods to be employed in retaining trees to be protected. It should be noted that after reviewing a TP/EP, it is possible that Planning staff may continue to have concerns with the requested variance, such that staff cannot recommend support. At this time, Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance request is premature and should be deferred, pending satisfactory submission of a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan. Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental Planning does not support the reduction in rear yard setback as mature trees in this location will be adversely affected by the proposal. With this reduced setback the mature trees located in the rear yard near the property limit will likely be impacted and decline, leaving neighbours in this mature community no visual buffer. At a minimum, the standard MV condition to complete a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan prior to demolition, grading, BP etc. should be required. And owners should be advised ASAP that once exact tree locations at rear are surveyed and trees assessed, that a change in house plan to stay out of the root zones may be required. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. 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 and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The property municipally addressed as 660 Avondale Avenue is located within the Westmount East & West 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. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the new single detached house is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Services Comments: Engineering has no comments. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget or 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 was also placed in The Record. In addition, notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. A notice sign 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Section 45, Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P.13 Region of Waterloo April 07, 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 (6) 53 COURTLAND, 80 COURTLAND AVENUE EAST 2441912 ONTARIO INC. (9) 53 FAIRWAY, SEC WOOLNER TRAIL AND FAIRWAY ROAD NORTH WCDSB Dear Ms. Dyson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-019 — 30 Waterbow Trail — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-026 — 11 Whitney Place — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-027 — 573 Guelph Street — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-028 — 11 Springdale Drive — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-029 — 20 Munroe Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-030 — 80 Courtland Avenue East — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-031 — 660 Avondale Avenue — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-032 — 81 Waterloo Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-033 — Fairway & Woolner — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-034 — 59 Carisbrook Drive — 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 Document Number: 3616590 Page of 2 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 2 Docs #3573963 April 8, 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 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: April 20, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A2021-019 30 Waterbow Trail A2021-026 11 Whitney Place A2021-027 573 Guelph Street A2021-028 11 Springdale Drive A2021-029 20 Munroe Street A2021-030 80 Courtland Avenue East A2021-031 660 Avondale Avenue A2021-032 81 Waterloo Street Applications for Consent B2021-015 83 Elmsdale Drive B2021-016 83 Second Avenue B2021-017 82 Pattandon Avenue B2021-018-020 942 Doon Village Road B2021-021-023 654 Rockway Drive 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 aherremana-grand 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 660 Avondale Minor Variance Request To: Committee of Adjustments Re; Minor variance application It is our opinion that the request does pass the 4 -part test for a minor variance 1. Does the variance meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The location of the house in an area low rise residential area consisting of many different types of houses to achieve a low-density area. The variance we are asking for will not change the City official plan of the area of low rise residential housing. The request of reducing the rear yard set back to allow for mainly outdoor living space with only a small portion to be used for indoor habitable space and only be on the main floor. 2. Does the variance meet the general intent of the purpose of the zoning by-law We believe it does meet the general intent of the bylaw. The intent of the bylaw is to maintain outdoor amenity space in the rear yard. Of the 438 square feet that we are building into the set back 58% will be used for out door amenity space with 180sgft being used for indoor living space and no part of the 2nd floor will protrude into the 7.5m setback 3. Is the variance minor (does it cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties? We believe the variance is minor in nature for several reasons. Primarily the house as it currently sits does not conform to current zoning set back requirement in the side yard and front yard setbacks, as you can see on the attached site plan. The current house encroaches neighbouring properties and is located only 0.87m from the property line on left side and 1.09m on the right side. The new house will be approximately 1.85 and 1.8 from the property line thus creating more space between the 2 houses that would impacted the most by the proposed new dwelling and well within the 1.2m required setback and it can be argued that this will have a positive impact on those properties by creating more space. The rear yard reduction will also have minor impact on the houses abutting the property in the rear yard as no part of the 2nd storey will be outside the 7.5m requirement and the majority of the proposed dwelling that is protruding into the rear yard setback will be used as outdoor amenity space. The proposed building will only cover 47 % of the property when 55% is allowed. Also the house will now conform to front and side yard set backs as well not exceed the maximum height allowance. 4. Is the variance appropriate? We believe the variance is appropriate as the use of the land is a permitted use in the zoning by-law and a reduction in the rear yard setback will not negatively impact the character of property of the surrounding neighbourhood as they proposed new residence will conform with current zoning by- laws then it currently does by provided more space in between the house of both next door neighbours. The design of the proposed residence will be that of traditional design with many stone gables and timber framing detail, that is seen throughout the neighbourhood. In the report issued by the planning department, they have requested we submit a tree enhancement/replacement plan. We became aware of this request on April 13th. We were able to expediate getting this completed and have submitted it along with this written submission. So based on the submission of this report and the responses to the guidelines of meeting minor variance above we ask the committee to approve out minor variance request on the condition that the Environmental planning department approves our submitted Tree enhancement/ Preservation study. In conclusion, I realize redevelopment can be a sensitive issue for many people, but it is essential part to a growing community. As the builder, and someone who lives 1 street away, I will provide neighbours with my contact information to address any issue that arise, I will take every step possible to minimize the impact on the neighbours, including maintaining proper fencing of the property, grading to maintain water run off control and keep the site in a respective manner. Sincerely, Jon O'Malley Agent/Applicant of Owners EX 8m BLUE SPRUCE (WITH 2m DRIPLINE) IN GOOD CONDITION TO REMAIN EX 7m HIGH ORNAMENTAL FRUIT TREE (WITH 5m DRIPLINE) IN FAIR CONDITION TO REMAIN 18.29m [60'] (WITH 4m DRIPLINE) N U E / THIS PLAN IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, IN FAIR/POOR CONDITIONS ALL REMOVALS MUST BE FELLED INTO THE WORK AREA TO ENSURE THE DAMAGE DOES NOT OCCUR TO THE TREES WITHIN N Y ■ TO BE REMOVED oil cf/ FENCE WILL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENDED, SOILS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT HAS U ■I U LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION PLACEMENT OR EXCAVATION OF FILL, TOP SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, OR DEBRIS, 7 IINU 6ETB. (MINOR VARIANCE) PROPOSED :X 10m HIGH ASH SPECIES MULCH LEAVING A 10 CM DEPTH LAYER OF MULCH. . . ....:.:.:.... AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHEN POSSIBLE, IF ROOT PRUNING IS UNAVOIDABLE, SEEK E (WITH 4m DRIPLINE) i ■ E Ltz"` IN POOR CONDITION COVERED I UNCOVERED i ■ ■ Z TO BE REMOVED ■ PORCH PORCH Z Z ■ Z SITE INFORMATION ■ Z , O 7.5m ZONING SETBACK JOB NUMBER EX 10m HIGH BLUE SPRUCE X 8m HIGH WHITE SPRUCE ■ ■ ■ (WITH 3m DRIPLINE) (WITH 3m DRIPLINE) K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITEDsq.m. NOOSE AREA: IN FAIR CONDITION IN GOOD CONDITION 471%670.2 COVERAGE : 4T.1� TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED �! CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ■. ED 0.3 DIA DEC EX LIGHT STANDARD A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E NOTES FOR TREES BEING RETAINED THIS PLAN IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, ALL REMOVALS MUST BE FELLED INTO THE WORK AREA TO ENSURE THE DAMAGE DOES NOT OCCUR TO THE TREES WITHIN N Y ■ TREES LOCATED JUSTOUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED WILL HAVE TREE oil PROTECTION FENCING INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE ACTIVITY, THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION FENCE WILL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENDED, SOILS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT HAS U ■I U O PLACEMENT OR EXCAVATION OF FILL, TOP SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, OR DEBRIS, IF WORK MUST BE CONDUCTED WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ZONE THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION m PROPOSED m MULCH LEAVING A 10 CM DEPTH LAYER OF MULCH. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHEN POSSIBLE, IF ROOT PRUNING IS UNAVOIDABLE, SEEK E � i HOUSE ■ E Ltz"` TREE PRESERVATION PLAN ■ 660 ■ ■ Z 7 REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER �p M Z Z ■ Z SITE INFORMATION ■ Z , O JOB NUMBER O O ■ SCALE �1-08X K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITEDsq.m. NOOSE AREA: E ■ ■ E 471%670.2 COVERAGE : 4T.1� .I(>H.SNNF CUIMA0 LS CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS EX HOUSE j ■ AT SW#CORNER OF AVONDALETO OF FIRE HYDANT AVENUE #664 KITCHENER SUDBURY oanwirvc rvurrem ELEV. 340.049 EX HOUSE 1 OF 1 ■ ■ #652 J i GARAGE ■I ■ COVERED i ■ PORCH i ■J ........ . 9.087 ZONNG SETBACK.. EX 10m HIGH BLACK WALNUT (WITH 5m DRIPLINE) w IN GOOD CONDITION w _ 18.29m 60'] TO REMAIN EX HEDGE EX SIDEWALK ED 0.3 DIA DEC EX LIGHT STANDARD A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E NOTES FOR TREES BEING RETAINED THIS PLAN IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, ALL REMOVALS MUST BE FELLED INTO THE WORK AREA TO ENSURE THE DAMAGE DOES NOT OCCUR TO THE TREES WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. TREES LOCATED JUSTOUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED WILL HAVE TREE PROTECTION FENCING INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE ACTIVITY, THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION FENCE WILL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENDED, SOILS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED, AREAS PROTECTED BY FENCING SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED AND WILL NOT BE USED FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE, PLACEMENT OR EXCAVATION OF FILL, TOP SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, OR DEBRIS, IF WORK MUST BE CONDUCTED WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ZONE THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION ANDMECHANICAL ROOT DAMAGE BY APPLYING 15 — 30 CM OF MULCH TO AREA, UPON COMPLETION REMOVE EXCESS MULCH LEAVING A 10 CM DEPTH LAYER OF MULCH. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHEN POSSIBLE, IF ROOT PRUNING IS UNAVOIDABLE, SEEK FURTHER DETAILS. ANY LIMBS DAMAGED OR BROKEN DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PRUNED CLEANLY, Ltz"` TREE PRESERVATION PLAN Pc r UGN 660 AVONDALE AVENUE O w, "if >, • • REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER Y SITE INFORMATION JOB NUMBER O O LOT AREA: sq. rn. SCALE �1-08X K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITEDsq.m. NOOSE AREA: onTe 471%670.2 COVERAGE : 4T.1� .I(>H.SNNF CUIMA0 LS CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS SITE BENCHMARK APRIL 19, 2021 N� R710(3 AT SW#CORNER OF AVONDALETO OF FIRE HYDANT AVENUE 1:200 4m KITCHENER SUDBURY oanwirvc rvurrem ELEV. 340.049 1 OF 1 TREE PROTECTION PLAN - 660 AVONDALE AVENUE INTRODUCTION This memo outlines the Tree Protection Plan in support of redevelopment at the residential dwelling of 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener. An inventory was completed for all trees greater than 10 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) within the construction footprint, and adjacent areas within the property, which have the potential to be impacted by disturbances associated with the proposed construction. INVENTORY RESULTS Table 1: Summary of Trees Inventoried by Species Effective DriplineTHeight Tree Species DBH (m) (m) Condition Status Comments (cm) JI White Spruce* 16 3 8 t Good Remove Some exposed roots, located within footprint Blue Spruce 24 3 10 Fair Remove Lean towards house, located within footprint Ash species* 21 Poor Remove Trunk wounds, insect damage, 4 10 located within footprint White Spruce* 45 Fair/Poor Remove Dead branches, minor dieback 4 14 Blue Spruce 17 2 8 Good Retain Frost crack at unions Ornamental fruit 28 5 7 Fair Retain Water sprouting, woodpecker ree holes r Black Walnut* 22 Good Retain N/A 5 10 *Denotes native species TREES TO BE REMOVED Based on the design drawings a total of 3 trees are to be removed to accommodate the proposed development and servicing and 1 tree is proposed to be removed due to fair -poor health conditions. TREES TO BE RETAINED Three trees are proposed to be retained. The following recommended Best Management Practices should be employed, where applicable, to protect the health, and future health of the trees are to be retained: • All removals must be felled into the work area to ensure the damage does not occur to the trees within the Tree Protection Zone • Trees located just outside of the construction footprint that are to be preserved will have tree protection fencing installed prior to the commencement of any site activity. The temporary protection fence will be removed once construction has ended, soils are stabilized and all of the equipment has been removed • Areas protected by fencing shall remain undisturbed and will not be used for temporary storage, placement or excavation of fill, top soil, construction materials or equipment, or debris. • If work must be conducted within a tree protection zone the contractor should minimize soil compaction and mechanical root damage by applying 15 — 30 cm of mulch to area. Upon completion remove excess mulch leaving a 10 cm depth layer of mulch. • Avoid cutting surface roots of trees to be retained when possible. If root pruning is unavoidable, seek further details. • Any limbs damaged or broken during the course of construction should be pruned cleanly CONCLUSIONS This Tree Saving Plan memo minimizes the number of trees that are to be removed and provides recommended actions to protect and retain the maximum number of trees in good condition. The owner and/or contractor shall follow the recommendations within this memo to the best of their abilities. Carly Van Daele ISA Certified Arborist ON -2346A 18.29m [60'] A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E �C'l�LGRlArC` r Q,C yov J(>HANNF. GUIMARAL:S \L_L71063 EXISTING VS. PROPOSED SIDEYARD SETBACKS 660 AVONDALE AVENUE REGION OF WATERLOO K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS KITCHENER SUDBURY CITY OF KITCHENER OB NUMBER SCALE zi—oar ® DATE APRIL 19, 2021 0 1:200 4m oRnwirvc rvuNem 111 1-11 e nye — 11-19 11-I,Eg Ex 11 NEI 11-11e-21 2:11 11 11 I 4.7m ZONING SETBACK (MINOR VARIANCE) COVERED UNCOVERED I PORCH _I_PORCH_ 7.5m ZONING SETBACK I EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHES 0.11m I INTO SIDEYARD ZONING SETBACK o aI la oN N I mI PROPOSED I E E I HOUSE I 0 co c� I z #660 I_ M ,i q L o ml EX HOUSE E TO BE EX HOUSE -I REMOVED ##664 �I EX HOUSE #/652 GARAGE COVERED 1.Sm 1.85m 0.87m I PORCH 1'2m 9.08m ZONNG SETBACK I� ai Q � o } > EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHES 0.33m INTO SIDEYARD SETBACK Q < w > w BE 18.29m 60'] A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E �C'l�LGRlArC` r Q,C yov J(>HANNF. GUIMARAL:S \L_L71063 EXISTING VS. PROPOSED SIDEYARD SETBACKS 660 AVONDALE AVENUE REGION OF WATERLOO K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS KITCHENER SUDBURY CITY OF KITCHENER OB NUMBER SCALE zi—oar ® DATE APRIL 19, 2021 0 1:200 4m oRnwirvc rvuNem 111 1-11 e nye — 11-19 11-I,Eg Ex 11 NEI 11-11e-21 2:11 11 11 5 755.8 8 610 .5 3009.9 2755.9 a..................................................... 5 511.8 .a .._.,......_....._.._.._....._......_.A..._.._.._....._...------..._.._.._ 356.5 D e'd j4 eo4 UNEXCAVATED end D e�d D4 ba ur e. eod h UP D d ed a 1 r Yf r eo4 eo4 .................... D e 0 a ------------- ----------------- TI eed d D p o ❑ UNEXCAVATED O od 5 902.5 od 3 683 3 219.5 a ........................... ' 'ee So�.Po, . .. UNEXCAVATED D .. ....... .... ... .... ... o..... ,e ' 33528 1 ]2]2 19812 1524 13910 3 708.4 3 505.2 J�S-E 14 639.4 FOUNDATION PLAN LLCONCRETE WALLS 10 THICK UNLESS NOTED OTHER -SE ALL ANGLED MILLS 45 DEGREES (1'.1 ) UNLESS NOTED OTHER -ISE ALLINTERIORWALLS-913— UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ALL ANTEL'STEEL3112 x31.2"111 U ISE ALLSTRUCTURALLINTELSTOSE 2-2210 UN LESS OTHERra ISE NOTED V n= a MLE leu LEx NCT TERLOo oN /r,\ LS J� rr�o.-,eo-AV I—EKIIIIue N-Ervea - - MAIN FLOOR LAYOUT 2260 SQ.FT. imn'a TER o0 oN oral lElUl 111 -HEI -1 6 919.8 8 619.6 3 009.9 30099 2438.4 4 032.3 2 149 COVERED PORCH UNCOVERED PORCH DINING ROOM 14'-8" z 12'-0" 13'-6" x 12'-0" .__________18'_0"x12'_0" �: ®' N U ❑ GREAT ROOM, 23'_6" x 18,_6"', w .2T�—IE HQ Y OPEN TO ABOVE iex ,FAuz eEwNO Daus 1,2 O\P/ ' PANTRV ON OWORKSHOP s r. _________�-_� 11'-10"x17-0„ 71 ell, MUD ROOM m - 10'_10" x T-8" BEDROOM 11'-8" z 14'-7" TN—„m oet+iL____-- FOYER GARAGE OPEN TO ABOVE 23,_0„x21,_0"(21'-0„) OFFICE 12'-D” x 14'-5" COVERED PORCH 21, 11 2095.5 21911 1 447.8 1 447.8 2019.3 2 019.3 1 524 1 981.2 4 191 2 89Sti 40386 3 505 2 146304 MAIN FLOOR LAYOUT 2260 SQ.FT. imn'a TER o0 oN oral lElUl 111 -HEI -1 UPPER FLOOR LAYOUT 1467 SQ.FT. ,.a�ExNQ>�Aa--" TEB�aoaN A2 7 099.3 3 416.3 33862 1 966.8 6032.5 0� W.I.C. 11'-0" x 15'-7" OPEN TO BELOW ENSUITE 11,-0" x 12,-1" _____ = D C� 0 - MASTER SUITE - 14'-0" x 17-0" -PEN E — �. , "u, •N O s.. Li -------------------5181 6-----------------_� o 0 OPEN TO BE—V BEDROOM 43 11'-2" x 13'-0" BEDROOM #2 11'-6" x 12'-8" ------------------------ 1574.81447.8 2019.3 k s� 2019.3 1524 1981.2 39243 3 022.6 40386 3505.2 14 630 4 UPPER FLOOR LAYOUT 1467 SQ.FT. ,.a�ExNQ>�Aa--" TEB�aoaN A2 jo 04ALLEY ice A3 d—, ",-3 Dianna Saunderson From: Amy Stahlke Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:06 PM To: Dianna Saunderson; Committee of Adjustment (SM) Cc: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Register to submit comments for committee of adjustments Hi Dianna, Thank you very much for the information. I would like to have the following brief comments submitted to the Committee regarding the application for A 2021-031-660 Avondale Avenue: I've lived at IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAvondale Avenue since 1997. While I am not directly impacted by the proposed minor variance at 660 Avondale, I do want to express my opposition to the reduction of the rear yard set back from 7.5 meters to 4.7 meters. There appears to be a trend in the Westmount neighbourhood to tear down existing homes to build new, larger dwellings. This trend is likely to continue and I'm concerned about the precedent a reduction in setbacks would have going forward, allowing for large homes that almost completely fill the lots, more in keeping with what you see in newer neighbourhoods. The size of the lot at 660 Avondale Avenue is large enough to accommodate a home of a reasonable and yet still considerable size in comparison to other homes on the street, without having to reduce the rear yard setback. If this was being proposed next to or behind my house, I would be concerned about a reduction in my property value because of the close proximity of such a large home. I'm assuming the setback exists to preserve space and privacy between houses, allowing residents to have a sense of open space, to allow better natural light in backyards - all things I value and wouldn't want to lose. Approving variances of this nature to accommodate large new builds will change the character of this mature neighbourhood to the detriment of existing residents, particularly immediate neighbours. Allowing a reduction in the rear setback also wouldn't be fair to the neighbours who expect that existing requirements will be enforced. Perhaps a more equitable approach would be for the new owners of 660 Avondale Ave to have to gain approval for the variance from the properties impacted by the proposed reduction to the setback? I hope their opinions will be sought and heard as part of this process. Many thanks for allowing me to make this submission in writing. Amy Stahlke IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAvondale Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Garry Smith Glasgow Street, To whom it may concern Re; A2021 — 032 - 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, minor variance To the Committee of Adjustment My name is Garry Smith, residing atMlasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario. In regards to the minor variance requested above, at 660 Avondale Avenue, we strongly object against changing the setback from 7.5 meters to 4.7 meters. We are truly blessed to be surrounded by properties that have a large urban landscape in proportion to the building structure, in and around our surrounding properties. The proposed building structure is out of character with the neighborhood. It is not a desirable change and will negatively impact the privacy and enjoyment we all enjoy within old Westmount. Sincerely yours; Garry Smith Glasgow Street. Kitchener Date April 15th 2021 April 15, 2021 The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 - 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, My name is Dan Reid and I am the current homeowner at M Earl St., Kitchener, ON Regarding the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the 7.5m required as stated under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051 (approved in 2019), 1 object to granting this variance for a number of reason stated herein. I submit to the Committee of Adjustment that the current application does not meet the standards set out in the above by-laws. 1. Does it conform to the intent of the Official Plan? The Official Plan Policies are very clear in ensuring compatibility within existing neighbourhoods (R-3 under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Res -3 under the new Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051 - of which both by-laws are in effect. Under Section 11, Part C of the official Plan: Neighbourhood Design 11.C.1.28. Neighbourhoods in the City can be characterized as either suburban or central neighbourhoods. The Urban Design Manual provides design direction with respect to character, built form and amenities in both typologies of neighbourhoods. a) In the Central Neiahbourhoods the City's primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. Building Design, Massing and Scale Design 11.C.1.31. The City will ensure new buildings are designed, existing buildings are redeveloped, expanded, converted or renovated to enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places. 11.C.1.33. The City will encourage the following: a) provision of attractive building forms, facades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings: Section 11 Part C City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete & Healthy Kitchener 11-7 b) Infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character and minimization of adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties. We would submit that the application for minor variance does not conform to the INTENT of the Official Plan and contravenes these Official Plan policies regarding the required set -back from the back property lot line and provide a reasonable backyard amenity. RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID M EARL ST., KITCHENER 1 of 5 2. Does it conform to the intent of the Zoning By-laws? We argue it does NOT conform The lot at 660 Avondale enjoys a much larger frontage than most of the other lots on Avondale. A variance to increase the building size, on what is already a large lot, would make the larger building disproportionate to the existing homes on the street. The proposed new building at 660 Avondale would be 2.5 times larger than 652 Avondale and nearly 60% larger than 664 Avondale - effectively dwarfing both homes (see photo below of 670 Dunbar). The current available footprint for a home at 660 Avondale provides more than sufficient space to remain within the zoning by-law and still build a large home that will be significantly larger than current homes within close proximity. Zoning By-law 4830 approved in 1964 has a rear -yard setback of 7.5m (25 ft) and has remained in effect for 60 years. The same setback standard has been approved within the Crozby By-law. Almost all municipal Zoning By-laws in Ontario have residential rear yards of minimum 7.5m as a standard. The requested variance to enlarge the building footprint on one of the largest lots on Avondale is in contradiction to the current zoning by-laws and should not be approved (see chart on last pg). The proposed building is simply too large for the current space within the permitted zoning by-laws. Approving a minor variance to enlarge an already large home is counter to the INTENT of the current Official Plan policies - which are to ensure compatibility within existing neighbourhoods. 3. Is it minor in nature? The request is to reduce the minimum set -back from 7.5m to 4.7m. We argue this is NOT a minor request for a variance for several reasons. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact of the homes immediately adjacent to the property. Homes on either side of the proposed home would be dwarfed by the size of the proposed new build, even if it was to remain within the current by-laws. Homes backing on to 660 Avondale would be significantly impacted by a loss of privacy within their backyards. The proposed change would have the dining room within 15.42 feet of the back property line. To put this into perspective, this is similar in size to a small back deck in depth. We believe the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are designed to ensure that homeowners have a right to optimize the footprint of their home within Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, while providing neighbouring homes the opportunity to enjoy a sense of privacy within their own setting. To suggest that a larger building, which is significantly larger than the neighbouring homes at 664 Avondale and 652 Avondale would not encroach on the privacy of both adjacent homes is nothing less than gaslighting. There are three homes that back onto 660 Avondale: 17 Earl, 23 Earl and 27 Earl. Each of these properties abuts a portion of the backyard at 660 Avondale. Each of these homes will be negatively impacted if the proposed dwelling at 660 Avondale is allowed the requested minor variance. RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID M EARL ST., KITCHENER 2 of 5 (View of the impact of a recently built home at 670 Dunbar, Kitchener, next to existing home.) The privacy and enjoyment within the backyards for both 17 and 23 Earl St will be severely affected, as they are directly exposed to the backyard of 660 Avondale. The proposed height of the new home and close proximity to the back lot line would cast significant shadows on both of these properties, impacting the privacy and enjoyment of both residences. Specifically, backyard gardens at 17 Earl would receive less direct daylight in the late afternoon. 664 Avondale will also be directly impacted by shadows cast from the proposed new build significantly reducing early and mid-morning light. We would argue that the INTENT of this development is definitely NOT a minor request for a variance. 4. Is it desirable? In 1924, the City of Kitchener passed a town planning by-law establishing Kitchener as the first Ontario Municipality of any size to adopt a comprehensive town plan and to enact an associated Zoning By-law 1823 that controlled exactly how a neighbourhood could be developed. Over the past 97 years, Westmount, the first modern subdivision to be developed in Ontario, is recognized as a unique and desirable neighbourhood. What makes it unique is that many of the original homes were designed and built in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Today, intensification is putting more pressure on existing neighbourhoods, especially older neighbourhoods where lots can be larger. This has driven builders and homeowners to purchase large lots with the intent of knocking down existing homes and replacing them with significantly larger homes with the intent of maximizing the usable square footage of the lot. This was not the logic behind intensification, but has led to a trend that is changing established neighbourhoods, and not necessarily for the better. Susan Mavor (author of the book: Westmount - The Ties That Bind The Twin Cities) concluded: RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID M EARL ST., KITCHENER 3 of 5 "Westmount can be described as one of the first modern suburbs, inspired by the ideas of the contemporary "Garden Suburb" or "City Beautiful" movement in planning back in the early 201 century. Boulevards, curved streets, green spaces, trees, and the physical contours of the land were preserved." Today, unfortunately, that legacy is in danger. Q: Why is Old Westmount so sought after as a place to live? For many, it's the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. The near 100 -year history that has been preserved in the unique homes that are a legacy to our past. The quaintness of the tree -lined streets and easy access to Belmont Village and a short walk to both downtown cores for both Waterloo and Kitchener. Old Westmount is a unique community. One with a history that dates back to the 1920s. It attracts people from across Canada, who have a desire to enjoy the many amenities of the tree -lined streets. We argue the history of Old Westmount is worth preserving. Why build massive homes here, when that alters what makes Old Westmount unique? Q: When is enough, enough? Google Map aerial showing 660 Avondale Ave. as well as 17, 23 & 27 Earl St. It also begs the question: Why do we have an Official City Plan and urban design policies if these policies are continually challenged based on the expectations of builders and individual citizens who push the limits in order to maximize their investment? If not the City of Kitchener, then who will be the guardians of our unique heritage? And, the heritage of our children. RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID 17 EARL ST., KITCHENER 4 of 5 Chart of exterior square footage and lot size square footage of homes on Avondale and Earl (Source: AboutMyProperty.ca) STREET ADDRESS HOME Exterior Sq Footage LOT SIZE Sq Footage 652 Avondale 1445 sq ft 5400 sq ft 660 Avondale Proposed 3,700 sq ft 7200 sq ft 664 Avondale 2159 sq ft 6960 sq ft 670 Avondale 1940 sq ft 5640 sq ft 653 Avondale 1769 sq ft 5520 sq ft 657 Avondale 1668 sq ft 6360 sq ft 663 Avondale 1961 sq ft 6360 sq ft 671 Avondale 1620 sq ft 7,500 sq ft 675 Avondale 2159 sq ft 7800 sq ft Earl Street Lots abutting 660 Avondale Avenue Lot 17 Earl St 2462 sq ft 4800 sq ft 23 Earl St 2082 sq ft 4800 sq ft 27 Earl St 1939 sq ft 4800 sq ft In summary, we argue the INTENT of this minor variance for a rear yard reduction is NOT DESIRABLE and not good planning for the neighbourhood. Sincerely, Daniel C. Reid RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID M EARL ST., KITCHENER 5 of 5 Dianna Saunderson From: Ron Donaldson < > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:25 AM To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Dianna Saunderson Subject: [EXTERNAL] Committee of Adjustment - A2021-031 - 660 Avondale Avenue Good morning, I live at M Claremont Avenue at the corner of Avondale Ave and Claremont, 4 houses from 660 Avondale. I would like to express my opposition to granting the variance proposed for the construction of the new infill home at 660 Avondale Avenue in Kitchener. The houses in the vicinity of 660 are modest, charming homes, most with large backyards that have been enjoyed by the countless families that have called the neighbourhood home for the last many decades. The request to reduce the rear yard setback for the new construction at 660 is an unwanted precedent that places all of our homes in this community at risk of having "monster homes" built next to us. The new backyard will be a fraction of the existing yard and will visually impact the adjacent yards. The proposed new home will be many times larger than other homes in the neighbourhood, a disturbing and unnecessary build that will negatively impact the character of this neighbourhood, and is not consistent with the OP that expects compatibility with the neighbourhood. It is inevitable that the current home was going to come down. Given that the property is wider than many on the street a larger home can surely be constructed without the need for reducing the size of the rear yard. This would be consistent with the zoning by-law setback standards that are applied throughout the city. Thanks, Ron Donaldson The City of Kitchener April 16, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, I am writing in response to the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the required 7.5m. As a resident at W Earl St., Kitchener I am asking that you decline this request. If people choose to live in homes of this size, I feel they need to find property that will allow for the size of their desired home without encroaching on the rights and privacy of others. My neighbours and I chose to live in this neighbourhood because of the character of the neighbourhood and with the assumption that zoning bylaws would be protective of that character. When people make significant investments in their gardens, they need to be able to trust that their rights to sunlight and privacy will be protected. I have witnessed how my neighbours, directly behind this proposed site, completely redesigned their back gardens over the past 2 years, putting in an inordinate number of hours, sweat labour and financial resources into their garden. They based their choice of plants and design on the assumption that a rebuild would be within the existing zoning bylaws. More and more people are planting vegetable gardens in their back yards, gardens which require sunlight. When others encroach on their sunlight, by applying for variances, it is limiting the usefulness of their land and limits the choices they can make on their own property. If granted, this request for this minor variance will result in a building which will dwarf the homes next to this property. It is completely out of character for the neighbourhood and impacts on the privacy of adjacent homes. It is not a desirable solution. Having been a part of groups in the past who have been asked to submit input into the Region's Official Plan, it is my experience that Official Plans and urban designs policies are developed with collective input considering the needs of the collective and were meant to protect us. I ask that you be very cautious about agreeing to the needs of an individual when it has such a significant impact on their neighbours. Such decisions can create tensions, undermine neighbourliness and a sense of community. In my experience Earl Street is a remarkable community in its depth of caring for one another. I ask that you protect and preserve our community spirit. It is my hope that you will decline the variance and instead support and protect the character and livability of Old Westmount, which is why so many of us bought homes in this neighbourhood and why we love living here. Respectfully, Joy Finney Resident of W Earl St. April 16, 2021 Julie Robinson M Earl Street The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing Committeeofadj ustment@kitchener.ca RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, This letter is in opposition of the variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the 7.5m. I object to granting this variance for a number of reason stated herein. Earl Street is the direct backyard neighbour of the home at 660 Avondale Avenue. As a result, my property and my home will be directly affected by this decision. I would submit to the Committee of Adjustment that the current application does not meet the standards set out in current by-laws. 1. Does it conform to the intent of the Official Plan? The variance does not conform to the intent of the official plan and will negatively impact my property, my backyard, and my home. Transitioning from a one storey home, currently on the site, to a two storey much larger home will negatively impact the amount of sunlight and privacy of my property. Additionally, building the home so close to the property line is going to further shade my backyard and adversely impact the enjoyment of my backyard and deck space as well as the inside of my home due to privacy issues. I I.C.1.33. The City will encourage the following: a) provision of attractive buildingf, fagades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings; Section 11 Part C City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete & Healthy Kitchener 11-7 b) Infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character and minimization of adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties. For this reason, I oppose the variance request. 2. Does it conform to the intent of the Zoning By-laws? The variance request does not conform to the intent of the Zoning By -Laws. Zoning By-law 4830 approved in 1964 has a rear -yard setback of 7.5m (25 ft.) and has remained in effect for 60 years. The same setback standard has been maintained within the Crozby By-law at 7.5m. There is no justification for making the building at 660 Avondale longer than the by-law permits. For this reason, I oppose the variance request. 3. Is it minor in nature? This variance request is not minor in nature. The request is to reduce the minimum set -back from 7.5m to 4.7m. This a difference of 2.8m which represents 37% of the 7.5m requirement, which is significant and not minor in nature. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact of the homes immediately adjacent to the property. This would result in an intrusion to the rear yard. My home, at 23 Earl Street, backs onto 660 Avondale and would be significantly impacted by a loss of privacy within my backyard. The privacy and enjoyment within the backyards for both 17 and 23 Earl St will be severely affected, as they are directly exposed to the backyard of 660 Avondale. The proposed height of the new home and close proximity to the back lot line would cast significant shadows on both of these properties, impacting the sunlight, privacy and enjoyment of both residences. For this reason, I oppose the variance request. 4. Is it desirable? The variance is not desirable. The proposed home is too large for the existing lot. It is undesirable to lose the privacy that I value in the Old Westmount neighbourhood. The majority of my time and my families' time is spent at the rear of our home — in our kitchen, master bedroom, on the back deck and in the yard. All of these spaces will be negatively affected and impacted by having a very large 2 storey new building erected within 15 feet of the property line. Additionally, the current landscaping at 660 Avondale has many mature trees that will likely be removed as a result of the construction, further negatively impacting the privacy and sightlines to myself and my family. For this reason, I oppose the variance request. Sincerely, Julie Robinson M Earl Street Kitchener The City of Kitchener April 16, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, My name is James McCormack and I currently reside at M Earl St., Kitchener, Ontario. I have lived at this residence for 38 years. Regarding the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the 7.5m required as stated under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051 (approved in 2019), I object to granting this variance for a number of reason stated herein. I would submit to the Committee of Adjustment that the current application does not meet the standards set out in the above by-laws. 1. Does it conform to the intent of the Official Plan? The Official Plan Policies are very clear in ensuring compatibility within existing neighbourhoods (R-3 under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Res -3 under the new Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051 — of which both by-laws are in effect. Under Section 11, Part C of the official Plan: Neighbourhood Design II.C.1.28. Neighbourhoods in the City can be characterized as either suburban or central neighbourhoods. The Urban Design Manual provides design direction with respect to character, built form and amenities in both typologies of neighbourhoods. a) In the Central Neighbourhoods the City's primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. Building Design, Massing and Scale Design 11.C.1.31. The City will ensure new buildings are designed, existing buildings are redeveloped, expanded, converted or renovated to enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places. I I.C.1.33. The City will encourage the following: a) provision of attractive buildingf, facades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings; Section 11 Part C City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete & Healthy Kitchener 11-7 b) Infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character and minimization of adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties. We would submit that the application for minor variance does not conform to the INTENT of the Official Plan and contravenes these Official Plan policies regarding the required set -back from the back property lot line and provide a reasonable backyard amenity. 2. Does it conform to the intent of the Zoning By-laws? We would argue that it doesn't. The lot at 660 Avondale enjoys a much larger frontage than most of the other lots on Avondale. A variance to increase the building size, on what is already a large lot, would make the larger building disproportionate to the existing homes on the street. The proposed new building at 660 Avondale would be 2.5 times larger than 652 Avondale and nearly 60% larger than 664 Avondale — effectively dwarfing both homes (see photo below of 670 Dunbar). The current available footprint for a home at 660 Avondale provides more than sufficient space to remain within the zoning by-law and still build a large home that will be significantly larger than current homes within close proximity. Zoning By-law 4830 approved in 1964 has a rear -yard setback of 7.5m (25 ft) and has remained in effect for 60 years. The same setback standard has been approved within the Crozby By-law. Almost all municipal Zoning By-laws in Ontario have residential rear yards of minimum 7.5m as a standard. The requested variance to enlarge the building footprint on one of the largest lots on Avondale is in contradiction to the current zoning by-laws and should not be approved (see chart at the end). The proposed building is simply too large for the current space within the permitted zoning by-laws. Approving a minor variance to enlarge an already large home is counter to the INTENT of the current Official Plan policies — which are to ensure compatibility within existing neighbourhoods. 3. Is it minor in nature? The request is to reduce the minimum set -back from 7.5m to 4.7m. We would argue that this is NOT a minor request for a variance for several reasons. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact of the homes immediately adjacent to the property. Homes on either side of the proposed home would be dwarfed by the size of the proposed new build, even if it was to remain within the current by-laws. Homes backing on to 660 Avondale would be significantly impacted by a loss of privacy within their backyards. The proposed change would have the dining room within 15.42 feet of the back property line. To put this into perspective, this is similar in size to a small back deck in depth. We believe the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are designed to ensure that homeowners have a right to optimize the footprint of their home within Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, while providing neighbouring homes the opportunity to enjoy a sense of privacy within their own setting. To suggest that a larger building, which is significantly larger than the neighbouring homes at 664 Avondale and 652 Avondale would not encroach on the privacy of both adjacent homes is nothing less than gaslighting. (Example of recently built home at 670 Dunbar, Kitchener next to existing home.) There are three homes that back onto 660 Avondale: 17 Earl, 23 Earl and 27 Earl. Each of these properties abuts a portion of the backyard at 660 Avondale. Each of these homes will be negatively impacted if the proposed dwelling at 660 Avondale is allowed the requested minor variance. The privacy and enjoyment within the backyards for both 17 and 23 Earl St will be severely affected, as they are directly exposed to the backyard of 660 Avondale. The proposed height of the new home and close proximity to the back lot line would cast significant shadows on both of these properties, impacting the privacy and enjoyment of both residences. Specifically, backyard gardens at 17 Earl would receive less direct daylight in the late afternoon. 664 Avondale will also be directly impacted by shadows cast from the proposed new build significantly reducing early and mid-morning light. We would argue that the INTENT of this development is defmitely NOT a minor request for a variance. 4. Is it desirable? In 1924, the City of Kitchener passed a town planning by-law establishing Kitchener as the first Ontario Municipality of any size to adopt a comprehensive town plan and to enact an associated Zoning By-law 1823 that controlled exactly how a neighbourhood could be developed. Over the past 97 years, Westmount, the first modern subdivision to be developed in Ontario, is recognized as a unique and desirable neighbourhood. What makes it unique is that many of the original homes were designed and built in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Today, intensification is putting more pressure on existing neighbourhoods, especially older neighbourhoods where lots can be larger. This has driven builders and homeowners to purchase large lots with the intent of knocking down existing homes and replacing them with significantly larger homes with the intent of maximizing the usable square footage of the lot. This was not the logic behind intensification, but has led to a trend that is changing established neighbourhoods, and not necessarily for the better. Susan Mavor (author of Westmount — The Ties That Bind The Twin Cities) concluded that Westmount can be described as one of the first modern suburbs, inspired by the ideas of the contemporary "Garden Suburb" or "City Beautiful" movement in planning back in the early 20th century. Boulevards, curved streets, green spaces, trees, and the physical contours of the land were preserved. Today, unfortunately, that legacy is in danger. Ask yourself why Old Westmount is so sought after as a place to live? For many, it's the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. The near 100 -year history that has been preserved in the unique homes that are a legacy to our past. The quaintness of the tree -lined streets and easy access to Belmont Village and a short walk to both downtown cores for both Waterloo and Kitchener. Old Westmount is a unique community. One with a history that dates back to the 1920s. It attracts people from across the Canada, who have a desire to enjoy the many amenities of the tree -lined streets. We would argue that the history of Old Westmount is worth preserving. Do we really want to build massive homes that alter what makes Old Westmount unique? Ask yourself. when is enough, enough? It also begs the question why we have an Official City Plan and urban design policies if these policies are continually challenged based on the expectations of builders and individual citizens who push the limits and want to maximize their investment. Who will be the guardians of our heritage? Chart of exterior square footage and lot size square footage of homes on Avondale and Earl (Source: AboutMyProperty.ca) Street Address Exterior Sq Footage of Lot Size Sq Home Footage 652 Avondale 1445 sq ft 5400 sq ft 660 Avondale Proposed 3,700 sq ft 7200 sq ft 664 Avondale 2159 sq ft 6960 sq ft 670 Avondale 1940 sq ft 5640 sq ft 653 Avondale 1769 sq ft 5520 sq ft 657 Avondale 1668 sq ft 6360 sq ft 663 Avondale 1961 sq ft 6360 sq ft 671 Avondale 1620 sq ft 7,500 sq ft 675 Avondale 2159 sq ft 7800 sq ft Earl St abutting 660 Avondale lot 17 Earl St 2462 sq ft 4800 sq ft 23 Earl St 2082 sq ft 4800 sq ft 27 Earl St 1939 sq ft 4800 sq ft We would argue that the INTENT of this minor variance for a rear yard reduction is NOT desirable and not good planning for the neighbourhood. Sincerely, James McCormack April 17, 2021 The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, Regarding the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the 7.5m required under Zoning by-laws, we object to granting this variance for the following reasons: 1. The building design, massing and scale are not compatible with the neighbourhood (in particular its adjacent homes) and its character. 2. The intent of the zoning by-law is not respected. The current available footprint for a home at 660 Avondale provides more than sufficient space to remain within the zoning by-law and still build a large home that will be significantly larger than current homes within close proximity. People should not be encouraged to buy lots in desirable neighbourhoods and then reduce the desirability for others by building homes which out of proportion and impact the quality of their neighbours. 3. The request to reduce the minimum set -back from 7.5m to 4.7m is NOT a minor request for a variance. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact on nearby properties. Homes on either side of the proposed home would be dwarfed by the size of the proposed new build, even if it was to remain within the current by-laws. The proposed height of the new home and close proximity to the back lot line would cast significant shadows on adjacent properties, impacting the privacy and enjoyment of these residences. 4. Our Official City Plan needs to mean something and therefore should be used to preserve unique neighbourhoods like Old Westmount. Why do we have an Official City Plan and urban design policies if these policies are continually challenged based on the expectations of builders and individual citizens who push the limits in order to maximize their investment? This may just be "one house on one lot" but it sets a dangerous precedent that could erode the very fabric of this neighbourhood t and what makes it desirable. The City has an obligation to enforce the zoning and keep minor variances minor. Minor/reasonable variances are meant more for additions/renovations of existing structures. New builds should comply with the zoning. Sincerely, Michele Cadotte & Ed McCarron @ M Earl St., Kitchener ON Dianna Saunderson From: Colleen Boehmer < Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:36 PM To: Dianna Saunderson; Juliane vonWesterholt Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition for request: Committee of Adjustments Hearing for A 2021-03 on April 20, 2021 Hello Diana and Juliane, Please forward my letter below to the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment for the Hearing for A 2021-02 on April 20, 2021. Thank you, Colleen Boehmer April 17, 2021 The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, I am writing to you to express my opposition to the request for a rear yard setback for 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener. (A 2021-031) I am a homeowner � Earl St. Kitchener. My neighbours at Earl will be negatively impacted by this large home looming over their backyards eliminating any sense of privacy. I am very concerned for them and also for the precedent this would set for the future new builds in our neighbourhood. The request is to reduce the minimum setback from 7.5m to 4.7m. I would argue this is NOT a minor request for a variance for several reasons. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact of the homes immediately adjacent to the property. Homes on either side of the proposed home would be dwarfed by the size of the proposed new build, even if it was to remain within the current by-laws. Homes backing on to 660 Avondale would be significantly impacted by a loss of privacy within their backyards. The proposed change would have the dining room within 15.42 feet of the back property line. To put this into perspective, this is similar in size to a small back deck in depth. The beauty and charm of the neighbourhood of old Westmount is in jeopardy with this kind of new build forever changing the continuity and aesthetic that has made it one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in Kitchener. Giant new homes way bigger than those around them do not fit in! If you are going to allow new homes to be built on old properties, please ensure that they are built within a reasonable size to those they surround. Homeowners who have lived here for decades and who bought their homes specifically because it was an area of established homes with interesting and unique architecture must now panic every time a house is sold wondering if a new huge home will be built there. If you allow large homes to be built taking up most of the property and towering over other homes, you have changed the rules of the game and it is completely unfair to those who have already bought homes here. I submit that the application for a minor variance does not conform to the INTENT of the Official Plan and contravenes the Official Plan policies regarding the required setback from the back property lot line and provide a reasonable backyard amenity. Please act as guardians of the unique heritage of this neighbourhood and deny the request for 660 Avondale Avenue. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Colleen Boehmer M Earl St. Kitchener The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing April 16, 2021 Troy Daniel Glover =Avondale Avenue Kitchener, Ontario RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON Dear Committee of Adjustment: This letter registers my formal opposition to the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue and its request for a setback of 4.7m for its proposed infill development. I strenuously object to this variance for the reasons expressed below. First, the variance fails to conform to the intent of the City's Official Plan. Unambiguously, the Official Plan requires compatibility within existing neighbourhoods (see R-3 under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Res - 3 under the new Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051). Under Section 11, Part C of the Official Plan, the document states, "In the Central Neighbourhoods, the City's primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood" The setback requested in the application, however, would establish a glaring anomaly relative to those existing housing structures in the neighbourhood and jeopardize the aesthetic of the neighbourhood and the privacy of its adjacent households. The Official Plan establishes the expectation that any infill development will "minimize adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties." These principles seem more than reasonable, yet absent from the variance application. Second, the application for variance fails to conform to the intent of the City's Zoning By -lows. The variance to increase the size of the house on 660 Avondale would make the size of property conspicuously disproportionate in relation to the other homes on Avondale. As I understand it, the proposed new building will be 2% times larger than 652 Avondale and nearly 60% larger than my own property, 664 Avondale, effectively dwarfing the two homes adjacent to it. The City's Official Plan, however, makes clear the City will encourage the "provision of attractive building forms, facades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings." The current available footprint at 660 Avondale enables more than enough space to remain within the already generous zoning by-laws for the property and still allow for a sizable home that will still be significantly larger than current homes inclose proximityto it. Approving the variance would make the property even more incompatible with the existing neighbourhood. Third, the application for variance is not minor in nature. A reduction in the minimum set -back from an already, frankly, surprisingly generous 7.5m to an absurdly paltry 4.7m will undoubtedly impact my privacy as one of the homeowners next door to the proposed infill development. In my view, the 2.8 m difference is not a minor change whatsoever. Effectively, the proposed new build will fill the existing lot at 660 Avondale with an enormous structure that will extend well past its current structure, effectively changing my sense of privacy tremendously, as the new build next door will have full view of my backyard and significantly reduce my exposure to early and mid-morning light. If the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws are genuinely designed to ensure that homeowners have a right to enjoy a sense of privacy within their own setting, this variance should not be approved. I do not wish to constrain the property owners from optimizing the footprint of their new home within Official Plan and Zoning By- laws, but I do expect the City to respect my privacy as a homeowner, consistent with the principles outlined in the Official Plan and zoning by-laws. Fourth, the application for variance is not desirable. If approved, it would result in the construction of an even bigger monster house than already generously permitted by existing zooming and by-laws. The precedent set will inform the inevitable infill developments that follow in Old Westmount, with buyers purchasing large lots in the neighbourhood with the intent to knock down existing homes and replace them with absurdly larger homes. This trend is unlikely to abate, but left unchecked it has the ability to jeopardize the uniqueness of the neighbourhood if handled poorly. The character of Old Westmount is worth preserving, in my view. As noted already, existing zoning and by-laws are more than generous to enable the new property owners at 660Avondale to build a much larger house, but also show some respect to their new neighbours by making it compatible with existing neighbourhood properties to retain the character of our amazing neighbourhood. I have no ambition whatsoever to block any efforts by my new neighbors to build a house that would remain within existing municipal restrictions. I presume such restrictions are in place for a reason and ought to be respected. Given the arguments I offer above, I oppose the application for variance for 660 Avondale Avenue. Should you wish to speak with me further about my concerns, I will be present at the planning meeting on April 201h to offer any clarification. Thank you for considering my perspective. Sincerely, Troy D. Glover, Ph.D. Name: Barb Trotter Address: =Avondale Ave. Kitchener ON N2M 2W4 Phone number: Email: Re: Application A 2021-031 for a minor variance for 660 Avondale Avenue Hello. I'd first like to convey my gratitude and to commend the Committee for sending out the courtesy letter to advise neighbours of the minor variance application. It's refreshing to encounter the spirit of the law being acted on rather than just the letter. Thank you so much. I'd like to take this opportunity to strongly object to application A 2021-031 for a minor variance for 660 Avondale Avenue. Kitchener has a less than illustrious history of failing to preserve many of the charming historical features that attract both visitors and prospective residents. The City has, however, compiled a list of areas to be considered Cultural Heritage Landscapes whose character should be preserved. As one of the most esteemed and valued older communities in the City, Westmount Neighbourhood is on that list. An important feature that contributes to its appeal is the size of the lots and the consequent breathing space between neighbours. Larger yards also cumulatively provide a significant amount of green space. Approving this variation would result in losing some of that green space and replacing it with concrete and glass. While the magnitude of this particular loss might seem small, taken as part of a collective change and as a precedent for even more extensive backyard shrinkage, I feel it should not be ignored on the basis of the size of the individual green space to be lost. We ourselves have first-hand experience of the result of a similar reduction in the backyard setback allowance, and in this case the courtesy of a letter was not provided. Instead, we are now quite literally faced with the effects of a done deal about which we had no input. The new, blockhouse -style residence, which extends very close to the property lines, impinges on our enjoyment of our own backyard, creating a sense of claustrophobia and the oppressive feeling of a prison exercise yard. I'd also like to note that the Environmental Protection Act specifies consideration of cultural and social impact, also including a requirement for a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for some initiatives. While those provisions might not directly apply to this particular small-scale project, they do offer testimony to an even broader view of the positive weight given to the worth and benefit of areas such as Westmount. Since major stated goals of the City of Kitchener are to increase green space and to create a livable city, it seems to me that as City representatives, your mission ought to include the responsibility to protect and preserve districts like Westmount that are both livable and green. Permitting "monster" houses to encroach on the space surrounding the dwellings in this neighbourhood will have the eventual effect of converting the older -world -atmosphere of this breathable neighbourhood into the soulless feeling that typifies a newer Mississauga suburb. I implore you not to let that happen on your watch, to recognize the importance of the Westmount Cultural Heritage Landscape, and to uphold the regulated 7.5 metre setback for 660 Avondale Avenue. Again, I very much appreciate this opportunity to express my views, and I thank you for your attention. Barb Trotter Submission to the Committee of Adjustment, City of Kitchener Re: Application 2021-031 660 Avondale Avenue From: Frank Millerd, = Avondale Ave., Kitchener ON N2M 2W3 I object to granting this variance for the reasons given below 1. The variance does not conform to the intent of the Official Plan From Kitchener's Official Plan: 11.C.28 a) In the Central Neighbourhoods the City's primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood 11.C.1.33 b) infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character, particularly if located within close proximity of a recognized cultural heritage resource or Heritage Conservation District; The intent of these two sections of the Official Plan is that infill development be compatible with the existing neighbourhood and complement existing buildings. The development at 660 Avondale may be considered to be infill development since the current building on the property is to be demolished and the new development will start with a vacant piece of property. Clearly the proposed development is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood and does not complement existing buildings. The proposed development is 60 percent larger of one adjacent home and 150 percent larger than the other, dwarfing the neighbouring homes. Westmount is not an official heritage district but has the flavor of such a district; the proposed development would not be compatible with that heritage. There is also the issue of creating a precedent. Approval of this variance would provide an argument for approval of similar variances. This is not necessarily a limited case. Infill is sometimes regarded as increasing the population density in an area; but this is only a four bedroom home. Other four bedroom homes in the area did not require zoning variances. This development will not increase the population density in the area. 2. The variance does not conform to the intent of the zoning by-laws The current back yard zoning requirement provides privacy and enhances the `green' characteristics of residential neighbourhoods. Reducing the back yard setback by 37 percent, as requested, would significantly reduce the privacy provided by the current requirement. The smaller back yard would also have much less of the greenery the neighbourhood is known for. 2 As the staff report states: "Some trees could be affected. Mature trees in this location will be adversely affected by the proposal. With this reduced setback the mature trees located in the rear yard near the property limit will likely be impacted and decline, leaving neighbours in this mature community no visual buffer." The variance does not conform to the intent of the current zoning by-law. With the reduced setback, much of the benefits of the current zoning would be lost. 3. The variance is not minor in nature This is not a minor variance. First, a significant change in the rear setback is required. Second, it will have a major impact on adjoining properties. The proposed development will be much larger than adjoining properties and reduce the privacy of neighbours. Developments of this type will greatly change the character of the Westmount neighbourhood. 4. The variance is not desirable There are benefits to the applicant but the costs to those living nearby and the neighbourhood clearly outweigh the benefits. If the variance is approved adjoining houses will be dwarfed, neighbours will lose privacy, and trees and greenery will be threatened. This is not a desirable variance. The current zoning requirements have resulted in a very desirable neighbourhood. The home owners in this neighbourhood very much appreciate the qualities of the neighbourhood. It is a neighbourhood which has been preserved and well cared for by its residents. The older homes of the neighbourhood have not been allowed to deteriorate. Kitchener does not have an abundance of well -cared for older neighbourhoods. It is important for the health of the neighbourhood and the city that the attributes of the neighbourhood be preserved. Allowing over -sized houses will detrimentally alter the character of the neighbourhood. April 17, 2021 Name: Cameron Trotter Address: =Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario N2M 2W4 Phone Number: Email: Re: Application A 20121-031 for a minor variance for 660 Avondale Avenue. This letter encompasses my objection to application A 2021-031 for 660 Avondale Avenue. We have lived on Avondale for 45 years and have enjoyed the nature of the wide and deep lots. The homes, varying in size, do not cover the majority of the lot, thus leaving large areas of green space for outdoor enjoyment and gardening. I recognize that a neighbourhood will evolve over time and that we cannot stay in the past. However, we have experienced the erection of a large home, covering most of the lot behind our property. This monster home is so close to the rear lot line that it overlooks our next-door neighbour's backyard pool and deprives her of some afternoon summer sun as well as evening sun. By allowing this application, the rear neighbour on Earl Street behind 660 Avondale will be faced with the same problems. The current green area of the backyard at 660 will be reduced to a tract virtually no larger than the boulevard fronting the property. I understand that one of the goals of the City is to retain and create as much green space as is possible. With the City receiving in lieu payments instead of insisting on the retention or creation (by developers and others) of green space, the City is falling short of its stated goal. It is well recognized that people are healthier when they are not surrounded by concrete. In addition to the aforementioned property behind us, we have seen other properties being sold and the house located thereon being torn down and replaced by a monster home that reduces the green space available. As the City progresses in this fashion, we will see development that results in a streetscape that looks like areas in downtown Toronto where similar developments eliminate any significant green area. I am also concerned that the Westmount Cultural Heritage Landscape philosophy is not being adequately followed and that the Westmount Neighbourhood will become an undesirable place to reside. Please include me in future notices including any meetings and for presentation to Council. Cameron Trotter April 19, 2021 The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, We object to the granting of the requested variance at 660 Avondale. � Let us begin by saying that we are happy to have new owners at 660 Avondale and welcome them to the neighbourhood. We appreciate that the existing dwelling at this location is in suboptimal condition and we understand the owners' wish to build a new home of their own design on this site. A new house on this property has the potential to improve the streetscape and even to benefit the neighbouring properties. To do so, however, the design must respect the existing neighbourhood plan, harmonize with the scale of the surrounding homes, and allow the neighbours to continue to enjoy the privacy and full use of their own properties in all the ways that residential zoning bylaws are intended to protect. We have read the eight submissions that have already been submitted to the City about this proposal, and note that each of these objects to granting the variance. We agree fully with the many arguments outlined in those submissions and with the basic point that the proposed plan does not meet any of the four standards set out in the City's Official Plan. We will not repeat those arguments here. Instead we would like to raise one additional issue that can complement the points already raised. Our concern is about street infrastructure and stormwater runoff. Avondale Avenue is still on the original storm drains and water mains from when the street was first laid down. The planned infrastructure upgrade for Avondale keeps getting delayed, and we understand that 2025 is now the earliest possible date being coinsidered for the infrastructure upgrade. The proposed building design for 660 covers a much higher percentage of the lot than the current dwelling does and, if the requested variance is approved, this property will have a vastly- reduced backyard (in addition to a smaller front yard because of a double garage and driveway). What are the risks of flooding to neighbouring properties if rainwater — that has until now been safely consumed by the large green lot — will instead be captured by an enormous roof and diverted to downspouts between the homes and into the street? And how much more groundwater will be displaced by a much larger (and potentially deeper) basement? Our own backyard sits approximately three feet lower than the backyard at 660, so the question of where the water will go is not an abstract concern for us. We should note, too, that 660 already has a deep pool of standing water that covers the driveway apron after heavy (and even not so heavy) rainfall. The properties on either side of 660 have these standing pools of water covering their driveway aprons as well. The City's directive to the owners (dated April 13) to prepare a Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan (TP/EP) is welcome, as it raises concerns that the scale of the design eliminates too much of the existing tree cover and green space. While the arguments in that report frame the problem in terms of privacy and greening principles, we would like to add the water issue to the list of potential concerns. We fear that the reduction of green space between 660 Avondale and its adjacent properties, and the replacement of permeable with impermeable surfaces over so much of the space, may result in stormwater and groundwater problems for us and for other neighbours. Our understanding is that a minor variance is intended to provide a way for homeowners to solve a specific problem that prevents them from enjoying the full use of their property. That is not the case here. The requested variance does not solve any unusual problems for the owners, and it is not required to enable them to enjoy their property. The lot at 660 Avondale is one of the largest in this part of Westmount, and zoning bylaws —that is, without the variance — already permit the construction of a very large house on this lot. At 3700 square feet the proposed house would be more than twice the average house size on this block of Avondale Ave. Sincerely, Eva Plach & Robert Wallwork=Avondale Ave. Kitchener N2M2W3 Dianna Saunderson From: Susan Munro Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:52 PM To: Dianna Saunderson; Juliane vonWesterholt Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 660 Avondale Ave Categories: Committee of Adjustment Revised msg w Contact info added below. Thank you Sue Munro Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Munro Date: April 19, 2021 at 1:04:11 PM EDT To: Dian na.Saunderson@kitchener.ca Cc: Juliane vonWesterholt <juliane.vonwesterholt@kitchener.ca> Subject: 660 Avondale Ave To the Committee of Adjustment We are writing to express our concerns and objections regarding the requested variance for 660 Avondale Ave. We believe the proposed, much larger house will negatively impact not only its neighbours on all sides but also the neighbourhood. It will overpower adjacent homes with its size, block light, and endanger trees either by affecting their root structures or by threat of removal. Allowing such variances results in permanent changes to the character of this old established neighbourhood. There are already examples of two enormous builds on Earl and Dunbar where the new houses use up the entire lot and exceed the height of the homes nearby. It is excessive and unnecessary and heartbreaking for those who live next door! Why does the city allow this? Words like 'compatibility' and 'in keeping with' should apply but do not!! Please do not let this trend continue -you have the power to protect the character of our neighbourhood! Thank you, Sue & Hugh Munro M Earl St, Kitchener N2M 2V5 Sent from my iPhone i Staff Report �T R Dbvelopr7ent Services Department www.kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 20, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Stevenson, Garett, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 7 DATE OF REPORT: April 12, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-55 SUBJECT: Consent Application B2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent Owner —Michael Krause Applicant - Michael Krause RECOMMENDATION: For Information REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: Please refer to Report DSD -2021-23 dated March 5, 2021 (attached) for Planning staff's recommendation and full commentary. This purpose for this report is to document the feedback on the proposed elevation plans. BACKGROUND: Consent application B2020-047 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on March 16, 2021 to allow additional time for the applicant to prepare elevations drawings for the proposed semi- detached dwelling and have them reviewed by staff and the neighbourhood. Planning staff held a Zoom meeting on April 12, 2021 with 3 residents to obtain feedback on the proposed elevations. Three written comments were also provided and are discussed in this report. REPORT: Community Comments: Email Comment 1 "My husband and I reside at 59 Brookside, across the street slightly down from the heritage farmhouse. We are one of several neighbours who have concerns regarding the proposed new build on the west side of the farmhouse. What is the frontage of the new proposed build? Will it extend out past the neighbouring home at 58 Brookside? If the "smokehouse"is being demolished to allow *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. for the proposed semi attached houses, why is the "shed" behind the proposed new build not being removed as well? This would allow for the new proposed build to be erected further back from the street which would not hinder the neighbouring home's sight lines and perhaps provide for slightly longer driveways. The "shed" at the back of the property has no historical relevance, in our opinion, as it was erected after we moved to Brookside almost 33 years ago in September of 1988. Also, if the current owner of the farmhouse, Mr. Krause wishes to sell one or both of the semis in the future, would it not be awkward for new owner(s) to have a shed behind the property which belongs to the farmhouse? Ourselves and our neighbours feel that we were initially misled by Mr. Krause regarding his plans for the original build which has now been erected on the east side of the farmhouse. Unfortunately, we cannot change what has happened, however we wish to work with Mr. Krause and the city around a reasonable solution that everyone can live with. We are sending along our concerns in writing as we may not be able to attend the zoom meeting this Monday. Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns with you. " Email Comment 2 "What will the height of the new build be? As in, will it be 1 % storeys or 2 storeys? I saw in previous correspondence that it was to be no more than 1 % storeys. The designs here indicate 2 storeys. The duplex was supposed to be no more than 1 % storeys and somehow it's 2 storeys. How far out in front of 58 Brookside is it going to be? We are concerned about sightlines. Why not push it back further and remove the coachhouse. If the concern there is tenancy, I'm told by bylaw that coachhouses currently aren't able to have tenants." Email Comment 3 "What makes a home, community, what make it yours and what happens when it threatened. If the neighbours voice is taken away, one take away the very thing that makes it a neighborhood. Michael Krause delivered a letter in our mail box that he would build a Granny flat. I got no problem with a Granny flat and saving the trees. We think it's a excellent idea. Good for you Mike. The Granny flat grew into a duplex, now when we are sitting in our living room I feel like someone from the top floor can reach out and touch me. Still mind - boggling - Granny flat to a Duplex. Issues. Parking - 42 Brookside cr. Visitors park overnight on the street in winter. Snow - snow was plowed from 50 and 42 Brookside driveways across the street to the boulevard. Snow that is left on the street is then push on to our driveway by city plow. Now we got additional snow to shovel. Seeing the issue develops at 42 Brookside cr. These are some concerns Front of building should be in line with other houses same height as other houses single family house to suit neighborhood snow clearing Parking Finally a win win situation would be great." Discussion during Zoom Meeting: During the meeting, the discussion was mainly focused on the setback from the street, especially in relation to the setback of 58 Brookside Crescent, the height of the building, and the coach house dwelling. Heritage Planning staff also confirmed their position of support to permit the demolition of the existing detached accessory building (also referred to as the "smokehouse" in the comments). The proposed setback shown on the preliminary plan for the proposed semi-detached dwelling is 6.0 metres. There is generally a 6.0 metre setback west of the proposed lots, except for the immediately adjacent dwelling at 58 Brookside Crescent, which has a setback of approximately 7.5 metres. Aerial view of dwelling west of the proposed lots. Proposed Elevations Planning Staff received the proposed elevation plan and circulated to interested community members for discussion. arm NVI IIOtl WILIH War M-1 D I� =_ I I I I OaMar ��a - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- ----------- Elevation Drawing Received April 8, 2021 for discussion The proposed height is 28.0 feet, or approximately 8.53 metres. The proposed semi-detached dwelling is two storeys in height. The existing dwelling to the west, 58 Brookside Crescent, is a side split with a two-storey portion (shown below). Existing Dwelling - 58 Brookside Crescent The existing dwelling to the east at 50 Brookside Crescent is two storeys (shown below). Existing Dwelling — 50 Brookside Crescent The existing dwellings in the immediate area of 50 Brookside Crescent are single storey at the street, although there are side splits and two storey dwellings further to the west of the subject lands. It was also discussed during the meeting that the roof pitch has been reduced to lower the overall height of the proposed semi-detached dwelling. Detached Accessory Building Planning staff understands that Building and By-law Enforcement Staff are working with the Owner to legalize the detached accessory building. An Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) is a separate self-contained dwelling unit located in a detached building on the same lot as a single detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, semi-detached dwelling unit, or street townhouse dwelling unit. The City is bringing forward new zoning regulations for Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) City-wide to implement Bill 108 (More Homes, More Choice Act) which was passed by the Provincial government in 2019. Once these new regulations are in place, the Owner will be required to obtain approvals to legalize the detached dwelling. While the building has existed prior to 1994, it is not known when renovations were undertaken to convert the building to a residential use. Next Steps During the meeting, a couple of possible design solutions were discussed that included increasing the front yard setback, increasing the front yard setback for the second storey, increasing the setback of one half of the semi-detached dwelling, and flipping the porch and garage on the westerly semi- detached unit so the porch would be adjacent to 58 Brookside Crescent. The Applicant has agreed to prepare revised front and side elevation plans and provide these to Planning staff in advance of the April 20, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting. When received, the plans will be provided to the interested residents and will be provided to the Committee of Adjustment members. 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. CONSULT — Planning Staff held a Zoom meeting on April 12, 2021 with 3 residents. An invitation was sent to all residents that participated in this application or registered as a delegation at the March meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: On April 17, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved consent application B2018-025 to sever the easterly portion of 50 Brookside Crescent to create a new lot which has been recently developed with a duplex dwelling. The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation of the property was made a condition of a previous consent application (82018-025) to sever the eastern portion of the property. Consent application B2018-025 was approved in 2018. Consent application B2020-047 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on December 8, 2020 and again on February 16, 2021 to allow time for the applicant to investigate any cultural heritage value and/or significance of the detached garage structure that is proposed to be demolished. An updated HIA, prepared by CHC Limited and dated January 21, 2021 has been submitted to Heritage Planning staff. The HIA was considered by Heritage Kitchener on March 2, 2021. The only comment raised by the committee was their interest to ensure that new buildings would fit with the character of the neighbourhood. Consent application B2020-047 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on March 16, 2021 to allow additional time for the applicant to prepare elevations drawings for the proposed dwelling and have them reviewed by staff and the neighbourhood. Planning staff held a Zoom meeting on April 12, 2021 with 3 residents. An invitation was sent to all residents that participated in this application or registered as a delegation at the March meeting. Dianna Saunderson From: Christine Laderoute Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 11:40 AM To: Dianna Saunderson Subject: [EXTERNAL] 50 Brookside Good morning Dianna, I've been asked to send the following information to you to pass on to the other members of the committee as more proof of the age of the garage from the owner prior to the Federaus, who actually had FischerHallman Road named after them. The second is a letter to the editor from another unhappy Kitchener resident. Thanks for your time! Christine Laderoute Brookside Crescei has historic signify Sun., March 28, 2021 (D 1 min. re Forest Heights residents protected — March 20 With interest, I read this ar Monteiro,, The two-storey stone hous( 2 Another Fischer farm, that of Charles Fischer, the oldest sore of George W. Fischer, was opposite Forest Heights Collegiate and the swimming pool on Fischer -Hallinan Road. The road was named Fischer Road because of those two Fischer farms.. Later on, the Fischer Road was joined with the Waterloo part of Hallman and became Fischer -Hallman Road. The homestead of 50 Brookside Crescent originally hada stone bale coven and a stone smokehouse, The old farmhouse still stands and, based on its historical past, is definitely a heritage home including its garage. The homestead has already been altered and in my opinion the historical features should be protected. Gerald A. Ftscher4aterlao 3 vVa[�rlo� _ Lc{+'ctve historic 1101110 '.dile Re; Forest He gtft resi&,nts want Ve-age! pfolided — Mamb 20 I just mad about the 'historic qJ')O e � it - Forest Heigt,tq and I'm so arlgr ai�u he r When nand lliswife u tt home around the corner iroaT' it. I - minded him tit itwas the hoarse l 1 to waw by in Lhe rate 1980s wheat �"Y kid` were smaU, jwt to lcw3k at it_ it VM the most beaaxtif ii home I had ever Seen* and I dreanied of living there, Then recently my son mentioned to Zile that a builck. 19 was going og besido it and that I woWd he upset about it. I was. Not only girl someone. just Squeeze a building in there, they ue -d ill a very ugly one at tLtt, Ncrw they unit to do it main_ -M Mt is 1 ie matter ixdth city 113U? They C2Wt possibly nee the extra groperCy Wes fmm it. Thet-e are so ninny high- rises, goiing up to add to the coffers, City hall, Y implore you to not aow fiffther bLffldj,rig oo LIlis propefty Tile Owner should bLCV a home t; lat LS alreadya duplex nd mi kc Molleythem r1ease leave the streetscape alon oU Btrxulside Cmsoent. wortita Errisfie Waterloo Sent from my Whone Staff Report ` Develo lnent5ervicesDepartr7ent www.kitchenerca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: March 16, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Stevenson, Garett, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 7 DATE OF REPORT: March 5, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-23 SUBJECT: Consent Application B2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent Owner —Michael Krause Applicant - Michael Krause RECOMMENDATION: That Application B2020-047 proposing to sever a lot with a width of 16.2 metres, a depth of 33.5 metres, and a lot area of 542.7 square metres, be approved subject to the following conditions: 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. 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 pays to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication on the severed parcel in the amount of $7452.00. Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (16.2m) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage meter. 4. The Owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, and registered on title of the Retained and Severed lands. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: 1. The Owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation/Enhancement 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 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area, and vegetation to be preserved. ll. Prior to Grading, Tree Removal, or Issuance of any Building Permits, whichever shall occur first: a) The Owner shall implement all approved measures for the protection of trees as approved in the Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan (where applicable) and to provide written certification from the Owner's Environmental Consultant to the City's Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy. No changes to the said plans shall be granted, except with prior approval from the City's Director of Planning. Ill. Prior to the Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits: a) The designating by-law shall be amended to reflect the new delineated property boundary. b) The Owner shall implement the mitigation measures, including front yard setback, building height, dwelling and garage design, materials, and colours, related to the proposed new dwelling on the Severed lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018, the Heritage Opinion letter, prepared by CHC Limited, dated October 26, 2020, and the updated Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated January 21, 2021 to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. c) The Owner shall submit building elevation, building location, and lot grading drawings for the Severed lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018, the Heritage Opinion letter, prepared by CHC Limited, dated October 26, 2020, and the updated Heritage Impact Assessment, dated January 21, 2021 for approval by the City's Director of Planning. d) The Owner shall design and construct the dwellings in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 5. 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. 6. That the Owner make 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. 7. That the Owner provides a servicing plan, showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services for the retained lands. 8. That the Owner submits 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 10. That the owner/applicant submits the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The application is requesting to demolish the existing detached garage and sever the property to create a new lot for a semi-detached dwelling. The existing dwelling on the retained lands is proposed to remain. The proposed severed lands have a lot width of 16.2 metres, a depth of 33.5 metres, and a lot area of 542.7 square metres. The retained lot is proposed to have a lot width of 30.4 metres (at the street line), a depth of approximately 43 metres and a lot area of approximately 1490 square metres. Location Map BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. REPORT: Planning Comments: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. 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 intent of the Low -Rise Residential land use designation is to permit low density residential uses. The property is developed with a single detached dwelling. Low density residential uses, including single detached, duplex, and semi-detached dwellings are permitted. The Official Plan supports an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenures and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. A semi-detached dwelling is a permitted in the R-4 zone and no variances are required for the proposed development. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both the severed and retained lands 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 November 20, 2020. Photo of Subject Property Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed applications provided a qualified designer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall addresses such items as spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Closing in of openings may be required, pending spatial separation calculation results. A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades that may be required by the building code assessment. A separate building permit will be required for the removal of the addition to the retained house. A separate building permit will be required for the construction of the new residential building. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Should a severance be approved, additional services will be required for severed lot — a building permit will be required for this work. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation of the property was made a condition of a previous consent application (82018-025) to sever the eastern portion of the property. Consent application B2018-025 was approved in 2018. The submission and approval of a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was made a requirement of the processing of Committee of Adjustment application B2018-025 in order to ensure that the proposed new lot had regard for and was consistent with Provincial, Regional, and Municipal policies relating to the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The HIA, prepared by CHC Limited and dated March 14, 2018, was approved by the Director of Planning in April 2018 following consultation with Heritage Kitchener. The HIA concludes that the original c. 1855 farmhouse with its summer kitchen wing is a heritage attribute of the property. The HIA concludes that the rural and agricultural context of the property has been lost and that views of the farmhouse from either direction are not long and wide, and do not form part of a terminating vista. Heritage Planning staff continues to agree with the conclusions of the HIA and it remains the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the size of the lot is not a heritage attribute. The HIA recommends mitigative measures to address impacts to the streetscape and neighbourhood context. The HIA, prepared by CHC Limited and dated March 14, 2018, also outlines a potential future consent application to sever the western portion of the property. Consent application B2020-047 proposes to sever the western portion of the property. The HIA comes to the same conclusions and recommendations for the severance of the western portion of the property as it does for the eastern portion of the property. A Heritage Opinion letter, prepared by CHC Limited and dated October 26, 2020 has been submitted with consent application B2020-047. The Heritage Opinion details that the creation of semi-detached lots on the western portion of 50 Brookside Crescent will not create a negative impact to the heritage resource, so long as the recommendations of the HIA, prepared by CHC Limited and dated March 14, 2018 are adhered to. The Heritage Opinion letter goes on to reaffirm that the 201h century outbuildings and the additions, do not meet the criteria for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act and are not heritage attributes of the property. Consent application B2020-047 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment to allow time for the applicant to investigate any cultural heritage value and/or significance of the detached garage structure that is proposed to be demolished. An updated HIA, prepared by CHC Limited and dated January 21, 2021 has been submitted to Heritage Planning staff. It provides additional evidence to support the conclusion that the detached stone garage is not original to the farm and was constructed sometime after 1955. The HIA was considered by Heritage Kitchener on March 2, 2021. The only comment raised by the committee was their interest to ensure that new buildings would fit with the character of the neighbourhood. The appropriate tools to continue conserving the farmhouse include implementation of the mitigative measures and recommendations of the updated HIA through conditions. The following consent conditions have been prepared to ensure the continued conservation of the farmhouse. Heritage Planning staff recommends the following conditions: The Owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, and registered on title of the Retained and Severed lands. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions: The Owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan for the Severed lot in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area, and vegetation to be preserved. Prior to Grading, Tree Removal, or Issuance of any Building Permits, whichever shall occur first: b) The Owner shall implement all approved measures for the protection of trees as approved in the Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan (where applicable) and to provide written certification from the Owner's Environmental Consultant to the City's Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy. No changes to the said plans shall be granted, except with prior approval from the City's Director of Planning. III. Prior to the Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits: e) The designating by-law shall be amended to reflect the new delineated property boundary. f) The Owner shall implement the mitigation measures, including front yard setback, building height, dwelling and garage design, materials, and colours, related to the proposed new dwelling on the Severed lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018, the Heritage Opinion letter, prepared by CHC Limited, dated October 26, 2020, and the updated Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated January 21, 2021 to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. g) The Owner shall submit building elevation, building location, and lot grading drawings for the Severed lands in accordance with the approved Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by CHC Limited, dated March 14, 2018, the Heritage Opinion letter, prepared by CHC Limited, dated October 26, 2020, and the updated Heritage Impact Assessment, dated January 21, 2021 for approval by the City's Director of Planning. h) The Owner shall design and construct the dwellings in accordance with the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 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. Where a storm sewer connection is not proposed alternative sump pump discharge arrangements should be made. The applicant is advised to have their Engineer locate and expose water and sanitary services to confirm they do exist, the size, and condition. The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Trevor Jacobs (trevor.jacobs@kitchener.ca). 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 all outlets to the municipal servicing system 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 a 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 new development lots will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $7,452.00. Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (16.2m) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage metre. Environmental Planning Comments: A Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan for the Severed lot is required in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area, and vegetation to be preserved. 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. CONSULT — Planning Staff received emails and a petition regarding the historical significance of the existing garage building. As noted in the Heritage Comments section above, Heritage Planning Staff required an updated HIA that provided additional evidence to support the conclusion that the detached stone garage is not original to the farm and was constructed sometime after 1955. The HIA was considered by Heritage Kitchener on March 2, 2021. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: On April 17, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved consent application B2018-025 to sever the easterly portion of 50 Brookside Crescent to create a new lot which has been recently developed with a duplex dwelling. The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation of the property was made a condition of a previous consent application (82018-025) to sever the eastern portion of the property. Consent application B2018-025 was approved in 2018. Consent application B2020-047 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on December 8, 2020 and again on February 16, 2021 to allow time for the applicant to investigate any cultural heritage value and/or significance of the detached garage structure that is proposed to be demolished. An updated HIA, prepared by CHC Limited and dated January 21, 2021 has been submitted to Heritage Planning staff. The HIA was considered by Heritage Kitchener on March 2, 2021. The only comment raised by the committee was their interest to ensure that new buildings would fit with the character of the neighbourhood. Staff Report ` Develo lnent5ervicesDepartr7ent 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: Stevenson, Garett, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 7 DATE OF REPORT: February 5, 2020 REPORT NO.: DSD -21-033 SUBJECT: Consent Application B2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent Owner/Applicant — Michael Krause RECOMMENDATION: That Application B2020-047 proposing to sever a lot with a width of 16.2 metres, a depth of 33.5 metres, and a lot area of 542.7 square metres, be deferred to the March 16, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The application is requesting to sever a new lot with a width of 16.2 metres, a depth of 33.5 metres, and a lot area of 542.7 square metres. The Owner is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and sever the property to create a new lot for a semi-detached dwelling. The existing dwelling on the retained lands is proposed to remain. The retained lot is proposed to have a lot width of 30.4 metres (at the street line), a depth of approximately 43 metres and a lot area of approximately 1490 square metres. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Severance Sketch Excerpt provided by the Applicant Location Map F4<FC5ED .5 57GRU j -!s STOREY r. 52. A64VI- WE NfA94'W7E —wt 1~ C, BROOK IDE CRf -SCEIV T SARITAaY SEVERANCE PROPOSAL 82-54 BRWKSIDC CRESCENT. KITCHENER • � I I C�•C TODER 2020) Severance Sketch Excerpt provided by the Applicant Location Map F4<FC5ED .5 57GRU j -!s STOREY r. NfA94'W7E —wt 1~ C, BROOK IDE CRf -SCEIV T SARITAaY SEVERANCE PROPOSAL 82-54 BRWKSIDC CRESCENT. KITCHENER • � I I C�•C TODER 2020) Severance Sketch Excerpt provided by the Applicant Location Map BACKGROUND: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The subject lands are zoned as Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation of the property was made a condition of a previous consent application (82018-025) to sever the eastern portion of the property. On December 8, 2020, the Committee of Adjustment deferred this application (82020-047) to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow additional time to investigate any cultural heritage value and/or significance of the detached garage structure that is proposed to be demolished. REPORT: Planning Comments: Planning Staff is recommending this application be deferred again to the March 16, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow additional time to investigate any cultural heritage value and/or significance of the detached garage structure that is proposed to be demolished. This additional deferral is proposed to allow time for Heritage Planning Staff to bring this application forward to Heritage Kitchener for discussion on March 2, 2021. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on November 20, 2020 Foreground - Existing Detached Garage proposed to be demolished Background — Existing Dwelling to be retained 50 Brookside Crescent 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: On December 8, 2020, the Committee of Adjustment deferred this application (82020-047) to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow additional time to investigate any cultural heritage value and/or significance of the detached garage structure that is proposed to be demolished. On April 17, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved consent application B2018-025 to sever the easterly portion of 50 Brookside Crescent to create a new lot which has been recently developed with a duplex dwelling. Staff Repod KN- 16 URENER Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 8, 2020 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Planner — 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD: 7 DATE OF REPORT: November 30, 2020 REPORT NUMBER: DSD -20-212 SUBJECT: Application B2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent Owner/Applicant — Michael Krause Defer Subject Property: 50 Brookside Crescent Staff Report KN NEx Development Services Department wwwkitchener.ca Background: On April 17, 2018, the Committee of Adjustment approved consent application B2018-025 to sever the easterly portion of 50 Brookside Crescent to create a new lot which has been recently developed with a duplex dwelling. Report: The Owner is now proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and sever the property to create a new lot for a semi-detached dwelling. The existing dwelling on the retained lands is proposed to be retained. The proposed severed lands have a lot width of 16.2 metres, a depth of 33.5 metres, and a lot area of 542.7 square metres. The retained lot is proposed to have a lot width of 30.4 metres (at the street line), a depth of approximately 43 metres and a lot area of approximately 1490 square metres. Planning Comments: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property municipally addressed as 50 Brookside Crescent is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The designation of the property was made a condition of a previous consent application (82018-025) to sever the eastern portion of the property. Planning Staff is recommending this application be deferred to the February 16, 2021 meeting to allow additional time to investigate any cultural heritage value and/or significance of the detached garage structure that is proposed to be demolished. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on November 20, 2020 r li■fy''R` �� S � f i Q "", e tiRr N14*4r 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 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. reglonofwate rloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 D20-20/20 KIT November 26, 2020 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2020-045 to 62020- 048 Committee of Adjustment Hearing December 8, 2020 CITY OF KITCHENER B2020-045 145 and 155 Ann Street Karen McKiel and William Finlay The owner/applicant is proposing to sever two adjacent part lots municipally known as 145 and 155 Ann Street. These properties merged on title previously and the owner/applicant wishes to sever the lot. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: Regional Staff advise that he 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 327.9 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 2020. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: Document Number: 3474109 Version: 1 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. B2020-046 50 Fifth Avenue Amarjit Singh The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new residential lot. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created, prior to final approval of the consent. Water Services: Regional Staff advise that 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 327.9 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 2020. Noise: The proposed severed and the retained lots are located within 200 metres of a high traffic & high speed King Street Bypass and within 500 metres of Conestoga Parkway (Highway 7/8) and would have impacts from transportation noise sources in the vicinity. Regional Staff require the following noise attenuation measures be implemented through a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener, for both, the severed and the retained lands: a) The dwelling units(s) must be installed with air -ducted heating and ventilation system, suitably sized and designed with provision of adding a central air- conditioning. b) The dwelling unit(s) on the proposed severed and retained lands will be registered with the following noise warnings clauses on title: Purchaser/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on King Street Bypass & Conestoga Parkway (HWY 7/8) may on occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation & Parks (MOECP)." ii. "This unit has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will Document Number: 3474109 Version: 1 allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation & Parks (MOECP)." The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 2) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include the following noise mitigation/warning clauses in all Offers of Purchase and Sale, lease/rental agreements and condominium declarations for all dwellings on the severed and retained lands: a. The dwelling units(s) must be installed with air -ducted heating and ventilation system, suitably sized and designed with provision of adding a central air-conditioning. b. The dwelling unit(s) on the proposed severed and retained lands will be registered with the following noise warnings clauses on title: Purchaser/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on King Street Bypass & Conestoga Parkway (HWY 7/8) may on occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation & Parks (MOECP)." ii. "This unit has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation & Parks (MOECP)." Document Number: 3474109 Version: 1 B2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent Michael Krause The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to permit a semi-detached dwelling. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created, prior to final approval of the consent. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. B2020-048 53 Candle Crescent William Shafer The owner/applicant is proposing an easement over a portion of 53 Candle Crescent in favour of part of 55 Candle Crescent to permit legal access to the rear yard. The Region has no objection to the proposed application. 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 19-037 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: 3474109 Version: 1 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 November 26, 2020 Holly Dyson, Administrative Clerk Via email only Legislated Services, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson, Re: December 8, 2020 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2020-103 840 Stirling Avenue South A 2020-104 114 Peach Blossom Crescent A 2020-105 39 Water Street North A 2020-106 1031 Victoria Street North A 2020-107 236 Margaret Avenue Applications for Consent B 2020-045 145-155 Ann Street B 2020-046 50 Fifth Avenue B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2020-048 53 Candle Crescent 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 aherremana_grand 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 50 Brookside Crescent — Proposed Severance to Create 52/54 Brookside Crescent Petition Some of the residents of Brookside Crescent are concerned about what is happening with the property at 50 Brookside Crescent. We were not in the know about what was happening when the property was severed and a duplex constructed on the east side. Now, we are concerned about the severance of the lot and the construction of semis on the west side. We maintain that the detached garage should be part of the heritage designation that goes along with the farmhouse. This building used to be the smokehouse and is an original building. It was refurbished in the 70s, not constructed then. The coachhouse (at the back of the property) is not original and was constructed in the late 80s by the Madill family. We need to clarify the existing stone "storage" building (as per the plan) on the lot of the heritage home as it is currently being used as a rental unit. It is now occupied by a tenant. Is this compliant? Garett Stevenson from Planning is looking into this for us. As per the HIA, what outbuilding is being protected under the heritage designation along with the house and summer kitchen wing? Is it the storage building (coachhouse) that is to remain and the garage to be demolished? We think that is backwards as we know the coachhouse was built in the late 80s and the smokehouse/detached garage was an original structure. Unfortunately, there was no building permit obtained to build this. The owner at the time (Bruce Madill) stated that to the owner of 58 Brookside (Ken Secrett) when he was building it. It is the detached garage out front that is original. Our question would be why would anyone build a smokehouse in the 70s in the middle of a subdivision? It was already there, and merely refurbished in the 70s. The City registrar says the Federaus bought in 1972, but they were already there well before that. As per Mary Federau: "My parents bought the farm on April 1, 1956 from the Reier family. I have the purchase offer to my parents by Dutchman homes in 1964. Costain bought the property from Dutchman Homes before 1971." OFFER TO PURCHASE t_ eg7p,"Ja M. t Llrllt[d. 9�# �4Mry t'LUF1Y irk kpr�r.��. �— ti[Omod P M EL�EILMUr _ .t#n L-10trMnef I+eveniar ■7SOMMIL � if xrrihc,uarerX fIi�raG.�, sei al.Mw�1BNT~0110 SRjipturW t0thbwl S rt 'SID Waso4&CI' iris, r,rri �yrryg I« tgas La.rMal fCf4il i1 darrllyd In d -W rylsccrlW IP thr -Kwq}IsewV ID fa s toK� #rrrq pIN'TLIan Of tM Count of Mrtarioo, in S-14 n tai fwazrlbrp of �IilrCrrloo. list' *ran-'�ri r acres oil lend on which 1 a oa t -461 - the ,Vedcw i• farm hosris"MQh shut' 4■ Fr L40 'MEd tae e;I hk f�ba�4. 7 11 r �44� yrs & f put a Flop of lAbdivI tIono PFICO GI at r�iwD&&& az rrlrtl mous----.t. 00.110a U&JI&P6 -or lawFwl 1. !t Liit irlai �B, klu of I,PaFerdl76 ux■ altti hwoks Ich fo.-� rwWs Or 4k6■ o#Ise u I'Me i 8 d�J IMI IO.Fp! °�' Y7 `.,.I h►hr t1t1h r IT4ir}aI .."-d Mj "A ,rel m � .ate « T1 f— 1r areM 1Ye n.'. ae ww;e.isr .Ll—"11«� a �? . M •eaee■w� M rI � gam., W1.�:..,�,„ e yl -E F .—.e..¢ F-1— iY+.+, -. f7j ��k —sn -N- 4w Rus kr9w■i'w m i- �v anlQas 9— " r+,, eu�reircx �wp,�# k.IHITtCh NCE OF OFFER From Henry Federau: "When they (my parents) bought the farm in 1956, it was a standalone building as most smoke houses were. The original farm was much different than the pictures we have sent you - more like the old style farm buildings made of wood so smoke houses were always separate from that. The closest building to it was a driving shed and then the main barn past that. Unfortunately, there was a fire in the main barn caused by a tractor parked in there and being too hot. The main building and the drive shed were burned by the fire but not the smokehouse... because it was closer to the house. Ironic actually since it was a ''smokehouse''. u 4 Top building — House, middle building — garage/driving shed, front building — barn. The driving shed was built onto the smokehouse. Above picture 1962, no coachhouse, but does show detached garage. i "loom ►` •mow s s 'i'1��,r+,}[��.i/lll�f�'f. 'J'r°rf'��✓'//#' � l'2}f/'/Ill _.� .aj+r..— s. w. usw exe. nc. Y'4arCh :. Kr. Leo FOder6u, anani.2 Lan4 Kitchener, &ntYaria. Lear Mr. F-0deraU- 1 Apparent enol v tree e Y t you by the er �x l is $Uopvsed to be ecaarplat2d on the lot Q1` April* vt co4rse, is a Sunday no that it Will probably be a day or tura later bef are the be cl gated in the meantime i afl enclosir,,, a gLa-�Iement 'jf =ti9 s;mv zs - = NauQ� rurriived fl am {eiar�a splizitars 'q"(3w' �auv+�nt R :. will e to y is C-gSh when the deal it na-.I,L let. me kno what E9t'r atl �mert 11" ars saki . r. ... L�iartg ago maney .`'�a t i:, �,ur yoke. ::I-% EIGL.5. Yours truly. Lt i1 GER & PARTIN, Far: —T :.. #....r�{ . Reier family sold to Federau family in 1956. I- �-�F.JW•'.O- AWes•-.P- '0' IJ Mid 1980's, angle from 58 Brookside clearly showing no coachhouse in the backyard of 50 Brookside From Henry Federau: "Beside the house on the left hand side there is not a building in where we always had a large vegetable garden. Whatever building that is there now was put in after my dad sold the house. The old smokehouse / garage is under the shed roof in front of the house to the left." If you have any questions, please contact any of the following. They lived at 50 Brookside Crescent. Helen Federa� Henry Federau Mary Federau In the package that was received from Victoria Grohn, Planning, on page 2, it is stated at the bottom that "the owner has indicated that the proposed semi-detached units will be designed and constructed in a style and manner similar to the duplex residence being constructed now to ensure compatibility with the retained house lot and adjacent residential properties". We do not need another structure similar to the new build in the neighbourhood. The duplex is squished in beside the house next to it and sticks out further than the other houses on the street, impeding their sight lines. As we believe the current owner of 50 Brookside does not recognize the heritage or historical value, we need to preserve our street scape. In our opinion, the current new build diminishes the historical heritage of the farmhouse, does not enhance the character of the neighbourhood, and is not compatible with the other houses in the vicinity. The neighbour on the east side of the new build is very distressed about the style of the new build as it has hindered her sight lines and the height is also questionable... in the planning information the official plan designation is "low rise residential". If the new build is approved, how much input do the surrounding neighbours have on the style of the new build? We need to question the height, setback and building elevation of proposed new build, sufficient parking, etc. The proposed plan indicates a setback of 6.0 m (approx. 20 feet). 58 Brookside extends approx. 30 feet which means the new proposed build would extend 10 feet beyond, impeding sight lines at 58 Brookside. In the cHc letter dated October 26, 2020, it is recommended new construction be limited in height to 1 or 1 1/2 storeys. The current new build (under construction) is 2 stories as it is a duplex. The City of Kitchener Official Plan 3.4 notes "the City will encourage and support the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form". Is this not contradictory to having similar type houses on the street? Additionally, in the original letter and copy letter from the Progressive Services Ltd. both dated October 29, 2020, there is a discrepancy regarding the zoning. The original letter indicates the proposed housing units will abide by the required setbacks under the R-5 zoning but the copy letter refers to the setbacks under R-4 zoning. The dimensions are the same for both zoning. In conclusion, we are asking that the Heritage Committee please reconsider the detached stone garage and grant it the same heritage designation as the farmhouse based on all of this information. We are requesting that 50 Brookside Cres be removed from the agenda of the Committee of Adjustment meeting that is currently scheduled for Tuesday December 8 while a possible heritage designation is revisited. Thank you, Concerned citizens of Brookside Crescent Luanne and Rob Geisel M Brookside Crescent Berto Marques M Brookside Crescent Ken and Rose Secrett M Brookside Crescent Larry and Sharon Koehler M Brookside Crescent Garry and Kay Cox M Brookside Crescent Bob & Kim Snider M Brookside Cres Brian & Pauline Horn M Brookside Cres Sherri & Mark Levair M Brookside Cres Temeshwar Arjuna M Brookside Cres Lynn Vannatter M Brookside Cres Oliver Fox M Brookside Cres Timo Vainionpaa M Brookside Cres Sheryl Tarnaske M Brookside Cres Helen Federau Henry Federau Mary Federau Staff Report De velo n7ent Services Dq,oartr7ent REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 L www. kitchener ca SUBMITTED BY: vonWesterholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Thompson, Lisa, Planning Technician, 519-741-2200 ext. 7847 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: May 5, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -21-072 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-035 659 Stirling Avenue South Owner - Gurcharan Bajwa, Accu Properties Inc. Applicant - Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Planning Ltd RECOMMENDATION: That application A2021-035 requesting relief from Section 9.2.3 of By-law 2019-05 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner shall obtain a permit from the Building Division prior to construction. 2. The owner shall obtain a Zoning Occupancy Certificate prior to issuance of a building permit. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 9.2 (3) of By-law 2019-051 to permit dwelling units to be located on the ground floor of a building that does not contain any other permitted use listed in Table 9-1. Location Map *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as COM -1 in Zoning By- law 2019-051. The property is presently developed with a 6 -storey, 30 -unit multiple dwelling with one vacant commercial unit on the ground floor. The building was constructed in 2012 and the "commercial" unit on the ground floor has never been occupied by a commercial use. The applicant is proposing to convert the vacant commercial space to provide 3 additional dwelling units within the existing building. The COM -1 zoning category stipulates that dwelling units shall be located within a mixed use building containing at least one other permitted use listed in Table 9-1, and except for access, shall not be located on the ground floor. 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan which supports the use of the property as a multiple dwelling. The proposed interior renovation of the vacant ground floor space to provide three additional dwelling units meets the general intent of the Low Rise Residential designation. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The COM -1 zone permits dwelling units as of right, with the stipulation that they are located within the same building as a permitted commercial use. The commercial unit in the building has been vacant since 2012 when the building was constructed. It is apparent that the location of this small residential building does not support a commercial use, while the addition of 3 rental dwelling units will be beneficial by adding more housing stock options within the City. Given the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Minor? Staff is of the opinion that requested variance is minor and the approval of this application will not present any impact to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. The addition of dwelling units in the building will provide much needed housing in the community at a scale and density suitable for the property. The property meets all other zoning regulations, including parking. Is the Variance Appropriate? The variance is appropriate for the use of the property. The multiple dwelling is a permitted use of the property and the three additional dwelling units to be created within the existing confines of the structure which will have no impact to any nearby properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that this application be approved as outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 6, 2021 Photo of Subject Property Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the additional dwellings is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed variance Heritage Comments: Heritage staff has no concerns with the proposed variance. Engineering Comments: The Engineering Division has no concerns with the proposed variance Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental staff has no concerns with the proposed variance. Region of Waterloo Comments: The Region has no concerns with the proposed variance. Grand River Conservation Authority Comments: We reviewed the previously approved site plan (SP12/033/S/BB) and issued a GRCA permit (559/13) for the existing building. The ground floor and parking are unaffected by the floodplain as the site was floodproofed. As such, we have no concerns with the additional residential units proposed in the application. A GRCA permit will not be required. 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: Committee of Adjustment application A2012-054 to add one dwelling unit on the 6t" floor was considered on August 21, 2012 and was approved. A Site Plan application for this property was approved September 14, 2012. Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.J. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax:519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: Dianna Saunderson City of Kitchener DATE: FILE: April 29, 2021 Minor Variance — 659 Stirling Ave S RE: Minor Variance Application A2021-035 659 Stirling Avenue South Accu Properties GRCA COMMENT*: The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no concerns with the application. BACKGROUND: 1. Resource Issues: Information currently available at our office indicates that the subject lands contain a floodplain associated with Shoemaker Creek. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: Due to the presence of the floodplain, the GRCA regulates a portion of the property under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). Any future development within the regulated area (as shown in yellow on the attached map) will require a permit from the GRCA pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. We reviewed the site plan (SP12/033/S/BB) and issued a GRCA permit (559/13) for the existing building. The ground floor and parking are unaffected by the floodplain as the site was floodproofed. As such, we have no concerns with the additional residential units proposed in the application. A GRCA permit will not be required. 3. Review Fees: This application is considered a minor site plan, and in accordance with the GRCA's 2021 Plan Review Fee Schedule, the applicable fee is $280. We will send an invoice to the applicant. Page 1 of 2 Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 519-621-2763 ext. 2292 or theywood(agrandriver. ca. Sincerely, Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority Attachment C. C. Gurcharan Bajwa, Accu Properties Pierre Chauvin, MHBC Page 2 of 2 N Z H n N 7 NO Q CJ > Q QQ O (� (� _Om N_512o� n Q (n o E c? L Q Q r v�Ea ` p N o (D o o Q ( m (DmF E2n r - C n c N U /vL ULNC Q U�QQ E� YO mm - =o r o oQ E d O U DwO1 •• CD C) (7 U) o Qiw3 =v A-°Co 'N 0. EoO o o Lu w Q U) 0 U) 00°°LU (1)) rca�= ("> a vJ a)m0®®®®� ��,JJJJd dNaIN m�NV vow =n \ 1 w Un U) ~ rY A L _ O1 E 1O w LL E Uma � O n c20.2 G U O u 1 S S v F v s Z a" C) (� O r O rn 0 N - O N Y N 0 m E F F o ? ,i 0 �, cl o z ILN Staff Report De velo n7ent Services Dq,oartr7ent REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 181h, 2021 L www. kitchener ca SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Seyler, Tim, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 7th, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-73 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-036 30 Simeon Street Applicant & Owner — Shaddi Fahal & Karolina Laufer RECOMMENDATION: That application A2021-036 requesting permission to allow a front yard porch to have a front yard setback of 1.85 metres whereas a setback of 3.07 metres is required, be approved. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a front yard porch to have a front yard setback of 1.85 metres rather than the required minimum front yard setback of 3.07 metres as identified for lands identified on Appendix `H'. Location Map W, r RzI '1� *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential A in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as Residential Five Zone (R-5), with Special Use Provision 129U in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing porch by adding a balcony above the existing porch. There are no setback changes to the existing porch. 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. This designation places emphasis on compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale and design in order to support the successful integration of different housing types. It also places emphasis on the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the 3.07 metre front yard setback is to ensure a consistent built form along the street edge. The subject property is located within the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RI ENS) area and follows a specific calculation to determine the required front yard setback for each property. The current setback of 1.85 metres for the porch has existed for an extended period of time. There are no changes proposed to the porch on the ground level, and the applicant is only wishing to provide an exterior balcony above the existing porch. Staff has no concerns with the existing setback and is of the opinion that the reduced front yard setback meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Minor? The variances can be considered minor as it is the opinion of staff that the front yard setback continues to accommodate the appropriate front yard setback as the porch has existed for a long time with no issues. The setback of 1.85 metres for the front yard will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. Is the Variance Appropriate? 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. The scale, massing and height of the proposed addition will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 301h, 2021. Photo of Subject Property (Front view) Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Application has been made to for the front porch to a single detached dwelling and is currently under review. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. 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 and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The property municipally addressed as 30 Simeon Street is located within the Central Frederick Neighbourhood CHL. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Environmental Comments: Please note the property is in a GRCA regulated area for floodplain setback. Otherwise no environmental planning 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: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority Staff Report De velo n7ent Services Dq,oartr7ent REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment L www. kitchener ca DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Thompson, Lisa, Planner, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7847 WARD INVOLVED: 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 5, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-070 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-0037 40 Prueter Avenue Owner — Waterloo Region District School Board Applicant - Louise Sandford, Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2021-037 requesting permission to provide a maximum of 55 parking spaces, rather than the permitted maximum of 33 spaces for an elementary school be approved subject to the following condition: 1. The owner shall receive final approval of Site Plan application SP21/004/P/LT. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5, Table 5-3 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to allow an increase to the maximum number of parking spaces permitted for an elementary school. .f 23 :,. ,7 I� Irl i - Location Map: 40 Prueter Avenue *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Institutional in the City's Official Plan and identified as Community Areas on the City's Urban Structure Map and is zoned as INS -1 in Zoning By-law 2019-051. 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 subject property is designated Institutional which supports the use of the property as an elementary school. The requested variance to permit an increase to the maximum number of parking spaces continues to maintain the intent of this designation. The proposed variance it is the further opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate and meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The requested variance to increase the maximum number of parking spaces permitted on site to 55, rather than the permitted maximum of 33 meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the minimum and maximum parking requirements in the by-law is intended to ensure that properties are not creating massive asphalted areas on sites where parking is not necessarily required and also to encourage other modes of transportation. The increase from the permitted maximum of 33 spaces to 55 spaces will serve both staff and community members who attend the school and is not considered to be a significant increase. Maintaining an appropriate supply of parking on the school property will ensure that on street parking in this established neighbourhood with narrow streets is not overburdened. It is the opinion of staff that the increase to the maximum number of parking spaces is generally in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Minor? The increase in the maximum number of parking spaces for the elementary school is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will provide an adequate number of parking spaces for the school staff and visitors and will not negatively affect the adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood. Is the Variance Appropriate? The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the elementary school is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. A modest increase to the maximum number of permitted parking spaces will not negatively impact the character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 5, 2021. Proposed Site Plan - Parking Lot Expansion Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed application Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. S TE SfATls'nc5 % 0JAApp3btr W % ELM La�e� 5 —__ L+xcscaE Insimr�JA; �� "a.7til F 1 Wb A�VeI'FaJ,YeL Cseo- 4,EltLGa^;'S�sl of m I If'iSlTTisl°Ipµa,L r I L a Jh I Row EMM3bo-._ Q L ` - - f — 1 WMALL.4SN LT VE45-'.' '{ y 14 BE LSiiEO'PAf'rl -.' a�/H33+ p:egMC EWM%e J h E w _xt-ls: n -E ss Sh Y tl w L I-T F. IM I Illj T it 4 it E t I I }I I iJ I{ 1 i «Ef 'riLL rl° I°f'I[s `.34'uL -c-. J Til r l Ii+=�' '. I ;� _E— C— II -LT -} �.[ EN +vP -e .n JI o oe -u cH E 0 31E -U e.[ r EI EI ?E,a'ID. SITE PLI�NAFP LICfsTION fda. SITE RLN ® LI„'0=K7 FE -14E=, Uarl, 0-'.%4TE=L•'D0 -,, - e<a�11,=aaCity a_0--8d_3-:'J'-s-J-:S r.-. WATERLOO REGION DISTRiCTSU-001-BOARD of Kitchener L.cEU`.FVEk 3.?Vb:E3 3E' ? V E'J r 'RU ETER PUBLIC SCHOOL, Q PRUETF� AV=NUE Proposed Site Plan - Parking Lot Expansion Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed application Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning 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 is under review. Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Stevenson, Garett, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT: May 7, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-81 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-038 47 Kilkerran Crescent Owner/Applicant — Christina Webster, Brian Webster RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2021-038 requesting permission to construct a rear yard addition to an existing single detached dwelling with a rear yard setback of 1.2 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, a side yard abutting a street of 1.147 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required, and a building used to accommodate off-street parking with a setback of 3.162 metres from the street line whereas 6.0 metres is required, be approved subject to the following conditions: That the Owner submit a Building Permit application for the proposed addition that generally complies with site plan drawing submitted with the application titled "Brian Webster Garage/Sun Room Addition" dated March 24, 2021. The plan should show the proposed/existing location of the Community Mailbox (CMB) that meets Canada Post's standards. 2. The Owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area, and vegetation to be preserved. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit an addition to have a rear yard setback of 1.2 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, to permit a side yard abutting a street of 1.147 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required, and a building used to accommodate off- street parking with a setback of 3.162 metres from the street line whereas 6.0 metres is required. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Location Map: 47 Kilkerran Crescent BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. 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 intent of the Low Rise Residential land use designation is to permit a variety of low density residential uses. The property is developed with a single detached dwelling. A new rear yard addition, which faces Kilbirnie Court, is proposed to include a second dwelling unit. Low density residential uses, including single detached and duplex dwellings, are permitted in the Low Rise Residential land use designation. The requested variances to permit a rear yard addition are appropriate and the proposed built form is similar to other residential uses found in the surrounding neighbourhood. Planning Staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. General Intent of the Zonina By-law The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to ensure that adequate amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The proposed addition does not span across the entire rear yard, and a 9.5 metre wide rear yard that exceeds the 7.5 metre setback is maintained. The retained portion of the rear yard is adequate to provide outdoor amenity space. The minimum lot width in the R-3 zone is 9.0 metres, and the retained rear yard exceeds that size. The intent of the side yard abutting a street setback is to ensure that there is a uniform setback of built form along a street. This corner property is irregularly shaped, and there are no other buildings that address the street along this section of Kilbirnie Court. Kilbirnie Court curves in such a way that the rear yard neighbouring property (24 Kilbirnie Court) has a very large side yard abutting a street and is setback a full lot width (at the rear) from Kilbirnie Court. Due to the configuration of the lots on the north side of Kilbirnie Court and the curved alignment of the street, there is not an established setback for built form on the north side of the street. The requested setback is also at the closest point (due to the curve of the street) and a majority of the addition will have a setback of 3.3 metres. The intent of the 6.0 metre setback for a building used to accommodate off-street parking space is to ensure that a second parking space can be located in front of a garage and to ensure that the garage is not dominating the fagade. This property is a corner lot, and will feature two driveways, one existing to Kilkerran Crescent, and one proposed to Kilbirnie Court. In total, there will four on- site parking spaces, one in each garage (existing and proposed) and two in the existing driveway. The proposed addition as shown in the elevations submitted with the application, show a proposed single car garage that is approximately'/3 of the fagade of the addition, and approximately'/4 of the total fagade facing Kilbirnie Court. Planning Staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained Is the Variance Minor? The proposed variances are minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances will allow for a construction of an additional dwelling unit that is compatible with the surrounding community and will not negatively impact any of the adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood. Is the Variance Appropriate? The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as a duplex is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. Staff are recommending a condition to ensure that the future building permit drawings for the proposed addition generally comply to the plans submitted with the application. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are appropriate. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 3, 2021. Exterior side and rear yard of the existing single detached dwelling at 47 Kilkerran Crescent (Photo taken from Kilbirnie Court) Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the addition to the single detached dwelling is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: A Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan is required in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area, and vegetation to be preserved. Canada Post Comments: Canada Post requires Community Mailboxes (CMB) are required to be a minimum of 3 metres from a driveway. The homeowner will either have to ensure that the new driveway is 3 metres from the existing CMB or cover the cost of relocating the CMB. This is a street facing site with curb cut so a new curb cut would also be required. Canada Post can get an estimate for relocation from their contractor if necessary. 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: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority Staff Report De velo n7ent Services Dq,oartr7ent REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment L www. kitchener ca DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Stevenson, Garett, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 7, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-82 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-039 78 Shanley Street Owner — Jeffery Geurts Applicant — Amr Serrag Eldin RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2021-039 requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b.i) to permit required parking spaces with a 0.0 metre setback whereas 6.0 metres is required, be approved. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b.i) to permit required parking spaces with a 0.0 metre setback whereas 6.0 metres is required. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Location Map: 78 Shanley Street BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Regulation Provision 129U (which prohibits triplexes) in Zoning By-law 85-1. 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 intent of the Low Rise Residential land use designation is to permit a variety of low density residential uses. The property is developed with a single detached dwelling and is proposed to be renovated into a duplex dwelling unit. A parking space is proposed to be provided for each unit side by side, rather than in tandem. Planning Staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the 6.0 metre setback for a required parking space is to ensure that a second parking space can be provided on-site in tandem. A duplex requires two parking spaces in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant has already constructed a driveway that can accommodate two parking spaces side by side. The zoning by-law permits driveways to have a width of 5.2 metres for lots less than 10.4 metres in width. Planning Staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained. Is the Variance Minor? The proposed variance is minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will allow for the existing single detached dwelling to be converted to a duplex which is compatible with the surrounding community. The property cannot physically accommodate a 11.5 -metre -long driveway due to the side yard setback and set back of the existing building. Is the Variance Appropriate? The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as a duplex is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law and two on-site parking spaces are being provided. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are appropriate. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 3, 2021. Existing Building — 78 Shanley Street Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Application has been made to for the change of use to a duplex and is currently under review. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. 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 and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The property municipally addressed as 78 Shanley Street is located within the Mt Hope/Breithaupt Neighbourhood CHL. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs on the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. 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: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Pinnell, Andrew, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT: May 9, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-85 SUBJECT: 59 Bechtel Drive (A2021-040) & 63 Bechtel Drive (A2021-041) Owners: 59 Bechtel Drive — Franjo Zaja 63 Bechtel Drive — Tomislav Zaja & Glory Zaja Approve Without Conditions RECOMMENDATION: A. That Minor Variance Application A2021-040, for 59 Bechtel Drive, requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of By-law 85-1 to allow a rear yard setback of 4.5 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling, be approved without conditions. B. That Minor Variance Application A2021-041, for 63 Bechtel Drive, requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of By-law 85-1 to allow a rear yard setback of 4.5 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling, be approved without conditions. N Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Subject Properties, in Context *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend conditional approval of minor variances to facilitate the construction of single detached dwellings with reduced rear yard setbacks. • This report supports the delivery of core services. • There are no financial implications to the City. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: This report is being brought forward to facilitate the construction of single detached dwellings with reduced rear yard setbacks. Figure 2. View of subject properties looking south from Bechtel Drive REPORT: The subject properties are located on Bechtel Drive, southwest of Doon Village Road in the Pioneer Park Planning Community. The properties are currently vacant. The subject properties, along with 51 and 55 Bechtel Drive, were recently severed from 883 Doon Village Road as part of Consent Applications B2018-006 through B2018-009 and Change of Conditions Applications CC2019-001 through CC2019-004. Unlike 883 Doon Village Road, the subject properties do not have any heritage status. The lands to the northwest and southwest are composed mainly of single detached dwellings constructed in the early to mid1980s. The lands to the southeast are composed mainly of single detached dwellings constructed in the mid1990s. Doon Village Retirement Residence and St. Timothy Catholic School are located nearby. The properties are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and are zoned Residential Four (R-4) in By-law 85-1 (By-law 2019-051 does not yet apply to the subject properties). Planning staff visited the property on April 29, 2021. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single detached dwelling on each subject property. To facilitate the construction of each dwelling, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard from 7.5 metres to 4.5 metres. Planning staff note that, after further review, the driveway widening variances that were originally requested as part of each subject application are not required [i.e., relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b)ii)e) to allow a driveway width of 10.2 metres]. In accordance with Section 6.1.1.1b) ii) i) of by-law 85-1, a driveway maybe as wide as the attached garage. Planning staff notes that the width of the proposed three -car garages complies with the Zoning By- law. General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test Several Official Plan policies are applicable to the requested variances, for example: Section 4. C.1.8. Where ... minor variance(s) is/are requested, proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. b) ... C) ... d) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site... In this case, the property to the rear of the subject properties (883 Doon Village Road) is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Accordingly, no additional dwellings will be constructed behind the subject properties. The dwelling located at 883 Doon Village Road is located at least 20 metres from the subject properties. Compatibility is not a concern and shadow impact and privacy / overlook issues are not anticipated. It should be noted that the rear yards of the subject properties abut the side yard (rather than the rear yard) of the dwelling at 883 Doon Village Road. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. General Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law Test One reason for the minimum rear yard requirement is to provide adequate rear yard landscaped / amenity area. As a result of the large lot width of each subject property (>_18.2 metres), the amount of outdoor, rear yard amenity space proposed is at least 81.9 square metres, which exceeds the amount that would be provided if the minimum R-4 zoning requirements were implemented (i.e., 9.Om x 7.5m = 67.5 sq.m.). Another purpose for the rear yard is to ensure adequate buffering to adjacent properties. As aforementioned, in this case, the adjacent dwelling is more than 20 metres from the subject properties and because of the heritage designation of 883 Doon Village Road, no dwellings will be constructed between the existing dwelling and the subject properties. There are no shadow impact, privacy, and overlook concerns. The existing buffer to the adjacent dwelling is adequate. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. "Minor" Test The variances are minor in that they will not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent uses or lands. The proposed setback is adequate for privacy and buffering purposes, considering the distance between the side of the existing dwelling addressed as 883 Doon Village Road and the rear of the subject properties. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor. Desirability for Appropriate Development of the Land Test The variances will facilitate construction of a single detached dwelling on each subject property. Single detached dwellings are a permitted use in the Official Plan and Zoning By- law. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. For the abovementioned reasons, Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance requests are justified. Building Division Comments (A2021-040 and A2021-041): The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variances provided building permits for the single detached dwellings are obtained prior to any construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Services Comments (A2021-040 and A2021-041): Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed applications. Engineering Services Comments (A2021-040 and A2021-041): Engineering has no comments. Environmental Planning Comments (A2021-040 and A2021-041): Environmental planning has no concerns with the reduced rear yard proposed. Heritage Planning Comments (A2021-040 and A2021-041): No heritage planning concerns. Region of Waterloo Comments (A2021-040 and A2021-041): No concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget or 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 was also placed in The Record. In addition, notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. A notice sign 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Section 45, Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P.13 ATTACHMENT: Attachment A — Drawings included with the applications ** LOT 3 (18.7m)** L-- 59'-8" (18.2mI PROPERTY LINE BECHTEL DRIVE z C) (D z U) c > C-11 z LL <(D O z 0 "z III SH W z (D o O oz C<Z) Crcw� < < tj Rn < 0 z 0 cr z C) �w < A m '.2 III 57 -io. o X0 �' "�i I I I 5.o, oo To H —o o < �o o go --- 1.wgo I Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting: • Tuesday, May 18, 2021 • 10:00 a.m. Applications For Minor Variance: • A 2021— 040 — 59 Bechtel Drive • A 2021 — 041 — 63 Bechtel Drive To Whom It May Concern: We are the property owners ato Doon Village Road, and fully SUPPORT the minor variance application for both 59 & 63 Bechtel Drive. To provide some context 59 & 63 Bechtel Drive are two of the four lots that were recently severed from �, and sold to the applicants. Although the rear yard setback for the proposed single detached dwellings will be reduced slightly, we do not anticipate any negative impacts to the personal use and enjoyment of our property. The proposed dwellings will back onto an open/treed space, and the back of a detached stone building, which sits approximately 6' in from the property line. Since our family home faces onto Doon Village Road, and sits approximately 75' from the side property line, there is ample room for buffering. We have been fortunate to meet with the property owners, learn about the proposed dwellings, and discuss our shared vision for privacy/buffering trees and plantings along the property/fence line. This phase of the development project will be a collaborative effort. We also support the proposed driveway width, as it will minimize any vehicle congestion along Bechtel Drive. It will also allow for maximum flexibility for a growing family. We are excited that a young family, with an appreciation and passion for Doon, and proven track record of building high-quality custom homes, will be spearheading this project. We look forward to welcoming them as neighbours! Best Regards, 9" Staff Report De velo n7ent Services Dq,oartr7ent REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment L l\[ [ c HEN I� www. kitchener ca DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Rice Menezes, Sheryl, Planning Technician (Zoning), 519-741-2200 ext. 7844 WARD(S) INVOLVED: 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 7, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD 2021-086 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-042 29 Gruhn Street Owner — SCOR Holdings Inc RECOMMENDATION: That application A2021-042 requesting permission construct a 2 -storey addition on an existing duplex dwelling having an existing easterly (left) side yard setback of 2.3 metres rather than the required 3 metres; an existing westerly (right) side yard setback of 0.7 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres; and, an existing off-street parking space located in front of the building having a length of 5.3 metres rather than the required 5.5 metres, be approved. Location Map *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Conservation in the KW Hospital Neighbourhood Plan of the City's Official Plan and identified as Major Transit Station Area on the Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in By-law 85-1. 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 intent of the Low Rise Conservation designation is to retain the existing low rise, low density residential character of the neighbourhood. The existing duplex is a permitted use in the designation. The proposed conversion from 1 '/2 storey to full 2 storey provides another low rise housing option in this neighbourhood. The proposed variance for the parking space will not be noticeable and would continue to be compatible with the existing low-rise character of the neighbourhood. Therefore, Planning staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. View of left side of building View of right side of building General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the side yard setback regulation is to ensure that the dwelling has sufficient separation from abutting properties and provides for access to the rear yard. The existing dwelling has a left side of 2.3 metres to accommodate the driveway along the side of the house which was permitted when the house was built. It is considered legal under the Existing Use Clause. The current by-law requires a 3 - metre side yard setback for the building to accommodate the driveway. Any new structures are required to be 3 metres from this side yard. As the proposed addition is for a full 2nd storey on the existing first storey, there are no concerns with impacting the existing driveway with the addition. The right side yard requires 1.2 metres setback in the current bylaw. However, the existing building was constructed prior to this requirement and is legal under the Existing Use Clause. As noted above, the proposed addition to a full 2nd storey over the existing first storey, does not impact the ground floor setback or access around the property. As noted in the elevation drawings submitted with the application, there will be no windows on this side of the house and therefore it should not negatively impact the property owners to the right. Regarding the variance for the reduced depth of the existing parking space in front of the fagade. As the property is used for two dwelling units, having access to two separate parking spaces is preferable. The variance is for a reduction of 0.2 metres which will continue to accommodate a vehicle. There have been no complaints received to date about this parking space. Based on the above, staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the zoning by-law is met. Is the Variance Minor? As noted above, the proposed extension of the second floor from a 1 '/2 -storey to a full 2 -storey structure will not impact the use of the property on the ground floor and will maintain access to the rear yard. The variance for the existing parking space in front of the building is to acknowledge an existing space with can accommodate vehicles without impacting the neighbourhood. The variances may be considered minor. Is the Variance Appropriate? Based on above comments, staff is of the opinion that as the proposed variances will not negatively impact the subject property nor the surrounding neighbourhood; and that the variance is appropriate. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 6, 2021. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Application has been made for the addition to the duplex and is currently under review. Transportation Comments: Given the existing nature of the driveway, Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Comments: No concerns. Environmental Planning: No concerns due to nature of application. Heritage Planning: There are no heritage planning concerns. 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 and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The property municipally addressed as 29 Gruhn Street is located within the Gruhn Neighbourhood CHL. The City has undertaken additional work on examining the CHL significance of the CHL area through its work on drafting a new Secondary Plan for the Midtown area. For more information on the outcome of this CHL analysis and the specific recommendations which may impact properties located within the Gruhn Neighbourhood CHL, please visit the following link: www.kitchener.ca/npr. 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: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 181h, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Schneider, Eric, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: May 7th, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-79 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-044 54 Park Street Owner- Chad McLeod Applicant- Matthew Warzecha RECOMMENDATION: That application A2021-044 requesting permission to convert an existing duplex into a multiple dwelling with 3 -units on a lot having an area of 478 sq.m. rather than the required 495 sq.m.; to have 2 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 3 off-street parking spaces; to provide the required off-street parking in tandem, whereas the By-law does not permit the required spaces to be in tandem; and, to permit parking to be located between the front fagade and the lot line, whereas the By-law does not permit parking between the front fagade and the lot line be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner submits a site plan application to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 2. That the owner provides a secured space for bicycle parking to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The applicant is requesting permission to add one residential unit by converting the existing duplex into a 3 -unit multiple dwelling. A 3 -unit multiple dwelling is a permitted use in the zone, but the applicant is seeking relief from minimum lot area (Section 39.2.4), a reduction in parking from 3 to 2 spaces and for those spaces to be arranged in tandem (Section 6.1.2 c), and permission to locate the parking between the front fagade and the street line (Section 6.1.1.1 d). *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Location Map: 54 Park Street BACKGROUND: The subject property located at 54 Park Street is designated as Low Rise Conservation in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Major Transit Station Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as Residential Three Zone (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1. In 2017 the subject property received approval for minor variance application A2017-084 to convert a single detached dwelling to a duplex having a front yard setback of 3.31 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres, to permit the required off-street parking to be located 5.7 metres from the street line rather than 6 metres, and to permit a 1.26 metre encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). The applicant is now seeking to convert the existing building into a 3 -unit multiple dwelling and is seeking relief for parking space amount, arrangement, and location, as well as lot area. 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 1. The subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan in the Official Plan. This designation aims to retain a low rise, low density residential character of the neighbourhood and the preservation of existing housing stock is encouraged. The proposal intends to add a unit by further demising the boundaries within the building. No demolition of the building or addition of Gross Floor Area (GFA) is proposed as part of this application and the proposal will retain the original building. Therefore, the requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law 2. Lot Area: The intent of the regulation that requires a minimum of 495 square metres in lot area is to ensure site functionality and to ensure adequate space for the dwellings. In this situation, the building is already situated on the lot and no site layout changes are proposed through this application. The provided lot area of 478 square metres is only slightly deficient of the required minimum and Staff is of the opinion that the provided lot area is sufficient. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Parking (amount): The intent of the regulation that requires 1 space per dwelling unit (3 spaces for a 3 -unit multiple dwelling) is to ensure that there is adequate vehicle storage on site. This property is located in a Major Transit Station Area and is walking distance from the Victoria Park LRT station. Staff is of the opinion that vehicle parking can be reduced in this location and that the provision of 2 parking spaces is adequate. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Parking (arrangement): The intent of the regulation that does not permit parking for a multiple dwelling to be arranged in tandem is to provide for independent ingress and egress of vehicles on site. This regulation typically applies to 3 or more parking spaces, however, this application is also seeking to reduce the required parking to 2 spaces. Parking arranged in tandem is permitted when 2 spaces are required for a duplex dwelling, so in the opinion of Staff it is appropriate to arrange parking in tandem when there are only 2 required spaces. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Parking (location): The intent of the regulation that does not permit parking spaces to be located between the front fagade and the street line is ensure that vehicle storage does not dominate the streetscape. This regulation is typically applied for when 3 or more parking spaces are provided, as it only applies to multiple dwellings 3 units or more. However, as the applicant is also seeking a reduction in parking to 2 spaces, Staff is of the opinion that the existing parking area does not dominate the streetscape and represents an existing condition. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Appropriate? 3. The proposal does not add additional Gross Floor Area (GFA) and does not propose any changes to the existing parking area. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are appropriate as no physical changes to the site layout or exterior building are proposed. Is the Variance Minor? 4. The proposal represents a minor increase in density and is expected to result in very little change to the property overall. Therefore, the requested variance is considered minor. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 4, 2021. View of Existing Duplex Dwelling (May 4, 2021) Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the change of use to a triplex is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services would require the provision of a secured space for bicycle parking to help mitigate parking demand for the property. Heritage Comments: The property municipally addressed as 54 Park Street is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The variances requested are limited to parking and lot area, and no exterior alterations to the existing building are proposed. As such, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the minor variance application. Environmental Comments: No environmental planning concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. lj �WA 4 ' pf NO �� wt •+ ° i - � s`�S' F p'� 1 r fig. Ji�N+ v 0.W. •. ._ _ -: JL - View of Existing Duplex Dwelling (May 4, 2021) Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the change of use to a triplex is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services would require the provision of a secured space for bicycle parking to help mitigate parking demand for the property. Heritage Comments: The property municipally addressed as 54 Park Street is located within the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District (VPAHCD) and designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The variances requested are limited to parking and lot area, and no exterior alterations to the existing building are proposed. As such, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the minor variance application. Environmental Comments: No environmental planning 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: A2017-084 Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Thompson, Lisa, Planning Technician, 519-741-2200 ext. 7847 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 1 DATE OF REPORT: May 5, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -21-071 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-045 Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Road Owner - Nitin Jain, Kolb Creek Land Corp. Applicant - Paul Britton, MHBC Planning Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: That application A2021-045 requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 a) of Zoning By-law 85-1, to allow a multiple dwelling to provide 1.4 parking spaces per unit (69), rather than the required 1.75 spaces per unit (86), be approved subject to the following condition: 1. The owner shall submit and receive approval of a Site Plan Application for the proposed multiple dwelling development. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.2.1 a) of zoning By-law 85-1, to provide 1.4 parking spaces per unit, rather than the required 1.75 spaces per unit for a proposed 49 unit multiple dwelling in the Grand River North area. The property is presently vacant and will be subject to a site plan approval. Location Map *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. The property is designated as Medium Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as Residential Six (R-6) with Special Use Provision 179U in Zoning By-law 85-1. 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: The applicant is proposing to develop the vacant property with a 49 unit multiple dwelling, comprised of two stacked townhouse building, each having 18 units and two free -hold townhouse buildings having a total of 13 units. The R-6 zoning of the property permits the 49 unit multiple dwelling. Special Use Provision 179U prohibits single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings on the property. 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 subject property is designated Medium Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. This land use designation accommodates a range of medium density housing types including a cluster townhouse development (multiple dwelling). Staff is satisfied the requested variance will maintain the medium density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. Staff is further satisfied that urban design considerations will be addressed through the site plan process to ensure the development implements the City's Urban Design guidelines and standards. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of providing 1.75 parking spaces per unit is to ensure that an adequate number of parking spaces are available for the residents and for visitors to the property. The reduction to 1.4 spaces per unit will adequately meet the parking needs for the development in conjunction with the transportation demand management measures provided on site and other available modes of transportation in the neighbourhood are appropriate. Staff is of the opinion that the reduction in parking meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Minor? Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor as it will implement the parking requirements set out in the City's new Zoning By-law 2019-051, which is anticipated to apply to all lands within the City in the near future. The minor parking reduction will not present any significant impact for the proposed development, adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. Is the Variance Appropriate? The proposed variance for a parking reduction is appropriate for the development of a 49 -unit multiple dwelling in a compact form as there will be an appropriate amount of parking provided on site. The proposed development is supported by Official Plan policies, zoning regulations, and is compatible with surrounding uses. The subject lands are immediately adjacent to an existing multi -use trail and are within walking distance of a planned transit corridor. The proposed development will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. �v gP� Proposed Residential Site Concept Plan Building Comments: The Building Division has no concerns with the proposed variance. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed variance. Heritage Comments: Heritage staff has no concerns with the proposed variance. Engineering Comments: The Engineering Division has no comments with the proposed variance. Region of Waterloo Comments: The Region has no concerns with the proposed variance. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Comments: The GRCA has no concerns with the proposed variance. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services )(XI J 4. PLAN 5W-n�- v f}r '1_r"T R, ;ICNAL MUNIOIPALITY OF TERLOO 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: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority Staff Report De velo n7ent Services Dq,oartr7ent REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 181h, 2021 L www. kitchener ca SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Seyler, Tim, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8 DATE OF REPORT: May 7th, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-74 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-046 162 Greenbrook Drive Applicant & Owner — George & Daniela Danciu RECOMMENDATION: That application A2021-036 requesting permission to allow a front yard addition to have a front yard setback of 5.5 metres whereas a minimum setback of 7.5 metres is required, be approved. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a front yard addition to have a front yard setback of 5.5 metres rather than the required minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres as identified for lands identified on Appendix `H'. A-7 A - GFZEF-NBR00K'gR Location Map *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing to build a front yard addition on to the existing single detached dwelling and cannot meet the requirements of Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law. The property is a corner lot and although the driveway access is along Greenbrook Drive, the front yard is considered to be along Forest Hill Drive. The property is identified on Appendix `H' which is the RIENS area. 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. This designation places emphasis on compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale and design in order to support the successful integration of different housing types. It also places emphasis on the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the 7.5 metre front yard setback is to ensure there is adequate separation from the front lot line, and to establish a consistent built form along the street edge. The subject property is located within the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) area and follows a specific calculation to determine the required front yard setback for each property. The RIENS front yard setback calculation is taken by averaging out the adjacent dwellings front yard setback. This property is a corner lot and the adjacent front yard setback is the neighbouring property on Forest Hill Dr. The neighbouring property has a front yard setback of approximately 8.5 metres. As a result, the minimum front yard setback required is 7.5 metres. The proposed setback of 5.5 metres will continue to provide adequate separation from the front lot line and will not impact the street edge along Forest Hill Dr. due to the curved nature of the street. It should also be noted that there is no addition being proposed towards Greenbrook Drive, which results in a consistent street edge along the side yard abutting a street. Furthermore, the applicant has stated that the addition will not be used for parking and will not impact the existing parking layout on the property. The 2nd storey will be used for an accessible washroom for the needs of the owners. Staff is of the opinion that the reduction in the front yard setback continues to meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is the Variance Minor? The variances can be considered minor as it is the opinion of staff that the front yard setback continues to accommodate the appropriate built form along the street edge. The setback of 5.5 metres for the front yard will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. Is the Variance Appropriate? 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. The scale, massing and height of the proposed addition will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 301h, 2021. Photo of Subject Property (Front and Side view) Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the addition to the single detached house is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: No Heritage planning concerns. Environmental Comments: No environmental planning 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: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter N Tf3 ° 34' 23.2€3 M. `� • } 1 --4 10 5 S wand 510ING NOUN _7 3 v I �? -+Q:DLfl Y�DI:k 4'p g 9 4 p n tl -p Rip, i00 LO 4t I I ! 125. a E% M.. r Concept Layout — 162 Greenbrook Drive Region of Waterloo April 29, 2021 Dianna Saunderson 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 (11) /54, KOLB CREEK SUBDIVISIN 30T 02206 Dear Ms. Saunderson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-035 — 659 Stirling Avenue South — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-036 — 30 Simeon Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-037 — 40 Prueter Avenue — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-038 — 47 Kilkerran Crescent — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-039 — 78 Shanley Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-040 — 59 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-041 — 63 Bechtel Drive — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-042 — 29 Gruhn Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-043 — 10 Eastwood Drive — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-044 — 54 Park Street — No Concerns. 11) A 2021-045 — Blocks 3 & 4 Otterbein Drive — No Concerns. 12) A 2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive — No Concerns. Page of 2 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, J -� Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 CC: Juliane von Westerholt, City of Kitchener Christine Kompter, City of Kitchener CofA(uKitchener. ca Document Number: 3644828 2 Docs #3644828 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w �- Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion PLAN PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Dianna Saunderson DATE: May 6, 2021 YOUR FILE: A2021-046 GRCA FILE: A2021-046 — 162 Greenbrook Drive RE: Application for Minor Variance A2021-046 162 Greenbrook Drive, City of Kitchener George & Daniela Danciu GRCA COMMENT*: The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no objection to the above -noted minor variance application. BACKGROUND: 1. Resource Issues: Information currently available at this office indicates that the subject property contains floodplain and the regulated allowance adjacent to the floodplain. A copy of our resource mapping is attached. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: The minor variance application requests a reduced front yard setback from Forest Hil Drive to facilitate a proposed second floor addition. GRCA staff do not anticipate impacts to the floodplain as a result of the minor variance application or the proposed addition. Due to the features noted above, 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. The proposed addition and any future development within the regulated area on the subject lands will require the prior issuance of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The permit process involves the submission of a permit application to this office, the review of the application by Authority staff and the subsequent approval/refusal of the permit application by the GRCA. \\grfs\files\Resource Management Division\Resource Planning\Waterloo Region\KITCHENER\2021\Minor Pagel of 2 Variance\A2021-046 - 162 Greenbrook Drive\A2021-046 - 162 Greenbrook Drive.dou Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River 3. Plan Review Fees: This application is considered a `minor' minor variance and in accordance with the GRCA's 2021 Plan Review Fee Schedule, the applicable fee is $280.00. The applicant will be invoiced in the amount of $280.00 under separate cover. Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 519-621-2763 ext. 2228. Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority Encl. * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority cc: George and Daniela Danciu (via email only) \\grfs\files\Resource Management Division\Resource Planning\Waterloo Region\KITCHENER\2021\Minor Page 2 of 2 Variance\A2021-046 - 162 Greenbrook Drive\A2021-046 - 162 Greenbrook Drive.docx ZQ y. N U n LL m p O 0 U Q E `o a� N D > C� Q c� 2 .Q € 3 a a _ > Q n a C) (7 CJ — O N o o n QL r Q a DoE Y� v=a p w O O a) o 0 � w a) a) Q a) .� Q o .D E o E �Q ° ovoo -w 3�° L y a5 a5 () a5 o Q Q U Q ° o o r - 3 a o � L y� v e 5�`. a - N N (7 O a) .X o (7 o W In W- co - o0 o a5 0 m (7 Qin Q in .( .� .( .� Q g Y ` = = A Q a) j a) .0 j O s t) o m E m - n m m m W W Q U) — in O in o O� o 0 0 0 � o � o rc a � t.2 2 v> p Y Y Y Y a 21 J J J J d N y 5 m W (n (n y i `v o [2 �.� m n A m�cgv'q - G UO o. v',Us.=_vF yr Z Y 0 r�,;�;'• .. ,�-.ter ,mow � [ � � o w'f 40r� 7 1 QL VAR N66ROC3K N z e r � F ' J O ! n From: Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 20219:37 AM To: Dianna Saunderson <Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Renovation Plans for 162 Greenbrook Drive Dear Dianna, Thanks for sending the pdf of the proposed changes to 162 Greenbrook. My comments are that the marked up photographs depict a change that is visually much wider than the 7ft mentioned. Secondly, the support of the new 2nd floor structure with posts and otherwise fully open below the 2nd floor is not in keeping with the neighborhood. It would be visually better - in my opinion - to build out to the new width with a full foundation and traditional wall structure, clad in the same theme as remainder of the house. Can my comments be forwarded to the Board of Variance ? or do people with comments attend the next meeting? Thanks again, -■ Greenbrook Drive ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Dianna Saunderson <Dianna.Saunderson@kitchener.ca> Date: May 5, 2021 at 8:33 AM Good Morning■, Thank you for your email. Please see a full copy of the applicants request, as well as the plans related to their addition. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards, 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 L;,!`.:, 0 '• Staff Report De velo n7ent Services Dq,oartr7ent REPORT TO: DATE OF MEETING: SUBMITTED BY PREPARED BY: WARD(S) INVOLVED: DATE OF REPORT REPORT NO.: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: L www. kitchener ca Committee of Adjustment May 181h, 2021 von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Schneider, Eric, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 Ward 1 May 7th, 2021 DSD -21-80 Consent Application 20 Sylvia Street Owner & Applicant - B2021 -025 Tamara McGillivray That application B2021-025 for consent to sever a "L Shaped" parcel of land having a width at the street of 1.55m, an overall width of 13.72m, a northerly depth of 54.87m and an area of 304.7 sq.m. currently containing a shed, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 24 Sylvia Street. The retained land will be rectangular in shape having a width of 15.29m, a depth of 54.87m and an area of 838.9 sq.m. That this application 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 provides 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 size 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 lands to be severed are to be added to the abutting lands and title is to 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. 4. 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. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The application is requesting a lot addition by severing a portion of an existing lot containing a single let ached dwelling and conveying it to another adjacent lot (lot line adjustment). R-3 Z4 s Location Map: 20 & 24 Sylvia Street REPORT: BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. In 2012 the subject properties received approval for a lot addition in consent application B2012-032 in which the "L Shaped" portion was conveyed from 24 Sylvia Street to 20 Sylvia Street. If approved, this application would now do the opposite and convey the lands back to 24 Sylvia Street and reinstate the original lot configuration. Planning Comments: A portion of the lot at 20 Sylvia Street is proposed to be conveyed to 24 Sylvia Street as a lot addition. No new lot will be created. Both lots contain a single detached dwelling and no changes to either building is proposed. The severed portion of 20 Sylvia Street that would be conveyed to 24 Sylvia Street would have an L shape and would have a width of 1.55 metres at the street, an overall width of 13.72 metres, a northerly depth of 54.87 metres and an area of 304.7 square metres. The retained lot at 20 Sylvia Street would have a lot width of 15.29 metres, a depth of 54.87 metres, and an area of 838.9 square metres. City Plar ning starr conauctea a site inspection or the property on iviay b, zuz-i . ii1 �1 1�1 frr 1-4 Existing single detached dwelling at 20 Sylvia Street (May 6, 2021) 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 a lot addition. Both the retained and severed lots meet the Zoning By-law. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Consent Application B2021-025 requesting to sever a portion of the lot at 20 Sylvia Street as a lot addition to 24 Sylvia Street be approved subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation section of this report. SYLVIA STREET - (ESfABLISHED BY REGISTERED PLAN 58 M-525) , (20.12M WME) {} POM.217J 1-0571 �lT) w I" 2.7c t� ,- MrK HUJSE V 040 341 u. LOT 2 Y X. I }i v� L F -I T " FL-, ' F -I" 1" I I F _ FL-il F- i" 4- y i-zi' -" LJ LCAT r3 - FlJ 30-56+ Proposed Lot Fabric Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Heritage Comments: No cultural heritage issues or concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental Planning has no concerns with the application. �I Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Comments: Since the severed portion is being merged with a neighbouring property and no new lot is being created Engineering has no comments. Operations Comments: Parkland dedication has been satisfied through Kitchener Draft Agreement (KDA) 30T-02201/ R.P.# 58M-525 and is not required for this application. 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: B2012-032 N, r Region of Waterloo Dianna Saunderson 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 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 D20-20/21 KIT May 4, 2021 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2021-025 to 62021- 028 Committee of Adjustment Hearing May 18, 2021 CITY OF KITCHENER B2021-025 20 Sylvia Street Tamara McGillivray The owner/applicant is proposing a lot addition to the adjacent parcel. The Region has no objection to the proposed application. B2021-026 41 Ardelt Place Doyle Investment Corporation The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new vacant industrial lot with access to Ardelt Avenue. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a High Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for the sensitive and non -sensitive uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 0011YA11151YAI 418 Alice Avenue Kamaljit Khanna The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new residential lot. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 0011YA11151N.] 564 and 592 Belmont Avenue West Belmont Medical Centre Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to have the existing commercial medical centre at 564 Belmont Avenue West to be a separate parcel from the vacant land at 592 Belmont Avenue West. There is no proposed development on the vacant land. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a Known Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for commercial uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. Water Services: The subject site is fronting Belmont Ave W. There is a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain and a 300mm in diameter local watermain. Given the proximity to a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain, the owner/applicant should be made aware that no Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 connection to regional watermains will be permitted in accordance with Section B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2021. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 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 19-037 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, '1 j� _ Matthew Colley, Planner, MCIP, RPP Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Dumart, Craig, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7073 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: May 6, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-77 SUBJECT: Consent Application B2021-026 41 Ardelt Place Owner: Doyle Investment Corporation Applicant: Steve Thompson, S Thompson Development Services RECOMMENDATION: That application B2021-026 for consent to create one new lot and retain one lot to be used for industrial uses be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division; 2. That the owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size 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 makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Division for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands. 4. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 5. That the Owner submits 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. 6. That the Owner provides Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. elevation can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 7. That, prior to final approval, the Owner receives site plan approval to acknowledge the existing parking and site conditions for the retained and severed lands to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. 8. That, prior to final approval the Owner provides funds to Engineering Services for a future 1.8m concrete sidewalk along the entire length of frontage of the severed portion of the original property that fronts on to Ardelt Avenue (21.336m as noted on the submitted plan). 9. That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The application is requesting to sever the existing parcel into two lots. The retained lot will continue to have frontage on Ardelt Place, while the severed lot will have frontage along Ardelt Avenue. f' HLUlt)ILHLU FLAN 1kJI, ANU PART OF LOT 1 REGISTERED PLAN 102.3 ..119 ,, hxx SM•XCS CITY OF KITCHENER J REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF KITCHENER SCALE 1; 2040 50 h 70 100 ACI SURVEY CONSULTANTS, A. CINSION Of J.D. BARNES LIMI Qcoamcw M1 "s lw I MUNICIPAL AOORESS: 41 AROELT PLACE. KITCH[ rNn 1 hti1 an•lfos I? r * ,�yti ZONING: V-4 331R flT ZONINGM-!; L - F � ��I RETAINED LANDS AREA: 3.134 H6 RETAINEC7 LANDS 66 � S" PROPOSED SEVERANCE 1- 3,234 Ho PROPOSED SEVERANCE 2 (LOT ADDITION)- O,� � 3.134 HC n TOTAL AREA- 6,810 Ha Vak! >. h.w 5GMlihS � � � n.tr app yy 8 x 'saaaa wY mss .ri mi�ana�1L il$ R9 obi t Retained (3.134ha) t wRr k Rax a!r-SNY C Severed (3.676ha) .>. a r?6F0SE0 SrH! NCE 3.2 34 H Q ryryry A ...�" rot zc.Nc� a'R"• w. hw es.leoaN PROP�OISEP SEVERANCE nar.ma hC 4.442 HO �.: Lor �� aw"Ts.n »rraauaa r,na 2 ." Proposed lot fabrics HVALt I ;io PROMPI-1-0i Fk Location Map: 41 Ardelt Place REPORT: BACKGROUND: I "IN The subject property is designated as Heavy Industrial Employment in the City's Official Plan and is zoned as Heavy Industrial Zone (M-4) with Special Regulation Provision 331R in Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning Comments: The subject lands are a through lot with frontage along Ardelt Place and Ardelt Avenue. The Owner is requesting permission to sever the subject lands into two lots. The severed lot would have lot frontage along Ardelt Avenue with of 21.3 metres of frontage and an area of 36760 square metres (3.676ha), while the retained lot would continue to have lot frontage along Ardelt Place with 183 metres of frontage, and an area of 31340 square metres (3.143ha). The proposed lot widths and lot areas fully comply with the M-4 zone lot width and lot area requirements. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 30, 2021. Existing industrial Building at 41 Ardelt Place With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is desirable and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Planning staff is of the opinion that the size, dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are suitable for the use of the lands and compatible with surrounding industrial area. Both the severed and retained lands front onto a public street and full services are available. 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. Heritage Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No Environmental planning concerns. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services will require funds to be dedicated to Engineering Services for a future 1.8m concrete sidewalk along the entire length of frontage of the severed portion of the original property that fronts on to Ardelt Avenue (21.336m as noted on the submitted plan). 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 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 Niall Melanson(niall.melanson(a�kitchener.ca). • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All works are at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure 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: The parkland dedication requirement for this application is deferred and will be assessed at a future site plan application. 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: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. N, r Region of Waterloo Dianna Saunderson 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 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 D20-20/21 KIT May 4, 2021 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2021-025 to 62021- 028 Committee of Adjustment Hearing May 18, 2021 CITY OF KITCHENER B2021-025 20 Sylvia Street Tamara McGillivray The owner/applicant is proposing a lot addition to the adjacent parcel. The Region has no objection to the proposed application. B2021-026 41 Ardelt Place Doyle Investment Corporation The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new vacant industrial lot with access to Ardelt Avenue. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a High Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for the sensitive and non -sensitive uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 0011YA11151YAI 418 Alice Avenue Kamaljit Khanna The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new residential lot. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 0011YA11151N.] 564 and 592 Belmont Avenue West Belmont Medical Centre Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to have the existing commercial medical centre at 564 Belmont Avenue West to be a separate parcel from the vacant land at 592 Belmont Avenue West. There is no proposed development on the vacant land. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a Known Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for commercial uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. Water Services: The subject site is fronting Belmont Ave W. There is a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain and a 300mm in diameter local watermain. Given the proximity to a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain, the owner/applicant should be made aware that no Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 connection to regional watermains will be permitted in accordance with Section B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2021. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 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 19-037 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, '1 j� _ Matthew Colley, Planner, MCIP, RPP Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Seyler, Tim, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8 DATE OF REPORT: May 7, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-75 SUBJECT: Consent Application B2021-027 418 Alice Avenue Owners: Kamaljit Khanna Applicant: Harpreet Kaur Singh, HKS Law RECOMMENDATION: That application B2021-027 for consent to sever the existing lot into two new lots 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 pays to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication on the severed parcel equal in the amount of $3,505.20.The park land dedication is calculated at the residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for the severed portion. 3. That the owner provides 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 size 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. 4. That the Owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Division for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands. 5. That any new driveways are to 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. 6. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the Owner submits 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. 8. That the Owner provides Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement elevation can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 9. That the Owner obtains a demolition permit to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and removes the existing dwelling prior to the creation of the two lots. 10. 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 prior to any grading, servicing or the application or issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval of the City's Director of Planning showing: (i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and structures), decks and driveways; (ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures that are to be removed or relocated; (iii) the proposed grades and drainage; (iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and condition; (v) justification for any trees to be removed; and (vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved; and b) Any alteration or improvement to the lands including grading, servicing, tree removal and the application or issuance of any building permits shall be in compliance with the approved plan. Any changes or revisions to the plan require the approval of the City's Director of Planning." 11. That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The application is requesting to create a lot by severing an existing lot into two equal sized lots. I LCT 4-'B,% 3B.".1 11� s Q. P11 LOT 4196 385.55 SQ. M EXISI NG SINGLE FAMILYEIWELLIKG - I 417.sM► To be retained 4W.13DO To be severed P H DP, ISEID 2 -STOREY SEMI-DETACHED FAM! 11Y DWELLING 1733 50,M (1865-82 SQ. F) PROPOSED 2 -STOREY 5EMI-DE .......................... ..... TACHEC 173.3 t SQ_M (1865-82 SQ. Fj I Proposed lot fabrics Location Map: 418 Alice Avenue REPORT: BACKGROUND: 8 The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as a Community Area on the City's Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned as Residential Four Zone in Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning Comments: The single detached dwelling on the property is proposed to be demolished and replaced with new semi-detached dwellings on the severed and retained lands. The existing development of the neighbourhood consists of a mix of single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and multiple dwellings. Lot sizes vary in width, depth, and area in this neighbourhood. The Owner is requesting permission to sever the subject lands into two equal sized lots. The severed lot would have a lot width of 7.62 metres, a depth of 50.60 metres, and an area of 385.57 square metres, while the retained lot would have a lot width of 7.62 metres, a depth of 50.60 metres, and an area of 385.57 square metres. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 30, 2021. f _ Existing single detached dwelling at 418 Alice Avenue With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Planning staff is of the opinion that the size, dimension and shape of the proposed lots are suitable for the use of the lands and compatible with the surrounding community. 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. The lands front onto a public street and full services are available. 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 demolition of all existing buildings, as well as construction of the new residential buildings. Heritage Comments: Heritage staff has no cultural heritage concerns with the proposed application. Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental Planning has no concerns with this application. The applicant is required to provide safeguard measures to ensure the health of the street tree is maintained during construction. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Comments: • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. • 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 Niall Melanson (niall.melansona-kitchener.ca). • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All works are at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system, will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure 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. Parks/Operations Comments: A cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required on the severed parcel as 1 new development lot will be created. The cash -in -lieu dedication required is $3,505.20. Park Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lot only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage (7.62m) at a land value of $9,200 per frontage meter. An existing Street Tree is located in the boulevard of 418 Alice Ave. Tree protection is required on all trees during construction work as indicated in city bylaw 690.4.2 Protection - Trees on City Property It shall be the responsibility of the person or persons in charge of any lot on which the construction, alteration or demolition of any building is taking place, to take adequate steps for the protection of any trees on City property within 6.09 metres (20 feet) of any such lot and no such work shall be commenced until such protection has been provided. Region of Waterloo Comments: Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 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: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. N, r Region of Waterloo Dianna Saunderson 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 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 D20-20/21 KIT May 4, 2021 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2021-025 to 62021- 028 Committee of Adjustment Hearing May 18, 2021 CITY OF KITCHENER B2021-025 20 Sylvia Street Tamara McGillivray The owner/applicant is proposing a lot addition to the adjacent parcel. The Region has no objection to the proposed application. B2021-026 41 Ardelt Place Doyle Investment Corporation The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new vacant industrial lot with access to Ardelt Avenue. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a High Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for the sensitive and non -sensitive uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 0011YA11151YAI 418 Alice Avenue Kamaljit Khanna The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new residential lot. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 0011YA11151N.] 564 and 592 Belmont Avenue West Belmont Medical Centre Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to have the existing commercial medical centre at 564 Belmont Avenue West to be a separate parcel from the vacant land at 592 Belmont Avenue West. There is no proposed development on the vacant land. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a Known Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for commercial uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. Water Services: The subject site is fronting Belmont Ave W. There is a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain and a 300mm in diameter local watermain. Given the proximity to a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain, the owner/applicant should be made aware that no Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 connection to regional watermains will be permitted in accordance with Section B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2021. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 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 19-037 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, '1 j� _ Matthew Colley, Planner, MCIP, RPP Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Pinnell, Andrew, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8 DATE OF REPORT: May 9, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-83 SUBJECT: B2021-028 — 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West Owner: Belmont Medical Centre Inc. Approve Subject to Conditions RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Consent Application B2021-028, for 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West, requesting consent to create a new lot with an approximate frontage on Belmont Avenue West of 25.9 metres, a depth of 60.1 metres, an area of 1,573.3 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 properties 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. The owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximately 2 metre wide road widening along the severed parcel's entire Belmont Avenue West frontage, to the satisfaction of the City's Transportation Services. The owner shall submit a reference plan showing the road widening, to the satisfaction of Transportation Services. In addition, the owner shall submit a Phase 1, and if necessary, a Phase 2 Environmental Assessment, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the road widening on the severed portion. 4. The owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of new service connections to the severed and retained lands. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 5. The owner shall prepare a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 6. The owner shall prepare and submit a Development Asset Drawing (AutoCAD format) for the site with corresponding layer names and asset information, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 7. The owner shall 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. 8. The owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the Consent Application Review fee of $350.00. Figure 1. Aerial photo showing the two addresses associated with the subject property REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend conditional approval of a consent application to sever two historically separate properties that have inadvertently merged on title. • This report supports the delivery of core services. • There are no financial implications to the City. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: This report is being brought forward to recommend conditional approval of a consent application to sever two historically separate properties that have inadvertently merged on title. 10 9 s 214214 224 185 2-,o �d 23s 217 P07 911 225221 229 s` 137 239 243 809 247 7 1 5,8 9 2 9 ,.. '. Catalyst 137 P1 18 12 28 �j i. 2527 545' 28 34 465 i{y 32 5d7 59 8535 33 'Gp 36J7 7 i. • x.. ti 36 f 32 y i38 � L 4120 26 4s 33 Figure 1. Aerial photo showing the two addresses associated with the subject property REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend conditional approval of a consent application to sever two historically separate properties that have inadvertently merged on title. • This report supports the delivery of core services. • There are no financial implications to the City. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: This report is being brought forward to recommend conditional approval of a consent application to sever two historically separate properties that have inadvertently merged on title. Figure 2. View of subject property from Belmont Avenue West REPORT: The subject property is located on the east side of Belmont Avenue West, between Glasgow Street and the CN Railway tracks, in the Cherry Hill Planning Community. The Iron Horse Trail and Catalyst 137 are located to the east. Commercial uses are located immediately to the north and south. Belmont Village is located further north. Multiple residential uses are located on the opposite side of Belmont Avenue. The properties are designated Mixed Use in the Official Plan and zoned MIX -2 (144) (49) in By-law 2019-051 (the property is no longer subject to By-law 85-1). City Planning staff visited the properties on April 29, 2021. There are two addresses that relate to the subject property. The first address, 592 Belmont Avenue West, is associated with a 4 -storey commercial building containing health-related uses and an associated parking lot. The second address, 564 Belmont Avenue West, is associated with vacant land (grassed with concrete blocks securing the lot frontage). Historically, these addresses represented two separate properties under the Planning Act. The applicant advises that these properties have technically, inadvertently merged on title and are now one property. At this time, the applicant is requesting consent to sever the two historically separate subject properties to revert them to their previous condition. In this regard, the vacant severed lot would have an approximate frontage on Belmont Avenue West of 25.9 metres, a depth of 60.1 metres, an area of 1,573.3 square metres. The proposed use of the severed lot is not known. The retained lot containing the existing 4 -storey commercial building would have an approximate frontage on Belmont Avenue West of 151.4 metres, a depth ranging between 57.4 metres and 58.2 metres, and an area of 8,742.5 square metres. 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. Both the severed and retained lots comply with the Zoning By-law, noting that the MIX -2 regulations do not apply to the existing commercial building, per notation (1) of Section 8.3. The requested consent is not premature and is in the public interest. The subject lands are suitable for the purposes for which they are to be severed. Both resultant lots are suitable in their dimensions and rectangular shapes and front onto an established municipal road with adequate 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. Per Schedule D: Roads to be Widened of the Official Plan, it appears that a City road widening was previously taken from the retained lot, but not the severed lot. Accordingly, staff is recommending a condition requiring a road widening for the severed lot. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Consent Application B2021-028 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Transportation Services Comments: A land dedication in the form of a road widening will be required as part of this application. A reference plan is to be submitted noting a road widening of approximately 2m to be dedicated to the City. Engineering Services will require a Phase 1 EA be completed for review for the portion of land being dedicated. A Phase 2 EA may be required depending on the results of the Phase 1 EA. Engineering Services Comments: - Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. - The 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 both properties, 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 Niall Melanson(niall.melanson(d�kitchener.ca). - Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All works are at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure 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. Parks and Cemeteries Comments: Parkland dedication is not required for this application as no new developable lot has been created. Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental Planning has no concerns. Landscaping trees managed under site plan control. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. Region of Waterloo Comments: The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to have the existing commercial medical centre at 564 Belmont Avenue West to be a separate parcel from the vacant land at 592 Belmont Avenue West. There is no proposed development on the vacant land. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a Known Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for commercial uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. Water Services: The subject site is fronting Belmont Ave W. There is a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain and a 300mm in diameter local watermain. Given the proximity to a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain, the owner/applicant should be made aware that no connection to regional watermains will be permitted in accordance with Section B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2021. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget or 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 was also placed in The Record. In addition, notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. A notice sign 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. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Sections 51 and 53, Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P.13 ATTACHMENT: Attachment A — Consent Sketch provided with Consent Application I PIN 22436-0008 (LT) 60.166 I r � 4MD> z WmOD z � iamWn z rn O OWr, m PIN 22436-0009` (LT) o z N m n> - 60.051 T } 58.222 P z o 1.829 n zm m o� �//'�� U� c> N I I o OD m�D� Amz> Ln Co 0 Z m fT1 Mm N 30w> ti w rz _'_ w _- ----- N — n O7 8.57 A z L 24.05 J w O OO � l W V n C- - - I�' r � T N I1I W Z 7.66 mm z� �n O ; IDA O o 7.66 DO�� O 5 DZ = O08 O y CDZm- Cn{ 0m off; Z� I N c' z 0 0 8.58 z z z 23.79 O _ o00 v, z N D z D `n o D 'o 0 N O Z Oi 0 11 1 o z U o A X m0 � ri C I I m � o A I I -- 47.252 w D N cnoo 10.174 _ o f\ -r-- \ i i�-r w ti \I N z z z n m n n n�D w A PIN 224360011 (L T) \ oA� 0� m i O II�� A A �- m> �y cmir m z „ z �p 3 _ z z W° �z i O Cr A n C., n z o m D D D D D fn O z m m x A z n m 7J G m ° c`� �`" Da ° z zm = G1 m �o 0,0 A� A D O m _ O m cn Z TI D NT n n z n < z y Z o m oo D n 0 P�, D o rn o z D o m m m 0 0 O O r„ czi m m o i C N D D CA < z v' < O z D m m Mrd y S o Ln z V' D= A T` o z o m Z m\�Ny N S CCi7 ° ° D A y C 0 C 7J o n SOON N° ZCD N S d ° z r ' r z D m N Dm r z A m z m o O �z y O '^ O m DW o � zz � N, r Region of Waterloo Dianna Saunderson 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 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterloo.ca Matthew Colley 575-4757 ext. 3210 D20-20/21 KIT May 4, 2021 Re: Comments for Consent Applications B2021-025 to 62021- 028 Committee of Adjustment Hearing May 18, 2021 CITY OF KITCHENER B2021-025 20 Sylvia Street Tamara McGillivray The owner/applicant is proposing a lot addition to the adjacent parcel. The Region has no objection to the proposed application. B2021-026 41 Ardelt Place Doyle Investment Corporation The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new vacant industrial lot with access to Ardelt Avenue. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a High Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for the sensitive and non -sensitive uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 0011YA11151YAI 418 Alice Avenue Kamaljit Khanna The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to create a new residential lot. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created prior to final approval of the consent. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 0011YA11151N.] 564 and 592 Belmont Avenue West Belmont Medical Centre Inc. The owner/applicant is proposing a severance to have the existing commercial medical centre at 564 Belmont Avenue West to be a separate parcel from the vacant land at 592 Belmont Avenue West. There is no proposed development on the vacant land. Regional Fee: The owner/applicant is required to submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 prior to final approval of the consent. Record of Site Condition: Regional Staff acknowledge the subject lands are identified as a Known Threat in the Region's Threats Inventory Database. The owner/applicant has completed a Record of Site Condition (RSC) #225993 to allow for commercial uses on the severed and retained lands. Regional Staff have no further concerns. Water Services: The subject site is fronting Belmont Ave W. There is a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain and a 300mm in diameter local watermain. Given the proximity to a 450mm in diameter Regional watermain, the owner/applicant should be made aware that no Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 connection to regional watermains will be permitted in accordance with Section B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2021. The Region has no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: 1) That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit the Regional consent review fee of $350.00 per new lot created. 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 19-037 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, '1 j� _ Matthew Colley, Planner, MCIP, RPP Document Number: 3647258 Version: 1 atrd Rp,@� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 n w Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 tion May May 6, 2021 Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: May 18, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A 2021-031 50 Brookside Crescent 660 Avondale Avenue A 2021-036 20 Sylvia Street 30 Simeon Street A 2021-037 41 Ardelt Place 40 Prueter Avenue A 2021-038 418 Alice Avenue 47 Kilkerran Crescent A 2021-039 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 78 Shanley Street A 2021-040 59 Bechtel Drive A 2021-041 63 Bechtel Drive A 2021-042 29 Gruhn Street A 2021-043 10 Eastwood Drive A 2021-044 54 Park Street A 2021-045 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 & 4) Applications for Consent B 2020-047 50 Brookside Crescent B 2021-025 20 Sylvia Street B 2021-026 41 Ardelt Place B 2021-027 418 Alice Avenue B 2021-028 564 & 592 Belmont Avenue West 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 aherremana-cirand river.ca. `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Pagel of 2 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority