HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-455 - A 2024-080 - 92 River Road EastStaff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: October 15, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-741-2200 ext. 7765
PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7843
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT: October 4, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-455
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-080 — 92 River Road East
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2024-080 for 92 River Road East requesting relief
from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 4.12.4 a) to not require 1 pedestrian entrance on the front face of the
principal building whereas the Zoning By-law requires a pedestrian entrance
on the front face of the principal building;
ii) Section 5.3 e) i) to permit the parking lot to be set back 0.15 metres from the
rear lot line and 0.5 metres from the southerly side lot line instead of the
minimum required 1.5 metres;
iii) Section 7.3, Table 7-6, to permit a lot width of 19.4 metres instead of the
minimum required 30 metres; and
iv) Section 7.3, Table 7-6, to permit an interior side yard setback of 3 metres
instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres;
to facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a new multiple dwelling building
having 10 dwelling units, generally in accordance with drawings prepared by
Dryden, Smith and Head, dated August 30, 2024, BE APPROVED.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review a minor variance application to facilitate the
redevelopment of the subject lands by demolishing the existing detached dwelling and
replacing it with a multiple dwelling building with 10 dwelling units.
• The key finding of this report is that the requested variances meet the 4 tests of the
Planning Act.
• 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
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 5 of 157
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 on the North side of River Road East between Victoria
Avenue North and Frederick Street.
rvm_
At
A
Figure 1: Location Map
The subject property is identified as a `Community Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and
is designated `Medium Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official
Plan.
The property is zoned `Medium Rise Residential Six Zone (RES -6)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051.
The purpose of the application is to facilitate the redevelopment of the lands by
demolishing the existing detached dwelling and replacing it with a new multiple dwelling
building containing 10 dwelling units.
Page 6 of 157
A Site Plan application is not required for developments with 10 dwelling units or less. A
Zoning Occupancy Certificate (ZOC) has been submitted and is under review.
k
h
W
F�
Figure 2: View of Existing Detached Dwelling
(September 27, 2024)
>�wux ueauwwxru r
MFA I x�iaEo
55.55±„ kP4 .38-
-
®R
' wurwaeowwu
+rvs�I� �Yl T
�P
w I'
T
ss,�� � ,� rvae+euo vwwvr � �-fi.dE
mrzxrn �3 � wa xvinwmxays•mrm �++rA z 3 ume
PROPOSED
_ 3 STOREY, 113 -UNIT
MULTIPLE DWELLING
.3anse Enaove a e
J L�Ao
56.392m N as
wx+iwu w'rlrccsraY) �m,��j a�
XX
S.f±m ~� � Iii 21�93n,� � uxmrsern euwm
1 �mrrF - eo osm uxoxwsn ensssx
Figure 3: Concept Plan (Dryden, Smith, and Head)
Page 7 of 157
wwr
4 Y�
h
A "01009Z
a v
°rY ''k k�. f.
Sa`
4 � �'�k,� ���
i� hkW'/'1J �
vitM1 1"'� r8 f -
YF moi` 7
a -
4 T•
k
h
W
F�
Figure 2: View of Existing Detached Dwelling
(September 27, 2024)
>�wux ueauwwxru r
MFA I x�iaEo
55.55±„ kP4 .38-
-
®R
' wurwaeowwu
+rvs�I� �Yl T
�P
w I'
T
ss,�� � ,� rvae+euo vwwvr � �-fi.dE
mrzxrn �3 � wa xvinwmxays•mrm �++rA z 3 ume
PROPOSED
_ 3 STOREY, 113 -UNIT
MULTIPLE DWELLING
.3anse Enaove a e
J L�Ao
56.392m N as
wx+iwu w'rlrccsraY) �m,��j a�
XX
S.f±m ~� � Iii 21�93n,� � uxmrsern euwm
1 �mrrF - eo osm uxoxwsn ensssx
Figure 3: Concept Plan (Dryden, Smith, and Head)
Page 7 of 157
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:
General Intent of the Official Plan
The intent of the Medium Rise Residential land use designation is to accommodate a
range of medium density housing types, including multiple dwellings and townhouse
dwellings. It is also to encourage and support the mixing and integrating of innovative and
different forms of housing. The applicant is proposing to provide a Low Rise form of
development, due to the lot size being inadequate for a Medium Rise form. The use of
multiple dwelling is permitted in the land use designation, and it will help to achieve a mix
and integration of housing types in the neighbourhood. Planning Staff is of the opinion that
the requested variances will meet the general intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
Pedestrian Entrance
The intent of the regulation that requires the building to contain at least one pedestrian
entrance on the front fagade of the principal dwelling is to address the street, avoid blank
walls, and animate the streetscape with building articulation. The subject lands have an
atypically large distance between the front lot line and the sidewalk River Road East
(approximately 15 metres); thus, any new building will be set back a great distance from
the public realm and would not impact the streetscape as much as lots that have a typical
distance (1-2 metres) between the front lot line and the sidewalk. To address architectural
articulation and avoiding blank walls, the applicant has provided elevation drawings that
include windows on all three levels and a Juliet balcony on the second level (see Figure
4). Planning Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of
the Zoning By-law.
Parking Lot Setback
The intent of the regulation that requires a 1.5 metre setback for a parking lot is to provide
an adequate space for landscape plantings and to provide a buffer for the parking area to
adjacent properties. The subject lands are abutting a parking area for the adjacent
apartment buildings on the rear lot line and southerly side lot line. Therefore, there is not
as great of a need to provide a buffer on those lot lines as the condition would be surface
parking abutting surface parking. In turn, this request would enable a greater landscape
buffer and setback (1.85 metres) to the northerly side property line, providing a buffer to
the existing residential lands currently used for a detached dwelling. In the opinion of
Planning Staff, the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Lot Width
The intent of the regulation that requires a 30 metre lot width is to provide adequate
functionality for a midrise building, as a building of 25 metres in height (approximately 8
storeys) is permitted in the RES -6 zone as -of -right. However, the applicant is seeking to
develop the lands with a 3 storey building, typical of the building type that is permitted in
the Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5). The minimum lot width in RES -5 zone is 19
Page 8 of 157
metres, demonstrating that the subject lands, without lot consolidation are better suited
towards a low rise residential development with the provided lot width of 19.8 metres. Staff
are of the opinion that the type of development proposed will be functional on a lot size of
19.8 metres and therefore are of the opinion that the requested variance for reduction in
lot width meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
Figure 4: Proposed Elevation facing River Road East
Side Yard Setback
The intent of the regulation that requires a 4.5 metre setback is to provide for adequate
building separation for a midrise building of up to 8 storeys. The proposed development is
to be 3 storeys in height, which would have significantly lesser impacts on abutting lands
than an 8 storey midrise building in regards to total massing, shadows, views, etc. Staff
acknowledge that a 3 metre setback is the standard for a 3 storey building in the Low Rise
Residential Five Zone (RES -5) and are of the opinion that a 3 metre setback meets the
general intent of the Zoning By-law by providing adequate building separation for a
building 3 storeys in height.
Page 9 of 157
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
Staff do not anticipate adverse impacts caused by the requested variances as the
proposed development offers similar standards for low-rise residential development in the
RES -5 Zone. The applicant has worked with staff to mitigate potential adverse impacts
and ensure if there are impacts, they will be minor. Therefore, Staff are of the opinion that
the effects of the requested variances are minor.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
The lands are inadequately sized for a midrise development, as they do not possess the
lot width that would allow for a functional development at greater building heights. The
requested variances are desirable and appropriate as they will enable the applicant to
develop a low-rise form of development, which in the opinion of staff is more appropriate
for the development of the lands.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No comments.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No heritage comments or concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a 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 Engineering concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
Parkland Dedication will be required for the net new residential units to be paid prior to the
issuance of the Building Permit.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services have no concerns with this application.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
Page 10 of 157
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.
CONSULT —Planning staff had one-on-one conversations with a resident in person and
on the telephone in regards to the proposed application.
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)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Concept Plan
Page 11 of 157
z
s a
ti
zx s
mw
= O
ao
ry
N
G
�N°34
zw
171,
j9 51_ 40'05"E
E
-
a o z
W W W
Q o K
O N w LL 0
N
w
K
�'
AM
a
1Sb
Jgdy
m � W
.0 p p
-o5 *�
55 55
E - - - -- M--------M- > wztt
d
55n
5.5n
Q a _.
_-_-55, d
0
� � I a
55,
185,
d
¢ a
e
550
ao
Y
v v
0.
o a _
5a
maa :E`Ns v��0
.s�
I
00
aaToi rmvr_w
_
2o0a.
w
!�
-m
nwn
�mu
a
mlo00 -
0-x ovnm
r3
000
E
aoxO
�
w
___-1
9.271n
�1.5+,
W
N c -
�+ p
o E
"
��. I�
a
aM �vv oAo10
..75n
- 0
0-
3o
mve
24na_3o"
-
Lp
9 a E 2 N E c
vm
z150,
_ vr00
=a
xc
rEr _ u
na
>
—7 77±H
7 77+
+I
j �
Ear Ei
- m e E x 0' _ '�^ � m
O�
0-
_
Yc
- o of= E E 3
oh I
3` a E£ E� oam r
I n �SN
MI
di
Z WmIZ
F
:3w
Z J ¢
I�
o v - -53V _
o
= W C7 ,L
O
2 I
n� o 03 -0.3 -qso
W
Q
Q
_ _- v- _ I
a
- V _
E A o OE
5 _
0 W J z
I
3.05ni
op
m € co _ _
- =mF - - �o-
w
24, 3
aOFww
>
QFI
¢
2 _00. `o`j-
ooc
m W no
o
-.-2
�
o
M^+
v - -_
'5i
�
WUa.m2
-�dIll
ry
I
�.
0
J�wo --
uM- w a= r J.
mmo
aN
m�=
I
W
v oo
E "v
- �-
-F-
-
,o
7771�
z
E
o0 = u
rZ N
.
oN N"m
_ 00 w v-> N,:Ert_
LLj'o ov,P a777±n o -Eo;
o
�
1Sn
ry_w_�,vrO
€
I
'64J
,y,
of
W d� H� F� ry m V
xui
-
In
�:
V
Ssn
wU �
2
.�
W
w
aE
a
�
N~
�
w
a
w w
w w
3
w.
w w
Wo Wo
wo wo
a a
-2.4,
---
- -
9.27#M
0
o
o€
0
]2.M
9.27±n
3,0=,—�
2
2
❑
a.sn 3.Otn
N 55 9'55"W
0d
1'3
g N
a5
7�,
o I
_
-
-
Ei E
E E
E
o
p
a_
9
p
- -
-
1.51n
~ -
5.Z\
E
E E
E
'
].65n
EO_
J z
alalu
��
W
E
U
N d
_
W
p
-
0.2
zi
Q
WEo
=
z
O
-
O
__
��_--
Y -�
a o
W In
-
y
Y
0
w
O
o
130W
aO
¢&
a
z
w
Pw
s
p
m char
�0� �C9a
O J
W�
Z l0
O
I
w
Q?
pp
O U
_ _
rc rc
m m
yz_ p
J
a�
+�
wa
-`a$
�.-
a
Z
O w
Nx
a 3
0 0
�oaxo
-W��
x
r
><
zz
Q
o
Q�
,—,
z w�Wo04
10
QQ ao=Qo
�bddbJ N7bM3O1S
Q
7bdIoINl1W
dF-licv
Er ErHULL04
wccoo
7 LLD
-
U
lSy�
�!
Ow zoo
0v
���/
Q �
0) C/) rnaULu0
September 30, 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 October 15, 2024, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2024 - 080 — 92 River Road East — No concerns
2) A 2024 - 081 — 236 Margaret Avenue — No concerns.
3) A 2024 — 082 — 685 Frederick Street — No concerns.
4) A 2024 - 083 — 361 Westmeadow Drive — No concerns.
5) A 2024 - 084 — 18 Pine Street — No concerns.
6) A 2024 - 085 — 62 Gage Street — No concerns.
7) A 2024 - 086 — 1295 Bleams Road — No concerns.
8) A 2024 - 087 — 211 Lancaster Street West — No concerns.
9) A 2024 - 088 — 130 Edmund Road - No concerns.
10)A 2024 - 089 — 132 Edmund Road — No concerns.
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.
Document Number: 4791308
91308
Page 13 of 157
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,
Katrina Fluit
Transportation Planner
(226) 753-4808
CC:
Connie Owen, City of Kitchener
CofA(o-) Kitchener. ca
Document Number: 4791308
Page 14 of 157
Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6
Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca
September 27, 2024
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 — October 15, 2024
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-080
92 River Road East
A 2024-081
236 Margaret Avenue
A 2024-082
685 Frederick Street
A 2024-084
18 Pine Street
A 2024-085
62 Gage Avenue
Applications for Consent
B 2024-026 211 Lancaster Street West
B 2024-027 130 Edmund Road
B 2024-028 132 Edmund Road
via email
A 2024-086
1295 Bleams Road
A 2024-087
211 Lancaster Street West
A 2024-088
130 Edmund Road
A 2024-089
132 Edmund Road
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(o-)_grand river. ca or
519-621-2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River
Page 15 of 157
October 3, 2024
Re; Committee of adjustment meeting on October 15, 2024 Item A2024-080 - 92 River Rd
Fast
The property in this application presently has a bungalow rented by a family and is
apparently in good condition.
We are not opposed to apartments on this portion of River Rd however a 3 story building
in this location on a small lot seems excessive. We now have 1, 2, 3 and 6 story houses and
apartments on this portion of River Road. All have nice landscaping, green space and adequate
parking.
The proposed new apartment building will require as requested a number of zoning bylaws
to be adjusted in order to fit the structure on the small lot.
The proposal will require the removal of probably all of the approximately 70 trees, many
over 50 feet tall with no room for any to be replaced.
The present property produces almost no stormwater runoff. The proposal will result in a
lot of storrnwater runoff. There does not seem to be any consideration for snow storage on site.
The position of the building results in a huge loss of privacy for us with many of the
` apartments front windows facing directly towards our home.
We are disappointed that the suggestion of this committee made during the previous
submission for this lot was not acted upon by the present applicants. We were unaware that the
property changed ownership and were not informed of this application until seeing the agenda
published in the newspaper. We have had no contact with the submitters of this proposal.
We own the adjoining half acre property and have indicated in the past a willingness to sell
at market price to previous owners of subject property. This would allow for a bigger, more
attractive and much less crowded layout similar to the other appartments on the block.
We are an interested party and are not in favour of this application.
Mr & Mrs Ron Heimoel
Page 16 of 157