HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2021-168 - ZBA/21/005/H/CD - 210 Heritage Drive - Pioneer Tower Homes Inc.i
Staff Report �T R
Dbvelo n7entServicesDepartment www. kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: November 8, 2021
SUBMITTED BY: Bustamante, Rosa - Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319
PREPARED BY: Dumart, Craig — Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7073
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT: October 6, 2021
REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-168
SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/005/H/CD
210 Heritage Drive
Pioneer Tower Homes Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/005/H/CD for Pioneer Tower Homes Inc.
be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law", and "Map No. 1", attached to
Report DSD -2021-168 as Appendix "A"; and
That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for minor
variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application
ZBA/21/005/H/CD.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to provide a planning recommendation to approve the Zoning By-
law Amendment application for the subject property located at 210 Heritage Drive.
Community engagement included:
o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to owners of property within 120m of the
subject site;
o installation of notice signage on the property;
o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public;
o a Neighbourhood Information Meeting (June 24, 2021);
o small group site walks of the subject lands (August 2021):
o notice letter advising of the public meeting was circulated to all property owners within
120 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation;
and,
o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on October 15, 2021.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The owner of the subject property located at 210 Heritage Drive is requesting a Zoning By-law
Amendment to rezone the subject property from Residential Three Zone R-3 (Zoning By-law 85-1)
to Low Rise Residential Five Zone RES -5 (Zoning By-law 2019-051) with a Site Specific Provision
to further regulate the location of visitor parking, lot width, increased floor space ratio and an
increased minimum visual barrier height. A Site Specific Provision Map is also proposed to restrict
any development of buildings, structures, and fences within the existing mature tree area on the
property.
BACKGROUND
Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. has made an application to the City of Kitchener for a Zoning By-law
Amendment proposing to change the zoning of the subject lands at 210 Heritage Drive to permit the
lands to be developed with multiple residential buildings, in the form of two stacked townhouse blocks
with 26 units in total. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official
Plan and zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. No Official Plan amendment
is required or requested.
Existing zoning permissions include:
• Residential Three Zone (R-3): Permits primarily single detached and duplex dwellings and
detached additional dwelling units.
The subject lands are located on the east side of Heritage Drive, generally west of Lackner Boulevard
and south of Victoria Street North (Figure 1). The property is generally square in shape with an
irregular frontage along Heritage Drive approximately 10.449 metres in width. The subject site is
approximately 63 metres wide, approximately 64 metres deep with an overall area of 0.40 hectares
(0.99 acres). The site is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling and detached garage and
is surrounded by existing low-rise residential uses including single detached dwellings, semi-
detached dwellings, and multiple dwelling buildings.
Figure 1 - Location Map: 210 Heritage Drive
0
SUBJECT
�o s
`gyp 14-y
0
��'
AREA
KGs
NtiP 1�
2
PSE
��
Q �C5F
Figure 1 - Location Map: 210 Heritage Drive
REPORT:
The applicant is proposing to change the zoning of the subject lands at 210 Heritage Drive to permit
the development of two multiple dwelling buildings, including two stacked townhouse blocks, each
building 3 storeys in height with a surface parking lot.
The original development concept included two multiple buildings with 32 residential units and 43
surface parking spaces with a proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75. The original concept
proposed to remove most of the trees on site. Both buildings were to be constructed at 11.5 metres
in height, situated across form each another, directly overlooking onto adjacent residential properties
located on Muskoka Court. Through the application process, staff have worked with the applicant to
amend the proposed design to respond to initial comments with respect to achieving a development
with reduced building heights, reduced massing, and minimal overlook, and a built form that is
compatible with the existing neighbourhood while retaining as many trees as possible on the site.
The revisions made by the applicant are included in Figure 2(below), the revised development
concept and key changes are included in Table 1 (below).
Table 1. Development Concept Comparison Table
Original Development Concept
(December 2020)
Revised Development Concept
(2021)
Building Heights
11.5 metres
11.0 metres
Floor Space Ratio
0.75
0.68
Number of Units
32 residential units
26 residential units
On-site Parking
43
33
Proposed Tree
Removals
78 of the 128 trees on site
43 of the 128 trees on site
I
I
I
1
I
Z
�o
,p.4
Figure 2. Concept Plan for the 26 -unit multiple dwelling development at 210 Heritage Drive.
The proposed development concept includes two stacked townhouse blocks, each building 3 storeys
in height with 26 units in total and surface parking lot containing 33 surface parking spaces. (Figure
2). The buildings are situated to have minimal overlook to adjacent residential properties and allow
for the retention of a significant amount of the mature trees located on the existing property. Staff is
supportive of the proposed development concept.
Planning Analysis:
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020:
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest
related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of
residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable healthy, liveable and safe
communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as
accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with
other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies
promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development,
intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns,
optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the
subject property with a multiple dwelling development that is compatible with the surrounding
community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required
tl
RMCK 8
I,
J25-26
1
Ir
1a�1930 :1 n as K
I
12
S
to
s
I
�
�
F
T
t
..
11l
Z
�o
,p.4
Figure 2. Concept Plan for the 26 -unit multiple dwelling development at 210 Heritage Drive.
The proposed development concept includes two stacked townhouse blocks, each building 3 storeys
in height with 26 units in total and surface parking lot containing 33 surface parking spaces. (Figure
2). The buildings are situated to have minimal overlook to adjacent residential properties and allow
for the retention of a significant amount of the mature trees located on the existing property. Staff is
supportive of the proposed development concept.
Planning Analysis:
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020:
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest
related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of
residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable healthy, liveable and safe
communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as
accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with
other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies
promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development,
intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns,
optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the
subject property with a multiple dwelling development that is compatible with the surrounding
community and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required
for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary
sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands.
Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is consistent with the PPS.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan):
The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed
to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range
and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit
viability and active transportation. The subject lands are in close proximity to transit and the subject
lands directly abut trails and a park.
Policy 2.2.6.1(a) Municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum
intensification and targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and
densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of
current and future residents.
The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area. The proposed development
represents intensification and will contribute towards achieving the City's intensification density
targets. The proposed designation and zoning will support a higher density housing option that will
help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. Planning staff is of
the opinion that the development proposal conforms to the Growth Plan.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the
Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed
development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical
infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development,
including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a
broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to
plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various
physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. Regional staff
have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications (Appendix `C'). Planning
staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan.
City of Kitchener Official Plan:
Urban Structure
The subject lands are located within the `Community Areas' in the City's Urban Structure (Map 2).
The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for residential uses as well as non-residential
supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential areas.
Land Use Designation
The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential and Open Space (Map 3) in the 2014 Official
Plan. The Low Rise Residential land use designation permits a full range of low density housing
types which may include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, street townhouse
dwellings, and low-rise multiple dwellings. The Low Rise Residential land use designation considers
a Floor Space Ratio up to 0.75 and allows a maximum building height of 3 storeys or 11 metres.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning conforms with Low Rise Residential land
use designation and an Official Plan Amendment is not required.
Transportation
The Official Plan provides for an integrated transportation system which incorporates active
transportation, allows for the movement of people and goods and promotes a vibrant, healthy
community using land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a wide range of
transportation choices viable. The Official Plan encourages the increased use of public transit, and
endeavors to ensure that the maximum walking distance to a transit stop will not exceed 450 metres
for residences, places of employment and community facilities. The Official Plan contains policies
that ensures that transit -supportive redevelopment is within a comfortable walking distance of the
transit stop.
Planning staff notes that the subject site is approximately 200 metres from a transit stop located at
the near intersection of Halifax Drive and Natchez Road that provides connections to the broader
Waterloo Region transit system. The proposed development that is proximate to a transit corridor
helps achieve this objective in the Official Plan.
Urban Design
The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making
to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban design
is a vital component of city planning and goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of individual
buildings and also considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of
strengthening complete communities.
Urban Design policies in the 2014 Official Plan support creating visually distinctive and identifiable
places, structures and spaces that contribute to a strong sense of place and community pride, a
distinct character and community focal points that promote and recognize excellence and innovation
in architecture, urban design, sustainable building design and landscape design. The City will
require high quality urban design in the review of all development applications through the
implementation of the policies of the Official Plan and the City's Urban Design Manual. The
orientation of the buildings, the increased minimum visual barrier height and retained trees on site
will minimize impacts on adjacent residential properties.
Housing
The City's primary objective with respect to housing in the Official Plan is to provide for an
appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to
satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. To ensure that new
residential areas and the redevelopment of lands for residential uses and residential infill projects
reflect a high standard of urban design. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment increases the
range of dwelling units available in the city and the proposed development offers modern stacked
townhouse units that reflect a high standard of urban design. The proposed development is a
compatible low rise residential use that is appropriate for the neighbourhood.
Policy Conclusion
Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with
policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good
planning.
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment:
The subject lands are currently zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1.
The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051 to
change the zoning on the lands as follows (and further detailed and shown on Map No.1):
Area 1: From Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1 to Low Rise Residential
Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision 184 in Zoning By-law 2019-051.
Official Plan policies in section 4.C.1.8. indicate that where special zoning regulations are requested
for residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the site specific
zoning regulations will consider compatibility with existing built form; appropriate massing and
setbacks that support and maintain streetscape and community character; appropriate buffering to
mitigate adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy; avoidance of unacceptable adverse
impacts by providing appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity
area.
Staff offer the following comments with respect to the proposed Site Specific Provision (184)
a) On-site visitor parking shall be permitted within the front yard.
The purpose of this regulation is to allow for on-site visitor parking to be located within the
front yard. Due to the irregular shape, frontage and orientation of the proposed buildings, the
proposed visitor parking is located within the front yard. Landscaping is required to screen
the parking to minimize any visual impacts from the street.
b) That the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 0.68.
The purpose of this regulation is to cap the Floor Space Ratio and ensure development does
not exceed the density presented in the revised concept plan (Figure 2). Any floor space ratio
above 0.75 would require an Official Plan Amendment. 0.68 is within the limit of the Low Rise
Residential land use designation.
c) That the minimum front yard lot width shall be 17.0 metres.
The purpose of this regulation is to legalize the existing front yard lot width of the subject
lands. 210 Heritage Drive is irregular in shape at the front of the property along Heritage
Drive. The purpose of the lot width regulation is to ensure lots are wide enough for multiple
dwelling developments. Staff are satisfied that the subject property is large enough to support
the proposed multiple dwelling development.
d) That the minimum and maximum height of the required visual barrier shall be 2.44
metres.
The purpose of this regulation is to increase the required visual barrier height to reduce visual
impacts of the proposed development and screen the surface parking lot from adjacent low
rise residential properties. This is directly in response to community comments.
e) No buildings, fences or structures (including decks, terraces, balconies or major storm
water management structures and pipes) shall be located within Area 1 of Site Specific
Provision Map 184.
The intent of this regulation is to ensure the development does not impact the existing mature
treed area located on the subject lands identified in area 1. This regulation restricts any
development or alterations within area 1 of the Site Specific Provision Map.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed RES -5 Zone together with Site Specific Provision 184 will
provide for a form of development that is compatible with the neighbourhood, appropriately
accommodates on-site parking needs, and represents good planning. Staff recommend that the
proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Appendix "A".
Department and Agency Comments:
Preliminary circulation of the Zoning By-law amendment was undertaken on May 5, 2021 to
applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any
commenting City department or agency. Additional consideration will be addressed through the site
development approval process. A consolidation of comments is attached as Appendix `C' of this
report.
The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By-law
amendment:
• Planning Justification Report
Prepared by: GSP Group, March 2021
• Urban Design Report
Prepared by: GSP Group, March 2021
• Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Design
Prepared by: GM Blue Plan, March 2021
• Transportation Impact, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Justification Study
Prepared by: Salvini Consultation, December 2020
• Tree Management Plan
Prepared by: GSP Group, October 2020 (Revised September 2021)
Community Input & Staff Responses
Staff received written responses from 28 residents with respect to the proposed development. These
may be found in Appendix `E'. A Neighbourhood Information Meeting was held on June 24, 2021
and was attended by 64 residents. In addition, staff had follow up one-on-one correspondence with
members of the public and led a small group site walks of the subject lands. A summary of what we
heard, and staff responses are noted below.
What We Heard
Staff Comment
The buildings and parking lot
The location of the buildings have been revised and are
overlook into nearby homes and
now situated to have minimal overlook into adjacent
backyards results in decreased
properties. In addition, the site specific regulation is
privacy for homeowners.
required for a 8ft high (2.44 metre) visual barrier (fence) to
screen the surface parking lot from adjacent properties.
The original development proposal included 32 residential
Too many units are being proposed.
units and the concept plan included removing most of the
trees on site. The revised proposed concept includes 26
residential units and a majority of the trees on site are
being retained and protected through Zoning
regulations/Site Specific Map.
The original proposal was for 11.5 metre high stacked
townhouses. The applicant has decreased the building
The proposed buildings are too tall
heights to 11.0 which is permitted as of right in the RES -5
and do not fit into the
zone. 11.0 metres is the same permitted height for single
neighbourhood.
detached and semi-detached dwellings. There are other
multiple residential buildings across the street that are 3.5
storeys in height.
A Site Specific Map will restrict the development of
The removal of all of the trees will
buildings, structures, fences and major storm water
result in privacy issues. What
management structures and pipes within the existing treed
measures can be done to ensure all
area on the subject lands. This Site Specific Provision will
ensure the existing trees are not removed or impacted by
of the trees are not removed?
the development. Additional tree savings are now
proposed with the revised development concept.
Wildlife and birds will lose their
The City imposes timing restrictions on tree removals so
nesting grounds and habitat. What
that they occur outside of the breeding bird season. Tree
wildlife protection will be considered
removals can occur when a nesting survey is done and no
to protect nesting grounds?
nests are found.
Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the
sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands
Are there services available for the
and that they have no concerns with the proposed
proposed development? Will the
development. Storm Water Management will be reviewed
development create more flooding
through the site plan process. The City's storm water policy
and storm water issues?
requires the management of pre-existing to post
development on the site. Additionally, the first 12.5 mm of
rain needs to be retained on site.
The proposed parking rate of 1.27 spaces per unit exceeds
the minimum parking requirement of 1.1 spaces per unit in
Not enough parking is being
Zoning By-law 2019-051. In addition, adequate on-site
provided onsite.
visitor parking is being provided in accordance with the
Zoning By-law.
Halifax Drive and Heritage Drive have current volumes
below, or on the low end on what is expected on a minor
The increase in density will result in
collector street. Based on Institute Transportation
traffic congestion on local streets
Engineers (ITE) trip generation estimates this site will add
and at intersections. The
approximately 15 new vehicle trips in the AM peak, and 18
development will result in a
vehicle trips in the PM peak, or about 1 car every 3 to 4
significant increase in traffic
minutes during afternoon and morning rush hour. Currently
there are about 300 trips during rush hour on Heritage
resulting in unsafe conditions for
Drive, so the added vehicles from this site would be about
drivers and children.
a 5% increase.
From a transportation perspective, this is a very small
change. With a very high level of certainly we can
determine that this street can accommodate the additional
trips projected to be accommodated by this development.
Figure 3. Updated Tree Management Plan (Trees in green will be retained)
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law amendment as amended
through the review of the application. The revised concept plan has addressed community concerns
by retaining trees, orienting the buildings to minimalize overlook impacts and will require an
increased visual barrier to adjacent residential properties. Staff is of the opinion that the subject
applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official
Plan and represent good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved.
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
Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding
the application posted to the City's website in the spring of 2021. Following the initial circulation
referenced below, an additional courtesy notice of the public meeting was circulated to all property
owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and
®
EM
BLOCK Bc
i�
Im
�99
IM
-_�
Im
GIB
HALIFAX
DRIVE
d 1��
LL
Figure 3. Updated Tree Management Plan (Trees in green will be retained)
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law amendment as amended
through the review of the application. The revised concept plan has addressed community concerns
by retaining trees, orienting the buildings to minimalize overlook impacts and will require an
increased visual barrier to adjacent residential properties. Staff is of the opinion that the subject
applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official
Plan and represent good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved.
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
Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding
the application posted to the City's website in the spring of 2021. Following the initial circulation
referenced below, an additional courtesy notice of the public meeting was circulated to all property
owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and
Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in The Record on October 15, 2021 (a copy of the Notice
may be found in Appendix `B').
CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was originally circulated to property owners
within 120 metres of the subject lands on May 5, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received
written responses from 28 residents, which are included in Appendix `D'.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
• Growth Plan, 2020
• Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
• Regional Official Plan
• City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1
• City of Kitchener Official Plan 2014
REVIEWED BY: Stevenson, Garett — Manager of Development Review, Planning Division
APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services
APPENDIX&
Appendix A
— Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Appendix B
— Newspaper Notice
Appendix C
— Department and Agency Comments
Appendix D
— Public Comments
PROPOSED BY — LAW
2021
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended and By-
law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-laws for
the City of Kitchener
— 210 Heritage Inc. — 210 Heritage Drive)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the
lands specified above;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as
follows:
1. Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by
removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on
Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto.
2. Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended
by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto.
3. Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further
amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the
City of Kitchener, attached hereto, and by zoning the Area 1 lands thereafter as Low Rise
Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision 184.
4. Schedule Number 226 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further
amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached
hereto.
5. Section 19 to By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (184) thereto as
follows:
184. Notwithstanding Sections 4.18, 5.3.3, and 7.3, Table 7- 6 of this By-law within the
lands zoned RES -5 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule
Number 226 of Appendix "A", the following special regulations shall apply:
a) On-site visitor parking shall be permitted within the front yard.
b) Maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 0.68.
c) Minimum front yard lot width shall be 17.0 metres.
d) Minimum and maximum height of the required visual barrier shall be 2.44
metres.
e) No buildings, fences or structures (including decks, terraces, balconies or
major storm water management structures and pipes) shall be located within
Area 1 shown on Figure 1 hereto.
Figure 1: Site Specific Provision Map (184)
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2021.
Mayor
Clerk
2.5 m SETBACK
PROPERTIP LINE
RES -5
U
U
(184)
1
0
RETAINING
WALL
Z
HAUFAX DR
m
PROTECTIVE
FENCING
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2021.
Mayor
Clerk
INS -1
�\
v
N
N
SUBJECT AREA(S)
W MPS
ss�
s
�'
AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 85-1 AND BY-LAW
2019-051
OCG\PN
AREA 1 -
y'
FROM RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONE (R-3)
'
UNDER BY-LAW 85-1
TO LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE (RES -5)
UNDER BY-LAW 2019-051
S_ DULE188
' OSR -2
F
S_
WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (184)
_ _ _ _ _ _
___
_ _ _ _
_UL _ _ _ _
_
SCHEDULE 189
SCHED 2
i
i
N
BY-LAW 85-1
R-3 RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONE
RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE
INS -1R-4
y�
C)
N
R-6 RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE
2
R-9 RESIDENTIAL NINE ZONE
AREA1
BY-LAW 2019-051
INS -1 NEIGHBOURHOOD INSTITUTIONAL ZONE
OSR-2 OPEN SPACE: GREENWAYS ZONE
RES -5 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE
Go
R-9
C�
ZONE GRID REFERENCE
SCHEDULE NO. 226
�=
Q
OF APPENDIX'A'
OSR-2
ti V
'A
KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051
�f5
ZONE LIMITS
Q -3 -3
INS -1 '
MAP NO. 1 0 50 100 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/005/H/CD
METRES OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT N/A
210 HERITAGE INC. SCALE 1:4,000 FILE:
City of Kitchener ZBA21005HCD_MAP1
210 HERITAGE DR DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2021
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING mxd
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
210 Heritage Drive
Have Your Voice Heard!
Date: November8,2021
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
To view the staff report, agenda,
meeting details or to
appear as a delegation, visit:
kitchenenca/meetings
y For more information about this
Concept drawing application, includingyour
appeal rights, visit:
000 www.kitchener.ca/
planningapplications
or contact:
3 -storey 33 Surface Craig Dumart, Senior Planner
Stacked 26 units Parkings 519.741.2200 x 7073
Townhouses Spaces craig.dumart@kitchener.ca
The owner of the subject property located at 210 Heritage Drive is proposing a
Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject property from Residential
Three Zone R-3 (Zoning By-law 85-1) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone RES -5
(Zoning By-law 2019-051) with a Site Specific Provision to address the location
of visitor parking, lot width, increased floor space ratio and an increased
minimum visual barrier height. A Site Specific Provision Map is also proposed to
restrict any development of buildings, structures, and fences within the existing
nature tree area on the property.
Craig Dumart
From:
Niall Melanson
Sent:
Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:35 AM
To:
'Sarah Primmer - GM BluePlan'
Cc:
Angela Mick; Craig Dumart
Subject:
210 Heritage Drive, ZBA21/005/H/CD - Engineering comments from servicing report
Hello Sarah
Thank you for the servicing report. KU has advised that the water supply/demand section is acceptable and Engineering
has confirmed that the existing downstream sanitary infrastructure can carry the proposed increased sanitary flows.
Please be advised that the sanitary minimum full flow velocity is 0.8m/s so the pipe slope or size will need to be
increased when leaving the site. This can be addressed during detailed design. The stormwater design was not reviewed
and will be so during detailed design for Site Plan Approval.
Engineering has no concerns with the proposed ZBA.
Thanks
Niall Melanson, C.E.T.
Engineering Technologist I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 Ext. 7133 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 niall.melanson@kitchener.ca
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
Address: 210 Heritage Drive
Owner: Pioneer Tower Homes Inc.
Application #: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/005/H/CD
Comments Of: City of Kitchener — Environmental Planning
Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman
Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7068
Date of Comments: September 23, 2021
1. Documents Reviewed:
• Tree Management Plan (Dwg. L0.0), Tree Inventory Chart (Dwg. LOA), Tree Protection Details
and Notes (Dwg. L0.2), Landscape Enhancement Plan (Dwg. L1.0) and Details (Dwg. L2.0). REV
Mar 22/21. GSP Group.
• 210 Heritage Drive, Kitchener, Zoning By -low AmendmentZBA21/005/H/CD, Response to
Circulation Comments (Date: September 1, 2021)
2. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
I have reviewed the supplementary information (as listed above) to support a Zoning By Law Amendment
to rezone 210 Heritage Drive from R-3 to R-6 to permit the construction of a 26 -unit stacked townhouse
development (multiple dwellings) with surface parking, noting the existing dwelling will be demolished
and provide the following:
• Although, the existing topography and mature trees on the site are challenging it appears the
proposal (Tree Management Plan) has retained as many trees as possible.
• It is recommended that a site-specific zoning provision be applied to protect the treed portion of
the property.
• A detailed review of tree protection fencing locations, site grading and servicing, and stormwater
management will be undertaken at the time of the Site Plan Application.
3. Policies, Standards and Resources:
• As per Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests of the Official Plan ...
o policy 8.C.2.16., the City requires the preparation and submission of a tree management plan
in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), as a
condition of a development application.
o policy 8.C.2.6., the City will incorporate existing and/or new trees into the streetscape or road
rights-of-way and encourage new development or redevelopment to incorporate, protect and
conserve existing healthy trees and woodlands in accordance with the Urban Design Policies
in Section 13 (Landscape and Natural Features) of the Urban Design Manual (UDM) and the
Development Manual.
o Please see UDM Part C, Section 13 and www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement for detailed
submission requirements
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 1 of 2
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
4. Anticipated Fees:
• N/A
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 2 of 2
Craig Dumart
From: Lenore Ross
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 10:12 AM
To: Craig Dumart
Cc: Carrie Musselman
Subject: RE: Heritage Drive - Updated TMP
Hi Craig,
The revised TMP still shows some proposed work within the tree protection zone of city -owned trees ( retaining wall and
swale along plan north property line). Work within tree protection zones of on-site, privately owned trees is also shown
(storm retention outflow and likely retaining wall construction).
The plan is sufficient for Parks clearance for the ZBA to proceed BUT the site plan and subordinate plans including the
TMP will need to be revised to show no work within the tree protection zone.
Lenore
Lenore Ross MSc, MCIP, RPP
Parks Planning and Development Project Manager
Design & Development I Parks and Cemeteries I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext 7427 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Lenore. Ross@Kitchener.ca
Discover nature in the city: www.kitchener.ca/parks
A City for Everyone — Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
0 mar e 0 0 0
From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 202112:23 PM
To: Carrie Musselman <Carrie.Musselman@kitchener.ca>; Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: Heritage Drive - Updated TMP
Have the revised documents addressed your concerns ?
Craig
From: Kristen Barisdale <kbarisdale@gspgroup.ca>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 202110:51 AM
To: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Carrie Musselman <Carrie.Musselman@kitchener.ca>; Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Heritage Drive - Updated TMP
Hi all,
There was some further tweaks to the TMP and the grading/servicing has now been finalized — see attached.
Craig Dumart
From: Mike Seiling
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 12:21 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive)
Attachments: department & agency letter - 210 Heritage Drive.pdf, ZBA21005HCD_MAP1.pdf
Hi Craig,
Hope you are well. Miss seeing you at CH.
Building; no concerns with this development application.
Mike
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 202112:19 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood
<theywood@grand river.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandrive r.ca>; GRCA
(South Kitchener) - Jenn Simons <jsimons@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One -
Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine
Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper
<Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation
<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk
<Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data
Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven. Ryder@ kitchener.ca>; UW - SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>;
WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning
<planning@wrdsb.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, Planner (copied on this
email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchen er.ca
City of Kitchener
COMMENT FORM
Address: 210 Heritage Drive
Owner: Pioneer Tower Homes Inc.
Application #: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/005/H/CD
Comments Of: City of Kitchener — Environmental Planning
Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman
Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7068/
Date of Comments: June 1, 2021 i//
111 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discus % fL� ��� j
❑x No meeting to be held %/
❑ 1 do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)�/�i�°�i,��
1.
)mitted and reviewed
•
Sustainability Statement, 210 Heritage Drive, Kitchener; Onti o. D cember 20, 2021. GSP Group.
/ �%iii
� of
2. Comments & Issues:
�p / ipi0/ iii
I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above)to support a Zoning By Law Amendment to rezone
210 Heritage Drive from R-3 to R -6j to permit the ;construction of a 26 -unit stacked townhouse
development (multiple dwellings)., ith surfA parking, noting the existing dwelling will be demolished
G
regarding Sustainability and Energy--;Conservatiorvan.d'provide the following:
• As construction plansl�not beenfitnali"zed, and an updated sustainability statement will need to
be provided through„the,/s'i%e. plan process.
• Based on my review the. Sustainability Statement provided in support of the Zoning Bylaw
Amend mentAs°acceptable.
3. Conditions of,.Site
For Sitepla'h'�pplications, a Sustainability Study (as per the City's Terms of Reference) will be
'required„with an emphasis on demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the City (Planning), how
11
energy isbeing conserved or low energy generated.
o Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is progressive, going forward all developments
will need to include energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo)
strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target.
o It is recommended that the applicant explore programs or measures best suited to the
site and development that go beyond the OBC to further energy conservation, generation,
operation and would benefit future residents / tenants.
o Program certification is not required but is encouraged. Programs (or components of) that
could be explored are:
A City for Everyone
Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully— Building Community
■ Energy Star (20% / 15% more efficient then OBC)
■ R-2000 (50% more efficient then OBC),
■ Net Zero Ready (80% more efficient then OBC)
■ Net Zero (100% more efficient then OBC)
■ LEED (equivalency rating would be sufficient if not seeking certification)
4. Policies. Standards and Resources:
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.4. Development applications will be required,1' emonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City, through the completion of a Sustainability Rep6rt/Che klist in
accordance with the Complete Application Requirements Policies in Section" 17.E.10 that the
�m l iM/W -
proposal meets the sustainable development policies of the Plan- an <tha , ,sustainable
development design standards are achieved.
j
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development ,%the City will encourage
orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum,southerly exposures. Such
orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applicationswill be r.,equired to demonstrate,
o,
to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved gr low energy generated. Such studies
may include, but not limited to an Energy Conservation Efficiency Study, a Feasibility Study for
i.,, !ii:
Renewable or Alternative Energy Systems, Distrrct��leatirjg" Feasibility Study, and the completion
ff ii , ii,,,
of a Sustainability Report/Checklist in accordance with theComplete Application Requirements
Policies in Section 17.E.10. 'M °oii�� Pell
• The Sustainability Statement Terms,pf,,,Refe'rence'%;ean be found on the City's website under
Planning Resources at ...
o https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN Sustainability_
Statement Standard Terms of%Reference. df
5. Anticipated Fees:;, 0
j0444,;
0/ i/„/,
Unknown
7/b,
i
A City for Everyone
Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Craig Dumart
From: Michelle Drake
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 12:45 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Cc: Victoria Grohn
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive)
Attachments: department & agency letter - 210 Heritage Drive.pdf; ZBA21005HCD_MAP1.pdf
No heritage planning concerns.
Michelle
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 202112:19 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA (North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood
<theywood@grandriver.ca>; GRCA (South Kitchener) - Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengeIly@grandrive r.ca>; GRCA
(South Kitchener) - Jenn Simons <jsimons@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg. Reitzel @ kitchener.ca>; Hydro One -
Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine
Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper
<Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation
<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk
<Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data
Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven. Ryder@ kitchener.ca>; UW - SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>;
WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning
<planning@wrdsb.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, Planner (copied on this
email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
Craig Dumart
From:
Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>
Sent:
Thursday, May 06, 2021 1:06 PM
To:
Craig Dumart
Cc:
Jenn Simons
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive)
Hey Craig,
210 Heritage Drive is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment.
Thanks,
Trevor Heywood I Resource Planner
Grand River Conservation Authority
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 202112:19 PM
To: Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Dave
Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division
<DSDPlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; Chris
Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengelly@grandrive r.ca>; Jenn Simons <jsimons@grand river.ca>; Greg Reitzel
<Greg. Reitzel @ kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson
<Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron
<gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>;
Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM)
<Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk <Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning
<PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>;
Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; UW - SA
<Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary
(elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - ZBA (210 Heritage Drive)
Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Craig Dumart, Planner (copied on this
email).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchen er.ca
Craig Dumart
From: Dave Seller
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 11:03 AM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT COMMENTS: 210 Heritage Drive
City of Kitchener
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT COMMENTS
Project Address: 210 Heritage Drive
Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment
Comments Of: Transportation Services
Commenter's Name: Dave Seller
Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369
Date of Comments: May 14, 2021
After reviewing the Transportation Impact, Transportation Demand Management and Parking Justification Study
(December 2020) submitted by Salvini Consulting, Transportation Services offer the following comments.
The site is estimated to generate less than 20 vehicle trips in either the AM or PM peak hours, which will have
minimal impact on the surrounding road network. Also, Heritage Drive is estimated under future traffic conditions to
have approximately 3110 vehicles per day. This includes Heritage Drive and site development traffic and falls
between the designed operating traffic volumes for a Minor Collector roadway of 2000 to 5000 vehicles per day.
The proposed parking rates for this development follow the intent of the City of Kitchener future zoning by-law and
visitor parking will be accommodated on-site for this development.
The report referenced additional on-site bicycle parking above the minimum requirement, existing GRT services and
pedestrian walkability, each encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation, which the City of Kitchener is
supportive of.
Therefore, based on the rational, proxy site data collection and analysis, Transportation Services can support the
parking reduction being proposed by Salvini Consulting.
Dave Seller, C.E.T.
Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller( kitchener.ca
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
Address: 210 Heritage Drive
Owner: Pioneer Tower Homes Inc.
Application #: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/005/H/CD
Comments Of: City of Kitchener — Urban Design- Planning
Commenter's Name: Pegah Fahimian
Email: Pegah.fahimian@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7342
Date of Comments: June 21, 2021
131 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) /„
/o.
❑X No meeting to be held,,
0
❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
1. Documents Reviewed:
o %
• Urban Design Brief, 210 Heritage Drive. March 2021 (Revised). GSP,G;roith�Peg Orchard
Design Studio Inc. %!/,,
• Tree Management Plan (Dwg. L0.0), Tree Inventory Chart (Mg.'110.1) Tree Protection Details
and Notes (Dwg. L0.2 ,
• Landscape Enhancement Plan (Dwg. L1.0) and Details41
(avug. L2yQ).FtEV Mar 22/21. GSP Group.
2. Site -Specific Comments & Issues:
worI have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support "a Zoning By -Law Amendment to rezone
210 Heritage Drive from R-3 to R-6 to permit the l onstruction of a 26 -unit stacked townhouse
development (multiple dwellings) with surface,pa"r"king. There are some design modifications that must
be addressed for the site plan appliction processto ensure the project fits in the context of the
neighbourhood as detailed below:
• Much of the perimeter and
eastern and northern portion of the site is heavily treed
and with the proposed site Ibyo'C'ft, a significant amount of on-site vegetation is likely to be removed.
This will negatively impact,the"remaining vegetation on adjacent private lands and Georgian park;
Consider designs to keep'some of the existing trees, such as maximizing the setback from the east
side and back'of property lines that do not interfere with the existing trees.
•
Where,a,functionaI back yard is provided in an interior yard, adequate interior yard setback should
be"rovid�ed.�d'dditionally, a landscaped setback between the property line and the proposed patio
should be``provided to allow for privacy screening. The proposed western side yard is less than what
is typically provided for a functional rear yard. Considering the siting requirements for infiltration
galleries and swale, there will be insufficient space to provide the required 1.5m buffers and
plantings; this yard setback should be increased.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 1 of 3
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
• Shared outdoor amenity space is to be provided at grade. Please keep in mind the minimum space
requirements for multiple residential developments (2sq.m x # Units) + (2.5 sq.m x # bedrooms- #
units) = Outdoor Amenity Space. Please see Urban Design Manual for further requirements.
• Minimize the visual impact of parking through the thoughtful placement, orientation, and
articulation of built form. Locate proposed accessible surface parking away from the public street
frontage, preferably at the rear of the building and internal to the site. �i�
• All utility locations including meter room and transformer room to be shown on the layout. J/00,rN b.
Building -mounted or ground-based AC units should be located away from publR�uiew%and fully
screened, Otherwise, screen these elements visually with landscaping and architectural features
that are integrated into the building design as a whole.i,,
• Provide additional separation between units #17, #18 and Block A. Consider design strategies to
mitigate the privacy concerns.
• Preliminary Floor plans and building unit breakdown should bnrovided.
i
Via,
3. Comments on Submitted Documents
The following comments should be addressed at this°;time.
1) Tree Management Plan:Wo
• Due to the location of the propged"'fe.taining wall, there were many existing trees proposed for
removal. Provide add itional,information regarding the construction of the proposed retaining wall
and its heights,. Additiona
retaining wall to ' nim.ize
• written pe
reauired
ion measures to be considered for the construction of the
impact on the on-site vegetation.
removal of or impact to trees in joi
• There -;are numerous trees on the site and adjacent properties that must be adequately protected
`throughout demolition, grading and construction; the driplines of these trees may impact the limit
ofAeveloprrient for the subject property.
• The'Tree Protection Fencing should be extended along the entire west and north property lines at
dripline + 1m to provide sufficient protection to all trees.
• For safety reasons, additional information and confirmation should be provided for trees in poor
condition (Condition 4 or 5) that have been proposed to be retained.
• A revised Tree Management Plan is required.
A City for Everyone
Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 2 of 3
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
2) Landscape Enhancement Plan:
3)
Provide details of the proposed retaining wall including the proposed height and material.
All Utilities should be coordinated with the landscape design and with building elevations to provide
a high-quality pedestrian experience within the site and from the public realm.
Please show all fencing, bollards, access control gates and site furniture on the landscape plan and
provide appropriate details
A visual barrier of 1.8m will be required where parking is adjacent to residential land use's'
% D%�%,
i
Urban Design Brief:
PDF - Building Materials and articulation:,,,,r,
r
• Full -colour renderings specifying all materials and colours are require
db,
r ''%>.
• Design all building elevations facing the trails and open spareSo";appear and function as fronts,
including features such as porches, front doors and Iargeyf ndoGus. the elevations facing the
trail and Georgian park are highly visible from the public realm; enhanced building articulation,
large windows and comparable materials to the principal fa ade'will be expected on this
elevation. // /
• All visible elements of a building, including utilities (rr%ters, conduits), HVAC (a/c units, vents)
ori t
and loading/servicing areas are to be integrated intio the design of the building and shown on
elevation drawings as part of the buildings l vation approval process. Utility meters should be
%i.
located within building niches or onjbternal end walls of townhouse blocks and screened.
rAFOR7,
/�
• Incorporate windows clerestory glas�/and sidelights into entrance designs to encourage
'%,, '
natural surveillance and give permeability to the building facade. Avoid clustering opaque doors
to units close together o'rwithout glazing between them providing natural surveillance.
i
r
A City for Everyone
Working Together— Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 3 of 3
Craig Dumart
From: Alberta Piche
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:15 AM
To: Craig Dumart
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive Kitchener, ON
Dear Mr Dumart,
I am a community member residing within the 120 meters of the proposed zoning change to 210 Heritage Drive
property.
My home is located directly behind this said property, and would be impacted by this re zoning change.
I am in receipt of the community member letter issued to the developer dated 05May 2021 with the brief proposed
zoning by-law amendment contained in the letter.
I am writing to request the complete Application for Zoning By -Law Amendment made by Pioneer Tower Inc., This would
provide transparency and clarity with respect to the proposed re zoning.
I await your response in this very important manner.
My contact information is:
Alberta Piche )N
Email :
Iphonf.
Home phone
Regards,
Alberta Piche
Craig Dumart
From: Jameson Hyde >
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2021 3:51 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: Notice of Zoning By-law Amendment - 210 Heritage Drive
Attachments: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png;
image006.png; image007.png; image008.png; image009.png; image011.png;
image012.png; image013.png; image014.png; image015.png; image016.png;
image017.png; image018.png; image019.png; image010.png; image020.png;
image021.png; image022.png; image023.png; image024.png; image025.png;
image026.png; image027.png
Thanks Craig,
A more complete set of concerns will follow, but one major concern we have is regarding the tree plan. We note among
others that tree 586 is marked for removal. This appears to be on our property line
More generally, even if trees are retained, what is the likelihood that trees will survive?
We've spoken to Reep Green Solutions, regarding sugar maples, and they indicated that the fragile shallow roots are
wide spread and so very likely to be impacted by construction or erosion. I would hope there are assurances or even
penalties that trees will in fact be retained over time after the development is complete.
Anyway. I appreciate some insight into this, but will discuss further as more information becomes available.
Thanks again
On Thu., May 6, 2021, 19:12 Craig Dumart, <Craig.Duma rt@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Jameson,
In Addition to my previous email the circulation letter included a link to Current Planning and Development
Consultations:
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/planning-and-development-consultations.aspx this page takes you to the main
development page and on the right hand side you can select current planning applications which takes you to our new
Planning Applications story maps page with all our planning current applications. I just checked and the site was down
for maintenance but should be up and running tomorrow early AM.
I have attached additional information on the application for your review. We will be holding a Neighbourhood Meeting
in late June where the application will be presented to the public followed by a q and a discussion.
Have a great evening.
Craig Dumart
From: Owen Cowles
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 4:33 PM
To: Planning (SM); Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive
In regards to:
Address: 210 HERITAGE DR
Application Number: ZBA21/005/H/CD
Application Type: Zoning By -Law Amendment
Good Afternoon,
My name is Owen Cowles, and I live at along with my wife
Roxanne and two children, Shelby and Nolan.
We have enjoyed living in this area of Kitchener for over 20 years.
We raised our family here, and love the natural areas that surround our home.
When we first became aware of this development and application for a zone change,
we were very alarmed to say the least.
Being avid nature -lovers, we are delighted on a regular basis by what surrounds us.
We very much enjoy seeing several different species of birds and animals, along with
all the beautiful trees, plants and wild flowers. This is what attracted us to the area, along
with the fact that the neighbourhood primarily consisted of single-family dwellings.
I am all for providing new, affordable, innovative housing for the residents of Kitchener,
and I do not believe that this project demonstrates any of those characteristics.
I feel that the environmental impacts, as well as the sightline issues of building
2 huge 3 -story buildings, to replace a small 1 -level single family home should be rejected..
Myself, my Family and several neighbours share this sentiment, and oppose this application
for a zone -change and also oppose the proposed plan to build such massive townhouses.
There are several reasons for opposing this zone -change and townhouse project.
A lot of the reasons, in my opinion should be fairly obvious to anyone who is familiar
with the busy corner that this property is situated on. (parking/traffic/noise/snow removal etc)
Other reasons will be expressed at future meetings, as there are too many to list here.
Please reconsider changing this property's zoning, and allowing such a huge development
on such an unsuitable plot of land.
Thank you
Owen Cowles and Family
Craig Dumart
From: PAUL OBERHOLZER <
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 9:18 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Re:Re-Zoning Application for 210 Heritage Drive
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Oberholzer <
To: "scott.davey@kitchener.ca" <scott.davey@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021, 05:48:30 p.m. EST
Subject: Re:Re-Zoning Application for 210 Heritage Drive
Dear Mr Davey,
As a life time resident of Kitchener Waterloo I am vehemently opposed to a re -zoning application for 210 Heritage Drive. I
live a and my backyard is right next to the property in consideration. My recently passed wife and I
have lived here for over 30 years. We raised our 2 boys here and they attended Canadian Martyrs School and Grand
River High School. My wife grew up on Marketa Crescent and attended Canadian Martyrs and St Mary's High School.
She grew up playing in the woods behind our house.
This proposed development does not fit the residential neighbourhood. The increase of people, cars, traffic and removal
of many trees is not appropriate. With so many declining green spaces the removal of these older trees is devastating. We
should be planting trees and having green spaces not mowing them down and laying brick and ashphalt.
Over the years we have had issues with people in the woods behind our house late at night, with more people I can only
see this getting worse.
For a city showing concern for its residents this application should be hastily disapproved. There is no reason for this
development to occur. As you live in the area I'm sure you are familiar with the location. Years ago there was a tragic
accident right at the turn, with more cars and people this is more apt to occur again. For residents on Muskoka Court, I
cannot even see how this could be developed without having a huge impact on their homes.
So I implore you to have the city reject this re zoning application. Any developer with any caring would obviously see this
is not appropriate for this area/location.
Yours truly,
Pnid Oharhnlzer
Craig Dumart
From: SPCA Community Development <development@spcakitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 10:01 AM
To: rossjessop@rogers.com
Cc: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 210 Heritage Drive Updates
Hi Ross,
I have forwarded your questions to the City planner for the project, Craig. He is included on this email.
Thanks,
Chris
Forwarded message
From: Home JESSOP
Date: Mon, May 10, 2021 at 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: 210 Heritage Drive Updates
To: SPCA Community Development <development@spcakitchener.ca>
Good day.
What environmental studies have been done? There are several red tailed hawks that now have nests in the
treed area. How will other nature/animals be affected by this development.
With over 70% of homes having two vehicles where will these vehicles be parked, will the bylaws affect the
parking restrictions on local streets? Have the local stores/landlords/schools been asked what they will do with
cars that are parked on their property overnight. Where are these vehicles going to park during the winter when
no parking on streets is allowed? What are the accommodations for guest parking for this development? How
are the additional water, sewer, hydro, fire hydrants and cable requirements going to be dealt with and who is
going to pay for these needed upgrades? What is the emergency response access to the property? According
to the plans there will be multi level buildings in the development how is a fire ladder truck going to respond to
an emergency in this parking lot?
will be looking for a written response/plan of action from the city on how they will deal with these concerns.
Thank you
Ross Jessop
Craig Dumart
From: Ed Dyck
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 8:16 PM
To: Craig Dumart; Chris Letizi; Scott Davey
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive
May 13 2021
LETTER OF OPPOSITION
Ed and Alice, residents of Kitchener are opposing the proposed rezoning and development of the
property at 210 Heritage Drive.
The plan to develop this site is not consistent with the broader intent of the neighbourhood that is designated R3.
Multiple -family residences tend to be clustered together in large developments near other dense land uses, such as
commercial and office,as opposed to being scattered throughout neighbourhoods; multiple family
residences are typically, physically and visually isolated from single-family residences; it is the goal of the Planning
Commission of the City of Kitchener to preserve existing neighbourhoods.
Our opposition is also based on these potential and probable negative effects.
1 The loss of neighbourhood and community character
2 A decrease in the market value of our home
3 Increased traffic congestion adding to an already dangerous situation on Heritage and Halifax Drive. Entrance to 210
Heritage Drive is exactly where the streets meet, making it very dangerous especially at rush hours
4 The destruction of green space and mature trees as well as driving animals and birds out of the area
5 The City of Kitchener promotes Tree Saving, Tree Retention and Tree Preservation
6 The steep hill (RAVINE) is about 10 meters high from our backyard and is directly behind us and is a big concern
because the soil is fragile and erosion will likely occur
7 Who will be responsible if soil and water run off and flood our backyard and seep into our basement
8 Who will be responsible if trees die off after construction
9 Noise, dust and light pollution is a big concern
10 Rezoning will challenge snow removal and garbage pick-up
11 This type of complex does not fit into the single family neighbourhood because (the ravine is too steep and the land
is too fragile)
12 Once the property is rezoned, the developer can change the original concept within the approved R6 zoning
13 We believe that the City of Kitchener designated this site Zone R3 when the area was first developed for housing
because of the ravine.
Please do not Rezone this site to R6. Single family construction fits within this neighbourhood and community
Respectfully,
Ed and Alice Dyck
Craig Dumart
From: Home JESSOP
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 3:09 AM
To: 'SPCA Community Development'; Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fwd: 210 Heritage Drive Updates
Good day Craig.
You did not address all my concerns.
What about environmental studies, what is being done regarding additional water, sewer, hydro, cable
services, who is paying for these upgrades?
It is easy to claim that the bylaw changes only control the property, how is he city going to accommodate all the
surrounding affects this project will have on the rest of the area. Are these going to be rental units or
purchased/owned? What bylaw will stop someone buying units and then renting them... owner not living in the
unit?
Thank you
Ross Jessop
From: Craig Dumart <Craig.Dumart@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 202111:33:02 AM
To: 'SPCA Community Development' <development@spcakitchener.ca>;
Subject: RE: Fwd: 210 Heritage Drive Updates
Hi Ross,
I hope you are doing well.
A Tree management plan was submitted with the application. Let me know if you would like me to forward you that
plan. The proposed parking rate of 1.26 spaces per units exceeds the new council endorsed parking rate of 1.1 spaces
per unit. Planning and Transportation staff have no concerns with the parking rate as it exceeds our new council
endorsed By-law parking requirements. On site visitor parking will be provided onsite along with barrier free parking
spaces. Zoning By-laws do not regulate parking on streets or public lands, rather zoning regulates uses and built forms
on private property. Our Fire route plans are required for site plan approval. Fire prevention staff and building staff will
review the application at site plan whereas the proposed application is only for an amendment to the zoning.
Craig Dumart, BES, MCIP, RPP
Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
(519) 741-2200 ext 7073 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 craig.dumartQ-kitchener.ca
Craig Dumart
From: Anthony Anthony _
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2021 9:48 AM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments against the development of 210 Heritage, Kitchener
Good day sir, I hope all is well and you are keeping safe during these strange times
I would like to submit my comments strongly against the current development plans being proposed for 210 Heritage.
My name is Anthony Lanni and I reside a4
The plan to develop at 210 Heritage is incredibly aggressive and the surrounding community implores you to reject the
developers plans to permanently change the landscape by decimating one of the cities few remaining urban forest
habitats, all in an attempt to maximize profit by cramming a rediculous amount of housing units, and a parking lot, onto
a property that should not even be in consideration for this type of development.
While affordable housing is indeed required in our city, any pros of development on this specific property are far
outweighed by cons. And surely there are a number of better suited sites for proposed plans such as this.
While the revised plan does aim to preserve more trees, what should be considered moreso is that any trees removed
for this large scale proposal are unfortunate, unnecessary and overall tragic. The natural and beautiful landscape as it
currently sits will be forever shaped towards the negative.
What is also not explicitly covered in the plan are the potential effects of erosion and added issues that will created
due to snow removal and additional water run off; that a wide variety of numerous woodland creates will be
made homeless; that there is a real concern of decreased property value in the surrounding community and
homes; that there will be a 100% increase in noise and air pollution; and of course the obvious giant eye sore
that this proposal will create.
This bended corner of Heritage is also already a traffic hazard which would be made exceptionally worse with what will
surely bring overflow parking.
"The urban forest in and around our towns and cities provides many benefits including: sequestering of gaseous air
pollutants and particulates; energy conservation; storm -water attenuation; noise buffering; provision of wildlife habitat;
increased property value; improved aesthetics; psychological well-being; and recreational and educational
opportunities. These benefits accrue not only to the owners of the trees and forest but also to the entire community." -
Heritage Park Community
Please do not let the developers financial benefit outweigh the environmental and community impact here. 210
Heritage was never Imagined for a development plan such as this.
The developers plans as they sit are overly and incredibly aggressive for a relatively small forested plot of land within a
well established community.
As I type this, and hear owl and dove calls out my window from the forest across the way, we witness new homes being
developed on the other side of Lackner and I can only assume If the city was concerned with obtaining more affordable
homes such as what's being proposed that this would have been a more ideal spot to request developers locate them....
amongst all the new homes and open space .... not tearing down a forest to cram 26 units and a parking lot into 210
Heritage, an established urban forest and community.
I would also please request that you yourself attend the site of 210 heritage to get the full sense of how a development
of this calibre makes little sense on this property.
Thank you for reading Craig
All the best,
Anthony Lanni
Craig Dumart
From: Rafael Bazzarella
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 3:44 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By -Law Amendment - 210 Heritage Dr. - Against proposed change
Hello Craig,
We received the notice of a Zoning by-law amendment for 210 Heritage Dr. and wanted to communicate that we are
against the change from current(R-3) to the proposed (R-6) .
Please let us know if anything else is needed.
Thank you,
Marlene Fiusa Bazzarella and
Jose Carlos Bazzarella
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email
security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security,
compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human
error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
Craig Dumart
From:
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 1 u PM
To: Craig Dumart
Cc: Scott Davey
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage, Kitchener - Zone & Use Change
Craig Dumart
6th Floor, Planning division,
Kitchener City Hall
P.O.Box 1118, 200 King St W
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
May 20, 2021
Dear Sir,
Re: Pioneer Tower Homes, 210 Heritage Drive, Kitchener
I was disappointed with the information package, that was sent to us with regard to the above application.
Much of the information seems to be missing.
Important information that should be included:
1) Property size - Area & Perimeter sizes (I am guessing .97acres and about 810' perimeter)
2) Increased Floor space ratio from what to .68 - which allows a 27,000 Square feet of building
3) The map appears to show that the foot path between Heritage and Matthew will be removed.
4) Building height restrictions - based on elevation level of front or rear of property
5) Lot plan showing
building foot print
parking foot print of the 33 parking spots (26x1.26)
green space and park dedication
6) rendering of Building elevations - front, side and rear
7) Road frontage and access projected increase in traffic - trips
8) Reduced parking from what to 1.26/unit
9) Tree count- current and projected removal number
10) Traffic patterns
I would like to thank you in advance for this information
I found that the City of Kitchener's website poorly constructed. I was not able to find R-3 or R-6 zoning to
use as a base for comparison. If you could provide a link, it would be appreciated.
In addition to this, the current bridge on Natchez Road is narrow and undersized and the road is poorly
designed at the bridge.
The City of Kitchener staff had promised that this 18' wide bridge would be upgraded, when they removed
the parallel 32' wide bridge on Matthew Street, 20 Plus years ago. We were promised this, privately before
the planning meeting. The City closed the road, removed the bridge and sold the land to a developer, but
has forgotten the promise to upgrade.
The Natchez bridge must be upgraded, as promised, before any more development or traffic is added.
Thank You
Calvin Jutzi
Craig Dumart
From:
Tom Gooding
Sent:
Friday, May 21, 2021 12:50 PM
To:
Craig Dumart
Cc:
Tom Gooding
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive
I am not in support of this 26 unit stacked townhouse development.
1)The entrance and exit will be on a bend on Heritage and Halifax which would pose an accident risk to drivers who
will be accelerating from the speed bump area.
2)Pedestrians who use Georgian Park may be at risk when drivers exit the complex and would tend to look left and
forward and not see the pedestrian on their right.
3)The same exposure would exist for children attending the two nearby schools.
4) Heritage Drive has traffic calming measures in place due the the speed of cars on Heritage Drive additional traffic
would add to the speeding issue.
5)Street parking which is now allowed would obscure a driver's vision and would become worse with 26 additional
families since there would not be parking for families with multiple vehicles and overflow parking would increase the
risk to pedestrians and vehicles
6) Stacked townhouses tend to attract younger families due stairs to each level, so this development would not be
attractive to seniors who can manage with one vehicle.
7) Since living here from 1978 and being able to enjoy walking through local parks and by the Grand River I have noticed
an increase of litter and illegal dumping that increased with the development of the area.
Tom Gooding
Craig Dumart
From: Helen Cuthbert
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 12:18 PM
To: Craig Dumart; Scott Davey
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rezoning of 210 Heritage Drive
I'd like to add my comments and concerns to the growing number of residents opposed to the rezoning of the above
property. I live at JN N2B 3K7. I've lived here since 1990. Over the years, there has been an
increase in traffic on Heritage and Halitax urives. Speed and volume have been concerning. Speed bumps were installed
to deter the speeding. The increase in traffic I attribute to the easy access to Victoria St. Parking on the road is a
constant presence. Parking on boulevards, front lawns and straddling the driveway is a common site. A new
development which proposes 26 new units could yield 40+ new vehicles with most households owning 2 cars these
days. The zone change includes a request to reduce the required parking rate ?? All surface parking, garbage, recycling
receptacles and the collection of it will add the the volume of noise in our relatively quiet neighborhood. There will be a
removal of mature trees and re -grading of the land. This will degrade our neighbourhood significantly. While I dont
oppose development of this space, I propose maintaining it's current zoning and ALLOW ONLY for similar semi-detached
or row townhouse style homes to maintain the esthetic of the established neighbouring homes. Thank you for
considering my concerns when making a decision to rezone my beloved neighborhood in which I hoped to retire
peacefully. Sincerely,
Helen Cuthbert
Craig Dumart
From: Mike Cooper >
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 2:22 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Dr. Proposal
I am opposed to the building of a multi -unit complex at the site of 210 Heritage Dr. in Kitchener. I have talked to many of
my neighbours and all of them agree that this development should not be allowed.
Some of my reasons for not allowing it to proceed, are SAFETY ISSUES such as:
1) Initial construction traffic and the safety issues that will be caused with heavy truck traffic (dump trucks) in a quiet
residential area with multiple schools in the immediate vicinity.
2) Increased resident traffic after completion which will impact similar traffic safety issues in an area that has had traffic
issues in the past for which traffic quieting measures (speed bumps) have been put in place. Even these measures are
often ignored by motorists. This again impacts the safety of the many children and elderly residents already in the area.
3) Parking is already difficult, at best, for the existing residents to have visitors and this problem can only increase with
the addition of more residents.
4) The corner of Heritage Dr. and Halifax Dr. is already a dangerous corner to begin with and has been the location of
numerous accidents in the past.
These are just a few of the safety concerns that immediately come to mind and I'm sure there are probably others that I
have not addressed.
I'm sure others that have replied to this issue have mentioned concerns with the possible impacts on property values,
sewage and water issues, structural damage to existing homes due to vibration from heavy construction traffic and so
on.
Please do not allow this development to proceed.
Dennis M. Cooper
Craig Dumart
From: John Draper
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re 210 Heritage Drive zoning amendment
Dear Sir:
I have been living in the area since 1997 at im
osed to the proposal to change
zoning to permit the construction of the townhouse proposal from a single family up t. The green space that is well the
established in the area and is a habitat for many animals including hawks. The original owner of the lands had an
agreement with the city to the effect that the greenbelt would not be altered. The environmental impact to the area
including the properties at the base of the hill would be impacted by altering the water absorption etc from a large
paved area. The parking which is limited for the use by the tenants, would create street narrowing as visitors and
additional tenant vehicles are forced to park on adjacent streets above an below the pedestrian walkway.
I personally think the developer saw a relatively inexpensive land purchase to be flipped for profit. I do have a problem
with opportunistic developers who take advantage of zoning bylaws with the intention of turning the political guidelines
in favour of their agenda with little or no regard for the community they are taking advantage of.
I hope the many of the community who have posted "No" signs and have verbally expressed a do not touch
message take a moment to send letters we hope you will take seriously and say no to this project.
Yours truly
John and Bonnie Draper
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Craig Dumart
From: DAUB
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 5:58 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage drive
The current zoning of R3 fits in with the neighbourhood, I feel that the parcel in question is much too small to
accommodate 26 units and the required parking. The entrance to the property is too narrow for. the number of cars
that would be entering and exiting at high peak times. The pedestrian pathway coming right out by the driveway is
dangerous, I have seen bicycles come out at quite a speed and vehicles exiting the driveway won't be looking for bikes.
I have looked at the traffic study, and in my opinion the developer has slanted it in his favour. Regarding the
increased traffic ....let's face it most people have 2 cars, and u can make all the room in the world but not that many
people use bicycles.
1 understand that a parcel of land that size can accommodate more than one unit, but 26 is way too much, so consider
this my formal objection to the zone change.
Tim and Rhian Daub
Sent from my iPad
Craig Dumart
From: Andrew Kelly
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:38 AM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application to change the zoning of 210 Heritage Drive
Hello Craig,
I am writing to you today to voice my opposition to the application to change the zoning of 210 Heritage Drive
One of the reasons for my opposition is that the height and density of the proposed development is inconsistent with
the area. This area is overwhelmingly predominantly single detached dwellings and the proposed development is
completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Another reason for my opposition is the proposed
parking is utterly inadequate to serve the proposed development and will subsequently result in overflow street parking
which will create safety hazards for other residents of the area and in particular the children of the neighbourhood.
Another reason for my opposition is that the construction, the proposed development, and subsequent traffic will create
unacceptable noise and congestion in the area. In these times of Covid-19 where a majority of tax -payers in the area are
working from home, the noise created will severely disrupt people's ability to focus and concentrate. My final concern is
about how the stormwater will be managed due to the dramatic increase of impervious cover as a result of the
proposed development especially with the property sitting on an elevated place compared to the parallel running
Nipigon Street and Muskoka Court.
As this is a matter of extreme importance to myself and my family I would appreciate it if you could keep me updated
with regards to the status of the application.
Thank you for your time,
Andrew Kelly
Craig Dumart
From: Sherri Lynn Brown
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 12:43 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw:210 Heritage
Hello, my name is Sherri -Lynn Brown.
I wanted to put my input into the discussion about the multiple dwelling townhouses being developed
just a few houses over from me. I'm sorry this email found you a day late, I accidentally sent to the
wrong address? I hope it still has merit?
We live
We are very concerned and are definitely against the rezone!! The corner of heritage and Halifax drive is
a very busy corner as it is!? We have small children not only in our house but our neighbors also three or
four houses down and we're finding that this busy corner is a problem with a lot of cars and our children
don't even play in the front yard because cars drive by so fast as a matter of fact, there has been
multiple cars that have driven on to the boulevards of some of my neighbors front yards due to cars
driving by too quickly and with a higher volume of vehicles in that corner will make things a lot more
dangerous, not to mention all of the wonderful trees that are on that property that are home to many
beautiful different bird species that my family enjoy feeding and listening to in the morning. With all of
the develop going on around lackner, breslau, lackner Woods everywhere else! I feel that this
development does not deserve a reason to rezone? There are many new developments going on in the
area where this, little tiny patch of a corner of a street that already has a gigantic building kitty corner.
Just will be terrible for me as well as my neighborhood! My husband and I have had a long talk and
decided that if this rezoning goes through we are considering selling our house. This is a very sad
decision but with all of the construction going on and all of that high volume of tenants that would be in
all of those 26 units is just too much for us. The neighborhood will no longer be as quiet and peaceful
and its absolutely not where we would any longer like to live! I have had many conversations with my
fellow neighbours who all feel the same. They have made signs to let other fellow neighbours be aware
of the rezone at hand because very likely I'm sure they all will feel the same as us about the rezone that
it is too compact with too many units!? Its ridiculous! 26 signs were made and only 15 remain!? So
obviously who ever is behind that wants the rest of the neighborhood to be unaware. How sad!
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns in this email and I will be on the zoom meeting in
June.
Sincerely, Sherri -Lynn Brown
Sent from my Huawei phone
Craig Dumart
From: Rob Argalis
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:43 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Against zoning of 210 Heritage Drive
Hello Craig,
We are home owners at ted a few houses away from 210 Heritage Drive and we are against the
proposed zoning change from residential three zone (R-3) to residential six zone (R-6).
We feel this project will be detrimental to the local environment, loss of trees, ground cover vegetation and local
wildlife. The project construction phase will disrupt the tranquility of the neighbourhood by increased noise, dust,
traffic and people congestion. If completed, these same issues will bean ongoing concern for everyone in our
neighbourhood.
Concerned residents
Rob and Simone Argalis
Craig Dumart
From: Gary and Alberta
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 2:20 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Cc: Scott Davey; development@spcakitchener.ca
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive -Opposition Letter
Attachments: Revised Letter of Oppositio1.docx; Scan0003.pdf, Scan0030.pdf
Dear Craig,
Attached is the opposition to the rezoning application for 210 Heritage Drive.
Gary and I compiled this Letter of Opposition with input from Muskoka Court residents.
We attached 2 scanned documents for better viewing.
Please clarify if we receive your prepared staff report in advance of the June 24, 2021 public meeting?
In that staff report will there be a list of City Employees that will be in attendance.
Craig Enjoy what is left of your vacation.
Best Regards,
Alberta PirhA and Gary Dinkel
28 May 2021
Letter of Opposition: Primary Recipient — Craig Dumont Senior Planner City of Kitchener
A group of residents living on Muskoka Court, oppose the proposed Zoning By -Law
Amendment from an R-3 to R-6. We oppose the Zoning -by -Law Amendment that includes
site specific permissions for increased building height (10.5 meters to 11.5
meters) increased Floor Space (0.6 to 0.68) and reduce the required parking rate.
Introduction:
The City of Kitchener is second to Barrie as the fastest growing city in Canada.
As a growing city most residents understand that more housing is needed. City residents
are raising doubts concerning the pace at which applications for rezoning are proceeding. A
few examples of proposed intensification are the locations of: Mill -Queen Street, Belmont
Ave., Avon Road, and the recent application of 210 Heritage Drive, Kitchener.
The majority of rezoning issues are happening in well-established neighbourhoods. These
areas have the most mature trees and are facing development pressure. Less than two
blocks from 210 Heritage Drive, a new subdivision is being constructed on Otterbein Drive.
The initial construction is large upscale homes, starting prices well above one million
dollars. Included in the design is a plan for R6 development, however this has not started.
This subdivision would have been well suited for intensification. There are no multi story
apartments, no affordable housing, and unknown as to the number of townhouses.
This is a fine example of "Downzoning." Most new subdivision developments in the city are
geared to `downzoning" as opposed to "intensification." For example Deer Ridge only has
single family homes, Doon South houses a majority of single family homes and western
side of the city houses more single family homes than any other type of structure.
KEY ISSUE: A great number of Stanley Park residents oppose the proposed rezoning
application and the proposed future development of the property located at 210 Heritage
Drive, Kitchener.
This proposed rezoning application from R3 to R6 would change the permitted use of
current zoning R-3. In addition, this proposed Zoning By-law with amendments would allow
the applicant to build a 26 -unit 3 -storey stacked townhouse development, with limited
surface single car parking.
210 Heritage Drive is listed as having 0.988 of an acre. However, approximately less than
half of this site (0.459 of an acre) is buildable due an unstable 7.5 meter hill on the eastern
side of the property.
This proposed rezoning application directly impacts residents of Muskoka Court; Mathew
Court; Halifax Drive and Heritage Drive.
We the residents livin( : concerns with the soil instability on top of
the hill; the projected number of trees to be removed; soil erosion; storm water management
(groundwater drainage); change in the wildlife habitat, pedestrian safety; street parking from
overflow reducing visibility; snow removal; accumulation of snow piles; snow melting; and
salt distribution impacting the surrounding ecological landscape.
210 Heritage Drive, is one of the last larger pieces of private property located in the Stanley
Park Neighbourhood. The property listed for development includes a large stand of mature
trees inside a natural Urban Forest.
Our counter arguments to the development of 210 Heritage Drive are the following:
1. Environment/ Biodiversity -Urban Forest -Tree Sustainability
2. Ecological impact -Soil stability/Soil erosion
3. Groundwater levels
4. Pedestrian Safety
Urban Forests:
Urban Forests are gems in the growing urban areas, no matter how small, are still meant to
act as an ecological corridor to nature. (Reference: City of Kitchener Urban Forestry -March
17, 2017).
Further review of the Tree Management plan raises apprehension with the removal of 46
trees. Of the 46 trees, 25 are located on the hill and upper part of the slope. An additional
36 trees are numbered "significant development impact" due to construction, and most likely
will be lost. Potentially there could be a total loss of 61 trees from the top of the hill to the
middle of the hill. The potential tree loss on the eastern side of the property will likely impact
soil erosion on an already stated "unstable" hill.
If 61 trees situated on the hill are lost with this construction, this represents 65% of the tree
cover. The remaining 32 trees are located within a couple of meters of the Muskoka Court
residents' property line.
Trees offer plenty of environmental and economic benefits: helping reduce the effects of
climate change, improving air and water quality, reducing erosion and just creating a place
that is beautiful and where people feel good.
1. They help mitigate the effects of climate change by storing carbon and absorbing up
to 150 kilograms of CO2 per tree every year.
2. Trees can cool air in the city by 2 - 8 degrees C., reducing energy needs for air
conditioning.
3. Bigger trees filter soot, and other pollutants- Sulphur oxides, and carbon monoxide.
4. Trees help manage run-off from paved and hard surfaces, filtering pollutants such as
grease and grit, releasing the water gradually into the soil and groundwater.
A 2014 study by TD Economics determined that for every dollar spent maintaining trees,
cities in Canada enjoyed anywhere from $1.88 to $12.70 in benefits.
Tree replacement is planned, in keeping with the standards set out by the City of Kitchener
Urban Planners. However it goes without saying that saplings take years to grow to replace
the now standing mature trees that are at heights of up to 20 meters. These trees provide
clean methods in reducing the daily carbon emissions of nearby traffic.
Niall Lobley, Kitchener's Director of Parks and Recreation was quoted in the Record dated
November 20, 2020 as saying, " The biggest threat to the existing tree canopy is the loss of
significant, mature trees. These losses are from pests and intensification."
David Schmitt, Kitchener's Environmental and Urban Forest Project Manager, was quoted
in the Record dated April 11, 2020. "Trees are long-term assets that don't yield maximum
benefits until 40 years or more after they're planted. So it is not enough to simply plant trees
and hope for the best.
Councilor Debbie Chapman, of the downtown ward was quoted in the Record dated Nov.
20, 2020," Trees come down with great ease." Once mature trees are removed in
preparation for construction, they cannot be put back as the same.
Councilor Sarah Marsh is quoted as saying "Some developers will cut down all the mature
trees on a site early on, then plans change, and we are left without the trees that were."
Once construction starts there is no guarantee that further tree removal will not occur. The
shallow root systems of the Sugar Maple trees will be exposed during the construction. All
of the trees located on this property are protective measures to mitigate soil erosion and
hold in check the levels of groundwater. Hence, an urban forest is classified as an
ecosystem.
2 Soil Stability/Erosion:
------------------
------------------
GM Blue Plan Engineering determined "soil instability on top of the hill', resulting in the
change of the location of "Block B". With the projected number of trees to be removed
(minimum of 37% to a maximum of 66%) soil erosion will be a problem; and could impact
groundwater levels and drainage.
QUESTION: Hence, the developer changed the site of Block "B". However, it was not clear
if the new location is stable for a build?
QUESTION: Snow removal and salt: where is the snow going to be placed, and salt leaking
into the groundwater? Little room for the snow plows to push the snow and store until trucks
can load up and remove. This snow should not be pushed or sent over the hill!
QUESTION: We are unable to visualize the location of the retaining wall ascribed in the
diagram? How far down the hill? We ask if developer would place stakes for our view.
3 Groundwater runoff/drainage
-----------------------
-----------------------
Taken from the above Engineering Plan: "Existing elevations on site range from approximately 323.50m
to 331. 00m. Under existing conditions, runoff generated from a portion of the site sheet flows uncontrolled
overland west towards the existing municipal easement and the Halifax Drive and Heritage Drive right-of-
ways. Runoff generated from the remainder of the site sheet flows uncontrolled overland to the east
towards an existing catch basin on easement from Muskoka Court."
The catch base was installed behind #19 Muskoka Court to circumvent water pooling from heavy
rainfall. However, with the planned construction and disturbance of the natural environment will
challenge what is currently in place.
My teleconference with the initial City of Kitchener Senior Planner- Brian Bateman dated on
January 28, 2021, confirmed that he and staff have walked the property. They reported that
the property has, "a lot of mature trees." He and staff tagged a number of the mature trees
for the City of Kitchener's inventory.
We asked the question in this teleconference about the water drainage outlet. Mr. Bateman
advised that the engineers are aware of that water drainage. However, if the development is
allowed this drainage system would require an improvement, again sacrificing trees to make
this allowance.
QUESTION: Would this water drainage outlet be the City of Kitchener's responsibility? Of
note the email I received May 25, 2021 from the newly assigned City Planner stated that the
City Engineers have reviewed the proposal and have," No concerns". We are asking for
further clarification with respect to the water drainage plan?
In the past a Muskoka Court resident when removing his swimming pool winter cover
noticed a slow absorption of the water into the soil, suggesting the groundwater level in this
area has a tendency to be on the high side. We are all worried about weather events
causing water damage to our properties.
4. Pedestrian Safety
--------------
--------------
The City of Kitchener has determined that Heritage Drive required traffic calming methods
to slow traffic. Heritage Drive and Halifax Drive are primary routes to two elementary
schools and one high school. Heritage and Halifax Drives intersect at a 90 degree corner
with single access and egress from 210 Heritage Drive. There is an additional sidewalk a
few meters from the driveway at 210 Heritage that runs to Mathew Street with reduced site
lines exiting this property.
Conclusion
The City of Kitchener has supported an Urban Forestry plan. A City of Kitchener employee
David Schmidt, Environmental and Urban Forestry Project Manager, believes that trees are
an asset, just like the sewer pipes and the street lights. Allowing rezoning applications that
jeopardize our urban forests' is counter -intuitive. The fact the applicant wants to develop a
specific piece of property should not justify a rezoning of 210 Heritage Drive, contrary to the
City's Urban Forestry Planning mandate.
"Some councilors made it clear at a recent meeting that they want tougher controls on
developments" (Reference: The Record dated 20Nov2O2O). We believe that local
governments need to consider the long-term effects of their land use decisions.
We ask that the rezoning of 210 Heritage Drive from R-3 to R-6 with amendments not be
approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Alberta Piche and Gary Dinkel
Residents of Muskoka Court.
cc Scott Davey; Chris Letizi
Attachments
-.'fir f' _ a.,a....:.`�� �' r �r � '� '•ti a'. .� „�* ai �� �.
_ _ e
- T-
-ate � _ �• i t
r.
sr t i s
t
View of trees from 7-19 Muskoka Court
Hnme T.- S-0030.Pd, x
® n {3 Q R um O O _ r� y 4 O N w
Q' Si,.I.
c: O J.
ro E,p-PDL
F .._rei.
EdIl PDF
1 _ ..IN.�. est d
LL - �--- — HERITA
DRIVI
Yellow highlighted are trees that will be cut down. Red highlighted are trees that will have
significant development impact by construction and could be lost.
Rear view of 15-19 Muskoka Court. Note the lower row of trees may be the only trees left after
construction.
- -a --.'ULD BE LOST DUE TO �
Aerial view of project showing trees to be removed in blue, and trees in red that will have,
"Significant development impact" due to construction of the new town homes. Note if all trees in
red were to be lost, this would represent 65% of trees on this part of the property.
Craig Dumart
From: Ernst Wuethrich <ernst.wuethrich@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 2:52 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Road Zoning change
I oppose the zoning change for these reason.
The number of Tenants (26 stacked units) is way too crowed for this piece of Land; the impact on the traffic in and out to
Heritage street for so many people will create a traffic nightmare that is hard to imagine. The Houses and Parking are to
dense, crammed and there is not enough room for People to move and dwell around. To me it looks like Chicken Coups
where you cram in as much as possible and destroy the nice Neighbourhood and appeal that we have enjoy for so many
years.
If you cut the Number of units to single ones (13) it is still more than what you can put in a space like this, 2 single
houses would blend nicely with the rest of the Neighbourhood I could see, but not so many units as it is planned.
Thanks for letting me expressing my concerns. Ernst Wuethrich
Craig Dumart
From: Dan Illes n>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 2:54 PM
To: Craig Dumart
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive
Hello Craig,
My name is Daniel Illes and I am the owner of 1 Horizon Court located in Ward 1. 1 am writing you today to voice my
support for the proposed development at #210 Heritage Drive.
I had the privilege of graduating from the GIS and Urban planning program at Fanshawe College in 2011. As someone
well versed in the area of planning, I feel this proposed development is exactly the type of intensification the city needs
to aid in the current housing shortage and runaway rent/home prices.
This lot is of significant size and is a product of a bygone era. Had this size of lot been developed in today's standards,
there would be many more residences in its place. I feel the proposed plan addresses the former misuse of a piece of
land this size.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts on the proposed development.
Best,
Daniel Illes
Craig Dumart
From:
Bert Udema
Sent:
Friday, May 28, 2021 9:12 PM
To:
Craig Dumart
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] 210 Heritage Drive
Hi Craig,
My name is Bert Udema I I n totally against the proposal of changing the zone change on 210
Heritage Drive. The reason for this is firstly a safety issue as there are a quite few kids in the area that use Heritage and
Halifax because of the two schools in our area. The pathway that connects Heritage drive to Matthew crescent is always
busy with kids and adults walking down the pathway causing safety concerns for the entire neighbourhood with the
amount of new traffic this development would create. The second issue is parking, most people have two cars and after
reading the proposal there will not be enough parking with this property. Lastly I have a major concern around the
environmental aspect of this development. This build would need to remove a number of trees in the greenspace
surrounding the neighbourhood as well as displace a lot of wildlife in the area.
How is the golf game? I was the afternoon marshal at Silo.
Bert Udema
Sent from my iPad
Craig,
We are the owners of se backyard directly faces through the proposed
development site of 210 Heritage.
We object to the proposed development as being too much density for the established
neighbourhood, specifically due to the site geography and traffic safety impacts.
The property at 210 Heritage is at a local height of land — the terrain slopes downwards in all
directions (significantly to the east and north and to a lesser degree to the south and west).
Any construction will by default be starting from a higher point than any neighbours and the
developer's request to exceed the R6 zoning height limit will further amplify the dominance of
the structures within the localized context.
11.5m in height just 4m from the existing secluded and shaded public pathway along the
western property line would have impact of the enjoyment of pedestrians on this path as well
as those of us whose backyards abut the path (and would be subject to a significant overlook
from the third floor of the townhouses). The northern block of townhouses would also tower
over the Muskoka Court properties where the grade is 5 or 6m lower than the 210 Heritage
site.
Even with the R6 zoning change, the developer is also looking for a variance for the Floor
Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.6 to 0.68 (an over 13% increase).
While the regulation apparently allows up to 0.75 for the development where "it can be
demonstrated that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding community",
this is clearly not met given there is no similar existing development within the surrounding
community.
Our understanding is that zoning maximums were defined specifically to control the density of
development to what is reasonable for the location and immediate neighbourhood. By
requesting a variance to that degree, it strongly suggests that the proposal is too much for this
location.
Reducing the number of planned units would therefore not require any variance.
A further benefit of fewer units would be a reduction in the planned surface parking area. This
would therefore reduce the water runoff that is of significant concern to residents of Muskoka
Court.
We are also concerned about the safety impacts given the site location at the turn where
Heritage intersects with Halifax.
There is limited visibility to the west for traffic heading northbound on Heritage (with 50km/h
limit) towards Halifax.
Any traffic heading eastbound on Halifax and turning left to access the 210 Heritage property
would be cutting across the northbound traffic, who would not have much advance warning of
this turning movement.
The more units built on the site, the more potential turning conflicts would occur and the risk
of accidents.
As such, our recommendation would be that this current proposal be scaled back to a single
layer of two story townhouses (one block of eight and one block of five). This would reduce
the demand for surface parking (and the resultant water run-off impacts) as well as negate
any need for zoning variances for maximum height and Floor Space Ratio, thereby keeping
within the intents of the City of Kitchener Official Plan zoning regulations.
Thank you,
Ian and Joelle Reid
When I look at the city's website I see very well written plans,
strategies and goals.
I see things like, "As your municipal government, we are accountable
to you - our residents, and committed to operating in an open and
transparent manner. That means conducting our business honestly,
ethically and with integrity."
and,
-"growth, done right, provides a great opportunity to add to the rich
character of a neighbourhood.
-It's important that new projects consider how they fit in the
neighbourhood."
and from our mayor,
"One of the key lessons that we've learned both from our history
and the SDGs is that a municipal government can only succeed when
it works in true partnership with the entire community ."
All of these documents, plans and goals were obviously written by
well meaning people who love and are very passionate about their
city. Much thought, deliberation and time went into drafting them.
I can also see that Kitchener City Council approved the city's "first
Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy and implementation plan that is
to serve as the city's guiding document for planning,
engaging, maintaining,, protecting and planting Kitchener's
urban forest and identifies five branches of a sustainable urban
forest that are intended to guide future decisions and the setting of
priorities."
It goes on to state,
The following key principles have strongly influenced the
development of this strategy:
1. The urban forest includes all trees on public and private lands
2. The community plays a key role in maintaining and enhancing
the urban forest, particularly on private lands.
3. Trees and the larger urban forest provide significant economic,
environmental and social benefits to the community.
4. A sustainable urban forest maximizes benefits while minimizing
the associated costs and risk. In contrast to traditional
corporate assets trees provide their greatest benefits during
their latter stages of life.
The strategy and implementation plan were developed after an
extensive community engagement and planning process including
feedback from more than 1,800 citizens.
Under Home/In your neighbourhood/trees it states,
Our trees are among our most precious assets. They're critical to
the health of our local environment - including our air quality, and
they enhance the quality of life in our neighbourhoods, parks and
natural areas. We - as a community -- must work together to
protect them.
And under Strategic Plan for the environment, I can read that,
"For years, you've reminded us time and time again that the
environment should be at the forefront of every decision we make
for our city. We've heard you loud and clear - and we're proud to say
that Kitchener is considered a municipal leader in environmental
planning and stewardship across the country.
Things the City looks for through site plan:
• Site layout: Locations of buildings and parking areas on the
property
• Parking lot layout: Design for cars to the through site,
driveway locations
• Landscape and amenity areas: Landscape buffers, tree
protection where possible, tree planting
• Grading, servicing and stormwater management: To ensure
new project doesn't impact neighbouring properties
• Building design: Building elevations consider character of the
surrounding neighbourhood
• Site lighting: To avoid light spill on adjacent properties
• Garbage storage: Location on site, deep well units (e.g.
Moloks) or enclosures
This lot has issues with most of these these tenets.
Other concerns that I have are
- the drainage affecting the surrounding homes on Heritage and
Muskoka. It's difficult not to be concerned when you're at the
bottom of the ravine, and a development of this height, breadth
and magnitude is being proposed
- traffic congestion and safety at that corner - there are 2 schools
within 112 km of that lot and many very young children walking
down Heritage and down the walkway abutting the lot on a daily
basis - the entrance to the lot is quite narrow and visibility is
already an issue
- there have already been a few accidents at the corner of Halifax
and Natchez, more traffic likely = more accidents
We've made it our mission to ensure our environment is ecologically
sound and supportive of the health, safety and well-being of our
residents. This is done by identifying and implementing strict policies
and practices that reflect your values and positively affect our local
environment." These strict policies and practices were, according to
the website, written by the community.
And ,
under Environmental leadership it states,
-Implement the Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy with a focus on
establishing a tree canopy target by 2020 and eliminating the
current (2018) tree planting backlog by 2022.
-Achieve a healthy and livable community by proactively mitigating
and adapting to climate change and by conserving natural resources.
If all of these policies and documents are to be taken seriously, how
can one developer be allowed to destroy the old forest on this lot?
How does this proposed development follow any of these guidelines
other than making a mockery of all of them? How is this
development demonstrating that the city is being supportive of our
values and positively affecting our local environment? How is "the
environment at the the forefront of this decision? How does this
development show that "We've heard you loud and clear"? I'm
feeling very left out and feeling as if the city has either forgotten us
or didn't care in the first place. They may have heard loud and clear
but they weren't listening.
Right now we know that the development will have major negative
effects on the environment, the trees and the wildlife in this area.
It's a known fact that songbirds are on the decline in North America.
Their food and habitat are disappearing and millions fly into windows
every year. This woodlot is home to 3 different types of
woodpeckers, 3 different types of finches, 2 types of grosbeaks,
cardinals, jays, grackles, cowbirds, doves, 2 types of nuthatches,
chickadees, juncos, and a little wren that's decided to overwinter in
our hood.... and these are just the ones that we see on a daily basis.
There are also owls and hawks that are seen and heard on a weekly
basis. We have rabbits, squirrels, a local coyote, all sorts of little
rodents, a virtual ecosystem in this forest. The sounds and sights in
this little ecosystem are uplifting and make you glad to be alive.
How can destroying it not go against everything that is stated in the
official vision, plans, strategies and goals of our city. How can this
development even be considered? It makes no sense at all.
And those are just some of my environmental concerns.
I also read the The City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual
In Part A it states that,
"It is important that townhouses and low-rise multi -residential
buildings integrate into their neighbourhoods" and,
"it's important that new projects consider how they fit into the
neighbourhood."
"Consider the massing, height, length, depth, roof design, materials
and rhythms of neighbouring buildings when designing for
compatibility".
And it goes on and on. Given all of this documentation, all of these
well thought out and written plans, all of these these official policies
visions and strategies that have taken hours and hours to develop
and write, these documents that the city espouses so proudly, how
does building stacked town homes on top of this ravine lot affecting
everyone below make any sense at all?
According to The Citizen's Guide to Neighbourhood Development,
- the street has already been traffic calmed because of speed,
congestion - this development would only add more traffic and
congestion in a mostly residential area
- there is no adequate parking here, 26 townhomes need more than
33 parking spaces - there are already visibility issues when turning
from Keewatin onto Heritage adding more cars to an already
congested, traffic calmed street is ludicrous
- every car leaving that proposed development will need to pass
one of 2 elementary schools - children are encouraged to walk or
bike to school and most of these children will need to cross either
Heritage or Natchez and speed and traffic are already issues on
both of these streets
- this is not an area where densification is desirable or in the City's
plans so why the need to rezone?
- according to the City's plans high density areas are to be on major
thoroughfares and within walking distance of the amenities
needed, this area is neither
For all of these reasons we ask that the application for the rezoning
of 210 Heritage be denied. We support more affordable housing in
KW, however this proposed development is totally unsuitable for the
property. It goes against everything that your planning department
has stated it looks for environmentally and has nothing but
devastating effects on the entire neighbourhood it is being
"injected" into.
Sincerely,
Robert and Silvia Cadman
May 28, 2021
LETTER OF OPPOSITION in regards to:
Address: 210 HERITAGE DR
Application Number: ZBA21/005/H/CD
Application Type: Zoning By -Law Amendment
As a resident of ier we are opposing the proposed rezoning and
development of the property at 210 Heritage Drive. The plan to develop this site is not consistent with
the broader intent of the neighbourhood that is designated R3.
If it is the goal of the Planning Commission of the City of Kitchener to preserve existing neighbourhoods
then this one is not considering the official plan or intent. This infill project seems to maximize profits
and not consider fitting into the neighbourhood.
Our opposition is also based on the following potential and probable negative outcomes.
1 The large increased density suggestion on a narrow street front will be a traffic and safety hazard.
The proposed number of units will need more parking than is possible and the narrow frontage does not
allow for nearby street parking.
2 Increased traffic congestion adding to an already dangerous situation on Heritage Drive and
Halifax Drive. Entrance to 210 Heritage Drive is exactly where the streets meet, making it very
dangerous.
3. The destruction of green space and mature trees as well as driving animals and birds out of the
area. The steep hill (Ravine) from our back -yard, is a concern because the soil is fragile and erosion
will likely occur. In addition trees will be removed affecting the health of other trees and the preservation
of the woods. Trees support each other in a variety of healthy ways.
The City of Kitchener promotes Tree Saving, Tree Retention and Tree Preservation but is willing to
dismiss this core value for this proposed change to 210 Heritage Drive.
4 Noise, dust and light pollution is a big concern. Will there be fencing or landscaping to address the
increased light pollution from car headlights and parking lot light standards?
5. Rezoning will challenge snow removal and garbage pick-up.
6. This type of complex does not fit into the single home family neighbourhood. When the
neighbourhood was planned there were a variety of density styles included and planned for - not
ripping down a home to line a bank account with profits and then move out of the City to leave
those behind in the poorly designed neighbourhood. Planning should be done as if one lived in the
neighbourhood.
7. There will be a loss of light to the neighbourhood due to the size and height of the proposed
very dense buildings.
8. Once the property is rezoned, the developer can change the original concept within the approved R6
zoning. The developer is suggesting radical changes to the neighbourhood character.
We believe that the City of Kitchener designated thi site Zone R3 because of the Ravine, when the area
was first developed for housing. We support providing new, affordable, innovative housing for the
residents of Kitchener, but we do not believe that this project demonstrates any of those characteristics.
We feel that the environmental impacts, as well as the sightline issues of building
2 huge 3 -story buildings, to replace a small 1 -level single family home should be rejected.
We oppose this application for a zone -change and also oppose the proposed plan to build such
massive townhouses.
Please DO NOT Rezone this site to R6 . Single family construction fits within this neighbourhood and
community
Respectfully,
Sandra Fallis and Steve Ostapchuk,