HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-422 - A 2024-075 - 96 Wood StreetStaff Report
Development Services Department www.kitchener.co
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: September 17, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-741-2200 ext. 7765
PREPARED BY: Sean Harrigan, Senior Planning Technician, 519-741-2200 ext.
7292
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.:
September 9, 2024
DSD -2024-422
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2024-075 for 96 Wood Street requesting relief
from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a Multiple
Dwelling on a lot area of 393 m2 instead of the minimum required 450 m2;
ii) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a minimum
front yard setback of 3.8 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres;
iii) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a minimum
exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5
metres;
iv) Section 6, Table 6-3, as amended by By-law 2024-065, to permit a maximum
building height of 12 metres instead of the maximum permitted building height
of 11 metres; and
v) Section 4.5.a) to permit a 1.83 metre (6 foot) fence within one side of the
Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) instead of the maximum permitted height of
0.9 metres;
to facilitate the development of an 8 -unit Multiple dwelling, generally in accordance
with drawings prepared by Masri O Inc. Architects, dated October 18, 2023, revised
August 2, 2024, BE DEFERRED until December 10, 2024, or earlier, in accordance
with the following:
1. That the Owner/Applicant prepare, submit and obtain approval of a Tree
Protection and Enhancement Plan to demonstrate full protection of City -owned
street trees adjacent to this property, that these trees will be protected to City
standards throughout demolition and construction as per Chapter 690 of the
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 134 of 267
current Property Maintenance By-law, and that the requested minor variances
would meet the 4 tests in the Planning Act.
2. That the Owner/Applicant prepare, submit and obtain approval of a Planning
Justification Report to demonstrate how the proposal will meet the Official Plan
Policies for the Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, with
particular attention to Policies 11.C.1.35 and 15.D.2.5, and having regard for the
Tree Management and Enhancement Plan, to support that the requested minor
variances would meet the 4 tests in the Planning Act.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review the requested minor variances to allow for the
development of an 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling on 96 Wood Street.
• The key finding of this report is that staff are not satisfied that the proposed
development is appropriate for this area and property until the applicant demonstrates
that the existing City trees will be preserved through a study prepared by a qualified
professional and that the proposal will meet the Cultural Heritage Policies for the
Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape.
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property
and this report was posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located in the K -W Hospital neighbourhood and is situated on the
northwest corner of the intersection of Wood Street and York Street. The property has
approximately 28 metres of frontage on York Street and 17 metres of frontage on Wood
Street. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling and detached garage,
both which will be removed. There is also an existing fence located within the City
boulevard along York Street.
Figure 1: Location Map
Page 135 of 267
The subject property is identified as a `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban
Structure and was previously designated `Low Rise Conservation' in the K -W Hospital
Neighbourhood Plan as shown on Map 18 —Secondary Plan in the City's 1994 Official
Plan. Recently, the property's land use designation changed to `Strategic Growth Area A'
with the adoption of By-law 2024-062 and approval of OPA 49 by the Region of Waterloo.
The property is currently zoned `Residential Five Zone, Special Use Provision 129U (R-5,
129U)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property will be zoned `Strategic Growth Area One
(SGA -1)' once the appeal to By-law 2024-065 is resolved and this by-law comes into full
force and effect.
The purpose of the application is to review minor variances to allow for the development of
an 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling. The proposed Multiple Dwelling is not a permitted use under
the current `R-5' zone but will be permitted under the new `SGA -1' zone. The proposed 8 -
unit Multiple Dwelling requires the following variances:
• A lot area of 393 m2.
• A front yard setback of 3.8 metres.
• An exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres.
• A building height of 12 metres.
• To permit 1.8 metre high fence within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT).
SITE PLAN
ALJ '.° i : '1 s0
Figure 2: Site Plan
Page 136 of 267
Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade)
Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Facade)
Page 137 of 267
Figure 5: Existing Driveway and Detached Garage
Figure 6: Existing House and Wood Street Streetscape
Page 138 of 267
Figure 7: York Street Facing North Directly Beside Subject Property
Figure 8: Proposed Driveway Location between City tree and Utility Box
Page 139 of 267
Figure 9: Location of City Trees
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering the four tests for the minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990 Chap. P 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following
comments:
The proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling is not permitted under the current `R-5'Zone but will
be permitted once the new `SGA -1' Zone comes into full effect. As such, the requested
minor variances were reviewed against the `SGA -1' Zone and associated Official Plan
amendment.
General Intent of the Official Plan
Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 49 (By-law 2024-062) incorporated modifications to the
text and mapping of the Official Plan in order to implement a new land use planning
framework for seven of the City's ten Protected Major Transit Station Areas. This Official
Plan amendment changed the subject property's designation to `Strategic Growth Area A'.
Strategic growth area land use designations are applied within the Urban Growth Centre
and Protected Major Transit Station Areas. These lands will provide opportunities for all
housing types and a range of commercial, employment, and institutional uses to create
complete communities. Lands within Protected Major Transit Station Areas shall be
planned to achieve minimum densities, with the target for Grand River Hospital Station
being 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare as per Section 3.C.2.18. as amended
Page 140 of 267
by OPA 49. The proposed development will have 203 residents per hectare and will
contribute to the diversity of housing types.
As per Official Plan Section 11.C.1.37., as amended by OPA 49, the City will require
development and/or redevelopment in a Protected Major Transit Station Area to support
and contribute to a high quality public realm. To do this, the City will require a high quality
public realm at grade which includes sidewalks, street furniture, street trees, and
landscaping. The City will also require developments to support, maintain and/or increase
the tree canopy, where possible, to support Kitchener's Sustainable Urban Forestry
Strategy. The subject property currently abuts several mature City trees, as shown in
Figure 9, that form an essential component of the streetscape character in addition to
contributing to the high quality public realm, as shown in Figures 5-8. The proposed 8 -unit
Multiple Dwelling with reduced front and exterior side yard setbacks appears to encroach
into the critical root zone of these mature City trees which poses a significant risk to their
immediate and long-term retention. Ensuring the retention of these trees is critical to
satisfying this Official Plan policy and as such, staff must recommend refusal for the
variances until the applicant demonstrates that all City trees will be retained.
Official Plan policy 15.D.2.5., as amended by OPA 49, states that site specific applications
which seek relief from the implementing zoning through a minor variance will consider the
compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent lands, suitability
of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form, and other contextual or site specific
factors, amongst other requirements. As noted above, the planned function of the property
and adjacent lands is intensification with a clear requirement for maintaining and
enhancing the streetscape character, particularly as it relates to City trees. As for the
suitability of the lot, the subject property is undersized for the proposed development and
built form as required by the Zoning By-law. The property might be suitable for the Multiple
Dwelling despite it being undersized, but only if the undersized lot area does not
negatively impact the streetscape character and City trees. As mentioned above, staff
have significant concerns that the proposed development will negatively impact and
require removal of the City trees. As such, staff are of the opinion that the general intent of
this policy cannot satisfied until the applicant demonstrates that the City trees will remain
through an acceptable report and/or plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
The general intent of the Zoning By-law with respect to required lot area, setbacks, and
building height is to ensure the built form is compatible with the existing neighbourhood
and planned function for the property, has sufficient landscaping and outdoor amenity
space, and to prevent over development. To this regard, the proposed 8 -unit Multiple
Dwelling is keeping with the planning function for this area, but there are significant
concerns that the reduced lot area and setbacks along with the increase in building height
is over development for this property and neighbourhood. If the applicant can clearly
demonstrate through a qualified professional that the streetscape character and City trees
will remain unchanged, then staff would be satisfied that the general intent of the Zoning
By-law is maintained.
The general intent of the driveway visibility triangle is to ensure the safety of pedestrians
and vehicles when residents are entering or leaving the parking spot. Transportation staff
are satisfied that the proposed obstruction within the driveway visibility triangle does not
Page 141 of 267
compromise safety and that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained for this
specific variance.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
The potential individual and cumulative impact of the minor variances for lot area, building
height, and setbacks is dependent on whether the City trees will be retained. If the City
trees are removed, the massing and built form resulting from the multiple variances for the
proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling will have a considerable impact on the existing
neighbourhood character and appear out of place when compared to surrounding
properties. As such, staff are not satisfied the effects of the proposed variances are minor
in nature until the applicant provides evidence that the City trees will remain.
Regarding the driveway visibility triangle, staff are satisfied the proposed variance is minor
in nature given the existing fence and only 1 parking space is proposed.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The surrounding properties on York Street and Wood Street have similar front yard
setbacks to what is proposed on the subject property. However, these surrounding
properties have singled detached dwellings approximately 2 to 2.5 storeys in height with
traditional sloped roofs and mature trees located between the dwelling and travelled road.
The proposed development is 4 storeys in height with a flat roof and significantly more
residential units than surrounding properties and what is permitted on the current lot size.
This increase in massing resulting from the cumulative effect of the proposed variances is
a substantial deviation from the existing neighbourhood character that is further amplified if
the City trees are removed. However, if the City trees are retained, the visual buffer
afforded by the canopy coverage will mitigate potential negative impacts from the
individual and cumulative effects of the proposed variances and help ensure the Multiple
Dwelling is appropriate development for the long term. With that said, staff are not satisfied
the proposed development is appropriate until the applicant proves the City trees will be
retained.
Environmental Planning Comments:
A number of trees are City street trees and parks/Forestry should advise on the proposal
and conditions. A tree on 85 Mount Hope that has potential for shared ownership with the
subject site should also be assessed for impact from the proposed development. Forestry
may wish the applicant to so assess the street trees as part of a Tree Management Plan.
Heritage Planning Comments:
The property municipally addressed as 96 Wood Street is located within the Gildner Green
Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape, per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage
Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015.
The Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape was recently identified as
a Cultural Heritage Landscape on Map 9 — Cultural Heritage Resources in the 2014
Official Plan by OPA 49 — Growing Together.
The CHLS identifies the attractive and consistent public realm linked by streetscape,
mature trees, and grass boulevards to be a character defining features of this area.
Page 142 of 267
The following policies apply -
1 II.C.1.35.
pply:
11.C.1.35. New development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape will:
a) support, maintain and enhance the major characteristics and attributes of
the cultural heritage landscape further defined in the City's 2014 City of
Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes;
b) support the adaptive reuse of existing buildings;
c) be compatible with the existing neighbourhood, including but not limited
to the streetscape and the built form; and,
d) respond to the design, massing and materials of the adjacent and
surrounding buildings.
12.C.1.10. The City will require the conservation of significant cultural heritage
landscapes within the city.
15.D.2.5. Notwithstanding policies 4.C.1.8 and 4.C.1.9, site specific applications which
seek relief from the implementing zoning through a minor variance(s) or
amendment to the Zoning By-law, and/or seek to amend this Plan will
consider the following factors:
a) compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent
lands;
b) suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built -form;
c) lot area and consolidation as further outlined in Policy 3.C.2.11;
d) compliance with the City's Urban Design Manual and Policy 11.C.1.34;
e) cultural heritage resources, including Policy 15.D.2.8; and,
f) technical considerations and other contextual or site specific factors.
15.D.2.29. All development or redevelopment will embrace, celebrate and conserve the
Cultural Heritage Resources in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and
Protected Major Transit Station Areas and will be subject to the Cultural
Heritage Resources Policies in Section 12 and subject to any other
supporting documents, adopted by Council, including Heritage Conservation
District Plans.
Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amended Official Plan, "New development or
redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape will a) support, maintain and enhance the
major characteristics and attributes of the cultural heritage landscape further defined in the
City's 2014 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscapes and c) be compatible with the
existing neighbourhood, including but not limited to the streetscape and the built form." As
such, Heritage Planning staff have concerns related to the possible encroachment or risk
to the mature City trees which abut the subject property. The retention and maintenance of
these trees should be ensured through the completion of a Tree Management Plan with
demonstration through a Planning Justification Report that the proposal will comply with
Policies 11.C.1.35 and 15.D.2.5.
Page 143 of 267
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit
for the new residential building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the
Building Division at building(a-)kitchener.ca with any questions.
Engineering Division Comments:
No concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
There are several large City owned street trees adjacent to this property and these trees
should be protected to City standards throughout demolition and construction as per
Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law. Suitable arrangements including
the submission and approval of a Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan showing
full protection for existing trees; an ISA valuation of City -owned trees and any
required securities or compensation for removed trees will be required to the
satisfaction of Parks and Cemeteries prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Please see Urban Design Manual Part C, Section 13 and
www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement
There are existing encroachments onto City lands as shown in the survey included in the
Committee of Adjustment application. Theses encroachments should be removed entirely
and complete restoration of public property to City standards will be expected through the
off-site works related to the Building Permit application.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services have no concerns with the encroachment into the driveway visibility
triangle as this is an existing condition with the neighbouring property at 85 Mt. Hope Street.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance
of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property
advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises
interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the
Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30
metres of the subject property.
Page 144 of 267
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020)
• A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Official Plan Amendment 49 (By-law 2024-062)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• Zoning By-law Amendment 2024-065
Page 145 of 267
August 26, 2024
Connie Owen
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
File No.: D20-20/
VAR KIT GEN
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor
Kitchener ON N2G U Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting September 17, 2024, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2024 - 068 — 22 Woodfern Court — No concerns
2) A 2024 - 069 — 68 West Acres Crescent — No concerns.
3) A 2024 - 070 — 47 Hugo Crescent — No concerns.
4) A 2024 - 071 — 509 Wilson Avenue — No concerns.
5) A 2024 - 072 — 565 Topper Woods Crescent — No concerns.
6) A 2024 - 073 — 109 Edgehill Drive — No concerns.
7) A 2024 - 074 — 177 Esson Street — No concerns.
8) A 2024 - 075 — 96 Wood Street — No concerns.
9) A 2024 - 076 — 332 Charles Street East - No concerns.
10)A 2024 - 077 — 525 Highland Road West — No concerns.
11)A 2024 — 078 — 15 Dellroy Avenue (retained) — No concerns.
12)A 2024 — 079 — 1055 Weber Street Easy (severed) — No concerns.
Document Number: 4766511
Page 146 of 267
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor
thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site
is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply.
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
cry
Katrina Fluit
Transportation Planner
(226) 753-4808
M
Connie Owen, City of Kitchener
CofA(o)Kitchener. ca
Document Number: 4766511
Page 147 of 267
a:°1n,*nio,tra ion Centre: �1OO ('iyle iarox /,19 v1 I R I)W6
P hone: ) 0) 2 1 Feil firee-I 1 900 4/"?), i ax- 1�l 62 1 mAiwg r'arid IrhII'verca
x
August 30, 2024 via email
Marilyn Mills
Secretary -Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Marilyn Mills,
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting — September 17, 2024
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-068
22 Woodfern Court
A 2024-069
68 West Acres Crescent
A 2024-071
509 Wilson Avenue
A 2024-072
565 Topper Woods Crescent
A 2024-074
177 Esson Street
Applications for Consent
B 2024-017
135 Gateway Park Drive
B 2024-018
135 Gateway Park Drive
B 2024-023
Ridgemont Street
B 2024-024
525 Highland Road West
B 2024-025
15 Dellroy Avenue
A 2024-075
96 Wood Street
A 2024-076
332 Charles Street East
A 2024-077
525 Highland Road West
A 2024-078
15 Dellroy Avenue
A 2024-079
1055 Weber Street East
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted applications.
GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications. The subject properties do not
contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or valley
slopes. The properties are not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a permission
from GRCA is not required.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at aherreman(a-)_grandriver. ca or 519-621-
2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
__�
9—,_
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
raal�. ir�irr r tai Cc7i seI,vaIion �.�nhflira, r�Eac�.���O� II Im:7 OIIP Ill IO'r �6 b �anseivcit'on f',flt )o[c� ic's ( I IId — Al(110 w, ItiVP�,
Page 148 of 267
From:
To. Committee of Adhmtrnent (W)
sull�ject: 96 wood street - opposed
parte. Monday, September 9, 2024 10:59:34 IPM
You don't often qet ernad from Learn whg this is uirn�rtant
M
I ain a:rilallii-ig to provide comments oil the recent proposal for redevelopment at 96 wood
street.
Although I understand the city's need ft,)r interisi fica it oil within major transit station areas,
this, section of tbe Cherl-
y Park neigbbourhood is a unique family tie i ghbourhood witb an
1111portant cultural heritage. More and niore., deo ,, glop ers have been purchasing horlies ill the
neighbourhood Nvith the intent to, tear theill down. Personally, my elderly neighbour's hoiline
was purchased by as developer who intends to put up tow lrorr iea in iny [xickyard,
somethlig that would innybe inake sellse If there werell't exisling family hoilles Oil all Sides
of the proj)erty. As with file honle at 96 Wood, I feel strongly that this type oaf (levelopirielit
will have as significant negati%7e lilipact oil the neighbourhood.
It is my view that the building height should adhere to tile Currellt 11111 hillit to Preserve
whl at we call of the rleigzllbourhom,A's character, Fra not sure why the retluests of as developer
would suspersede bylaw th,,it citizens and coininunity members, need to adbere to.
Further file neighbour already lacks in street p,,irking due for the proximity to the hospital.
Currently, inost street parking in tile Heighl-wilrbood is hinited to 2 hours, ilid there, is no
parking during the winter. Parking is already as challenge for iliany., as these heritage holiles
have limited space for thi&
I ani also coriterra ed about the polential for trees to, be reirloved in the rieighbont-hood, The
beauty of the neighbourhood will be sigiiificufly iiiij),"icted by thlsa Please etisure that any
plans fc)jldevelopment Melu(Je provisions about inainlaming trees or replacing thern if
inaintairling
1 , thorn is not possible.
Thank you,
Isabelle
Page 149 of 267
From:
Tai. Sean Harrician; Corninidee of Adiustment (SM)
sljll�ject: Opposftijon to, Propolsed 8-Unk Development at 96 Wood Stan ,
DaM Tuesday, September 10, 2024 1;26;15 PM
You don"t often qet ernad frorn ILparnwhV this
Dear Sean,
I ani writing to forilially express my opposition to the proposed 8-turit development at 96
Wood Street. Having lived oil Wood Street for over 20 years, I believe this development will
significantly impact the character and livability of our neighborhood.
First, the height of the proposed building exceeds the bylaw's limit and does not align with the
c
cl�ultural heritage landscape' of of the area. I request that the city and thC
e onrinittee respect the
bylaw's I 1 -meter height restriction to uraintain the, neighborhood's charin and consistency
with existing properties.
Additionally, the Current parking situation is already strained in our area. I have attached
several photos illustrating the congestion oil Wood and York Streets, as well as Wood and NIt.
Hope Streets, where cars regularly fill the streets. Hospital employees frequently park in our 2 -
hour tinie-limited spaces, and the addition of eight more units will only exacerbate this issue.
Also included is a photo of garbage bins from a current itrulti-aurin building, on York Street,
which highlights the kind of chatter that could worsen with fin-ther developtnent.
Moreover, niany residents have invested sigjnficantly in their hoines to maintain and iiriprove
property values in this area. A large inuhl-unit rental development like this would likely
decrease the value of otir homes, nun denninilIg the investments we have made ill Oily
properties.
While I understand the city's goal for intensification near major transit stations, I believe this
development is too intensive for our area and will negatively affect the existing itiftastructure,
neighborhood character, and property values.
I respectfully ask that the Cominittee take these concerns into serious consideration and deny
the request for the proposed development,
Thank you for your attention to this iriatter.
Best regards,
MIM1werm
Page 150 of 267
From:
To. sewn Harn(lan
Cc Committee of AdJuvatment M)
Stilble"t Concerns Regarding Proposed DeM, opment at 96 Wood Street (A2024-075)
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 1:59:48 FT4
You doin't ofteri get ernad from Lparn wfav thks iii,
I hope youre doing well. I wanted to share some, concerns from the neighborhood about the
proposed 8 -unit developilient at 96 Wood Street, which I believe will have a significant impact
on both the character of the area and our ahvady strained ilift-astruettire. I ruiderstand that
you're tile plarmer on the project.
While we recognize the city's focus on intensification within niaJor transit areas, it's hirportant
that this be done in a way that respects the unique heritage and feet of our neighborhood. The
proposed height of 12 nieters exceeds the current bylaw hinit and would stand out against tile
sun -rounding homes, which are much lower inn profile. I've attached photos of nearby properties,
to illustrate how this development could disrupt the cohesion of the area.
Another iriajor issue is traffic congestion, especially when it comes to parking. The streets
around us, particularly Wood, York, Mormt Hope, and Eden, are already overwhelmed with
cars, often chie to nearby hospital staff parking here. I've attached photos showing current
parking congestion to give you a better sense of the challenges we face. The addition of more
units without sufficient parking solutions will only exacerbate this problem.
One of the main reasons my partner and I chose to move to this neighborhood, specifically at
109 Wood Street, right across, from the proposed development, is because of the unique charin
of the small, character -filled homes, the beautiffil old trees lining the street, and the sense of
close-knit community. This development, particularly at the proposed height and scale,
threatens to fundamentally alter that character and diminish the appeal that originally drew us
here.
Additionally, we are concerned that tile construction of a building of this size and density will
negatively impact the value of our home and investment. Preser,,,,ing the neighborhood's
heritage is not only about aesthetics but also about rriaintaining the qualities that sustain it and
its value, both for CUITellt residents and ftilhire generations.
We'd appreciate aily steps; you can take to ensure that these concerns are taken into account. I
ainstrongly against this proposal/application. If there's any additional information or action
you would recoininend on our part, please let me know.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Tristan Pilcher
Page 155 of 267
Page 156 of 267
Page 157 of 267
From:
To. Committee of Adhmtrnent (SM); Sean Harris n Debbie Chapman
sljllnject: Commiittee of Adjustimfit Concerm - 96 Wood Street
date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 7:25JQ PM
Attachments: 96 Wood Street - Fllan.pcllf
II You doin't ofter"ii get ernall from . Lpairn Wh� tf1u15 r, uryii.ortaint
Conunittee of Adjustment, Sean HaiTigan and Debbie Chapman,
Re: A-2024-075 - 96 Wood Street
Requesting ininor wn-iances topernfit a visihilit.jl* ohstruction (aftnee) having a height
of 1.83in u4thin one side of theDriveut'i ' i, Visihilit ' ill Triangle (DVT) ran
alher than
inaxininn p
ierinitted heig)a of 0. 9in within the D 1,71- a lot area ol'3 93 sq. in. rather than
the required 450 sq, ni,- aftont 'vard sethack of 3,8ni rather than the required 4.5in; an
exterior side, ' vard setback abutfing lbr* Street 9f 2-5ni rather than the required 41n; a
bnildhi�g height of 121n rather than the inaxiinuin pernfifted I I in to facilitate the
redevelol)ment of the pro perij, into an 8 -trait ntufti�residential dwelling.
See plan attached.
I am sharing my concerns prior to the Coininittee of A(tjustraent meeting scheduled for
September 17, 200 24.
I M tM WLOJ 0114 1 COMR11113 Oil 1ffWMM
As demonstrated in the request for maximum height and width variances, the proportion of
this 8 -unit plan is vast. The building's size is, inibalanced in comparison to the existing
stnictures in the neighbourhood. In addition, this plan does not align with Cit), guidelines and
is disrespectful to aqjacent horneowners.
As per the Urban Design Manual
Respect existing and planned contexts, heights, building lengths and massing. Ensure
new buildings do not appear substantially larger than the existing buildings. If a larger
building is proposed, its massing should be subdivided into smaller, compatible pieces.
Maintain the neighbourhood's prevailing pattern of lot widths, lot depth and lot area.
Complement the existing development pattern of the neighbotit-hood in tenus of
building location, building height, landscaping, setbacks, entrances, windows and other
carchitecturall element& The use of repetitive of generic design is discouraged.
DESIGN AND SQA* rERI ALS
As illustrated in the plan, the aesthetic of this 8 -unit is "'conteiiipor,,irv,iiiodei-ti cookie -cutter".
Page 158 of 267
The building's drawing does not include any design elements that integrate with the heritage
and character of the neighbourhood. In addition, this plan does not align with City guidelines.
As per the Urban Design Manual ...
• Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood
characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length and
architectural rhythms.
• Respect the rhythms of design elements from the existing neighbourhood and
streetscape. This rhythm can be found through massing, materials, details, and
architectural features.
• On a street where existing elements (e.g. architectural styles, porches, building
placement, materials etc.) are recurring, new development should reflect some or all of
the key elements, sensitively interpreting these elements to reflect contemporary design
approaches.
Here are some examples of new, quality builds that are well integrated in the neighbourhood
65 Gildner Street
123 Wood Street
MKIN ••IMMUM
95 Mount Hope
103 Mount Hope
107 Mount Hope
WASTE AND RECYCLING
The applicant has not outlined the mass waste enclosure for the 8 -unit plan. While this detail is
not an application requirement, it's disrespectful not to proactively include this information for
adjacent homeowners. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be remaining outdoor space in the
plan for a mass waste enclosure.
As per the Urban Design Manual ...
• Waste storage areas are to be fully enclosed and screened from public view, first
through the thoughtful design of site and building elements (including placement,
orientation and locating the storage area internally to the building), then through
landscape screening, and finally, if other options do not exist, through enhanced
enclosure design.
Page 159 of 267
• Provide safe and convenient recycling options including secure and generous sorting
rooms, options for organic materials, and roll-out or outdoor garbage locations that do
not negatively impact the streetscape, shared spaces, or building occupants (noise,
odour).
TREES AND LANDSCAPING
The applicant did not provide a tree preservation plan. Staff are still evaluating tree retention.
Please be aware there is a growth tree situated on the new entrance path and another old
growth tree to the right of the driveway.
It is unfortunate that this landlord has taken an opportunity from a first-time home
buyer/family. We are very concerned that this development will set a precedent in the
neighbourhood. Apparently, this landlord has expressed a development interest in another
nearby home.
I recognize the need for the "Growing Together" initiative however, please respect the
character and heritage of the neighbourhood. Our City standards/guidelines exist for a reason.
My husband and I own/live at . We have lived here for 13 years. Our home is
located kiddy -corner to the proposed development.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jennifer Gaunt
Page 160 of 267
w o
a
N
W
id1
�f7
4fa
LLJ
M
M
r
z
N
y LL
o m
P N ry
oa
W
J
0.
S")
h-
IV
hl
W C3
N
��ry
6
of
w
CW
co co
Q
L
i)
IIc1:l.II RX41 141009
z
w
2
(.
Q
J
+w
LU
ca
LL
O
Ua
J
Q
w
O
MMMIS 313UONOJ 9NIISIX3
£9ZU 3..OS .ZZ.C9 N
AM1'J`..Irl ki tug g
's 0931 A3 W9 t,
N
W
id1
�f7
4fa
LLJ
M
M
h
N
y LL
o m
P N ry
mC7
CL
a
cr,h,
Cl)
S")
h-
IV
hl
N
��ry
6
lf9
w
CW
co co
Q
i)
Lij
M
M
4)
Z
P
M
P
N
P
t
d
Z
m
0
(Y
V
V
P
N
N
o
o
_
E
Z
X
a
z
z
Z
z~
w
w
a
a
w
u
—
w
w
Z
C)
Q
d4
4
Q
a
a
cq
❑
Z
40
�'
-
W
d
a
CL
C?
U
u'7
V
d
p
❑
'Cl
m
d
m
.�
❑
❑
Se
W W
d
d
a
W
J
0�
d
d�
>^
"¢
Y
N
J
J
m
m
U)
J
z
J
J
LL
0-
m
MMMIS 313UONOJ 9NIISIX3
£9ZU 3..OS .ZZ.C9 N
AM1'J`..Irl ki tug g
's 0931 A3 W9 t,
w
wac
O 0
4 O
L1.
LL
L z o o z
W ❑ LL m o
J
In m m
N
(D
z
z
D7
LLJ
d
<
2 `J.
y LL
o m
P N ry
a
W
LL
N
m
0
N
w
wac
O 0
4 O
L1.
LL
L z o o z
W ❑ LL m o
J
In m m
z
L0
r
AnAnl
J
w
CO
W
wV
a
z
L0
r
AnAnl
J
w
CO
W
From:
Sean Harrigan
To:
Cc:
Committee of Adjustment (SM); Tina Malone -Wright
Subject:
RE: 96 Wood Street Proposed 8 -Unit development
Date:
Wednesday, September 11, 2024 10:11:54 AM
Attachments:
imaae001.ona
imaae002.ona
imaae003.ona
imaae004.ona
imaae005.ona
imaae006.ona
imaae007.ona
imaae008.ona
Good morning Andrew,
Thank you for your email and comments. The Committee of Adjustment staff will ensure your
comments are provided to the Panel Members for their consideration.
Regards,
Sean Harrigan
Senior Planning Technician, Customer Experience & Project Management I Planning & Housing
Policy Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7292 1 Sean. Harrioan(a)kitchener.ca
From: Andrew Wong
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 96 Wood Street Proposed 8 -Unit development
You don't often get email from a
Hello,
Learn why this is important
I'm writing to express my concern about the proposed redevelopment of a 8 -unit building at 96
wood street. There are a couple concerns I have, namely:
1) Parking is already very congested around the area of that home. I understand this 8 -unit building
likely wouldn't have sufficient parking for the residents. It is also understood that while this house is
close to public transit, I would be expected that a majority of the tenants would have a car, and the
unit would not have enough parking space.
2) The neighborhood has a particular character, where most buildings in that area are not too tall,
and have brick finishing. I feel this building may not ensure the character of the neighborhood.
Page 162 of 267
Please let me know if you have any questions for me,
Thanks!
Andrew Wong
Page 163 of 267
From:
Sean Harriaan
To:
Cc:
Committee of Adjustment (SM); Tina Malone -Wright
Subject:
RE: Redevelopment of 96 Wood Street Kitchener
Date:
Wednesday, September 11, 2024 10:17:05 AM
Attachments:
imaae001.Dna
imaae002.Dna
imaae003.Dna
imaae004.Dna
imaae005.Dna
imaae006.Dna
imaae007.Dna
imaae008.Dna
imaae010.Dna
imaae011.Dna
Good morning Elizabeth,
Thank you for your email and comments. The Committee of Adjustment staff will ensure your
comments are provided to the Panel Members for their consideration.
Regards,
Sean Harrigan
Senior Planning Technician, Customer Experience & Project Management I Planning & Housing Policy
Division I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7292 1 Sean.Harrioanna kitchener.ca
1
From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 9:29 AM
To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca>
Cc:
Subject: Re: Redevelopment of 96 Wood Street Kitchener
You don't often get email from
Hello Sean,
Learn why this is important
This email is regarding the proposed redevelopment of an eight unit rental building at 96 Wood St.
Kitchener.
I have lived in my home now for almost 66 years. I have raised my 5 children in this home and
enjoyed watching many other families grow up in the homes on my street. I do understand the
importance for intensification within major transit station areas but I request that the city and the
committee respect the "culture heritage landscape" of our area. As for the building height please
have the building restricted to the bylaws 11 -meter limit. The 12 -meter height of the proposed
Page 164 of 267
building does not fit within the character of the neighbourhood. The following photo is the character
of the homes on Wood St.
Another concern is parking. Street parking is already overwhelmed, especially with non residents
from Grand River Hospital parking here. York and Wood St. are congested now and any additional
units would strain the situation further. As it is two way traffic cannot get through on York and Wood
St. with all the cars parked at the side of the road.
Page 165 of 267
As you can see in this photo there is not room for two way traffic on York St. We have the same issue
on Wood St!
As for design of the building please ensure there is parking for all the units and the materials (brick,
finishes, and front porches) as well as the overall structure and landscaping integrates with my
neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Beyers
Page 166 of 267
From:
Tai. Committee of Adhmtrnent (SM)
sljll�,ject: 96 Wood SL
DaM Wednesday, Septembff 11, 2024 4:07:59 PM
You don"t often qet ernad frorn Learn whthis us urns portant
I have lived at Wood St. for 65 years.
I just heard that they want to built a 8 unit occupancies building at 96 Wood. This property is
too small for for that kirid of structure plus parking.
Street parking in this area is either permit or 2 hour parking and is usmilly congested with
people parking to go to the hospital who calmot find parking there.
Our area is old heritage area made IT Of mostly single dwelling homes. This build will look so
out of place and not welcome, by the residents that I have spke to,
I will remind you, that the bylaw for this area is building can NOT be over I I meters,
Again we strongly ol�ject to the proposal put foi-ward to chaDge this property.
Lynn & Wayne Hickman
Page 167 of 267
From:
To. Committee of Adhmtrnent (W); Sean HanjjWn
sljllaject: propo.9M 8 -unit developmcnit at 96 Wood St
DaM Wednesday, September 11, 2024 8:24:28 PM
You don't often qet ernad from Lr-arin wh� the jsmr4oirtant
Hello,
I'm writing to give illy input to the proposed development happening in iny neighbortilrood. I
live at St, and enjoy this residential neighbourhood, with its inattire trees, quiet
streets and older hoines. I live in a 2 -generation household with iny adult childr-en, and ani in
favour of multi -unit homes. I believe in intensification of our neighbourhoods as a creative
way to increase housingoptions. Affordable and attainable housing is a priority for our city
and I ani supportive of that. I love that this neigjibourhood is close to the ION and other major
transit routes.
I have some concernsabout the proposed developirient at 9,6 Wood St. The 8 -runt building
would be taller than the bylaw I I -nieter limit, changing the cultin-e heritage landscape of this
neighbourhood. I arn also very concerned that this development of 8 units only includes 1
parking spot! Where will these tenants park? Is the plan to only approve tenants, with 110
vehicles for these units,? Our streets are already full with hospital parking, so adding more
vehicles would increase the congestion. A building that fits within the height bylaw, with
fewer units and more park -Ing, that also includes landscaping that replaces any trees that have
been removed. Please help preserve the natural beauty of this area.
Thank- you for considering ilry feedback.
Marilyn Rudy-Froese
Page 168 of 267
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Subject: 96 Wood St.
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 9:01:31 AM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Paul Koop
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Dear Members of the Committee,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development of
an 8 -unit building at 96 Wood Street. Understanding the city's goals
for intensification, I urge the Committee to carefully consider the
impact this development will have on our neighbourhood's unique
character and landscape — many of the homes in the neighbourhood were
built for Dominion Tire factory employees.
One major concern is the proposed building height of 12 meters. This
exceeds the bylaw's 11 -meter limit and does not align with the
character of our neighbourhood. This size of building would be
inconsistent with the lower -scale nature of the area. A building of
this height would disrupt the visual harmony and aesthetic value that
defines our community.
Parking is another significant issue — our current parking situation
is already strained. Street parking is frequently overwhelmed,
exacerbated by non-residents such as hospital staff who use our
streets as overflow parking. Current parking restrictions, including
2 -hour limits and ticketing for hospital employees, highlight the
existing challenges. Introducing additional units will only intensify
this problem, making it even more difficult for residents to find
adequate parking.
Lastly, the preservation of trees and landscaping is crucial. Although
there is no bylaw preventing tree removal, I ask that the Committee
require the developer to implement a comprehensive landscaping plan
that replaces any removed trees. This would help maintain the natural
beauty and environmental quality of our neighbourhood.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Sincerely,
Paul Koop
Page 169 of 267
From:
To: Committee of Adiustment (SM)
Cc: Sean Harriaan
Subject: 96 Wood St Alteration
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:59:05 AM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LeamAboutSend erldentification ]
I saw the sign on the lawn at 96 Wood St and thought they would have "a" rental unit, that's in line with
the area and would not change the ambiance here, but a massive 8 unit complex on the corner of Wood
and York would cause chaos in the area. There are already hospital staff and hospital visitors already
taking up the entire street, so there is very little parking already for the people who call this place home;
no parking planned for 8 more families in this tiny place will only exacerbate the problem. With a 2 hour
max parking on the street, anyone living there would not be able to stay more than 2 hours, and there is
no overnight parking, there will be no place for them. This is a peaceful area of homes secluded with
dead end street which help keep it quiet, building an oversized monstrosity would destroy the quant
community and ruin the century old character and culture of the area. To try and force in that many units
it will have to be a oversized 40+ foot tall leviathan taking up the entire lot, obliterating the natural
beauty and devastating the look and feel of our cosy locality. The city is growing and we need more
housing, but put giant housing complexes in the busier areas and leave cute little neighbourhoods alone.
The beautiful houses and trees make this part of town special, building a gigantic housing block in the
middle of this community would be a mistake and I feel this would devastate the whole area. Please
don't alter this beautiful spot, it is a small paradise that could be lost with this proposal. Thank you for
Page 170 of 267
From:
Tai. Committee of Adhmtrnent (W)
SIJII�Ject: ProWw,d redevelopment of an 8 -unit rental [xidding at 916 Wood Street
[nage. Thursday, September 12, 2024 2:15,59 PM
You don't often qet ernad from Learn wh,4 thjs r,r 4-ni��ortart
Good afternoon,
The purpose of this einail is to relay my objection to the proposed 8-tunt development at 96
Wood Street.
While I appreciate the city's need for intensification within transit station areas, I expect that
the city and conmiAtee will respect the cultural heritage landscape of our neighbourhood and
restrict the building height to the bylaw's I I nieter limit. The 12 -meter height of the proposed
building does not fit within the character of the neighborhood, toot to mention rernoves all
privacy for neighbours.
I would also like to express my concern regarding parking. While I commend the city fi°oni
promoting cycling and moving away ftoin car -centric planning, most residents are still car
dependent. Parking in this area is already overwhelined by rion-residents at the hospital and
neighbouring Sunlife, insurance office. Not to iriention there is no parking overnight during the
winter months. The proposed build will ultimately lead to g
p -eater congestion and strain on this
small neighbourbood.
I also expect the committee will require a landscaping plan to replace airy trees that are
removed. Unfortunately, more trees are being removed Morn this neighbourhood than being
put in, which hurts the riattiral beauty of this area, while leaving us exposed to cliniate related
incidents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Amanda Gordon
Page 171 of 267
From:
To. Comni olf AdtliJ (.5111); Sean Harrijign
Cc Debt* Chariman
Subje "t Opposed tro variance Request for 961h ood St (A-20,24-075)
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:57,26 PM
Attachments: 96, Wood Street - Man.Ddf
Ycu don't often get ernaJl frcmii
,
111�111 11111111 111111 ljllpj�il � iiiiiii 111 Jill I
� " ' M, M " T =4M =---. I
1.83m within one side of the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DlVT) rather than maximum
permitted height of 0.9m within the DiVT, a lot area of 393 sq.m. rather than the required
450 sq.m; a front yard'setback of 3.8m rather than the required 4.5m; an exterior side
* 1 w V # V eitzivt dlom-'- h 6&)I*K
of 12m rather than the maximum permitted 1 1m to facilitate the redevelopment of thz
property into an &unit multi -residential dwelling.
Dear Committee Members,
I hiopie thiis message f:inids you well. ;J narne is "ITittiarn Roigers, and I res,ide at
which is directly across from the! proposed development at96 Wood Street. lamwiritingto
exALMS's-W _gp
_.q
turning this single-family dwelling into an 8 -unit multi-resildential building.
The proposed variances inctude:
1. Fence Hleight: Request to permit a fence height of 1.83m within the Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) instead of the imaximiulmi permitted height of 0.9m.
2. Lot Area: A request for a lot area of 393 sq.m, rather than the required 451 sq.m,
3. Front Yard Setback: A front yard setback of 3.8m instead of the required 4.5m.
4. Exterior Side, Yard Setback: A setback abutting York Street of 2.5m rather than the
required 4m.
5. Building Height: A building height of 12m instead of the Ima imulml permitted 11 m.
I am concerned that the proposed variances and the overall design of this redevelopment
project do not align with the City's Urban Design Mlanuat and may adversely impact our
Page 172 of 267
neighborhood. Here are my specific concerns:
Proportion and Balance:
The proposed building's size and height are disproportionate compared to existing structures
in the neighborhood. According to the Urban Design Manual, new buildings should respect the
existing context and massing, avoiding significant discrepancies in size. The proposed building
appears significantly larger and does not reflect a harmonious integration with the surrounding
structures.
Respect existing and planned contexts, heights, building lengths and massing.
Ensure new buildings do not appear substantially larger than the existing buildings.
If a larger building is proposed, its massing should be subdivided into smaller,
compatible pieces.
Maintain the neighbourhood's prevailing pattern of lot widths, lot depth and lot
area.
Complement the existing development pattern of the neighbourhood in terms of
building location, building height, landscaping, setbacks, entrances, windows and
other architectural elements. The use of repetitive or generic design is
discouraged.
Design and Materials:
The design presented is described as "contemporary/modern cookie -cutter" and lacks
elements that reflect the character and heritage of our neighborhood. The Urban Design
Manual emphasizes the importance of integrating new developments with the existing
architectural rhythm, including respect for building height, setbacks, and materials. The
proposed design does not seem to align with these guidelines and fails to complement the
existing development patterns.
Provide a built -form which respects and complements existing neighbourhood
characteristics, including heights, setbacks, orientation, building width and length
and architectural rhythms.
Respect the rhythms of design elements from the existing neighbourhood and
streetscape. This rhythm can be found through massing, materials, details, and
architectural features.
On a street where existing elements (e.g. architectural styles, porches, building
placement, materials etc.) are recurring, new development should reflect some or
all of the key elements, sensitively interpreting these elements to reflect
contemporary design approaches.
Here are some examples of new, quality builds that are well integrated in the neighbourhood
Page 173 of 267
65 C.;,IIU.dIr1ieir Street
123 Wood Street
55 Woo(J Street
95 ICSou.alIrt IV.1oPE,
103 ICS o u.al Ir t I[- I a b) e
107 ICM o u i In t IV®il a b) e
Waste and Recycling:
The application does not provide details on waste and recycling storage, which is crucial for
the quality of life of adjacent homeowners. The lack of information about waste management
and the apparent absence of designated outdoor space for waste enclosures are concerning.
Waste storage areas are to be fully enclosed and screened from public view, first
through the thoughtful design of site and building elements (including placement,
orientation and locating the storage area internally to the building), then through
landscape screening, and finally, if other options do not exist, through enhanced
enclosure design.
Provide safe and convenient recycling options including secure and generous
sorting rooms, options for organic materials, and roll-out or outdoor garbage
locations that do not negatively impact the streetscape, shared spaces, or building
occupants (noise, odour).
Trees and Landscaping:
The absence of a tree preservation plan is troubling, especially since there are significant
growth and old-growth trees on the property. These trees contribute to the character of our
neighborhood, and their preservation should be a priority.
Impact on Neighborhood:
This development may set a concerning precedent in our community, especially considering
that the landlord has shown interest in redeveloping other nearby properties. Such large-scale
changes could significantly alter the character of our neighborhood, which is a vital aspect of
our community's identity.
Page 174 of 267
While I understand the need for growth and development, I respectfully urge the Committee to
consider these concerns in light of maintaining the character and standards of our
neighborhood. The existing City guidelines and standards are in place to ensure balanced and
respectful development, and I believe adherence to these principles is crucial. Our
neighbourhood and local community is unique and we would like to keep it that way.
Thankyou foryour attention to these matters. I appreciate your consideration and hope for a
decision that respects the heritage and character of our community.
Sincerely,
Will Rogers
Page 175 of 267
w o
a
N
O
W
id1
�f7
4fa
LLJ
M
M
r
z
N
y LL
o m
P N ry
oa
W
J
cr,h,
Cl)
S")
h-
IV
hl
W C3
N
��ry
6
of
w
CW
co co
Q
L
v
v
v
i)
IIc1:l.II RX41 141009
z
w
2
(.
Q
J
+w
LU
ca
LL
O
Ua
J
Q
w
O
MMMIS 313UONOJ 9NIISIX3
£9ZU 3..OS .ZZ.C9 N
AM1'J`..Irl ki tug g
's 0931 A3 W9 t,
N
O
W
id1
�f7
4fa
LLJ
M
M
h
N
y LL
o m
P N ry
mC7
CL
a
cr,h,
Cl)
S")
h-
IV
hl
N
��ry
6
lf9
w
CW
co co
Q
v
v
v
i)
Lij
M
M
4)
Z
P
M
P
N
P
t
d
Z
m
0
(Y
V
V
P
N
N
o
o
_
E
Z
X
a
z
z
Z
z~
w
w
a
a
w
u
—
w
w
Z
C)
Q
d4
4
Q
a
a
cq
❑
Z
40
�'
-
W
d
a
CL
C?
U
u'7
V
d
p
❑
'Cl
m
d
m
.�
❑
❑
Se
W W
d
d
a
W
J
0�
d
d�
>^
"¢
Y
N
J
J
m
m
U)
J
z
J
J
LL
0-
m
MMMIS 313UONOJ 9NIISIX3
£9ZU 3..OS .ZZ.C9 N
AM1'J`..Irl ki tug g
's 0931 A3 W9 t,
w
wac
O 0
4 O
L1.
LL
L z o o z
W ❑ LL m o
J
In m m
N
O
(D
z
z
01
LLJ
d
<
2 `J.
y LL
o m
P N ry
a
W
LL
N
m
0
N
a
v
v
v
w
wac
O 0
4 O
L1.
LL
L z o o z
W ❑ LL m o
J
In m m
z
L0
r
AnAnl
J
w
CO
W
wV
a
z
L0
r
AnAnl
J
w
CO
W
From:
To. Committee of Adhmtrnent (SM); Sean HanijUn
SIJIIaject: 96 Wood St
[nage. Thursday, September 12, 2024 5:34;19 PM
You don't often qet ernad from Learn wthis �, iirsirtaint
Good afternoon,
I am writing to express illy concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of 96 Wood St.
,and the request for several variances. As a rear neighbor, diagonal to the property, I have
serious reservations about the scale and impact of the proposed redevelopment and urge this
Conlinittee of Actjustinent to, deny the requested variances for lot size, height, and front and
side yard setbacks,
WIlile I appreciate the city's need for intensification within transit station areas, I arn opposed
to the variances requested for lot size, front and side yard setbacks, and building height,,
Adherence to lot size restrictions and front and side yard setbacks are a big reason wily new
construction "fits" the neighbourhood. The, 12 -ureter height of the proposed building does not
fit within the cultural heritage landscape of our neiglibourhood and will be all eyesore to our
neighbour.
Additionally, such a large building renroves all privacy for illy faillily and our a4jacent
neighbours. A rooftop patio would be extreiriely invasive and wouldn't be warranted if the
proposal adhered to lot size restrictions.
Relocating parking ftom Wood St. to York St. raises significant safety issues. York St is often
used as a through street and the additional driveway would increase risks for pedestrialls,
cyclists and drivers. There is simply no need to add another access point when the driveway
can safely reartain oil Wood St,
Filially, the city is considering a proposal to add more people to tile, neighbourhood witliout
having the proper Hiftastrilctin-e in place or ensuring that the proposed develop inerit will meet
tile needs of the would-be tenants. The addition of a new (Iriveway oil York S,t. would also
remove valuable on -street parking spaces ftecluelitly used by hospital visitors. This change
would negatively impact the broader coninitmity, reducing accessibility in air area where street
parking is already at a preninuil.
I ask that tile committee deny the requested variances for front and side yard setbacks, lot size,
and height.
Thailk you,
Karl Snyder
Page 177 of 267
From:
To. Sean Harn(lan
cc) Committee of Adjumtment (SM)
Subje "t '96 Wood St - Proposal Objection
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 8:14.51 AM
II You doin't ofter"ii get ernad froir Learn whhis os firm pc)rtant
To, whour it rulay concern,
I ani a lifelong resident of Kitchener on Wood St, between Behriont Village and Grand River
Hospital. My and finny family as well as the rest of the neighborhood have recently becoure
aware, of a proposed 8 -unit rental property to be constructed froin an existing house on the
corner of Wood St. and York St. at the address 96 Wood St. I ain writing to object this
proposal, as I believe it would negatively affect our neighborhood's cultural lieritage
landscape, which is important to ine, as sonreone who has lived in this house Since I was a
your child.
I ackiliowledge the cities need for intensification near major transit sites, like the Grand River
Hospital ION station, and while I agree with this idea, I think the affects of the changes to this
particular house do not J ustify the total transformation. I ani asking that the building height be
restricted to the by-law's 11 -nieter lunit.
Going over the height linut does not fit the character of the neighbourhood, where all of the
other house exist within the height contraints. I also wonT about the parking situation. The
neighbourhood already has inany non-residents, such as hospital ernployees, who park on
Wood Street or York Street, making it a lot niore congested. We already have parking
restrictions, such as 2-horu parking hinnies and I believe that adding a possible 8 niore cars to
this area would not only be a problein for existing residents, but also to the ones inoving in.
Moreover, I would request that should city's plan continue, that any trees or existing trees be
replaced, as our street has niany old trees and beautifirl landscaping, which is son-tething, I love
about the street.
Ultimately, I love living in this neighbourhood and I believe tile current development proposal
would be obstnictive and would not fit the current feeling of this neighbourhood. With so
nirich development occurring in both Kitchener and Waterloo, it would be sad to see the saine,
changes occur in our sniall neiglibourhood.
If the above ideas could be considered, I would deeply appreciate it, as would tile rest of the
neighbourhood!
Thank you,
Olivia Koop
Page 178 of 267
From:
Taal: Sean Harrician; CorniniAtee of Adiustment JSP
sull�,ject: 96 Wood St
data:. Friday, September 13, 2024 10:W56 AMI
You don't often get ern add front . Learn wh
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed 8 -unit apartment building at 96
Wood Street. My husband and I have lived on Wood St for over 20 years; we have watched
homeowners in this area, (including ourselves) renovate to accommodate growing families
rather than move out of this neighbourhood. These few blocks (between Wood / Mt Hope
dnier) are a irarity - a we[I-established, humble neighbourhood with streets lined by tall
trees,, where people find community within the density of a city.
The 12-mieter height of thiisi proposed building exceeds the bylaw limit, and I feel it disrupts
the character of our neighbourhood. Thieire have always been 2 triplexes at the end of W'ooi
St by the park, but they are modest and do not draw your eyei. A building of this height
would disrupt the visual harmony and aesthetic value, along with, being precarious,ly placed
�n the middle of the, neighbourhood and its resideomesi.
Parking; is also a major concern. Our streets -- particula-rl�y Wood, York, and Eden are
ailready congested. Our neighbourhood is used as a thrwh-way between, King St Grand
River Hospital to Belmont Village. Current parking restrictioins, inc�luding 2 -hour limits ainid
ticketingi, are insufficient to manage the high demand; people already park illegal�ly on a
regular basisi. Adding more units in this small section of the city will exacerbate thiis
proiblem, making it even, harder for resiidents to finid parking. (My husband even got a
parking ticket this summer for parking on, our street)
- 11
or --rill =W=-- =-- Q -
Im 11 to] L" atolls I Eamirt III nil ggzwul I I III op E4 a L,-4&-1qlgL--1VM11 1031 fis U*J 121 L+=.;] 11! E I molm Eq AARMOU9
On a personal note, I (hear about the inadequacies of finding affordable palaces to live in KW
on, a daily basis in the work I do, so I am, aware of the city's need to, intensify especially
near public transportation. However, I aim going to assume that this 8-plex wifl not be
owned by a Vocal individual who is invested in the community and the rent willl snot actually
be affordable, My assumptions (and maybe I'm wrong) are that this is a capitalist venture
without regard for quiality, affordable units to provide safe living spaces within our little
ineighbourhood for those who actually need it.
The times we live in require decision- ima kers who consider imore than just the legailities, of
zoning, so thank you for your consideration.
Sairah
Page 179 of 267