HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-433 - Follow up to DSD-2024-371 - ZBA24/017/M/CD - 328-330 Mill Street - 1658194 Ontario Inc.Staff Report
r
JR
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
DATE OF MEETING: October 21, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing
Approvals, 519-741-2200 x 7070
PREPARED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing
Approvals, 519-741-2200 x 7070
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT: October 17, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-433
SUBJECT: Follow Up to DSD -2024-371
Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/017/M/CD
Address: 328-330 Mill Street
Owner: 1658194 Ontario L
RECOMMENDATION:
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/017/M/CD requesting to amend
Zoning By-law 2019-051, for 100918377 Ontario Inc. be approved in the form shown
in the Proposed `Proposed By-law' and `Map No. 1' attached to Report DSD -2024-
433 as Attachments 'Al' and `A2', and,
That pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as
amended, further notice is not required to be given in respect to Zoning By-law
Amendment ZBA24/017/M/CD, and further,
That the Proposed By-law to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law
2024-065, shall have no force and effect until By-law 2024-065 (Growing Together
PMTSAs) is in full force and effect in relation to the lands specified above.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• This is a follow up and supplementary report to Zoning By-law Amendment
Application ZBA24/017/M/CD DSD -2024-371. This report must be read in
conjunction with DSD -2024-371 which contains the full planning analysis.
• The purpose of this report is to outline staff's evaluation of the revised development
concept and provide an updated and revised planning recommendation regarding
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 10 of 56
the Zoning By-law Amendment Application for the property located at 328-330 Mill
Street.
• Staff had originally recommended refusal of the application and the decision was
deferred to September 30, 2024, meeting of Council, and subsequently again to the
October 21, 2024, Council meeting. The Applicant has now revised their design and
amendment request.
• It is staff's recommendation that the Zoning By-law Amendment Application be
approved, as amended.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
• This application was deemed complete on June 24, 2024. After September 24,
2024, the Applicant could appeal this application for non -decision.
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2024, Council deferred the application at the request of the applicant to
allow additional time for a revised proposal to be submitted and reviewed by staff. This
matter was deferred again on September 30, 2024 in agreement with the Applicant.
The Applicant and staff have been working together for the past several weeks and a
revised development proposal has been provided that seeks site-specific relief to Strategic
Growth Zone Three Zone (SGA -3) for the proposed development at 328 -application 330
Mill Street.
A copy of the updated planning justification, revised site plan concept and revised
architectural plans, submitted by the Applicant, are attached as Appendices to this report.
This report is scoped to a review of the revised development concept and should be read
in conjunction with the original staff report - Zoning By-law Amendment Application
ZBA24/017/M/CD DSD -2024-371, which includes a comprehensive planning analysis.
The original staff report (DSD -2024-371) was prepared while The Provincial Planning
Statement (PPS) 2020 and the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe, 2019 were in effect.
As of October 20, 2024, the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024 will be in effect.
This plan replaces both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow:
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 while building upon housing -
supportive policies from both documents. The PPS 2024 comes into effect on October 20,
2024, the day before this matter is scheduled to be considered by Council.
According to the Province, the PPS 2024 provides municipalities with the tools and
flexibility they need to build more homes. It enables municipalities to:
• plan for and support development, and increase the housing supply across the
province
• align development with infrastructure to build a strong and competitive economy
that is investment -ready
• foster the long-term viability of rural areas
• protect agricultural lands, the environment, public health and safety
Page 11 of 56
Sections 2.1.6 and 2.3.1.3 of the PPS 2024 promote planning for people and homes and
supports planning authorities to support general intensification and redevelopment while
achieving complete communities by, accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land
uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public
service facilities and other institutional uses, recreation, parks and open space, and other
uses to meet long-term needs.
Staff are now in support of the revised amendment to Zoning By-law 2019-051. This
application proposes to add with Site Specific Provision (412) and Holding Provision (96H)
which propose site specific regulations to the Strategic Growth Area Three Zone (SGA -3).
REPORT:
Site Specific regulations are now requested to three main sections of the Strategic Growth
Area Three Zone (SGA -3), being physical separation, front yard setback, and setbacks.
Each section is discussed below.
Physical Separation
The physical separation for the westerly side yard is now met for all floors except for
storeys 19 to 28, where a 2 metre reduction is requested for those floors only. To achieve
this outcome, the entire building was repositioned on the site closer to the easterly side
yard. The easterly side yard is irregular and features a pinch point. Site specific
regulations and reductions for physical separation and setbacks are recommended for
portions of the proposed building. Staff prefer the revised concept, as compared to the
original concept, as the physical separation on the westerly side yard is now largely met.
Physical separation is a fundamental regulation of the Strategic Growth Area (SGA) zones
to regulate built form and to ensure that new development does not frustrate the
redevelopment of an adjacent property. Adequate physical separation is also vital to
ensure that residents living in the dwelling units within a building have access to light,
views, and privacy from adjacent properties.
The SGA zones take a modern approach to regulating density and the form of buildings,
rather than using Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and maximum densities, built -form regulations
such as height, maximum building length, maximum floor plate areas and minimum
physical separation between buildings are used. As there are no FSR and maximum
densities regulations in the SGA zones, any relief to the built form regulations related to
density and height must be carefully considered.
These regulations work in combination to protect the privacy of new residents, ensure
access to light for all units, and provide "breathing space" between buildings much like
yard setbacks do for single detached houses. It also limits shadow, wind and other
impacts on existing and future nearby residents. Without these regulations, buildings can
create significant effects on the surrounding environment and can impact the future
development potential of nearby properties. This includes limiting how much total housing
can be built if one development frustrates or neutralizes development on neighbouring
sites.
Page 12 of 56
Physical separation ensures there is adequate space between taller buildings, to allow for
access to sunlight as well as privacy and a high quality of life for all residents, both within
new developments and in existing surrounding areas.
In this case, lands to the east have a more limited redevelopment potential, being a
smaller parcel and subject to the flooding hazard overlay. Smaller scale redevelopment
may occur on lands to the east if lots are consolidated and flooding hazards are mediated
or addressed through the redevelopment of the lands. Given the challenges with
redeveloping the land to the east and the irregular shape of the subject lands, Staff are
supportive of reducing the easterly physical separation and setbacks at the pinch point.
This request is a reasonable site-specific consideration that can be supported by staff,
especially given the revisions to increase the westerly physical separation and setbacks.
Lands to the west and north of the subject lands are also zoned as SGA -3 and are also
planned for redevelopment over time with high density residential and mixed-use
development. Ensuring the physical separation is met to the westerly side yard is
important to ensure these sites will also have an opportunity to redevelop and are not
encumbered with the development of the subject lands.
Front Yard Setback
As a result of moving the building further east, due to the irregular shape of the lot,
portions of the base (podium) are located closer than 3 metres to the street line abutting
Mill Street. The front yard setback requirement for these lands is 3 metres for the lowest 6
storeys (base), and then 6.0 metres for storeys 7 to 28. The revised development concept
provides a 6 metre front yard setback for the ground floor with upper storeys cantilevered
above. Storeys 2 and 3 are located 1 metre from Mill Street. The exterior wall of the
building base is not parallel with the street line along Mill Street. As a result, only a portion
of storeys 4 to 6 are within 1.0 metre of the street line. Similarly, only a small corner of
storeys 7 to 18 are within 2.5 metres of the street line. The building complies with the front
yard regulations for storeys 18 and above.
The ground floor setback of 6 metres provided with the cantilever design of the podium,
combined with the 3 metres westerly side yard, provides adequate space to ensure the
pedestrian sidewalk on Mill Street is prioritized. Landscaping can be provided, including
the potential for some larger streets at the southwest corner along Mill Street and low level
landscaping along Mill Street. Architectural elements of the podium will be important to
ensure that vehicle access points are not the dominant feature along the pedestrian realm.
Detailed building design will occur at the site plan stage.
Setbacks for Parkina Podium
Reduced yard setbacks for the four storey parking podium are also requested as the
minimum yard setback is 3 metres to ensure that adequate landscaping can be provided
around all exterior side yards and rear yard. Due to the irregular shape of this property, a
1.0 metre setback is requested for only the corners of the building at the pinch points and
the actual yards surrounding the structured parking are adequate to provide landscaping
to buffer to adjacent properties.
Page 13 of 56
Planning Conclusions
It is important to ensure that the intent of the SGA zone regulations, as approved by
Council, are maintained and implemented consistently. Policies in the Official plan provide
criteria that must be evaluated where relief is being sought.
There may be site specific reasons and criteria why minor amendments to the approved
regulations may be appropriate. In this case, staff worked with the applicant to revise the
development proposal to ensure that the intent of the regulations as approved by Council
are maintained. Staff are satisfied with the site-specific design as revised for this property.
Consideration of this site-specific application should not be considered as a precedent for
other applications within strategic growth areas. All applications must be reviewed and
considered for their own merit and general compliance with the regulations in the zoning
bylaw and intent of the Official Plan.
Built -form zoning regulations are a critical component of building a healthy, safe
environment for all who live, work, and visit Kitchener's PMTSAs, while still allowing for
abundant housing supply.
Staff are now recommending that the Zoning By-law Amendment Application be approved
as amended, and as attached to this report. Staff are now satisfied with the justification
provided for the requested reductions in these regulations and the revised proposal. Much
of the relief originally requested, has been revised, reduced, or rescinded.
Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement (2024), the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener
Official Plan. Moreover, staff is of the opinion that the proposal represents good planning
and is in the public interest. In this regard, staff recommends that the Zoning By-law
Amendment Application be approved, as shown in Attachments 'Al' and `A2'.
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. One large notice sign was posted on the property and
information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in June of 2024.
Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the
statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240
Page 14 of 56
metres of the subject lands, and those responding to the preliminary circulation. Notice of
the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on August 23, 2024.
CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Application was circulated to
residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on June 24, 2024. In
response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 4 members of the public,
which were summarized as part of staff report DSD -2024-371.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
• Provincial Policy Statement, 2024
• Regional Official Plan
• City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014
• City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051
• Growing Together — Protected Maior Transit Station Area Land Use and Zoning
Framework DSD -2024-005
• Supplemental Report to DSD -2024-005: Growing Together — Protected Maior
Transit Station Area Land Use and Zoning Framework DSD -2024-128
• Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/017/M/CD DSD -204-371
REVIEWED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals, Development
and Housing Approvals Division
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment Al
- Proposed By-law
Attachment A2
- Map No. 1
Attachment B -
Planning Justification
Attachment C -
Preliminary Site Plan
Attachment D -
Architectural Plans
Page 15 of 56
PROPOSED BY — LAW
2024
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as
amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of
Kitchener
— 1658194 Ontario Ltd. — 328 and 330 Mill Street)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend 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. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 118 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is
hereby amended by changing 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,
from High Rise Limited Strategic Growth Three Zone (SGA -3) to High Rise
Limited Strategic Growth Three Zone (SGA -3) with Site Specific Provision (412)
and Holding Provision (96H).
2. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 118 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.
3. Section 19 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Site
Specific Provision (412) thereto as follows:
"412. Notwithstanding Table 6-5 of this By-law, within the lands zoned High
Rise Limited Strategic Growth Three Zone (SGA -3) and shown as being
affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 118 of
Appendix "A", the following site specific provision shall apply:
i. The minimum yard setback and the minimum front and exterior side
yard setback shall be:
a) A minimum of 6.0 metres for the ground floor abutting the Street
Line, excluding structural columns;
Page 16 of 56
b) A minimum of 1.0 metre for storeys 2 to 6;
c) A minimum of 2.5 metre for up to 15% of the floor area abutting
the Street Line for storeys 7 to 18.
ii. The minimum easterly yard setback (the lot line adjacent to the
interior side lot line of lands municipally addressed as 334 Mill Street)
shall be:
a) 1.0 metres for structured parking partially at grade or below grade;
b) 2.0 metres only for structural columns on the ground floor;
c) A minimum of 2.0 metres for up to 15% of the floor area abutting
the lot line for storeys 2 to 28, expect where physical separation
required by this regulation may require a larger setback.
iii. The minimum easterly physical separation measured from the lot line
adjacent to the interior side lot line of lands municipally addressed as
334 Mill Street shall be:
a) 2.0 metres for up to 25% of the floor area abutting the lot line for
storeys 7 to 12 and 6.0 metres for up to 75% of the floor area
abutting the lot line for storeys 7 to 12; and
b) 2.0 metres for up to 50% of the floor area abutting the lot line for
storeys 13 to 18, and 9.0 metres for up to 50% of the floor area
abutting the lot line for storeys 13 to 18; and
c) 2.0 metres for storeys 19 to 28; and,
d) No floor area of storey 7 or higher shall be located closer to any
lot line then the floor area of the storey below.
iv. The minimum westerly physical separation measured from the lot line
adjacent to the interior side lot line of lands municipally addressed as
326 Mill Street shall be 10 metres for storeys 19 to 28.
v. The minimum yard setback for structured parking partially at grade or
below grade, to a maximum of 4 storeys in height, shall be 1.0 metre
from the rear yard, the rear yard lot line of lands municipally
addressed as 334 Mill Street, and any shared lot line with lands
municipally addressed as 325 Stirling Avenue South and 338 Mill
Street.
Page 17 of 56
vi. Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited."
4. Section 20 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section
(96H) thereto as follows:
"(96). Notwithstanding Section 6.4 of this By-law within the lands zoned High
Rise Limited Strategic Growth Three Zone (SGA -3) and shown as being
affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 118 of
Appendix "A", no new residential or other sensitive land uses shall be
permitted until such time as a Detailed Transportation Noise and
Stationary Noise Study has been completed, and implementation
measures have been addressed, to the satisfaction of the Region, and
this holding provision has been removed by by-law."
5. This by-law to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended, shall have no force
and effect until By-law 2024-065 (Growing Together PMTSAs) is in full force and
effect in relation to the lands specified above.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of
, 2024.
Mayor
Clerk
Page 18 of 56
F
Z �2
O F-
(7 0
U � N
(7 (7
W U
o Q (7 z =
o� W 0m
fn c Q u) rn
a `" U CY i Z
Lu � 00
OfU)
< J ~ p d —
a �vo
m J Q— Q w C Y
U w(7a
F- c� c� J c� w (7
CO F Of W w W a Z
ED z xzLzUp
(n LU L (D0NOf0N�0
Wx W (DWUx
Z a W— x 2
'L LU O O Of F F--
2 IX Of= 0
LL F-
IY �
0) co
M r �
c?a'a'LY
:) M �lS
a' _
00 LO
�ro
Wrnrn
Ii
MOO
U)
co
N
co U) r
N a
O
Q a
w w
p JUo
Q N E
Z p LL
O z
Q Q Q m
N
p O 0 V
QU)
LLI
w Q
x Q z m F
O z
w(D
Z CY W z z
O ILL w N z
z Q
0 0 wp O Z Q La
U [Y Z x N D m A+
LL W p LLI N N Q W�
S �oaw Z �w
S S LULuax Z
SSS OULLF I W Z �Lu Q
S NUOY 0 }�w
Z ZN w sU
Q W
U) Q w
Q 0 U)
Z w
O
w
Q Z a p
LLI
U
Z ' U Z L
O a O LL
Z WW J N O
S
SSSS S SS �
SSS SSS S SSSS N
SSS SSS S SSSS �iqs SS SS O
SS S SS SSSS o N
�S SS S SS N
SS
SS SS SS Sw w
ssss s ss co
Nui � O
SS
ss ss � U
O
➢. SS SS SS S O W
ss ssss s
s ssss s
ssss (Un o
ssss
sss
ssss
ssssssssssss
sssssss
ss ss
;sssssss
I\—cn sss ss D
[uwj� SSSS S TOM J (n
s ssss O Q
o
s Ssss s zcO
C
sss sss O 0
ss sss ss Q
SS SS pp o
SSS S Lf)
S S S o 04C
ds)
IX
ccsSScs S
W
Cr
Z
O
0
p
Of
N
WJ
CY
Z Q L
ON
O
U
0 C
LLI
w Z F- r
z Q Z:)
U
ON a
p
W J p U J F
Z
x
ON U O Q L
of
z W w u- O H i
O Ox H
(7
Z U)
z
Y J 0�rrU)
Z
d Z m Q F m
00 3:0
O
U N Q U 0 e
a J
00 (nLLJJ W Z < `
W
J? Z
Of
J LL C
ON
Of (n U
OU
m
d d' m w z z
N a
O
Q a
w w
p JUo
Q N E
Z p LL
O z
Q Q Q m
N
p O 0 V
QU)
LLI
w Q
x Q z m F
O z
w(D
Z CY W z z
O ILL w N z
z Q
0 0 wp O Z Q La
U [Y Z x N D m A+
LL W p LLI N N Q W�
S �oaw Z �w
S S LULuax Z
SSS OULLF I W Z �Lu Q
S NUOY 0 }�w
Z ZN w sU
Q W
U) Q w
Q 0 U)
Z w
O
w
Q Z a p
LLI
U
Z ' U Z L
O a O LL
Z WW J N O
S
SSSS S SS �
SSS SSS S SSSS N
SSS SSS S SSSS �iqs SS SS O
SS S SS SSSS o N
�S SS S SS N
SS
SS SS SS Sw w
ssss s ss co
Nui � O
SS
ss ss � U
O
➢. SS SS SS S O W
ss ssss s
s ssss s
ssss (Un o
ssss
sss
ssss
ssssssssssss
sssssss
ss ss
;sssssss
I\—cn sss ss D
[uwj� SSSS S TOM J (n
s ssss O Q
o
s Ssss s zcO
C
sss sss O 0
ss sss ss Q
SS SS pp o
SSS S Lf)
S S S o 04C
ds)
IX
ccsSScs S
x
F �
' z
O
O 0
J 0
C7 w
C
O
of
(7
(7
c�
uj
pi
' a
Q
LU
-�
�
U)
J U)
LL,
U
w w
U
W
U)
U U
i
EWE
=Z 2
p
(7 0 (7
> J
x x
z z
w
z
Q Q
Q Of Q
- U N U N
O F 0 N
N a
O
Q a
w w
p JUo
Q N E
Z p LL
O z
Q Q Q m
N
p O 0 V
QU)
LLI
w Q
x Q z m F
O z
w(D
Z CY W z z
O ILL w N z
z Q
0 0 wp O Z Q La
U [Y Z x N D m A+
LL W p LLI N N Q W�
S �oaw Z �w
S S LULuax Z
SSS OULLF I W Z �Lu Q
S NUOY 0 }�w
Z ZN w sU
Q W
U) Q w
Q 0 U)
Z w
O
w
Q Z a p
LLI
U
Z ' U Z L
O a O LL
Z WW J N O
S
SSSS S SS �
SSS SSS S SSSS N
SSS SSS S SSSS �iqs SS SS O
SS S SS SSSS o N
�S SS S SS N
SS
SS SS SS Sw w
ssss s ss co
Nui � O
SS
ss ss � U
O
➢. SS SS SS S O W
ss ssss s
s ssss s
ssss (Un o
ssss
sss
ssss
ssssssssssss
sssssss
ss ss
;sssssss
I\—cn sss ss D
[uwj� SSSS S TOM J (n
s ssss O Q
o
s Ssss s zcO
C
sss sss O 0
ss sss ss Q
SS SS pp o
SSS S Lf)
S S S o 04C
ds)
IX
ccsSScs S
IN vd-9
N a
O
Q a
w w
p JUo
Q N E
Z p LL
O z
Q Q Q m
N
p O 0 V
QU)
LLI
w Q
x Q z m F
O z
w(D
Z CY W z z
O ILL w N z
z Q
0 0 wp O Z Q La
U [Y Z x N D m A+
LL W p LLI N N Q W�
S �oaw Z �w
S S LULuax Z
SSS OULLF I W Z �Lu Q
S NUOY 0 }�w
Z ZN w sU
Q W
U) Q w
Q 0 U)
Z w
O
w
Q Z a p
LLI
U
Z ' U Z L
O a O LL
Z WW J N O
S
SSSS S SS �
SSS SSS S SSSS N
SSS SSS S SSSS �iqs SS SS O
SS S SS SSSS o N
�S SS S SS N
SS
SS SS SS Sw w
ssss s ss co
Nui � O
SS
ss ss � U
O
➢. SS SS SS S O W
ss ssss s
s ssss s
ssss (Un o
ssss
sss
ssss
ssssssssssss
sssssss
ss ss
;sssssss
I\—cn sss ss D
[uwj� SSSS S TOM J (n
s ssss O Q
o
s Ssss s zcO
C
sss sss O 0
ss sss ss Q
SS SS pp o
SSS S Lf)
S S S o 04C
ds)
IX
ccsSScs S
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
CONSULTING
October 11, 2024
Garett Stevenson
Director of Planning
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Dear Mr. Stevenson,
Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/017/M/CD - 328 and 300 Mill Street,
City of Kitchener, REVISED PROPOSAL
am writing to provide an update on our Zoning By-law Amendment Application for 328-330
Mill Street and outline the revisions made in response to Planning Staff's concerns.
The proposed site-specific provisions are necessary due to the unique constraints of the
property. The site has an irregular "L" shape, with the longer leg of the "L" representing the
front portion of the property and the shorter, wider leg forming the rear portion. The middle
section of the property narrows to 30.39 metres, while the rear portion expands to 51.81
metres. Additionally, the front lot line is angled rather than perpendicular to the street,
sloping downward from the southwest to the east. These shape irregularities, particularly the
narrower middle and angled front, make it difficult to meet zoning requirements for physical
separations and setbacks. As a result, site-specific provisions are necessary to accommodate
a functional building design that responds to these constraints while aligning with the City's
planning framework.
To address Planning Staff's concerns and better align with the built form zoning
requirements, we have made significant modifications to the original proposal. Below are the
key changes:
JENNIFER VOSS, MCIP, RPP 226.339-3304 i 187 West River Rd. I Cambridge I ON I N1S 2Z9
Page 20 of 56
Front Yard Setback and Building Shift:
The ground floorfront yard setback has been increased from 4.8 metres to 6.0 metres to
address Planning Staff's opinion that the change will enhance the pedestrian environment.
While we maintain that the original setback would not have negatively impacted the
streetscape, we have made this adjustment in response to Staff's feedback.
The entire building has been shifted eastward as recommended by Staff, resulting in a 3.0
metre westerly side yard. While this shift allows for additional landscaping along the west
property line and at the southwest corner of the subject lands, it also brings the southeast
corner of the building 0.8 metres closer to the front lot line due to the angled configuration of
the lot.
The revised front yard setback reflects the unique shape and angled lot line of the property,
which impacts the front yard setback compliance on certain floors. While the southeast
corner of the building is closer to the front lot line, this adjustment was necessary to
accommodate the shift of the building to the east. Below is a breakdown of the front yard
setback compliance by floor:
Front Yard Setback Compliance:
1st Floor: 100% compliance (6.0 metres).
2nd and 3rd Floors: 0% compliance (1.0 metre).
4th to 6th Floors: 98% compliance.
7th to 12th Floors: 28%compliance
13th to 18th Floors: 16% compliance.
19th to 28th Floors: 100% compliance.
The proposed 1.0 metre setback at the southeast corner is the smallest dimension measured
from the closest part of the angled front lot line. From the southwest corner of the building,
the front yard setbacks are as follows:
• Ground Floor: 6.0 metres.
• 2nd to 4th Floors: 1.0 metre.
• Sth and 6th Floors: 8.0 metres.
• 7th to 12th Floors: 7.0 metres.
• 13th to 18th Floors: 7.0 metres.
21 Page
Page 21 of 56
19th to 28th Floors: 13.0 metres.
The following provides the justification for the reduced front yard setback:
1. Pedestrian Protection and Public Amenity:
The second storey cantilevers over the landscaped plaza, providing shelter and
protection from the elements. This design creates a comfortable and protected
pedestrian environment, offering shade and coverage, which encourages outdoor
activity and makes the streetscape more engaging and user-friendly. The commercial
units on the ground floor provide active uses fronting the public plaza, further
activating the space. Additionally, the second storey fronting the street houses indoor
amenities, such as the gym and common room, ensuring "eyes on the street" and
enhancing the overall sense of security and community interaction.
In a highly urban area, which is the intent of this location, it is a benefit to have these
types of uses (commercial and amenity) within the building as close to the street as
possible to activate the streetscape and create a vibrant public realm.
2. Architectural Interest and Distinct Podium Design:
The reduced front yard setback at the upper floors, particularly at the southeast
corner where the building is closest, does not negatively impact the streetscape and,
in my opinion, enhances the building's architectural expression. Stories 4-6 of the
podium at this corner is angled, adding articulation and visual interest to the facade,
which makes the podium distinct from the tower above. Eliminating the angled and
cantilevered design to increase the front yard setback would, in my opinion,
compromise the architectural expression and diminish the dynamic form that benefits
the streetscape.
3. No Negative Impact on Streetscape or Pedestrian Environment:
Despite the reduced setback at the upper storeys, this does not negatively impact the
pedestrian environment or the overall streetscape. The reduction in setback is limited
to the southeast corner and affects only a small portion of the building. Even with the
reduced setback, the facade maintains a strong relationship with the street,
particularly within the context of an urban environment. The articulation and setback
variations result in a visually engaging design that contributes to a vibrant and
attractive streetscape.
4. Ample Space for Landscaping and Active Public Space:
The front yard setback reduction at the higher floors does not limit the availability of
urban space at ground level. The building's design ensures ample room for an urban
plaza that can accommodate landscaping, seating, and other public amenities,
fostering an active streetscape and enhancing the overall urban fabric of the area.
3 1 3 a g e
Page 22 of 56
5. Visual Interest Without Overlook Issues:
The reduced front yard setback at the upper storeys allows for a distinct architectural
expression while still maintaining appropriate visual separation from neighboring
properties, ensuring there are no issues with overlook or privacy concerns for adjacent
properties. The front of the building overlooks the street, further emphasizing its
urban context and reinforcing its role in activating the public realm.
Easterly Pinch Point
The pinch point on the east side of the site presents a significant constraint that prevents the
building from fully meeting the physical separation requirements to the easterly lot line in
that specific area. Originally, the building was proposed with a 4.9 metre setback to the
easterly lot line at the pinch point, with a 1.0 metre westerly side yard. At the
recommendation of Staff, the building was shifted as far east as possible, reducing the
physical separation at the pinch point to 2.0 metres. Staff's rationale was that since the
physical separation requirement could not be fully met at the pinch point due to site
constraints, a further reduction would not materially impact the overall condition. However,
they emphasized the need to achieve full compliance with the physical separation
requirements on the west side.
It is important to note that the physical separation issue at the east side pinch point should
not be directly connected to the justification for the reduced setback on the west side for
storeys 19-28. The reduced separation at the pinch point can be justified independently, as
the adjacent properties directly to the east are constrained by the proximity to Shoemaker
Creek and the associated floodway. This constraint means that the adjacent lots are too small
to accommodate the same built form as proposed for the subject site. If the adjacent
properties are redeveloped without additional lot consolidation with lands to the north, they
are more likely to be developed for a low-rise form of housing.
Given this context, the reduced physical separation at the pinch point on the east side will not
create issues of overlook between two similarly sized high-rise buildings. Instead, the
separation provides ample space relative to the adjacent, likely smaller -scale redevelopment.
This ensures that the reduced setback at the pinch point will not lead to privacy concerns or
negative impacts on adjacent properties, as the scale of future development on those lands
will be significantly less than what is proposed for the subject lands.
In support of this revised design, the following percentages demonstrate that, despite the
pinch point constraint, a substantial portion of the building meets or exceeds the required
physical separation along the easterly lot line:
• 96% of the building meets the 3 -metre separation requirement.
• 80% meets the 6 -metre separation requirement.
41 Page
Page 23 of 56
• 63% meets the 9 -metre separation requirement.
47% meets the 12 -metre separation requirement.
In the wider portion of the site, the separation to the east lot line is as follows:
• Storeys 7-12: 19 metres
• Storeys 13-18: 21 metres
• Storeys 19-28: 21 metres
This demonstrates that while the pinch point restricts separation in a small section, the
overall design achieves substantial compliance and exceeds the minimum requirements in
most areas of the building. By shifting the building eastward at the pinch point, compliance
on the west side was largely achieved, though relief is still being requested for storeys 19-28,
which require a 10 -metre separation instead of 12 metres.
Justification for Reduced Physical Separation for Storeys 19-28 (West
Lot Line)
The reduced physical separation from 12 metres to 10 metres for storeys 19-28 on the west
side is a carefully considered adjustment aimed at balancing the functional design of the
building with the site's spatial constraints. While full compliance with the 12 -metre
requirement is not achieved, several factors support the proposed 10 -metre setback as a
reasonable alternative.
1. Functional Building Design and Unit Layout: Maintaining the 12 -metre separation
for storeys 19-28 would result in the removal of a two-bedroom unit per floor, leading
to a total loss of 9 units. This would significantly reduce the building's residential
capacity and compromise the financial viability of the project. Additionally, the 12 -
metre setback results in the remaining unit layout to be reduced to 5 metres in width,
making the units nearly unfunctional and not feasible to build. The proposed 10 -metre
setback, while still tight, allows for a functional unit layout, ensuring that the design
meets market demands while still respecting the intent of the physical separation
requirements.
2. Urban Context and Compatibility: The subject site is located within a Major Transit
Station Area (MTSA), where increased density and height are encouraged to support
transit -oriented development. The slightly reduced physical separation on the west
side still aligns with the broader urban design goals forthe area by supporting a high-
density building form while ensuring that the tower maintains its slender appearance.
This adjustment also complements the city's goals for intensification in key growth
51 -)age
Page 24 of 56
areas without drastically affecting the urban character or compatibility with adjacent
properties.
Moreover, the increased density provided by this development plays an important role
in supporting the City's inclusionaryzoning principles, aimed at integrating affordable
housing units into new developments within MTSAs. The additional height and density
allow for greater flexibility in unit layout and design, ensuring that both market -rate
and affordable units are feasible within the overall development. However, if the 12 -
metre separation distance on the west side were strictly enforced, it mayjeopardize
the construction of storeys 19-28 due to the challenge of achieving functional unit
sizes within the remaining available floor space. This constraint could compromise the
ability to deliver the intended density and housing mix, which supports the city's
broader goals for intensification and affordable housing in transit -supportive areas.
3. Building Massing and Slender Form: The 10 -metre separation for storeys 19-28 still
ensures the building's overall massing remains in line with the design intent for a
slender tower. The minor reduction in setback does not compromise the visual
appearance or architectural integrity of the tower, which is designed to minimize bulk
and create a more aesthetically pleasing skyline. By complying with the majority of the
building's setbacks, the slender form is maintained, reducing the impact on
neighboring properties.
4. Impact on Neighboring Properties: The 2 -metre reduction in physical separation for
storeys 19-28 is minimal and does not significantly affect the neighboring properties
to the west. There are four single detached lots adjacent to the west of the subject
lands (316-326 Mill Street), and the depth of these lots is approximately three-quarters
the length of the subject lands. Should these properties be consolidated for a similar
redevelopment of a 28 -storey building, the building would be oriented differently,
positioned parallel to Mill Street rather than perpendicular. This would result in only a
small area of overlap between the two buildings, minimizing the potential for issues
related to overlook, shadowing, or loss of privacy.
Furthermore, the design ensures that the tower is still well -separated from the
westerly lot line, maintaining a reasonable distance and minimizing any potential
negative impact.
5. Overall Compliance and Intent: The majority of the building complies with or
exceeds the required physical separations, with the exception of the easterly pinch
point. The proposed 10 -metre separation on the west side for storeys 19-28 is the only
other area where relief is requested, representing a minor deviation from the
standard. This design balances the need for functional and marketable unit layouts
with the city's built form regulations. By minimizing the reduction and maintaining
613age
Page 25 of 56
substantial separation throughout the rest of the building, the proposal aligns with
the overall intent of the Strategic Growth Area (SGA) zoning framework while ensuring
the building remains both functional and visually appealing.
Parking Garage
The parking garage has been redesigned to provide a 3.0 metre setback along the entire
westerly side yard, in response to Staff's concern that the original 1.0 metre setback would
not allow adequate space for landscaping. This change, while resulting in the loss of eight
parking spaces, creates a larger interior side yard that accommodates more landscaping and
enhances the buffer alongthe westerly property line.
The parking garage is still proposed to have a 1.0 metre setback at its closest points to the
rear and easterly lot lines. This 1.0 metre setback is primarily due to the irregular shape of the
site, where the lot lines are not perpendicular, with the front, rear, and easterly lot lines
angled. Despite the limited space at these closest points, the design has incorporated larger
setbacks along both the rear and east lot lines to accommodate significant landscaping.
The changes to the parking garage on the west side, which enlarged the westerly side yard,
also allowed for more space at the northwest corner of the rearyard for landscaping.
Although the parking garage has a 1.0 metre setback at its closest point to the rear lot line,
the setback increases to 4.0 metres as you move easterly to the northeast corner of the
parking garage, leaving ample space for landscaping along the rear lot line. Similarly, for the
easterly side yard, the garage is set back 1.0 metre at its closest point in the northeast corner,
but the setback increases significantly to over 3.0 metres as you move south, again providing
ample room for landscaping.
These design adjustments ensure that while the parking garage is efficient in layout and
functionality, it also maximizes landscaping opportunities along the rear and easterly lot
lines, enhancing the site's overall aesthetic.
Driveway Design
To accommodate the eastward shift of the building, which reduced the space available for
the original driveway layout, two one-way driveways were introduced.
Building Design and Length Compliance:
In the original proposal, the building had consistent stepbacks for storeys 7-15 and storeys
16-20. However, changes were made in the revised design to align with the specific categories
of the SGA regulations, breaking the building into storeys 7-12, storeys 13-18, and storeys 19-
28. This ensures that the stepbacks and massing are more consistent with the intended built
form envisioned in the SGA framework.
71 Page
Page 26 of 56
The revised proposal no longer requires a site-specific regulation for maximum building
length. The building length has been adjusted to fully comply with the SGA zoning framework
for each storey category, following the guidelines for storeys 7-12, storeys 13-18, and storeys
19-28.
Response to Policy 15.D.2.5
The proposal has been revised to address the site constraints without compromising the
functionality of the building, while maintaining the City's objectives with respect to building
design and meeting the SGA -3 zone built form regulations as closely as possible. These
changes reflect a careful balance between the site's unique challenges and the intent of the
City's Strategic Growth Area zoning regulations. Below, I provide an in-depth explanation of
how the revised proposal aligns with the relevant planning policies, including considerations
of compatibility, design, and site-specific factors outlined in Policy 15.D.2.5.
1. Compatibility with the Planned Function of the Subject and Adjacent Lands
(Policy 15.D.2.5(a))
The proposed development remains compatible with the planned function of the
subject lands and adjacent lands as envisioned in the City's Growing Together
initiative. The revised building design respects the intended scale and density of the
SGA -3 zoning by incorporating a slender tower form, consistent with the SGA's focus
on high-density, transit -supportive development. The proposed adjustments ensure
that the development will contribute positively to the existing and future character of
the area.
2. Suitability of the Lot for the Proposed Use and/or Built Form (Policy 15.D.2.5(b))
Despite the irregular shape of the property and its development constraints, the lot
remains suitable for the proposed built form. The revised design aligns with the City's
vision for a slender tower and provides a stepped -back form that mitigates the impact
of reduced physical separations, while still delivering a high-quality, transit -oriented
development. The challenges posed by the angled front lot line and the narrowing
pinch point were considered in the revised design, which adjusts the building setbacks
and lengths to more closely align with the SGA -3 built form regulations.
3. Lot Area and Consolidation (Policy 15.D.2.5(c))
The subject lands are a consolidation of two properties -328 and 330 Mill Street—
aligning with Policy 3.C.2.11, which encourages property consolidation to achieve
better site configuration, the provision of amenities, and land use efficiency. The
original proposal also included 334 and 338 Mill Street; however, the proposal was
revised to include only 328 and 330 Mill Street to address the Grand River
Conservation Authority concerns related to the proximity of the Shoemaker Creek
81 Page
Page 27 of 56
floodway. The consolidation of 328 and 330 Mill Street allows for intensification and
meets the lot area requirements outlined in Policy 3.C.2.11. Without this
consolidation, the built form as envisioned in the City's Growing Together initiative
could not be realized. The lot size and configuration, though irregular, are sufficient to
support the proposed development form, including the tower and podium elements,
while facilitating appropriate intensification.
4. Compliance with the Urban Design Manual (Policy 15.D.2.5(d))
The revised proposal complies with many of the design principles set out in the City's
Urban Design Manual. The tower design incorporates setbacks in alignment with the
SGA zoning framework for storeys 7-12, 13-18, and 19-28. While some relief from the
physical separation requirements is still requested, the amount of relief has been
significantly reduced from the original proposal.
Relief is now only required at the pinch point of the site, where it would always be
necessary due to the site constraint. Additionally, the physical separation relief is
requested for only a 2 -metre difference from the westerly lot line for storeys 19-28,
where 12 metres is required, and 10 metres is now proposed, an improvement from
the originally proposed 7 metres. Achieving the full 12 -metre separation from the
westerly property line would result in the removal of a 2 -bedroom unit, leadingto a
total loss of 9 units. Furthermore, the remaining unit width would be reduced to 5
metres, making the layout nearly unfunctional and financially infeasible to build.
Despite this, the building's stepped form provides ample articulation and creates a
slender, visually appealing skyline.
5. Cultural Heritage Resources (Policy 15.D.2.5(e))
The site does not contain any significant cultural heritage resources that would affect
the proposed development. The design respects the surrounding context and ensures
compatibility with the broader community.
6. Technical Considerations and Contextual/Site-Specific Factors (Policy 15.D.2.5(f))
As noted, the configuration of the site presents unique challenges that limit the ability
to fully meet all SGA regulations. However, the revised proposal reflects a thoughtful
response to these site-specific constraints. For instance, further increases in physical
separation would compromise the unit sizes, creating units too small to be functional
or, alternatively, combining smaller units would result in larger, non -market viable
units due to their excessive cost.
91 Page
Page 28 of 56
Revised Site -Specific Zoning Regulations
In summary, the following site-specific zoning regulations are now being proposed:
Entire Building:
• Reduced minimum front yard setback to 1.0 metre (for the podium), 2.0 metre setback
at the easterly side yard pinch point, 1.0 metre for the closest part of the parking
garage along a portion of the easterly interior lot line and rear lot line.
• The requirement for Class A bicycle parking has been fully met.
Storeys 7-12:
• Reduced front yard setback from 6.0 metres to 2.5 metres due to the building shift
eastward.
• Reduced physical separation at the east pinch point from 6.0 metres to 2.0 metres.
Storeys 13-18:
• Reduced front yard setback from 6.0 metres to 2.5 metres. Reduced physical
separation at the east pinch point from 6.0 metres to 2.0 metres.
Storeys 19-28:
• Reduced physical separation at the east pinch point from 6.0 metres to 2.0 metres,
and from 12.0 metres to 10.0 metres at the west lot line. The 10.0 metre setback on
the west side is necessary to maintain functional unit sizes on these floors.
The revised proposal eliminates most of the previously requested built form variances. The
only remaining physical distance relief is for the east lot line pinch point and the west lot line
for storeys 19-28, where a 10.0 metre setback is required to maintain functional unit sizes
while still respecting the overall design intent. The number of requested site-specific
regulations to facilitate the redevelopment has been reduced from 16 to nine, and of those
nine, four are related specifically to the easterly lot line pinch point.
Conclusion
We believe that the revised proposal addresses the key concerns raised by Planning Staff and
better aligns with the City's strategic growth goals. Although certain site-specific constraints
make full compliance with the SGA regulations unattainable, the modifications result in a
more slender tower form that respects the intent of the SGA -built form regulations. Uniquely
positioned within a Major Transit Station Area, the proposal provides an opportunity to act as
a catalyst for revitalizing the area. Tall building design principles—including physical
separation, overlook, size and proportion, relative height, and placement—have all been
carefully considered in the design to achieve the desired urban design objectives while
ensuring a functional building within the confines of the site constraints.
101 Page
Page 29 of 56
As always, please feel free to contact me or Reema if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
01 1,
;� REOISIEflE1D '•
PRAfE '
PLAYRER
R.P.P. ;
Jennifer Voss, MCIP, RPP
MPLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
CONSULTANT
111 Page
Page 30 of 56
m
0(
° / :°.:
U)
( Q
/] _
LU\44
°
I
� .
_ .;.:.
. .....
IM
m
0(
° / :°.:
U)
( Q
/] _
LU\44
°
I
� .
_ .;.:.
. .....
�(
m
0(
° / :°.:
U)
( Q
/] _
LU\44
°
I
� .
_ .;.:.
. .....
(7 -
M70°49'10�W 4'l.02
I
I
al
� W
W
o Z
M W
5 =
MY
,yor r
tlb-r—
0
0
a
LL
W
W/�-
N
L I
W
Qa
m
U
(I
SONE WOE ONE Sb ONEOOHZ OOHZ S aOHZ ONE OSZ£ OOBZ 0092
%S3dOlS iols
184 0O
�y O
Ou
Oy iFIL
0
g
0055 0 K ON SLB 0006 0092 0092 E OZZH N " 0099
Z a
N W^ g
%S Ad IS I.L
� I
OB E 669£ 006E OOSL ....ON'
0092 OS LE aO9Z OOBZ OOHZ 009K I
Q V AdA1
WI � tl3dA1
� O
M
z ry
Lu 'E
�9 n
N0
S � i
000 OSSe p] L59Z SZLZ SLZL OOOZ
I N
I z ry
LAI
� mlE
+ (p n
0]
Z ry w
LAI E Q
N
co
co +
0]m�
LAI
g
� E
0] fn
I W
(7 E Z E
O
O
NOtl91 S
a9O£ 8£z9L Lose F
o' E �I
E
S
NOW , z
tlb-r-
0
0
J
LL
N
w
z
N
u,
(I
i
i
L
� W
W
o Z
M W
5 =
MY
(I
Z
Q
/J
LL
ry
0
00
1..L N
Q W
U
M cn
� W
W
o Z
M W
5 =
MY
(I
Z
Q
/J
LL
ry
0
0
1J1
LL
2
0
N
W
J
U
U)
� W
W
o Z
M W
5 =
MY
(I
Z
Q
/J
LL
ry
0
0
1J1
LL
2
0
N
W
J
U
U)
mlE
0] co
N �
MIE
,] O
M CO
0 077
WEM WUE
NIE
0] M
co r
mlE
mlE
NIE
0] co
N �
O "
co r
C U
w OLU
�
W
W U)U g�
cCQ
� W
W
o Z
M W
5 =
MY
r r ,.,
Z
w �
U M
LL
0
Do
N
LL..
2J
Q0co
ki
(I
N2bH135 �
Door
SIE I NIE
m�
m'
000Lz
Does
z„
ooU�
N2bH135 �
Door
SIE I NIE
N' r Z
m�
(n
mlv
z„
O„
mlrn
��
LU E
E
+�
0.)z„
z„
m
��
E
rn
E
N
z„
z „
N
Lu E
0 E
2w
+(
+Lo
U
m
m
rn
co
z„
z„
Lu E
O E
m
m
+ (D
+Lo
m
m
m
1%T
colo)
��
000z
N' r Z
mlv
mlrn
��
0
0
0.)z„
z„
LU
0
V0)
E
LU
0
E
N
+(O
m
+Lo
m
N
0,
co
2w
0 E
z„
WE
U
�
+
co
c
(o
m
m
mlC�O
ml(O
m
Y
6
N' r Z
1110
0
0
J
LL
N
o
N
2w
U
co
(I
DDDR
SIE
m O
Lo
ml�:;
O
C E
F O
mi E
N L,r
OOO6L
0066
.W.
DIE
D
U�
w"
0 E
+
m
LU
� E
N
+ (p
m
ml�
ml�
ui
m
IW
wE
m fl
L E
ml�
N O
C U
w OLU
�
W
W U)U g�
cCQ
2�
W
o Z
M W
5 =
MY
r r
0
O
J
LL
2
c�
I �
M Q
U
r co
Nm
(I
� W
W
o Z
M W
5 =
MY
L.-
(I
Z
Q
/J
LL
ry
0
0
J
LL
2
00
N o
N
2�
W
0) a
U
r CO
� W
W
o Z
M W
5 =
MY
r r
QN
1�-r-
0 w
DQ
U
U)
(I