The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCA Agenda - 2024-12-101 KITc�ivER Committee of Adjustment Agenda Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m. Council Chambers City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 (Pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, and Ontario Regulations 197/96 and 200/96, as amended) TAKE NOTICE THAT the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Kitchener will meet in Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West, on Tuesday, DECEMBER 10, 2024, commencing at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of hearing the following applications for Minor Variance and/or Consent. Applicants or Agents must attend in support of the application. This is a public meeting. Anyone having an interest in any of these applications may make an oral submission at the meeting or provide a written submission for Committee consideration. Please note this is a public meeting and will be livestreamed and archived at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. The complete agenda, including staff reports will be available online the Friday prior to the week of the meeting date. Pages 1. COMMENCEMENT 2. MINUTES 3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared please visit www.kitchener.ca/conflict to submit your written form. 4. APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE AND/ OR CONSENT PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING ACT 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street, DSD -2024-530 10 Requesting minor variances to permit a visibility obstruction (a fence) having a height of 1.83m within one side of the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) rather than maximum permitted height of 0.9m within the DVT; 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 yard setback abutting York Street of 2.5m rather than the required 4m; a building height of 12m rather than the maximum permitted 11 m to facilitate the redevelopment of the property into an 8 -unit multi -residential dwelling. 5.2 B 2024-017 & B 2024-018 -135 Gateway Park Drive, DSD -2024-527 110 Please note B 2024-037 will be considered sequentially to the subject application as they relate to each other. Permission to sever a parcel of land at the corner of King Street East and Gateway Park Drive having a width of 180m on King Street and an area of 2.01 hectares. The retained land at the corner of King Street East, Tu - Lane Street and Gateway Park Drive having a width of 57.6m on King Street East and an area of 1.82 hectares. Permission is also being requested to grant an access easement on the newly proposed lot line, and further to access points on Tu -Lane Street and Gateway Park Drive having a width of 7.3m and an area of 1,266 sq.m. The severance will allow both parcels to be dealt with separately for the purpose of financing. No changes are proposed to the buildings or parking areas. 6. NEW BUSINESS Page 2 of 403 6.1 A 2024-107 -15-105 Mooregate Crescent, DSD -2024-536 155 Requesting minor variances to permit a 2.9m westerly interior side yard setback rather than the required 4.5m; a maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 1,100 sq.m, for individual non-residential use whereas a maximum GFA of 600 sq.m.is permitted; to permit dwelling units located at ground floor level to have no patio area adjacent to the dwelling unit with direct access to such dwelling unit; to add a Health Clinic and Social Service Establishment as permitted uses; to permit balconies 1.1m from the street line rather than the required 3m; having 303 parking spaces rather than the required 378 parking spaces (1 space per unit); having non-residential uses subject to the Multi -Unit Parking Rate with a gross floor area (GFA) of 2657 sq.m.; 32 parking spaces rather than the required 78 parking spaces (1 space per 35 sq.m.); and, having parking spaces to be assigned uses in the following quantities: dwelling units having a minimum of 303 parking spaces, nonresidential uses having a minimum of 32 parking spaces and a minimum of 30 parking spaces for visitors rather than all parking spaces being shared between uses and unassigned to facilitate the redevelopment of the property with residential, social services and convenience retail uses. 6.2 A 2024-108 - 42 Wendy Crescent, DSD -2024-523 170 Requesting a minor variance to permit a maximum height to the underside of the fascia of 4.3m rather than the permitted 3m to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure in the rear yard of the subject property. 6.3 A 2024-109 - 25 Sandsprings Crescent, DSD -2024-515 179 Requesting a minor variance to permit a driveway to be located Om from the front (easterly) lot line rather than the required 1.2m to recognize the location of an existing driveway. 6.4 A 2024-110 -171 Otterbein Road, DSD -2024-521 187 Requesting minor variances to permit a corner lot width of 12.5m rather than the required 12.8m; and, a rear yard setback of 4m rather than the required 7.5m to facilitate the construction of a new detached dwelling on the vacant corner lot. 6.5 A 2024-111 -124 Cedar Street South, DSD -2024-522 196 Requesting minor variances to permit a front yard setback of 2m rather than the required 4.5m to facilitate the construction of a 2 -storey addition, a porch and ground supported a balcony in the front yard of the existing dwelling. Page 3 of 403 6.6 A 2024-112 - 578 Guelph Street, DSD -2024-533 207 Requesting minor variances to permit at -grade steps to be setback 0.12m from the easterly lot line rather than the required 0.5m; and, having a front yard setback of 5.15m rather than the required 6.61 m, to facilitate the construction of a second floor balcony supported by the ground of a detached dwelling unit on the 2nd floor and the construction of an unobstructed walkway leading to an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) in the rear yard. 6.7 A 2024-113 -1838 Trussler Road, DSD -2024-519 218 Requesting minor variances to permit a driveway having a width of 11 m rather than the maximum permitted 8m; and, to permit the existing use of a Single Detached Dwelling to have a front yard setback of 24.3m rather than the maximum permitted 10m (32.3m is the existing front yard setback), a northerly side yard setback of 16.5m rather than the maximum permitted 10m (25.8m is the existing northerly side yard setback), a southerly side yard setback of 14.6m rather than the maximum permitted 10m (20.7m is the existing southerly side yard setback) to facilitate the reconstruction of the existing single detached dwelling and wider driveway. 6.8 B 2024-037 - 135 Gateway Park Drive, DSD -2024-527 229 Requesting consent to sever an irregular parcel of land having a width of 180m along King Street and an area of 4,327 sq.m., shown as Part 3 on the severance plan attached to the application. The retained land will have a width of 58m along King Street East and an area of 12,623 sq.m. Consent is also requested to create an easement having an approximate area of 494 sq.m. for access purposes over Part 4 shown on the severance plan attached to the application. The property is subject to Consent Applications B 2024-017 and B 2024-018 which were considered by the Committee on September 17, 2024, and were deferred to allow the applicant additional time to engage Staff and public agencies. A further severance has been submitted as outlined above. The consent will permit the lands to be dealt with independently for financing purposes. 6.9 B 2024-038 - 250 Shirley Avenue, DSD -2024-509 255 Requesting consent to permit a parcel discharge of a mortgage on an irregular parcel of land having an area of 0.15 hectares at the rear of the subject land municipally addressed as 250 Shirley Avenue. The subject land is proposed to be conveyed as a lot addition (approved in Consent Application B 2024-019) to the land municipally addressed as 260 Shirley Avenue. Page 4 of 403 6.10 B 2024-039 & B 2024-040 -120 Keewatin Avenue, DSD -2024-532 276 Requesting consent to sever a parcel of land (identified as Parcel A on the plan submitted with the application) having a width of 7.5m, a depth of 30.5m and an area of 225 sq.m. and is proposed to contain a new semi-detached dwelling. Consent is also requested to sever a parcel of land (identified as Parcel B on the plan submitted with the application) having a width of 7.5m, a depth of 31.5m and an area of 230 sq.m. and is proposed to contain a new semi-detached dwelling. The retained land will have a width of 14.8m, a depth of 31.5m and an area of 788 sq.m. and will contain an existing detached dwelling. 6.11 B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 & A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 - 217, 221, 225, 303 229, 233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East, DSD -2024- 531 Consent Application B 2024-041 - 98, 102, 221-233 Weber Street East Requesting consent to sever a triangular-shaped parcel of land having a width of 6.8m, a southerly depth of 10.9m, and an area of 36.8 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the land municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East. Permission is further requested to create 4 new lots fronting on to Lancaster Street East for residential use, there will be two retained parcels one at the corner of Irvin Street and Lancaster Street and the second having frontage on Weber Street East, the overall parcel is irregular in shape. Consent ADDlication B 2024-042 — 221 Lancaster Street East Lot Width (Frontage on Lancaster Street East) — 11.2m Depth — 22m Area — 240.1 sq.m. Minor variances to Zoning By -Law 85-1 are also being requested (Minor Variance Application A 2024-116) for 221 Lancaster Street East to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triable (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit obstructions into the DVT; and, minor variances to Zoning By - Law 2019-051 and 85-1 to permit a front/exterior porch setback of Om rather than the required 3m; and, to allow a front yard setback of 1.9m rather than the required 4.5m. Consent ADDlication B 2024-043 — 225 Lancaster Street East Lot Width (Frontage on Lancaster Street East) — 17.8m Depth — 22.7 Area — 397.2 sq.m. Page 5 of 403 Minor variances to Zoning By -Law 85-1 are also being requested (Minor Variance Application A 2024-117) for 225 Lancaster Street East to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triable (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit obstructions into the DVT. Minor variances to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 and 85-1 are being requested to allow for two driveway accesses whereas the By-law only permits one; to provide 0 bicycle spaces, rather than the required 2; having a front yard setback of 1.6m rather than the required 4.5m; and, to permit steps to be less than 0.6m in height to be located Om from the lot line rather than the required 0.5m setback. Further, a minor variance to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 is being requested permit 217 Lancaster Street to provide no Class C Bicycle Parking rather than the required two spaces. Consent Application B 2024-044 — 229 Lancaster Street East Lot Width (Frontage on Lancaster Street East) - 12.8m Northerly Depth — 22.7m Area 292.8 sq.m. Minor variances to Zoning By -Law 85-1 are also being requested (Minor Variance Application A 2024-118) for 229 Lancaster Street East to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triable (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit obstructions into the DVT Further, a minor variance to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 and 85-1 is being requested to permit a rear yard setback of 4.Om rather than the required 7.5m. Consent Application B 2024-045 — 233 Lancaster Street East Lot Width (Frontage on Lancaster Street East) - 14.3m Northerly Depth — 26.6m Area 375.2 sq.m. A minor variance to Zoning By -Law 85-1 is also being requested to permit 233 Lancaster Street (Minor Variance Application A 2024-119) to have obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangles whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted. Minor variances to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 and 85-1 are also being requested to permit 233 Lancaster Street to have an exterior porch setback Om from the front lot line rather than the required 3.0m; having a front yard setback of 1.8m rather than the required 4.5m; a side yard setback of Om rather than the required 1.2 m; and, to provide 6.0% of front yard landscaping rather than the required 20%. Further, a minor variance to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 is being requested to permit 0 Class C bicycle parking spaces rather than the two required spaces. Page 6 of 403 onsent Aaalication B 2024-046 - 217 Lancaster Street East Requesting consent to sever a triangular-shaped parcel of land having a width of 6.7m, a northerly depth of 10.4m, and an area of 24.7 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the land municipally addressed as 221 Lancaster Street East. Consent Application B 2024-047 - 217 Lancaster Street East Requesting consent to sever a triangular-shaped parcel of land having a width of 22.5m, a northerly depth of 27.6m, and an area of 316.9 sq. m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the land municipally addressed as 98, 102 Weber Street East. A 2024-115 - 217 Lancaster Street East (Retained Parcel) Minor variances to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 and 85-1 are being requested for the retained parcel to permit a rear yard setback of 7.3m rather than the required 7.5m; to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triable (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit obstructions into the DVT; to provide no bicycle parking spaces rather than the required 2; to allow a front yard setback of 4.2m rather than the required 4.5m; to allow an exterior side yard of 1.9 rather than the required 4.5m; to allow a minimum lot width of 11.4m rather than the required 15m; to allow a front/exterior porch to be setback of 0.75m rather than the required 3m; and, to permit a balcony to be supported from the ground within the front yard with a setback of 0.75m rather than the required 3m. Further, minor variances to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 are being requested permit 217 Lancaster Street to have a corner lot width of 11.4m rather than the required 12.8m; to provide no Class C Bicycle Parking rather than the required two spaces; to permit a balcony to be setback 0.75m from front lot line rather than the required 3m; and, to allow the driveway width to be 45% of the lot width rather than the permitted 40%. Retained Parcel — 98-102 Weber Street East Lot Width (Frontage on Weber Street East) - 36.9m Depth — 46.7m Area — 2,233.7 sq. m. Minor variances to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 and 85-1 are being requested for the retained land for the property municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East (Minor Variance Application A 2024-114) to permit 2 single detached dwellings on one parcel, whereas the By-law only permits 1, to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triable (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit obstructions into the DVT; to permit Page 7 of 403 a front/exterior porch over 0.6m in height, having a 1.6m setback from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m; to provide no bicycle parking spaces rather than the required 2; to permit a front yard setback of 2.8m rather than the required 4.5m; and, to permit a balcony to be supported by the ground and setback 1.6m whereas it is required that a balcony not be supported by the ground and have a minimum setback of 3m. Further, minor variances to Zoning By -Law 2019-051 are being requested to permit steps that exceed 0.6m in height to be setback 1.6m from the street line rather than the required 3.0m; and, to permit a front/exterior porch exceeding 1.0m in height to be setback 1.6m from the front lot line rather than the required 3.0m. 7. ADJOURNMENT Page 8 of 403 8. PLANNING ACT INFORMATION • Additional information is available at the Legislated Services Department, 2nd Floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener 519-741-2203 or by emailing CofA(a)kitchener.ca. Copies of written submissions/public agencies' comments are available the Friday afternoon prior to the meeting on the City of Kitchener website www.kitchener.ca/meetings in the online Council and Committee calendar; see the meeting date for more details. Anyone having an interest in any of these applications may attend this meeting. Only the Applicant, Minister, specified person (as defined in Section 1 of the Planning Act) or public body that has an interest in the matter has the right to appeal of decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. These parties must make written submissions to the Committee prior to the Committee granting or refusing Provisional Consent otherwise, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) may dismiss the appeal. Any personal information received in relation to this meeting is collected under the authority s. 28(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, and will be used by the City of Kitchener to process Committee of Adjustment applications. Questions about the collection of information should be directed to Marilyn Mills at marilyn.mills(a)kitchener.ca. If you wish to be notified of a decision, you must make a written request to the Secretary -Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King St. W., Kitchener ON, N2G 4G7. The Notice of Hearing for this meeting was published in the Record on the 22nd day of November, 2024. Marilyn Mills Secretary -Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Page 9 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Sean Harrigan, Senior Planning Technician, 519-783-8934 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: November 28, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-530 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 June 17, 2025, 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 10 of 403 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 minor variance application for 96 Wood Street was originally heard on September 17, 2024, and subsequently deferred to allow time for the applicant to prepare a Planning Justification Report and Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan. The applicant has not provided the required report and plan and as such, staff's comments remain unchanged from the original hearing on September 17. Staff recommend another deferral to allow time for the applicant to prepare the necessary report and plan. 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. Page 11 of 403 Figure 1: Location Map 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). Page 12 of 403 YORK S CRE�w„ �r4RNERVG9 iEfL iTv TRIANGLE 1 ot'ss LANDSCAPE 4 ��RlIL ! o A)•lEAll71� ^ 4la 75 15610 3880 0 3 -STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING+BASEMENT II - a Uarcs W I YPE B -BICYCLE 12 II � W SPACE$ �6I s ! a � I PARKING d SPACE x I _ ' W. t o ]BIKE CLOS LE ITl i t s I 4S)SPAC LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN NFiPa4"3a'W V.40?w Ul SCALE: 1 :156 s y li. LL O Nl Figure 2: Site Plan _t TIO PENTHOUSE ROOF 13.300 U/S ROOF 10.500 a TIO THIRD FLOOR � z T-' 7.500 uu CV T— z 2 TIO SECOND FLOOR O 4.500 m TIO GROUND FLOOR r 1.500 r i TICS 'E { BASEMENT LINES ! e!L _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ v I TIO �ASEMENT 1.300 Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade) Page 13 of 403 Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Facade) _ - A Page 14 of 403 s71 � da"14-" - Via\ . � � � -` ' � � -"•.. ��, 6. JA -• , r� a J '� ar :+ '� y Figure 8: Proposed Driveway Location between City tree and Utility Box Figure 9: Location of City Trees �1 Page 16 of 403 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 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 Page 17 of 403 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 Zonina 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 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 Page 18 of 403 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. The following policies apply: 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; Page 19 of 403 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. 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. Page 20 of 403 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2024) • 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, currently under appeal. Page 21 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca 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 22 of 403 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 23 of 403 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). VC S -f FEE TE. K R6 �iSYVtI€' COS'dC ¢RNER V1$IBILIT I MANGLE - N 99'6 LANDSCAPE P - _ I A)+lENITY- I W _ - U - 7S _ 1SAI0 3880 0 PARKING SPACE BIKE Ei1CL 11 SPAC SITE PLAN SCALE: w : m Figure 2: Site Plan r w Page 24 of 403 3-STCPREY RESIDENTIAL BWLDING+gA&Eh1ENT � I S UNITS YPE B -BICYCLE x wSPACES; ,6) 'PdZ_ 1�1 PWI .IT LANDSCAPE b UP I N 26 W30- W VAW r W LL d M r w Page 24 of 403 l.- TIO PENTHOUSE ROOF r 13-300 1� U/S ROOF r r 10.500 T10 THIRD FLOOR r' 7.500 04 r Z z T10 SECOND FLOOR a J co r 4.500 TIO GROUND FLOOR r� rJ 1.500 a T10 G ' E BASEMENT LINES 0.01 �TJO,8ASEMENT Y -1.300 Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Fagade) Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Facade) Page 25 of 403 � 1 wAM►" rr[ foie, 4 L 1 5• e TM kip a 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 28 of 403 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 29 of 403 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 30 of 403 The following policies apply: 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 31 of 403 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(o)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/treemanaaement 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 32 of 403 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 33 of 403 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 34 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4766511 Page 35 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 - December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 36 of 403 August 30, 2024 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 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 via email 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 37 of 403 w 0 A" m W 0 z 0 J D m z LU DC Q W i O J z _O Q U LL V) z W F - z LUJ F - z W 0 Page 38 of 403 IN I� uu eli ego FEN C M Uk JtWE w� 41 jw I} , a an a[E7 FrrP..� WOOD STREET 4 Page 39 of 403 � ego 6 _ . x �rrrJJ7AA00 m E� Eb¢] S. N WOOD STREET 4 Page 39 of 403 Apilrillill 0 00-4 MAL I VJVV NOUVIS Nmo' SL %uo'[jv�s'Jjsuv.jj pldl!,d punojv 0 cU u E < 0 > > U kn 0 S�- 0 -E —0 QJ CIJ u E C 0 13J 4-j 4-J Ln 0 c < u Lr) — u V) un 4-2 QJ E U, IZZ U *4 -j Q) C - -s--j E 4-1 0 0 4-J U') 00e ch 0 U 36- 0 o ('o V) N < 0 C r--4 Apilrillill 0 00-4 MAL I VJVV NOUVIS Nmo' SL %uo'[jv�s'Jjsuv.jj pldl!,d punojv HOQ m - 7o C m m m Z O VQ � n N O 90 Z Cfu N D m N 0703 � C m � O 0 cn � Z G� m G1 7v � n m O � - Z o L' m � C Z r O r+ HOQ - _. N O VQ M MX. Cfu a . 3 � O -• n r+ 0 0 0 Z n N o L' r r+ r _. HOQ F 1 f biD bjD 0 ru WN bjO 0 Uj 0 Q) Q) � 0 ro V) r1r) m < LA Ln 0 IZZ• Ln fZ- C) V) 0 E -fin b-0 0 4-j 0 C rz ro ai S.. 0 E -p-j un Q) E o • U F 1 f o, O O 0 V) m m 3 3 3 0° 3 3. 3 NOD cn C m 3 Q w N O m x 3' - a- o o Z Q C:r•-r �. 3 = CL OrQ O' O (D Orq' �' Orq Q N �- N Q rr+ rpt (D r.+ (D < pq [L n r O � (D N r+ cr, (D tA OL) r C'7 r � 7� r-+ 65 c r+ LA -I m w Ln 3 3 Z N N m 0° 3 3 A 3 c cn C m 3 Q Page 43 of 403 3 i,n 3 o0 3 0 % cin 0 <. f� w N O m Page 43 of 403 W W w Page 44 of 403 133�US a00M 9 m _ - wi cz m w m 92 L` Z A WAW 4�.R,4A ^� alb, �dlMtAV - L LU` �''cl�35UUY'1 !a� . R I .,'N q- aai T 3AOGV a t JZ d03Nlr 0090 utw Z W .I L 11J _ a s Q _ m � Z i Ir � Y i W f U) L 42W O 'F'^— VJ w T Y M 'I 0 _ _ - 1rm - I 0 m S OG r /lC9XlM X I�,1 ,3"g i i i ' I Page 44 of 403 1 FENCE CAN BE REDUCED/ - + 4 1 1 IF r� O rn fJ m �qq U) I I, S • 0 i Z 100 Gc >-� { E C x °{4t5 a _ r 4 _0 I ® Zcu 4 i+ Y D �F � � I m m � 4 H m 4 %s Z I �•-Ile101110 -h#57WFi# 61 'FP z a g DUNE OF cnl I AV.3W n 21(o DJ 51,'[AI, TREE ZM 43•IT W E t7A69 v 3 I (T� E%ISTYHS C+7FlL'Pf1E 560EWti1FL T� Ul V 1 � m ,.:C, WOOD STREET m m Page 45 of 403 t t w a Q LL 8 Q' LL w o s v = � A: Q lgw'J 8 Q' LL w W W N r) O O LO O1 0 LU 06 L) Z O Q W J L1J Page 46 of 403 A: w s lgw'J f4 Q¢ w� v W W N r) O O LO O1 0 LU 06 L) Z O Q W J L1J Page 46 of 403 i .r joy 44- L, y • O h 3 1+ M N r m n o g B 41 0 O O N (D Q Q (D N Clq' n (D (D N aq �D (D N Page 49 of 403 ,�� ;� 1332US DOOM I -i;- I— W W r) O O rn Page 50 of 403 Page 51 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject: 96 wood street - opposed Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 10:59.34 PM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this isim on rtant Hi there, I am emailing to provide comments on the recent proposal for redevelopment at 96 wood street. Although I understand the city's need for intensification within major transit station areas, this section of the Wherry Park neighbourhood is a unique family neighbourhood with an important cultural heritage. More and more, developers have been purchasing homes in the neighbourhood with the intent to tear them down. Personally, my elderly neighbour's home was purchased by a developer who intends to put up town homes in my backyard, something that would maybe make sense if there weren't existing family homes on all sides of the property. As with the home at 96 Wood, I feel strongly that this type of development will have a significant negative impact on the neighbourhood. It is my view that the building height should adhere to the current 11m limit to preserve what we can of the neighbourhood's character. I'm not sure why the requests of a developer would supersede bylaw that citizens and community members need to adhere to. Further, the neighbour already lacks in street parking due to the proximity to the hospital. Currently, most sheet parking in the neighbourhood is limited to 2 hours, and there is no parking diui_mg the winter. Parking is already a challenge for many, as these heritage homes have limited space for this. I am also concerned about the potential for trees to be removed in the neighbourhood. The beauty of the neighbourhood will be significantly impacted by this. Please ensure that any plans for development include provisions about maintaining trees or replacing them if maintaining them is not possible. Thank you, Isabelle Page 52 of 403 From: To: Sean Harrigan, Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject: Opposition to Proposed 8 -Unfit Development at 96 Wood Street Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 1:26:15 PM You don't often get email from Dear Sean, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed 8 -unit development at 96 Wood Street. Having lived on 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 "cultural heritage landscape" of the area. I request that the city and the Committee respect the bylaw's 11 -meter height restriction to maintain the neighborhood's charm and consistency with existing properties. Additionally, the current parking situation is already strained in our area. I have attached several photos illustrating the congestion on Wood and York Streets, as well as Wood and Mt. Hope Streets, where cars regularly fill the streets. Hospital employees frequently park in our 2 - hour time-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 multi -unit building on York Street, which highlights the kind of clutter that could worsen with further development. Moreover, many residents have invested significantly in their homes to maintain and improve property values in this area. A large multi -unit rental development like this would likely decrease the value of our homes, undermining the investments we have made in our 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 infrastructure, neighborhood character, and property values. I respectfully ask that the Committee take these concerns into serious consideration and deny the request for the proposed development. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Michele Grieco Page 53 of 403 MX7 Page 54 of 403 IY `• �, - 4 P � r p � � Few xir r, kyr,•'.': . y.'Js��• �y•.�°.y� �j,.■ °5a a —�v CJS _ e~ J..�u � '�• e � A , ° � -4p • $amu dwL s a Y ir i kyr,•'.': . y.'Js��• �y•.�°.y� �j,.■ °5a a —�v CJS _ e~ J..�u Page 57 of 403 Fran: To: Sean H arrlu in Cc: Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subjeck: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 96 Wood Street (A21124-075) Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 1:59:48 PM IYou don't often get email from Learn w this is im�aortant Hi Sean, I hope you're doing well. I wanted to share some concerns from the neighborhood about the proposed S -unit development at 96 Wood Street, which I believe will have a significant impact on both the character of the area and our already strained infrastructure. I understand that you're the planner on the project. While we recognize the city's focus on intensification within major transit areas, it's important that this be done in a way that respects the unique heritage and feel of our neighborhood. The proposed height of 12 meters exceeds the current bylaw limit and would stand out against the surrounding homes, which are much lower in profile. I've attached photos of nearby properties to illustrate how this development could disrupt the cohesion of the area. A Neighbourhood Photos.zig Another major issue is traffic congestion, especially when it comes to parking. The streets around us, particularly Wood, York, Mount Hope, and Eden, are already overwhelmed with cars, often due 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 charm of the small, character -filled homes, the beautiful 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 the construction of a building of this size and density will negatively impact the value of our home and investment. Preserving the neighborhood's heritage is not only about aesthetics but also about maintaining the qualities that sustain it and its value, both for current residents and future generations. We'd appreciate any steps you can take to ensure that these concerns are taken into account. I am strongly against this proposal/application. If there's any additional information or action you would recommend on our part, please let me know. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Tristan Pilcher Page 58 of 403 Page 60 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM). Sean Harrigan: Debbie Charman Subject: Committee of Adjustment Concerns - 96 Wood Street Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 7:25:012 PM Attachments: 96 Wood Street - Plan.odF You don't often get email from Learn why this is im a an Committee of Adjustment, Sean Harrigan and Debbie Chapman, Re: A-2024-075 - 96 Wood Street Requesting minor variances to permit a visibility obstruction (a fence) having a height of 1.83m within ogre side of the Drivewa!v Yisihility Triangle (DVT) rather than neaxinnan permitted height of 0.97n within the DVT, a lot area of 393 sq.m. rather than the required 450 sq.m; a front yard setback of 3.8ne rather than the required 4.5m; an exterior side vard setback abutting York Street of 2.5in rather than the required 4ni; a building height of 12nt rather than the maxinnan permitted 11rn to facililate the redevelopment of the property into an 8-itnit multi -residential dwelling. See plan attached. I am sharing my concerns prior to the Cominittee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for September 17, 2024. PROPORTION AND BALANCE As demonstrated in the request for maximtnn height and width variances, the proportion of this 8 -unit plan is vast. The building's size is unbalanced in comparison to the existing structures in the neighbourhood. In addition, this plan does not align with City guidelines and is disrespectful to adjacent homeowners. 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 neighbourhood in terms of buildings location, building height, landscaping, setbacks, entrances, windows and other architectural elements. The use of repetitive or generic design is discouraged. DESIGN AND MATERIALS As illustrated in the plan, the aesthetic of this 8 -trait is "contemporary/modern cookie -cutter". Page 61 of 403 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 am 0=6 L`�i= 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 62 of 403 • 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. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jennifer Page 63 of 403 z �a U sn P o zm F— o oW � E° ff O w Ts z z o o N a o W 07 gFC � Wd zC- `�F �� ❑ao �z � G � � Q �r 3�� z w 2 IL O J W W D LL O N IEDHIS DOOM d N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3 0 ur li-1-1-1 £6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N N � / Sr/ 1 / AMJd AA WB'£ 3 0981.3 wsll Z Mti M M f O W J v J M W N u'1 P W N 4 Uz BJ co 0- w� M N N N N M L) 0 " a LL N � MM tij w LU O V N Lf7 117 l[7 V N 4 N Lo¢ LO Z W 4 M O N O 'It Z m W O V N N N E a z z z € E w c7 w E Z y} �xc Z 2 w 4 a 1J LL� W w w~ U] a wW0c7�a¢aaa� ❑ r x J LU �w O a LL 0 y U U a ❑ Y Z 2 Z Z Q Q O❑ U O U w m N z z y Q O7 z I m J J 4 ❑❑ z z g Y X W W w as ON L.m Ji 0 z - a Y }� m v Mn N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3 0 ur li-1-1-1 £6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N N � / Sr/ 1 / AMJd AA WB'£ 3 0981.3 wsll w xO O 0 0 Q LL LULU Z 0 0 z w 7 LL LL O J m N M m ♦ Z M f O J v J O Y Uz w� a �Q L) 0 " `Q LL N � MM tij w w xO O 0 0 Q LL LULU Z 0 0 z w 7 LL LL O J m N M m ♦ Z d J a W Y 11O— lAto-MO M�Wl O� Flo OIC olo OIC O 1= 7- H H v H- H -4r z Q a W J W ui 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(c 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 65 of 403 Please let me know if you have any questions for me, Thanks! Andrew Wong Page 66 of 403 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.Harriganna kitchener.ca 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 Learn why this is important Hello Sean, 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 67 of 403 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 68 of 403 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 69 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: 96 Wood St. Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 4.07:59 PM You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 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 kind of structure plus parking. Street parking in this area is either permit or 2 hour parking and is usually congested with people parking to go to the hospital who cannot find parking there. dur area is old heritage area made up of mostly single dwelling homes. This build will look so out of plane and not welcome by the residents ,that 1 have spore to. I will remind you, that the bylaw for this area is building can NOT be over 11 meters. Again we strongly object to the proposal put forward to change this property. Lynn & Wayne Hickman Page 70 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM): Sean Harricaan Subject: proposed 8 -unit development at % Wood St Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 8:24:28 RA IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is im on rtant Hello, I'm writing to give my input to the proposed development happening in my neighbourhood. I live at St, and enjoy this residential neighbourhood, with its mature trees, quiet streets and older homes. I live in a 2 -generation household with my adult children, and am in favour of multi -unit homes. I believe in intensification of our neighbourhoods as a creative way to increase housing options. Affordable and attainable housing is a priority for our city and I am supportive of that. I love that this neighbourhood is close to the ION and other major transit routes. I have some concerns about the proposed development at 96 Wood St. The 8 -unit building would be taller than the bylaw 11 -meter limit, changing the culture heritage landscape of this neighbourhood. I am also very concerned that this development of 8 units only includes 1 parking spot? Where will these tenants park's Is the plan to only approve tenants with no 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 parking, 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 my feedback.. Marilyn Rudy-Froese Page 71 of 403 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/LeamAboutSenderldentification ] 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 72 of 403 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/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] 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 73 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject: Proposed redevelopment of an 8 -unit rental buildinq at 96 Wood street. Date: Thursday, September 12, 2(124 2:15:59 PIM IYou don't often get email from Learn why this is im ortant Good afternoon, The purpose of this email is to relay my objection to the proposed 8 -unit development at 96 Wood Street. While I appreciate the city's need for intensification within transit station areas, I expect that the city and committee will respect the cultural heritage landscape of our neighbourhood and restrict the building height to the bylaw's 11 meter limit. The 12 -meter height of the proposed building does not fit within the character of the neighborhood, not to mention removes all privacy for neighbours. I would also like to express my concern regarding parking. While I commend the city from promoting cycling and moving away from car -centric planning, most residents are still car dependent. Parking in this area is already overwhelmed by non-residents at the hospital and neighbouring Sunlife insurance office. Not to mention there is no parking overnight during the winter months. The proposed build will ultimately lead to greater congestion and strain on this small neighbourbood. I also expect the committee will require a landscaping plan to replace any trees that are removed. Unfortunately, more trees are being removed from this neighbourhood than being put in, which hurts the natural beauty of this area, while leaving us exposed to climate related incidents. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Amanda Gordon Page 74 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SW Sean Harriclan Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: opposed to Variance Request for 96 Wood St (A-2024-075) Date: Thursday, September 12, 2(124 4:57:26 PM Attachments: 96 Woad Street - Plan.odf You don't often get email from Rd7v.� Please note Debbie, l have copied you for awareness only as you are the representative for our area. Re: A-2024-075 - 96 Woad Street Requesting minor variances to permit a visibility obstruction (a fence) having a height of 1.83m within one side of the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) rather than maximum permitted height of 0.9m within the D VT- 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 yard setback abutting York Street of 2.5m rather than the required 4m; a building height of 92m rather than the maximum permitted 7 7m to facilitate the redevelopment of the property into an 8 -unit multi -residential dwelling. See plan attached. Dear Committee Members, I hope this message finds you well. My name is William i am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the development request for 96 Wood St in Kitchener, turning this single-family dwelling into an 8 -unit multi -residential building. The proposed variances include: 1. Fence Height: Request to permit a fence height of 1.83m within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) instead of the maximum permitted height of 0.9m. 2. Lot Area: A request for a lot area of 393 sq.m. rather than the required 450 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 maximum 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 Manual and may adversely impact our Page 75 of 403 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 76 of 403 65 Gildner Street 123 Wood Street 55 Wood Street 95 Mount Hope 103 Mount Hope 107 Mount Hope 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 77 of 403 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 for your attention to these matters. I appreciate your consideration and hope for a decision that respects the heritage and character of our community. Sincerely, Page 78 of 403 z �a U sn P o zm F— o oW � E° ff O w Ts z z o o N a o W 07 gFC � Wd zC- `�F �� ❑ao �z � G � � Q �r 3�� z w 2 IL O J W W D LL O N IEDHIS DOOM d N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3 0 ur li-1-1-1 £6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N N � / Sr/ 1 / AMJd AA WB'£ 3 098 l.3 wsll Z Mti M M f O W J v M W N u'1 P W N 4 Uz BJ co 0- w� M N N N N M L) 0 " a LL N � MM tij w LU O V N Lf7 117 l[7 V N 4 N Lo¢ LO Z W 4 M O N O 'It Z m W O V N N N E a z z z € E w c7 w E Z y} �xc Z 2 w 4 a 1J LL� W w w~ U] a wW0c7�a¢aaa� ❑ r x J LU �w O a LL 0 y U U a ❑ Y Z 2 Z Z Q Q O❑ U O U w m N z z y Q O7 z I m J J 4 ❑❑ z z g Y X W W w as ON L.m Ji 0 z - a Y }� m v Mn N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3 0 ur li-1-1-1 £6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N N � / Sr/ 1 / AMJd AA WB'£ 3 098 l.3 wsll w xO O 0 0 Q LL LULU Z 0 0 z w 7 LL LL O J m N M m ♦ Z M f O J v W Y Uz w� a �Q L) 0 " `Q LL N � MM tij w w xO O 0 0 Q LL LULU Z 0 0 z w 7 LL LL O J m N M m ♦ Z d J a W Y 11O— lAto-MOM�Wl O� Flo OIC olo OIC O 1= 7- H H v H- H -4r z Q a W J W ui W From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM): Sean Harridan Subject: 96 Wood St Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 5:34:19 PM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Good afternoon, I am writing to express my 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 the Committee of Adjustment to deny the requested variances for lot size, height, and front and side yard setbacks. While I appreciate the city's need for intensification within transit station areas, I am 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 why new construction "fits" the neighbourhood. The 12 -meter height of the proposed building does not fit within the cultural heritage landscape of our neighbourhood and will be an eyesore to our neighbour. Additionally, such a large building removes all privacy for my family and our adjacent neighbours. A rooftop patio would be extremely invasive and wouldn't be warranted if the proposal adhered to lot size restrictions. Relocating parking from Wood St. to York St. raises significant safety issues. York St is omen used as a through street and the additional driveway would increase risks for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. There is simply no need to add another access point when the driveway can safely remain on Wood St. Finally, the city is considering a proposal to add more people to the neighbourhood without having the proper infrastructure in place or ensuring that the proposed development will meet the needs of the would-be tenants. The addition of a new driveway on York St. would also remove valuable on -street parking spaces frequently used by hospital visitors. This change would negatively impact the broader community, reducing accessibility in an area where street parking is already at a premum. I ask that the committee deny the requested variances for front and side yard setbacks, lot size, and height. Thank you, Karl Snyder Page 80 of 403 Fran: To: Sean Hof Actin Cc: Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subjea; 95 Wood St - Proposal objection Date: Friday, September 13, 2424 8:14:51 AM IYou don't often get email from Learrn why this is im on Stant To whom it may concern, I am a lifelong resident of Kitchener on Wood St, between Belmont Village and Grand River Hospital. My and my family as well as the rest of the neighborhood have recently become aware of a proposed 8 -unit rental property to be constructed from an existing house on the corner of Wood St. and York St. at the address 96 Wood St. I am writing: to object this proposal, as I believe it would negatively affect our neighborhood's cultural heritage landscape, which is important to me, as someone who has lived in this house since I was a young child. I acknowledge 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 justify the total transformation. I am asking that the building height be restricted to the by-law's 11 -meter limit. Going over the height limit does not fit the character of the neighbourhood, where all of the other house exist within the height contraints. I also worry about the parking situation. The neighbourhood already has many non-residents, such as hospital employees, who park on Wood Street or York Street, making it a lot more congested. We already have parking restrictions, such as 2 -hour parking limits and I believe that adding a possible 8 more cars to this area would not only be a problem for existing residents, but also to the ones moving in. Moreover, I would request that should city's plan continue, that any trees or existing trees be replaced, as our street has many old trees and beautiful landscaping, which is something I love about the street. Ultimately, I love living in this neighbourhood and I believe the current development proposal would be obstructive and would not fit the current feeling of this neighbourhood. With so much development occurring in both Kitchener and Waterloo, it would be sad to see the same changes occur in our small neighbourhood. If the above ideas could be considered, I would deeply appreciate it, as would the rest of the neighbourhood? Thank you, Olivia Koop Page 81 of 403 Frons: To: Sean Harrigan; Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject: 96 Wood St Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 10:09:56 AM You don't often get email from 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 J Mt Hope Gildner) are a rarity - a well-established, humble neighbourhood with streets lined by tall trees, where people find community within the density of a city. The 12 -meter height of this proposed building exceeds the bylaw limit, and I feel it disrupts the character of our neighbourhood. There have always been 2 triplexes at the end of Wood St by the park, but they are modest and do not draw your eye. A building of this height would disrupt the visual harmony and aesthetic value, along with being precariously placed in the middle of the neighbourhood and its residential homes. Parking is also a major concern. Our streets -- particularly Wood, York, and Eden -- are already congested. Our neighbourhood is used as a through -way between King St 1 Grand River Hospital to Belmont Village. Current parking restrictions, including 2 -hour limits and ticketing, are insufficient to manage the high demand; people already park illegally on a regular basis. Adding more units in this small section of the city will exacerbate this problem, making it even harder for residents to find parking. (My husband even got a parking ticket this summer for parking on our street) Please consider the attributes that make our neighbourhood significant to Midtown - older brick homes, tall trees lining the streets, front porches, and moderately-sized dwellings. On a personal note, I hear about the inadequacies of finding affordable places 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 am going to assume that this 8-plex will not be owned by a local individual who is invested in the community and the rent will not actually be affordable. My assumptions (and l maybe I'm wrong) are that this is a capitalist venture without regard for quality, affordable units to provide safe living spaces within our little neighbourhood for those who actually need it. The times we live in require decision -makers who consider more than just the legalities of zoning, so thank you for your consideration. Sarah Page 82 of 403 Fran: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject. Proposed redevelopment of an 8 -unit rental buildinq at 96 Wood Street. Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 10:49:41 AM IYou don't often get email from Learn why this is im op rtant To whom it may concern, As a resident of close to 30 years on Wood Street, I am writing with concern re the new proposed redevelopment of the rental property at this location and that the building height be restricted to the bylaw's 11 -meter limit. The proposed building height does not fit within die character of the neighborhood at the current height proposed. Considerations of materials and designs (e.g., brick finish. front porches) that better integrate with the neighborhood would also be required from the developer, as well as a landscaping plan to replace any trees that are removed. This would help preserve the natural beauty of the area. parking over the years has become a greater concern on York and the surrounding streets. These streets are already overwhelmed, especially if non-residents (e.g.. hospital staff/visitors) are parking there. These streets, with their restricted 2 -hour parking have been causes for ticketing of these hospital employees and/or visitors. Additional units would strain the situation further. York Street tends to be a busy street between Glasgow and Union and the width of this street is greatly reduced with parking along the side creating dangerous blind spots for any traffic entering from any of the perpendicular streets (particularly Wood Street) See attached photos. As a homeowner and city resident, I am aware of the city's need for intensification within major transit station areas (defined as within 800 meters of the ION) but would request that the city and the committee respect the "cultural heritage landscape" of the area. Thank you. Regards. James and Andrea Weber Steckly Page 83 of 403 A Page 84 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (5M) Subject: Application# 2024-96 Wood St. Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 11:53:36 AM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this isim on rtant Dear City of Kitchener Planner, I am writing to express my significant concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of 96 Wood St., which seeks approval for an eight -unit, four-story building with a rooftop patio. While I support the City's objective to enhance development around major transit stations, particularly within 800 meters of the ION, I urge the Committee to consider the broader impacts of this proposal on our neighbourhood's cultural heritage, infrastructure, and overall quality of life. 1. Building Height and Design: The proposal to construct a building with a height of 12 meters, exceeding the bylaw limit of 11 meters by 1 meter, is more than a minor adjustment; it represents a significant shift that disrupts the established character of our neighbourhood. Key concerns a clude: - Visual and Environmental Impact: The additional height will significantly alter the visual harmony of our area, which is characterized by single-family homes and smaller multi -unit buildings. The proposed building's height will overshadow neighbouring homes, particularly those on the south side, leading to: - Loss of Natural Light: The increased height will cast extended shadows, diminishing the amount of natural light reaching adjacent properties and affecting the enjoyment of outdoor spaces such as gardens, patios, and backyard areas. - Privacy Invasion: Higher structures can intrude on the privacy of neighbouring homes, overlooking private backyards and living spaces, thereby reducing residents' sense of privacy and comfort. - Overwhelming Aesthetics: The visual mass of a four-story building can overwhelm the existing smaller -scale structures, leading to a Jan-img contrast and disrupting the neighbourhood's aesthetic cohesion. - Architectural Harmony: While the specific design details are not yet available, the final design must harmonize with the existing architectural styles of our neighbourhood. This includes: - Material and Design Integration: Using traditional materials such as brick or stone, and incorporating design features like pitched roofs and front porches, can help maintain a visual and historical continuity with the surrounding area. - Mass and Scale: The overall massing of the building should be designed to complement rather than dominate the surrounding structures, preserving the neighbourhood's balance and scale. 2. Parking Congestion. Parking is already a significant issue in our area. The current situation is exacerbated by: - There is a high demand from various sources for parking spaces on Mt. Hope, Wood, and York Streets and are frequently occupied by: - Hospital Staff, patients, and Visitors: The nearby hospital generates substantial parking demand, with staff and visitors occupying spaces day and night. Page 85 of 403 - SunLife Employees and nearby businesses: The adjacent office building adds to the parking strain, contributing to a shortage of available spaces. - Residents of Nearby Multi -Unit Buildings: The parking needs of residents in nearby multi- unit buildings further stress the available parking resources. - Impact of New Development: As a neighbourhood, we have witnessed firsthand the adverse impacts of other new builds that, with their limited parking, increased number of residents, and greater heights, have negatively affected existing homes, backyard spaces, privacy, and the treed landscape. The proposed eight -unit development will likely: - Exacerbate Parking Shortages: The additional units will increase the number of vehicles competing for already limited street parking, leading to heightened congestion and inconvenience for current residents. - Strain Existing Infrastructure: The current parking infrastructure is already under strain, and the added demand will likely lead to increased conflicts and enforcement issues, affecting the quality of life for everyone in the area. 3. Trees and Landscaping: The removal of mature trees on the property raises several concerns: - Aesthetic and Environmental Impact: Mature trees are essential for the neighbourhood's visual appeal and environmental health. They provide shade, improve air quality, and support local wildlife. Their removal will: - Diminish Neighborhood Beauty: The loss of mature trees will negatively impact the area's aesthetic value and reduce the sense of natural beauty that characterizes our community. - Disrupt Local Ecosystem: Trees are critical in supporting local biodiversity. Their removal could negatively affect various species that rely on them for habitat. - Need for Comprehensive Landscaping: To mitigate these impacts, the Committee should require the developer to submit a detailed landscaping plan that includes: - Tree Replacement: A commitment to plant new trees of equivalent or greater size to replace those removed, ensuring the preservation of the neighbourhood's green character. - Sustainable Practices: Incorporation of landscaping strategies that support biodiversity and ecological balance, such as native plantings and wildlife -friendly designs. In summary, while I understand and support the need for increased housing, the proposed project in its current form presents substantial challenges to our neighbourhood's character, infrastructure, and environmental quality. I respectfully request that the Committee deny the requested variances for building height and other related requests, and instead consider a development plan that respects and integrates with the unique attributes of our community. Thank you for your careful consideration of these critical issues. I trust that you will make a decision that balances the need for development with preserving our neighbourhood's heritage and quality of life. Sincerely, MaryBeth Reynolds and Nathan Majury Page 86 of 403 From: To: sean.harrinaton0kitchener.ca: Committee of Adiustment (SM] Subject: A 2024-075 - % Wood Street Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:02:21 PM II You don't often tet email from . Learn why this is important Re: A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street Hello, am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of 96 Wood St. and the request for several variances. As the rear neighbor, I have serious reservations about the scale and impact of the proposed redevelopment and urge the Committee of Adjustment to deny the requested variances for lot size, height, and front and side yard setbacks. I appreciate the need for housing and support the redevelopment of the property into a multi -unit building. However, I am opposed to several aspects of this specific plan and I see no compelling reason for this development to bypass the regulations that help maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. My specific concerns include: 1. Lot Size, Setbacks, and Height: I am opposed to the variances requested for lot size, front and side yard setbacks, and building height. This neighborhood is a cherished mix of old and new single-family homes, small multi -unit buildings, and larger apartment buildings that blend harmoniously. Adherence to lot size restrictions and front and side yard setbacks are a big reason why new construction "fits" the neighbourhood. The proposed structure is simply too large for this lot and without the required setbacks a building of this size would overshadow adjacent properties, intrude on my family's privacy, and alter the feel of the block in a way that feels out of place. 2. Parking Relocation and Safety Concerns: Relocating parking from Wood St. to York St. raises significant safety issues. Speeding on York St is common, and the additional driveway would increase risks for pedestrians, including my children, and to cyclists and drivers. There is simply no need to add another access point when the driveway can safely remain on Wood St. 3. Displacement of Current Tenants: I most troubled by the displacement this would bring to the current tenants at 96 Wood St—a family with an infant and a dog. This family faces the prospect of losing their three- bedroom home, which is especially concerning given the severe shortage of such rental units in the city. It is distressing to see a family pushed out to make way for eight smaller units that do not meet the same need. The lack of communication from the property owner with the tenants regarding this redevelopment only reinforces my feeling that this Page 87 of 403 project prioritizes profit over people. 4. Loss of Privacy: The proposed rooftop patio and the building's excessive height would significantly infringe upon my backyard privacy. 5. Street Parking Removal: The addition of a new driveway on York St. would also remove valuable on -street parking spaces frequently used by hospital visitors. This change would negatively impact the broader community, reducing accessibility in an area where street parking is already at a premium. I kindly ask that the committee deny the requested variances for front and side yard setbacks, lot size, and height. This project, as proposed, would significantly disrupt the neighborhood, increase risks for pedestrians and drivers, reduce on -street parking, and displace valued residents. Thank you for considering my perspective. Sincerely, Keely Phillips Page 88 of 403 From - To: Committee of Adiust hent (SM) Subject: Re: opposing the 8 -unit Build % Wood St Kdchener Date: Friday, September 13, 2624 5:23:16 PM You don't often tet email from . Learn why this is Important As a home owner on Wood St. Kitchener, I strongly oppose the development being proposed at 96 Wood St. I understand the city's need for intensification near major transit stations within the 800 meter distance to ION. I am requesting that the city and planning committee respect the cultural heritage landscape of our neighborhood. For one major concern, according to the bylaw, the building must be restricted to 11 meters in height. • Building Height: The proposed 12 -meter height of the proposed building does not fit within the character of the neighborhood- or the BYLAW. • Pai-Idug: Existing Parking on our street and the surrounding neighborhood is already congested. The street is consistently full on wood, York, and eden within this immediate area. This is close to the Grand River Hospital and is extremely overwhelmed especially during the week days. There is a 2 -hour limit of parking already and I have seen tickets being issued i regularly due to the high demand to park in the neighborhood. If these 8 unit's occupants are not having vehicles as Sean mentions, this would make sense. • Building Design: The look and feel of the neighborhood is all smaller sized Page 89 of 403 homes with brick, and porches, and driveways. We would hope that similar design is incorporated, however, can't imagine an 8 unit dwelling would do so • Trees: Requesting that the city require a landscaping plan to replace any removed city owned trees. I strongly want to protect my investment in this city. We have also completed a home renovation but ensuring at no point did we break tradition of this curbside heritage look and feel of neighborhood. Thank you kindly for your time and I am happy to provide more information if you wish. Many thanks & kind regards, Carl Puddy Legislated Services I City of Kitchener Page 90 of 403 From: Sean Harrigan To: Cc: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: RE: Objection to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:58:11 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona imaae002.ona imaae003.ona imaae004.ona imaae005.ona imaae006.ona imaae007.ona imaae008.ona Good afternoon Alison, Thank you for your email and comments. The Committee of Adjustment staff (cc'd) will provide your comments 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(c kitchener.ca From: Alison Marshall Sent: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:41 PM To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca> Subject: Objection to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street You don't often get email from Good Afternoon Sean, Learn why this is important I hope all is well. I am a concerned home owner on Wood St in Kitchener. I am writing to share my concerns and objection for the proposed 8 -unit development at 96 Wood Street because of the following points: • Neighbourhood Integrity - by proposing this 8 -unit development, the integrity of the neighbourhood will be compromised by developing a large building in its center. The neighbourhood is filled with century -old homes and a building of this size would simply diminish the cultural heritage landscape of the area. I ask that you take this into consideration and respect the beauty of the neighbourhood. • Building Height - The Bylaw states 11 Meters. This is what we invested in. This proposal is Page 91 of 403 looking to break the bylaw that our community invested in Parking - Wood, York, Mount Hope, Gilder and Eden Ave are all small quiet streets. With the addition of an 8 -unit development there will be an additional influx of vehicles and traffic added to the neighbourhood. We already experience a high volume of vehicles parking along the street due to hospital traffic as well as individuals using these streets as thruofares to get to Glasgow and Union. These streets would simply not support the addition of vehicles that would accompany an 8 -unit development. (See photo for congestion example). The property itself, does not allow for adequate parking, which will be flowed out into the street • The need for single detached homes - there is no need to develop this plot of land into an 8 - unit development. There have been two larger plots of land on Belmont and the corner of Belmont and Union that have been sold to develop into 11 -story+ developments. The city is in need of single detached plots of land to preserve the integrity of the city and it does not need another multi unit dwelling to go up specifically right in the center of this neighborhood. I hope to see you at the Committee of Adjustment meeting on Tuesday September 17th, where I would be more than happy to expand on my concerns with you in person. Thank you and I hope you have a wonderful weekend! Alison Marshall Page 92 of 403 From: Sean Harrigan To: Cc: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: RE: 96 Wood ST Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 2:36:41 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona imaae002.ona imaae003.ona imaae004.ona imaae005.ona imaae006.ona imaae007.ona imaae008.ona Good afternoon Lauren, Thank you for your email and comments. The Committee of Adjustment staff (cc'd) will provide your comments to the Panel Members for their consideration for this application. 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(c kitchener.ca From: Lauren McDonald Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 2:15 PM To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca> Subject: 96 Wood ST You don't often get email from 1 Learn why this is important Hello Sean, I live on Wood St, houses down from the property with the proposed 8 -unit development, 96 Wood St. My concerns are around parking and the amount of street parking in the neighborhood, and the congestion it can create on York St. I have a young child that bikes to school, and there are already a number of cars parked on the road as the neighbourhood is close to the hospital, and it makes the street unsafe at times due to poor visibility, speed, and space on the street. There is also 2 hour parking on Wood St, which gets very busy, and I am concerned about adding to this. We have a number of mixed buildings in the neighbourhood which is great, however over the past few years, a number of single detached homes have been torn down in place of larger, multi unit dwellings (including 2 directly behind my home). I love this neighbourhood and understand the need for housing and bringing in more people, but I am concerned about the pattern of older, single Page 93 of 403 detached homes being torn down. A 12 meter building, with 8 units on that lot seems quite large. Again I worry about parking congestion, and cutting down more trees, and having it fit with the neighbourhood, which most houses are approaching 100 years old. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Again, I love this neighbourhood, and love bringing more people to live in the city core, but I do hope it can be done in a responsible and respectful way, as this is a special neighbourhood. Thank you, Lauren McDonald Page 94 of 403 Fran: To: Seem Hafrlclin Cc: Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject: Concerns Regarding Minor Variance Request for % Wood Street Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 8:23:90 PM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Sean, I am writing in regards to the request for a minor variance at 96 Wood Street. I live at Street, and my side yard and driveway face 96 Wood Street. I recognize the need for more housing in our region, and do not oppose the redevelopment of this lot, but feel like there are too many changes requested that will affect the safety of those who live, work and play in this neighbourhood. York Street is already fairly busy, with cars flying down it to enter the back of the Catalyst 137 parking lot and avoiding Park Street. Currently there is street parking where the proposed new driveway for 96 Wood Street would be. This driveway would take away the already limited street parking in the neighbourhood. Street parking that supports local businesses, but also acts as a badly needed traffic calming measure. The proposed size of the building will negatively affect the sight lines from both the proposed parking spot and driving up Wood Street. Keeping the driveway/proposed parking spot on Wood Street will maintain some street parking for those visiting residents of the apartment buildings and businesses/hospital on Park Street and be safer for the resident who uses that parking spot_ The comer of Wood Street and York Street already do not line up, limiting the sight lines will make an already unsafe intersection even more unsafe. This neighbourhood is full of pedestrians and kids, and their safety should be a priority. If the variance is granted I would like to know what traffic calming measures will be put in place to ensure pedestrian safety is a priority. I completely support the need for more housing in our community, but eight single -bedroom units on such a small piece of land is a lot. The property developer will be making a large income off these eight units, and I believe the city should consider asking for at least two -units to be affordable housing. if they are going to grant all of these variances. If the property owner was interested in building this type of building, they should have looked at purchasing a. lot that could easily fit the proposal. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the meeting. Andrea Harding Page 95 of 403 From: To: Marilyn Mills Cc: Sean Harrigan, Tina Malone -Wright: Dave Seller: Connie Owen Subject: Re: Deferred Committee of Adjustment Application - A 2424-475 - 96 Wood Street, DSC -2024-42.2 Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 12:14:21 PM Attachments: imaaeOOLE)no imaae4(12.ana imaae401prig imaae4CW.ano imaae005.ono imaaeO(16.ona imaae407.nna imaaeOM.ono Some people who received this message don't often get email frorr . Learn why this is Important Hi Marilyn, Sean and team, I'm following up regarding the proposed 8 -unit development at 96 Wood Street, and I want to strongly emphasize my concerns about parking and traffic congestion. As a resident living directly across the street, I've seen firsthand how stretched our street parking already is, particularly due to hospital staff and other non-residents using the area for overflow parking. Introducing an additional 8 units with only one designated parking space will undoubtedly exacerbate this problem. I believe this aspect is being severely overlooked. It was mentioned during the hearing that the builders are not required to provide more than one parking space for this entire 8 -unit building, which I find both surprising and concerning. It is unrealistic to believe that none of the tenants in these units will own a vehicle. Why is this issue not being addressed"? I'm disappointed to not see a more detailed parking plan in place that reflects the reality of the demand that this development will cause. Wood and York Streets are not designed to handle the influx of additional vehicles that would come with a development of this size. Congestion and limited visibility already pose a danger, and this development would increase those risks significantly. It's extremely important to me and the community that parking is thoroughly addressed before any approval is given. The ciurent plan, with just one parking space for 8 units, is insufficient. I urge the city and the Coinn ittee of Adjustment to reconsider the parking requirements and to account for the real needs of the residents and our neighborhood's infrastructme. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter, and I look forward to further clarification or revisions to the parking plan that address this serious issue. Best regards, Tristan Pilcher Page 96 of 403 422 to the December 10, 2024 Committee of Adjustment meeting or earlier to allow the applicants' agent an opportunity to provide Staff a Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan and Planning Justification Report. The Staff report, public agencies' comments and written submissions are attached to this email for your information. Further, the meeting video can be viewed here. Consideration of this application is currently scheduled for the Committee of Adjustment meeting dated December 10, 2024 and may be brought forward an earlier meeting date, once the applicant provides the additional information requested. Further details regarding the meeting will be provided closer to the meeting date. Thank You, Marilyn Mills Committee Coordinator I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7275 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Marllyn.Mllls4kitchener.ca T CE Page 97 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Sean Harrigan; Debbie Chapman Subject: Opposition to Proposed 8 Unit Development at 96 Wood Street Date: Sunday, November 24, 2024 1:25:51 PM Committee of Adjustment, Sean Harrigan and Debbie Chapman, Re: A-2024-075 - 96 Wood Street I am writing to reiterate my opposition to demolish 96 Wood Street to facilitate the redevelopment of the property into an 8 unit multi -residential dwelling. These are the reasons why I do not support the application. 1. STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA (SGA) - DESIGN CHARRETTES This property is located within the "Gildner Green Heritage Landscape". As part of SGA planning, Urban Design Planning Staff held six "Growing Together" Design Charrettes with residents to collaboratively develop Urban Design Guidelines specific to their neighbourhood. The first point outlined in the criteria states ... "Where front porches or detached garages are a predominant feature in the neighbourhood, within a cultural heritage landscape, or along a particular street, provide the same within new development, additions and/or alterations." See Growing Together - KW/Midtown webpage and refer to Neighbourhood Specific Guidelines for Midtown - Section 04.1.6 (Page 11). The application must demonstrate how the proposed development meets applicable Official Plan policies including those associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscape and Urban Design Manual created/refined through the Growing Together design charrettes. The application does not appear to demonstrate this. 2. URBAN DESIGN MANUAL - SECTION 03.3.0 SITE DESIGN - 03.3.1 BUILT FORM As demonstrated in the request for maximum height and width variances, the proportion of this 8 -unit application is an overdevelopment. The size is unbalanced in comparison to the existing structures in the neighbourhood. The design does not include ANY elements that integrate with the heritage and character of the neighbourhood. See Urban Design Manual webpage and refer to 03.3.0 Site Design - 03.3.1 Built Form. Page 98 of 403 • 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. • 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. • 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). The application does not appear to demonstrate this. Again, the application must demonstrate how the proposed development meets applicable Official Plan policies including those associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscape and Urban Design Manual created/refined through the Growing Together design charrettes. 3. STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA (SGA) - UNDER APPEAL The application is dependent on SGA -1 zoning and bylaws that are not in effect. As per my last inquiry, the response received stated "Bylaw 2024-065 is under appeal in its entirety and it could take up to a year to resolve." 4. STREET PARKING Under SGA -1, parking is no longer required for residential use. Page 99 of 403 Hospital employees frequently park in the 2 hour time limited street spaces. The addition of 8 units will exacerbate parking congestion and snow removal. 4. DEVELOPMENT DEMOLITION PRECEDENT Again, it is unfortunate that this landlord has taken an opportunity from a first-time home buyer. This landlord had also expressed an interest in another nearby property. We are extremely concerned that this development will set a demolition precedent in the neighbourhood for more multi -unit developments. For example, this precedent is already happening in the Cherry Hill residential neighbourhood, along Peter, St. George and Cedar streets. Lastly, there were 15+ written submissions in opposition of this application. During the last COA meeting, several remarks were made about the lack of in-person representation. Please understand that many of us are new to this process. These COA meetings are also conducted during typical working hours. There appears to be an unwritten expectation to speak in-person. I would also like to comment on the lack of professionalism demonstrated by the chair who is also a voting member. Decisions should be based on information and facts applicable to the application. Not a past personal experience as demonstrated at the last COA meeting. His rationale is concerning. Quote ... "I respectfully disagree. I don't think this is an overdevelopment of the lot. As someone who lived in a crappy basement apartment for 1 year with undersized windows, it sucks. They're just appreciating a funky lot. As -is, I'm in support of the application." I recognize the goal for intensification near major transit stations however, I believe this development is too intensive for our neighbourhood and will negatively affect existing infrastructure, character and property values. The Official Plan policies including those associated with the Cultural Heritage Landscape and Urban Design Manual exist for a reason. I respectfully ask that the Committee take these concerns into serious consideration and deny the request for the proposed development. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jennifer Page 100 of 403 Page 101 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Sean Harridan; Subject. opposition to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 8:36:31 AM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is im of� rtant Dear, Committee of Adjustment, Mr. Harrigan and Ms. Chapman, I am writing on behalf of concerned residents to formally object to the proposed 8 -unit development at 96 Wood Street. This proposal raises significant concerns that jeopardize the character, functionality, and overall integrity of our neighborhood. I would like to start off with: Unprofessional Conduct During the Meeting on Tuesday September 1792024 at 10:00am At the Committee of Adjustment meeting for Application A-2024-075 on 96 Wood Street, Chair made comments that were both inappropriate and dismissive of residents' concerns. 1. Dismissal of Written Statements and Absence of Residents Chau repeatedly emphasized the absence of neighborhood residents speaking at the meeting, despite the fact that 15 written statements had been submitted. His remarks alluded to the absence of speakers as a detriment to the strength of opposition. This oversight fails to acknowledge that the meeting was conducted during working hours -10 a.m. on a Tuesday—making it inaccessible for many. Residents should not have to choose between personal or professional obligations and having their voices heard. Someone in a position of leadership should exhibit professionalism and understand the realities of residents' schedules when making such dismissive observations. 2. Inappropriate Personal Commentary Chair remarks during the meeting, including his statement: "Fin going to respectfidl v disagree. It's not an overdevelopment of a lot. For someone wlro lived in a crappy basement apartment for 1 year with undersized windows—it sucks—and Fin in support of this application. " This type of unprofessional commentary, rooted in personal experience, is entirely inappropriate for a decision-making forum. Such statements are dismissive of the conceins of the community and indicate a troubling bias. Mr. , how would you feel if an 8 -unit development were proposed directly beside your home? This comment illustrates a lack of empathy and understanding for the residents directly impacted by this project. I urge you to carefully consider the following points: Page 102 of 403 Gildner Green Cultural Heritage Landscape This property is located within the Gildner Green Cultural Heritage Landscape, a designation that underscores the City of Kitchener's recognition of the unique attributes of our neighborhood. The mature street trees, consistent architectural styles, and heritage -like "built - form" of the houses are defining features that this development blatantly disregards. Permitting such a project would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the values this designation was meant to preserve. Neighbourhood Aesthetic and Property Value The proposed development's design does not align with the aesthetic or architectural character of the area. Many homeowners in the neighborhood have invested significant resources to enhance their properties in ways that reflect and respect the community's distinct charm. Introducing an oversized, incongruous development risks degrading the neighborhood's appeal and lowering property values for all residents. Excessive Building Height The proposed building height exceeds the zoning limit of 11 meters, reaching 12 meters. This excessive height is incompatible with the existing streetscape and creates a visual and spatial imbalance that undermines the cohesion of the neighborhood. The zoning rules are in place to prevent such overreach, and allowing this exception would erode trust in their enforcement. Street Parking Congestion Wood Street is already burdened by parking challenges due to its proximity to the hospital, with visitors and employees frequently occupying the limited 2 -hour spaces. The proposed development does not include any parking for its 8 units, which will exacerbate these issues significantly. Additional cars on the street will complicate snow removal and increase tension among residents, further eroding the quality of life in our community. Precedent for Demolition and Overdevelopment The approval of this development risks setting a precedent for further demolitions and multi- unit developments in our neighborhood. The current landlord's track record—purchasing this property out of reach for a first-time homebuyer and showing interest in additional acquisitions—suggests a troubling trend. This project could open the door to further speculative developments, threatening the long-term stability and character of the area. As a long-time resident of this neighborhood, I strongly urge the Committee of Adjustment to reject this proposal. The negative impact on the Gildner Green Cultural Heritage Landscape, property values, parking congestion, and community cohesion far outweighs any potential benefits. This development is not aligned with the vision of our neighborhood or the City of Kitchener's commitment to preserving cultural heritage and livable spaces. I trust the Committee will carefully consider these concerns, which are shared by many residents in our community, and act in the best interest of preserving the unique character of Wood Street. Page 103 of 403 Sincerely, Michele Grieco a Da Page 104 of 403 From: To: Sean Harrigan; Committee of Adjustment (SM); Debbie Chapman Subject: Key Concerns with the Proposed Development of 96 Wood Street Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 2:37:47 PM [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LeamAboutSenderldentification ] As a resident of Wood Street for over 25 years, I have serious concems about the proposed 8 -unit rental building at 96 Wood Street. I am aware of the Planning Act and the parking requirements for properties within a PMTSA but this project would worsen the existing parking congestion caused by hospital staff and visitors, as the development does not provide adequate parking for its residents. The strain on parking will significantly impact the quality of life for those living here. Additionally, the building's design does not respect the aesthetic or architectural character of our neighborhood. Many of us have invested heavily in our homes, and this development threatens to lower property values and diminish the charm of our community. Approving this project sets a dangerous precedent for more demolitions and speculative overdevelopment, undermining the close-knit and community -oriented nature of Wood Street. This proposal is not just a single building—it risks the long-term integrity and character of our neighborhood. Sent from my iPhone Page 105 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); sean.harriaan(&kithcener.ca; d Subject: 96 Wood Street Development Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 7:55:45 PM [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LeamAboutSenderldentification ] Hello, This email is being sent to submit my personal objection to the proposed 8 -Unit development at 96 Wood Street. I have lived in this neighbourhood for 25 years, 20 of them being a homeowner. A homeowner who lives directly beside the proposed development. Which is obviously clear that I will be impacted the most, but alongside with many concerned neighbors. I have reviewed the design of the proposed building. One of my major concerns is the complete takeover of the lot with the size of the building designed. • concerns also consist about the encroachment of personal space, privacy, and that the overall backyard experience will be impacted. • current driveway will be boxed in by the fence to be built on the west side property line of the lot. Snow removal will become more difficult as well as the overall function of useable space. I am aware that development and creating new housing to accommodate for KW`s growing population is necessary, but should not be done by the takeover of areas that are considered cultural heritage landscapes. They have been designated that for a reason. I have read over many of the neighbours email submissions, which then tells me that there is a general agreement on the concerns that this development creates. I find no reason to repeat on subjects and concerns that have already been said by 25 others, but STRONGLY agree with them all. A building of this size, design, an overall fagade does not belong amongst the mature maples and Century homes. Although I will not be able to attend the meeting on the 10th of December, I absolutely stand by my many neighbours whom are opposed of this proposal. Thanks, Wood Street Resident. Page 106 of 403 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Sean Harrigan; Debbie Chapman Subject: Opposition to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street, Kitchener. Date: Thursday, December 5, 2024 8:34:29 PM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.Dna You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello, Committee of Adjustment, Mr. Harrigan and Ms. Chapman, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the the proposed 8 -unit development at 96 Wood Street. This proposal raises significant concerns that jeopardize the character, functionality, and overall integrity of our neighborhood. As a resident of this area for over 15 years, I have witnessed the growth and transformation of this community, and I feel deeply invested in its future. While I understand the need for development in urban areas, I firmly believe that this particular project is not suitable for our neighborhood due to several significant concerns, which I outline below. Starting with the unprofessional conduct during the meeting on Tuesday September 17,2024 at 10:00am; although I was unable to attend the meeting in person, I watched the recording and was NOT at all pleased by the comments made by Chair ; the comments were both inappropriate and dismissive to the residents' concerns around this project. 1. Dismissal of Written Statements and Absence of Residents Chair repeatedly emphasized the absence of neighborhood residents speaking at the meeting, despite the fact that 15 written statements had been submitted. His remarks alluded to the absence of speakers as a detriment to the strength of opposition. This oversight fails to acknowledge that the meeting was conducted during working hours -10 a.m. on a Tuesday—making it inaccessible for many. o Residents should not have to choose between personal or professional obligations and having their voices heard. o Someone in a position of leadership should exhibit professionalism and understand the realities of residents' schedules when making such dismissive observations. 2. Inappropriate Personal Commentary Chair remarks during the meeting, including his statement: "I'm going to respectfully disagree. It's not an overdevelopment of a lot. For someone who lived in a crappy basement apartment for 1 year with undersized windows—it sucks —and I'm in support of this application. " This type of unprofessional commentary, rooted in personal experience, is entirely inappropriate for a decision-making forum. Such statements are dismissive of the concerns of the community and indicate a troubling bias. Page 107 of 403 Moving beyond the inappropriate and unprofessional conduct of the Chair, please consider the following points: Gildner Green Heritage Landscape This property is part of the Gildner Green heritage landscape, a designation that underscores the City of Kitchener's recognition of the unique attributes of our neighborhood. The mature street trees, consistent architectural styles, and heritage -like "built -form" of the houses are defining features that this development blatantly disregards. This development threatens to disrupt the unique character of the area, which has been carefully preserved over many years. The construction of a large multi -unit dwelling in this location would mar the landscape and compromise its integrity, diminishing its value for future residents. It is essential that we protect this heritage to maintain the distinctive charm of the neighborhood. Neighborhood Aesthetic and Property Values The aesthetic of our neighborhood is one of its most valued aspects. The existing single-family homes, green spaces, and overall design create a serene and inviting atmosphere that has drawn families to this area for decades. The proposed multi -unit development, with its modern and potentially imposing structure, would clash with the current architectural style and disrupt the harmonious look and feel of the neighborhood. Not only would this alter the visual appeal, but it could also have a detrimental impact on property values. The presence of a large 8 -unit building in what is otherwise a quiet, residential area could lead to decreased property values, affecting homeowners' investments and set a dangerous precedent, undermining the values meant to be preserved in this area. Building Height and Scale Another significant concern is the height and scale of the proposed building. The surrounding homes are low-rise structures, and the addition of a taller building would dominate the corner where it is to be built, creating a stark contrast with the current environment. This increase in height would significantly alter the character of the area, creating a sense of overcrowding and undermining the peaceful suburban feel that we currently enjoy. The proposed building height exceeds the zoning limit of 11 metres, reaching 12 metres. This is excessive and is incompatible with the surrounding homes. Street Parking and Traffic Concerns Our neighborhood already experiences significant challenges with street parking, particularly during peak hours. The introduction of a large apartment complex would exacerbate this issue, as new residents and visitors would likely rely on street parking. This would create congestion, making it more difficult for long-time residents to park near their homes. Additionally, the increased traffic could lead to safety concerns, particularly for children and pedestrians who currently enjoy the calm and safe streets. Precedent for Demolition and Further Development Allowing this development to move forward could set a troubling precedent for the demolition of other properties and the approval of future developments that do not align with the character of our community. Once these changes begin, it could trigger further destruction of the neighborhood's charm and integrity, leading to irreversible alterations to the area that may not be in the best interest of the community. Personal Experience in a Well -Rounded Community Page 108 of 403 Having lived in this neighborhood for over 20 years, I have seen firsthand how the community has evolved while maintaining its tight -knit, family-oriented atmosphere. The residents here have built lasting relationships and take great pride in the area's peaceful environment. The introduction of an 8 -unit dwelling would disrupt this balance, potentially leading to a loss of community cohesion. The influx of transient residents and changes to the neighborhood dynamics could erode the sense of belonging and mutual support that has made this area so special. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed housing development. I urge the committee to reject this proposal and consider the long-term impact this project will have on our community, its heritage, and its residents. It is crucial that we preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhood, protect our property values, and ensure that future developments are in harmony with the existing environment. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and hope that my concerns will be taken into account as this matter moves forward. Sincerely, Will Rogers Page 109 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Senior Planner, 519-783-8920 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: November 27, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-527 SUBJECT: Consent Applications B2024-017, B2024-018 and B2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive RECOMMENDATION: Consent Application B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive - REVISED That Consent Application B2024-018 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 180 metres, a lot depth of 84 metres and a lot area of 18,624 square metres, and to create an Easement over the 'Severed Parcel', in favour of the 'Retained Parcel, B2024-017' and additional 'Severed Parcel, B2024-037', generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated October 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 110 of 403 Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to deed endorsement. 8. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 9. That the property owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximate 3 -metre -wide road widening along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontage (retained and severed), as shown indicated on a reference plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services. Prior to conveyance, the property owner shall prepare, at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being dedicated for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the Owner shall complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing buildings proposed to be retained on the Severed and Retained parcels of land, prepared by a Qualified Person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. Page 111 of 403 The Owner shall obtain a Building Permit for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. Consent Application B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Park Drive - REVISED That Consent Application B2024-017 requesting consent to create an Easement over the 'Retained Parcel' in favour of both the 'Severed Parcels, B2024-018, B2024-037, generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated October 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the property owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximate 3 -metre -wide road widening along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontage (retained and severed), as shown indicated on a reference plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services. Page 112 of 403 Prior to conveyance, the property Owner shall prepare, at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being dedicated for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. Consent Application B2024-037 — 135 Gateway Park Drive That Consent Application B2024-037 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 84 metres, a lot depth of 65 metres and a lot area of 4,327 square metres, and to create an Easement over the 'Severed Parcel', in favour of the 'Retained Parcel B2024-017' and additional 'Severed Parcel, B2024-018', generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated October 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 6. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 7. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Page 113 of 403 8. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to deed endorsement. 9. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the Owner shall complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing buildings proposed to be retained on the Severed and Retained parcels of land, prepared by a Qualified Person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. The Owner shall obtain a Building Permit for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. 11. That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review two severance applications to permit the creation of two new parcels of land. Further an access easement is being created over all parcels to maintain access to Tu Lane and Gateway Park Drive. No new development is currently proposed. • 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 application was initially heard by the Committee of Adjustment in August 2024. At that time the applicant had requested a deferral of the application in order to have further discussions with Utilities staff. Since that time the applicant has revised the application to add an additional severance in order for each existing building to be located on a lot in order to be dealt with separately. The subject property is located on Gateway Park Drive with frontage on Tu Lane and King Street East. The existing property contains 3 commercial buildings. The applicant proposes to sever the lots so that 1 commercial building is on the Retained Parcel, and 2 commercial buildings are each on their own Severed Parcel. 1 severed parcel will contain Page 114 of 403 the current restaurant use, and the other severed parcel will contain the former Landmark movie theatre. The applicant also proposes to create an easement over both severed parcels and the retained lands in order to maintain the access through the site for all properties to use in the future. These accesses currently exist and will remain on the properties without any new access created. Figure 1: Location Map: 135 Gateway Park Drive GAIEVjAy PRRK DR _ 329 Pocking Spaces Iia Lands to b Retained �I 18.216 m2 .82 ha _iel y i Ex. Building I , tC< J - L —___-_—___— 1 1 397 P' -king Spaces 104 Parkin S �'1 Ex. Building g poc es _yf Lands to be Severed 210,089 ml,/12.1011 h© '' Ex. a�alding � 1 KING ST E Figure 2: Initial proposed lot fabrics Page 115 of 403 lY GA y PARK DR Pod 3 Lands 6. b� Sevem V18h Pad 2 Proposed Easernen] 1,266m'10-13 ha ----------- ---------- - Fort 4 Proposed Easernen] 1,466 ho KING Sr E Par[ I L--= ` i Lan ------ L., d 1. b. R.16ned 9 51 "; 1 '0 h. 59 P Figure 3: Initial proposed easements Part 3 Lands to be Severed 4,327 m210.43 ^a GATEWAY PARK MIN-- S- E Figure 4: Revised proposed lot fabrics /z" Z Part 5 Lands to be Severed 1 B. 624 36 -a 001, SO 414 W')k d Page 116 of 403 -7- T__ - Figure 5: Revised proposed easements r ref r� Part S Lands fa be Severed 18,624 rnF/1.86 ^:a /rte The subject property is identified as `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Commercial Campus' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Commercial Campus Zone (COM -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of the applications is to sever an existing lot to create three (3) lots. The retained lands will contain 1 commercial building, while the severed lands will each contain 1 commercial building. The current buildings will be remaining on site. An access easement is also proposed in order for all three (3) new lots to have access to the existing entrances/exits within the whole of the property as it exists today. Page 117 of 403 I The subject property is identified as `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Commercial Campus' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Commercial Campus Zone (COM -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of the applications is to sever an existing lot to create three (3) lots. The retained lands will contain 1 commercial building, while the severed lands will each contain 1 commercial building. The current buildings will be remaining on site. An access easement is also proposed in order for all three (3) new lots to have access to the existing entrances/exits within the whole of the property as it exists today. Page 117 of 403 � A�� Am . Figure 6: Existing building and existing conditions Figure 7: Existing building and existing conditions Page 118 of 403 Figure 8: Existing buildings and existing conditions REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments: Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 2.1.6 of the PPS promotes the achievement of 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, to meet long term needs. The PPS promotes an appropriate range and mix of housing options, as well as a range of employment, institutional and broader mixed uses to meet long term needs. It also supports the use of active transportation and requiring transit supportive development. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed application conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Planning staff are of the opinion that the severance applications conforms to the Regional Official Plan. Page 119 of 403 City's Official Plan (2014) The subject property is identified as `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Commercial Campus' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's Official Plan. Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies).These policies state the following: "17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where: a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any deficiencies; b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration lot frontages, areas, and configurations; c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration; d) the lot will have frontage on a public street; e) municipal water services are available; f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance with Policy 14.C.1.19; g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be necessary for proper and orderly development; and, h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent properties." Zoning By-law 2019-051 The subject property is zoned as `Commercial Campus Zone (COM -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The lands that are to be severed and the lands to be retained will remain within the COM -4 zoning, and the buildings that currently operate the lands will continue to be in operation. Planning Conclusions/Comments: With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Planning staff is of the opinion that the size, dimension and shape of the proposed lots are suitable for the use of the lands and compatible with the surrounding community. The severed lands front onto an established public street and are serviced with municipal services. Staff is further of the Page 120 of 403 opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, the Provincial Planning Statement, and is good planning and in the public interest. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Building Division Comments: B2024-017: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. B2024-018: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent provided for the retained land: 1) A qualified designer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall addresses such items as: Spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Closing in of openings may be required, pending spatial separation calculation results. 2) A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades that may be required by the building code assessment. B2024-037: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent provided for the retained land: 1) A qualified designer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall addresses such items as: Spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Closing in of openings may be required, pending spatial separation calculation results. 2) A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades that may be required by the building code assessment. Engineering Division Comments: B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Park Drive (Easement) • No concerns B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive (Severance and Easement) • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this Page 121 of 403 property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to 0ason.brule(a�kitchener.ca. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. B2024-037 — 135 Gateway Park Drive (Severance and Easement) • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to 0ason.brule(o)kitchener.ca. • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. Parks/Operations Division Comments: B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Dr (Easement) No concerns, no requirements. B2024-018 and B2024-037 — 135 Gateway Dr (Severances and Easement) The current use of the COM -4 zoned land is commercial and in accordance with Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074, Parkland Dedication is not required for this Severance. Please note that if either the severed or retained property is subject to a redevelopment application it will be assessed for Parkland Dedication according to the Planning Act, the Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 in effect at the time of a site plan application. Transportation Planning Comments: Applications No. B 2024-017 and B2024-018 — Gateway Park Drive The City of Kitchener's Official Plan notes Gateway Park Drive is designated for a road widening with an ultimate road width of 26 metres between Sportsworld Drive and King Street. Therefore, a conveyance of approximately 3 metres along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontages (retained and severed) is required. A reference plan be submitted by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) illustrating the road widening. The Owner shall prepare at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being conveyed to the City of Kitchener for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. Page 122 of 403 Region of Waterloo Comments: Note: B2024-17 and B2024-18 were originally submitted with a concept to create two lots. The applications were heard at August 2024 COA meeting, and then deferred to allow for further discussion between Owner/Developer and City. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create three lots and associated access easements. The easements would maintain current vehicular circulation and access points. No physical redevelopment is proposed. B2024-017/ Retained Lands/ Parts 1 and 2 — approx. 1.24ha with 82.6m frontage on Tu -Lane St and 181 m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by wholesale business, 329 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 2). B2024-037/ Severed Lands A/ Parts 3 and 4 — approx. 0.48ha with 57 frontage on King St E and 53.4m frontage on Tu -Lane St. Presently occupied by restaurant, 104 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 4). B2024-18/ Severed Lands B/ Parts 5 and 6 — approx. 2.01 ha with 237.7m frontage on King St E and 194m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by former Landmark Cinema building, 397 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 6). In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Sportsworld Station (Fig 8a). Archaeological Assessment (Advisory) These lands have been previously assessed for archaeological resources. However, to Regional staff's knowledge, the site has not been cleared of archaeological concerns. While clearance is not required to support this consent application given the level of disturbance on the site, any future Planning Act application proposing physical development will require the submission of the completed Archaeological Assessment and associated acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If possible and in the applicant's possession, please provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter for our records. Regional fee Regional staff acknowledge receipt of the required consent review fees for the August applications ($350 per application and $700 in total) on July 11, 2024. Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 for the new application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. Page 123 of 403 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan (ROP) • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 • DSD -2024-358 Page 124 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca 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: Tim Seyler, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: September 6, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-420 SUBJECT: Consent Applications B2024-017 and B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive RECOMMENDATION: Consent Application B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive That Consent Application B2024-018 for 135 Gateway Park Drive requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 237 metres, a lot depth of 140 metres and a lot area of 20,092 square metres, and to create an Easement over the 'Severed Parcel', in favour of the 'Retained Parcel' for access, generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated March 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 125 of 403 Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to deed endorsement. 8. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 9. That the property owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximate 3 -metre -wide road widening along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontage (retained and severed), as shown indicated on a reference plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services. Prior to conveyance, the property owner shall prepare, at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being dedicated for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the Owner shall complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing buildings proposed to be retained on the severed and retained parcels of land, prepared by a qualified person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. Page 126 of 403 The Owner shall obtain a Building Permit for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. Consent Application B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Park Drive That Consent Application B2024-017 requesting consent to create an Easement over the 'Retained Parcel' in favour of the 'Severed Parcel' for access, generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated May 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the property owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximate 3 -metre -wide road widening along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontage (retained and severed), as shown indicated on a reference plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services. Page 127 of 403 Prior to conveyance, the property Owner shall prepare, at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being dedicated for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review severance applications to permit the creation of one new parcel of land. Further an access easement is being created over both parcels to maintain access to Tu Lane and Gateway Park Drive. No new development is currently proposed. • The key finding of this report is staff is supportive of the changes to the conditions at the request of the applicant. • 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. REPORT: Consent Applications B2024-017 and B2024-018 were heard at the August 20, 2024, meeting and were subsequently deferred by Committee at the request of the Applicant to, "allow an opportunity for the applicants' agents to have further conversations with Staff regarding the proposed Engineering conditions that were imposed by the Engineering Division." As requested by the applicant, conversations were had with City Engineering staff after the August 20th committee meeting. Through those conversations two conditions formally indicated as Condition 9 and 10 in Consent Application B2024-018 (DSD -2024-358), were removed from the requested conditions. The two conditions were in relation to new driveways within the property, and basement elevation requirements to be drained by gravity to the street sewers. City staff agree that the two conditions were not required as part of this application. The remaining Engineering conditions are still requested and can be cleared with the help of Engineering staff at the time of clearance. 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 128 of 403 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM —This application was first heard at the August 20, 2024, meeting where it was deferred. As such notice is not required for unfinished business. This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign remains posted 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. 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 (ROP) • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 • DSD -2024-358 Page 129 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: August 20, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-741-2200 ext. 7765 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: August 7, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-358 SUBJECT: Consent Applications B2024-017 and B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive RECOMMENDATION: Consent Application B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive That Consent Application B2024-018 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 237 metres, a lot depth of 140 metres and a lot area of 20,092 square metres, and to create an Easement over the 'Severed Parcel', in favour of the 'Retained Parcel' for access, generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated March 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 130 of 403 Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to deed endorsement. 8. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 9. That any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at the Owner's expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the Owner provides confirmation that the basement elevation can be drained by gravity to the street sewers to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. If this is not the case, then the owner will need to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 11. That the property owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximate 3 -metre -wide road widening along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontage (retained and severed), as shown indicated on a reference plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services. Prior to conveyance, the property owner shall prepare, at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Page 131 of 403 portion of the lands being dedicated for a road widening of Gage Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 12. That the Owner shall complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing buildings proposed to be retained on the severed and retained parcels of land, prepared by a qualified person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. The Owner shall obtain a Building Permit for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. Consent Application B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Park Drive That Consent Application B2024-017 requesting consent to create an Easement over the 'Retained Parcel' in favour of the 'Severed Parcel' for access, generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated May 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be Page 132 of 403 amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the property owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximate 3 -metre -wide road widening along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontage (retained and severed), as shown indicated on a reference plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services. Prior to conveyance, the property Owner shall prepare, at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being dedicated for a road widening of Gage Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review a severance application to permit the creation of one new parcel of land. Further an access easement is being created over both parcels to maintain access to Tu Lane and Gateway Park Drive. No new development is currently proposed. • 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 on Gateway Park Drive with frontage on Tu Lane and King Street East. The existing property contains 3 commercial buildings. The applicant proposes to sever the lots so that 2 commercial buildings are on the Retained Parcel, and 1 commercial building is on the Severed Parcel. The 1 commercial building formally contained the Landmark movie theatre. The applicant also proposes to create an easement over both the severed and retained lands in order to maintain the access through the site for both properties to use in the future. These accesses currently exist and will remain on the properties without any new access created. Page 133 of 403 4 r R Figure 1: Location Map: 135 Gateway Park Drive n +f 329 Peeking 4paces I �. Lands to b Retained �I 18,216 m3 .82 ho rvG E.. Biding � fib£ __-f, __ / 397 Parking Spaces Ex. Building 1 g4 Pa rking Spaces &1 a Lands to be Severed 201,089 m2/2,01 ha r Ex. S Mmg n ` 1 T KING SF E n Figure 2: Proposed lot fabrics Page 134 of 403 - _ r AiEWAY PARK dR r •, Part 3 Lands to 6e Severed ! 18,624 rnV 1.$6 h❑ ar: r Is Part 2 Proposed Easement r 1,266m'10.13 ha s 1 .x s\ Part 1 V ------- i Port 4 Proposed Easement sands io 6e Retained 1.466 a)2/0_15 no 1 1�- 1 i Is 1 t 5 KING S- L - Figure 3: Proposed easements The subject property is identified as `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Commercial Campus' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Commercial Campus Zone (COM -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of the application is to sever an existing lot to create two (2) lots. The retained lands will contain 2 commercial buildings, while the severed lands will contain 1 commercial building. The current buildings will be remaining on site. An access easement is also proposed in order for both lots to have access to the existing entrances/exits within the property. Figure 4: Existing building and existing conditions Page 135 of 403 Figure 5: Existing building and existing conditions Figure 6: Existing buildings and existing conditions REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments: Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS Page 136 of 403 promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. Planning staff is of the opinion that this proposal is consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated built up area and are in close proximity to transit. The lands will continue to make efficient use of existing infrastructure, roads, trails and transit. Planning staff is of the opinion that the development proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed application conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Planning staff are of the opinion that the severance applications conforms to the Regional Official Plan. City's Official Plan (2014) The subject property is identified as `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Commercial Campus' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's Official Plan. Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies).These policies state the following: "17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where: a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the Page 137 of 403 Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any deficiencies; b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration lot frontages, areas, and configurations; c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration; d) the lot will have frontage on a public street; e) municipal water services are available; f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance with Policy 14.C.1.19; g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be necessary for proper and orderly development; and, h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent properties." Zoning By-law 2019-051 The subject property is zoned as `Commercial Campus Zone (COM -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The lands that are to be severed and the lands to be retained will remain within the COM -4 zoning, and the buildings that currently operate the lands will continue to be in operation. Planning Conclusions/Comments: With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Planning staff is of the opinion that the size, dimension and shape of the proposed lot is suitable for the use of the lands and compatible with the surrounding community. The severed lands front onto an established public street and are serviced with municipal services. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is good planning and in the public interest. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage concerns. Building Division Comments: B2024-017: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Page 138 of 403 B2024-018: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent provided for the retained land: 1) A qualified designer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall addresses such items as: Spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Closing in of openings may be required, pending spatial separation calculation results. 2) A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades that may be required by the building code assessment. Engineering Division Comments: B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Park Drive (Easement) • No concerns B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive (Severance and Easement) • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to christine.goulet@kitchener.ca • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All works are at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by gravity to the municipal sanitary sewer. If basement finished floor elevations do not allow for gravity drainage to the existing municipal sanitary system, the owner will have to pump the sewage to achieve gravity drainage from the property line to the municipal sanitary sewer in the right of way. Parks/Operations Division Comments: B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Dr (Easement) No concerns, no requirements. B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Dr (Severance and Easement) The current use of the COM -4 zoned land is commercial and in accordance with Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074, Parkland Dedication is not required for this Severance. Please note that if either the severed or retained property is subject to a redevelopment application it will be assessed for Parkland Page 139 of 403 Dedication according to the Planning Act, the Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 in effect at the time of a site plan application. Transportation Planning Comments: The City of Kitchener's Official Plan notes Gateway Park Drive is designated for a road widening with an ultimate road width of 26 metres between Sportsworld Drive and King Street. Therefore, a conveyance of approximately 3 metres along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontages (retained and severed) is required. A reference plan be submitted by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) illustrating the road widening. The Owner shall prepare at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being conveyed to the City of Kitchener for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. Region of Waterloo Comments: These lands (3.83 ha in total) contain a vacant Landmark Cinema, an operational restaurant, and a wholesale warehouse. The applicant has submitted two applications — B2024-017 proposes to sever 2.01 ha containing the Landmark Cinema and 397 parking spaces, and the second would create an easement for access in favour of the severed lands over the retained lands. The easement would maintain current vehicular circulation and access and avoid the need for new access points. No physical redevelopment is proposed. Archaeological Assessment (Advisory) These lands have been previously assessed for archaeological resources. However, to Regional staff's knowledge, the site has not been cleared of archaeological concerns. While clearance is not required to support this consent application given the level of disturbance on the site, any future Planning Act application proposing physical development will require the submission of the completed Archaeological Assessment and associated acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If possible and in the applicant's possession, please provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter for our records. Regional fee Regional staff acknowledge receipt of the required consent review fees ($350 per application and $700 in total) on July 11, 2024. Regional staff have no objection to 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 140 of 403 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020) • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 • Regional Official Plan (ROP) • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 Page 141 of 403 N* Region of Waterloo VIA EMAIL Connie Owen Administrative Clerk, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Legislative Services Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8t" floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Erica Ali W. Phone: 226-751-3388 File: D20-20/24 KIT November 25, 2024 Re: Comments on Consent Applications: B2024-017, B2024-018, and B2024-037 to B2024-047 (inclusive) Committee of Adjustment Hearing December 10, 2024 City of Kitchener Please accept the following comments for the above -noted Consent applications to be considered at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing. Page 142 of 403 B2024-037 (NEW) & B2024-017 / B2024-018 62 Fourth Ave (DEFERRED) 135 Gateway Park Dr PLAN 1744 BLK 4 PT LOT 1 PLAN 1745 LOTS 8-9 PT LOT 10 PT BLK 11 Owner: 1289193 ONTARIO INC. Owner/Developer: MHBC c/o Emily Elliot & Jennifer Gaudet Note: B2024-17 and B2024-18 were originally submitted with a concept to create two lots. The applications were heard at August 2024 COA meeting, and then deferred to allow for further discussion between Owner/Developer and City. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create three lots and associated access easements. The easements would maintain current vehicular circulation and access points. No physical redevelopment is proposed. B2024-017/ Retained Lands/ Parts 1 and 2 — approx. 1.24ha with 82.6m frontage on Tu -Lane St and 181 m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by wholesale business, 329 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 2). B2024-037/ Severed Lands A/ Parts 3 and 4 — approx. 0.48ha with 57 frontage on King St E and 53.4m frontage on Tu -Lane St. Presently occupied by restaurant, 104 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 4). B2024-18/ Severed Lands B/ Parts 5 and 6 — approx. 2.01 ha with 237.7m frontage on King St E and 194m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by former Landmark Cinema building, 397 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 6). In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Sportsworld Station (Fig 8a). Archaeological Assessment (Advisory) The subject lands have potential for recovery of archaeological resources, for which Regional Staff do not have a record of clearance. While clearance is not required to support this consent application, any future Planning Act application proposing physical redevelopment of the site will require the submission of the completed Archaeological Assessment and associated acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If in the Owner/Developer's possession, please provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter for our records. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 143 of 403 B2024-038 (AMENDMENT TO 132024-19) 250 Shirley Ave TRACT GERMAN COMPANY PT LOT 122 Owner: HIDAYATH HOLDINGS INC c/o Farhan Hidayath Owner/Developer: 1123766 Ontario Ltd c/o Sharon Shaw Note: B2024-19 was originally heard at August 2024 COA, and approved. This application is an amendment to the B2024-019 Decision, to include the partial discharge of the mortgage, in favour of HSBC Bank Canada (or as assigned), registered as WR1561020 on PIN 22712-0241 LT. 250 Shirley Ave will be granted a partial discharge having the same legal description as the severance transfer to be stamped over 82024- 019. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever a triangular parcel of land in the easterly rear yard having a width of 58m and an area of 0.15 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 260 Shirley Ave (owned by 1123766 Ontario Ltd). The severed lands are vacant, while the retained and benefitting lands are used for industrial purposes. The consent will facilitate a lot line adjustment that conforms more closely to the current use of both properties. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and Employment Area (Map 3). Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 144 of 403 B2024-039/040 120 Keewatin Ave - Parcel A/ Parcel B PLAN 1515 LOT 34 Owner: Furoy, Guy & Sindjic, Drago Owner/Developer: Craig Dumart The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create two lots for future semi- detached dwelling units and retain one lot for a future single detached dwelling. Being, severed lot (Parcel A) with an area of 225 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; severed lot (Parcel B) with an area of 230 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; and retained lot with an area of 783 sqm and frontage of 38.5m. The consent will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands. No other development applications are anticipated to facilitate the proposal. The subject lands are within the Delineated Built-up Area and Urban Area Boundary in the Regional Official Plan (Map 1, 2). Environmental Noise Environmental Noise Study Approval of an Environmental Noise Study will be required as a condition of consent approval. At this location, the proposed development may encounter environmental noise sources due to Lackner Boulevard (RR# 54). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, staff recommend that the Owner/Developer prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The consultant who prepares the Environmental Noise Study must be listed on the Region of Waterloo' s Approved List of Noise Consultants. The noise consultant is responsible for obtaining current information, applying professional expertise in preforming calculations, making detailed and justified recommendations, submitting the Consultant Noise Declaration and Owner/Authorized Agent Statement. The consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must contact Region of Waterloo staff for transportation data, including traffic forecasts and truck percentages, for the purpose of preparing the Environmental Noise Study. Region of Waterloo staff will provide this data within three weeks of receiving the request from the noise consultant. Please note that there is a $500 fee for the preparation of the traffic forecasts and review of the Environmental Noise Study. The noise consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must submit the transportation data request online via (https-//rmow.permitcentral.ca/Permit/GroupApply?groupld=3 ). Resubmission of any Transportation Noise Study may be subject to a $250 resubmission fee. In the event that a stationary noise source is identified as potential concerns, the Owner/Developer will be required to pay for a third party review by an external Noise Page 145 of 403 Consultant retained by the Region. The fee for this third party review is $4000 + HST. Please submit payment for the third party review along with the submitted noise study. Additional fees may apply depending on scope of review required. Airport While the site is partially located within the AZR, no issues are anticipated. Other Please note that a new access connection to Lackner Boulevard would not be permitted. Staff understand that all accesses are proposed onto Keewatin Avenue and are in agreement with that approach. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer complete the Environmental to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and if necessary, enter into an amending agreement with the Region to implement any recommendation of the Noise Study. Page 146 of 403 B2024-041 — B2024-047 217 — 233 Lancaster St E; 98 & 102 Weber St E Owner: 1678838 Ontario Inc (c/o William Reitzel) & William Reitzel/Lisa Willms Owner/Developer: UP Consulting Ltd c/o David Galbraith Consent to sever is proposed for a series of lot adjustments to residential properties fronting Lancaster St E (5 parcels in total), and to consolidate lands on 98-102 Weber St E. The Owner/Developer provides that the consents will re-establish individual lotting for several properties which have inadvertently merged on title, with lot line adjustments to facilitate the logical future build out of the block. Minor variances are also proposed to facilitate the consents. A pre -submission application in September 2023, proposed redevelopment of 98-102 Weber St E with a multi -unit residential building. Redevelopment or site alteration is not proposed through the consent applications. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Frederick Station (Fig 8a). Cultural Heritage, Archaeology, and Indigenous Engagement (Advisory) Based on a review of the Region's archaeological potential model, the subject properties may possess the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources. The Region does not require the submission of an archaeological assessment, however, the Owner/Developer should be made aware that: (1) If archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and/or, (2) If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. Environmental Noise At this location, the proposed development may encounter traffic noise sources due to Weber St E (RR#8). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, the Owner/Developer must prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the Page 147 of 403 preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The Regional process for this requirement can be provided upon request. 217-233 Lancaster St E In lieu of an Environmental Noise Study for the properties fronting on Lancaster St E, the Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: (i) "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." 98-102 Weber St E An Environmental Noise Study will be required for the properties fronting on Weber St E. The Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to complete an Environmental Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval, and to enter into an Amending agreement with the Region and/or City to implement the recommendations of the Noise Study. a) That prior to Site Plan approval the Owner/Developer agrees to complete a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Road Widening (Advisory) The following will be a condition of a future Site Plan application: At this location, the subject property has direct frontage to Regional Road 08 (Weber Street East). Weber Street East has a designated road width of 26.213m in accordance with Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). We estimate that an approximate road widening of 3.5 metres will be required along the Weber Street East frontage of the property. The Owner/Developer must engage an OLS to prepare a draft reference plan which illustrates the required road allowance and daylight triangle widening. Prior to registering the reference plan, the OLS should submit a draft copy of the plan to the Page 148 of 403 Transportation Planner for review. An electronic copy of the registered plan is to be emailed to the Transportation Planner. Further instructions will come from the Region's Legal Assistant regarding document preparation and registration. It is recommended that the OLS contact Region staff to discuss the road widening prior to preparing the Reference Plan. The land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes and must be dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance. All land dedications must be identified on the Site Plan. Please ensure the road widening lands are excluded from any future Record of Site Condition (RSC) filing for the overall property, if one is required. Regional Review Fees Regional Staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 per application. The consent review fee is required as a condition of approval for the consent application. Fees must be submitted individually to the Region, in-person, by mail, or e -payment. • Arrange EFT by emailing pwalter@regionofwaterloo.ca. Cheque or bank draft can be dropped off at Head Office lobby/security (main floor), located atl50 Frederick St, Kitchener. 15 min parking is available at the rear of the building, outside the Kitchener Public Library, at the intersection of Queen St N and Ahrens St E. Cheque or bank draft can be mailed as follows: Attention of Peggy Walter, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 150 Frederick St, Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a. That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." Page 149 of 403 3. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98- 102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Page 150 of 403 General Comments Any submission requirements may be subject to peer review, at the owner/ Owner/Developer's expense as per By-law 23-062. If any other applications are required to facilitate the application, note that fees are subject to change and additional requirements may apply. Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above - noted Regional condition clearances. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Thank you, Erica Ali RPP Planner, Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services Regional Municipality of Waterloo Page 151 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 152 of 403 From: AMIN Pra�uv To: e�"f MViuvime"r fSM) Subject: IG[chener -135 pate ay P.A Drive - B 2029-D17 Date: Wednesd Idy 31, 20242:% 39 PM Attachments: Hello, We are in receipt of your Application for Consent, B2024-017 dated July 251h, 2024. We have reviewed the docu ments concerning the noted Application and have no comments or concerns at this time. Our preliminary review considers issues affecting Hydro One's'Hiah Voltage Facilities and Corridor Lands' only. For proposals affecti ng'Low Voltage Distri bution Facilities' please consult your local area Distribution Supplier. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please followthe following link: Please select" Search" and locate address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the map ? q hyd r©�' MENU HELP SEARCH one Customers Affected: 0 -5000 0 501-5000 0 51-500 0 21-50 0 a=20 0 Multiple 0 Crew — Service Area MJ J 51a V Ot11 taw O 0 . Montreal v Huntsville qr7 q3 400 11 a6 C fN,f � a -0lfi 4 0'0llrill+++ilaa Kawariha q Lakes � 15 Burlir + _ Petar6�r0ugh K P in Bella�vflle • o 'rs Dr.,.,.,.s.,...... 0 N tramp C watep own [V - G© 9_e , a Rochester o3 Mao data02 419 G000le 50 km � Terms of Use Repart a map error If Hydro One is your local area Distribution Supplier, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or a -mail CustomerCommunications(cbHvdroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thankyou, Dennis De Rango Specialized Services Team Lead, Real Estate Department Hydro One Networks Inc. Tel: (905)946-6237 Email: Dennis. DeRa ngoPHvd roOne.com Page 153 of 403 From: AMIN Pra�uv To: e�"f Mliuvime"r fSM) Subject: IG[chener -135 pate ay P.A Drive - B 2029-D18 Date: Wednesd Idy 31, 20292:98: 32 PM Attachments: Hello, We are in receipt of your Application for Consent, B2024-018 dated July 251h, 2024. We have reviewed the docu ments concerning the noted Application and have no comments or concerns at this time. Our preliminary review considers issues affecting Hydro One's'Hiah Voltage Facilities and Corridor Lands' only. For proposals affecti ng'Low Voltage Distri bution Facilities' please consult your local area Distribution Supplier. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please followthe following link: Please select" Search" and locate address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the map ? q hyd r©�' MENU HELP SEARCH one Customers Affected: 0 -5000 0 501-5000 0 51-500 0 21-50 0 a=20 0 Multiple 0 Crew — Service Area MJ J 51a V Ot11 taw O 0 . Montreal v Huntsville qr7 ql 400 11 a6 C fN,f � a -0lfi 4 0'0llrill+++ilaa Kawariha q Lakes � 15 Burlir + _ Petar6�r0ugh K P in Bella�vflle • o 'rs Dr.,.,.,.s.,...... 0 N tramp C watep own [V - G© 9_e , a Rochester o3 Mao data02 419 G000le 50 km � Terms of Use Repart a map error If Hydro One is your local area Distribution Supplier, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or a -mail CustomerCommunications(cbHvdroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thankyou, Dennis De Rango Specialized Services Team Lead, Real Estate Department Hydro One Networks Inc. Tel: (905)946-6237 Email: Dennis. DeRa ngoPHvd roOne.com Page 154 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-741-2200 ext. 7765 PREPARED BY: Ben Suchomel, Student Planner, 519-783-8948 Kirsten Hoekstra, Student Planner, 519-783-8936 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8 DATE OF REPORT: December 04, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-536 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-107 - 15-105 Mooregate Cres. RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application A2024-107 for 15-105 Mooregate Crescent requesting relief from the following sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051: i) Section 4.14.2 d) to permit balconies to be located 1.1 metres from the street line instead of the required 3 metres; ii) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to permit a multiple residential development having 378 dwelling units to have 303 parking spaces for the dwelling units instead of the minimum required 378 parking spaces (required rate of 1 parking space per dwelling unit); iii) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to permit non-residential uses (subject to the Multi -Unit Parking Rate) with a combined gross floor area of 2,657 square metres, to have 32 parking spaces instead of the minimum required 78 parking spaces (required rate is 1 parking space per 35 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA)); iv) Section 5.7 a) ii) to permit parking spaces to be assigned to uses in the following quantities: dwelling units shall be assigned a minimum of 303 parking spaces, non-residential uses shall be assigned a minimum of 32 parking spaces, and visitors shall be assigned a minimum of 30 parking spaces, instead of all parking spaces being shared between uses and unassigned; v) Section 7.2, Table 7-1, to add a `Health Clinic' as a permitted use; vi) Section 7.2, Table 7-1, to add a `Social Service Establishment' as a permitted use; *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 155 of 403 vii) Section 7.3, Table 7-6, to permit a 2.9 metre interior yard setback instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres; viii) Section 7.3, Table 7-6, to permit a maximum Gross Floor Area of 1,100 m2 of individual non-residential use instead of the maximum permitted 600m2; and ix) Table 7-6 (3) to permit dwelling units located at ground floor level to not provide a patio area adjacent to the dwelling unit with direct access to such dwelling unit, whereas the By-law requires a patio area; to facilitate the development of two (2) multiple residential buildings having a total of 378 dwelling units and approximately 2,657 square metres of non-residential use, generally in accordance with drawings prepared by SvN Architects + Planners, submitted with Minor Variance Application A2024-107, BE APPROVED. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review and recommend the approval of the minor variance application to facilitate the redevelopment of the property with a 9 -storey and 16 -storey multiple dwelling containing a total of 378 dwelling units and approximately 2,657 square metres of non-residential use (i.e., convenience retail, day care, health clinic, and social service establishment). • The key finding of this report is that the requested variances meet all four 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 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 and west sides of Mooregate Crescent between Hazelglen Drive and Westmount Road. The subject site currently contains fifty- five (55) townhouse dwelling units, as shown in Figure 1. It is located within the Victoria Hills neighbourhood, which is primarily comprised of retail uses and residential uses of varying dwelling types. Page 156 of 403 x"X Figure 1 Location of subject property (outlined in RED) The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `High Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Residential Seven Zone (RES -7)' with Site Specific Provision (339) and Holding Provision (35H)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of the subject minor variance application is to facilitate Site Plan Application SP24/026/M/CD, which proposes a mixed-use, affordable housing development consisting of a 9 -storey and 16 -storey multiple dwelling, containing 378 dwelling units and approximately 2,657 square metres of non-residential use (i.e., convenience retail, day care, health clinic, and social service establishment). The Site Plan Application originally received Conditional Approval on May 13, 2024, and received an update to the Conditional Approval on November 25, 2024 (see attached Site Plan drawing). The purpose of the application to permit a 2.9 metres westerly interior side yard setback rather than the required 4.5 metres; a maximum Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 1,100 square metres, for individual non-residential use whereas a maximum GFA of 600 square metres is permitted; to permit dwelling units located at ground floor level to have no patio area adjacent to the dwelling unit with direct access to such dwelling unit; to add a Health Clinic and Social Service Establishment as permitted uses; to permit balconies 1.1 metres from the street line rather than the required 3 metres. Further variances have been requested for parking: • to allow a multiple residential development having 378 dwelling units to have 303 parking spaces for the dwelling units rather than 378 parking spaces (required rate of 1 parking space per dwelling unit); • to permit non-residential uses (subject to the Multi -Unit Parking Rate) with a combined gross floor area of 2,657 square metres, to have 32 parking spaces Page 157 of 403 rather than 78 parking spaces (required rate is 1 parking space per 35 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA)); and to permit parking spaces to be assigned to uses in the following quantities: dwelling units shall be assigned a minimum of 303 parking spaces, non-residential uses shall be assigned a minimum of 32 parking spaces, and visitors shall be assigned a minimum of 30 parking spaces, rather than all parking spaces being shared between uses and unassigned. Staff have noted that the redevelopment will involve the demolition of the existing 55 rent - geared -to -income townhouse units. Through the review of the future Demolition Control Application, the City's new Rental Replacement By-law will apply. The Region of Waterloo is proposing that the current tenants be given the opportunity to temporarily relocate to an available unit within the Region of Waterloo affordable housing portfolio.. Current tenants will have the first opportunity to return to a new unit within the redeveloped area once the project is completed. It is important to note that the purposed of the subject application is to facilitate redevelopment of the 55 affordable housing unit site with 378 affordable housing units. PLAN A Figure 2: Excerpt of Conditionally Approved Site Plan Drawing Page 158 of 403 (379 40ROOF A w 8 :3 35.96 m 374,40 MECH PH A I —w � o 370,95 FLOOR 49 367,95 FLOOR 08 E I 364,95 FLOOR 07 � tt,89m 8 ...__ ._.. _...-... -... .-........ 36195 FLOOR 06 m 358, 0 FLOOR 05 E — — — 35550 FLOOR 04 8 _ 352,50 FLOOR 03 8 349.50 FLOOR 02 8 I _ _ _ i p— IE Tn S 346,10 FLOOR/P-U2 � _ m 345,00 FLO GR R coo Figure 4: —West Elevation Building A Planning staff conducted a site visit on November 26, 2024. Page 159 of 403 y Awa } `I w 1 _ n u . job1 "443 0a, �i r 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 City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community. The subject property is designated `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and `High Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to accommodate high density multiple dwellings to achieve a high intensity of residential use. Policy 13.C.8.2 in the City's Official Plan states that the City may consider adjustments to parking requirements for properties within an area or areas, where the City is satisfied that adequate alternative parking facilities are available, where developments adopt transportation demand management (TDM) measures or where sufficient transit exists or is to be provided. The applicant has provided a study provided by Nexttrans Consulting Engineers, which supports the reduced parking requirement. The requested parking variances will facilitate the development of a high-rise residential use consistent with the land use designation in the Official Plan. Further Policy 15.D.3.27 in the City's Official Plan states that the City will support an integration of non-residential land uses that are complementary and serve the needs of residents. Uses such as health clinics and social service establishments are included in the list of potential complementary lands uses. The Official Plan does not place a specific limitation on the amount of Gross Floor Area for non-residential uses within residential land use designations, but states, "The City will encourage and support complementary non-residential land uses to be mixed with multiple residential uses at a scale and in appropriate locations within lands designated High Rise Residential..." (Policy 15.D.3.25). Moreover, Policy 15.D.3.29. states that, "Where appropriate and desirable, the City will encourage non-residential uses to locate together and be integrated with residential uses in mixed use developments or in mixed use buildings to form community focal points." As a result, staff is of the opinion that all the requested variances will facilitate and strive to build a vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community, and therefore, meeting the general intent of the Official Plan. Page 161 of 403 General Intent of the Zoning By-law Balconies: The purpose of the regulation that requires balconies to be located 3 metres from the street line is to ensure that there is adequate buffering between adjacent properties as well as the public realm. Staff note that only the balconies fronting Mooregate Crescent in Building `A' will not meet the regulations. The reduced setback will not have any adverse impacts on adjacent properties and staff are of the opinion that a setback to the lot line of 1.1 metres will provide adequate separation to the public realm. Parking Variances: The intent of a minimum parking and visitor parking requirement is to ensure that the development is able to provide an appropriate number of parking spaces for both residents and visitors to the site. Residents are becoming increasingly less car -dependant and reducing the number of required spaces will allow more units and amenity space to be provided on site. Staff note that the proposed development includes a sufficient number of Class A and B bicycle parking spaces. Additionally, the development is situated in a location that supports transit, providing future residents with access to transit -oriented options, noting that the GRT Npress Route 201 and local routes 12 and 20 are within close proximity. Moreover, Transportation Services advises that it supports all the requested vehicle parking variances. Health Clinic & Social Services Establishment: The general intent of the regulation that allows certain non-residential uses in the RES -7 Zone but does not include health clinic and social service establishment is to ensure compatibility of uses with residential functions. The proposed health clinic and social services establishment would provide on-site services to residents and neighbours. It should be noted that at the time of drafting the RES -7 Zone, it was intended that a health clinic would be permitted non-residential use. However, health office, which is a home business use, was added instead. Also, office use is permitted, which is similar to social service establishment use. Staff are of the opinion that these proposed uses would be compatible with residential uses, thus meeting the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Interior Side Yard Setback: The general intent of the regulation in Section 7.3 that requires an interior yard setback of 4.5 metres is to ensure that there is adequate building separation. Staff note that only a small portion of the development will not meet the required setback. This section consists of a one -storey parking garage entrance. The rest of the building is setback further and will meet the required interior yard setback. Gross Floor Area of Individual Non -Residential Use: The general intent of the regulation that states the maximum gross floor area of individual non-residential uses is 600 square metres is intended to ensure that a single non- residential use do not take up an excessive amount of space in residential buildings. The requested individual non-residential use of 1,100 square metres only amounts to a small percentage of the total Building Floor Area on the site. The requested individual non- residential use of 1,100 square metres only amounts to a small percentage of the total Building Floor Area (BFA) on the site. Also, the overall amount of non-residential space (2,657 square metres) is also a relatively small portion of the overall BFA. Page 162 of 403 Patio Area The general intent of the regulation that requires dwelling units located on the ground floor level to provide a patio area adjacent to the dwelling unit with direct access to such dwelling unit is to ensure adequate amenity space is provided. Staff notes that the proposed development will provide sufficient common outdoor amenity space that will be shared between the two buildings and will be accessible to all residents. Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will add to both the livability and functionality of the property. Based on location, context, policy direction, urban design objectives, setback considerations, recommendations of the Parking Justification Study, and existing conditions, staff is of the opinion that the effects of the variances are minor. For the reasons previously noted, staff is of the opinion that the requested variances satisfy the `minor' test to facilitate the proposed development of a 9 -storey and 16 -storey multiple dwelling on Mooregate Crescent. With respect to the requested variances, staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are minor in nature. Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or Structure? The requested variances do not negatively affect the ability to develop the subject lands, or adjacent lands with appropriate development. The requested variances will facilitate a desirable form of development on the existing site. The planned scale, massing, and setbacks of the building are compatible and support the planned vision of the community and surrounding area, assisting in the provision of a variety of dwelling types and land uses. The planned increased density along Mooregate Crescent will additionally support the City's Housing Pledge. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is appropriate and desirable for the use of the lands. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage features/functions as noted in 2021 PSC. Also as noted, Tree Management Policy / trees on-site would be addressed by Urban Designer as part of Site Plan Review. Heritage Planning Comments: No Heritage comments or concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the new apartments are obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions. Engineering Division Comments: Engineering has no comment. Parks/Operations Division Comments: Park Planning concerns including any City tree protection or required park dedication will be addressed through SP24/026/M/CD Page 163 of 403 Transportation Planning Comments: As part of a Minor Variance application, a Parking Memorandum was submitted (October 9, 2024) and then an update was submitted (November 7, 2024) by Nextrans Consulting Engineers with an updated vehicle parking supply for this multi -use redevelopment. Transportation Services reviewed the memorandums and offer the following comments for the most recent submission. Based on the parking demand analysis completed by Nextrans, Transportation Services supports their proposed total parking supply of 365 parking spaces and 205 Class A and 26 Class B outdoor bike parking spaces for this development. Parking spaces should be unbundled from the cost of a unit. Upon further review of Table 1, it was determined that there are 396 (378+18) parking spaces required (see below yellow highlight) not 454 and a parking shortfall of 31 (396- 365=31) spaces (8%), not 121 as noted below. Based on the information provided within the parking memorandum, the variance of 454 spaces (see green highlight below) being applied for should be reduced to 396 spaces to be consistent with the parking memorandum data submitted. Table 1: Summary of Parking Requirements from Zoning By-law 2019.051 Note: 1. Visitor parking is exempt from parking requirement as per City of Kitchener Zoninp BY -law 2019-051, Section 5.7a)i)_ 511 ZoningB -law 2019-051, All Other Zones Proposed Use Units ! GFA Parking Rate Parking Spaces Parking Supply Variance NA none Required Residential 378 Units 1.0 s !unit 378 303 -75 Visitor None' - 30 +30 Non- Residential 2 657sgm 1.0 SP/35 Sqm 18 32 -44 454 365 1 -122 Note: 1. Visitor parking is exempt from parking requirement as per City of Kitchener Zoninp BY -law 2019-051, Section 5.7a)i)_ 511 Region of Waterloo Comments: No concerns Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Comments: Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted application. GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above application. The subject property does 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. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 164 of 403 FII fIG 5 = +5p 4rnntres 0 Accessory Building NA NA none Parking 454 SPace t5-5) M5 spaces Permit a total of 305 spaces Other Region of Waterloo Comments: No concerns Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Comments: Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted application. GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above application. The subject property does 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. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 164 of 403 Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Conditionally -Approved Site Plan Drawing (SP24/026/M/CD) Page 165 of 403 v, m rn V1 v, r 4 �r n O ' e. 1 �m G) �zrnv m n C y n 5 IT m a� ag� ® N 0 Cl r V1 r 4 sgi ' e. 1 N 4 - A -- - . �1 z — — — — — — — — — — ---- O o. -z O m Z �nnn�-�(+� 0 2 0 m n O �+zy a C d u aw [n v u n Tm F O x m �ymw - nA mon Cn V N its 3 ov � sawn m H Hy w W its m A Y m m H t m D io' m __ w °:a �Tm m�?.. � o u �. w' �� F it °i'w T� �. r 9 m�A. v m vA cn 1 ao c mAn� a Till! c 1 7C oa q m$ao, o � m +wQ. n » dN oN s1°iz g ,j.7 -,^p �a ^�� S MIS - rTL 0 a w 3Fa z$ti :--a in3� o �w uNr. o m rn Qn A � o m sNz 3 3 �'n � c �w Qpm ? z a 3 Page 166 of 403 November 18, 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 December 10, 2024, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 - 107 — 15-105 Moorgate Crescent — No concerns 2) A 2024 - 108 — 42 Wendy Crescent — No concerns 3) A 2024 - 109 — 25 Sandsprings Crescent — No concerns 4) A 2024 - 110 — 171 Otterbein Road — No concerns 5) A 2024 - 111 — 124 Cedar Street — No concerns 6) A 2024 - 112 — 578 Guelphh Street — No concerns 7) A 2024 - 113 — 1838 Trussler Road — It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. 8) A 2024 - 114 — 98-102 Weber Street East — No concerns 9) A 2024 — 115 — 217 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 10)A 2024 — 116 — 221 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 11)A 2024 — 117 — 225 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 12)A 2024 — 118 — 229 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 13)A 2024 — 119 — 233 Lancaster Street West — No concerns Document Number: 4828935 28935 Page 167 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4828935 Page 168 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 169 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Kirsten Hoekstra, Student Planner, 519-783-8936 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 2 DATE OF REPORT: December 4, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-523 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-108 — 42 Wendy Crescent RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application A2024-108 for 42 Wendy Crescent requesting relief from Section 4.1 d), of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit a maximum height to the underside of the fascia of 4.3 metres instead of the maximum permitted 3 metres, to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure in the rear yard of the subject property, generally in accordance with drawings by View -it Design, dated March 2024, BE APPROVED. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review a minor variance application to permit the development of an accessory structure with a maximum height to the underside of the fascia 4.3 metres instead of the maximum permitted 3 metres. • The key finding of this report is that the requested variance meets all four 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 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-east side of Wendy Crescent in the Idlewood neighbourhood. This area primarily consists of low-rise residential uses. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 170 of 403 The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The purpose of the application is to permit the construction of an accessory structure to have a maximum height to the underside of the fascia of 4.3 metres. Staff note that there is an issued building permit for the proposed accessory structure at this property. This permit was issued prior to zoning approval and upon review, Planning Staff noted that the proposed height to the underside of the fascia exceeded the maximum permitted 3 metres. The City of Kitchener's Building Division has paid the application fee for the minor variance to account for the pre -mature issuance of the permit. Staff visited the site on November 21, 2024, and noted that a vehicle appeared to be parked on a designated walkway as is depicted in Figure 4. The maximum permitted driveway width of this lot is 50% of the lot width, or 5.2 metres, whichever is less. Based on mapping, it would appear that this lot is approximately 9 metres in width which would allow a maximum driveway width of 4.5 metres. A 5.2 metre wide driveway would be required in order to facilitate 2 vehicles to park side by side. With the concrete extension on the right side of the property, the concrete area appears to be approximately 7.0 metres in width and would not meet zoning regulations for a d riveway. Driveways must also be composed of a consistent material that is distinguishable from other ground cover or surfacing. Although it appears that both the driveway and walkway are composed of concrete, there also appears to be a distinction that can be made between driveway and walkway based on the different colours of the concrete. The applicant is advised that parking is only permitted on a driveway. Page 171 of 403 v w I r`aatnY�� .raa �� sx 4 Ar k , 4 i*! 4 b PROPOSED f ~� a } MIN. 4.6M 201 X 30' SHED C . +` � r MIN. m Q MIN. 1.2M [i r.2F1 PART 1 ' PA�tT 2, �. 6J91 t"3— a I , e EXISTING I r �pl�RtMK19 e ■ y I y�[14A4i { 'JN4[, ■ P n a ACCESSORY COVERAGE - 8.43% TOTAL LOT COVERAGE - 23.840la - S rur-sygaT Jc 4 oz w NOTE o -e • Figure 2 — Proposed site plan. TYP SECTION Scalp 1/4"-1'-b" TYr kR vff .M 1'2YLy IIRNf.Iv `3 %Y RT3u4f L"M Hfy1'PS i'�f•Ff4j iNLY3lS S,' Vi. S GUTM wYJ111tl Yi YY iR3156S[L RNKWASCIA TO KATTi � VEk iC+PP1T PROPOSED GARAGE *rncu. NRwr4vww .r ccvaa,Tnc sTrwe rxttwRat •� '^' !YEAR Nl RA411![]l �� b .b 1nEr x>t :RM sat VAS IrdtKRf 1 AUCIM'� N C4 ,' S1Ali ZA. TIaC[LYfLhp - iP. T}IK'Cf?l SUB . cK4IAny TWIN 6' CI YAR Sil-NF. �® N 2 -ISM R4a4R LVKr� Figure 3 — Proposed height of the accessory structure. Page 172 of 403 Planning Staff conducted a site visit on November 21, 2024. Figure 4 — View of 42 Wendy Crescent from the street. Figure 5 — Proposed location of the accessory structure in the rear yard. Page 173 of 403 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. This designation places emphasis on the compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, and design in order to support the successful integration of different housing types. It also places emphasis on the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets, and exterior areas. The proposed use of the property conforms with the designation, and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zonina By-law The intent of the maximum height to the underside of the fascia regulation is to ensure that accessory structures are not excessive in height and to ensure neighbouring properties do not have adverse impacts from large rear yard structures. Staff note that the proposed structure meets the 3 -metres height to the fascia regulation at the rear, and at the highest point, only the front wall facing the dwelling at 42 Wendy Crescent will have a full height of 4.3 metres. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed height increase of 1.3 metres to the fascia will not have any adverse impacts to neighbouring properties. Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature as the increase in height is not anticipated to greatly impact neighbouring properties. The proposed roof is sloped with only the front fagade fully demonstrating a height to the underside of the fascia of 4.3 metres. Thus, the proposed increase of 1.3 metres for the fascia height will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood, and as such, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the effects of the requested variance is minor in nature. Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or Structure? The variance is appropriate for the use of the land as it will provide increased functionality of the site. The use of the subject property as a semi-detached dwelling is maintained, and the accessory building does not prevent the use or future development of abutting lands. Environmental Planning Comments: Care should be taken during construction to not impact the root zone of trees on and/or adjacent to the property. It is recommended that temporary protective fencing be installed (as per Appendix `E' of the City's Tree Management Policy) prior to construction commencing. Heritage Planning Comments: No Heritage comments or concerns Page 174 of 403 Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Engineering Division Comments: Engineering has no comment. Parks/Operations Division Comments: No concerns, no requirements. Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. GRCA Comment: GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above application. Region of Waterloo Comments: No concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 Page 175 of 403 November 18, 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 December 10, 2024, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 - 107 — 15-105 Moorgate Crescent — No concerns 2) A 2024 - 108 — 42 Wendy Crescent — No concerns 3) A 2024 - 109 — 25 Sandsprings Crescent — No concerns 4) A 2024 - 110 — 171 Otterbein Road — No concerns 5) A 2024 - 111 — 124 Cedar Street — No concerns 6) A 2024 - 112 — 578 Guelphh Street — No concerns 7) A 2024 - 113 — 1838 Trussler Road — It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. 8) A 2024 - 114 — 98-102 Weber Street East — No concerns 9) A 2024 — 115 — 217 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 10)A 2024 — 116 — 221 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 11)A 2024 — 117 — 225 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 12)A 2024 — 118 — 229 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 13)A 2024 — 119 — 233 Lancaster Street West — No concerns Document Number: 4828935 28935 Page 176 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4828935 Page 177 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 178 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Ben Suchomel, Student Planner, 519-783-8948 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 6 DATE OF REPORT: November 26, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-515 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-109 - 25 Sandsprings Cres. RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application A2024-109 for 25 Sandsprings Crescent requesting relief from Section 5.4, Table 5-2, of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit a driveway to be located 0 metres from an interior lot line instead of the minimum required 1.2 metres, to recognize the location of an existing driveway, BE APPROVED. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review the minor variance application to permit a driveway to be located 0 metres from an interior lot line instead of the minimum required 1.2 metres to recognize the location of an existing driveway. • The key finding of this report is that the requested variance meets all four 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 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 southeast side of Sandsprings Crescent, near the intersection of Devonglen Drive and Sandsprings Crescent, within the Country Hills neighbourhood. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 179 of 403 log" EPW SANOSPRINGS CRES Figure 1 — Location of subject property (outlined in RED) The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The purpose of the application is to recognize the location of the existing driveway that is setback 0 metres from the interior lot line instead on the minimum required 1.2 metres. Staff note that the current driveway width conforms with the zoning by-law regulations and thus, a variance to legalize the location of the driveway is all that is required. r-- 2S SRNOSPk iu Gl CAES. 4vI M t3V Page 180 of 403 Figure 2 — Site Plan Planning Staff conducted a site visit on November 21, 2024. 11 t iR R� L"� y I -jig ro f+ Figure 3 — View of 25 Sandsprings Crescent from the street. 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 subject property is designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan. The intent of this designation is to encourage a range of different housing to achieve a low rise built form in the neighbourhood. Specifically, Section 13.C.8.4 of the Official Plan states: "All parking area or facilities will be designed, constructed and maintained: f) to result in aesthetically acceptable parking areas which blend into the general Page 181 of 403 environment of the area." Planning staff is of the opinion that as the existing driveway blends into the streetscape and general environment of the area and meets the maximum width of a driveway in the Zoning By-law, the requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The purpose of the side yard setback for driveway space is to maintain a sufficient distance from the property line. This ensures that vehicles and their access do not encroach upon or require crossing the property line onto adjacent properties. Staff observed that the neighbouring property had constructed a fence that effectively delineates the boundary in this location, ensuring there is no encroachment onto their land. Staff note that the current driveway width conforms with the zoning by-law regulations and therefore, a variance to legalize the location of the driveway is all that is required. As a result, staff are of the opinion that the proposed variance maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? The requested reduction in setback of the driveway from the interior lot line width can be considered minor as this is an existing condition and there are no proposed changes to the driveway width. Staff do not anticipate any significant effects or adverse impacts as a result of the requested variance. Thus, it is Planning Staff's opinion that the effects of the proposed variance are minor in nature. Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or Structure? The requested variance is considered a desirable and appropriate use as it will bring the driveway into compliance with the Zoning By-law. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: No Heritage comments or concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Engineering Division Comments: Engineering has no comment. Parks/Operations Division Comments: No concerns, no requirements. Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. Page 182 of 403 Region of Waterloo Comments: No concerns. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Comments: GRCA has no objection to the approval of the application. The subject properties do not contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or valley slopes. The property is not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a permission from GRCA is not required. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 Page 183 of 403 November 18, 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 December 10, 2024, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 - 107 — 15-105 Moorgate Crescent — No concerns 2) A 2024 - 108 — 42 Wendy Crescent — No concerns 3) A 2024 - 109 — 25 Sandsprings Crescent — No concerns 4) A 2024 - 110 — 171 Otterbein Road — No concerns 5) A 2024 - 111 — 124 Cedar Street — No concerns 6) A 2024 - 112 — 578 Guelphh Street — No concerns 7) A 2024 - 113 — 1838 Trussler Road — It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. 8) A 2024 - 114 — 98-102 Weber Street East — No concerns 9) A 2024 — 115 — 217 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 10)A 2024 — 116 — 221 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 11)A 2024 — 117 — 225 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 12)A 2024 — 118 — 229 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 13)A 2024 — 119 — 233 Lancaster Street West — No concerns Document Number: 4828935 28935 Page 184 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4828935 Page 185 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 186 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Kirsten Hoekstra, Student Planner, 519-783-8936 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1 DATE OF REPORT: December 4, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-521 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-110 —171 Otterbein Road RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application A2024-110 for 171 Otterbein Road requesting relief from Section 5.4, Table 5-2, of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit: i) A corner lot width of 12.5 metres instead of the minimum required 12.8 metres; and ii) A rear yard setback of 4 metres instead of the minimum required 7.5 metres; to facilitate the construction of a new detached dwelling on a vacant corner lot, generally in accordance with drawings by J.D. Barnes Limited, submitted with Minor Variance Application A2024-110, BE APPROVED. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a new detached dwelling on a vacant lot having a reduced lot width and a rear yard setback. • The key finding of this report is that the requested variances meet all four 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 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. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 187 of 403 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the south side of Otterbein Road at the intersection of Dunnigan Drive and Otterbein Road, in the Grand River North neighbourhood. 9 r uA • 2 P Rand under"_` Rase undm wmran� - ERB S r IWa .• 1f a Figure 1 — Location of subject property (outlined in RED) The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The purpose of the application is to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling on a vacant corner lot that has a reduced lot width and is proposed to have a reduced rear yard setback. Zoning By-law 2019-051 states that the front lot line of a corner lot is the shorter lot line abutting a street, meaning that 171 Otterbein Road fronts Dunnigan Drive. However, this lot was created under Zoning By-law 85-1 where either lot line could be considered the front lot line. Under Zoning By-law 85-1 and based on the Transition regulations in Zoning By-law 2019- 051, a variance for a reduced lot width would not be required. However, the applicant has requested this variance as to ensure the site is also compliant with Zoning By-law 2019- 051. Additionally, staff note, regarding the requested reduced rear yard setback, through the initial subdivision plan, the orientation of the driveway was approved at the proposed location shown in Figure 2, as it was determined that the driveway would be best located farthest away from the roundabout. Page 188 of 403 Sketch prepared for- Minor Variance Application w_, METRIC: Lot 67 Re Istered Pian.SSM-fi 51 1�—" g DIsrANCEs HEREON ARE IN METRES. TO CONVERT TO FEET DIVIDE BY 0.3MS. City of Kitchener / a 1m s� em wm um I4m scale 1:200— — lo,-a4� 0 — — -� Y O-jTE��B�M1{ .ate— y N84'20'27W _ — �— 0.21.258 / / � � Aa2i 298 — — — R-100.000 A=3.455 .- '" I 0=3.455 r100.000� / II 1 1! f/G*/ ,r , 481 E P� / RnW b0wdlln8 I I P '! !! of Q waae 44 LOT 67 I — I �— —� 4_*0 _ a eLaa° ea,° SeF-e.57 z if �Wm I'prrr I )� N7437'95'W 33.116 LOT 86. 58M-694 z I f z it f O CAUTION: NOTE: J.D.BARNES. LTD. THIS 15 EY NOT A PLAN OF SURVAND LOT DIMENSIONS ARE AS SHOWN ON PLAN 58M-651 L tAma:49L5 W Bu Ider.lim GIPS Con tr-ti.. Ltd. SHALL NOT BE USED FOR MORTGAGE AND HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY SURVEY. PROPOSED GFA: 1128 RIS File: 2042443LW67) OR TRANSACTION PURPOSES. BUILDING POSITIONED RV CALCULATION, NOT BY SURVEY. COVPraDe: 23.0% Cnober23.2024 C) COPYRIGHT 2024 Figure 2 — Proposed Site Plan Planning Staff conducted a site visit on November 21, 2024. Figure 3 — View of 171 Otterbein Road from the street. Page 189 of 403 Figure 4 — View of the adjacent property abutting the proposed rear yard of 171 Otterbein Road. In January of this year the Committee of Adjustment considered and approved Minor Variance Application A2024-009 for 169 Otterbein Road, directly across from the subject property, which requested a reduction in the minimum required rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 2 metres, to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling on a vacant lot. 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 general intent of the Low -Rise Residential designation is to ensure compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, and design in order to support the successful integration of different housing types. It also places emphasis on the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets, and exterior areas. The use of the property for a new detached dwelling conforms to the land use designation. Accordingly, the variances to facilitate the new detached dwelling meet the general intent of the Official Plan. Page 190 of 403 General Intent of the Zoning By-law Lot width.- The idth:The general intent of the minimum lot width requirement of 12.8 metres for a corner lot is to ensure that there is adequate space for required parking, setbacks, and amenity space on the lot. The proposed lot width of 12.5 metres will still accommodate these functions. Thus, Planning Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the zoning by-law. Rear yard setback: The minimum rear yard setback requirement is to ensure private amenity space for residents as well as adequate separation between buildings on adjacent properties is provided. Planning Staff is of the opinion that the proposed 4 metre setback will still provide an adequate amenity area and privacy from the adjacent rear property, as there will be sufficient buffering between properties. Staff also note that there are limited windows on the adjacent building oriented towards the rear yard, thus reducing potential privacy concerns resulting from the reduced rear yard setback. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that that the requested rear yard setback variance meets the general intent of the zoning by-law. Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? Staff are of the opinion that the proposed variances for a reduced lot width and rear yard setback are minor in nature as any privacy concerns related to the adjacent property is minimal. The lot width reduction of 0.3 metres is not discernible and will provide adequate space to accommodate parking, setbacks, and amenity space. Additionally, Staff note that the rear yard setback variance has been requested to accommodate an attached garage and driveway, the location of which was contemplated as part of the previous subdivision approval under 85-1. As such, Staff are of the opinion that the effects of the proposed variances are minor in nature. Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or Structure? Planning Staff is of the opinion that the variances requested to reduce the minimum rear yard setback and lot width are appropriate for the desirable development and use of the lands as it will facilitate a new detached dwelling, increasing the functionality of the location and desirability of this residential property. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage concerns or tree management concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: No Heritage comments or concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the new single detached dwelling is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building(o)kitchener.ca with any questions. Page 191 of 403 Engineering Division Comments: Engineering has no comments. Parks/Operations Division Comments: The proposed driveway aligns with the approved Street Tree Planting Plan for the subdivision. Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. GRCA Comments: GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above application. Region of Waterloo Comments: No concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 Page 192 of 403 November 18, 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 December 10, 2024, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 - 107 — 15-105 Moorgate Crescent — No concerns 2) A 2024 - 108 — 42 Wendy Crescent — No concerns 3) A 2024 - 109 — 25 Sandsprings Crescent — No concerns 4) A 2024 - 110 — 171 Otterbein Road — No concerns 5) A 2024 - 111 — 124 Cedar Street — No concerns 6) A 2024 - 112 — 578 Guelphh Street — No concerns 7) A 2024 - 113 — 1838 Trussler Road — It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. 8) A 2024 - 114 — 98-102 Weber Street East — No concerns 9) A 2024 — 115 — 217 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 10)A 2024 — 116 — 221 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 11)A 2024 — 117 — 225 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 12)A 2024 — 118 — 229 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 13)A 2024 — 119 — 233 Lancaster Street West — No concerns Document Number: 4828935 28935 Page 193 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4828935 Page 194 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 195 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Adiva Saadat, Planner, 519-783-7658 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: November 27, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-522 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-111 —124 Cedar St. S. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning By-law 85-1 That Minor Variance Application A2024-111 for 124 Cedar Street South requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 b) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a minimum front yard setback of 2 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres, to facilitate the construction of a front 2 storey addition, a porch and ground supported balcony onto the existing dwelling, in accordance with drawings prepared by John MacDonald Architect, dated November 1, 2024, BE APPROVED. Zoning By-law 2019-051 That Minor Variance Application A2024-111 for 124 Cedar Street South requesting relief from Section 7.3, Table 7-2, of Zoning By-law 2019-051 as amended by By-law 2014-065, to permit a minimum front yard setback of 2 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres, to facilitate the construction of a front 2 storey addition, a porch and ground supported balcony onto the existing dwelling, in accordance with drawings prepared by John MacDonald Architect, dated November 1, 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following: This Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-065 (For PMTSA Lands) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this decision. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 196 of 403 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review a minor variance application to permit the development of a front yard addition, a porch and a ground supported balcony with a reduced front yard setback. • The key finding of this report is that the requested minor variance meets all four 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 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 south-west side of Cedar Street South and St George Street. It is in the Cedar Hill neighbourhood which is primarily comprised of low- rise residential uses. Figure 1: Location Map -124 Cedar Street South (Outlined in Red) The subject property is identified as `Protected Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Strategic Growth Area A' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Residential Five Zone (R-5)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 and `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. Page 197 of 403 In Zoning By-laws 85-1 and 2019-51, the established front yard is used for dwellings and additions to dwellings that would project into the existing front yard constructed after the effective date of the by-laws. In all other cases where there is no further projection, and in the case of the subject property, the minimum front yard is 4.5 metres The purpose of the application is to review a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback to facilitate the construction of a front yard addition, a porch and a ground supported balcony. WIM Fs Yuri -lo�mn �`_ E. L) Sbad South Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan Page 198 of 403 ---------------- I c Ira i1� f ..-ism ai.aJ iw �lalmm "� MMM Planning Staff conducted a site visit on November 18, 2024 Figure 5: Existing Site Conditions - 124 Cedar Street South on November 18, 2024 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: Page 200 of 403 General Intent of the Official Plan The general intent of the Official Plan designation `Strategic Growth Area A' on Map 3 — Land Use is to intensify urban development to support sustainable growth, enhance transit -oriented development, and create vibrant, complete communities. The proposed addition, porch and balcony are an appropriate use on residential properties and the proposal will not significantly change the overall front design characteristics of the dwelling. It will contribute to maintaining a vibrant and functional residential property. Planning Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance will maintain the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the front yard setback requirement is to ensure a consistent setback to the property line to maintain a coherent and consistent streetscape. The established front yard setback is approximately 4 metres (5.4 metres on one adjacent property and 2.7 metres on the other adjacent property). Staff note that the existing front yard setback of the subject property is approximately 2 metres and the new addition and front porch will maintain these existing setbacks. There will continue to be sufficient separation from the street while preserving the streetscape and front yard design. Therefore, Staff are of the opinion that the proposed variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? The intent of the front yard setback requirement is to ensure a consistent setback to the property line to maintain a coherent and consistent streetscape. Staff note that the existing front yard setback is approximately 2 metres and the new addition and front porch will maintain the setbacks. There will continue to be sufficient separation from the street while preserving the streetscape and front yard design. Therefore, Staff are of the opinion that the proposed variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable for The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or Structure? Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance is appropriate for the desirable use of the lands as the proposed addition, porch and balcony will improve the functionality of the dwelling on the property while maintaining compatibility with the established streetscape and neighbourhood character. The minor variance to allow a 2 metre setback will avoid any unnecessary demolition and/or reconstruction of the front of the existing building. Environmental Planning Comments: No comments or concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: The property municipally addressed as 124 Cedar Street South is located within the Cedar Hill Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. Additional policies were included in the Official Plan as part of the City's Growing Together initiative to ensure the continued protection of CHLs within Major Transit Station Areas. Policy 12.C.1.52 of the Kitchener Official Plan states that Page 201 of 403 "The view atop Cedar Hill from Cedar Street looking to the southwest is a unique view from the Cedar Hill Schneider Creek Neigbourhood of the City and of the countryside beyond. Properties contained within Cedar Hill viewshed are identified as being Property of Specific Cultural Heritage Landscape Interest. The City will regulate building height, setbacks and built form along Cedar Street and along Courtland Avenue East to protect and enhance this view. The City will also encourage and support enhancements to the public realm in the location atop of Cedar Hill to contribute and enhance the pedestrian experience and enjoyment of the view." The requested setback relief and height are not going to have major impacts on the viewshed or on the cultural heritage value of the CHL. Thus, Heritage Planning staff have no concerns with the proposed application. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the addition to the single detached dwelling is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions. Engineering Division Comments: No comments or concerns. Parks/Operations Division Comments: No comments or concerns. Transportation Planning Comments: No comments or concerns. Grand River Conservation Area (GRCA) Comments: No comments or concerns. Region of Waterloo Comments: No comments or concerns. 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 Page 202 of 403 Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-laws 85-1 and 2019-051 Page 203 of 403 November 18, 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 December 10, 2024, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 - 107 — 15-105 Moorgate Crescent — No concerns 2) A 2024 - 108 — 42 Wendy Crescent — No concerns 3) A 2024 - 109 — 25 Sandsprings Crescent — No concerns 4) A 2024 - 110 — 171 Otterbein Road — No concerns 5) A 2024 - 111 — 124 Cedar Street — No concerns 6) A 2024 - 112 — 578 Guelphh Street — No concerns 7) A 2024 - 113 — 1838 Trussler Road — It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. 8) A 2024 - 114 — 98-102 Weber Street East — No concerns 9) A 2024 — 115 — 217 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 10)A 2024 — 116 — 221 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 11)A 2024 — 117 — 225 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 12)A 2024 — 118 — 229 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 13)A 2024 — 119 — 233 Lancaster Street West — No concerns Document Number: 4828935 28935 Page 204 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4828935 Page 205 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 206 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Sean Harrigan, Senior Planning Technician, 519-783-8934 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: November 29, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-533 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-112 — 578 Guelph Street RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application A2024-112 for 578 Guelph Street requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051: i) Section 7.3, Table 7-2, to permit a front yard setback of 5.1 metres instead of the minimum required 6.6 metres; and ii) Section 4.14.10.a) to permit an interior side yard setback of 0.1 metres for at - grade stairs instead of the minimum required 0.5 metres; to facilitate the development of a ground supported balcony for the second floor dwelling unit and unobstructed walkway for an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) in the rear yard, generally in accordance with drawings prepared by Bobicon Ltd., dated November 11, 2024, BE APPROVED. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review the minor variance application to allow for a reduced front yard setback for a ground supported balcony and a reduced interior yard setback for stairs located at grade which form part of an unobstructed walkway. • The key finding of this report is that the proposed minor variances satisfy the four tests in the Planning Act and staff recommend approval of the application. • 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. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 207 of 403 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the north side of Guelph Street between Floyd Street and St. Leger Street. The property previously contained a single detached dwelling and detached garage which have recently been demolished to facilitate a severance application (B2024-010). The severance application was approved on June 18, 2024, and the applicant is working towards clearing conditions imposed on the application. A single detached dwelling with one (1) Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Attached) and one (1) Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) is currently being constructed on the Retained Parcel/Lot. set .au sus 559 Figure 1: Location Map - 578 Guelph Street (Outlined in Red) The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The property also falls within `Appendix C — Central Neighbourhoods Area' and `Appendix D — Established Neighbourhoods Area' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of the minor variance application is to facilitate the construction of a ground supported balcony in the front yard above the front porch and at -grade stairs located within the side yard. The ground supported balcony will provide additional amenity space for the Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Attached) located on the second floor while the at -grade stairs will form part of a required 1.1 metre wide unobstructed walkway leading to the Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) in the rear yard. Page 208 of 403 cx5rNG PROPPRfY LAE ------•-------•-----------•---------------------------------------- F� y ADV ADDRESS SIGN. T 7M ABOVE ORWND GARBAGE 5MRAGE ^ n pND PERPENDlNiAR b AREA 5 b ti 1_ 70 ROADWAY , 4'r_ ----------- ---- -'------ NT(1RF PROPERTY IIME ------- ----- ---------'-= ------�� _ 17, -5• [5.30Y] 5'-0•57'-4. 117.37Y] lb' -7• [5.491] 20'-0• [6.1411] {'-4' [`PABX14 DEN ABX T /2 w axv UP wnz p 17-P [3.&W] _ b 1.2 M CRETE P17Q°IM no STORY �09) w — WALK WAY Lk7P1EX DMEi1/FG FRG—on eDN 12Y-5- [6.Ml-.9'-B•9%Gff CA4 I MAI"[b[4S1Y hJM. i 35w SPACE PR4K AAAA 2 b 7.7 M CDNCRE fE 7 f M UNOBSTRUC1fTi 1, M CONCRETE Y ---_WALKWAY--- WNCRE IF WdIJCWAY UP—� WALKWAY EXISTING PROPERTY LlAE115 -- e ev PROPOSED 578 GUELPH ST, .ovE BEa" �� Nuow SITE PLAN KITCHENER, ONTARIO AO. V GN4YTW � �"' YN�GVApANCE Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan �� Emrclola ID'. K€I13(&016Y+'.4C&J911�iMCAR9€7096 q2h__. ____—__—__—__—__—__—..—__—..—__—._—__—__—__—..—__—..—__—..—__—._—__—__— —_ — aAlple! c.+.e µary Y LT_a._u�.ne 3 Jttv yulu l�Rta 2m eff 1 I I I I 11Pp CALIUYI�'R�I u>d � I I I I minmfs�r I I I map MSR � w RIlePNa641 p+ey R MA I 1 AIfG[ PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION wa...c 1Z 578 GUELPH ST. KITCHENER, ONTARIO ` .,� j SSOER FaR PERIgr A O . Figure 3: Proposed Building Elevation Page 209 of 403 r 'neaa, Pg� — �_4 �.Av 4 IlhAlf-li�nr ql a s OW lW �_�, �, .�<• �;:_ /' � .dee � r o, P Ia. _ lop -- � n 4p ti 4 lob `�-- •:gin . �� '' i � "~ ..�"' �`; , F �v x ` n _ -WP' 711'- ., 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 general intent of the `Low Rise Residential' land use designation is to support a high quality of life while ensuring that existing and new residential areas are walkable and supported by all modes of transportation. To this regard, the proposed reduced front yard setback is required to accommodate a ground supported balcony directly above the front porch. This balcony provides additional amenity space which contributes to the high quality of life while also helping to activate the streetscape thereby supporting walkability. The proposed steps within the side yard also contributes to a high quality of life by providing a stable path from the street the principal entrance of the additional dwelling unit (detached). Furthermore, Official Plan policy 4.C.1.8.b) states that where front yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback should be similar to adjacent properties and supports the character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. To this regard, the habitable portion of the dwelling adheres to the required front yard setback and the massing of the ground supported balcony supports the existing character of the streetscape and neighbourhood. As such, staff are satisfied that the proposed variances maintain the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property falls within `Appendix D — Established Neighbourhoods Area' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. Properties within this area must have a front yard setback within 1 metre of the average existing front yard setbacks of the two abutting properties. The general intent of this regulation is to help ensure a consistent streetscape and that new development does not appear out of place when compared to abutting properties. To this regard, staff are satisfied that the proposed front yard setback of 5.15 metres maintains the general intent of this regulation. As shown on Figure 2, the habitable portion of the dwelling adheres to the current required front yard setback of 6.61 metres while the ground supported balcony projects slightly beyond the front facades of the adjacent properties. Staff are satisfied that this massing is consistent with the existing streetscape and will not appear out of place in this neighbourhood. The general intent of Zoning By-law 2019-051 Section 4.14.10.a) and the requirement for a 0.5 metre side yard setback for steps located at grade is to ensure sufficient room for drainage swales usually located at along the interior lot lines. The applicant provided a grading plan as part of their building permit which shows the primary means of drainage will occur along the western side of the house and not where the steps are proposed. As such, staff are satisfied that the proposed variances maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Page 212 of 403 Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? Staff are satisfied that the potential effects of the proposed minor variances are minor in nature. As mentioned above, the habitable portion of the dwelling will adhere to the current required front yard setback and the ground supported balcony does not negatively impact the existing streetscape character. The proposed steps within the side yard negatively impact drainage contribute to a higher quality pathway between the street and additional dwelling unit (detached) and do not negatively impact drainage. Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or Structure? The proposed minor variances are considered desirable for the proposed development of the land. The reduced front yard setback will permit a ground supported balcony above the front porch will provide additional amenity space while still maintaining a consistent streetscape. The proposed at grade steps within the side yard will enhance the required unobstructed walkway and make it easier to travel over the grade change between the front and rear yards. Environmental Planning Comments: There are no natural heritage features/functions and no Tree Management Policy concerns. Applicant should be advised that arborist advice should be sought to ensure no impact to spruce tree at front and no impact to neighbour's or shared -ownership trees in rear yard during construction of the detached additional dwelling unit. There is no requirement to retain the front -yard spruce tree. However, the City -owned boulevard tree must be protectively fenced and retained. Heritage Planning Comments: Heritage Planning staff have no concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided revised drawings are submitted for the issued permit and the proposed stairs are completely located on the property, including any footings. Engineering Division Comments: Applicant to ensure an unobstructed shared property line swale is maintained on the east side. The side yard currently accommodates overland stormwater flows from the rear yard. A sidewalk is required to the rear yard in accordance with the Zoning By-law. The final grading of this property shall not adversely affect the drainage of adjacent properties or the overall grading control plan. The Owner is responsible to address storm water drainage at the Building Permit stage. Parks/Operations Division Comments: There has been a previous Committee of Adjustment application for Severance B2024- 010 and through that application Parkland Dedication has been assessed and required as a condition of deed endorsement. Along with that application the removal of street trees on 578 and 573 Guelph Street were approved and invoices issued. The Parkland Dedication and Urban Forestry Compensation fees are outstanding and required. Page 213 of 403 Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. Region of Waterloo Comments: No concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 Page 214 of 403 November 18, 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 December 10, 2024, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 - 107 — 15-105 Moorgate Crescent — No concerns 2) A 2024 - 108 — 42 Wendy Crescent — No concerns 3) A 2024 - 109 — 25 Sandsprings Crescent — No concerns 4) A 2024 - 110 — 171 Otterbein Road — No concerns 5) A 2024 - 111 — 124 Cedar Street — No concerns 6) A 2024 - 112 — 578 Guelphh Street — No concerns 7) A 2024 - 113 — 1838 Trussler Road — It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. 8) A 2024 - 114 — 98-102 Weber Street East — No concerns 9) A 2024 — 115 — 217 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 10)A 2024 — 116 — 221 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 11)A 2024 — 117 — 225 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 12)A 2024 — 118 — 229 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 13)A 2024 — 119 — 233 Lancaster Street West — No concerns Document Number: 4828935 28935 Page 215 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4828935 Page 216 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 217 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Arwa Alzoor, Planner, 519-783-8903 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: November 18, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-519 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-113- 1838 Trussler Rd. RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application A2024-113 for 1838 Trussler Road requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051: i) Section 5.4 f) to permit a driveway width of 11 metres instead of the maximum permitted 8.0 metres; ii) Section 12.3, Table 12-2, to permit an `Existing Dwelling' to have: • a front yard setback of 24.3 metres instead of the existing 32.3 metres; • a left side yard setback of 16.5 metres instead of the existing 25.8 metres; • a right side yard setback of 14.6 metres instead of the existing 20.7 metres; and • a rear yard setback of 26.3 metres instead of the existing 21.5 metres; to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing dwelling, generally, in accordance with drawings prepared by Erich R. Rube, dated September 18, 2024, BE APPROVED. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review minor variances to allow an existing dwelling to have new setbacks and a wider driveway. • The key finding of this report is that the requested minor 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 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 information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 218 of 403 • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located in the South Plains area on the south end of Trussler Road. r z� '' rte' ��M1 �,•.'' .�k„J�.�,�+f. �r��i. ¢ � � +� 75.x• �+.5 ; - _ }S - Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Zoning Map The subject property is identified on Map 1- City Urban Area and Countryside — as `Protected Countryside' and is designated `Prime Agriculture' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Prime Agriculture Zone (AGR -1)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of this application is to allow revised setbacks for an existing dwelling. The increased size of the existing dwelling will result in reduced setbacks from what is existing Page 219 of 403 but will still comply with the `AGR -1' Zone's required minimum setbacks of 10 metres. Additionally, the increased dwelling size will also require a wider driveway. Figure 3: The Existing Dwelling On The Subject Property Figure 4: The Existing Dwelling Street View Page 220 of 403 a� a 4 Qo �Z S 'g �� '6 F o•rP �v J . s Figure 3: The Existing Dwelling On The Subject Property Figure 4: The Existing Dwelling Street View Page 220 of 403 Figure 5: The Proposed Front Elevation of The Dwelling Unit Figure 6: The New Setbacks and Driveway on The Subject Property Staff visited the site on Friday, November 22nd, 2024 Page 221 of 403 Figure 7: Existing Dwelling Street View Showing the East Border of the Property Figure 8: Existing Dwelling Showing the South Border of the property Page 222 of 403 ='r2 - Figure 8: Existing Dwelling Showing the South Border of the property Page 222 of 403 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 Kitchener's agricultural area is located in the southwest part of the city and is made up of many unique natural heritage features and cultural heritage resources as well as valuable natural resources, including agricultural lands, woodlands, mineral aggregate deposits and groundwater recharge areas. Although they only comprise a small area of the city relative to other areas of the city, they are important to the local economy with respect to employment and food production and contribute to our quality of life. The City recognizes the significance of our agricultural areas and will encourage the preservation and efficient use of these areas. Accordingly, the predominant use of agricultural areas will be for agriculture to ensure maximum flexibility for farm operators to engage in differing types and sizes of agricultural operations by providing agricultural uses with large continuous areas free from conflicting and incompatible land uses. As per policy 15.D.8.5. The Prime Agriculture and Rural land use designations will permit the following subject to any applicable policies in this Plan: a) agricultural uses (including vertical farming); b) on-farm diversified uses; c) existing residential uses; d) small-scale alternative energy systems and/or renewable energy systems in accordance with City, Regional, Provincial and Federal requirements. An existing residential use is a permitted use. In this case, the existing residential use will continue with an expansion to the size, which will result in new setbacks. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that proposed variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law New setbacks: The intent of the Zoning By-law is not to permit new dwellings to protect the agricultural area, as it occupies a limited portion of the city. The existing single detached dwelling has been on the site for over 30 years, and the subject property is relatively small compared to surrounding agricultural land. Therefore, maintaining the current use of this dwelling while adjusting the setbacks to accommodate an expanded dwelling area aligns with the Zoning By-law's intent. Driveway width: The intent of the Zoning By-law in setting a maximum driveway width of 8 metres is to limit hard surfaces on the property, increase landscaped areas for stormwater management, reduce visual impact, and encourage more front yard landscaping. The proposed driveway expansion, from 8 metres to 11 metres, will accommodate a wider parking spaces within the attached garage of the dwelling. The driveway tapers down to approximately 5 metres near Trussler Road, with its widest section located adjacent to the garage entrance to minimize visual impact from the street. Given that this area lacks Page 223 of 403 transit access, the additional parking supports the site's liveability. Moreover, the subject property is wider than a typical residential lot, having 60.9 metres of frontage, to which this regulation is primarily directed. Therefore, the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? The proposed setbacks and driveway width changes are expected to have minimal impact on the surrounding area. The reduced setbacks from the existing remains within the permitted range for the zone, ensuring that the building's placement meets the street characteristics. Although the driveway is wider than the maximum permitted 8 metres, the widened driveway is tapered near Trussler Road and primarily wider adjacent to the attached garage entrance. This design approach minimizes any visual impact from the street, preserves landscaped areas, and maintains the character of the front yard. Given that the subject property is larger than a typical lot, the increase in driveway width is only 18.3% of the lot width, which does not result in a significant loss of landscaping or permeable surface area. Therefore, the impacts of the new setbacks and wider driveway are minor. Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building and/or Structure? Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances are desirable and appropriate as they will facilitate the redevelopment of the existing dwelling while maintaining compatibility with surrounding land uses. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage features/functions. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage concerns with the proposed variances. It should be noted the subject land is adjacent to 1844 Trussler Road, which is under heritage review. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. A Building Permit Application has been made and is currently under review. Engineering Division Comments: No comment Parks/Operations Division Comments: No concerns, no requirements. Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services has no concerns with this application. Page 224 of 403 The Region of Waterloo Comments: It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 Page 225 of 403 November 18, 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 December 10, 2024, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 - 107 — 15-105 Moorgate Crescent — No concerns 2) A 2024 - 108 — 42 Wendy Crescent — No concerns 3) A 2024 - 109 — 25 Sandsprings Crescent — No concerns 4) A 2024 - 110 — 171 Otterbein Road — No concerns 5) A 2024 - 111 — 124 Cedar Street — No concerns 6) A 2024 - 112 — 578 Guelphh Street — No concerns 7) A 2024 - 113 — 1838 Trussler Road — It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. 8) A 2024 - 114 — 98-102 Weber Street East — No concerns 9) A 2024 — 115 — 217 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 10)A 2024 — 116 — 221 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 11)A 2024 — 117 — 225 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 12)A 2024 — 118 — 229 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 13)A 2024 — 119 — 233 Lancaster Street West — No concerns Document Number: 4828935 28935 Page 226 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4828935 Page 227 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 228 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Senior Planner, 519-783-8920 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: November 27, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-527 SUBJECT: Consent Applications B2024-017, B2024-018 and B2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive RECOMMENDATION: Consent Application B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive - REVISED That Consent Application B2024-018 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 180 metres, a lot depth of 84 metres and a lot area of 18,624 square metres, and to create an Easement over the 'Severed Parcel', in favour of the 'Retained Parcel, B2024-017' and additional 'Severed Parcel, B2024-037', generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated October 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 229 of 403 Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to deed endorsement. 8. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 9. That the property owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximate 3 -metre -wide road widening along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontage (retained and severed), as shown indicated on a reference plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services. Prior to conveyance, the property owner shall prepare, at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being dedicated for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the Owner shall complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing buildings proposed to be retained on the Severed and Retained parcels of land, prepared by a Qualified Person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. Page 230 of 403 The Owner shall obtain a Building Permit for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. Consent Application B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Park Drive - REVISED That Consent Application B2024-017 requesting consent to create an Easement over the 'Retained Parcel' in favour of both the 'Severed Parcels, B2024-018, B2024-037, generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated October 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the property owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, an approximate 3 -metre -wide road widening along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontage (retained and severed), as shown indicated on a reference plan by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Transportation Services. Page 231 of 403 Prior to conveyance, the property Owner shall prepare, at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being dedicated for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. Consent Application B2024-037 — 135 Gateway Park Drive That Consent Application B2024-037 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 84 metres, a lot depth of 65 metres and a lot area of 4,327 square metres, and to create an Easement over the 'Severed Parcel', in favour of the 'Retained Parcel B2024-017' and additional 'Severed Parcel, B2024-018', generally in accordance with the severance sketch, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated October 2024, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following, and shall be approved by the City Solicitor in consultation with the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals: a) a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto); and b) a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity and shall not be amended, released or otherwise dealt with without the express written consent of the City. 6. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking, to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City Solicitor, be provided to the City Solicitor. 7. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Page 232 of 403 8. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to deed endorsement. 9. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the Owner shall complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing buildings proposed to be retained on the Severed and Retained parcels of land, prepared by a Qualified Person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. The Owner shall obtain a Building Permit for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. 11. That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review two severance applications to permit the creation of two new parcels of land. Further an access easement is being created over all parcels to maintain access to Tu Lane and Gateway Park Drive. No new development is currently proposed. • 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 application was initially heard by the Committee of Adjustment in August 2024. At that time the applicant had requested a deferral of the application in order to have further discussions with Utilities staff. Since that time the applicant has revised the application to add an additional severance in order for each existing building to be located on a lot in order to be dealt with separately. The subject property is located on Gateway Park Drive with frontage on Tu Lane and King Street East. The existing property contains 3 commercial buildings. The applicant proposes to sever the lots so that 1 commercial building is on the Retained Parcel, and 2 commercial buildings are each on their own Severed Parcel. 1 severed parcel will contain Page 233 of 403 the current restaurant use, and the other severed parcel will contain the former Landmark movie theatre. The applicant also proposes to create an easement over both severed parcels and the retained lands in order to maintain the access through the site for all properties to use in the future. These accesses currently exist and will remain on the properties without any new access created. Figure 1: Location Map: 135 Gateway Park Drive GAIEVjAy PRRK DR _ 329 Pocking Spaces Iia Lands to b Retained �I 18.216 m2 .82 ha _iel y i Ex. Building I , tC< J - L —___-_—___— 1 1 397 P' -king Spaces 104 Parkin S �'1 Ex. Building g poc es _yf Lands to be Severed 210,089 ml,/12.1011 h© '' Ex. a�alding � 1 KING ST E Figure 2: Initial proposed lot fabrics Page 234 of 403 Figure 3: Initial proposed easements B2024-017 f Part 1 Lands to be Retained i Z s � Part 2 Proposed Easement 4 { Part 4 Propose md - Easement 414 '10.05 he i= i = B2024 -0X7 s Part 3 Lands to be Severed 4.32' _iC.43 ^a GA rEWAY PACK (}k Port 4 Proposed Ease d-•4 m=10. 5 1 � 1 i KING ST E "- Figure 4: Revised proposed lot fabrics ,Xx l P F P 4/ P f fi " ,Z Part 5 Lands to be Severed 13,624 rnll':3 pmnm Page 235 of 403 GAiEWAYPABKDR Z. c I —7 PorMan Lands to 6e Sedered \' 19.524 mIV1.96 h❑ r Pert 2 Proposed Easement -� 1,266m'10-13 ha i ------------ ------------ Part 1 �� r i Part 4 Proposed Easemeni Lands to be Retained 16.451 rc''-11 70 ha 1,466 m'10.15 ho } r t is P 1 4 bi -. -------- . .. .. .. .a�.r.:. KING ST E m Figure 3: Initial proposed easements B2024-017 f Part 1 Lands to be Retained i Z s � Part 2 Proposed Easement 4 { Part 4 Propose md - Easement 414 '10.05 he i= i = B2024 -0X7 s Part 3 Lands to be Severed 4.32' _iC.43 ^a GA rEWAY PACK (}k Port 4 Proposed Ease d-•4 m=10. 5 1 � 1 i KING ST E "- Figure 4: Revised proposed lot fabrics ,Xx l P F P 4/ P f fi " ,Z Part 5 Lands to be Severed 13,624 rnll':3 pmnm Page 235 of 403 -7- T__ - Figure 5: Revised proposed easements r ref r� Part S Lands fa be Severed 18,624 rnF/1.86 ^:a /rte The subject property is identified as `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Commercial Campus' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Commercial Campus Zone (COM -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of the applications is to sever an existing lot to create three (3) lots. The retained lands will contain 1 commercial building, while the severed lands will each contain 1 commercial building. The current buildings will be remaining on site. An access easement is also proposed in order for all three (3) new lots to have access to the existing entrances/exits within the whole of the property as it exists today. Page 236 of 403 I The subject property is identified as `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Commercial Campus' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Commercial Campus Zone (COM -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of the applications is to sever an existing lot to create three (3) lots. The retained lands will contain 1 commercial building, while the severed lands will each contain 1 commercial building. The current buildings will be remaining on site. An access easement is also proposed in order for all three (3) new lots to have access to the existing entrances/exits within the whole of the property as it exists today. Page 236 of 403 � A�� Am . Figure 6: Existing building and existing conditions Figure 7: Existing building and existing conditions Page 237 of 403 Figure 8: Existing buildings and existing conditions REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments: Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 2.1.6 of the PPS promotes the achievement of 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, to meet long term needs. The PPS promotes an appropriate range and mix of housing options, as well as a range of employment, institutional and broader mixed uses to meet long term needs. It also supports the use of active transportation and requiring transit supportive development. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. The proposed application conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking -water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Planning staff are of the opinion that the severance applications conforms to the Regional Official Plan. Page 238 of 403 City's Official Plan (2014) The subject property is identified as `Major Transit Station Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Commercial Campus' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's Official Plan. Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies).These policies state the following: "17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where: a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any deficiencies; b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration lot frontages, areas, and configurations; c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration; d) the lot will have frontage on a public street; e) municipal water services are available; f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance with Policy 14.C.1.19; g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be necessary for proper and orderly development; and, h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent properties." Zoning By-law 2019-051 The subject property is zoned as `Commercial Campus Zone (COM -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The lands that are to be severed and the lands to be retained will remain within the COM -4 zoning, and the buildings that currently operate the lands will continue to be in operation. Planning Conclusions/Comments: With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Planning staff is of the opinion that the size, dimension and shape of the proposed lots are suitable for the use of the lands and compatible with the surrounding community. The severed lands front onto an established public street and are serviced with municipal services. Staff is further of the Page 239 of 403 opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, the Provincial Planning Statement, and is good planning and in the public interest. Environmental Planning Comments: No environmental planning concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Building Division Comments: B2024-017: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. B2024-018: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent provided for the retained land: 1) A qualified designer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall addresses such items as: Spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Closing in of openings may be required, pending spatial separation calculation results. 2) A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades that may be required by the building code assessment. B2024-037: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent provided for the retained land: 1) A qualified designer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall addresses such items as: Spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Closing in of openings may be required, pending spatial separation calculation results. 2) A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades that may be required by the building code assessment. Engineering Division Comments: B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Park Drive (Easement) • No concerns B2024-018 — 135 Gateway Park Drive (Severance and Easement) • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this Page 240 of 403 property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to 0ason.brule(a�kitchener.ca. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. B2024-037 — 135 Gateway Park Drive (Severance and Easement) • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to 0ason.brule(o)kitchener.ca. • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. Parks/Operations Division Comments: B2024-017 — 135 Gateway Dr (Easement) No concerns, no requirements. B2024-018 and B2024-037 — 135 Gateway Dr (Severances and Easement) The current use of the COM -4 zoned land is commercial and in accordance with Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074, Parkland Dedication is not required for this Severance. Please note that if either the severed or retained property is subject to a redevelopment application it will be assessed for Parkland Dedication according to the Planning Act, the Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 in effect at the time of a site plan application. Transportation Planning Comments: Applications No. B 2024-017 and B2024-018 — Gateway Park Drive The City of Kitchener's Official Plan notes Gateway Park Drive is designated for a road widening with an ultimate road width of 26 metres between Sportsworld Drive and King Street. Therefore, a conveyance of approximately 3 metres along the entire Gateway Park Drive frontages (retained and severed) is required. A reference plan be submitted by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) illustrating the road widening. The Owner shall prepare at their cost, a Phase I and if necessary, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the portion of the lands being conveyed to the City of Kitchener for a road widening of Gateway Park Drive to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. Page 241 of 403 Region of Waterloo Comments: Note: B2024-17 and B2024-18 were originally submitted with a concept to create two lots. The applications were heard at August 2024 COA meeting, and then deferred to allow for further discussion between Owner/Developer and City. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create three lots and associated access easements. The easements would maintain current vehicular circulation and access points. No physical redevelopment is proposed. B2024-017/ Retained Lands/ Parts 1 and 2 — approx. 1.24ha with 82.6m frontage on Tu -Lane St and 181 m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by wholesale business, 329 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 2). B2024-037/ Severed Lands A/ Parts 3 and 4 — approx. 0.48ha with 57 frontage on King St E and 53.4m frontage on Tu -Lane St. Presently occupied by restaurant, 104 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 4). B2024-18/ Severed Lands B/ Parts 5 and 6 — approx. 2.01 ha with 237.7m frontage on King St E and 194m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by former Landmark Cinema building, 397 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 6). In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Sportsworld Station (Fig 8a). Archaeological Assessment (Advisory) These lands have been previously assessed for archaeological resources. However, to Regional staff's knowledge, the site has not been cleared of archaeological concerns. While clearance is not required to support this consent application given the level of disturbance on the site, any future Planning Act application proposing physical development will require the submission of the completed Archaeological Assessment and associated acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If possible and in the applicant's possession, please provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter for our records. Regional fee Regional staff acknowledge receipt of the required consent review fees for the August applications ($350 per application and $700 in total) on July 11, 2024. Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 for the new application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. Page 242 of 403 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan (ROP) • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 • DSD -2024-358 Page 243 of 403 N* Region of Waterloo VIA EMAIL Connie Owen Administrative Clerk, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Legislative Services Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8t" floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Erica Ali W. Phone: 226-751-3388 File: D20-20/24 KIT November 25, 2024 Re: Comments on Consent Applications: B2024-017, B2024-018, and B2024-037 to B2024-047 (inclusive) Committee of Adjustment Hearing December 10, 2024 City of Kitchener Please accept the following comments for the above -noted Consent applications to be considered at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing. Page 244 of 403 B2024-037 (NEW) & B2024-017 / B2024-018 62 Fourth Ave (DEFERRED) 135 Gateway Park Dr PLAN 1744 BLK 4 PT LOT 1 PLAN 1745 LOTS 8-9 PT LOT 10 PT BLK 11 Owner: 1289193 ONTARIO INC. Owner/Developer: MHBC c/o Emily Elliot & Jennifer Gaudet Note: B2024-17 and B2024-18 were originally submitted with a concept to create two lots. The applications were heard at August 2024 COA meeting, and then deferred to allow for further discussion between Owner/Developer and City. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create three lots and associated access easements. The easements would maintain current vehicular circulation and access points. No physical redevelopment is proposed. B2024-017/ Retained Lands/ Parts 1 and 2 — approx. 1.24ha with 82.6m frontage on Tu -Lane St and 181 m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by wholesale business, 329 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 2). B2024-037/ Severed Lands A/ Parts 3 and 4 — approx. 0.48ha with 57 frontage on King St E and 53.4m frontage on Tu -Lane St. Presently occupied by restaurant, 104 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 4). B2024-18/ Severed Lands B/ Parts 5 and 6 — approx. 2.01 ha with 237.7m frontage on King St E and 194m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by former Landmark Cinema building, 397 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 6). In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Sportsworld Station (Fig 8a). Archaeological Assessment (Advisory) The subject lands have potential for recovery of archaeological resources, for which Regional Staff do not have a record of clearance. While clearance is not required to support this consent application, any future Planning Act application proposing physical redevelopment of the site will require the submission of the completed Archaeological Assessment and associated acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If in the Owner/Developer's possession, please provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter for our records. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 245 of 403 B2024-038 (AMENDMENT TO 132024-19) 250 Shirley Ave TRACT GERMAN COMPANY PT LOT 122 Owner: HIDAYATH HOLDINGS INC c/o Farhan Hidayath Owner/Developer: 1123766 Ontario Ltd c/o Sharon Shaw Note: B2024-19 was originally heard at August 2024 COA, and approved. This application is an amendment to the B2024-019 Decision, to include the partial discharge of the mortgage, in favour of HSBC Bank Canada (or as assigned), registered as WR1561020 on PIN 22712-0241 LT. 250 Shirley Ave will be granted a partial discharge having the same legal description as the severance transfer to be stamped over 82024- 019. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever a triangular parcel of land in the easterly rear yard having a width of 58m and an area of 0.15 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 260 Shirley Ave (owned by 1123766 Ontario Ltd). The severed lands are vacant, while the retained and benefitting lands are used for industrial purposes. The consent will facilitate a lot line adjustment that conforms more closely to the current use of both properties. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and Employment Area (Map 3). Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 246 of 403 B2024-039/040 120 Keewatin Ave - Parcel A/ Parcel B PLAN 1515 LOT 34 Owner: Furoy, Guy & Sindjic, Drago Owner/Developer: Craig Dumart The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create two lots for future semi- detached dwelling units and retain one lot for a future single detached dwelling. Being, severed lot (Parcel A) with an area of 225 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; severed lot (Parcel B) with an area of 230 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; and retained lot with an area of 783 sqm and frontage of 38.5m. The consent will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands. No other development applications are anticipated to facilitate the proposal. The subject lands are within the Delineated Built-up Area and Urban Area Boundary in the Regional Official Plan (Map 1, 2). Environmental Noise Environmental Noise Study Approval of an Environmental Noise Study will be required as a condition of consent approval. At this location, the proposed development may encounter environmental noise sources due to Lackner Boulevard (RR# 54). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, staff recommend that the Owner/Developer prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The consultant who prepares the Environmental Noise Study must be listed on the Region of Waterloo' s Approved List of Noise Consultants. The noise consultant is responsible for obtaining current information, applying professional expertise in preforming calculations, making detailed and justified recommendations, submitting the Consultant Noise Declaration and Owner/Authorized Agent Statement. The consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must contact Region of Waterloo staff for transportation data, including traffic forecasts and truck percentages, for the purpose of preparing the Environmental Noise Study. Region of Waterloo staff will provide this data within three weeks of receiving the request from the noise consultant. Please note that there is a $500 fee for the preparation of the traffic forecasts and review of the Environmental Noise Study. The noise consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must submit the transportation data request online via (https-//rmow.permitcentral.ca/Permit/GroupApply?groupld=3 ). Resubmission of any Transportation Noise Study may be subject to a $250 resubmission fee. In the event that a stationary noise source is identified as potential concerns, the Owner/Developer will be required to pay for a third party review by an external Noise Page 247 of 403 Consultant retained by the Region. The fee for this third party review is $4000 + HST. Please submit payment for the third party review along with the submitted noise study. Additional fees may apply depending on scope of review required. Airport While the site is partially located within the AZR, no issues are anticipated. Other Please note that a new access connection to Lackner Boulevard would not be permitted. Staff understand that all accesses are proposed onto Keewatin Avenue and are in agreement with that approach. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer complete the Environmental to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and if necessary, enter into an amending agreement with the Region to implement any recommendation of the Noise Study. Page 248 of 403 B2024-041 — B2024-047 217 — 233 Lancaster St E; 98 & 102 Weber St E Owner: 1678838 Ontario Inc (c/o William Reitzel) & William Reitzel/Lisa Willms Owner/Developer: UP Consulting Ltd c/o David Galbraith Consent to sever is proposed for a series of lot adjustments to residential properties fronting Lancaster St E (5 parcels in total), and to consolidate lands on 98-102 Weber St E. The Owner/Developer provides that the consents will re-establish individual lotting for several properties which have inadvertently merged on title, with lot line adjustments to facilitate the logical future build out of the block. Minor variances are also proposed to facilitate the consents. A pre -submission application in September 2023, proposed redevelopment of 98-102 Weber St E with a multi -unit residential building. Redevelopment or site alteration is not proposed through the consent applications. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Frederick Station (Fig 8a). Cultural Heritage, Archaeology, and Indigenous Engagement (Advisory) Based on a review of the Region's archaeological potential model, the subject properties may possess the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources. The Region does not require the submission of an archaeological assessment, however, the Owner/Developer should be made aware that: (1) If archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and/or, (2) If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. Environmental Noise At this location, the proposed development may encounter traffic noise sources due to Weber St E (RR#8). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, the Owner/Developer must prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the Page 249 of 403 preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The Regional process for this requirement can be provided upon request. 217-233 Lancaster St E In lieu of an Environmental Noise Study for the properties fronting on Lancaster St E, the Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: (i) "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." 98-102 Weber St E An Environmental Noise Study will be required for the properties fronting on Weber St E. The Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to complete an Environmental Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval, and to enter into an Amending agreement with the Region and/or City to implement the recommendations of the Noise Study. a) That prior to Site Plan approval the Owner/Developer agrees to complete a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Road Widening (Advisory) The following will be a condition of a future Site Plan application: At this location, the subject property has direct frontage to Regional Road 08 (Weber Street East). Weber Street East has a designated road width of 26.213m in accordance with Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). We estimate that an approximate road widening of 3.5 metres will be required along the Weber Street East frontage of the property. The Owner/Developer must engage an OLS to prepare a draft reference plan which illustrates the required road allowance and daylight triangle widening. Prior to registering the reference plan, the OLS should submit a draft copy of the plan to the Page 250 of 403 Transportation Planner for review. An electronic copy of the registered plan is to be emailed to the Transportation Planner. Further instructions will come from the Region's Legal Assistant regarding document preparation and registration. It is recommended that the OLS contact Region staff to discuss the road widening prior to preparing the Reference Plan. The land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes and must be dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance. All land dedications must be identified on the Site Plan. Please ensure the road widening lands are excluded from any future Record of Site Condition (RSC) filing for the overall property, if one is required. Regional Review Fees Regional Staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 per application. The consent review fee is required as a condition of approval for the consent application. Fees must be submitted individually to the Region, in-person, by mail, or e -payment. • Arrange EFT by emailing pwalter@regionofwaterloo.ca. Cheque or bank draft can be dropped off at Head Office lobby/security (main floor), located atl50 Frederick St, Kitchener. 15 min parking is available at the rear of the building, outside the Kitchener Public Library, at the intersection of Queen St N and Ahrens St E. Cheque or bank draft can be mailed as follows: Attention of Peggy Walter, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 150 Frederick St, Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a. That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." Page 251 of 403 3. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98- 102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Page 252 of 403 General Comments Any submission requirements may be subject to peer review, at the owner/ Owner/Developer's expense as per By-law 23-062. If any other applications are required to facilitate the application, note that fees are subject to change and additional requirements may apply. Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above - noted Regional condition clearances. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Thank you, Erica Ali RPP Planner, Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services Regional Municipality of Waterloo Page 253 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 254 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Ben Suchomel, Student Planner, 519-783-8948 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1 DATE OF REPORT: November 27, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-509 SUBJECT: Consent Application B2024-038 — 250 Shirley Avenue RECOMMENDATION: That Consent Application B2024-038 for 250 Shirley Avenue to permit the partial discharge of a Mortgage on an irregular parcel of land having a lot area of 0.15 hectares located at the rear of the subject lands, municipally known as 250 Shirley Avenue, which is proposed to be conveyed as a lot addition to the lands, municipally known as 260 Shirley Avenue, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Owner/Applicant submit the required consent review fee of $350 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 255 of 403 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to review a consent application to permit the partial discharge of a Mortgage on an irregular parcel of land which is proposed to be conveyed as a lot addition to the lands, municipally known as 260 Shirley Avenue. • 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 on the south side of Shirley Avenue between Riverbend Drive and Bingemans Centre Drive. The subject property is identified as `Industrial Employment Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Heavy Industrial Employment' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Heavy Industrial Employment Zone (EMP -3)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of the application is to permit the partial discharge of a Mortgage on an irregular parcel of land which is proposed to be conveyed as a lot addition to the lands, municipally known as 260 Shirley Avenue. The buildings on 250 and 260 Shirley Avenue are existing and no new Gross Floor Area (GFA) is proposed. Figure 1: Location Map — 250 Shirley Avenue (Outlined in Red) Page 256 of 403 �QMRz2�+a 4 {fWENEfl BY H f No• — �R! ` R ,�. FA11r PART 1, PLAN SSR - 79X1 OF PART 2. PLANs � S8p _ 2B85 GERMAN �N COMPANY N 25f1 5F17RLEY AYENflf N r,.CsgE `°L N 5 • � r� x b > SfYR D VERANC€ sa c. 1 H t PART 1, PLAN g 58R - 11313 2a, N �+.l16 H761 E PART 2, PLAN 58R • 11731 s 58R SPAR 3. PypN Figure 2: Site Plan TRACT PART 2, ` p 5 8 R - 11313 y ,a a a� u, w � Staff conducted a site visit to the subject property on November 21, 2024. Figure 3: Existing Industrial Facility at 250 Shirley Avenue on November 21, 2024 Page 257 of 403 Staff note that the subject property was previously subject to consent application B2024- 019, which had requested consent and was approved to sever the same triangular-shaped parcel of land measuring 58 metres in width and an area of 1,500 square metres (0.15 hectares) and was to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property located at 260 Shirley Avenue. Staff have noted that the reason for this application results from the fact that the applicant had not previously requested a partial discharge of the mortgage. The application currently before the Committee is now a request for the partial discharge of the mortgage. REPORT: In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments: Provincial Planning Statement (2024) and Regional Official Plan (ROP): As the proposal is to facilitate a partial discharge of a mortgage, no new lots are being created, and no physical changes to the existing development are proposed, it is Planning staff's opinion that no sections of the PPS or Regional Official Plan are specifically relevant, and that the application would conform to these plans and policies. City's Official Plan (2014) With respect to the Official Plan, no new parcels will be created through this application. The consent will not frustrate the planned function or ability of the sited to operate or appear to impede the outcome of any future planning processes. The use of properties are in conformity with the City's Urban Structure and land use designation. In considering that the intent of the proposal is to facilitate an administrative consent required by the Planning Act and that no changes are proposed to the existing development on the lands, it is Planning staff's opinion that the proposed consent does not adversely impact any policies of the Official Plan. Zoning By-law 2019-051 With respect to the City's Zoning By-law the use of the subject lands for industrial purposes is permitted in the `EMP -3' Zone and the site as developed comprehensively complies with the Zoning By-law with respect to setbacks and parking. The partial discharge of the mortgage would not negatively impact the use of the lands and no minor variances are required as a result. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns. Heritage Planning Comments: No Heritage comments or concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Engineering Division Comments: Engineering has no comment. Page 258 of 403 Parks/Operations Division Comments: There has been a previous Committee of Adjustment application B2024-019 for this property that was considered as a lot addition and no Parkland Dedication was required. In accordance with Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074, Parkland Dedication is not required for B2024-038 as no new lot is being created. Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. Region of Waterloo Comments: Regional Fee: Regional Staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350. The fee is required as a condition of final approval for the consent application. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Applicant submit the required consent review fee of $350 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Comments: GRCA has no objection to the approval of the application. The subject properties do not contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or valley slopes. The property is not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a permission from GRCA is not required. Metrolinx Comments: Metrolinx is in receipt of the amended Consent application for 250 Shirley Ave, B-2024- 038, which is to provide amendment to the B-2024-019 Decision. Be advised Metrolinx has previously provided comments on the related Consent Application B-2024-019 (attached for reference). We note the amendment has no impact on Metrolinx property (Guelph Subdivision) and does not change our previous comments. Please keep us engaged should re -development of the subject lands be contemplated, as we may have further comments/requirements. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 259 of 403 Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • 2014 Official Plan • Zoning By-law 2019-051 • DSD -2024-350 Page 260 of 403 N* Region of Waterloo VIA EMAIL Connie Owen Administrative Clerk, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Legislative Services Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8t" floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Erica Ali W. Phone: 226-751-3388 File: D20-20/24 KIT November 25, 2024 Re: Comments on Consent Applications: B2024-017, B2024-018, and B2024-037 to B2024-047 (inclusive) Committee of Adjustment Hearing December 10, 2024 City of Kitchener Please accept the following comments for the above -noted Consent applications to be considered at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing. Page 261 of 403 B2024-037 (NEW) & B2024-017 / B2024-018 62 Fourth Ave (DEFERRED) 135 Gateway Park Dr PLAN 1744 BLK 4 PT LOT 1 PLAN 1745 LOTS 8-9 PT LOT 10 PT BLK 11 Owner: 1289193 ONTARIO INC. Owner/Developer: MHBC c/o Emily Elliot & Jennifer Gaudet Note: B2024-17 and B2024-18 were originally submitted with a concept to create two lots. The applications were heard at August 2024 COA meeting, and then deferred to allow for further discussion between Owner/Developer and City. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create three lots and associated access easements. The easements would maintain current vehicular circulation and access points. No physical redevelopment is proposed. B2024-017/ Retained Lands/ Parts 1 and 2 — approx. 1.24ha with 82.6m frontage on Tu -Lane St and 181 m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by wholesale business, 329 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 2). B2024-037/ Severed Lands A/ Parts 3 and 4 — approx. 0.48ha with 57 frontage on King St E and 53.4m frontage on Tu -Lane St. Presently occupied by restaurant, 104 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 4). B2024-18/ Severed Lands B/ Parts 5 and 6 — approx. 2.01 ha with 237.7m frontage on King St E and 194m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by former Landmark Cinema building, 397 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 6). In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Sportsworld Station (Fig 8a). Archaeological Assessment (Advisory) The subject lands have potential for recovery of archaeological resources, for which Regional Staff do not have a record of clearance. While clearance is not required to support this consent application, any future Planning Act application proposing physical redevelopment of the site will require the submission of the completed Archaeological Assessment and associated acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If in the Owner/Developer's possession, please provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter for our records. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 262 of 403 B2024-038 (AMENDMENT TO 132024-19) 250 Shirley Ave TRACT GERMAN COMPANY PT LOT 122 Owner: HIDAYATH HOLDINGS INC c/o Farhan Hidayath Owner/Developer: 1123766 Ontario Ltd c/o Sharon Shaw Note: B2024-19 was originally heard at August 2024 COA, and approved. This application is an amendment to the B2024-019 Decision, to include the partial discharge of the mortgage, in favour of HSBC Bank Canada (or as assigned), registered as WR1561020 on PIN 22712-0241 LT. 250 Shirley Ave will be granted a partial discharge having the same legal description as the severance transfer to be stamped over 82024- 019. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever a triangular parcel of land in the easterly rear yard having a width of 58m and an area of 0.15 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 260 Shirley Ave (owned by 1123766 Ontario Ltd). The severed lands are vacant, while the retained and benefitting lands are used for industrial purposes. The consent will facilitate a lot line adjustment that conforms more closely to the current use of both properties. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and Employment Area (Map 3). Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 263 of 403 B2024-039/040 120 Keewatin Ave - Parcel A/ Parcel B PLAN 1515 LOT 34 Owner: Furoy, Guy & Sindjic, Drago Owner/Developer: Craig Dumart The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create two lots for future semi- detached dwelling units and retain one lot for a future single detached dwelling. Being, severed lot (Parcel A) with an area of 225 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; severed lot (Parcel B) with an area of 230 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; and retained lot with an area of 783 sqm and frontage of 38.5m. The consent will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands. No other development applications are anticipated to facilitate the proposal. The subject lands are within the Delineated Built-up Area and Urban Area Boundary in the Regional Official Plan (Map 1, 2). Environmental Noise Environmental Noise Study Approval of an Environmental Noise Study will be required as a condition of consent approval. At this location, the proposed development may encounter environmental noise sources due to Lackner Boulevard (RR# 54). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, staff recommend that the Owner/Developer prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The consultant who prepares the Environmental Noise Study must be listed on the Region of Waterloo' s Approved List of Noise Consultants. The noise consultant is responsible for obtaining current information, applying professional expertise in preforming calculations, making detailed and justified recommendations, submitting the Consultant Noise Declaration and Owner/Authorized Agent Statement. The consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must contact Region of Waterloo staff for transportation data, including traffic forecasts and truck percentages, for the purpose of preparing the Environmental Noise Study. Region of Waterloo staff will provide this data within three weeks of receiving the request from the noise consultant. Please note that there is a $500 fee for the preparation of the traffic forecasts and review of the Environmental Noise Study. The noise consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must submit the transportation data request online via (https-//rmow.permitcentral.ca/Permit/GroupApply?groupld=3 ). Resubmission of any Transportation Noise Study may be subject to a $250 resubmission fee. In the event that a stationary noise source is identified as potential concerns, the Owner/Developer will be required to pay for a third party review by an external Noise Page 264 of 403 Consultant retained by the Region. The fee for this third party review is $4000 + HST. Please submit payment for the third party review along with the submitted noise study. Additional fees may apply depending on scope of review required. Airport While the site is partially located within the AZR, no issues are anticipated. Other Please note that a new access connection to Lackner Boulevard would not be permitted. Staff understand that all accesses are proposed onto Keewatin Avenue and are in agreement with that approach. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer complete the Environmental to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and if necessary, enter into an amending agreement with the Region to implement any recommendation of the Noise Study. Page 265 of 403 B2024-041 — B2024-047 217 — 233 Lancaster St E; 98 & 102 Weber St E Owner: 1678838 Ontario Inc (c/o William Reitzel) & William Reitzel/Lisa Willms Owner/Developer: UP Consulting Ltd c/o David Galbraith Consent to sever is proposed for a series of lot adjustments to residential properties fronting Lancaster St E (5 parcels in total), and to consolidate lands on 98-102 Weber St E. The Owner/Developer provides that the consents will re-establish individual lotting for several properties which have inadvertently merged on title, with lot line adjustments to facilitate the logical future build out of the block. Minor variances are also proposed to facilitate the consents. A pre -submission application in September 2023, proposed redevelopment of 98-102 Weber St E with a multi -unit residential building. Redevelopment or site alteration is not proposed through the consent applications. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Frederick Station (Fig 8a). Cultural Heritage, Archaeology, and Indigenous Engagement (Advisory) Based on a review of the Region's archaeological potential model, the subject properties may possess the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources. The Region does not require the submission of an archaeological assessment, however, the Owner/Developer should be made aware that: (1) If archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and/or, (2) If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. Environmental Noise At this location, the proposed development may encounter traffic noise sources due to Weber St E (RR#8). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, the Owner/Developer must prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the Page 266 of 403 preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The Regional process for this requirement can be provided upon request. 217-233 Lancaster St E In lieu of an Environmental Noise Study for the properties fronting on Lancaster St E, the Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: (i) "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." 98-102 Weber St E An Environmental Noise Study will be required for the properties fronting on Weber St E. The Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to complete an Environmental Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval, and to enter into an Amending agreement with the Region and/or City to implement the recommendations of the Noise Study. a) That prior to Site Plan approval the Owner/Developer agrees to complete a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Road Widening (Advisory) The following will be a condition of a future Site Plan application: At this location, the subject property has direct frontage to Regional Road 08 (Weber Street East). Weber Street East has a designated road width of 26.213m in accordance with Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). We estimate that an approximate road widening of 3.5 metres will be required along the Weber Street East frontage of the property. The Owner/Developer must engage an OLS to prepare a draft reference plan which illustrates the required road allowance and daylight triangle widening. Prior to registering the reference plan, the OLS should submit a draft copy of the plan to the Page 267 of 403 Transportation Planner for review. An electronic copy of the registered plan is to be emailed to the Transportation Planner. Further instructions will come from the Region's Legal Assistant regarding document preparation and registration. It is recommended that the OLS contact Region staff to discuss the road widening prior to preparing the Reference Plan. The land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes and must be dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance. All land dedications must be identified on the Site Plan. Please ensure the road widening lands are excluded from any future Record of Site Condition (RSC) filing for the overall property, if one is required. Regional Review Fees Regional Staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 per application. The consent review fee is required as a condition of approval for the consent application. Fees must be submitted individually to the Region, in-person, by mail, or e -payment. • Arrange EFT by emailing pwalter@regionofwaterloo.ca. Cheque or bank draft can be dropped off at Head Office lobby/security (main floor), located atl50 Frederick St, Kitchener. 15 min parking is available at the rear of the building, outside the Kitchener Public Library, at the intersection of Queen St N and Ahrens St E. Cheque or bank draft can be mailed as follows: Attention of Peggy Walter, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 150 Frederick St, Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a. That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." Page 268 of 403 3. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98- 102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Page 269 of 403 General Comments Any submission requirements may be subject to peer review, at the owner/ Owner/Developer's expense as per By-law 23-062. If any other applications are required to facilitate the application, note that fees are subject to change and additional requirements may apply. Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above - noted Regional condition clearances. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Thank you, Erica Ali RPP Planner, Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services Regional Municipality of Waterloo Page 270 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 271 of 403 From: Farah Farogue To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Cc: Jenna Auger Subject: RE: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review — December 10, 2024 Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 3:04:47 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona Metrolinx - B 2024-019 - 250 Shirley Ave.odf Good afternoon Connie, Metrolinx is in receipt of the amended Consent application for 250 Shirley Ave, B-2024-038, which is to provide amendment to the B-2024-019 Decision. Be advised Metrolinx has previously provided comments on the related Consent Application B-2024-019 (attached for reference). We note the amendment has no impact on Metrolinx property (Guelph Subdivision) and does not change our previous comments. Please keep us engaged should re -development of the subject lands be contemplated, as we may have further comments/requirements. Best Regards, Farah Faroque (she/her) Project Analyst, Third Party Projects Review Real Estate & Development Metrolinx 10 Bay Street I Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2N8 T: 437.900.2291 From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 3:02 PM To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Subject: ACTION REQUIRED - Committee of Adjustment Application Review— December 10, 2024 Meeting EXTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. EXPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable, ou que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure. Hello, Please be advised the applications for the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 10, 2024, have been loaded and circulated through ShareFile. If you wish to make comments, provide advice, or request the imposition of any conditions on any of these applications, please provide the Committee with a written report. Please note: If you have comments, your written report must be sent to Page 272 of 403 CofA&kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, November 25, 2024. If you have no comments for the Committee's consideration, you do not need to respond. Connie Owen. Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7109 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 cofana kitchener.ca This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any attachments. Page 273 of 403 :00: METROLINX BY EMAIL ONLY TO: Committee of Adjustment, City of Kitchener Development & Approvals - 200 King Street Wet, 6t" Floor, Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 CofA@kitchener.ca DATE: August 6, 2024 RE: Adjacent Development Review: B 2024-019 250 Shirley Avenue, Kitchener, ON Consent Application Dear Committee of Adjustment, Metrolinx is in receipt of the Consent application for 250 Shirley Ave, Kitchener, to facilitate the severance of the lands, to create a new lot addition to be consolidated into the adjacent lands at 260 Shirley Ave. As circulated on July 26th, 2024, and to be heard by the Committee on August 20, 2024. Metrolinx's comments on the subject application are noted below: • The subject property is located adjacent to the Metrolinx Guelph Subdivision which carries Metrolinx's Kitchener GO Train service. The subject site is also adjacent to the Metrolinx Shirley Ave Layover Facility. GO/HEAVY-RAI L - ADVISORY COMMENTS • As the proposal is for a technical severence to faciliate lot additions and no new development is proposed, Metrolinx has no objections to the specified proposal should the committee grant approval. • Please keep Metrolinx involved as a stakeholder in the comprehensive site application (if applicable) as there may be further requirements/comments should any future development be contemplated on either the retained or severed lands. Please note that should future development be contemplated (and additional development applications to support this are submitted), the subject properties would be subject to further review/comment. At such time, further requirements may include (but is not limited to) having the Owner enter into an Adjacent Development Agreement outlining all required works to protect Metrolinx interests and registering an environmental easement for operational emissions on title. The applicant is advised that all other conditions/requirements/agreements related to the comprehensive application (if applicable) must also be fulfilled prior to approval of the requisite Site Plan. Additionally, the Owner shall be responsible for all costs for the preparation and registration of agreements/undertakings/easements/warning clauses as determined appropriate by Metrolinx, to the satisfaction of Metrolinx. Page 274 of 403 Adjacent Development Review: B 2024-019 250 Shirley Avenue, Kitchener, ON The Proponent is advised of the following: o Warning: The Applicant is advised that the subject land is located within Metrolinx's 300 metres railway corridor zone of influence and as such is advised that Metrolinx and its assigns and successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the subject land. The Applicant is further advised that there may be alterations to or expansions of the rail or other transit facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that Metrolinx or any railway entering into an agreement with Metrolinx to use the right-of-way or their assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand or alter their operations, which expansion or alteration may affect the environment of the occupants in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual lots, blocks or units. o Warning: Metrolinx and its assigns and successors in interest has or have a right- of-way and an interest in land within 300 metres from the subject land. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail or other transit facilities on such right-of- way and/or to the Shirley Ave Rail Maintenance Facility in the future including the possibility that Metrolinx or any railway entering into an agreement with Metrolinx to use the right-of-way and/or Shirley Ave Rail Maintenance Facility or their assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand or alter their operations, which expansion or alteration may affect the environment of the occupants in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual lots, blocks or units. In accordance with the Railway Safety Act and Transport Canada Guidelines, storage of certain hazardous materials near railway corridors is subject to setback regulations. Metrolinx will require the proponent to acknowledge if the storage of hazardous material is being proposed and, if so, that proper Transport Canada regulations are being applied. The below links are provided as reference: o Anhydrous Ammonia Bulk Storage Regulations (No. 0-33) o Ammonium Nitrate Storage Facilities Regulations (No. 0-36) o Flammable Liquids Bulk Storage Regulations (No. 0-32) o Liquefied Petroleum Gases Bulk Storage Regulations (No. 0-31) Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact.Farah.Faroque@metrolinx.com. Best Regards, Farah Faroque Project Analyst, Third Party Project Review Metrolinx 110 Bay Street I Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2S3 T: (437) 900-2291 :00:: METROLINK 2 Page 275 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner, 519-783-8918 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1 DATE OF REPORT: November 29, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-532 SUBJECT: Consent Applications B2024-039 and B2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue RECOMMENDATION: A. Consent Application B2024-039 — 120 Keewatin Avenue That Consent Application B2024-039 for 120 Keewatin Avenue requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a lot width on Keewatin Avenue of 7.5 metres, a lot depth of 30.5 metres and a lot area of 225 square metres, BE DEFERRED to the February 18, 2025, meeting, or earlier, to allow time to explore options to preserve the City -owned Street Tree proposed for removal. Should the Committee wish to approve the Application at this meeting, Staff recommends that Consent Application B2024-039 be approved subject to the following conditions: That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 276 of 403 4. That the Owner obtains Demolition Control Approval, in accordance with the City's Demolition Control By-law, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals. 5. That the Owner obtains a Demolition Permit, for the existing single detached dwelling proposed to be demolished, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, and removes the existing dwelling prior to deed endorsement. 6. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to deed endorsement. 8. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 9. That any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at the Owner's expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the Owner provides confirmation that the basement elevation can be drained by gravity to the street sewers to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. If this is not the case, then the owner will need to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 11. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication of $11,862.00. 12. That the Owner shall fulfil one of the following three requirements to ensure that any City -owned tree will not be impacted by the proposed development: a) Enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title to the severed and retained lands, which shall include the following: i) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, demonstrating protection and preservation of the City -owned tree that is located adjacent to the severed and/or retained lands, to the satisfaction of and approval by the City's Director Parks and Cemeteries. Said plan shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, a landscaped area and the vegetation to be preserved. No changes to the Page 277 of 403 said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. ii) The owner shall implement the Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan, prior to any tree removal, grading, servicing or the issuance of any demolition and/or building permits, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. iii) The owner shall maintain the severed and retained lands, in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, for the life of the development. OR b) Enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands, which shall include the following: i) That the owner shall prepare a Street Tree Planting Plan that shows the replacement of the City -owned tree to be removed (located adjacent to the severed and/or retained lands) with two (2) suitable trees, in accordance with the City of Kitchener Development Manual Standards, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. ii) The owner shall implement the approved Street Tree Planting Plan, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. OR c) Make arrangements regarding financial compensation for the tree to be removed, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. 13. That at the sole option of the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals, the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals, which shall include the following: a) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed and retained lands, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Manager, Site Plans, and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, servicing, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, a landscaped area and the vegetation to be preserved. If necessary, the plan shall include required mitigation and or compensation measures. b) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Manager, Site Plans. Page 278 of 403 c) The owner shall maintain the lands, in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, for the life of the development. 14. That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. 15. That the owner complete an Environmental Noise Study to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and if necessary, enter into an agreement with the Region to implement any recommendation(s) of the Environmental Noise Study. B. Consent Application B2024-040 — 120 Keewatin Avenue That Consent Consent Application B2024-040 for 120 Keewatin Avenue requesting consent to sever a parcel of land having a lot width on Keewatin Avenue of 7.5 metres, a lot depth of 31.5 metres and a lot area of 230 square metres, BE DEFERRED to the February 18, 2025 meeting, or earlier, to allow time to explore options to preserve the City -owned Street Tree proposed for removal. Should the Committee wish to approve the application at this meeting, Staff recommends that Consent Application B2024-040 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary -Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 2. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 3. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 4. That the Owner obtains Demolition Control Approval, in accordance with the City's Demolition Control By-law, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals. 5. That the Owner obtains a Demolition Permit, for the existing single detached dwelling proposed to be demolished, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, and removes the existing dwelling prior to deed endorsement. 6. That the Owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Page 279 of 403 7. That the Owner submit a Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) for the site (servicing, SWM etc.) with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, prior to deed endorsement. 8. That the Owner makes financial arrangements for the installation of any new service connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 9. That any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at the Owner's expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 10. That the Owner provides confirmation that the basement elevation can be drained by gravity to the street sewers to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. If this is not the case, then the owner will need to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 11. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park dedication of $11,862.00. 12. That the Owner shall fulfil one of the following three requirements to ensure that any City -owned tree will not be impacted by the proposed development: a) Enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title to the severed and retained lands, which shall include the following: OR i) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, demonstrating protection and preservation of the City -owned tree that is located adjacent to the severed and/or retained lands, to the satisfaction of and approval by the City's Director Parks and Cemeteries. Said plan shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, a landscaped area and the vegetation to be preserved. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. ii) The owner shall implement the Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan, prior to any tree removal, grading, servicing or the issuance of any demolition and/or building permits, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. iii) The owner shall maintain the severed and retained lands, in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, for the life of the development. Page 280 of 403 b) Enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands, which shall include the following: i) That the owner shall prepare a Street Tree Planting Plan that shows the replacement of the City -owned tree to be removed (located adjacent to the severed and/or retained lands) with two (2) suitable trees, in accordance with the City of Kitchener Development Manual Standards, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. ii) The owner shall implement the approved Street Tree Planting Plan, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. OR c) Make arrangements regarding financial compensation for the tree to be removed, to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Parks and Cemeteries. 13. That at the sole option of the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals, the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals, which shall include the following: a) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed and retained lands, in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Manager, Site Plans, and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, servicing, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, a landscaped area and the vegetation to be preserved. If necessary, the plan shall include required mitigation and or compensation measures. b) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Manager, Site Plans. c) The owner shall maintain the lands, in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan, for the life of the development. 14. That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Region of Waterloo. 15. That the owner complete an Environmental Noise Study to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and if necessary, enter into an agreement with the Region to implement any recommendation(s) of the Environmental Noise Study. Page 281 of 403 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this application is to sever 2 parcels of land to permit construction of a new semi-detached building with each dwelling in separate ownership, and construction of a new single detached dwelling on the retained lands that would replace an existing single detached dwelling that has been damaged by fire. • The key finding of this report is that the requested severances meet the criteria of the Planning Act and Provincial, Regional and City policies. • 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 on the Northwest corner of Lackner Boulevard and Keewatin Avenue. The subject property is identified as `Community Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The purpose of the application is to permit the construction of a new semi-detached building with separate ownership for each semi-detached dwelling, and to permit the construction of a new single detached dwelling. Page 282 of 403 I* 33.5nn 385ni 1.5 m Retained Lands 783 sq. m Severe Lands RES4 30,5m Parcel A Parcel 13 225 sq. A\ 230 sq. m 14.Rm y .+■ .• i 114 7 5m \7.5m 4.5,1 Keewatin Avenue Figure 3: Proposed Lot Fabric 33.5m ti 1.`irn '1� 38.5 m -.7.5m Future Single Detached Dwelling t "` Fu re Semi =Building 30 55M Det hed Footprint RES -4 Build g Footp t m ,- 4,T5 Or"' r e ax.1.0' 8 2 m .6: Keewatin Avenue Figure 4: Proposed Building Footprints Page 284 of 403 t • /� 6 Y ry� - 4 go IW 'r Figure 5: Surrounding Neighbourhood Lot Fabric REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments: Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) Staff are satisfied that the proposed infill severance applications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement in general and as it related to housing policies in Chapter 2 regarding intensification and facilitating housing options. Section 2.2 1 (b) states that Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by permitting and facilitating all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents. Regional Official Plan (ROP): ROP Urban Area policies state that the focus of the Region's future growth shall be within the Urban Area. The subject lands fall within the `Urban Area' and are designated `Built -Up Area' in the ROP. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2. D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical and community infrastructure required for the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal water and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional polices require municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density, and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic, and personal Page 285 of 403 support needs of current and future residents. Staff are satisfied that the proposed severance applications adhere to these policies and conforms to the ROP. City's Official Plan (2014) The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's Official Plan. Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies).These policies state the following: I 7.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where: a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any deficiencies; b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration lot frontages, areas, and configurations; c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration; d) the lot will have frontage on a public street; e) municipal water services are available; f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance with Policy 14.C.1.19; g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be necessary for proper and orderly development; and, h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent properties." The proposed two (2) severed and one (1) retained lots satisfy the minimum zoning requirements for lot width and lot area and the proposed dwellings adhere to the minimum required yard setback requirements. The proposed lots also reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern for this area as shown in Figure 5. There are existing semi-detached dwellings across the street on Keewatin Avenue and nearby on Georgian Street. Finally, the lots have suitable frontage on a public street, access to full municipal services, do not restrict development of adjacent properties, and do not require a plan of subdivision. As such, staff are satisfied that he proposed severances conform to the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Page 286 of 403 Zoning By-law 2019-051 The property is zoned 'Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019- 051. The property also falls within 'Appendix D — Established Neighbourhoods Area' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The proposed dwellings meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements. The proposed dwellings are also zoning compliant for minimum required yard setbacks. Planning Conclusions/Comments: With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and appropriate. Environmental Planning Comments: Standard condition for Tree Protection Plan to apply. Heritage Planning Comments: No Heritage comments or concerns. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Region of Waterloo and Area Municipalities' Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services (DGSSMS) allows only one service per lot. Separate building permit(s) will be required for the demolition of the existing building, as well as construction of the new residential buildings. Engineering Division Comments: • Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. • The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of new service connections that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to iason.brule(a)-kitchener.ca. • Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards. All works are at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building. • A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • A Development Asset Drawing (digital AutoCAD) is required for the new site infrastructure with corresponding layer names and asset information to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. • The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the building can be drained by gravity to the municipal sanitary sewer. If basement finished floor elevations do not allow for gravity drainage to the existing municipal sanitary system, the owner will have to pump the sewage to achieve gravity drainage from the property line to the municipal sanitary sewer in the right of way. Page 287 of 403 Parks/Operations Division Comments: There is an existing City -owned street tree that will be impacted by the proposed location of driveways for the semi-detached buildings on the severs lots. It is expected that all City owned tree assets will be fully protected to City standards throughout demolition and construction as per Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law. Applications B2024 -039 and B2024-040 cannot be supported by Parks and Cemeteries (Forestry) staff at this time and the proposed applications should be deferred until a revised plan is submitted that achieves full protection of City tree assets. Typically, City standards require tree protection fencing at the tree dripline + 1 m and this protection zone may be modified to accommodate site- or tree -specific requirements in accordance with the general criteria noted below. Please see https://www.kitchener.ca/en/water-and-environment/tree-bylaws-and-management.aspx. Diameter of Trunk (DBH)1 in centimetres Tree Protection Zone3 Distance from trunk measured in metres <10 1.8 10-30 12.4 31-50 13.0 51-60 13.6 61-70 I4.2 71-80 I4.8 81-90 15.4 91-1002 6.0 1. Diameter at breast height (DBH) measurement of tree trunk taken at 1.37 metres above ground. 2. For trees over 100 cm DBH, add 10 cm to the TPZ for every one centimetre of DBH. 3. Tree Protection Zone distances are to be measured from the outside edge of the tree base towards the drip line and may be limited by an existing paved surface, provided the existing paved surface remains intact throughout the construction work. The revised Severance plan should be submitted along with a Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan (TPEP) showing full protection for the existing City tree, an Arborist Report and an ISA valuation of the City -owned tree to the Director of Parks and Cemeteries. Grading and Servicing plans should accompany the submission. Please clearly indicate the location of tree trunks, dripline and offsets to proposed fencing and construction work zone. Securities for protected trees and/or compensation for any trees approved for removal may be required. Clearance from the Director of Parks and Cemeteries for the revised plan and approval of the Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan, Arborist Page 288 of 403 Report, ISA valuation and any necessary securities or compensation is required prior to Parks and Cemeteries (Forestry) support for the revised Consent Application(s). Final approval and clearance from Parks and Cemeteries (Forestry) for a Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan, Arborist Report, ISA valuation and any necessary securities or compensation will be required as a condition of deed endorsement of a revised Consent Application(s). Parkland Dedication for the creation of the new lot(s) will be required as a condition of deed endorsement for the revised Consent Application(s) and determined based on the dimensions of the lot(s) created. Parkland Dedication is calculated at 5% of the new development lots only, with a land valuation calculated by the lineal frontage and a land value of $36,080 per frontage meter with a per lot cap of $11,862.00. An estimate for the lots illustrated in the applications is $11,862.00 for each lot created. Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with these applications. Region of Waterloo Comments: The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create two lots for future semi- detached dwelling units and retain one lot for a future single detached dwelling. Being, severed lot (Parcel A) with an area of 225 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; severed lot (Parcel B) with an area of 230 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; and retained lot with an area of 783 sqm and frontage of 38.5m. The consent will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands. No other development applications are anticipated to facilitate the proposal. The subject lands are within the Delineated Built-up Area and Urban Area Boundary in the Regional Official Plan (Map 1, 2). Environmental Noise Study Approval of an Environmental Noise Study will be required as a condition of consent approval. At this location, the proposed development may encounter environmental noise sources due to Lackner Boulevard (RR# 54). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, staff recommend that the Owner/Developer prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The consultant who prepares the Environmental Noise Study must be listed on the Region of Waterloo' s Approved List of Noise Consultants. The noise consultant is responsible for obtaining current information, applying professional expertise in preforming calculations, making detailed and justified recommendations, submitting the Consultant Noise Declaration and Owner/Authorized Agent Statement. The consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must contact Region of Waterloo staff for transportation data, including traffic forecasts and truck percentages, for the purpose of preparing the Environmental Noise Study. Region of Waterloo staff will provide this data within three weeks of receiving the request from the noise consultant. Page 289 of 403 Please note that there is a $500 fee for the preparation of the traffic forecasts and review of the Environmental Noise Study. The noise consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must submit the transportation data request online via (https-//rmow.permitcentral.ca/Permit/GroupApply?groupld=3 ). Resubmission of any Environmental Noise Study may be subject to a $250 resubmission fee. In the event that a stationary noise source is identified as potential concerns, the Owner/Developer will be required to pay for a third party review by an external Noise Consultant retained by the Region. The fee for this third party review is $4000 + HST. Please submit payment for the third party review along with the submitted Environmental Noise Study. Additional fees may apply depending on scope of review required. Airport While the site is partially located within the AZR, no issues are anticipated. Other Please note that a new access connection to Lackner Boulevard would not be permitted. Staff understand that all accesses are proposed onto Keewatin Avenue and are in agreement with that approach. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350.00 per Consent application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer complete the Environmental Noise Study to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and if necessary, enter into an agreement with the Region to implement any recommendations of the Environmental Noise Study. 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 Page 290 of 403 Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024) • Regional Official Plan (ROP) • Official Plan (2014) • Zoning By-law 2019-051 ATTACHMENTS: No attachments Page 291 of 403 N* Region of Waterloo VIA EMAIL Connie Owen Administrative Clerk, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Legislative Services Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8t" floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Erica Ali W. Phone: 226-751-3388 File: D20-20/24 KIT November 25, 2024 Re: Comments on Consent Applications: B2024-017, B2024-018, and B2024-037 to B2024-047 (inclusive) Committee of Adjustment Hearing December 10, 2024 City of Kitchener Please accept the following comments for the above -noted Consent applications to be considered at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing. Page 292 of 403 B2024-037 (NEW) & B2024-017 / B2024-018 62 Fourth Ave (DEFERRED) 135 Gateway Park Dr PLAN 1744 BLK 4 PT LOT 1 PLAN 1745 LOTS 8-9 PT LOT 10 PT BLK 11 Owner: 1289193 ONTARIO INC. Owner/Developer: MHBC c/o Emily Elliot & Jennifer Gaudet Note: B2024-17 and B2024-18 were originally submitted with a concept to create two lots. The applications were heard at August 2024 COA meeting, and then deferred to allow for further discussion between Owner/Developer and City. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create three lots and associated access easements. The easements would maintain current vehicular circulation and access points. No physical redevelopment is proposed. B2024-017/ Retained Lands/ Parts 1 and 2 — approx. 1.24ha with 82.6m frontage on Tu -Lane St and 181 m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by wholesale business, 329 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 2). B2024-037/ Severed Lands A/ Parts 3 and 4 — approx. 0.48ha with 57 frontage on King St E and 53.4m frontage on Tu -Lane St. Presently occupied by restaurant, 104 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 4). B2024-18/ Severed Lands B/ Parts 5 and 6 — approx. 2.01 ha with 237.7m frontage on King St E and 194m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by former Landmark Cinema building, 397 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 6). In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Sportsworld Station (Fig 8a). Archaeological Assessment (Advisory) The subject lands have potential for recovery of archaeological resources, for which Regional Staff do not have a record of clearance. While clearance is not required to support this consent application, any future Planning Act application proposing physical redevelopment of the site will require the submission of the completed Archaeological Assessment and associated acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If in the Owner/Developer's possession, please provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter for our records. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 293 of 403 B2024-038 (AMENDMENT TO 132024-19) 250 Shirley Ave TRACT GERMAN COMPANY PT LOT 122 Owner: HIDAYATH HOLDINGS INC c/o Farhan Hidayath Owner/Developer: 1123766 Ontario Ltd c/o Sharon Shaw Note: B2024-19 was originally heard at August 2024 COA, and approved. This application is an amendment to the B2024-019 Decision, to include the partial discharge of the mortgage, in favour of HSBC Bank Canada (or as assigned), registered as WR1561020 on PIN 22712-0241 LT. 250 Shirley Ave will be granted a partial discharge having the same legal description as the severance transfer to be stamped over 82024- 019. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever a triangular parcel of land in the easterly rear yard having a width of 58m and an area of 0.15 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 260 Shirley Ave (owned by 1123766 Ontario Ltd). The severed lands are vacant, while the retained and benefitting lands are used for industrial purposes. The consent will facilitate a lot line adjustment that conforms more closely to the current use of both properties. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and Employment Area (Map 3). Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 294 of 403 B2024-039/040 120 Keewatin Ave - Parcel A/ Parcel B PLAN 1515 LOT 34 Owner: Furoy, Guy & Sindjic, Drago Owner/Developer: Craig Dumart The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create two lots for future semi- detached dwelling units and retain one lot for a future single detached dwelling. Being, severed lot (Parcel A) with an area of 225 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; severed lot (Parcel B) with an area of 230 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; and retained lot with an area of 783 sqm and frontage of 38.5m. The consent will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands. No other development applications are anticipated to facilitate the proposal. The subject lands are within the Delineated Built-up Area and Urban Area Boundary in the Regional Official Plan (Map 1, 2). Environmental Noise Environmental Noise Study Approval of an Environmental Noise Study will be required as a condition of consent approval. At this location, the proposed development may encounter environmental noise sources due to Lackner Boulevard (RR# 54). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, staff recommend that the Owner/Developer prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The consultant who prepares the Environmental Noise Study must be listed on the Region of Waterloo' s Approved List of Noise Consultants. The noise consultant is responsible for obtaining current information, applying professional expertise in preforming calculations, making detailed and justified recommendations, submitting the Consultant Noise Declaration and Owner/Authorized Agent Statement. The consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must contact Region of Waterloo staff for transportation data, including traffic forecasts and truck percentages, for the purpose of preparing the Environmental Noise Study. Region of Waterloo staff will provide this data within three weeks of receiving the request from the noise consultant. Please note that there is a $500 fee for the preparation of the traffic forecasts and review of the Environmental Noise Study. The noise consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must submit the transportation data request online via (https-//rmow.permitcentral.ca/Permit/GroupApply?groupld=3 ). Resubmission of any Transportation Noise Study may be subject to a $250 resubmission fee. In the event that a stationary noise source is identified as potential concerns, the Owner/Developer will be required to pay for a third party review by an external Noise Page 295 of 403 Consultant retained by the Region. The fee for this third party review is $4000 + HST. Please submit payment for the third party review along with the submitted noise study. Additional fees may apply depending on scope of review required. Airport While the site is partially located within the AZR, no issues are anticipated. Other Please note that a new access connection to Lackner Boulevard would not be permitted. Staff understand that all accesses are proposed onto Keewatin Avenue and are in agreement with that approach. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer complete the Environmental to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and if necessary, enter into an amending agreement with the Region to implement any recommendation of the Noise Study. Page 296 of 403 B2024-041 — B2024-047 217 — 233 Lancaster St E; 98 & 102 Weber St E Owner: 1678838 Ontario Inc (c/o William Reitzel) & William Reitzel/Lisa Willms Owner/Developer: UP Consulting Ltd c/o David Galbraith Consent to sever is proposed for a series of lot adjustments to residential properties fronting Lancaster St E (5 parcels in total), and to consolidate lands on 98-102 Weber St E. The Owner/Developer provides that the consents will re-establish individual lotting for several properties which have inadvertently merged on title, with lot line adjustments to facilitate the logical future build out of the block. Minor variances are also proposed to facilitate the consents. A pre -submission application in September 2023, proposed redevelopment of 98-102 Weber St E with a multi -unit residential building. Redevelopment or site alteration is not proposed through the consent applications. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Frederick Station (Fig 8a). Cultural Heritage, Archaeology, and Indigenous Engagement (Advisory) Based on a review of the Region's archaeological potential model, the subject properties may possess the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources. The Region does not require the submission of an archaeological assessment, however, the Owner/Developer should be made aware that: (1) If archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and/or, (2) If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. Environmental Noise At this location, the proposed development may encounter traffic noise sources due to Weber St E (RR#8). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, the Owner/Developer must prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the Page 297 of 403 preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The Regional process for this requirement can be provided upon request. 217-233 Lancaster St E In lieu of an Environmental Noise Study for the properties fronting on Lancaster St E, the Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: (i) "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." 98-102 Weber St E An Environmental Noise Study will be required for the properties fronting on Weber St E. The Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to complete an Environmental Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval, and to enter into an Amending agreement with the Region and/or City to implement the recommendations of the Noise Study. a) That prior to Site Plan approval the Owner/Developer agrees to complete a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Road Widening (Advisory) The following will be a condition of a future Site Plan application: At this location, the subject property has direct frontage to Regional Road 08 (Weber Street East). Weber Street East has a designated road width of 26.213m in accordance with Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). We estimate that an approximate road widening of 3.5 metres will be required along the Weber Street East frontage of the property. The Owner/Developer must engage an OLS to prepare a draft reference plan which illustrates the required road allowance and daylight triangle widening. Prior to registering the reference plan, the OLS should submit a draft copy of the plan to the Page 298 of 403 Transportation Planner for review. An electronic copy of the registered plan is to be emailed to the Transportation Planner. Further instructions will come from the Region's Legal Assistant regarding document preparation and registration. It is recommended that the OLS contact Region staff to discuss the road widening prior to preparing the Reference Plan. The land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes and must be dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance. All land dedications must be identified on the Site Plan. Please ensure the road widening lands are excluded from any future Record of Site Condition (RSC) filing for the overall property, if one is required. Regional Review Fees Regional Staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 per application. The consent review fee is required as a condition of approval for the consent application. Fees must be submitted individually to the Region, in-person, by mail, or e -payment. • Arrange EFT by emailing pwalter@regionofwaterloo.ca. Cheque or bank draft can be dropped off at Head Office lobby/security (main floor), located atl50 Frederick St, Kitchener. 15 min parking is available at the rear of the building, outside the Kitchener Public Library, at the intersection of Queen St N and Ahrens St E. Cheque or bank draft can be mailed as follows: Attention of Peggy Walter, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 150 Frederick St, Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a. That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." Page 299 of 403 3. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98- 102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Page 300 of 403 General Comments Any submission requirements may be subject to peer review, at the owner/ Owner/Developer's expense as per By-law 23-062. If any other applications are required to facilitate the application, note that fees are subject to change and additional requirements may apply. Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above - noted Regional condition clearances. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Thank you, Erica Ali RPP Planner, Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services Regional Municipality of Waterloo Page 301 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 302 of 403 Staff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals 519-783-8913 PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, 519-783-8915 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: REPORT NO.: December 3, 2024 DSD -2024-531 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Applications A2024-114 - A2024-119 Consent Applications B2024-041 - B2024-047 Addresses: 98-102 Weber St. E. and 217-233 Lancaster St. E. Owner of 98-102 Weber St. E. and 221-233 Lancaster St. E: 1678838 Ontario Inc. Owner of 217 Lancaster Street East: William Reitzel and Lisa Willms RECOMMENDATION: A. Minor Variance Application A2024-114 (98-102 Weber Street East; Retained Lot) Zoning By-law 85-1 That Minor Variance Application A2024-114 for 98-102 Weber Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 5.12.1 to permit two (2) single detached dwellings on a single lot, whereas no more than one (1) is permitted; ii) Section 5.3 to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; iii) Section 5.6A.4 d) to permit a front yard porch exceeding 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level to have a setback of 1.6 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; iv) Section 5.22 g) to provide no bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; v) Section 39.2.1 to permit a front yard setback of 2.8 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required; and *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 303 of 403 vi) Section 5.6A.1 a) and c) to permit a balcony to be supported by the ground and setback 1.6 metres from the front lot line, whereas a balcony is not permitted to be supported by the ground and a 3 metre setback is required; to facilitate the legalization of two existing dwellings [i.e., 1 Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units at 98 Weber Street East and 1 Single Detached Dwelling with 1 Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) at 102 Weber Street East] on the Retained Lot, as determined though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Retained Parcel — 98, 102 Weber Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD - 2024 -531, BE APPROVED. Zoning By-law 2029-051 That Minor Variance Application A2024-114 for 98-102 Weber Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 4.12 a), to permit two single detached dwellings on a single lot, whereas no more than one is permitted; ii) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a front yard setback of 2.8 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; iii) Section 4.14.7 b), to permit a porch to be set back 1.6 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required, and to allow a height exceeding 1 metre above the ground; iv) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to provide no Class C bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; v) Section 4.14.2 b) and d) to permit a balcony to be supported by the ground to be setback 1.6 metres from the street line, whereas a balcony may not be supported by the ground and requires a setback of 3 metres; and vi) Section 4.14.10 b) to permit steps that exceed 0.6 metres above grade to be located 1.6 metres from a street line, whereas 3 metres is required; to facilitate the legalization of two existing dwellings [i.e., 1 Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units at 98 Weber Street East and 1 Single Detached Dwelling with 1 Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) at 102 Weber Street East] on the Retained Lot, as determined though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Retained Parcel — 98, 102 Weber Street East attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED subject to the following: This Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-065 (For PMTSA Lands) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this decision. Page 304 of 403 B. Minor Variance Application A2024-115 (217 Lancaster Street East) Zoning By-law 85-1 That Minor Variance Application A2024-115 for 217 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 39.2.1 to permit a rear yard setback of 7.3 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; ii) Section 5.3 to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; iii) Section 5.22 g) to provide no bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; iv) Section 5.6A.1 a) and c) to permit a balcony to be supported by the ground and set back 0.75 metres from the front lot line, whereas a balcony is not permitted to be supported from the ground and a 3.0 metre setback is required; v) Section 39.2.1 to permit a minimum front yard setback of 4.2 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; vi) Section 39.2.1 to permit a minimum existing side yard setback of 1.9 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; vii) Section 39.2.1 to permit a minimum lot width of 11.4 metres, whereas 15 metres is required for a corner lot; and viii) Section 5.6A.4 a) to permit a porch to be set back from the front lot line 0.75 metres, whereas 3 metres is required; to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Lot Line Adjustment— 217 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED. Zoning By-law 2019-051 That Minor Variance Application A2024-115 for 217 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a corner lot width of 11.4 metres, whereas 12.8 metres is required; ii) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a front yard setback of 4.2 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; iii) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a rear yard setback of 7.3 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; iv) Section 4.14.7 b) to permit a porch to be set back 0.75 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required; v) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to provide no Class C bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; Page 305 of 403 vi) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit an exterior side yard Setback of 1.9 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; vii) Section 4.14.2 d) to permit a balcony to be set back 0.75 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required; and viii) Section 5,4, Table 5-3, to permit driveway width of 45% of the lot width whereas only 40% is permitted; to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Lot Line Adjustment— 217 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following: This Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-065 (For PMTSA Lands) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this decision. C. Consent Application B2024-041 (Lot Addition from 98-102 Weber Street East to 217 Lancaster Street East) That Consent Application B2024-041 requesting consent to sever a triangular- shaped parcel of land having an approximate area of 36.8 square metres, from the lands addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the lands addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, generally in accordance with the drawing entitled Lot Line Addition A attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A2024-115 receive final approval. 2. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary - Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 4. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 5. That prior to deed endorsement, the Owner shall: a) Submit a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan (TP/EP), in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, for the Retained Lands (i.e., 98 - Page 306 of 403 102 Weber Street East), to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals. Said TP/EP shall include, among other matters specified in Section 3.4 and Appendix `C' of Kitchener's Tree Management Policy, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, a landscaped area and the vegetation to be preserved, removed and/or impacted. If necessary, the plan shall include required mitigation and or compensation measures. b) Enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals, which shall include the following: i) The Owner shall implement the above referenced Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan (TP/EP) prior to any demolition, grading, servicing, tree removal or the issuance of building permits — whichever comes first; ii) No changes to the said TP/EP shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director, Development and Housing Approvals; and iii) The Owner shall maintain the lands in accordance with the approved TP/EP, for the life of the development. 6. That the Owner shall: a) complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing dwelling proposed to be retained on the severed and/or retained parcel of land, prepared by a qualified person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. b) A Building Permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. 7. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 8. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. Page 307 of 403 Alternatively, if in the opinion of the City Solicitor, an Application Consolidation Parcels cannot be registered on title, the Owner shall take such alternative measures and provide such alternative documents to ensure that the severed parcel and receiving parcel are not separately encumbered, conveyed, or otherwise transferred from one another and shall remain in common ownership, at the discretion of and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 9. That, prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 10. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures: a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East, and 233 Lancaster Street East: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. " b) That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. D. Minor Variance Application A2024-116 (221 Lancaster Street East) Zoning By-law 85-1 That Minor Variance Application A2024-116 for 221 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 5.3 to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is be permitted; ii) Section 5.6A.4 a) to permit a porch to have a setback of 0 metres from the front lot line, whereas 3.0 metres is required; and iii) Section 39.2.1 to permit a front yard setback of 1.9 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; Page 308 of 403 to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Severed Lot 1— 221 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024- 531, BE APPROVED. Zoning By-law 2019-051 That Minor Variance Application A2024-116 for 221 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a front yard setback of 1.9 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; and ii) Section 4.14.7 b) to permit a porch to be set back 0 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required; to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Severed Lot 1— 221 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024- 531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following: This Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-065 (For PMTSA Lands) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this decision. E. Consent Application B2024-042 (Creation of a New Lot — 221 Lancaster Street East That Consent Application B2024-042 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land from the lands addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East, having an approximate lot width of 11.2 metres on Lancaster Street East, a depth of 21.8 metres and an area of 205.4 square metres, generally in accordance with the drawing entitled Severed Lot 1— 221 Lancaster Street East attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A2024-116 receive final approval. 2. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary - Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 4. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or Page 309 of 403 .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 5. That the owner shall: a) complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing dwelling proposed to be retained on the severed and/or retained parcel of land, prepared by a qualified person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. b) A Building Permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. 6. That, prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 7. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures: a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East, and 233 Lancaster Street East: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. " 8. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Page 310 of 403 F. Minor Variance Application A2024-117 (225 Lancaster Street East) Zoning By-law 85-1 That Minor Variance Application A2024-117 for 225 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 5.3 to permit obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; ii) Section 6.1.1.1 (b) (iii) to permit two (2) driveway accesses, whereas only one (1) driveway with one access point is permitted; iii) Section 5.22 g) to provide no bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; iv) Section 45.3 to permit a front yard setback of 1.6 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; and v) Section 5.6.1 b) to permit steps less than 0.6 metres above grade to be located 0 metres from the closest lot line, whereas 0.5 metres is required; to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 3 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Severed Lot 2 — 225 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED. Zoning By-law 2019-051 That Minor Variance Application A2024-117 for 225 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a front yard setback of 1.6 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; ii) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to provide no Class C bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; iii) Section 5.4 (b) to permit two (2) driveway accesses, whereas only one (1) access point from each street or lane is permitted; and iv) Section 4.14.10 a) to permit steps to be located 0 metres from a lot line, whereas 0.5 metres is required; to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 3 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Severed Lot 2 — 225 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following: This Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-065 (For PMTSA Lands) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this decision. Page 311 of 403 G. Consent Application B2024-043 (Creation of a New Lot — 225 Lancaster Street East That Consent Application B2024-043 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land from the lands addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East, having an approximate lot width of 17.8 metres on Lancaster Street East, a depth of 22.7 metres and an area of 397.3 square metres, generally in accordance with the drawing entitled Severed Lot 2 — 225 Lancaster Street East attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A2024-117 receive final approval. 2. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary - Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 4. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 5. That the owner shall: a) complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing dwelling proposed to be retained on the severed and/or retained parcel of land, prepared by a qualified person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. b) A Building Permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. 6. That, prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 7. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures: Page 312 of 403 a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East, and 233 Lancaster Street East: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. " 8. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. H. Minor Variance Application A2024-118 (229 Lancaster Street East) Zoning By-law 85-1 That Minor Variance Application A2024-118 for 229 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 39.2.1 to permit a rear yard setback of 4.0 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required; and ii) Section 5.3 to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Severed Lot 3 — 229 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024- 531, BE APPROVED. Zoning By-law 2029-051 That Minor Variance Application A2024-118 for 229 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a rear yard setback of 4 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required. to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — Page 313 of 403 B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Severed Lot 3 — 229 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024- 531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following: This Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-065 (For PMTSA Lands) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this decision. I. Consent Application B2024-044 (Creation of a New Lot — 229 Lancaster Street East That Consent Application B2024-044 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land from the lands addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East, having an approximate lot width of 12.8 metres on Lancaster Street East, a depth of 26.6 metres and an area of 292.8 square metres, generally in accordance with the drawing entitled Severed Lot 3 — 229 Lancaster Street East attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A2024-118 receive final approval. 2. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary - Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 4. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 5. That the owner shall: a) complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing dwelling proposed to be retained on the severed and/or retained parcel of land, prepared by a qualified person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. b) A Building Permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. Page 314 of 403 6. That, prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 7. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures: a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East, and 233 Lancaster Street East: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. " 8. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. J. Minor Variance Application A2024-119 (233 Lancaster Street East) Zoning By-law 85-1 That Minor Variance Application A2024-119 for 233 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 5.3 to permit obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; ii) Section 5.6A.4 a) to permit a porch to be set back from the front lot line 0 metres, whereas 3.0 metres is required; iii) Section 5.22.3 f) to provide 6% of front yard landscaped area, whereas 20% is required; iv) Section 5.22 g) to provide no bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; v) Section 39.2.1 to permit a front yard setback of 1.8 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; and vi) Section 39.2.1 to permit a side yard setback of 0 metres, whereas 1.2 metres is required; Page 315 of 403 to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Severed Lot 4 — 233 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED. Zoning By-law 2019-051 That Minor Variance Application A2024-119 for 233 Lancaster Street East requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a front yard setback of 1.8 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; ii) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit an interior side yard Setback of 0 metres, whereas 1.2 metres is required; iii) Section 4.14.7 b), to permit a porch to be set back 0 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required; iv) Section 4.12.2 h) to provide 6% front yard landscaped area, whereas 20% is required; and v) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to provide no Class C bicycle parking (0 spaces) whereas 2 spaces are required; to facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-047, generally in accordance with the drawings entitled Severance Sketch — Severed Lot 4 — 233 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following: This Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-065 (For PMTSA Lands) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this decision. K. Consent Application B2024-045 (Creation of a New Lot — 233 Lancaster Street East That Consent Application B2024-045 requesting consent to sever a parcel of land from the lands addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East, having an approximate lot width of 14.3 metres on Lancaster Street East, a depth of 21.7 metres and an area of 375.2 square metres, generally in accordance with the drawing entitled Severed Lot 4 — 233 Lancaster Street East attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A2024-119 receive final approval. 2. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary - Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. Page 316 of 403 3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 4. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 5. That the existing utility shed / trailer be removed or relocated, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager, Development Approvals. 6. That the owner shall: a) complete a Building Code Assessment for the existing dwelling proposed to be retained on the severed and/or retained parcel of land, prepared by a qualified person, to confirm that the proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line complies with the Ontario Building Code, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. The assessment shall address items such as, but not limited to, spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face, and shall include recommendations such as closing in of openings pending spatial separation calculation results. b) A Building Permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the Building Code Assessment. 7. That, prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 8. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures: a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East, and 233 Lancaster Street East: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. " 9. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Page 317 of 403 Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. L. Consent Application B2024-046 (Lot Addition from 217 Lancaster Street East to 221 Lancaster Street East) That Consent Application B2024-046 requesting consent to sever a triangular- shaped parcel of land having an approximate area of 34.7 square metres, from the lands addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the lands addressed as 221 Lancaster Street East, generally in accordance with the drawing entitled Lot Line Addition B attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A2024-116 receive final approval. 2. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary - Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 4. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 5. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 6. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. Alternatively, if in the opinion of the City Solicitor, an Application Consolidation Parcels cannot be registered on title, the Owner shall take such alternative measures and provide such alternative documents to ensure that Page 318 of 403 the severed parcel and receiving parcel are not separately encumbered, conveyed, or otherwise transferred from one another and shall remain in common ownership, at the discretion of and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 7. That, prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 8. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures: a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East, and 233 Lancaster Street East: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. " 9. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. M. Consent Application B2024-047 (Lot Addition from 217 Lancaster Street East to 98-102 Weber Street East) That Consent Application B2024-047 requesting consent to sever an irregular- shaped parcel of land having an approximate area of 316.9 square metres, from the lands addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the lands addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East, generally in accordance with the drawing entitled Lot Line Addition C attached to Report DSD -2024-531, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A2024-115 receive final approval. 2. That the Owner's solicitor shall provide draft transfer documents and associated fees for the Certificate of Official to the satisfaction of the Secretary - Treasurer and City Solicitor, if required. 3. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to Page 319 of 403 verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 4. That the owner provides a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in PDF and either .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as two full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 5. That the existing utility shed / trailer be removed or relocated, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager, Development Approvals. 6. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 7. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. Alternatively, if in the opinion of the City Solicitor, an Application Consolidation Parcels cannot be registered on title, the Owner shall take such alternative measures and provide such alternative documents to ensure that the severed parcel and receiving parcel are not separately encumbered, conveyed, or otherwise transferred from one another and shall remain in common ownership, at the discretion of and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 8. That, prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00 to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 9. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures: a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East, and 233 Lancaster Street East: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of Page 320 of 403 the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. " 10. That the Owner shall enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend approval with conditions of the proposed Consent Applications, to allow the creation of new lots, for existing detached dwellings, on lands comprised of multiple properties that had inadvertently merged on title, and to recommend approval of associated Minor Variance Applications, to recognize existing dwellings on the resultant lots. • 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: Figure 1: Photo of existing dwelling at 217 Lancaster Street East Page 321 of 403 Figure 2: Photo of existing dwelling at 221 Lancaster Street East i. , _ Figure 3: Photo of existing dwelling at 225 Lancaster Street East Page 322 of 403 Figure 4: Photo of existing dwelling at 229 Lancaster Street East Figure 5: Photo of existing dwelling at 233 Lancaster Street East Page 323 of 403 i Figure 6: Photo of existing dwelling at 98 Weber Street East SUflPORT IHE ° Figure 7: Photo of existing dwelling at 102 Weber Street East Page 324 of 403 The subject properties, addressed as 98-102 Weber St. E. and 217-233 Lancaster St. E., are located in the Central Frederick Planning Community, near the intersection of Lancaster Street East and Weber Street East. Staff understands from the applicant that the properties addressed as 221-233 Lancaster Street East and 98-102 Weber Street East have inadvertently merged on title (they are considered one parcel for Planning Act purposes) and are under the same ownership (i.e., 1678838 Ontario Inc.). These properties contain 6 Single Detached Dwellings, some containing Additional Dwelling Units (Attached). According to MPAC, the dwellings were constructed in approximately the following years: Address Approx. Construction Date 221 Lancaster Street East 1855 225 Lancaster Street East 1880 229 Lancaster Street East 1880 233 Lancaster Street East 1880 98 Weber Street East 1880 102 Weber Street East 1895 Table 1 — Construction Dates of Dwellings on Subject Properties The property addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East remains separate from the larger parcel and is owned by William Reitzel and Lisa Willms, noting that staff understands William Reitzel is a part owner of the numbered company that owns the larger parcel. This property contains a Single Detached Dwelling with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached). According to MPAC, the dwelling was constructed in approximately 1833. Additional Dwelling Unit information for each of the subject properties is noted below: Table 2 — Additional Dwelling Units Together, the parcels have approximately 78 metres of frontage on Lancaster Street East, 37 metres of frontage on Weber Street East, and 6.3 metres of frontage on Irvin Street. Page 325 of 403 Number of Additional Dwelling Units within Each Single Detached Dwelling 217 Lancaster Street 2 ADUs (Attached) East 221 Lancaster Street 0 East 225 Lancaster Street 3 ADUs (Attached) East 229 Lancaster Street 0 East 233 Lancaster Street 2 ADUs (Attached) East 98 Weber Street East 0 102 Weber Street 1 ADU (Attached) East Table 2 — Additional Dwelling Units Together, the parcels have approximately 78 metres of frontage on Lancaster Street East, 37 metres of frontage on Weber Street East, and 6.3 metres of frontage on Irvin Street. Page 325 of 403 Under the City's Official Plan, the Urban Structure of all subject properties is Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA). The subject properties are located within Growing Together Study Area. The Official Plan designations of the subject properties have been updated via this study, rendering all properties `Strategic Growth Area B'. While the Zoning By-law Amendment that emerged from this study was approved by Council this year (i.e., Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065), it was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal and remains under appeal. Accordingly, staff is `dual -testing' under this Council -approved, appealed By-law and the older Zoning By-law 85-1. Accordingly, the zoning for the subject properties is as follows: Table 3 — Current Zoning The `CR -2' Zone allows a Single Detached Dwelling existing as of the date that the CR -2 Zone was applied to the land, as a permitted use. Any additions or alterations must be in accordance with Section 39.2.1 (R-5 Zone). Special Regulation Provision 115R states that the maximum floor space ratio shall be 2.33, though this regulation does not apply to the subject applications (i.e., there is no FSR requirement for Single Detached Dwellings). Special Use Provision 125U permits Restaurants and prohibits private clubs or lodges, though this regulation does not apply to the subject applications either. The SGA -2 Zone allows Single Detached Dwelling (SDD) as a permitted use, subject to Additional Regulation (3), which states that SDD "Shall only be permitted on a lot containing an existing single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, or street townhouse dwelling." Up to three Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) are permitted within a SDD in accordance with Sections 4.12.1 and 4.12.2. Accordingly, both zoning by-laws permit the proposed uses, subject to all applicable regulations. Page 326 of 403 Zoning By-law 85-1 Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065 (Council -Approved, Appealed) 217 Lancaster Street Residential Five Zone (R-5) Strategic Growth Area Two East Zone (SGA -2) 221 Lancaster Street Commercial Residential Two Strategic Growth Area Two East Zone (CR -2), 115R, 125U Zone (SGA -2) 225 Lancaster Street Commercial Residential Two Strategic Growth Area Two East Zone (CR -2), 115R, 125U Zone (SGA -2) 229 Lancaster Street Commercial Residential Two Strategic Growth Area Two East Zone (CR -2), 115R, 125U Zone (SGA -2) 233 Lancaster Street Commercial Residential Two Strategic Growth Area Two East Zone (CR -2), 115R, 125U Zone (SGA -2) 98 Weber Street East Commercial Residential Two Strategic Growth Area Two Zone (CR -2), 115R, 125U Zone (SGA -2) 102 Weber Street Commercial Residential Two Strategic Growth Area Two East Zone (CR -2), 115R, 125U Zone (SGA -2) Table 3 — Current Zoning The `CR -2' Zone allows a Single Detached Dwelling existing as of the date that the CR -2 Zone was applied to the land, as a permitted use. Any additions or alterations must be in accordance with Section 39.2.1 (R-5 Zone). Special Regulation Provision 115R states that the maximum floor space ratio shall be 2.33, though this regulation does not apply to the subject applications (i.e., there is no FSR requirement for Single Detached Dwellings). Special Use Provision 125U permits Restaurants and prohibits private clubs or lodges, though this regulation does not apply to the subject applications either. The SGA -2 Zone allows Single Detached Dwelling (SDD) as a permitted use, subject to Additional Regulation (3), which states that SDD "Shall only be permitted on a lot containing an existing single detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, or street townhouse dwelling." Up to three Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) are permitted within a SDD in accordance with Sections 4.12.1 and 4.12.2. Accordingly, both zoning by-laws permit the proposed uses, subject to all applicable regulations. Page 326 of 403 Purpose of Subiect Applications The purpose of the 7 proposed Consent Applications is to create new lots for each dwelling (except the dwellings on 98 Weber Street East and 102 Weber Street East, which would continue to be located on one property. A lotting fabric is proposed with the intent of creating an intuitive layout that seeks to reduce the number of variances, while also legalizing existing Single Detached Dwellings. Notwithstanding, 6 Minor Variance Applications are also proposed, to provide relief for the existing dwellings and new lots, where necessary — noting that no development is proposed at this time. See below report for more detail. REPORT: General Minor Variance Comments: Since the Zoning By-law Amendment that emerged from the Growing Together Study is Council -approved and has been appealed to the OLT, for all Minor Variance Applications under Zoning By-law 2019-051, staff recommends a condition that the Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-065 (For PMTSA Lands) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34 (30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this decision. Planning Comments Minor Variance Application A2024-114 (98-102 Weber Street East; Retained Lot): To facilitate the legalization of two existing dwellings [i.e., 1 Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units at 98 Weber Street East and 1 Single Detached Dwelling with 1 Additional Dwelling Unit (Attached) at 102 Weber Street East] on the Retained Lot, the applicant is requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 5.12.1 to permit two (2) single detached dwellings on a single lot, whereas no more than one (1) is permitted; ii) Section 5.3 to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; iii) Section 5.6A.4 d) to permit a front yard porch exceeding 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level to have a setback of 1.6 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; iv) Section 5.22 g) to provide no bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; v) Section 39.2.1 to permit front yard setback of 2.8 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required; and vi) Section 5.6 A.1 a) and c) to permit a balcony to be supported by the ground and set back 1.6 metres from the front lot line, whereas a balcony is not permitted to be supported by the ground and a 3 metre setback is required. The applicant is also requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: Page 327 of 403 i) Section 4.12 a), to permit two single detached dwellings on a single lot, whereas no more than one is permitted; ii) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a front yard setback of 2.8 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; iii) Section 4.14.7 b), to permit a porch to be set back 1.6 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required, and to allow a height exceeding 1 metre above the ground; iv) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to provide no Class C bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; v) Section 4.14.2 b) and d) to permit a balcony to be supported by the ground and set back 1.6 metres from the street line, whereas a balcony may not be supported by the ground and requires a setback of 3 metres; and vi) Section 4.14.10 b) to permit steps that exceed 0.6 metres above grade to be located 1.6 metres from a street line, whereas 3 metres is required. It should be noted that the variances apply to the existing buildings, which have existed for 129 — 191 years. No new uses, development, or changes to the physical layout / buildings are proposed, at this time. Most of the requested variances have the effect of legalizing an existing situation (e.g., driveway visibility triangle obstructions; front yard setbacks for buildings, porches, balconies, steps). In other cases, a technical deficiency with a newly enacted zoning regulation, and consequently the need for relief, was created simply by the request to re-establish lot lines that intended to `undo' the inadvertent merging of parcels (e.g., bicycle parking). Moreover, the City has no record of By-law Enforcement complaints related to the deficiencies, for which variances are being sought. Each Minor Variance Application would facilitate an associated Consent Application(s), to create the lot. In general, the associated Consent Applications propose revised property lines that will establish a new, logical lot fabric that appropriately responds the existing buildings, and facilities that are necessary to support those land uses (e.g., parking areas). The revised property lines even improve the `fit' of the buildings and facilities on the re- established lots, in many cases reducing the number of variances that would otherwise be required (though this is not possible in some cases due to, for example, the distance between existing buildings and existing lot lines). For example, 221 Lancaster Street East currently has a side yard setback of only 0.5 metres. However, revised property lines would ensure a setback of 1.2 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. As another example, 225 Lancaster Street East previously (prior to the inadvertent merger) had a side yard setback of only 0.6 metres and the driveway for 211 Lancaster Street partially encroached into it. However, revised property lines would ensure that both properties have parking located appropriately on their respective lots and would ensure a side yard setback of 3.6 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. Staff has reviewed the specific variances for this property and is satisfied that they meet the general intent of the Official Plan and the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances would facilitate the continuation of the existing uses which is important since the subject properties are locate in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), noting that Policy 11.C.1.35 seeks to ensure that development applications in a CHL ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. Page 328 of 403 The variances would also facilitate Consent Applications to allow each existing dwelling to be located on its own lot (with the exception of 98-102 Weber Street East), as intended prior to the inadvertent merger. Moreover, the variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land, noting that the uses are existing, and the buildings were constructed in the 19th century and have continued to the present day, without recorded concerns. Lastly, staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor since they are not anticipated to have unacceptably adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or rights-of-way. Planning Comments Minor Variance Application A2024-115 (217 Lancaster Street East): To facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024- 047, the applicant is requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 39.2.1 to permit a rear yard setback of 7.3 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; ii) Section 5.3 to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; iii) Section 5.22 g) to provide no bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; iv) Section 5.6A.1 a) and c) to permit a balcony to be supported by the ground and set back 0.75 metres from the front lot line, whereas a balcony is not permitted to be supported from the ground and a 3 metre setback is required; v) Section 39.2.1 to permit a minimum front yard setback of 4.2 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; vi) Section 39.2.1 to permit a minimum existing side yard setback of 1.9 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; vii) Section 39.2.1 to permit a minimum lot width of 11.4 metres, whereas 15 metres is required for a corner lot; and viii) Section 5.6 A.4 a) to permit a porch to be set back from the front lot line 0.75 metres, whereas 3 metres is required. The applicant is also requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a corner lot width of 11.4 metres, whereas 12.8 metres is required; ii) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2 ,to permit a front yard setback of 4.2 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; iii) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a rear yard setback of 7.3 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; iv) Section 4.14.7,b), to permit a porch to be set back 0.75 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required; v) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to provide no Class C bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; vi) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2 to permit an exterior side yard setback of 1.9 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; vii) Section 4.14.2 d) to permit a balcony to be set back 0.75 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required; and Page 329 of 403 viii) Section 5.4,Table 5-3, to permit a driveway width of 45% of the lot width whereas only 40% is permitted. It should be noted that the variances apply to the existing buildings, which have existed for 129 — 191 years. No new uses, development, or changes to the physical layout / buildings are proposed, at this time. Most of the requested variances have the effect of legalizing an existing situation (e.g., driveway visibility triangle obstructions; front yard setbacks for buildings, porches, balconies, steps). In other cases, a technical deficiency with a newly enacted zoning regulation, and consequently the need for relief, was created simply by the request to re-establish lot lines that intended to `undo' the inadvertent merging of parcels (e.g., bicycle parking). Moreover, the City has no record of By-law Enforcement complaints related to the deficiencies, for which variances are being sought. Each Minor Variance Application would facilitate an associated Consent Application(s), to create the lot. In general, the associated Consent Applications propose revised property lines that will establish a new, logical lot fabric that appropriately responds the existing buildings, and facilities that are necessary to support those land uses (e.g., parking areas). The revised property lines even improve the `fit' of the buildings and facilities on the re- established lots, in many cases reducing the number of variances that would otherwise be required (though this is not possible in some cases due to, for example, the distance between existing buildings and existing lot lines). For example, 221 Lancaster Street East currently has a side yard setback of only 0.5 metres. However, revised property lines would ensure a setback of 1.2 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. As another example, 225 Lancaster Street East previously (prior to the inadvertent merger) had a side yard setback of only 0.6 metres and the driveway for 211 Lancaster Street partially encroached into it. However, revised property lines would ensure that both properties have parking located appropriately on their respective lots and would ensure a side yard setback of 3.6 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. Staff has reviewed the specific variances for this property and is satisfied that they meet the general intent of the Official Plan and the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances would facilitate the continuation of the existing uses which is important since the subject properties are locate in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), noting that Policy 11.C.1.35 seeks to ensure that development applications in a CHL ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. The variances would also facilitate Consent Applications to allow each existing dwelling to be located on its own lot (with the exception of 98-102 Weber Street East), as intended prior to the inadvertent merger. Moreover, the variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land, noting that the uses are existing, and the buildings were constructed in the 19th century and have continued to the present day, without recorded concerns. Lastly, staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor since they are not anticipated to have unacceptably adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or rights-of-way. Plannina Comments Minor Variance Aa,nlication A2024-116 (221 Lancaster Street East).- To ast): To facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024- 047, the applicant is requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: Page 330 of 403 i) Section 5.3 to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is be permitted; ii) Section 5.6A.4 a) to permit a porch to have a setback of 0 metres from the front lot line, whereas 3.0 metres is required; and iii) Section 39.2.1 to permit a front yard setback of 1.9 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required. The applicant is also requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a front yard setback of 1.9 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; and ii) Section 4.14.7 b) to permit a porch to be set back 0 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required. It should be noted that the variances apply to the existing buildings, which have existed for 129 — 191 years. No new uses, development, or changes to the physical layout / buildings are proposed, at this time. Most of the requested variances have the effect of legalizing an existing situation (e.g., driveway visibility triangle obstructions; front yard setbacks for buildings, porches, balconies, steps). In other cases, a technical deficiency with a newly enacted zoning regulation, and consequently the need for relief, was created simply by the request to re-establish lot lines that intended to `undo' the inadvertent merging of parcels (e.g., bicycle parking). Moreover, the City has no record of By-law Enforcement complaints related to the deficiencies, for which variances are being sought. Each Minor Variance Application would facilitate an associated Consent Application(s), to create the lot. In general, the associated Consent Applications propose revised property lines that will establish a new, logical lot fabric that appropriately responds the existing buildings, and facilities that are necessary to support those land uses (e.g., parking areas). The revised property lines even improve the `fit' of the buildings and facilities on the re- established lots, in many cases reducing the number of variances that would otherwise be required (though this is not possible in some cases due to, for example, the distance between existing buildings and existing lot lines). For example, 221 Lancaster Street East currently has a side yard setback of only 0.5 metres. However, revised property lines would ensure a setback of 1.2 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. As another example, 225 Lancaster Street East previously (prior to the inadvertent merger) had a side yard setback of only 0.6 metres and the driveway for 211 Lancaster Street partially encroached into it. However, revised property lines would ensure that both properties have parking located appropriately on their respective lots and would ensure a side yard setback of 3.6 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. Staff has reviewed the specific variances for this property and is satisfied that they meet the general intent of the Official Plan and the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances would facilitate the continuation of the existing uses which is important since the subject properties are locate in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), noting that Policy 11.C.1.35 seeks to ensure that development applications in a CHL ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. Page 331 of 403 The variances would also facilitate Consent Applications to allow each existing dwelling to be located on its own lot (with the exception of 98-102 Weber Street East), as intended prior to the inadvertent merger. Moreover, the variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land, noting that the uses are existing, and the buildings were constructed in the 19th century and have continued to the present day, without recorded concerns. Lastly, staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor since they are not anticipated to have unacceptably adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or rights-of-way. Planning Comments Minor Variance Application A2024-117 (225 Lancaster Street East): To facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 3 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024- 047, the applicant is requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 5.3 to permit obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangles, whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; ii) Section 6.1.1.1 (b)(iii) to permit two (2) driveway accesses, whereas only one (1) driveway with one access point is permitted; i) Section 5.22 g) to provide no bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; ii) Section 45.3 to permit a front yard setback of 1.6 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; and iii) Section 5.6.1 b) to permit steps less than 0.6 metres above grade to be located 0 metres from the closest lot line, whereas 0.5 metres is required. The applicant is also requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2. to permit a front yard setback of 1.6 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; ii) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to provide no Class C bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; iii) Section 5.4 (b) to provide two (2) driveway accesses, whereas only one (1) access point from each street or lane is permitted; and iv) Section 4.14.10 a) to permit steps to be located 0 metres from a lot line, whereas 0.5 metres is required. It should be noted that the variances apply to the existing buildings, which have existed for 129 — 191 years. No new uses, development, or changes to the physical layout / buildings are proposed, at this time. Most of the requested variances have the effect of legalizing an existing situation (e.g., driveway visibility triangle obstructions; front yard setbacks for buildings, porches, balconies, steps). In other cases, a technical deficiency with a newly enacted zoning regulation, and consequently the need for relief, was created simply by the request to re-establish lot lines that intended to `undo' the inadvertent merging of parcels (e.g., bicycle parking). Moreover, the City has no record of By-law Enforcement complaints related to the deficiencies, for which variances are being sought. Each Minor Variance Application would facilitate an associated Consent Application(s), to create the lot. In general, the associated Consent Applications propose revised property Page 332 of 403 lines that will establish a new, logical lot fabric that appropriately responds the existing buildings, and facilities that are necessary to support those land uses (e.g., parking areas). The revised property lines even improve the `fit' of the buildings and facilities on the re- established lots, in many cases reducing the number of variances that would otherwise be required (though this is not possible in some cases due to, for example, the distance between existing buildings and existing lot lines). For example, 221 Lancaster Street East currently has a side yard setback of only 0.5 metres. However, revised property lines would ensure a setback of 1.2 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. As another example, 225 Lancaster Street East previously (prior to the inadvertent merger) had a side yard setback of only 0.6 metres and the driveway for 211 Lancaster Street partially encroached into it. However, revised property lines would ensure that both properties have parking located appropriately on their respective lots and would ensure a side yard setback of 3.6 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. Staff has reviewed the specific variances for this property and is satisfied that they meet the general intent of the Official Plan and the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances would facilitate the continuation of the existing uses which is important since the subject properties are locate in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), noting that Policy 11.C.1.35 seeks to ensure that development applications in a CHL ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. The variances would also facilitate Consent Applications to allow each existing dwelling to be located on its own lot (with the exception of 98-102 Weber Street East), as intended prior to the inadvertent merger. Moreover, the variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land, noting that the uses are existing, and the buildings were constructed in the 19th century and have continued to the present day, without recorded concerns. Lastly, staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor since they are not anticipated to have unacceptably adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or rights-of-way. Planninq Comments Minor Variance Application A2024-118 (229 Lancaster Street East): To facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling without Additional Dwelling Units on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024- 047, the applicant is requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 39.2.1 to permit a rear yard setback of 4 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; and ii) Section 5.3 to permit an obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted. The applicant is also requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a rear yard setback of 4 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required. It should be noted that the variances apply to the existing buildings, which have existed for 129 — 191 years. No new uses, development, or changes to the physical layout / buildings are proposed, at this time. Most of the requested variances have the effect of legalizing an Page 333 of 403 existing situation (e.g., driveway visibility triangle obstructions; front yard setbacks for buildings, porches, balconies, steps). In other cases, a technical deficiency with a newly enacted zoning regulation, and consequently the need for relief, was created simply by the request to re-establish lot lines that intended to `undo' the inadvertent merging of parcels (e.g., bicycle parking). Moreover, the City has no record of By-law Enforcement complaints related to the deficiencies, for which variances are being sought. Each Minor Variance Application would facilitate an associated Consent Application(s), to create the lot. In general, the associated Consent Applications propose revised property lines that will establish a new, logical lot fabric that appropriately responds the existing buildings, and facilities that are necessary to support those land uses (e.g., parking areas). The revised property lines even improve the `fit' of the buildings and facilities on the re- established lots, in many cases reducing the number of variances that would otherwise be required (though this is not possible in some cases due to, for example, the distance between existing buildings and existing lot lines). For example, 221 Lancaster Street East currently has a side yard setback of only 0.5 metres. However, revised property lines would ensure a setback of 1.2 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. As another example, 225 Lancaster Street East previously (prior to the inadvertent merger) had a side yard setback of only 0.6 metres and the driveway for 211 Lancaster Street partially encroached into it. However, revised property lines would ensure that both properties have parking located appropriately on their respective lots and would ensure a side yard setback of 3.6 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. Staff has reviewed the specific variances for this property and is satisfied that they meet the general intent of the Official Plan and the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances would facilitate the continuation of the existing uses which is important since the subject properties are locate in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), noting that Policy 11.C.1.35 seeks to ensure that development applications in a CHL ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. The variances would also facilitate Consent Applications to allow each existing dwelling to be located on its own lot (with the exception of 98-102 Weber Street East), as intended prior to the inadvertent merger. Moreover, the variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land, noting that the uses are existing, and the buildings were constructed in the 19th century and have continued to the present day, without recorded concerns. Lastly, staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor since they are not anticipated to have unacceptably adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or rights-of-way. Planning Comments Minor Variance Application A2024-119 (233 Lancaster Street East): To facilitate legalization of an existing Single Detached Dwelling with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) on the lot established though Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024- 047, the applicant is requesting relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 85-1: i) Section 5.3 to permit obstructed Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVT), whereas no obstruction to visibility is permitted; ii) Section 5.6A.4 a) to permit a porch to be set back from the front lot line 0 metres, whereas 3 metres is required; Page 334 of 403 iii) Section 5.22.3 f) to provide 6% of front yard landscaped area, whereas 20% is required; iv) Section 5.22 g) to provide no bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas two (2) spaces are required; i) Section 39.2.1 to permit a front yard setback of 1.8 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; and ii) Section 39.2.1 to permit a side yard setback of 0 metres, whereas 1.2 metres is required. The applicant is also requesting the following relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-065: i) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit a front yard setback of 1.8 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; ii) Section 6.3.1, Table 6-2, to permit an interior side yard setback of 0 metres, whereas 1.2 metres is required; iii) Section 4.14.7 b), to allow a porch to be set back 0 metres from the street line, whereas 3 metres is required; iv) Section 4.12.2 h) to provide 6% front yard landscaped area, whereas 20% is required; and v) Section 5.6, Table 5-5, to provide no Class C bicycle parking (0 spaces), whereas 2 spaces are required. It should be noted that the variances apply to the existing buildings, which have existed for 129 — 191 years. No new uses, development, or changes to the physical layout / buildings are proposed, at this time. Most of the requested variances have the effect of legalizing an existing situation (e.g., driveway visibility triangle obstructions; front yard setbacks for buildings, porches, balconies, steps). In other cases, a technical deficiency with a newly enacted zoning regulation, and consequently the need for relief, was created simply by the request to re-establish lot lines that intended to `undo' the inadvertent merging of parcels (e.g., bicycle parking). Moreover, the City has no record of By-law Enforcement complaints related to the deficiencies, for which variances are being sought. Each Minor Variance Application would facilitate an associated Consent Application(s), to create the lot. In general, the associated Consent Applications propose revised property lines that will establish a new, logical lot fabric that appropriately responds the existing buildings, and facilities that are necessary to support those land uses (e.g., parking areas). The revised property lines even improve the `fit' of the buildings and facilities on the re- established lots, in many cases reducing the number of variances that would otherwise be required (though this is not possible in some cases due to, for example, the distance between existing buildings and existing lot lines). For example, 221 Lancaster Street East currently has a side yard setback of only 0.5 metres. However, revised property lines would ensure a setback of 1.2 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. As another example, 225 Lancaster Street East previously (prior to the inadvertent merger) had a side yard setback of only 0.6 metres and the driveway for 211 Lancaster Street partially encroached into it. However, revised property lines would ensure that both properties have parking located appropriately on their respective lots and would ensure a side yard setback of 3.6 metres, which is consistent with modern standards. Page 335 of 403 Staff has reviewed the specific variances for this property and is satisfied that they meet the general intent of the Official Plan and the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances would facilitate the continuation of the existing uses which is important since the subject properties are locate in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), noting that Policy 11.C.1.35 seeks to ensure that development applications in a CHL ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. The variances would also facilitate Consent Applications to allow each existing dwelling to be located on its own lot (with the exception of 98-102 Weber Street East), as intended prior to the inadvertent merger. Moreover, the variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land, noting that the uses are existing, and the buildings were constructed in the 19th century and have continued to the present day, without recorded concerns. Lastly, staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor since they are not anticipated to have unacceptably adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or rights-of-way. Planning Comments regarding Consent Applications B2024-041 — B2024-045: In considering all the relevant Provincial legislation, Regional and City policies and regulations, Planning staff offer the following comments: Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2024: The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024 is a streamlined province -wide land use planning policy framework that 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 would come into force on October 20, 2024. 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 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 is satisfied that the consent requests are consistent with the PPS 2024. Regional Official Plan (ROP): The subject properties are located in the Urban Area, Delineated Built -Up Area, and Frederick Station Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the Regional Official Plan (ROP), as Page 336 of 403 amended by ROPA 6. Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. Growth is directed to the Built -Up Area of the Region to make better use of infrastructure that can assist in transitioning the Region into an energy efficient, low carbon community. Furthermore, intensification within the Built -Up Area assists the gradual transition of existing neighbourhoods within the Region into 15 -minute neighbourhoods that are compact, well connected places that allow all people of all ages and abilities to access the needs for daily living within 15 minutes by walking, cycling or rolling. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. Section 2.D.2 of Regional Official Plan Amendment 6 (ROPA 6) establishes policies for development within Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). The policies within this section support the provision of increased mixed-use densities that are transit supportive. The minimum density target established for the Frederick Station MTSA is 160 people and jobs/hectare. The proposed development conforms the ROP, since the proposal does not negatively impact the achievement of the planned intensification target and permits existing Single Detached Dwelling Units, many with Additional Dwelling Units (Attached) to continue to exist. Moreover, the Retained Lot (98-102 Weber Street East) may lend itself to future redevelopment, noting that the parcel would be large enough to support significant intensification under the City's Strategic Growth Area B land use designation and SGA -2 Zone. Regional staff has advised that it has no objections to the proposal, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St. E., 221 Lancaster St. E., 225 Lancaster St. E., 229 Lancaster St. E., and 233 Lancaster St. E.: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." b) That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber St. E. to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Page 337 of 403 In this regard, the requested Consents conform to the Regional Official Plan. City's Official Plan (2014): All subject properties are identified as 'Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA)' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and are designated 'Strategic Growth Area B' on Map 4 — Protected Major Transit Station Areas and Urban Growth Centre in the City's Official Plan. PMTSA policy 3.C.2.17 states that, "The planned function of Protected Major Transit Station Areas, in order to support transit and rapid transit, is to: a) provide a focus for accommodating growth through development to support existing and planned transit and rapid transit service levels; b) provide connectivity of various modes of transportation to the transit system; c) achieve a mix of residential, office (including major office), institutional (including major institutional) and commercial development (including retail commercial centres), wherever appropriate; and, d) have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit -oriented." It must be noted that the policy also states that, "Policies a) through d) above should not be interpreted to mean that every property located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area is necessarily appropriate for major intensification." Although the Strategic Growth Area B designation is intended to accommodate significant intensification, it should be note that "Some areas within the Strategic Growth Area B land use designation contain smaller lots and/or existing Low Rise Residential Uses. While significant intensification is planned for these lands, the implementing zoning may restrict building heights as an interim measure to ensure orderly development through a development application." Furthermore, Heritage Planning staff has identified that all subject properties are within the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). Policy 11.C.1.35 states that "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." Section 17.E.20.5 of the Official Plan implements Section 51 of the Planning Act and contains policies regarding infill development and lot creation (Consent Policies).These policies state the following: "17.E.20.5 Applications for consent to create new lots will only be granted where: a) the lots comply with the policies of this Plan, any Community Plan and/or Secondary Plan, and that the lots are in conformity with the Zoning By-law, or a minor variance has been granted to correct any deficiencies; Page 338 of 403 b) the lots reflect the general scale and character of the established development pattern of surrounding lands by taking into consideration lot frontages, areas, and configurations; c) all of the criteria for plan of subdivision are given due consideration; d) the lot will have frontage on a public street; e) municipal water services are available; f) municipal sanitary services are available except in accordance with Policy 14.C.1.19; g) a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium has been deemed not to be necessary for proper and orderly development; and, h) the lot(s) will not restrict the ultimate development of adjacent properties." In regard to the above Official Plan policies and direction, the proposed Consents conform to the Official Plan by facilitating the continued use of the existing 19th century dwellings, ensuring consistency with the Cultural Heritage Landscape and compatibility and transition policies. Zonina By-law 85-1 and Zonina By-law 2019-051. as Amended: The subject properties are zoned as outlined in Table 3, above. The proposed land uses are permitted under both Zoning By-laws. As discussed above, the accompanying Minor Variance Applications remedy all zoning deficiencies. Staff is supportive of all variances necessary to facilitate that subject Consent Applications. Planning Conclusions/Comments: With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the resultant lots are desirable and appropriate. The requested Consents would establish a compatible and improved lotting pattern from the one that existed prior to the merger of the lots into one property. The accompanying variances would remedy the zoning deficiencies for each Consent Application. All resultant lots will have frontage on a public street with access to full municipal services. Moreover, the proposal would facilitate the creation of a lot for future redevelopment (i.e., 98-102 Weber Street East). All Consent applications represent good planning. Environmental Planning Comments: As advised in pre -submission consultation (PSC) records in both 2022 and 2023, the treed nature of the subject lands requires the submission of a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan under the City's Council -adopted Tree Management Policy. An incomplete version was submitted in support of this application contrary to PSC advice. Page 339 of 403 The standard condition with respect to applications on lands with significant trees and/or vegetation should be imposed, i.e. that the Landowner / applicant enter into an agreement to complete / implement a TPEP as part of a complete application at the latest AND / OR prior to any demolition, grading, servicing, tree removal or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Heritage Planning Comments: 98-102 Weber Street East.- The ast:The property municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber St. E is located in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015. Amendment No. 49 to The Official Plan (Growing Together) was approved by Council in 2024. Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amendments to the Official Plan policies, new development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape must ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. Characteristics of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood include common design elements such as attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, and porches. There are no heritage concerns with the requested variances as they are required only to recognize the existing location of the building. 217 Lancaster Street East: The property municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St W is located in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015. Amendment No. 49 to The Official Plan (Growing Together) was approved by Council in 2024. Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amendments to the Official Plan policies, new development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape must ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. Characteristics of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood include common design elements such as attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, and porches. There are no heritage concerns with the requested variances as they are required only to recognize the existing location of the building. It should also be noted that the subject land was reviewed for the Kitchener Inventory and determined to have no cultural heritage value or status under the Ontario Heritage Act in 2014. 221 Lancaster Street East: The property municipally addressed as 221 Lancaster St W is located in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015. Amendment No. 49 to The Official Plan (Growing Together) was approved by Council in 2024. Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amendments to the Official Plan policies, new development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape must ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. Characteristics of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood include common design elements such as attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, and porches. There are no heritage concerns with the requested variances as they are required only to recognize the existing location of the building. Page 340 of 403 225 Lancaster Street East: The property municipally addressed as 225 Lancaster St W is located in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015. Amendment No. 49 to The Official Plan (Growing Together) was approved by Council in 2024. Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amendments to the Official Plan policies, new development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape must ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. Characteristics of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood include common design elements such as attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, and porches. There are no heritage concerns with the requested variances as they are required only to recognize the existing location of the building. It should also be noted that the subject land was reviewed for the Kitchener Inventory and determined to have no cultural heritage value or status under the Ontario Heritage Act in 2014. 229 Lancaster Street East.- The ast: The property municipally addressed as 229 Lancaster St W is located in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015. Amendment No. 49 to The Official Plan (Growing Together) was approved by Council in 2024. Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amendments to the Official Plan policies, new development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape must ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. Characteristics of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood include common design elements such as attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, and porches. There are no heritage concerns with the requested variances as they are required only to recognize the existing location of the building. 233 Lancaster Street East: The property municipally addressed as 233 Lancaster St W is located in the Central Fredrick Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), per the Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and approved by Council in 2015. Amendment No. 49 to The Official Plan (Growing Together) was approved by Council in 2024. Through Section 11.C.1.35 of the amendments to the Official Plan policies, new development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape must ensure compatibility and preservation of heritage inventory. Characteristics of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood include common design elements such as attic gabled roofs, decorative trim, brick construction, and porches. There are no heritage concerns with the requested variances as they are required only to recognize the existing location of the building. Building Division Comments: 82024-114 - B2024-119.- The 2024-119:The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. 82024-041- 82024-045: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent provided for the retained land: Page 341 of 403 1) A qualified designer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and any of the building adjacent to this new property line shall addresses such items as: Spatial separation of existing buildings' wall face to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Closing in of openings may be required, pending spatial separation calculation results. 2) A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades that maybe required by the building code assessment. B2024-046 — B2024-047: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. Engineering Division Comments: All Subiect Applications: • Engineering has no comment. Parks/Operations Division Comments: All Subiect Applications: • No City owned trees will be impacted by any of the proposed Minor Variances. • Park Planning concerns including required park dedication will be addressed through a future redevelopment application and taken as cash in lieu of land. • There is existing City infrastructure within the 98-102 Weber Street East lands that is not currently covered by an easement and future Committee of Adjustment approval to establish this easement will be required through redevelopment applications. Transportation Planning Comments: A2024-114 — A2024-119: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. B2024-041 — B 2024-045: Should a redevelopment of an induvial or grouped properties occur in the future along the Lancaster Street East frontages, the properties will be subject to a road widening of approximately 4m. The road widening is part of the City of Kitchener's Official Plan, having an ultimate road width of 20m along Lancaster Street East between Krug Street and Victoria Street North. B2024-046 — B2024-047: Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. Region of Waterloo Comments: A2024-114 — A2024-119: No concerns B2024-041 — B2024-047: Consent to sever is proposed for a series of lot adjustments to residential properties fronting Lancaster Street East (5 parcels in total), and to consolidate lands on 98-102 Weber Street East. The Owner/Developer provides that the consents will re-establish individual lotting for several properties which have inadvertently merged on title, with lot line adjustments to facilitate the logical future build out of the block. Minor variances are Page 342 of 403 also proposed to facilitate the consents. Redevelopment or site alteration is not proposed through the consent applications. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Frederick Station (Fig 8a). Cultural Heritage, Archaeology, and Indigenous Engagement (Advisory) Based on a review of the Region's archaeological potential model, the subject properties may possess the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources. The Region does not require the submission of an archaeological assessment; however, the Owner/Developer should be made aware that: 1) If archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and/or, 2) If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. Environmental Noise At this location, the proposed development may encounter traffic noise sources due to Weber Street East (RR#8). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, the Owner/Developer must prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC - 300 requirements. The Regional process for this requirement can be provided upon request. 217-233 Lancaster Street East In lieu of an Environmental Noise Study for the properties fronting on Lancaster Street East, the Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East and 233 Lancaster Street East. Page 343 of 403 "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." 98-102 Weber Street East An Environmental Noise Study will be required for the properties fronting on Weber Street East. The Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to complete an Environmental Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval, and to enter into an Amending agreement with the Region and/or City to implement the recommendations of the Noise Study. 1) That prior to Site Plan approval the Owner/Developer agrees to complete a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Road Widening (Advisory) The following will be a condition of a future Site Plan application: At this location, the subject property has direct frontage to Regional Road 08 (Weber Street East). Weber Street East has a designated road width of 26.213m in accordance with Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). We estimate that an approximate road widening of 3.5 metres will be required along the Weber Street East frontage of the property. The Owner/Developer must engage an OLS to prepare a draft reference plan which illustrates the required road allowance and daylight triangle widening. Prior to registering the reference plan, the OLS should submit a draft copy of the plan to the Transportation Planner for review. An electronic copy of the registered plan is to be emailed to the Transportation Planner. Further instructions will come from the Region's Legal Assistant regarding document preparation and registration. It is recommended that the OLS contact Region staff to discuss the road widening prior to preparing the Reference Plan. The land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes and must be dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance. All land dedications must be identified on the Site Plan. Please ensure the road widening lands are excluded from any future Record of Site Condition (RSC) filing for the overall property if one is required. Regional Review Fees Regional Staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 per application. The consent review fee is required as a condition of approval for the consent application. Fees must be submitted individually to the Region, in-person, by mail, or e -payment. Page 344 of 403 Arrange EFT by emailing pwalter@regionofwaterloo.ca. Cheque or bank draft can be dropped off at Head Office lobby/security (main floor), located atl50 Frederick St, Kitchener. 15 min parking is available at the rear of the building, outside the Kitchener Public Library, at the intersection of Queen St N and Ahrens Street East. Cheque or bank draft can be mailed as follows: Attention of Peggy Walter, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 150 Frederick St, Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s).- 1) ondition(s): 1) That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2) That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. i) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster Street East, 221 Lancaster Street East, 225 Lancaster Street East, 229 Lancaster Street East, and 233 Lancaster Street East: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." 3) That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber Street East to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Grand River Conservation Authority Comments: All Subiect Applications: GRCA has no objection to the approval of the applications. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 345 of 403 Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act • Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 • Regional Official Plan (ROP) • Official Plan (2014), as amended though the Growing Together Study • Zoning By-law 85-1 and Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended through the Growing Together Study ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Drawings Submitted with All Subject Applications Page 346 of 403 CEDAR STREET N Page 347 of 403 =NW Om ZX ��ma z G) ns horn Page 347 of 403 1220 P!N 225LOT 0O 3 a i 5.25 z 3.e4 N�''Z'20'E 12.05 4Z. a 46.72 r 6.10 W 2 Z i O jrA m em 'jI O N UD n blv ry OO + I ry wA r p �A .0/�/ Wu.Illm fTI ppp 1 ?S � n � J 2 I� w6 �f a wo ofo ?>y.2 N 00'6 �[ I! Z cyl Q1 �4 9 �Dr9?zs o� a fah 9s !u Z7 ctin "� o+ • N.CW w�� /ry °' p"rPye r r Rl cmn � aeo a 12,67 � � T',� •-. ee aj @> a v M1 r*1 N33It'F0i ti fTl Qi A ccl)� ao'e tre.a i� 2 ops ° Ao °ti` Vb op � °$ p r� lfl S K ttr N N I L ✓ `Tp y4 `�� i vm m uITI ^�0 pN0 r oho V2 A a 8 o� ap � mM am JAZ mN mN 52 ym p G� i/r�i]sry�y>l'T1Q/m�A T y z o so �� b9 y9 yE 4n 9?] Z�C�i/)Z7Ct):[7.�G�—IV/AZ uoQ "o Do v` S r � 2 n U)��(nW(n� � r Q M000 OFr mo , y a T> $ m mo an =,;5-\ m TI m m m. m Z Q� A amo>(-)o �p o � MZ� �M�Z Z� C �d L" z NP 9 �iti 3 rt m Wmrn f�Tl Nr� 3z 3z Sr7 N oLA - �'^ " o my r A m Z-Iv a 8 - Z z 0 Page 348 of 403 217 Lancaster St E 451.2 m' j l r 98, 102 Weber St E & 2,233.7 m' (gross) 1 Lot 1 221 Lancaster St E 240.1 m' 1 AN Lot 2 225 Lancaster St E 397.2 m2 / Lot 3 / 229 Lancaster St E / 292,8 m2 A /• / Lot 4 233 Lancaster St E f 375 2 m2 rn ! i—•_. fs4 r iicd + ---3—.9 m Road Widening` L. ---•—•---..—.—.—.—.—.J 36.9 WEBER STREET E -•- Existing Lot Lines Proposed Lor. 96, 102 Weber St. E. 22333 m' FINAL LOT FABRIC 2 221 L217 Lancaste & E. 451.2 m° acaster SLE 240_! m° 98,102 Weber Si E & 217-233 Lancaster St E 225 Lancaster SLE. 397.2 m' 229 Lancaster St. E. 2928 m' City of Kitchener 233Lan_wster St. E,. - 375.2 m° DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1-500 d ......_. _--..._ TOTAL 3,9902 m' PROJECT, 2070 Reitzet DRAWN BY: GFE Page 349 of 403 Page 350 of 403 D a a m ' T ao m CL i N p ' Cr d \ I10� 46.7 o m rn o N ID I ?�nmm � �zxm i� co ex 00 1 V I 145 Q a @ o_ Sd 1 C� Cll # mmw r77 m CON�RE7E _ -O u O 1.6 1 DmnOo '-0m2 10 x o p I i� 1B.B a� \ 3?o ♦ \ y \ t3 \ \ ♦♦♦ 01 �'% 9�\p�\yaySZ r h z n w cn a N �O wOx � ma 3 3 nnm n- <�iv pp :S a ux F. �4° A £ � z 4 °��33D�n�3x x.m � .. n s m w w a S G 4j ? � � a 6 � iY o I o 0 zr - aa3 an 00m ../ > I'TI ma=°gam Q�� NSca �o. ntn,C rn m y- a�.ry m n s a N3 ? miu iu bw3 �+r to 6 0 m m 3 3 T N o c Page 350 of 403 Page 351 of 403 D a m a m �. ' T s o N 0 0 i j C Q CD 46.7 (n 84 m I ' o �c cRi 0 1 z�n� �=xm i 1 N m .r. > m 19.5 W W ioio c 19 1 61 Sar 3 sn- cn CD wli,,,�W sly _ _ 7i vmmw to WIC A N V mP - — m MN�REiE m�$ o V —O cm00# mf 1.6 1z,XAN 559— 1� { m r{ I x p ?.8 {{ o � 1 s/ \ 18.8 \\ t10 \ y \ t3 \ \ 3 ovN x ? 3 E 3 p5m-rrm 4w Zo U1 Cn m n W x= Qa3.�o n jja3 3 [n m' m m 0 >4 eo N o u, Df C.Q Cl) 0 11 1 m� m �r:nman-� as m moo° 03 ,yc/± El wJRtn Cl) (D 3 'm (D (D ^ n n w 3 3 3 3 "' a (D(D Z �n 0W m .IO [O N _ N >7 m 3 0 3 3 NW m 3 jet 3 b a 3 0 T. c Page 351 of 403 Page 352 of 403 m x m x CD o� r X61 � Vyn CL y (D x N D g 3flCD w a CDn n � :3 9,CD moo. CL o � o O p m N r\ l J o' 7.3 OC7 Us N�mto# _.4 6 >p,dp i .a 6 ro m OrC7Av n O m CZT`m m m m I W m N 217 I N `2C':G^. I �y�0N fl o A 2�0 ZOCm-` m a 6 a a � I n N N a v `tea O I sig m � �I v � o nN I Kneen o I � I r DpZ�N l -T- �+ ZA (A N a boon `'nm o31 m 3 n o _ n N c 3 A ♦uA, m n y m _ m F S / T a 5zs C y D o a m 3 p q 3 m ED _ N 3, - F a o p c ��ino Nin u. cn ro CD CD C D,. 30 �a3 P ren -2m 9 7 2 Of n (/) 2 0 R' o mN ung 3 Z e aE3 � �3 3 3 3 3 3 4°'Da Nsij p m y m Page 352 of 403 Page 353 of 403 m x m x CD o� r X61 � Vyn N y (D X D g 3flCD r w ro � m n � sq -0 o. CL 0 0 O �s4 r Er �} 4 7.3� ➢o Gn +mm D �q7 i O ]' r C7 N n c'r CZ71M m z m �m I W 111 � m I N r------- --- 21.3 TrNG CST i 1 71 rr O N > c o Q 7 m r z cm 0 5° a E m i Amo sa I aaN ,9 �1---------------- FF� m� v � �I I a nN mneen I � ire m 4 I Z o m U1 W m In oSj �= { m m m C a 3 s o 2 a� n n m rt m ro m¢ v a. �- a� 5' m O Of O N -_ El � X STI D m ED ro v a cn D o y 3 0OiJ IT N Uw aN 5 3 3 3 =• 'ro (p (D C \\// z 3 N N Y< } C Q Page 353 of 403 Page 354 of 403 z 000.-�> o Q� CD ! rn CD Q ! ?� x CX 0 ! O ri N g3 N.) 0 0 >a) CL _ W CO Ll21.3 � N Div mc�c� Cn I Q N m ! z�cm1 G)±0.3 U)i.�, 5.5 6/0, N j m m ! 2.0 --1 r rn ! ! STAIRS ! m Ccn Ln r�ON ! STA�R3 0 zc"' m m ! G) ! srnlRs m �� m o to to -n cnm8� m m m 3< t d 3 �' m S 3 A� 2) o oma. -jo �' �, ° as 3d�sN�� I`3v3x oz oo° N N(Ji `�s� c xx�- °a. ro d m �C _�� Q� rC - a ZT m Ms� (D (n p � EF 3 p 3 CDO A —' �33 .K•= N a 3 3 a 3. 3 q Y c Z -10 c�A a A 5n Ca � ` , /� W @ m � m IT1 p m U Q N II I N N P. -.-� a N oO O N V O 3° Page 354 of 403 Page 355 of 403 4J Fri (fj L ' ' I I7 I z O 1 Q I �ID a M� Q .� Q I x x 0 C? mv0 M CL WM �`° �" 21.3 ^' D __ ___ Z mmti ��.� D N D mr��N cn 0'A �Dz0'1' j �I zcm G) E: ±0.3 3 1.9 U) I I� 5.5 ^' B.0 m I m I STAIRS ll o` AN C fll � N r O b STAIRS GT m I z cm I II STAIRS maz®Ez „-sssZo'"cn 0 o^ 2 m a EL U? <�- a a� . ��YQ�o m.� a<33 C732Na m �on N) a53�F d�R•3-N 3 mo a �M rrn�m -��rC� 3� a m m� 3E, m ro cn Q v' a N N N N L 3 3 a 3 3© /\ D CD �`\^1�,// @ 3 9 3 3 a Q T Z 0 N � O N i N tti Nw [p ,� � � � � • 1J � N � m m 3N ry a Page 355 of 403 22.0 Iv STAIRS O >�p zDcm' G) K -< r i ma ?< X r O O D Q' 5.5 6.0 r7 n r- N D��o _0 STAIRS , -.,r- c m Z X STA9F�S v 00 STAIRS A I N _-- —22.7 i i t D N co C'n / z ;F --< ±0.7 1.6 w I] Q� 5.6 . N ro ±0.7 1.6 Page 356 of 403 > w 'b w� vZ.0 31m mr m T zMAYl 3 to a N ro o om° a�m 'b 3. d bmbg'3w°°�'�3x oz 5U N �� N Nf/i m a�� o -- V a w m 3� Xm� _o ma mq r ° m�a ED m N eo� m as b�3 A 'o_ 3 ➢ ° aE a'� in aE3 PY3 w 0 > CD i 3 3 3. 3 qc m 0 to M NNmwryn Page 356 of 403 1s w + D DN z 5.5 r Qqr o CCA �n 1 mrd©^ Cl)V/ 1 m au �mcnm m -a -x�x�vm C zQcmN r G) y 3 oa 63w� .N-. 1iv @ (D r h i/ n wm 33333 a o r - w r W O N m m 8 0 0 m V + 0 O O � �l X m .r. i o a r N � w 5.5 6.0 —s C) C)9.0 3 }y STAVRS �1 Oit r r r O rN o r + W Q C: 4t ±0.7 r r >_0N w tg r STAIRS mr z m CT, VV pp cn r Z, STAVRS Z STAIRS t 1s w G3 O z 5.5 N Of r- - - - -- - -- - - -- . r 1 r Z Cl)0 VT N m m m r _ r O N r m�0�v z Cl)V/ a m au �mcnm m -a -x�x�vm C 3@ m y 3 oa 63w� .N-. 1iv @ (D r h i/ wm 33333 a o Q \'T/ Z Cf) R w i 0 W w N m m 8 0 0 m V + 0 O O � �l m 3 m m o 0 3 N 3 3 3 � w n g a a N EL>Na N Page 357 of 403 1 STAIRS I STAIRS �I 17 1------- 5.5 ------- �'=-- � w - N cm V GJ N 4,0 ED N o = a m JNACRETE WALL o-6 -- — — — — — — — — — ---� - `'' `26.7 I TRAVER - N CD D 0 CIO X m m � DN o �D ©n� sTAIRs z c m al 1 STAIRS I STAIRS �I 17 1------- 5.5 ------- �'=-- � w - N cm V GJ N 4,0 ED N o = a m JNACRETE WALL o-6 -- — — — — — — — — — ---� - `'' `26.7 I TRAVER - N CD D 0 CIO X m m Page 358 of 403 liar° to pmat3 �' m013«d38 m53 2. Am Gf 1 mw.� �m m 33 dd .gym m sN o° a N Cl) N CA � CDrn m 23 _ pJa o r< a m M n ;0 3 N m m Q �T a 3 U N o p w 3 + 3 N D(] r\ N 3 a 3 3 p N S Z umi 4 Synn C A a �= 0 W C 4 � m IiIJ m ca a m DoN� 6�'wa w ti '� V m w a a 3 -omE 3 3 3 c_ Page 358 of 403 Page 359 of 403 � � 5TAIR5 r � r� z cm 1 1 STAIRS r I D STAIRS 0 2,.7 - m y 4.0 ED N 0 m 0N 'I N X m JNCRETE WALL `,�� f_ � x 26.7 j TRA1ICER ^' - 0 o 0 � v o Q N mW�1 � o �-i X m w o��FaZ¢sz �0... z og stn 0� b m{ :E Bo� ay 0a 3 -t7, 3 j 3v ° ��' N e r� N V/ o —v, mo � Q Ymo �m mm �a Y3 xw M" 3 M v v V=�Xm r C �" C -.m m =T m�� cn y y Ot u O W W OI Ln A A N N a ' a 3 �p > (D (D r- -` 3 3 9 a a 3., n i '� o Z N W MW m W r _ W A N m 0 N N O T 9 II (h (JI V N n 9 m 3 32 9 3w ii Page 359 of 403 ----------=--------- x > wavcnT o �a zero(A(q r v 6 o r L ! O X 0cn 5©CD O ry CD r ! I3 M F 0 Irog 1 ®awQ b� O �1 N co i m 03.-o°m�x oZ ooi ' �% 3� `0�3� D wm m cn 3-- ..— � rC mem _ 26.7 _ t — o �q m ti n — -- TRAIL w� (TO BE R `n r n cn v o -N �Bc o 3 a`•�tno 3 33 3 pw3 3 c m (D (D r T m ry T 1.8 N*m� m NO 1 m O .. 0 C) 6 21.7 x > wavcnT o �a zero(A(q v 6 o (D O X 0cn 5©CD r O CD O in (Dv' I3 :3 Irog 1 ®awQ b� O Page 360 of 403 wavcnT o �a zero(A(q mCw�� Irog 1 ®awQ b� an �mmo"Nc,� - c� N co R�Q a act 03.-o°m�x oZ ooi ' �% 3� `0�3� wm m 3-- ..— � rC mem o �q C ti n 3� m m `n cn v o -N �Bc o 3 a`•�tno 3 33 3 pw3 3 c m (D (D r M ill �a NO 1 m O .. 6 Page 360 of 403 "'r_ IL OVA(. BE ----------=--------- ! r i r Q ry �1 Fc0Q a 26.7 5.5 6.5 :z 0 N 4-1 *CD& r Qr�—C70 21.7 r ccn 0(n Q 5 © co CD u� (D ro_ a Page 361 of 403 OO(7v m A�1 �1Z mr t/ r rr ZNLlCn ,' ?? 3 e. 0 m 0 o o Y� � m `! aQQ6�-a 1 x a.n n m mm m YW° N) Cl) Ma w m m r C TrN M X33 -��mm m s� - U 74 N O N W N W W OI �1 A A N N ' O O a v !� 3 a N fJ IT N U w =• 3 3333.,Y z (Q (� r l] - O \\// CQ —j _ ( f W mA m fD 3. N N Y C 3 3 X 0 2 3 3 y e a Page 361 of 403 6.3 --11.a- 217 Lancaster St E / Grantee 766.0 m' (Pre adjustment % 802.8 m' (POSt adjustmen 8.1 , 19.2 / i Existing Lol Line r�! J J 98,102 Weber St E & J 221-233 Lancaster St E j Retained Parcel 3,224.3 mz (pre adjustment) J 3,187.5 m2 (post adjustment) / v '• ! I� _ 3.9 m Road Widening ------------------------ J 36.9 WEBER STREET E Page 362 of 403 -- Propoed Lot Lines ftvarance Pampa 3,2243 CONSENT APPLICATION LOT LAVE ADDITION A __ Exlefn9Lo1°,e3 -1 Severed Portion m' -36.8 mZ .I O Retained ADJUSTED TOTAL 3,197.5m' I of 7 98,102 Weber St E R 217-233 Lancaster St E spm Lot Addi lon City of Kitchener O ExisUng Loc Grantee Paa l Lot Addition 766,0 m' -36 a fi O DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 ANUSTED707AL 802Sm' PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel DRAWN BY: CFE Page 362 of 403 6.3 aI 217 Lancaster St E [1 802.8 m' Lot 1 221 Lancaster St E 1� ! Severed• (� 205.4 rW �. •` �� y y i h' f 6.1_ 19.2 ` ,..__/ y Existing Lot Lin • •� r � 98, 102 Weber St E & 225-233 Lancaster St E ! Retained Parcel \ R` 2,992,1 ma :> a! r r' 28.0 ' `--•� / f �m r1 r ---Road m Road Widening _ _ m� M• �._.._._._.—.—.J 6.9 WEBER STREET E SEVERED LOT 1 -. P1oAgLL61— ro-adP.,. Re—dPerpel 29521'' CONSENT APPLICATION -- Exlstln®Lul Llnes Severed 205A m 221 LANCASTER ST E Rot3mod TOTAL 3.1875W2 of 7 I� sued 98,102 Weber 51 E & 221.233 Lancaster St E D Fmsung LotO[P�R ATESeptember 27.2024 SCALE 1:500 City of Kitchener OJECT: 2070 Reitzel DRAWN BY: GFE Page 363 of 403 6.3 217 Lancaster St E 802.8 m' Lot 1 221 Lancaster Std / 205.4 m2 Lot \ 8.1 ! 192 \ 225 Lancaster St E ��..�.ir.�..�.�.�.J \\ 397.2 m2 i�\gyp Existing Lot Line r \ i 98,102 Weber St E & \ f 229, 233 Lancaster St E \ Retained Parcel '\ Ar� 2,584.9 mz 3.9 m Road Widening ------------------------ 3-6.9 ._._._._.— ---36.9 J WEBER STREET E SEVERED LOT 2 225 LANCASTER ST E 98,102 Weber St E & 225-233 Lancaster St E City of Kitchener -- Prmpaee4 Lat Lines Proposed Areas _ ... E-thg Lt Li— Retained Parcel 2,584.9 m' Severed 397.2 m� Retained TOTAL 2,9821 m' D Severed E-hng Lot CONSENT APPLICATION 3 of 7 N 0 DATE: SeptemUer 27, 2024 SCALE 1,500 PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel 1) RA BY: GFE Page 364 of 403 6.3 r � h' \ 217 Lancaster St E Lot 1 C� % 802.8 m' 221 Lancaster 3 , � St E 205.4 mz `% Lot 2 225 Lancaster j St E \. 397.2 m2 r•"�.\ i EAisting Lot Une \ \ Ar Lot 3 229 Lancaster St E 292.8 mZ ' i 98,102 Weber St E 8 1� j 233 Lancaster St E i Retained Parcel n, 2,292.1 m' a i i p — 3.9 m Road Widening a .. ._._._._._.J 6.9 1� WEBER STREET E LOT 3 PlopoeeSEVERED otDoes6 ProposedAmsCONSENT Re�ine6 Parcel 2,292.1 m' APPLICATION --- — Existing LOS Linss Z929m '° 229 LANCASTER 5T E RSWined Toru TOTAL 2,284 s 4l71 7 Seve ed 98,102 Weber St E & 229, 233 Lancaster St E Existing Lot 2624 SCALE 1'500 City of KitchenerROJECT. �CiESeptember27, 20711 Reilzei DRAWN BY GEE Page 365 of 403 it `•�' r ,o1.. 1 jr 217 Lancaster St E / /Lot 1 �2� 802.8 m' I 221 Lancaster St E > 9J�x 295.4 ri �r Lott 8.1 /T9.2 225 Lancaster St E 1• ir----.—.--- '�• 397.2 mz Existing Lot Line —' / Lot 3 229 Lancaster St E 292,8 m2 f 98,102 Weber St E Retained Parcel m� i ! I 2a 0-` ! IW ! I. ------ ' ' — 3.9 m Road Widening L._._._._._. ._.-_.------J 36.9 Lot 4 233 Lancaster St E 375,2 m' WEBER STREET E SEVERED LOT 4 —� Proposed Arens RelainedPareel �,9t8am° CONSENT APPLICATION -- EristinplotLines EAAWLMLm Severed 375.2 m`5 233 LANCASTER ST E Rei'"e° TOTAL 3,2870m= of7 se=ared 98,102 Weber St E & 233 Lancaster St E Edi La DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 City of Kitchener O PROJECT: 2070 Reuel DRAWN BY: GFE Page 366 of 403 6.3 %I 2117 Lancaster St E ` • Retained Parcel `l a/f 802.8 rr? {pre adjusimant) Lot Addition B / 768.1 m' (Rost adjusimant) ` to be Conveyed to 221 Laneaste�Z�, 34.7 rrLot 1 •� "VT '.K Lancaster St E ��- Grantee 205.4 mZ (Are adfustM9frt) /ry 240.1 m' (POSldUe anent) •� �� Lott _ 8.1 ; 19.2 — J 225 Lancaster St E • '—'�• 397.2 m2 /• Existing Lot Lint '�• 01* •"� i� 1 a \•\ / /rye �' / Lot 3 229 Lancaster St E 292.8 m2 /•� ` �1 98, 102 Weber St E & j 1,916.8 Lot 4 \ nil �I i 233 Lancaster St E i a f i 375.2 mZ 1 a -�.'•'� 12 i 8.0 I Im 1 jcc; 1 1 - 3.9 m Road Widening 36.9 WEBER STREET E Page 367 of 403 — _ Prapnsed tot Urex S-m- PamntPar�l -6028m' CONSENT APPLICATION LQT LINE ADDITION B "'E.ArgWLor. Severed Pwftn -34.7 m' Retained ADJUSTED TOTAL 756.1 m' I Q 1 98,102 Weber St E & 217 Lancaster St E sem L&Atldrlan City of Kitchener Fasting Lot Grantee Pamel LotAddl®on 205.40 -34.70 Q DATE' Se tember 27. 2624 SCALE 1:500 P ADJUSTED TOTAL 240.f m' PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 367 of 403 217 Lancaster St E h • Retained Parcel a7 768.1 m2 (pre adjustment) \ 451.2 m' (post adjustment) % s (� I Lot Addition G ¢\ to be Conveyed to 98, 102 NLeber % 316.9 m 19.2 / p\ �• Existing LaiLine� a •~•— 1 j 98,102 Weber St E & Grantee i 1,916.8 ml (pre adjustment) v r 2,233.7 m' (post adjustment) f r1 1� 7 I� 1 1= 3.9 m Road Widening _ o� ........................ 3 J 6.9 WEBER STREET E Lot 1 221 Lancaster St E 240.1 m' I �0 `9tfS \ V*- Lot x \ 225 Lancaster St E 397.2 m2 'o, / Lot 3 ti / 229 Lancaster St E 292.8 mz `•/• 64 /' Lot 4 233 Lancaster St E i 3752 rr; LOT LINE ADDITION C -- Eo10Hd Lot1.1—Severance – Existi� Lol Linea - �oan� Parent Parcel SemvdPortn ADJUSTED TOTAL 8028 i -34.70 768.1 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 7 of z 98,102 Weber St E & 217 Lancaster St E S .red Lotpdditlon DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 City of Kitchener Ex'ahn9 Lot Grantee Pard LatAddilim 766.0 m .36.8 m, N PROJECT 2070 Reitzel DRAWN BYGFE ADJUSTED TOTAL 60280' Page 368 of 403 Z o z u o0 ¢ a a m - � v m w w Q Z E (n N Z � ❑ �,' H U W p JET J� aE J n a o Q O WF- F- ly- IM LLLdJ W 1�1 c (� V/ Wy W Z OM of OM w� '^ 7 �i LLJ� Q w o Q � ZD Zp p fn O F, N (nw F— K) W /yL LL_ Yrr ww o o Nine a LLJ Z Z LLr �Z W �Vl ¢Q ¢¢ QJF- y U)w r aw O v Q Q�Q Q —�Q = ~ w� ¢� J J Q J J wY oo ar �� o J wowww C) �� F-WZ�Q� Q �w zQz ao <o �o <o a �sooJ A o < ! w 1 U [L �nw 3 (n a ~> (woo, z OQ QO <OL.LIQ ~ U_ &i wwF uox ~ _< zip Nt- w J J JJU o oN Z z� �< ol W W L L. LLI w z v W o F �/ �/ 1 - 1 1 - o¢ Q LL. Of Of LL. OLL. LL. LLQ N zE �r F- o� �r OoZ tj WWWWW LLJ O W W O OOO W I --L_ ON O J ¢� 4O NO �O m 00000 m O ��/��/� J ZZZZZ V JV V J U) O¢ F— U) _�� r in tow_ N JN JN J> O .' m z OfGF—GOf�U)�� O v ma Nm w zn� Q o¢ oa o� Q LZ w Q QWQWQOWQWLyJ�w Q z Uz �� a W w �N�I 3 J v d O O az O o o >o >J w W aeric» CL wo-Z70-7w U (n '0 Z moo J Susi �tsn in usi ina Q J ¢z33 N S� 5 Qp5 6 � E^ o N L) NO F- vo z O 5 on F- .8 — ONO mo �W z LANCASTER STREET EAST O O U7 ¢ f J �rc nLLj WLL o �a pw N� G"�ol LJ o o > a_ 0! .. .�SOk g�o v W¢ W N. £S O y Wo N (n �� 1 s m Ld 1 z l 6N1 1 0 �o a �fPa 91 �9 `' p0oe �yNIA, �y Y GP' EO 0'l ti5\� tl a P , 5.84 6.06000" 5 11.90 n h •�1��,\ \`t -aG `�6�o-SSS \ \95 \ -510 V O'I O s sfT x'19 50"x- V Do �a N^ R coia dm c 6g mco O A bs %@E',�G •6{` ddb; 10g �\�.��J�c,R\ a. d� 3.09JLS£NN os'£ F— aro -J Li` NI /698 /Q� 1�pry6�OO'Sip NLS �Im S\SjAl v � � o �� w R N N u t' Q�yOQ U ala �o SZdlO) o' inm3 m a m Q N �- z� 9b'84 Fz o �1p) j 2"m' LLJ > 2 a w4 0 C4 F— LdI oN o O LLJ� IN V/a �W O �co N \\ ad a ¢Ln o0 Ln �, J as N d � w c� i°p. o Z o n W �� n - O 1 9 ¢ Q ~ I�- p J #inmg m a Lj oo J n o z a ww (� JIJ ZL'9y 8L'Zb SO'f l LLI < m' I zl �,OZ,ZS.ObN ti6'£ sz] 3 I X17 5900-ZlSZZ /V/C/ oz z zm� Z 10� a� a M O V O M (6 a 6.3 AZ ``, 217 Lancaster St E 451.2 m2 ."' % Ib .10001 1#1# Lot 1 %�•% 221 Lancaster St E N240.1 m2l000,'A 10, Ile 1>1 Lot 2 o,• 225 Lancaster St E 397.2 m "01• ' % Lot 3 �% 229 Lancaster St E /./ Z 292.8 m / /. 98,102 Weber St E & 1 /' 66 i / 2,233.7 m2 (gross) / CJ /'Lot 4 �,/• 233 Lancaster St E �r 375.2 mZ _ rn 28.0 f lco �c6 ------------ 3.9 m Road Widening co ------------------------- 36.9 ._._._._. ._._._._._.36.9 WEBER STREET E C/L OF ASPRAL7 ROAD FINAL LOT FABRIC 98,102 Weber St E & 217-233 Lancaster St E City of Kitchener ... Existing Lot Lines proposed Lots 98, 102 Weber St. E. 2,233.7 m' 217 Lancaster St. E. 451.2 m' 221 Lancaster St. E. 240.1 m' 225 Lancaster St. E. 397.2 rn 229 Lancaster St. E. 292.8 m' 233 Lancaster St. E. 375.2 m' TOTAL 3,990.2 m' CI ` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel DRAWN BY: GFE Page 371 of 403 J W W LLJ U AL1 AL1E Q Q AW11 AW11 Q W W W U Z N Y � a p Wo _ W I— 0-) V, p ', d a ��•• Q d+ Q N w � •3 as N N fC W W 0 O Q N �. G G N in U 0 M N r d) o 00 O Q UI N M O O N V 7 7 7 7 N V r O O N m E E E E o o o Q O m E E UI O N d) N Z V r N M M N N Z N cc M x X c L E E E E rY xaa�� Xm o o x m U D` m O .O O Z to E E u�'i ¢ E E= ,. m m ,. -o -o -- a� �n s_ o� Z t (6 (6 N N (6 N S -O -O L (6 O. > i O N (n (n } u) u) O }} d W c E¢� `o `oma �•. •: oU-o •. �•. o o o 0 o 0 W d - o 0 0 m o_ Z J J LL LL u) J co LL [if LL^`d d D D co r Q QQ N a baa a.o o ° a a s =oo °i IF y .y y Q) U y y a U m W a W O N U O m t j U mo am �o F] Eo N L N i O mo N U L d °_�� ° a m 'o m> w `o E � o L� � � m m o O o ��.o�� `o o . U-. ,- m I L w a� O m o� p ~ x N'� o z 3_ C >. •� — O12 N O `O X O N 00 'X Emd oO(o coOin aW N M V In CO J J o� Q o n [Lw I p v LWi U `° N a n o �o N o d 0 ♦ J°v, c- �\� pJVG p�V\- b s ♦ ♦ ♦♦ o m s ♦ ♦ o IQ ♦ � �dm ot l ♦ �j1'� ♦♦ ��<°� �oF �� o o ♦♦♦ ..0 I J a '�i�' / Xo 0 Q LL I Q ¢w % } U w ° w NaC) �O¢ 'le /699 U u)[pJ�+ 9L '' I N ❑ `-' OU O 11I W 313?JONOO o w iEE w M W W c6 M O C/) C/) m I.J a W m Q I'. m o co c- J J O r I W oo I N W Lu z rn it0OJz E o x�ccW� N 113:7:, N N I � U 9� I I (D co o co E _ O m o o M go O i0 LL- 'E XO X W Q �_ ¢ W J LULL, W V Z U� UQ Q / �� W W LU `W W Y '^ LU_ '^ W 00 v/ � > O` d or .N.. iQ f6 ++ (Q Q a) V) cn QN N CO E N m Q M N O o M M O Q Q (� aS+ N ('D Co. O ui M 0) LU) O N N Ln co N M i N i In a0 i N i i i N V O I- N o E 00 M (`M') � N In In N In ME B O'OR O N N E i r N O V V In M m N m N O N o0 ,� a) C X a5 Y O- Q a5 E N E N a N as E � 5> a) r °' d y +N-� C O O pm .m O M J J >. V C Q_ U E U U a5 m O t d U Q _ Z p t t N r -= '6 O O M O a5 c m T cu cu cuX O, N '6 '6 U 'o r O d d> J r U ?, O C E Q Oi X m U -= O O a5 N i N ,> ,> NZ�C7JJ(�ll W JOOZLLLLaf ndU��00« C h U N U O J N m o .N d W 1 I 1 4 ,•' V W U C o N N E (n o N a aO d 0 ♦ ��'�' Q'�`GyC� ♦ ♦ `o pJvG pV\-C \C) m s ♦ ♦ o 10 ♦ � �dm ♦♦♦ G ♦♦♦ 14, ♦ I ♦ I �ti I ♦ woe ,::�o°Q �j1'� ♦♦ �oF I I <°� p p 8 8 6 o 0— ♦♦ 0 I IIII / J XO o LL Q Q W NLUYZ(,n III / 6 99 0 cif> UU)co 9' L Z I O N O V N ui 313?JONOO o w INW 16 � �W WN I_ M U) g C/)C/)E Cr I� m a coa)erg Q j W J J �2 Cd W Z_ Y F Op cV rn LU v z E O xHKW� 6� U 9� (D a ,� co O c° m E O M o a � M 00 -0 N 1i O i0 O C LL. 'E XO X W O Q Q L r W LU U � F- co Z Q W W a U� W+U-' (6 W Y (/� Z /W/� J V/ H N N O d w c d+ Q w a° t f4 w ++ D E ... > N E E O UI a_ } V V N d r N 7 7 7 7 V O Z o m E E E E E E 0 0 0-0 0 m N O O E Z N Z _ 0 ,. E E Ea- o o j� N N p p c z cn ._ Q Q� c o o o E n `m o ...E U E } } } -o m'� J m C -O (n >. `m m a O N U (Y (Y U -o .� } in W W C C W' J M W LL d O d m r a Q Q oo o O °aa m °U .c .� �' a N J Lo = m Q sNO Q a > m �a .4 z N JJ d W 1 I Do W m N — o w a LoQ,- zD J sarois a o �n _ ��_j�W (n�o �U� o O N Q 0 O W Lu� W sarois W �? 4) (7 U O O O N c� I (6 C J J \ U O c CV _ \ CA O` E c-4 O O C A \ p>> o oE \ aai c — ¢ M Q a) _O W LU Z LU J (6 Z 0 I S lO 1 — Q J LU cJ p N Q �Z LO cN W cq c° N mI N W Wryoo 09, 99 P (I) z c N W N ry I W Lli W Z D L11 `a) rOU�Q m OQO I -UN 6� �_ Iia ~EL ~U� I m� m ��+ cj Q NmO+. Q �� No Eo U 00 Zco �� `�a� o>;^ J �� N�� rn � o E 10 O U O i 0- 39 70 J co c �O X O a -O CO cow QO Q 'i J d X W X W W O IL N Q , N N e E N m N N N E E E E o o E Q V In M E O co Q Q 0 +� N O O M N O M� N N N fn V V N N 1 N l l l V 01— In N D <Q ry E U U + Lo nE N M M N M M E O O Q Q a i N O M M n (\I (`M N O (\I In lz C 0 C C X'E a) a) C X ' x N E Y N N N OV i _ C N Q U U N N t cu rte+ f6 'y SU E��}-o Im oc�JJa �_ o� E p Z t t w m.- d as d 2 c6 2�� m T v o d} o°° r} J m U ° v s o x U o 0 `m w>> o _ O intnNZJJJco W �0 JooZW Ww no_U��« Lo Q' Z 0J salVls O CNO Qw I CN (n U) J O NQ 0 F- W LuLUCOr W I O la VJ 21) W c a U �� Z J Y LJ inW H N 0 W O IL N Q , N N e E N m N N N E E E E o o E Q V In M E O co Q Q 0 +� N O O M N O M� N N N fn V V N N 1 N l l l V 01— In N D <Q ry E U U + Lo nE N M M N M M E O O Q Q a i N O M M n (\I (`M N O (\I In lz C 0 C C X'E a) a) C X ' x N E Y N N N OV i _ C N Q U U N N t cu rte+ f6 'y SU E��}-o Im oc�JJa �_ o� E p Z t t w m.- d as d 2 c6 2�� m T v o d} o°° r} J m U ° v s o x U o 0 `m w>> o _ O intnNZJJJco W �0 JooZW Ww no_U��« Lo Q' Z 0J salVls O CNO Qw I CN (n U) J O NQ 0 W U W � 4) U 4) m J N �o N E rn 0 0 co o o E U J 6 W I O la W ~ W carols in inW (6 J -- --- o0 �_� EN 0 �Oo 0 C o > > (7 0 E Q ) WD Z zi � o m� Q aa))000 Js ofZoJ 0LU U. �Z CN LU c I mI N LU LU00 ry 09 99 P U) z N ry LU N W Z� W Q m '" rOU�Q QQH i 6� /�/ H W D V J 06+ a N cnm�+ U Q Q N 0� £L U Z O U C ` O d b9 U-2 J co Xd 2-0 Q CO Q .O d X W X W W U W � 4) U 4) m J N �o N E rn 0 0 co o o E U J 6 W W LU I..L U) LU U) U z Q J Sb IVIS I I I LU D LO 0'- Z O Z S2iIV1S 04 I EL O 0 04 —j =o C/)�CU� N Q 0 0 D- 0 O 0 LL \ \`� SbIVIS I I w 0 E o E E °� Y Q Q O` o w d V V O N r m m O N N 7 7 N 0 a) Q (6 (6 C7 0 O O m d a) W U r W Q Q O m 10 m = F- cA -0 ` 0 L O O ~ Y D Z 0, L E E N J D N y} m m E E E E m Echo �nN O�n� o E o O O N r Lu W W C) V a J J 0 W U s G O> o O J E W rt�t (6 Y j� 3 .0 O d 0 p� .'- � \ / \ '^ / J O g aai n W V/ LU a E E E r x 2 0 z in m ° o L LU IL W o (n N t u�i o .o .o E m m m N lC w o o o y.y.N ' o a 'o o� a `o o f a U = '0 a m 3 U = U) U) o I o .� v m - o X and O o o � Lo`L - = � o p a -0 o NN VI CO U Z J J LL LL U) J M LL d 0 cr N W W LU I..L U) LU U) U z Q J Sb IVIS I I I LU D LO 0'- Z O Z S2iIV1S 04 I EL O 0 04 —j I cJn C/)�CU� N Q 0 O I D- 0 O 0 LL \ \`� SbIVIS I I OZ N 0'9 cel 5'S 61 £' 0+ } U cy W D Z_ � 0 Zz 04 J o UU NQ D I N O U O O CL CU OU J 0 LL \ X LOCL X W Q Q CO N N� W wN = U) U � N N Q U U J J J N N N E O 0-0 Cl) CDN C o U U CD -0 cv 0 G1 � > N N N U U o (6 (6 Q >_ >_ >= Ln E M Q Q Sb IVISLL }�cl W 0 d N (� « O N In (`') In O N N O fn N i r i W N d) N l N ON Lo N� z a Z S2iIV1S LL U W LU m r � C/) 04 Q o I N N N � L L Z0, Q " E E E E I U v M E .e E a s } M E In In N In � E N N O Sb IVIS N oN ''/^� V/ G1 N W 'T V In m n 0 0 In N J I uj W/�/ U U o J J W C LU W (0 Y ,A J C C E x X E� E NO m $ x fl - W W 'a t cu (6 (6 d N E C d W o V) N N lC > a��i N y y y 0 .� m rn d cA U v 0° x 1 u E��r� Q -T'Q Z t t N - cd -p N (6 N= fn i m >. >. O U }>0 N 'O d _ o o U E d r U d d 0 I� LU OI E` Q -0 O U N>> x O o U) N _ N Z J J J CO LL LLl J co Z LL d 0 0 0 « Q Sb IVISLL }�cl I I Lo N� z a Z S2iIV1S I O I LU I C/) 04 Q o I O I I Sb IVIS I I W I 0'Z LU LU N 9 N 55 61 CD I� LU N LU D -2O'ZOz U) 0 U) E)U Q a N Q o 33° U ---- z 9'6 --------- 4 w w N in U) Q~ c i 0 0 V L 0 �\ Q U U � � I` 0 �G �� I N N —'L O o I 2N x 0 x w 2 > o U) Q I 0 (D z I W I— W LU I..L U) W U) U z Q J 9T L'0+ / V WY Z �mL -Iii Cv o I I I f ZZ 5'S I c1r) o LO 0� Z W 0 04 O Q S2iIV1S rn W O CIA *kN<< 9 d > E` o J U � 'O Q O N O` + V V CO CO O O V O O CO O O N (6 O. O c O CD W d M O O M M m N 7 7 7 7 V O N Z O Q n m c6 p O N W a Q U air p L O O N N 2� m 4 ZO L L °p U QmEErmQ EooEo �Eo o $ Q �Q o�7D A�A11 j N m N Z V M M I� O ON M Z N ZUJ LU rt�t a W M c x a W a 2 W W� a oo o o s �� =tea s off= ILL o (n N t `o Z U m E o Q m Q� o' m o a0 o ' oN u�i .o .o Elf Elf`m `m w m � m m ci �n >. c°i -o .y a�yi x �i .0 -o o `m m S -o T p m o a o �' in 3 0 w V °' a c`0i m o E Ea a � "o os o? o ooi E pw am O2 Z w Q Q UZ t JJVI LL � d p Z d p CO N M V W I— W LU I..L U) W U) U z Q J 9T L'0+ / V WY Z �mL -Iii Cv o I I I f ZZ SbIV1S 5'S I c1r) o SbIV1S I z S2iIV1S LU I LO 0� Z W 0 04 O Q S2iIV1S rn W O CIA *kN<< o J U � �`. sbivls —01"6— 0.9 .,` 5.5 M N cO N OZ I I \ W D Z N�z0_J '4 UU N Q 0 X30 W I— W LU I..L U) W U) U Z J 9T L'0+ V WY Z �mL—Iii Cv o I I I L'ZZ N Q N N I � o N N Mo N (6 S2iIV1S 0')04 W O 0 (� M r M O O . .« M 00 Q Q* N CDLL W fn — M n W N 1 N 1 i V O N In J m U � UNw 2 N 7N N �Q Z O EU U J U 3 E N In In N M -.R + 0 N N N N Q U'^) /�^l V/ �rMj ' N V V In M N M N O N 00 U C W W W W/ U V N J o o N / IL S;E E �' \ W C6 Y /� WLc) 2 2 x x cdE ° xmE °m N L u fl W�O ,u N N N a N d W o Iw (/) N a°i E �� ,M, °w Ny h 1 I — U E UN r U N U O i = m N D ) Z t t N -p N (6 fn U N �. T N O d U U U fn 05 >O O�1 O r J O�1 N O O Gi N Q Q O U 0 C N>> ,N' ON M N Z J J J M 0 a)LL LLl J Co Z Il d' (n a U W I— W LU I..L U) W U) U Z J 9T L'0+ V WY Z �mL—Iii Cv o I I I L'ZZ SbIV1S 5'S I � o SbIV1S I z S2iIV1S w� I -j� LO � Z w 0 O Q S2iIV1S 0')04 W O N *kN << o J U � SbIV1S 0'6 0'9 5'S CP cri CV co OZ I \ W D Z N�z0_J '4 UU N Q 0 X30 LL LL LL LL U, Q L Z Q \ / V co jr Z Ico o t W O GON 0 O (U L O CL O LO L LL Q � Q Li LU w a Eo E E _ 0 O N V V O r N 0 d) V �� N C WW Q Q Q m U M -o a � (A N D U O N C] ZO L E Q UL J a+ M E E E E M m O O OI a s a U N O W W V U Q.)� ° a a o N W LIQ c O O J E W`V rttC Y = .O 0 d N p� /\ J O c c E ar L v a a a. co LULUrn a oo m�._� m °o .� o O_ w o (n N r u�i `o .o .o Z U Em.� .- rT 1 I N N -0 8 a > U > > m aN -6)�Q U) d (n (n, O U U m oN o o0= oa s `� N VI CO U Z J J LL LL U) J CO LL O_ Dcr LL LL LL LL U, Q L Z Q \ / V co jr Z Ico o t W O GON 0 O (U L O CL O LO L LL Q � Q Li LU C,4 s 0 C/ Go V c N 0 9 . °Q- 2�37fMAi L•9Z oN000 i T- N C) ti M , , r•r L' Z SbIV1S LO � Z 0 J S2iIV1S C'4 i J C Q D "'VM olo��NO� �LLJYZ C,4 s 0 C/ Go V c N 0 9 . °Q- 2�37fMAi L•9Z oN000 i T- N C) ti M , , r•r L' Z SbIV1S LO � Z 0 J S2iIV1S C'4 i J C Q D "'VM olo��NO� V co jr Z CO o It W O GON O (U L O CL J o U- 213AV2Ji 0- LN 13NIJ aNdoe Q w li]�J3N00 CD �O W "'--- N x v — �Mo�w W C C) CO Go W0 N 0 a 9 0't v)��/� ti N CO co N I..L co CJ CJ � W --- ------ — \ (j L SbIV1S I U I Z I i Jsbivls I ( w 0 LO E z 0 J S2iIV1S I 0 I i N0�JJ O ;DU I o o i J N Q D ,— O I O ' \m Gl "� N (V W E o E d Q In In V O_ « (O r rq O N O a0 O V N O w N i i V N i N i m N W LL CD W m UMw (A 2 � N 7 < D Z O L L NE E U E E E- U N a! v '� M E E a + E In In N In E N V N o Q U) or a (`�') N O 'T In M M O— CO �_ N �+ W W U U o W C o o f E W (6 Y ' ,A > J 2 2 x N mx� E(I E' X(XIE o u a {/, 0 W Gl O N Q N E d W C o ALU V/ N E U T N Om m N U 1 h IN o'a"Oi " -0tT.EZ 0O t i t N} d` I ddo Ox U S E o NN _ O Z J J J CO LL LLl J co Z LL 0- 0 0 « V co jr Z CO o It W O GON O (U L O CL J o U- 213AV2Ji 0- LN 13NIJ aNdoe Q w li]�J3N00 CD �O W "'--- N x v — �Mo�w W C C) CO Go W0 N 0 a 9 0't v)��/� ti N CO co N I..L co CJ CJ � W --- ------ — \ (j L SbIV1S I U I Z I i Jsbivls I ( w 0 LO E z 0 J S2iIV1S I 0 I i N0�JJ O ;DU I o o i J N Q D ,— O I O ' \m O c _O CU L O n O LO L LL Q CL X Q W N W � 8L LU NW L.I. VJ w Ill I— U) Q U Z Q J N_j T- 5.9,' -- l.- L' LZ WC/) 0�wQ (/) CO + N p �— tom• / ti i43 : 838 llvzjl a�v0 — — — — — — — — — — — — —� L•9Z / WCD / Z It�mw t o N I I I I --------------------� \ \ 11VAA 3i3a3N00 d D EO 9 N E E E E E E* o E d m `o o N d) o M Q in + r V V r O m O O O UI N 'O E N N O- O W LL CD d M O M O M 7 7 7 7 N Z M O O O N O Q m W V LU _O Q Q N v— c w_ m LA11 E E E E E U ALA11 W A W `, N m E O m E M Q O N j p p E O O E N Q Q � Z Z S N N i 0E W LU M VL/ Q N a N mo >i cO , N N O J N W_ w' � E m E W J Y 3 c a 2 a.N n W � W c7 a L a c rY xaa'z o 'o o o ego n 3 o. ��Q 3 o CLL o (n co y S t R m M, `O- .o .o z n E u Q 0 O a o c- '1 N'Y O N N E}} 'O m '� J J U UI S N N N N N (6 N S U x U c O .� O O- N Q .� N 0 0 t m a Ma, } -o -o } W M o U) U)o} } 0_ w E x� 0 '- mw o a �o oo i > ' -0 o O Qa OZo o_ W'X o N LL _ LL LL U) CO LL IfL _ :s O 0 m Woo � N M V In O c _O CU L O n O LO L LL Q CL X Q W N W � 8L LU NW L.I. VJ w Ill I— U) Q U Z Q J N_j T- 5.9,' -- l.- L' LZ WC/) 0�wQ (/) CO + N p �— tom• / ti i43 : 838 llvzjl a�v0 — — — — — — — — — — — — —� L•9Z / WCD / Z It�mw t o N I I I I --------------------� \ \ 11VAA 3i3a3N00 0 W N N N � N O �- 0 W cn O 0 0 0 � L Q LL J N N N E E E o E E o (6 (6 Q M LlZ O [L M- W In o O Q Q E N N N inM O M N Oi N m O In - W m W N < " E Z o J N '3 + E N In In N M E 'ORO N N N N QU L /�� N a Gl (`M') In O i N O 'T V I� In M M N M N O N I� N J C N �+ W U V B o o /LCL/I W C E o f E W (O Y CC X U N U SI x W{/, CY) cuE N S 6 0 E W C d W c� CV t f6 _ C O p N N t. '6 >. N C N 3 y C 01 2 0 cu U co J J >. U =i 1 o +�+ U U r 2 d U N= N (] Z M i U U N m T O N 'O G1 _ O d U fo M} >O m O CL J m U ?� O U 0 C E Q s Oi X N U -= E O O (6 N i N .> .> p ,•' N V) fn N Z J J J (n LL W J CO Z LL LL W n CL U « 0 c 0CU � N O �- 0 W cn O 0 0 0 � L Q LL J Q W LlZ CV W LU NW L.I. VJ w W U) Q U Z Q J yrr 0 a Cr 5'9 - - - - - - - - - - - - L'R W(D Z 0mw t o N I I I I --------------------� \ \ 11" 3i3a3N00 Severance Parent Parcel 3,224.3 m' Severed Portion -36.8 m2 ADJUSTED TOTAL 3,187.5 m' Lot Addition Grantee Parcel 766.0 m' Lot Addition +36.8 m2 ADJU STED TOTAL 802.8 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 1 of 7 .` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 384 of 403 LL., X11.4 �� LOT LINE ADDITION A �• ss 0 Retained 98,102 Weber St E & 217-233 Lancaster St E `. Lot Addition to be Conveye City of Kitchener to 217�ancaste 36.8 m h , / i 217 Lancaster St E %Grantee % 766.0 M (pre adjustment) % 802.8 m2 (post adjustment) / 8.1 -_-19.2-_-_---- !. Existing Lot Line I 1 I I 98,102 Weber St E & 221-233 Lancaster St E i Retained Parcel ^, 3,224.3 mZ (pre adjustment) ' 3,187.5 m2 (post adjustment) I_ I I I _ I 1co I Ic6 I ' ------� - 3.9 m Road Widening M , ------------------------- ._._._._. ._-_._-_._-36.9 36.9 WEBER STREET E CTOF ASPHALT ROAD Severance Parent Parcel 3,224.3 m' Severed Portion -36.8 m2 ADJUSTED TOTAL 3,187.5 m' Lot Addition Grantee Parcel 766.0 m' Lot Addition +36.8 m2 ADJU STED TOTAL 802.8 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 1 of 7 .` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 384 of 403 -- Proposed Lot Lines LOT LINE ADDITION A ... Existing Lot Lines 0 Retained 98,102 Weber St E & 217-233 Lancaster St E D Severed City of Kitchener D Existing Lot Severance Parent Parcel 3,224.3 m' Severed Portion -36.8 m2 ADJUSTED TOTAL 3,187.5 m' Lot Addition Grantee Parcel 766.0 m' Lot Addition +36.8 m2 ADJU STED TOTAL 802.8 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 1 of 7 .` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 384 of 403 6.3 y. 217 Lancaster 802.8 m2 h .—.19.2.—.—.—/ �- Existing Lot Lin I I I I 98,102 Weber St E & 225-233 Lancaster St E Retained Parcel ^! 2,982.1 mZ a' I I I Iw T I Icc; -----------------------I 3.9 m Road Widening M 1 — - — - — - — - — - --.-------.J 36.9 WEBER STREET E -E/TW ASPh'AL7 ROAD _ Proposed neProposed Areas SEVERED LOT 1 . Existing LottLLines s Retained Parcel 2,982.1 m' CONSENT APPLICATION Severed 205.4m 2 of 7 221 LANCASTER ST E 0 Retained TOTAL 3,187.5 m' D severed 98,102 Weber St E & 221-233 Lancaster St E D Existing LotDATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 City of Kitchener CA) PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 385 of 403 6.3 h• // 217 Lancaster St E •/ Lot 10 802.8 m ` / • 21 Lancaster St E 205.4 m' /%�� i / / ��t/� Lot z � ._.19.2._._.' ♦♦ 225 Lancaster St E '� ♦ 397.2 mZ Existing Lot Line i ♦ i 98,102 Weber St E & 229, 233 Lancaster St E Retained Parcel ^! 2,584.9 mZ cc'a I _ I_ 100 �cc; — 3.9 m Road Widening M 36.9 WEBER STREET E C/L OF ASPHALT ROAD SEVERED LOT 2 225 LANCASTER ST E _ Proposed neProposed Areas . Existing LottLLines s Retained Parcel 2,584.9 m' Severed 397.2 m 0 Retained TOTAL 2, 982.1 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 3 of 7 D severed CA) September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 98,102 Weber St E & 225-233 Lancaster St E City of Kitchener D Existing LotDATE: PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE 6.3 i—,—,\ / V, h• / 217 Lancaster St E Lot 10 802.8 m ` •1 Lancaster St E j 205.4 m' j.1001. / % Lot 2 19.2 _ 225 Lancaster St E ---� ` 397.2 mZ . Existing Lot Line .� / `. i A / Lot 3 229 Lancaster St E 292.8 mZ i 98,102 Weber St E & > �' 233 Lancaster St E y66 Retained Parcel • 2,292.1 mZ0. v I I� I I •------� - 3.9 m Road Widening M ------------------------- 36.9 WEBER STREET E CIL OF ASPHALT ROAD SEVERED LOT 3 229 LANCASTER ST E 98,102 Weber St E & 229, 233 Lancaster St E City of Kitchener -- Proposed Lot Lines Proposed Areas ... Existing Lot Lines Retained Parcel 2,292.1 m' Severed 292.8 m 0 Retained TOTAL 2, 584.9 m' D Severed 0 Existing Lot CONSENT APPLICATION 4of7 .` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 387 of 403 6.3 V 217 Lancaster St E 0 • 802.8 m2 Lot 1 221 Lancaster St E •�• �� 205.4 m' / � �. Lot 2 _ 8.1 / •--19.2-----� ` 225 Lancaster St E Z � 397.2 mi - •� •� Existing Lot Line / i Lot 3 � e 229 Lancaster St E j � 292.8 mZ /• /. 98, 102 Weber St E j 66 ' Retained Parcel /' ^, 1,916.8 mZ �I /# Lot 4 /* 233 Lancaster St E 375.2 mZ it 1co �c6 ----- 1 3.9 m Road Widening co ------------------------- 36.9 WEBER STREET E c/� or nsann�r Roao SEVERED LOT 4 233 LANCASTER ST E _ Proposed neProposed Areas . Existing LottLLines s Retained Parcel 1,916.8 m= Severed 375.2 m 0 Retained TOTAL 2,292Om CONSENT APPLICATION 5 of 7 D severed CA) September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 98,102 Weber St E & 233 Lancaster St E City of Kitchener D Existing LotDATE: PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 388 of 403 6.3 i"—,\ V� / 217 Lancaster St E h Retained Parcel a". 802.8 mZ (pre adjustment) 768.1 m2 (post adjustment) ` Lo Addition B / / to e Conveyed o 7 to 21 Lancaster / •/`' 34.7 m / Lot 1 221 Lancaster St E•� �s� Grantee •�• � ^ ' 205.4 mZ (pre adjustrrl�) /240.1 m2 (post adjt6ment) �s % /• 1>1 Lot ` 8.1 / ' 225 Lancaster St E 19.2 - _ - -- - -----_./ 397.2 mZ Existing Lot Lin I • I o;♦ / • /� Lot 3 � 229 Lancaster St E .0e292.8 rn /• /. 98,102 Weber St E & i1,916.8 mZ Lot 4 % 233 Lancaster St v I'. 375.2 mZ ._2 pZq ./ .�._•� - 3.9 m Road Widening M —.—.—.—.—. .—.—.—.—.—.J 36.9 WEBER STREET E CSL OF ASPHALT -D Severance Parent Parcel 802.8 m' Severed Portion -34.7 m2 ADJUSTED TOTAL 768.1 m' Lot Addition Grantee Parcel 205.4 m' Lot Addition +34.7 m2 ADJU STED TOTAL 240.1 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 6 of 7 .` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 389 of 403 -- Proposed Lot Lines LOT LINE ADDITION B ... Existing Lot Lines 0 Retained 98,102 Weber St E & 217 Lancaster St E D Severed City of Kitchener D Existing Lot Severance Parent Parcel 802.8 m' Severed Portion -34.7 m2 ADJUSTED TOTAL 768.1 m' Lot Addition Grantee Parcel 205.4 m' Lot Addition +34.7 m2 ADJU STED TOTAL 240.1 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 6 of 7 .` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel I DRAWN BY: GFE Page 389 of 403 6.3 217 Lancaster St E �n�• Retained Parcel /C 768.1 mZ (pre adjustment) % ♦ 451.2 m2 (post adjustment) �s �o / Lot Addition C 6` % to be Conveyed to 98, 102 Weber i 316.9 mZ h _8.1 / ._ 19.2._._. Existing Lot Lin C) / Lot 1 ` 221 Lancaster St E /. \ 240.1 m2 % /• s/ Lot 2 225 Lancaster St E 397.2 mZ A Lot 3 / 229 Lancaster St ' 292.8 mZ I/ / >` � 98,102 Weber St E & i Grantee % ^, 1,916.8 mZ (pre adjustment) Lot 4 2,233.7 m2 (post adjustment) �/* 233 Lancaster St E � 375.2 mZ _ rn -.4 ./• ti i 2 p'�. Z ./ �.�,/ 1co i-----------------------� — 3.9 m Road Widening M 1 _._._._._. ._._._._._.J 36.9 WEBER STREET E C/L OF ASPHALT ROAD Severance Parent Parcel 802.8 m' Severed Portion -34.7 m2 ADJUSTED TOTAL 768.1 m' Lot Addition Grantee Parcel 76"M 2 Lot Addition +36.8 m2 ADJU STED TOTAL 802.8 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 7 of 7 .` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 `AV PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel DRAWN BY: GFE Page 390 of 403 -- Proposed Lot Lines LOT LINE ADDITION C ... Existing Lot Lines 0 Retained 98,102 Weber St E & 217 Lancaster St E D Severed City of Kitchener D Existing Lot Severance Parent Parcel 802.8 m' Severed Portion -34.7 m2 ADJUSTED TOTAL 768.1 m' Lot Addition Grantee Parcel 76"M 2 Lot Addition +36.8 m2 ADJU STED TOTAL 802.8 m' CONSENT APPLICATION 7 of 7 .` DATE: September 27, 2024 SCALE 1:500 `AV PROJECT: 2070 Reitzel DRAWN BY: GFE Page 390 of 403 N* Region of Waterloo VIA EMAIL Connie Owen Administrative Clerk, City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Legislative Services Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8t" floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4J3 Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Erica Ali W. Phone: 226-751-3388 File: D20-20/24 KIT November 25, 2024 Re: Comments on Consent Applications: B2024-017, B2024-018, and B2024-037 to B2024-047 (inclusive) Committee of Adjustment Hearing December 10, 2024 City of Kitchener Please accept the following comments for the above -noted Consent applications to be considered at the upcoming Committee of Adjustment Hearing. Page 391 of 403 B2024-037 (NEW) & B2024-017 / B2024-018 62 Fourth Ave (DEFERRED) 135 Gateway Park Dr PLAN 1744 BLK 4 PT LOT 1 PLAN 1745 LOTS 8-9 PT LOT 10 PT BLK 11 Owner: 1289193 ONTARIO INC. Owner/Developer: MHBC c/o Emily Elliot & Jennifer Gaudet Note: B2024-17 and B2024-18 were originally submitted with a concept to create two lots. The applications were heard at August 2024 COA meeting, and then deferred to allow for further discussion between Owner/Developer and City. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create three lots and associated access easements. The easements would maintain current vehicular circulation and access points. No physical redevelopment is proposed. B2024-017/ Retained Lands/ Parts 1 and 2 — approx. 1.24ha with 82.6m frontage on Tu -Lane St and 181 m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by wholesale business, 329 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 2). B2024-037/ Severed Lands A/ Parts 3 and 4 — approx. 0.48ha with 57 frontage on King St E and 53.4m frontage on Tu -Lane St. Presently occupied by restaurant, 104 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 4). B2024-18/ Severed Lands B/ Parts 5 and 6 — approx. 2.01 ha with 237.7m frontage on King St E and 194m frontage on Gateway Park Dr. Presently occupied by former Landmark Cinema building, 397 surface parking, and shared drive aisle (easement over Part 6). In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Sportsworld Station (Fig 8a). Archaeological Assessment (Advisory) The subject lands have potential for recovery of archaeological resources, for which Regional Staff do not have a record of clearance. While clearance is not required to support this consent application, any future Planning Act application proposing physical redevelopment of the site will require the submission of the completed Archaeological Assessment and associated acknowledgment letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If in the Owner/Developer's possession, please provide a copy of the acknowledgement letter for our records. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 392 of 403 B2024-038 (AMENDMENT TO 132024-19) 250 Shirley Ave TRACT GERMAN COMPANY PT LOT 122 Owner: HIDAYATH HOLDINGS INC c/o Farhan Hidayath Owner/Developer: 1123766 Ontario Ltd c/o Sharon Shaw Note: B2024-19 was originally heard at August 2024 COA, and approved. This application is an amendment to the B2024-019 Decision, to include the partial discharge of the mortgage, in favour of HSBC Bank Canada (or as assigned), registered as WR1561020 on PIN 22712-0241 LT. 250 Shirley Ave will be granted a partial discharge having the same legal description as the severance transfer to be stamped over 82024- 019. The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever a triangular parcel of land in the easterly rear yard having a width of 58m and an area of 0.15 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 260 Shirley Ave (owned by 1123766 Ontario Ltd). The severed lands are vacant, while the retained and benefitting lands are used for industrial purposes. The consent will facilitate a lot line adjustment that conforms more closely to the current use of both properties. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and Employment Area (Map 3). Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Page 393 of 403 B2024-039/040 120 Keewatin Ave - Parcel A/ Parcel B PLAN 1515 LOT 34 Owner: Furoy, Guy & Sindjic, Drago Owner/Developer: Craig Dumart The Owner/Developer is proposing consent to sever to create two lots for future semi- detached dwelling units and retain one lot for a future single detached dwelling. Being, severed lot (Parcel A) with an area of 225 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; severed lot (Parcel B) with an area of 230 sqm and frontage of 7.5m; and retained lot with an area of 783 sqm and frontage of 38.5m. The consent will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands. No other development applications are anticipated to facilitate the proposal. The subject lands are within the Delineated Built-up Area and Urban Area Boundary in the Regional Official Plan (Map 1, 2). Environmental Noise Environmental Noise Study Approval of an Environmental Noise Study will be required as a condition of consent approval. At this location, the proposed development may encounter environmental noise sources due to Lackner Boulevard (RR# 54). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, staff recommend that the Owner/Developer prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The consultant who prepares the Environmental Noise Study must be listed on the Region of Waterloo' s Approved List of Noise Consultants. The noise consultant is responsible for obtaining current information, applying professional expertise in preforming calculations, making detailed and justified recommendations, submitting the Consultant Noise Declaration and Owner/Authorized Agent Statement. The consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must contact Region of Waterloo staff for transportation data, including traffic forecasts and truck percentages, for the purpose of preparing the Environmental Noise Study. Region of Waterloo staff will provide this data within three weeks of receiving the request from the noise consultant. Please note that there is a $500 fee for the preparation of the traffic forecasts and review of the Environmental Noise Study. The noise consultant preparing the Environmental Noise Study must submit the transportation data request online via (https-//rmow.permitcentral.ca/Permit/GroupApply?groupld=3 ). Resubmission of any Transportation Noise Study may be subject to a $250 resubmission fee. In the event that a stationary noise source is identified as potential concerns, the Owner/Developer will be required to pay for a third party review by an external Noise Page 394 of 403 Consultant retained by the Region. The fee for this third party review is $4000 + HST. Please submit payment for the third party review along with the submitted noise study. Additional fees may apply depending on scope of review required. Airport While the site is partially located within the AZR, no issues are anticipated. Other Please note that a new access connection to Lackner Boulevard would not be permitted. Staff understand that all accesses are proposed onto Keewatin Avenue and are in agreement with that approach. Regional Fees Regional staff have not received the fee for consent review of $350 per application. The payment of fee will be required as a condition of consent approval. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer complete the Environmental to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and if necessary, enter into an amending agreement with the Region to implement any recommendation of the Noise Study. Page 395 of 403 B2024-041 — B2024-047 217 — 233 Lancaster St E; 98 & 102 Weber St E Owner: 1678838 Ontario Inc (c/o William Reitzel) & William Reitzel/Lisa Willms Owner/Developer: UP Consulting Ltd c/o David Galbraith Consent to sever is proposed for a series of lot adjustments to residential properties fronting Lancaster St E (5 parcels in total), and to consolidate lands on 98-102 Weber St E. The Owner/Developer provides that the consents will re-establish individual lotting for several properties which have inadvertently merged on title, with lot line adjustments to facilitate the logical future build out of the block. Minor variances are also proposed to facilitate the consents. A pre -submission application in September 2023, proposed redevelopment of 98-102 Weber St E with a multi -unit residential building. Redevelopment or site alteration is not proposed through the consent applications. In the Regional Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Delineated Built-up Area within the Urban Area Boundary (Map 1, 2), and MTSA — Frederick Station (Fig 8a). Cultural Heritage, Archaeology, and Indigenous Engagement (Advisory) Based on a review of the Region's archaeological potential model, the subject properties may possess the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources. The Region does not require the submission of an archaeological assessment, however, the Owner/Developer should be made aware that: (1) If archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and/or, (2) If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the Owner/Developer will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. Environmental Noise At this location, the proposed development may encounter traffic noise sources due to Weber St E (RR#8). It is the responsibility of the Owner/Developer to ensure the proposed noise sensitive development is not adversely affected by anticipated noise impacts. To address the environmental noise impacts, the Owner/Developer must prepare an Environmental Noise Study; the noise levels criteria and guidelines for the Page 396 of 403 preparation of the study should follow the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park NPC -300 requirements. The Regional process for this requirement can be provided upon request. 217-233 Lancaster St E In lieu of an Environmental Noise Study for the properties fronting on Lancaster St E, the Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a) That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: (i) "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." 98-102 Weber St E An Environmental Noise Study will be required for the properties fronting on Weber St E. The Region will require as a condition of consent approval that the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to complete an Environmental Noise Study prior to Site Plan approval, and to enter into an Amending agreement with the Region and/or City to implement the recommendations of the Noise Study. a) That prior to Site Plan approval the Owner/Developer agrees to complete a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98-102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Road Widening (Advisory) The following will be a condition of a future Site Plan application: At this location, the subject property has direct frontage to Regional Road 08 (Weber Street East). Weber Street East has a designated road width of 26.213m in accordance with Schedule `A' of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). We estimate that an approximate road widening of 3.5 metres will be required along the Weber Street East frontage of the property. The Owner/Developer must engage an OLS to prepare a draft reference plan which illustrates the required road allowance and daylight triangle widening. Prior to registering the reference plan, the OLS should submit a draft copy of the plan to the Page 397 of 403 Transportation Planner for review. An electronic copy of the registered plan is to be emailed to the Transportation Planner. Further instructions will come from the Region's Legal Assistant regarding document preparation and registration. It is recommended that the OLS contact Region staff to discuss the road widening prior to preparing the Reference Plan. The land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes and must be dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance. All land dedications must be identified on the Site Plan. Please ensure the road widening lands are excluded from any future Record of Site Condition (RSC) filing for the overall property, if one is required. Regional Review Fees Regional Staff are not in receipt of the required consent review fee of $350 per application. The consent review fee is required as a condition of approval for the consent application. Fees must be submitted individually to the Region, in-person, by mail, or e -payment. • Arrange EFT by emailing pwalter@regionofwaterloo.ca. Cheque or bank draft can be dropped off at Head Office lobby/security (main floor), located atl50 Frederick St, Kitchener. 15 min parking is available at the rear of the building, outside the Kitchener Public Library, at the intersection of Queen St N and Ahrens St E. Cheque or bank draft can be mailed as follows: Attention of Peggy Walter, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 150 Frederick St, Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3. Regional Staff has no objection to this application subject to the following condition(s): 1. That the Owner/Developer submit the consent review fee of $350 per application to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the following noise mitigation measures. a. That the following warning clauses be included in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for all dwelling units on the parcels municipally addressed as 217 Lancaster St E, :221 Lancaster St E, 225 Lancaster St E, 229 Lancaster St E, and 233 Lancaster St E: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks." Page 398 of 403 3. That the Owner/Developer enter into a registered Development Agreement with the Region of Waterloo agreeing to complete prior to Site Plan approval, a Detailed Environmental Noise Study for properties municipally addressed as 98- 102 Weber St E to assess transportation and stationary noise, and to enter into an Amending Agreement with the Region of Waterloo and/or the City of Kitchener (if required) to implement the recommendations of the Study, all to the satisfaction of the Region. Page 399 of 403 General Comments Any submission requirements may be subject to peer review, at the owner/ Owner/Developer's expense as per By-law 23-062. If any other applications are required to facilitate the application, note that fees are subject to change and additional requirements may apply. Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted consent applications will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Prior to final approval, City staff must be in receipt of the above - noted Regional condition clearances. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the staff reports, decisions and minutes pertaining to each of the consent applications noted above. Should you require Regional Staff to be in attendance at the meeting or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Thank you, Erica Ali RPP Planner, Regional Growth, Development and Sustainability Services Regional Municipality of Waterloo Page 400 of 403 November 18, 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 December 10, 2024, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 - 107 — 15-105 Moorgate Crescent — No concerns 2) A 2024 - 108 — 42 Wendy Crescent — No concerns 3) A 2024 - 109 — 25 Sandsprings Crescent — No concerns 4) A 2024 - 110 — 171 Otterbein Road — No concerns 5) A 2024 - 111 — 124 Cedar Street — No concerns 6) A 2024 - 112 — 578 Guelphh Street — No concerns 7) A 2024 - 113 — 1838 Trussler Road — It is understood that the existing throat width at the property line for the access onto Trussler Road is not changing, and all proposed driveway widening is happening on private property. Any changes within the Region right-of-way will require an Access Permit from the Region of Waterloo. 8) A 2024 - 114 — 98-102 Weber Street East — No concerns 9) A 2024 — 115 — 217 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 10)A 2024 — 116 — 221 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 11)A 2024 — 117 — 225 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 12)A 2024 — 118 — 229 Lancaster Street West — No concerns 13)A 2024 — 119 — 233 Lancaster Street West — No concerns Document Number: 4828935 28935 Page 401 of 403 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, Katrina Fluit Transportation Planner (226) 753-4808 CC: Connie Owen, City of Kitchener CofA(a)Kitchener. ca Document Number: 4828935 Page 402 of 403 November 25, 2024 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 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 — December 10, 2024 Applications for Minor Variance via email A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2024-110 171 Otterbein Road A 2024-107 15-105 Mooregate Crescent A 2024-111 124 Cedar Street South A 2024-108 42 Wendy Crescent A 2024-112 578 Guelph Street A 2024-109 25 Sandsprings Crescent A 2024-113 1838 Trussler Road Applications for Consent B 2024-017 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-038 250 Shirley Avenue B 2024-018 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-039 120 Keewatin Avenue B 2024-037 135 Gateway Park Drive B 2024-040 120 Keewatin Avenue Applications for Consent and Minor Variance B 2024-041 to B 2024-047 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 Weber Street East A 2024-114 to A 2024-119 217-233 Lancaster Street East & 98-102 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(u-)_grandriver. 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 403 of 403