HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2021-128 - A 2021-069 - 926 & 936 King St. EStaff Report
De velo n7ent Services Dq,oartr7ent
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: July 20, 2021
L
www. kitchener ca
SUBMITTED BY: Bateman, Brian, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7869
PREPARED BY: Dumart, Craig, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7073
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: July 7, 2021
REPORT NO.: DSD -2021- 128
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2021-069
926 — 936 King Street East
Owner — 926 King Development Inc.
Applicant — MHBC Planning, Pierre Chauvin
RECOMMENDATION:
That minor variance application A2021-069 requesting permission to develop a 10 storey
building 32 metres in height and 35 metres to mechanical penthouse rather than a maximum
building height of 19.5 metres and requesting permission for a parking rate of 0.42 spaces
per unit rather than 1.0 space per unit and to allow 5% visitor parking rather than 20% visitor
parking be refused.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The applicant is requesting relief from Special Regulation 541R of the Zoning By-law to allow a
multiple dwelling with a building height of 32 metres and 35 metres to the mechanical penthouse
level which also contains gross floor area for the purpose of accessing the roof top amenity rather
than a maximum building height of 19.5 metres, requesting relief from section 6.1 2 a) of the Zoning
By-law to allow a required parking rate of 0.42 spaces per unit rather than 1.0 space per unit and
relief from section 6.1.2 b) ii B) vi B) of the Zoning By-law to allow 5% visitor parking rather than the
required 20% visitor parking.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Location Map: 926-936 King Street East
BACKGROUND:
The property is designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the King Street East Secondary Plan and
identified within a Major Transit Station area on the City's Urban Structure Map.
The property is zoned as Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -2) with Special Regulation
Provision 541 R in Zoning By-law 85-1.
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
Process
On December 19, 2019, Planning staff met with the applicants at a pre -submission meeting to
discuss a proposed Zoning By-law amendment and Site Plan for the subject lands. At the meeting
staff identified that a Zoning By-law amendment is required to permit a 10 storey, 32 -metre -tall building
with reduced parking requirements. Staff also identified the building should be located outside of all
Corner Visibility Triangles post road widening. This was reiterated, again, with the formal site plan
submission that was submitted in November 2020 but not accepted as the Zoning Bylaw amendment
application was not submitted.
Against staffs advice, a Minor Variance Application and Site Plan Application was submitted in June
2021. The proposed building height increase is significant, and a Zoning By-law Amendment is the
appropriate process to amend the Zoning By-law rather than a Minor Variance. A Zoning By-law
amendment and a Site Plan Application are typically reviewed concurrently to ensure all zoning
deficiencies are considered, reviewed, justified and supported by staff.
In this case, the Site Plan application has not been deemed complete by the Planning division or fully
reviewed. However, based on staffs preliminary review, staff have identified additional Zoning
deficiencies beyond the requested variances under consideration through this application.
Additional Zonina Deficiencies
Building Height
Building Height is defined in Zoning By-law 85-1 as the vertical distance between the highest finished
grade level at the perimeter of the building and the uppermost point of the building. Antennae, chimneys,
spires, cupolas, elevator penthouses, or other similar features shall be disregarded in calculating
building height. The proposed buildings penthouse includes additional building gross floor area
including a washroom, corridor, stairs, elevator, and access to a roof top amenity space. A mechanical
penthouse cannot include gross floor area or is counted towards to the overall building height. Based
on the site plan and floor plans submitted the proposed building height is 35 metres rather than 32
metres as the 11th floor mechanical penthouse includes gross floor area.
Building Setback to residentially zoned properties
Special Regulation 541 R of the Zoning By-law requires a setback of 16.0 metres to residentially zoned
properties plus an additional 0.6 metres for every additional metre above 13.5 metres in height. The
proposed building is 32 metres in height (35 metres to the mechanical penthouse with GFA), which
would require a 27.1 metre setback (28.9metres for a mechanical penthouse that includes GFA) to
residentially zoned properties. Additional relief should be requested to Special Regulation 541 R for this
setback. The applicant has identified the building will be located 19.25 metres to residentially zoned
properties. From staff's review of the site plan, this measurement appears to be incorrect and does not
include the building's upper floors (floors 2 to 10) which are proposed to cantilever above a portion of
the ground floor parking. The requested 19.25 metre setback appears to be measured to the first floor.
The upper floors appear to be located approximately 17 metres to residentially zoned properties.
Corner Visibility Triangle
The proposed building is located within two corner visibility triangles. Corner Visibility triangles are
a triangular area formed within a corner lot by the intersecting street lines or the projections thereof
and a straight line connecting them 7.5 metres from their point of intersection. Corner Visibility
Triangles do not allow obstruction to visibility, whether from buildings, motor vehicles, landscaping
or other impediments.
Furthermore, staff question whether or not the number of parking spaces proposed can be
appropriately accommodated on site. There may be a need to reduce the number of parking spaces
on site through a detailed review of the design through such matters as shifting the building to be
located outside of the Corner Visibility Triangle and providing a 1.5 metre landscape buffer around
the perimeter of the surface parking lot.
Four Tests
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:
Official Plan
The property is designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the King Street East Secondary Plan and is
within a Major Transit Station Area as part of the Urban Structure. Mixed Use Corridors are intended
to accommodate additional density and intensification of uses. New development shall be compatible
with surrounding residential neighbourhoods and pedestrian -oriented, transit -supportive and human -
scaled to positively contribute to the public realm. The King Street East Secondary Plan polices
intend that the siting and design of new buildings is compatible with the existing development and
particularly low rise residential uses in the interior of the neighbourhood. While staff are of the opinion
that a detailed review of compatibility and impacts should be evaluated through a Zoning Bylaw
Amendment and also Site Plan approval, the proposal is generally in alignment with the intent of the
Official Plan. Staff are of the opinion that an Official Plan Amendment is not required for this
proposal.
Zoning By-law
The property is zoned as Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU -2) with Special Regulation
Provision 541 R in Zoning By-law 85-1. The MU -2 zone permits a maximum building height up to 24
metres for buildings that are not located adjacent to or abut residential zoned properties. Whereas
Special Regulation Provision 541 R permits a maximum building height of 19.5 metres when buildings
are located adjacent to or abut residential zoned properties and subject to providing a 19.6 metre
building setback to residential zoned properties. The intent of Special Regulation Provision 541 R is to
cap the height of buildings adjacent to residentially zoned properties to a mid -rise built form with a
substantial setback to mitigate impacts. The maximum 19.5 metre building height cap and associated
19.6 metre setback requirement ensures that buildings adjacent to residentially zoned properties are
built at a scale and location that is appropriate when transitioning from a mid -rise built form to a low rise
residential established neighbourhood. Staff are of the opinion that increasing the building height by
12.5 metres (15.5 metres to the mechanical penthouse with GFA), from 19.5 metres to 32 metres in
height (35 metres to the mechanical penthouse), does not meet the intent of Special Regulation 541 R
nor does the requested height increase comply with the required building setbacks to residentially zoned
properties and therefore does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Based on the information presented regarding parking justification, staff do not have the information
necessary to conclude that the proposed variances for parking meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The intent of the by-law is to ensure sufficient on-site parking for residents and visitors. The applicant
has requested relief from the Zoning By-law to allow parking at a rate of 0.42 spaces per unit rather
than the required parking rate of 1.0 space per unit and requested to permit a required visitor parking
rate of 5% rather than the required 20%. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared by the applicant and
reviewed by Transportation staff who do not fully support the reduced parking rates, at this time, as
further detailed in their comments. Additionally, the detailed review of the site plan may lead to fewer
parking stalls through design considerations such as amenity, adequate landscaped buffer adjacent
to the low rise residential properties to allow for tree planting/tree management, the location of
garbage/recycling facilities; and grading and servicing.
Is the Variance Minor?
The requested variance to increase the maximum building height by 12.5 metres (15.5 metres to the
mechanical penthouse with GFA), from the permitted maximum building height of 19.5 metres to 32
metres (35 metres to the mechanical penthouse with GFA) is not considered minor. The request to
increase the building height by 164% (179% including the mechanical penthouse with GFA) is
substantial. The building height increase should be evaluated, reviewed, and justified through a Zoning
By-law amendment.
Transportation staff do not have adequate information to determine if the requested parking variances
can be considered minor, at this time.
Is the Variance Appropriate?
The requested variance to increase the building height through a minor variance application is not the
appropriate avenue to evaluate the building height increase. A building height increase of this nature
should be evaluated through a Zoning By-law Amendment where staff can fully review the application,
formally engage with the public and fully review the appropriateness of the development.
Any parking relief sought should be addressed through the same Zoning Bylaw amendment for fulsome
evaluation and engagement on the proposal. As Transportation staff noted, the appropriateness of the
request cannot be confirmed at this time.
Planning Conclusion
In conclusion the variances cannot be considered minor for the development and use of the lands. Staff
are of the opinion that the proposal does not meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law and the
building height request is not considered minor. A Zoning By-law Amendment is the appropriate
avenue to evaluate the appropriateness of the relief requested in a fulsome manner with any other
relief of zoning regulations. A minor variance is required to pass all four tests. In staff's opinion, this
request fails two of four tests. Planning staff recommends that this application be refused.
City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on June 30, 2021.
Subject Lands at 926-936 King Street East
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variances
Transportation Services Comments:
Transportation Services cannot support this requested variance for providing parking at a rate of
0.42 spaces per unit at this time. Given the increase in the number of units for the development, as
well as a further reduced parking rate from the original concept site plan that was submitted for a
pre -submission consultation in September 2019, more information is required than what was
provided in section 3.1.1 in the Traffic Impact Study submitted with this application (completed by
Paradigm).
The applicant will need to submit a more detailed Parking Justification section (as an addendum to
the Traffic Impact Study) to Transportation Planning staff for review. The addendum must specifically
outline how the applicant intends to justify their request for reduced parking on the site for staffs
consideration (i.e. what mitigation measures are proposed and how many measures are proposed).
As this site falls under Zoning By-law 85-1, use of the TDM Checklist is recommended for the
justification.
Also note that as a condition of approval for a minor variance, an agreement on title will be required
that outlines the measures that are being provided to justify the requested reduction in parking.
Heritage Planning Comments:
Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with this application.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Environmental concerns will be addressed through a 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 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. 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.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, Sth Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada
Region of Waterloo Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
June 29, 2021
Kristen Hilborn
City of Kitchener File No.: D20-20/
200 King Street West VAR KIT GEN
P.O. Box 1118 (9)/VAR KIT, 926 KING STREET EAST VIVE
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 DEVELOPMENT CORP
(15)/28,120 BULLOCK STREET HOMER WATSON
BUSINESS PARK
(17,18)/VAR KIT, 102 WATERLOO STREET 2820580
ONTARIO INCORPORATED
Dear Ms. Hilborn:
Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting July 20, 2021, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have
following comments:
1)
A 2021-061
— 29 Floral Crescent — No Concerns.
2)
A 2021-062
— 316 Quaiser Court — No Concerns.
3)
A 2021-063
— 48 Martin Street — No Concerns.
4)
A 2021-064
— 34 Uxbridge Crescent — No Concerns.
5)
A 2021-065
— 117 Golden Meadow Crescent — No Concerns.
6)
A 2021-066
— 195 Yellow Birch Drive — No Concerns.
7)
A 2021-067
— 806 Belmont Avenue West — No Concerns.
8)
A 2021-068
— 71 Massey Avenue — No Concerns.
9)
A 2021-069
— 926 & 936 King Street East — No Concerns.
10) A 2021-070
— 124 Walker Street — No Concerns.
11) A 2021-071
— 19 Anson Court — No Concerns.
12) A 2021-072
— 53 Plaza Court — No Concerns.
Document Number: 3713197
Page of 2
13) A 2021-073
— 538 Victoria Street South — No Concerns.
14) A 2021-074
— 42 Florence Avenue — No Concerns.
15) A 2021-075
— 10 Pearson Street — No Concerns.
16) A 2021-076
— 61 Strange Street — No Concerns.
17) A 2021-077
— 102 Waterloo Street (Retained) — No Concerns.
18) A 2021-078
— 102 Waterloo Street (Severed) — No Concerns.
19) A 2021-079
— 1170 King Street East — No Concerns.
20) A 2021-080
— 815 & 825 King Street East — No Concerns.
Please be advised that any development on the lands subject to the Applications noted above
are subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any
successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for these
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter
pertain to the Application numbers listed above. If a site is subject to more than one application,
additional comments may apply.
Please forward any decision on the above mentioned application to the undersigned.
Yours Truly, A
Joginder Bhatia
Transportation Planner
C (226) 753-0368
CC:
Dianna Saunderson
CofA(u-)- Kitchener. ca
0
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
July
July 9, 2021
Dianna Saunderson Via email only
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Ms. Saunderson,
Re: July 20, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2021-052
74 Chestnut Street
A 2021-061
29 Floral Crescent
A 2021-062
316 Quaiser Court
A 2021-063
48 Martin Street
A 2021-064
34 Uxbridge Crescent
A 2021-065
117 Golden Meadow Crescent
A 2021-066
195 Yellow Birch Drive
A 2021-067
806 Belmont Avenue West
A 2021-068
71 Massey Avenue
A 2021-069
926 & 936 King Street East
A 2021-070
124 Walter Street
A 2021-071
19 Anson Court
A 2021-072
53 Plaza Court
A 2021-073
538 Victoria Street South
A 2021-074
42 Florence Avenue
A 2021-075
10 Pearson Street
A 2021-076
61 Strange Street
A 2021-077
102 Waterloo Street
A 2021-078
102 Waterloo Street
A 2021-079
& A2021-080
1170 King Street East & 815 & 825 Weber Street East
Applications for Consent
B 2021-036
301 Thaler Avenue
B 2021-037
362 Lancaster Street West
B 2021-038
257 Dumfries Avenue
B 2021-039
102 Waterloo Street
`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
Applications for Consent (Continued)
B 2021-040 1170 King Street East, 815 & 825 Weber Street East
B 2021-041 1170 King Street East, 815 & 825 Weber Street East
The above -noted applications are located outside the Grand River Conservation Authority
areas of interest. As such, we will not undertake a review of the applications and plan
review fees will not be required. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact me at 519-621-2763 ext. 2228 or aherremana_grand river. ca.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
From:
To:
Cc:
Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] 926-936 King St E - Committee of Adjustment -A 2021-069
Date:
Saturday, July 3, 20219:38:06 PM
Hi=
Being the old-fashioned sort that I am at times, I was reading the latest Committee of Adjustment
announcement in my paper copy of The Record this week. I noticed that there is an application for
926-936 King St E (between Dane and Borden). The application number is A 2021-069.
It proposes what seem to me to be fairly significant modifications —10 storeys instead of 5 or 6, as
well as the parking requirement reductions. The merits of those changes can be debated, but it
seems like something that should be decided by council, not some committee meeting at 10 am on a
Tuesday in July. Is there a more public process that has or will go one related to this application.
For the record, I am happy to have development on the site, and actually quite like reducing
parking requirements, especially since that project is within sight of the Ion station at Borden and
Charles. Ten storeys seems like quite the steep transition for the houses behind it, though. I thought
the Master Plan idea of unlimited height between King and Borden, but 6 stories or so on the
"north" side of King makes a lot of sense. Also, if there is to be some horse -trading or "bonusing" to
happen here, can we advocate for a reasonable number of three-bedroom units amenable to
families? The site is just down Borden from Sheppard school and Knollwood Park, and the
neighbourhood between King and Weber has a mix of ages, including many school -aged families.
Committee of Adjustment staff: If possible, please enter my email above as remarks to the
committee members. If that is not possible, please register me to speak at the meeting.
Thank you,
M
Kristen Hilborn
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 3:53 PM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Committee of Adjustment / Comments Regarding Application: A 2021-069
Attachments: house.high-rise sketch.png
Contact Information:
Regarding Application: A 2021-069 to be heard July 20, 2021
My name is My husband -and I live at . Our home is to
926 King St ast.
I am writing to express our concerns regarding Application A 2021-069 in which the developer is seeking permission to
construct a multi -residential mixed-use building at 926-936 King Street East with a height of 32m for the building, 35m for
the penthouse, rather than the maximum building height of 19.5m which is the current zoning.
As longtime residents of Dane Street, we recognize and appreciate the need for development and revitalization in the
King East neighbourhood. We were excited when the developer invited us to an information session in April to share their
plans for an apartment complex at the above-mentioned lots. However, when we saw the rendering of the proposed 10 -
story building, we were taken aback.The proposed building is imposing and jarring in relation to our house and the
neighbourhood. At nearly twice the City's current maximum height allowance, it is excessive and out of place.
We reached out to the City's planning department to confirm what the current zoning was and received the following note
from a senior planner:
<< The property is currently zoned MU -2, 541R. While the MU -2 zoning stipulates a maximum building height of 24
metres (approx. 8 storeys), Special Regulation Provision 541R states the following:
Notwithstanding Section 54.2 of this By-law, within the lands zoned MU -2 as shown as affected by this subsection
on Schedules 120, 142, 143 and 174 of Appendix "A", the following special regulations shall apply:
a) the maximum building height shall be 7.5 metres within 16.0 metres of residentially zoned properties;
b) the maximum building height may be increased to 13.5 metres, provided that a minimum setback of 16.0
metres from residentially zoned properties is provided, and
c) the maximum building height shall be 13.5 metres, however, the building height may be increased to a
maximum of 19.5 metres provided that for each additional metre of building height beyond 13.5 metres a
minimum of 0.6 metres of additional setback from residentially zoned properties is provided.
In this regard, the absolute maximum building height would be 19.5 metres (about 6 storeys). Any request to go
higher would require planning approvals (e.g., minor variance or zoning by-law amendment), which would involve
a public process.>>
A structure of the scale and type proposed by the developer is insensitive and inharmonious with the overall character and
aesthetics of the neighbourhood.
The prospect of a building being constructed next to our home, at almost twice the height of current zoning bylaws, is
extremely concerning to us. We are devastated by the negative impact it will have on our privacy, our view, and access to
sky, our light and access to sunlight (three of our windows face 926 King St East, including our kitchen window, which is
considered one of the most important windows in a house).
Given the developer is seeking an allowance to nearly double the maximum zoning height, disregarding proximity to and
impact on the rest of the neighbourhood, this particular application displays a gross indifference towards the residents of
the neighbourhood and towards municipal zoning bylaws that go to considerable lengths to minimize the impact of
shadows and loss of privacy on adjacent land -- bylaws that residents of a city rely on to ensure that light, view, and
privacy can be enjoyed by everyone.
For the reasons stated above my husband and I are strongly opposed to the minor variances requested by the owner of
926-936 King Street East in Application A 2021-069.
Please let us know if there is any further information we can provide.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
7 m
11 - 51" I rr f--rvnin
OW
hvu5