Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-282 - A 2024-075 - 96 Wood StreetStaff Report r JR Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: June 17, 2025 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: June 6, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-282 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, to permit a Multiple Dwelling with 8 Dwelling Units on a lot having an area of 393 square metres instead of the minimum required 450 square metres; ii) Section 6, Table 6-3, to permit a front yard setback of 3.8 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres; iii) Section 6, Table 6-3, to permit an exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres instead of the minimum required 4.5 metres; and iv) Section 6, Table 6-3, to permit a building height of 12 metres instead of the maximum permitted building height of 11 metres; to facilitate the development of an 8 -unit Multiple dwelling, generally in accordance with drawings prepared by Masri O Inc. Architects, dated February 28, 2025, revised May 2, 2025, BE REFUSED. 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 requested variances satisfy any of the 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 *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 5 of 297 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: Application History The Minor Variance Application for 96 Wood Street was originally heard on September 17, 2024, and the Committee of Adjustment recommended that the application `Be Deferred' until December 10, 2024, or earlier, in accordance with the following: 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 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 Subsequent to the meeting, Planning and Heritage Planning Staff provided the Applicant with additional information and a `Terms of Reference' on October 4, 2024, outlining what should be included in the necessary Report and Plan. The Applicant requested that the Application be considered at the December 10, 2024, Committee of Adjustment meeting and was subsequently deferred again as the Applicant did not submit the necessary Report and Plan. The Applicant has since prepared the necessary Report and Plan, however did not follow the `Terms of Reference' provided on October 4, 2024. The Applicant has also made minor revisions to their proposal by removing the proposed one parking space to accommodate additional outdoor amenity space and modifying the building fagade material and colour. The proposed variance for the required Driveway Visibility Triangle is no longer required given that the proposed driveway has been removed. Property 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. The subject property is identified as a `Protected Major Transit Station Area' on Official Plan Map 2 — Urban Structure and Map 4 — Protected Major Transit Station Areas and Page 6 of 297 Urban Growth Centre. The property was previously designated `Low Rise Conservation' in the K -W Hospital Neighbourhood Plan on Map 18 — Secondary Plan in the City's 1994 Official Plan. The property's land use designation changed last year to `Strategic Growth Area A' on Map 3 — Land Use with the adoption of By-law 2024-062 and approval of OPA 49 by the Region of Waterloo. The property is also identified within the `Gildner Green Neighbourhood' on Map 9 — Cultural Heritage Resources The property was originally zoned `Residential Five Zone, Special Use Provision 129U (R- 5, 129U)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 when the application was heard in September and in December 2024. The property's zone category has changed to `SGA -1: Low Rise Growth Zone' now that the appeal to By-law 2024-065 has been partially resolved. 731 f t6l,1 /,66 Figure 1: Location Map (96 Wood Street Shown in RED) Purpose of Application The purpose of this application is to review the requested minor variances to facilitate the development of an 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling with reduced setbacks and increased height on an undersized lot. Residential development was previously limited to 4 dwelling units or fewer under the old R-5, 129U zoning, but now that the SGA -1 zone is in full effect, a Multiple Dwelling is permitted subject to applicable regulations. The requested variance to these applicable regulations include: • Permit a Multiple Dwelling with between 5 and 10 dwelling units to have a reduced lot area of 393 square metres instead of the minimum required 450 square metres. • Permit a front yard setback of 3.8 metres instead of 4.5 metres. • Minimum exterior yard setback of 2.5 metres instead of 4.5 metres. • Permit a building height of 12 metres instead of 11 metres. Page 7 of 297 The Applicant had also requested a minor variance to permit an existing 1.8 metres high fence on the abutting property within one side of the required Driveway Visibility Triangle for a proposed new driveway and parking space within the rear yard. However, the Applicant has removed the driveway and parking from the revised site plan to accommodate additional amenity space as shown in Figures 2 and 3. As such, this requested variance is no longer applicable and will not be evaluated in the comments below. 2000 1 t500 Page 8 of 297 s K EX1`aT1P1C' _ r PORNERVISIBILI r i TRIANGLE Vj } PRGW.S�' r h I:'1.r SCAPF r r LWVQSCAPE 95d1G 1 3899 W n 750[1 53 $ - _ - 3 --STOREY RESIQENTIkL BUILQING+gp�,SEMENT - B UNITS _ T A WMICYCLE It OUTi OOR w ACPS [61 AMENITY _ x 0 w'- fl 1 fl BIKE CLOS E SPAC x I x xj i27. } - LANID50APE = �+��®18'90" 4V 402 � SITE PLAN Q SCALE: t 1sa a � LL E E o0 M Figure 2: Site Plan - Revised May 2, 2025 2000 1 t500 Page 8 of 297 TRET CORK ASK COSIQA� E%SSTISSG ``�� 5 7� I I CpORNER VISIBILIT s I TRIANGLE OiY.� � RO LANDSCAPE L5n !- 4$ V Y - I' 4Ssn REQ fix` 4500 tANG1'E� I ' �VISiS4Ll o Afa,ENITy 4Ia - - 7S 154fi0 3999 p 3 -STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING- BASEMENT I To uNrcs ou IFI YPE B.BICYCLE x SPACES{6] II PARKING m I SPACE n Iwl 0 BIKE I1 EXIT s j8]LOS SPAC—I LANDSCAPE vI Ir: m6-1 SITE PLAN N 26 W30" W 27.40.2 1 ti s SCALE i: iso W a LL LL 6 Figure 3: Site Plan - First Submission W .I.., � �, TIO BASEMENT -1.300 Figure 4: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade) - Revised May 2, 2025 Page 9 of 297 - TIO PENTHOUSE ROOF 13.300 UIS ROOF 10.500 1- TIO THIRD FLOOR L5 � 7.500 - CV r z TIO SECOND FLOOR a r" 4.500 co TIO GROUND FLOOR r r 1.500 TIO,GRADE } BASEMENT LINES 1 ;-1.300 `- - - ---- ---- �- - - - --- --- --y0.000 T/O ASEMENT Figure 5: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade) - First Submission Figure 6: Existing House (Wood Street) Figure 8: Existing House and Fence (York Street) Page 10 of 297 Figure 10: Wood Street Streetscape Beside Existing House Figure 7: Existing Driveway and Garage REPORT: Planning Comments: Figure 9: York Street Streetscape Beside Existing House Figure 11: Location of City Trees Beside Subject Property 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 following submission materials were reviewed for this application: • Site Plan and Development Data and Elevations prepared by Masri O Inc. Architects, dated June 17, 2024, revised May 2, 2025. • CofA Report prepared by Urban Insights, dated February 28, 2025, revised May 2, 2025. • Cultural Heritage Impact Memo prepared by LRA Heritage, dated February 28, 2025, revised May 2, 2025. • Tree Management Plan, Landscape Plan, and Landscape Details prepared by Hill Design Studio Inc., dated February 27, 2025, revised April 29, 2025. Page 11 of 297 • Vegetation Management Report prepared by Hill Design Studio Inc., dated February 27, 2025, revised April 30, 2025. 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. The proposed development would contribute to the diversity of housing types. As per Official Plan Section 11.C.1.37 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 11, that form an essential component of the streetscape character in addition to contributing to the high quality public realm, as shown in Figures 6-10. Ensuring the retention of these trees is critical to satisfying this Official Plan policy To address the City trees, the Applicant prepared a Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report which states that only one City tree will be removed to facilitate the development. This tree is located on Wood Street directly beside the existing driveway as shown in Figures 6 and 7. The Arborist Report indicates that this tree is in poor condition and will not survive the required excavation or construction of the new walkway. City Forestry staff agree that the tree's structural condition is poor and has a limited lifespan remaining. As such, staff are agreeable to this tree removal with the understanding that sufficient compensation will be required for replacement trees. While staff agree with the Arborist evaluation for the tree on Wood Street, staff have significant concerns with the evaluation of potential impacts to the large Sugar Maple tree on York Street shown in Figure 8. The tree trunk is over 1 metre in diameter and requires a minimum setback (Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)) of 6.8 metres from all site alterations. The original Arborist Report prepared on February 27, 2025, states that this tree is in fair condition but is sensitive to root disturbance and is expected to decline in health due to the impacts of construction including hard surface elements that will require excavation and compaction within 2 metres of the tree trunk, well within the required setback. As such, the original Arborist Report recommend that the tree be removed. City Forestry, Planning, and Heritage staff will not support the removal of a large, healthy City tree that forms an essential component of the neighbourhood tree canopy coverage and streetscape character to accommodate a request for a reduced exterior side yard setback. As such, the Applicant was asked to revise their Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report. Staff Page 12 of 297 noted that the tree might tolerate a minor encroachment into the required TPZ, likely by maintaining the required 4.5 metre building setback. However, this minor encroachment must be justified by a fulsome analysis and supported by adequate tree protection measures to mitigate potential impacts. rF �.,,- ------L--------------- J x�unmv us, Figure 12: Tree Management Plan Yey.+ Y61VO�LS1 YMLrvl City of Kikhenm Tree management Pion Hill Des�< The Applicant provided revised documents on May 2, 2025, which states that the large tree on York Street would be preserved. The proposed new driveway and hard scaped amenity area within the tree's rootzone had been removed as shown on Figure 2. However, the building's location and extent of excavation had not changed as previously recommended. The revised Arborist Report claims that since the revised site plan allows for the rootzone to the north, west, and south to remain largely untouched, the tree should tolerate some encroachment into the rootzone due to foundation excavation. However, Forestry staff have significant concerns with this revised evaluation and lack of supporting evidence. The revised Arborist Report does not provide sufficient rationale to support this claim by analyzing the excavation required for the main building, other than stating that the other areas of untouched rootzone should be sufficient to preserve the tree. For example. the revised Arborist Report does not provide an analysis of low -impact exploratory root investigations, exact area of disturbance within the tree protection zone required for excavation, exact distance between the tree trunk and closest point of excavation, impacts to rooting areas outside the tree protection zone, or any pruning required for the new building. Without a comprehensive analysis of these factors, there is insufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that the tree will survive the negative impacts for the long term, particularly since the original Arborist Report clearly states this tree species is sensitive to root disturbance and will suffer negative impacts due to excavation within 2 metres of the Page 13 of 297 tree. As such, staff strongly disagree with the Arborist Report regarding this tree on York Street and anticipate the potential impacts from the proposed development will result in the tree's removal. Preservation of this tree for the long term is essential for adhering to the Official Plan and as such, staff must recommend refusal for the requested variance to permit reduced exterior side yard setback of 2.5 metres. The subject property is located within the Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL was identified in the City's 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study and the boundaries were further refined and the heritage attributes identified in the City's 2018 Cultural Heritage Landscape Implementation (CHLI) for Cultural Heritage Landscapes within the K -W Hospital Secondary Plan Area. The findings of these documents were implemented during the City's Growing Together project (OPA 49), which culminated in new Official Plan policies and new zoning. Official Plan policy 12.C.1.23 states that the City has the authority to require a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or Heritage Conservation plan for development, redevelopment, and site alterations on properties within or adjacent to a CHL. After discussing the scope of the proposed development with Heritage staff, it was determined that a Planning Justification Report which directly address the relevant heritage and other Official Plan policies could be provided instead of a Heritage Impact Assessment. Staff provided the Applicant with terms of reference on October 4, 2024, detailing what must be included in the Planning Justification Report to sufficiently address the relevant Official Plan policies and heritage considerations. As mentioned above, the Applicant prepared a Planning Justification Report and Cultural Heritage Impact Memo but did not follow the terms of reference and did not adequately address the heritage concerns. Official Plan Policy 11.C.1.35 states that new development or redevelopment within a CHL will support, maintain, and enhance the major characteristics and attributes of the CHL, support the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, be compatible with the existing neighbourhood including streetscape and built form, and respond to the design, massing, and materials of the adjacent and surrounding buildings. To address this Official Plan policy, the Applicant's Cultural Heritage Impact Memo provides broad opinions that the new building has been designed to reflect key architectural features and is compatible with existing low-density and multi -unit residential uses in the area and reflects the historical working-class housing patterns associated with the CHL. However, there is no evidence or rationale to support these broad claims that the proposed development conserves the cultural heritage values and attributes of the property, streetscape, and CHL. This is particularly problematic since the proposed development appears to be a sharp contrast to the established cultural heritage attributes in the following ways: The architectural design of the proposed building does not feature common housing design characteristics from the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL. In particular, the roof style is flat whereas most buildings feature a front gable or hipped roof and the materials are not identified on the building elevation drawings. The proposed development removes a mature tree on Wood Street and encroaches into the critical root zone of a mature City -owned tree on York Street, which Forestry staff anticipates will result in significant negative impacts that leads to the tree's untimely removal. Page 14 of 297 • The 3.5 storey and 12 metre building height of the proposed building does not align with the primarily 2 to 2.5 storey buildings in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL. In particular, the adjacent building and surrounding buildings range from 1.5 to 2 storeys in height. • The proposed lot coverage is inconsistent with other properties in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL. In particular, the width and depth of the proposed building is larger than the adjacent and surrounding buildings. • There is no consideration for the adaptive reuse of the existing building. These significant deviations from the established cultural heritage values and attributes and the anticipated negative impacts on the CHL are incompatible with the Official Plan requirement. As such, the proposed variances for increased height, reduced lot area, and reduced exterior side and front yard setbacks do not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan. In addition to the heritage design considerations, Official Plan Section 15.D.2.5 states that site specific applications which seek relief from the implementing SGA zoning must consider factors such as compatibility with the planned function of the subject site and adjacent land, suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form, lot area and consolidation outlined in Policy 3.C.1.34, compliance with the City's Urban Design Manual and Official Plan policies, cultural heritage resources, and technical considerations and other contextual or site-specific factories. Official Plan policy 4.C.1.8 also states that where minor variances are requested to facilitate residential redevelopment, the overall impact of the minor variances will be reviewed to ensure any new buildings are appropriate in massing and scale, are compatible with the built form and community character of the established neighbourhood, and the lands can function appropriately and do not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on site, amongst other provisions. As discussed above, the proposed building design and anticipated negative impact on existing street trees and streetscape are not compatible with the established neighbourhood character, built form, or cultural heritage resources, which contradicts Official Plan policies 15.D.2.5 and 4.C.1.8. In terms of the suitability of the lot, staff have significant concerns with the proposed number of units on an undersized lot. The Zoning By-law requires a lot area of 450 square metre for Multiple Dwellings with between 5 and 10 dwelling units to help ensure the lands can function appropriate by providing sufficient amenity space while still adhering to the general character of the neighbourhood, particularly related to setbacks and lot coverage. The subject property is 393 square metres and the proposed building has a reduced exterior side and front yard setback while meeting the minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. This reduced lot area combined with the bare minimum rear yard setback and reduced exterior side and front yard setbacks significantly limits the available outdoor amenity space, thereby failing to adhere to the general intent of Official Plan policy 15.D.2.5 and 4.C.1.8. Furthermore, staff have concerns with the functionality of the site with respect to parking. While it is true the Planning Act and Zoning By-law do not require any vehicle parking spaces within a Protected Major Transit Station Area, it is beneficial for the functionality of the site to provide at least one parking space or loading space for visitors, contractors, and/or deliveries for the proposed 8 units. This would help avoid unacceptable adverse impacts Page 15 of 297 on adjacent properties and the neighbourhood which already has challenges with high demand for limited on street parking. Without at least one parking or loading space, staff do not believe the proposed development maintains the general intent of Official Plan policies 15.D.2.5 and 4.C.1.8. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The purpose of the `SGA -1: Low Rise Growth Zone' is to create opportunities for missing middle housing and compatible non-residential uses in low-rise forms up to 11 metres in height. While the proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling creates opportunities for missing middle housing, the building does not adhere to the maximum 11 metres in height. The purpose of the 11 metre maximum building height is to ensure a consistent streetscape and built form and that residential intensification is compatible with the existing neighbourhood within the low rise growth zone. As discussed extensively above, the proposed building does not follow the established streetscape or built form and is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood character within the low rise growth zone. As such, the proposed increase in building height does not maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The general intent of the minimum required front and exterior side yard setbacks is to maintain a consistent built form and streetscape character while providing some opportunities for landscaping. To this regard, the proposed front and exterior side yard setbacks are consistent with the existing surrounding properties on Wood Street and York Street which have front yard setbacks generally ranging from 2 — 4 metres. However, the existing houses on Wood Street and York Street are generally 2 to 2.5 storeys with gable or hipped roofs and a front porch. This existing built form is significantly different from the proposed building which has 3.5 storeys, 12 metres building height, flat roof, and no front porch. This considerable difference in street line fagade does not maintain a consistent streetscape character and built form and as such, does not maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Furthermore, as discussed above, the proposed 2.5 metre exterior yard setback results in excavation occurring unacceptably close to an existing City tree that is anticipated to result in the tree's removal. This does not maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The subject property is currently 393 square metres which satisfies the minimum requirement for a total of 4 residential dwelling units. The Applicant is proposing 8 units, 4 more than currently permitted, which requires a minimum lot area of 450 square metres. The general intent of the minimum lot area requirement is to ensure appropriate massing, consistent and compatible built form, and for sufficient outdoor amenity space and landscaping. As discussed above, the reduced lot area combined with the bare minimum rear yard setback and reduced exterior side and front yard setbacks significantly limits the available outdoor amenity and landscaped space. Without suitable amenity and landscaped areas, the proposed development does not maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Furthermore, the reduced lot area combined with reduced and bare minimum setbacks is inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood built form and lot coverage as noted in the heritage discussed above. This further demonstrates the disconnect between the proposed variances and the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Page 16 of 297 Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor? Staff is of the opinion that the effects of the proposed variances are not minor in nature. As discussed extensively above, the proposed development deviates substantially from the existing neighbourhood, established streetscape, and heritage values and attributes. The proposed building with an increased height and reduced front and exterior side yard setback creates a 12 metre street line fagade that is not compatible and does not complement the existing neighbourhood, thereby resulting in negative effects that staff do not consider minor in nature. The reduced lot area with minimal amenity space insufficient for 8 dwelling units also creates negative effects by placing additional pressures and potential nuisances on surrounding properties and increased demand for City owned amenity space. This negative effect is not minor in nature. Furthermore, the complete lack of parking or loading spaces for an undersized lot also has the potential to create negative impacts. The existing on -street parking situation for this neighbourhood is already problematic with demand normally far exceeding the supply, particularly due to the close proximity to the Grand River Hospital. Without any on-site parking or loading spaces, all visitors, deliveries, and contractors for any of the 8 dwelling units must utilize on street parking thereby negatively impacting an already challenging situation. As such, staff do not believe the effect of 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 proposed development and requested variances are not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. While it is true that the Official Plan designation generally encourages missing middle house such as the proposed 8 -unit Multiple Dwelling, the Official Plan is clear that any development must respect the low rise growth objectives for this designation and requirement for compatibility with the existing neighbourhood, streetscape, and cultural heritage values and attributes. As discussed extensively above, the proposed building is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood and streetscape and deviates significantly from the established cultural heritage values and attributes. Environmental Planning Comments: A tree in potential shared ownership with 85 Mt. Hope Street should also be assessed for impact from the proposed development. Heritage Planning Comments: The property municipally addressed as 96 Wood Street is in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL was identified in the City's 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study. The boundaries were refined, and the heritage attributes identified in the City's 2018 Cultural Heritage Landscape Implementation (CHLI) for Cultural Heritage Landscapes within the K -W Hospital Secondary Plan Area. The findings of these documents were implemented during the City's Growing Together project, which culminated in new Official Plan (OP) policies and new zoning. In addition to new OP policies, the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL is identified on Map 9 — Cultural Heritage Resources — of the OP. DSD -2024-530 dated November 28, 2024 recommended deferral until June 17, 2025 subject to two (2) conditions. Condition 2 required the Owner/Applicant to prepare, submit and obtain approval of a Planning Justification Report to demonstrate how the proposal Page 17 of 297 will meet the OP policies for the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL, with particular attention to Policies 11.C.1.35 and 15.D.2.5, and have regard for the Tree Management and Enhancement Plan, to support that the requested minor variances would meet the four (4) tests of the Planning Act. A scoped Terms of Reference for the Planning Justification Report in relation to the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL was provided to the Applicant on October 4, 2024. A final Cultural Heritage Impact Memo to support the Planning Justification Report has not been submitted. Official Plan policy 11.C.1.35 provides direction for Design in Cultural Heritage Landscapes and indicates that: New Development or redevelopment in a cultural heritage landscape will.- a) ill: a) Support, maintain and enhance the major characteristics and attributes of the cultural heritage landscape further defined in the City's 2024 City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study; b) Support the adaptive reuse of existing buildings,- c) uildings,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. It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the proposed development does not meet the general intent of: OP Policy 11.C.1.35.a (support, maintain or enhance the identified heritage attributes of the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL); OP Policy 11.C.1.35.c (be compatible with the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL); and, OP Policy 11.C.1.35.d (respond to the design, massing and materials of the adjacent and surrounding buildings in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL) because: o The proposed development removes mature trees and encroaches into the critical root zone of a mature City -owned tree, which presents a significant risk to the immediate and long-term health and retention of the tree. o The architectural design of the proposed building does not feature common housing design characteristics from the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL. In particular, (i) the roof style is flat whereas most buildings feature a front gable or hipped roof, and (ii) the materials are not identified on the building elevation drawings. o The 3.5 storey height of the proposed building does not align with the primarily 2 to 2.5 storey buildings in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL. In particular, the adjacent building and surrounding buildings range from 1.5 to 2 storeys in height. o The proposed lot coverage is not consistent with other properties in the Gildner Green Neighbourhood CHL. In particular, the width and depth of the proposed building is larger than the adjacent and surrounding buildings. Page 18 of 297 OP Policy 11.C.1.35.b) because the proposed development demolishes the existing building. Official Plan policy 15.D.2.5 indicates that: 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) actors: a) Compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent lands,- b) ands,b) Suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form,- c) orm,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. It is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the proposed development does not meet the general intent of: OP Policy 15.D.2.5.b because the lot is undersized for the proposed use with a built form that does not meet the intent of OP Policy 11.C.1.35 (as outlined above). OP Policy 15.D.2.5.f because a final Cultural Heritage Impact Memo in support of the Planning Justification Report has not been provided. Based on the above comments, Heritage Planning staff recommend refusal of Committee of Adjustment Minor Variance Application A2024-075. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit for the new residential building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions. Engineering Division Comments: No Concerns. Parks and Cemeteries Comments: Cash -in -lieu of park land dedication will be required at time of future Site Plan application. There are existing City -owned street trees within the right-of-way on Wood Street and York Street. 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. No revisions to the existing driveway or boulevard apron will be permitted without Forestry approval. Tree Protection and Enhancement Plans to Forestry's satisfaction will be required outlining complete protection of City assets prior to Site Plan approval. Page 19 of 297 Forestry Division Comments: 4A York St tree (#142817) • The tree has a DBH of 108cm, therefore its minimum setback (TPZ) is 6.8m. • The proposed dwelling is located 3m from the trunk and further disturbance, including excavation for the foundation, extends as close as 1.75m from the trunk. The proposed extent of injury is substantial and exceeds the tree's expected tolerance level, thus necessitating removal. Forestry does not support removal of this tree. If clearance pruning is needed, the arborist report and TMP must clearly specify the extent of pruning. 1A Wood St tree (#150563) • The tree has a DBH of 53cm, therefore its minimum setback (TPZ) is 4.2m. • Forestry's assessment of this tree determined its structural condition to be poor. Though its condition does not warrant immediate removal in itself, the tree has limited lifespan remaining and it is unlikely to tolerant much injury. Therefore, Forestry accepts its removal due to conflicts with the proposed design. • Compensation for a tree of this DBH class is calculated at 5 replacement trees. These funds will be allocated to planting trees in the neighborhood to restore canopy cover. Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) • TPF should enclose around all sides of the TPZ, including along the sidewalk, to protect trees and their soil habitat from potential impacts from traffic and stockpiling materials. Standard TPF consists of 1.2m tall orange safety fencing secured to a 2"x4" wood frame or steel T -bars at minimum 2.4m spacing. However, sightlines must be maintained within the corner visibility triangle. Replanting • Two proposed trees are indicated within the City right-of-way. However, tree planting within the right-of-way is to be undertaken by Forestry. Funds received as cash in lieu will be directed to replant and maintain trees to Forestry's standards and specifications. Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services had 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. However, this variance is no longer applicable. 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 20 of 297 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 21 of 297 Staff Report a-velo n7ent Services Deoartr7ent REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2024 l I�T��I�R www.kitchenerca 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: 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 297 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 23 of 297 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 24 of 297 YORK S�REE�w„ 95613 V LANA`'€i ' �VhSh84L � I; o AA�NIt•Y- Y i� I" 75 N W PARKING SPACE 4 n 16I H K- IiBi SPP.L'E3 _ SITE PLAN Figure 2: Site Plan TIC] PENTHOUSE ROOF r 13.300 WS ROOF 10.50+0 r ['10 THIRD FLOOR r 7.500 ;1- TIO SECOND FLOOR 4.540 TIO GROUND FLOOR ,),1-500 F rrORNER V18I8ILITI TRIANGLE l LANDSCAPE F yl F a d U 15490 3590 0 3-STGREY RESIDENTIAL. BUILDING+BASEMENT a UNITS 1 rk B•6KCVCLE f W $fir.CES h6) ll 1FG1 w F I EXIT_ _ F �1 -ANCSCRPE rv" OF i �rm N 2G'16'3d" w m ff a Y Y W LL d ri r 7- 75 7 CV z m TfO,GRADE L BASEMENT LINES i TIC) ASEMENT 1.300 Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Facade) Page 25 of 297 Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Facade) low Figure 5: Existing Driveway and Detached Garage Page 26 of 297 41M low 041*4 Figure 8: Proposed Driveway Location between City tree and Utility Box Figure 9: Location of City Trees Page 28 of 297 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 29 of 297 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 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 30 of 297 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 31 of 297 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(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/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 32 of 297 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 33 of 297 Staff Report a-velo n7ent Services Deoartr7ent REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: September 17, 2024 l I�T��I�R www.kitchenerca 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 34 of 297 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 35 of 297 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 RB �iSYVtI€' COS'dC I frDRNER V131BILITI TRIANGLE 6T2 LANDSCAPE r _ I I a 75 15a903590 0 1,� PARKING SPACE — BIKE' SITE PLAN SCALE: i . 95D Figure 2: Site Plan 3 -STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, BASEMENT 1p I & UNITS �+ IY�C B -BICYCLE 1 SF°nC:r ;51 1 1ttl sl w EXIT _ARDSCAPE N 26'16'30" W 27.402 w -- W m w ar a s � W LL @ NM 1500 W Page 36 of 297 TiO PENTHOUSE ROOF 13.300 �! JIS ROOF 10.500 TIO THIRD FLOOR 7.500 TIO SECOND FLOOR 4.500 TfO GROUND FLOOR J. r' 1.540 TIC] GRADE BASEMv NT LINES `r 0.0C TIO ASEMENT -1,30�J Figure 3: Building Elevation (Wood Street Fagade) Figure 4: Front of Existing House (Wood Street Fagade) Page 37 of 297 -ma 4-i-- s V` i'77a k °af �k Dw r i -• Y i A i y Figure 7: York Street Facing North Directly Beside Subject Property Figure 8: Proposed Driveway Location between City tree and Utility Box Page 39 of 297 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 40 of 297 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 41 of 297 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 42 of 297 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 43 of 297 Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the new residential building is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division at building(a)kitchener.ca with any questions. Engineering Division Comments: No concerns. Parks/Operations Division Comments: There are several large City owned street trees adjacent to this property and these trees should be protected to City standards throughout demolition and construction as per Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law. Suitable arrangements including the submission and approval of a Tree Protection and Enhancement Plan showing full protection for existing trees; an ISA valuation of City -owned trees and any required securities or compensation for removed trees will be required to the satisfaction of Parks and Cemeteries prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Please see Urban Design Manual Part C, Section 13 and www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement There are existing encroachments onto City lands as shown in the survey included in the Committee of Adjustment application. Theses encroachments should be removed entirely and complete restoration of public property to City standards will be expected through the off-site works related to the Building Permit application. Transportation Planning Comments: Transportation Services have no concerns with the encroachment into the driveway visibility triangle as this is an existing condition with the neighbouring property at 85 Mt. Hope Street. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. Page 44 of 297 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 45 of 297 Region of Waterloo June 11, 2025 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 4A 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 June 17, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have the following comments: 1) A 2024 — 075 — 96 Wood Street — No Concerns 2) A 2025 — 055 — 89 Matthew Street — No Concerns 3) A 2025 — 056 — 9 Blucher Street — Region Staff have significant concerns regarding the implementation of adequate crash protection measures along the Waterloo Spur. Region Staff require additional time to consider the application, and request the application be deferred. 4) A 2025 — 057 — 386 Wake Robin Cresent — No Concerns 5) A 2025 — 058 — 175 Hoffman Street — No Concerns 6) A 2025 — 059 — 22 Parkglen Street — No Concerns 7) A 2025 — 060 — 181 Borden Aveune North — No Concerns 8) A 2025 — 061 — 181 Borden Aveune North — No Concerns Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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. Document Number: 4976854 Page 46 of 297 Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Yours Truly, c71�",_ilUaw Joshua Beech Falshaw Transportation Planner jbeechfalshaw@regionofwaterloo.ca Document Number: 4976854 Page 47 of 297 June 2, 2025 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 — June 17, 2025 Applications for Minor Variance A 2024-075 96 Wood Street A 2025-055 89 Matthew Street A 2025-057 386 Wake Robin Crescent A 2025-058 175 Hoffman Street A 2025-059 22 Parkglen Street A 2025-060 181 Borden Avenue North A 2025-061 181 Borden Avenue North Applications for Consent B 2025-018 73 Second Avenue B 2025-019 181 Borden Avenue North B 2025-020 181 Borden Avenue North via email Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff have 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 aherremana-q rand river. ca or 519- 621-2763 ext. 2228. Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Page 48 of 297 From: Farah Farogue To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Cc: Jenna Auger Subject: Kitchener Jun 17, 2025 Hearing Date: Thursday, May 29, 2025 2:43:38 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona Afternoon Kitchener CofA, Thank you for circulating the June17, 2025, Committee of Adjustments agenda for Kitchener. Please be advised that all properties were found to be outside Metrolinx's designated review zones. As such, we have no comments/concerns with the applications in this agenda. Thankyou, Farah Faroque (she/her) Project Analyst, Adjacent Construction Review Real Estate & Development Metrolinx 20 Bay Street — Suite 600 1 Toronto I Ontario I M5J 2W3 T: 437.900.2291 =X: METROLINX From: mail@sf-notifications.com <mail@sf-notifications.com> Sent: May 23, 2025 10:45 AM To: development.coordinator <development.coordinator@metrolinx.com> Subject: Clerks CoK has shared the folder 'Committee of Adjustment - Applications' with you. XTERNAL SENDER: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. XPEDITEUR EXTERNE: Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n'ouvrez aucune piece jointe a moins qu'ils ne proviennent d'un expediteur fiable, )u que vous ayez I'assurance que Ie contenu provient d'une source sure. Development, Clerks CoK has shared the folder Committee of Adjustment - Applications with you. Page 49 of 297 Message from Clerks Attached are the applications for the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment meeting being held on June 17, 2025. Please remember, your email address is your username to log in. If you are unable to log in, select "Forgot my Password". For those who comment regularly, your written report must be sent to CofA@kitchener.ca no later than 12 noon on Monday, June 2, 2025. You will need to download any files in this folder that you would like to retain, as they will be deleted from this program when the applications for the next month are circulated. If you require any further assistance, please email CofA@kitchener.ca. Thank you. Marilyn Mills, Legislated Services Kitchener City Hall Need help? We're here for you. Visit sharefile.com/support and look for "Start chat." I This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you received Page 50 of 297 this in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the e-mail together with any attachments. Page 51 of 297 From: Nembhard, O"Neil (MTO) To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: RE: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025 Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 3:11:13 PM Attachments: imaoe001.ona You don't often get email from o'neil.nembhard@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important Good day, Please see below MTO comments related to the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment Meeting. 1. The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has no objection to this application. The subject property is located beyond our limits of permit control and therefore MTO review, approval and permits will not be required. o A 2024-075 - 96 Wood Street o A 2025-055 - 89 Matthew Street o A 2025-057 - 386 Wake Robin Crescent o A 2025-059 - 22 Parkglen Street o B 2025-019, B 2025-020, A 2025-060 & A 2025-061 - 181 Borden Avenue North 2. A 2025-058 - SP24/009/H/ES. 175 Hoffman Street - The subject property does fall within MTO permit control area, however based on the modifications to site proposed, MTO permits will not be required. 3. B 2025-018 - 73 Second Avenue- The subject property does fall within MTO permit control area, however, based on the location in a buildup area, MTO review, approval and permits will not be required. Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments. Regards, O'Neil Nembhard Corridor Management Planner I Operation West I Operations Division Ministry of Transportation Ontario I Ontario Public Service 548-388-2571 1 o'neil.nembhard C_ontario.ca Ontario 0 Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people Please note the Ministry no Ionizer accents Land Develooment review reauests thoueh its email system. All Land Development Review requests to the Ministry must be submitted to the Ministry of Transportation through the Highway Corridor Management Online portal at: https://www.hcros.mto.gov.on.ca/ The Land Development Review module is designed to better serve stakeholders through Page 52 of 297 streamlining all land development planning approvals by the Ministry. From: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 11:55 AM To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <CommitteeofAdjustment@kitchen er.ca> Subject: Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - Tuesday, June 17, 2025 CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. Good morning, The agenda for the June 17, 2025 Committee of Adjustment meeting is now available on our Council/Committee calendar. The combined agenda with reports will be posted to the meeting calendar by noon on Friday, June 13, 2025. Connie Owen Administrative Clerk I Legislated Services I City of Kitchener 519-904-1409 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 connie.owen(cbkitchener.ca Page 53 of 297 From: Pui Ming Leung To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: COA, Kitchener Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 11:37:04 AM Attachments: 11111j)d in Sorry for my late response. I apologize for any inconvenience caused. 90 Wood ST- make sure to have clearance to primary cable on York St according to our standard D11111 (attached here) For all new service or upgrade, please send a request to Enova for hydro connection. Thanks, Pui Ming Leung (she/her) I Design Technologist Direct Number: 226-896-2200 (EXT 6205) Mobile Number: 519-589-2659 puiming. leunaQenovapower.com 301 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4L2 enovapower.com 121 This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may contain personal or confidential information and may not otherwise be distributed, copied or used by the intended recipient. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notes the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the additional disclaimer: https://enovapower.com/disclaimer Page 54 of 297 N O r m� LO �r U) LO i o z LU� N ao ad � � WZ °❑ a p d F 2w'O H1 U O° Z W pK ~ w W a O w U x f Z 2 O V z o=p �w ww 3a §wzr o a 0 2 Z Q Z F> x> O H 2 K U Z Q W H ❑ Z❑ w O H m J y O _ ~ ~ ~l 3 O Z W J 0� 7 a O 0'. w m m p W ' K a O r�^ J Q ~ 1p y w m W m 0 2'U U Q O Y 2 z> v' U 3ovz ��� ow yv�¢ a �� New¢ o wO=> �¢p W� OfVy ¢ QH Z� W N Z (� N J Om MO Z. W J W yaz W mp ❑LU JFQa m N N w W W O V W> J OJ Z OF x O W W w m W O Q N N w w ma �� W, m0 v)40 =O° Uxz(g Z p & O ``' Q° O w v Q Q LL ? z m W z z to 07C m O Z / zu yrs w ' wo z Y y> j m00w yZ Ola-~ U U r �m a W z04 y°1 � CK�� 7yLLJ w0 aa¢ -w 0 pw ouz O M m z o v w¢ O=W w w 00 ��Ro _ov� �a ua- a n� �zm0n ¢ ¢ U) 0 maa(7 ~» my,y �xQ h m� Umm00 y fail W w N Z~ z m 0 N J~ W N a = W ¢ j 0 F F Z W Z U (7 02ND w°z c°)o .0 Z, 3<w z yz 0i0os o°p o Z m 3 zo 0, Y H f70> r W wo w w fgNUf/)F 7 7 Q 3 Z LLU W Q W QO ZNa m OO w 2N W KKa'2 �� LNL m N VJ (7 O W S H N ❑ O a' K O U ❑ w F0 0 fn w W W O NF 0,LU OUZ OU w Z Z Y O r❑ OZ OOy o z m❑ w m0 >� UN O z0OW z (J, V Z Z<MZ'^ ZmLLO xw W> = W O 6N W 0" GU> O W zp� N v Q U) W a J_ vJ ¢ W W F O j H w ¢ U J W Z ' O i- 2¢ ] O m a a K (❑ ❑ L) Q LL U U U Q w m 7 m w V w N m z m > O a¢¢ O m J a a 2 ° W F- m W Z J CO LL Z W Z O a - N O 0 WJ 2 Z O~m wOJ 00 QO¢ OJOmx zf2U ¢rn�._ z3a NUU U> Uam UU Nm 4 O 2 z Z � n of a �n fo r � ;ry � � 3 T'yQ6/ �i� Wfn W� a S x w £ a V s° Cys l >On N z rc �aa o� K 6 K O K O a T pp N w 3 0 0 b cC k-11 S U LD f — c~i w a Z G m Uw r N 14 7 U W \ W mar m a\ N Z \ o \ U Z W O - 0 At Oe e 0 \ NZ \. \ T ~ / W U W N O z Z � LL r H O J a 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 56 of 297 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 imaae008.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 57 of 297 422 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 58 of 297 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 59 of 297 • 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 60 of 297 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 61 of 297 Page 62 of 297 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 63 of 297 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 64 of 297 Sincerely, Michele Grieco a Da Page 65 of 297 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 66 of 297 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 67 of 297 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 68 of 297 From: To: Cmmittee of Adjustment (SM): Sean Harridan: Debbie Chapman Cc: Subject: Request for Variance/Adjustment - % Wood Street, Kitchener Date: Friday, December 6, 2024 1:09:33 PM IYou don't often get email from . Learn why this is im octant Good afternoon, I am writing you today to express my concerns with the proposed development at 96 Wood Street, Kitchener. While I recognize that increased density is our future and an area of focus for the Planning Committee, there are several aspects of the proposed development that should be considered when making a decision; Maintaining the look and feel of the existing neighbourhood - The proposed development abuts very closely to the property edges on several sides. While some single-family and duplex properties in the area also extend towards their property boundaries, they do follow the limits put in place and are significantly smaller structures. Given the height and scope of this project, allowing this structure to extend so close to the property line will create a "wall" like effect along York Street. While this may be appropriate downtown, it seems completely inappropriate for a residential neighbourhood. Height - Again recognizing that there are other higher density developments in the neighbourhood, these are all 2.5 floors or less. The proposed development is 3.5 floors, exceeding the permitted height in the area and would be taller than every other building in the area on a property of this size. It would extend well above adjacent properties and give those on the top floor an unimpeded view into neighbouring residences. Lack of Parking - The proposed development does not include any form of vehicle parking on-site. While we are close to many transit stops, it is not realistic to assume that zero occupants in the development will be without a vehicle. There are no paid overnight parking options in the area, and the daytime street parking is already crowded with hospital visitors. This is clearly visible in figure 7 of the Staff Report, and will lead to illegal parking on the street or at the nearby Catalyst 137 development. The Catalyst owners will not be appreciative of these extra visitors, as overnight parking there can impact lot maintenance. More cars on the street will also present difficulties, as sightlines when travelling eastbound across York from Mount Hope are already impacted by the allowed parking on York Street. I have personally observed several "near misses' at this intersection. Design - This concern ties in to the first item relating to 'look and feel of the neighbourhood'. The proposed development is a more contemporary, angled design than other properties in the neighbourhood. Other proposed developments on Mount Hope Street were forced to modify their designs to be closer aligned to that of other properties in the neighbourhood. The materials chosen also appear to be in place to meet a certain cost, rather than the brick and siding used by other properties in the area. Our expectation as residents in the area is that larger developments also be subject to the same level of scrutiny. Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns. If there is any follow up required or you Page 69 of 297 have any questions for us, please feel free to reach out. Nathan Majury & Marybeth Reynolds Page 70 of 297 September 18, 2024 Dear Appointees of the Committee of Adjustment This email is in regards to the proceedings from September 17, 2024 item 6.8, A 2024-075 — 96 Wood St, DSD — 2024 — 422. First of all, I would like to thank those members that have heard the community's concerns and are taking them seriously. While our neighbourhood is small, it is a unique and historic community in Kitchener. Please note the Kitchener website for upcoming meetings provides a date of September 16`h 2024 for the Committee of Adjustments meeting, which may have had an impact on the number of attendees. I would like to respond to the comments of surprise that no one from the neighbourhood attended the meeting. I was under the impression from the City that a written submission was equivalent to voicing my concerns in person and that these carry the same weight when the committee is making its deliberations. If attending the committee meeting somehow changes the outcome, then of course I will make it my business to attend. Additionally, I would like to point out that the meeting was held mid -week in the morning when most people are working. As I am sure you can appreciate, this is a community of working professionals and families and it is not always feasible to take half a day off during the week. It should also be noted that the assertion from the applicant that the home is dilapidated in any way is simply untrue. In fact, the current owner, who has never actually lived in the home or in our community, is currently renting the house to family. It is also the same make, build and age as most homes in the neighbourhood, including mine. Once again, I appreciate your time, commitment and careful consideration of the proposal and for hearing our concerns. Sincerely, Amanda Gordon Page 71 of 297 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM). Sean Harridan: Debbie Chapman Subject: My opposition to the proposed development at 96 Wood St Kitchener Date: Friday, December 6, 2024 3.13:41 PM IYou don't often get email from Learn why this is important Greetings all, My wife and I are the homeowners of , the property directly behind 96 Wood St. I have some concerns about the proposed development at 96 Wood St. My first concern is sort of a general one that a building that needs this many variances is simply not the right building for the lot: • it exceeds setbacks in every direction; • the building shape, build materials, and flat roof are not compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood. The best way I can think to put it is that its trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Another concern is related visibility and safety along York St. This street is used as a commuter bypass for Belmont and Park St traffic, since there's not a stop sign along York between Union and Glasgow. The Wood St. intersection is the midway point and the apex of speed as these commuters zip through our neighbourhood. Compound that with the street parking of hospital visitors along York St, and visibility and safety is already very bad. I'm worried that having a building extending into the setback by 2 metres is going to make the York/Wood intersection safety even worse. This neighbourhood is full of young children using the sidewalks, and I do not want a new construction to make traffic along York St. less safe than it already is. Finally, I am not satisfied that the proposed development adequately accounts for how garbage, recycling, and food waste for these units will be handled. Is it going to be a dumpster pushed tip against my back fence? Because it sure looks like it's probably going to be a dumpster pushed up against my back fence. If that happens, what recourse do I have? We have young children and we all spend a lot of time in our backyard, especially in the warmer months. Hopefiilly you can understand why I'm genuinely worried about how the waste of 8 units will be managed. We have owned since 2008, and in that time we've seen old housing stock in the neighbourhood get removed and the lots densified. I have never voiced opposition to any of that. I would also welcome the lot at 96 Wood to be redeveloped with a densified new construction, if a proposal were put forward that was congruent with the lot size and character of the neighbourhood, didn't negatively impact York St. safety, and had a reasonable plan for how waste would be managed. But this proposal is not that. This proposal is a square peg and 96 Wood St is a round hole. I urge you to reject this proposed development. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. - Cliff Snyder Page 72 of 297 From: Sean Harrigan To: Cc: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: RE: Opposition to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street Date: Monday, December 9, 2024 2:19:49 PM Good afternoon Elizabeth, Thank you for your detailed comments and concems. The Committee of Adjustment staff (cc'd) 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 City of Kitchener 519-783-89341 Sean.Harrigangkitchener.ca. -----Original Message ----- From: Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 2:10 PM To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigangkitchener.ca> Subject: Opposition to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 Wood Street Dear Mr. Harrigan and Ms. Chapman, I have lived on Wood Street for more than six decades. I understand the reason for development and that things continue to change. My 2 major concems are safety and having developments that fit into the character of the neighbourhood. In terms of safety, this development will increase the amount of cars parking on Wood Street and Park Street. This is because there are no parking spots allotted for this development. There are already many cars parked on the street from staff and visitors of Grand River Hospital, which is at the top of Wood Street. There are many children living on the street and a street lined with cars is always more dangerous because it limits a child's view when crossing the street. In terms of driving one's own car, the parked cars limit your ability to see when leaving your driveway. Also, when attempting to tum left from Wood Street onto York Street, one needs to pull out dangerously far in order to see around the cars to see if there is a vehicle coming down the street. These situations are accidents waiting to happen and once again make it dangerous for the children. My neighbourhood consists of predominantly red brick homes from the 1920's. This creates an attractive, distinct and enduring identity. The proposed building and position on the lot is not sensitive to the setting in any way. It will erode the lovely street scape. A city should strive to create an attractive environment that functions well for its citizens, provides buildings that will stand the test of time, and result in its citizens taking pride in their individual neighbourhoods. I am asking for the committee to value the streetscape and architectural style of the neighbourhood and not allow the development of the lot at 96 Wood Street to go ahead as proposed. Sincerely, Elizabeth Beyers Page 73 of 297 From: To: Committee of Adiustment [Sht]. Sean Harridan: Debbie Chapman Subject: objection to Proposed 8 -Unit Development at 96 'Wood Street Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 9:56:24 AM You don't often get email from . Learn why this isim on rtant Preview attachnietit Wood StreetJ12 8 Wood Street.ivs 3.3 MB Good Morning, 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 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 thmofares 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 am unable to snake the Committee of Adjustment meeting today, as I am booked with other Page 74 of 297 meetings all day, but I am happy to connect outside of that to further express my concerns. Thank you! Alison Marshall Page 75 of 297 From: Sean Harrigan To: Debbie Chapman; Committee of Adjustment (SM) Subject: RE: 96 Wood Street Development Date: Thursday, June 12, 2025 9:10:50 AM Attachments: image001.ona imaae002.pna image001ona imaae004.pna image005.png imaae006.pna image007.ona imaae008.pna Good morning James, Thank you for your detailed comments and concerns. The Committee of Adjustment staff will ensure your comments are provided 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 City of Kitchener 519-783-8934 Sean. HarrioanCcbkitchener.ca. From: James Steckly Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:57 PM To: Sean Harrigan <Sean.Harrigan@kitchener.ca>; Debbie Chapman <Debbie.Chapman@kitchener.ca>; coa@kitchener.ca Subject: 96 Wood Street Development Proposed redevelopment of an 8 -unit rental building at 96 Wood Street. 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 the character of the neighborhood at the current height proposed. What is the use of bylaws if they can be changed on a whim whenever requested by a developer? 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. Page 76 of 297 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. Can you guarantee these units would not end up being short term rentals as Luisa D'Amato's Opinion Page in the June 6th issue of the Record pointed out in her article: Too Many Short Term Rentals Are Bad For The Neighbourhood. Already in some 800 units across the city. What kind of rent controls do you have in place that will stop this type of rental model? Allowing such developments in an older mature established residential area is a very slippery slope. Thanks for your consideration. Regards. James and Andrea Weber Steckly Page 77 of 297 From: To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Sean Harrigan; Debbie Chapman Subject: I am opposed to the proposed development at 96 Wood St Kitchener Date: Thursday, June 12, 2025 11:58:43 AM Greetings, I have lived in this neighbourhood for 17 years, and I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed development at 96 Wood St. I encourage you to refer back to voluminous neighbourhood opposition to this development already on record from the previous two times this development was put forward in 2024. The proposed development attempts to squeeze as large a building as possible onto a tiny plot of land, exceeding municipal setbacks in width, length, and height. I am not opposed to redevelopment on this lot, but this proposed development is simply too large for this lot. It's also not the right fit for the neighbourhood. There really are no comparable buildings in the neighbourhood to this proposed development. The approval of this development would be precedent setting in a way that could completely change the character of this mature and vibrant neighbourhood. Finally, over the last few months the current house on the lot has been undergoing renovations, presumably in anticipation of a no vote on this development. The current house is not dilapidated and does not need to be demolished. I encourage you to vote no to this proposed development. Thanks, - Cliff Snyder Page 78 of 297 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 79 of 297 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 80 of 297 MX7 Page 81 of 297 IY `• �, - 4 P � r p � � Few xir w INP r, �.'■ 'y r __ ■� ,rte x.�} Py �'�•�,�•�' � � � 1, � '" � � ! .s -■ '' :� � - o✓ r -re •C�'" 'ti •gip �P.� � 7° P G � 'ry �e,a.. ��a' . ^'•' • �+� S•� r i�p°'�tl .�,� "E+'s�tl� '#� `k'•'� "� �k.,�r � rr�t$' ya�a o• •' �:,.`'.� , •r '■ s'r• 'F"' .{i'R,",�"_ e• lra 7 ��I�.�'sA};�•r' grtl L,J �'A•.i .:i� j: �: -_ `..fk . �,��• � d r '-} a 'mss }°'� i,.F d _ � b9y' r- �y� L � � $fi , r5° 5•, � -° r '� T � '�• ■ � A , ° � -4p • $amu dwL s 4 Y ir i 'y r __ ■� ,rte x.�} Py �'�•�,�•�' � � � 1, � '" � � ! .s -■ '' :� � - o✓ r -re •C�'" 'ti •gip �P.� � 7° P G � 'ry �e,a.. ��a' . ^'•' • �+� S•� r i�p°'�tl .�,� "E+'s�tl� '#� `k'•'� "� �k.,�r � rr�t$' ya�a o• •' �:,.`'.� , •r '■ s'r• 'F"' .{i'R,",�"_ e• lra 7 ��I�.�'sA};�•r' grtl L,J �'A•.i .:i� j: �: -_ `..fk . �,��• � d r '-} a 'mss }°'� i,.F d _ � b9y' r- �y� L � � $fi , r5° 5•, � -° r '� T Page 84 of 297 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 85 of 297 Page 87 of 297 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 88 of 297 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 89 of 297 • 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 90 of 297 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 AA wsll Z Mti M QJ W N �F O a Uz M W N u'1 P W N 4 BJ co 0- L) 0 M N N N N M a w LL N � MM tij 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 wW0O7�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 m - N1HM3O1S 313MONOO ONI1SIX3 0 ur li-1-1-1 £6244 3..OS.ZZu£9N N � / Sr/ 1 / AMJd AA WB'£ 3 098 AA wsll w xO O 0 0 Q LL LULU Z 0 0 z w 7 LL LL O J Of m Of N M m ♦ Z r - r rn QJ N �F O a Uz W w� Y a �Q L) 0 " `Q w LL N � MM tij w xO O 0 0 Q LL LULU Z 0 0 z w 7 LL LL O J Of m Of N M m ♦ Z d J a W Y � w o p ❑ ❑ w c O M cn a O O O 2 O H- H z Q F- LU W F- ui a 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 92 of 297 Please let me know if you have any questions for me, Thanks! Andrew Wong Page 93 of 297 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 94 of 297 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 95 of 297 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 96 of 297 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 97 of 297 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 98 of 297 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 99 of 297 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 100 of 297 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 101 of 297 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 102 of 297 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 103 of 297 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 104 of 297 z �a U sn P o zm F— o oW � E° ff O w v8 z z o� oz N w Q p 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 AA wsll Z M M ti J N J M W N u'1 P W N 4 �z co co 0- LLJ M N N N N M L) 0 " a LL N LO 1M Lo 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 AA wsll w xO O 0 0 Q LL LULU Z 0 0 z w 7 LL LL O J m N M m ♦ Z r - r rn J N J O Y LO 0 �z LLJ Q L) 0 " `Q LL N LO 1M Lo 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 � w o p ❑ ❑ w c O M cn a O O O 2 O H- H z Q F- LU W F- ui a 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 106 of 297 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 107 of 297 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 108 of 297 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 109 of 297 A Page 110 of 297 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 111 of 297 - 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 112 of 297 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 113 of 297 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 114 of 297 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 IDN. 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 115 of 297 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 116 of 297 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 117 of 297 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 118 of 297 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 119 of 297 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 120 of 297 From: 1. Fowler To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Cc: Sean Harrigan 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 haps://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 121 of 297 From: T. Foster -Grieco 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 122 of 297 From: D. Kennedy 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 concems 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 concems that this development creates. I find no reason to repeat on subjects and concems 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 123 of 297 4e- 64-eila-A. NL - r cur- � �� S ►tatamme &," ?' lcle ' • F' rt !ef".._ --AD Co�� L. J- el — eA.04�CJAI &Aqq 5-1 IOJL��Mc. file le if- nr 1,rc" O"V 041 Page 124 of 297 December 9, 2024 Dear Appointees of the Committee of Adjustment, am writing to you as one of the owners of 96 Wood Street, Waterloo, regarding the proposed development. I'd like to express my gratitude for your consideration as well as for the input from the community. We appreciate the time and effort that everyone has dedicated to this matter. Living in this particular neighbourhood is something that I've aspired to for many years. tiVe. purchased this property due to its significant location, rich history, and the close-knit community. Our intention with this project is to create somewhere I will be able to call home that also contributes to the area's growth and sustainability for future generations to come. The central location of this property near uptown, downtown, public transit, and many major businesses, makes it an ideal candidate for redevelopment. Given the excellent accessibility, owning a vehicle isn't a necessity, and would help reduce emissions, prevent additional traffic, and attract tenants who are vehicle -free. I know numerous individuals who rent/own property in the, area and don't have veh cies or sere a treed for them`. Thrs It a growtng trend in cities, and as Kitchener -Waterloo continues to expand, we believe this approach aligns with evolving needs. As a current resident of Uptown Waterloo, I'm renting a unit similar to the ones proposed at 96 Wood Street and I have firsthand experience with the demand for more centrally located rental options: For long -tame homeowners, it might be diffiGult to relate to the Ghallenges faced by renters. In Uptown Waterloo, rental options are often limited to either overpriced high-rises or very dated homes. The proposed development would help address a gap in the market by offering a modern alternative in a mature neighbourhood. Ultimately, our goal with this project at 96 Wood Street is to revitalize and enhance the value of an aging property. As the region continuos to oxporiohce rapid development, we, hope this property could be a positive, family-owned contribution to the future of this vibrant community. Once again, thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Nadia Vladco Owner, 96 Wood Street, Waterloo Page 125 of 297 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 126 of 297 IN I� uu eli ego FEN C M Uk JtWE w� 41 jw I} , a an a[E7 FrrP..� WOOD STREET 4 Page 127 of 297 � ego 6 _ . x �rrrJJ7AA00 m E� Eb¢] S. N WOOD STREET 4 Page 127 of 297 Apilrillill 0 00-4 MAL I 0 0 cU u E < 0 > > U kn 0 S�- 0 -E —0 QJ CIJ u E 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 NWXL(AW suo'llinSilsur.)l pldl!'d PunOJV Bu!uu 0 VJVV NOUVIS NWXL(AW suo'llinSilsur.)l pldl!'d PunOJV Bu!uu P4%rl 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+ P4%rl - _. N O VQ M MX. Cfu a . 3 � O -• n r+ 0 0 0 Z n N o L' r r+ r _. P4%rl 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 131 of 297 3 i,n 3 o0 3 0 % cin 0 <. f� w N O m Page 131 of 297 W W w Page 132 of 297 133�US a00M 9 m _ - wi cz m w m 92 L` Z A WAW 4�.R,4A ^_j 4lb6 �dlMt-` LU aai T 3AO9V a I^ t iO3,u lr � .1VG.l .. it 00900 Z W .I L 11J _ a s Q _ m lw � Z i ui U) 6 r W VJ w T Y co 'I I 0 m S OG /Ic9xim x I, 733..IPJ Page 132 of 297 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 133 of 297 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 134 of 297 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 134 of 297 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 137 of 297 ,�� ;� 1332US DOOM I -i;- I— W W r) O O rn Page 138 of 297 Page 139 of 297