The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDTS-06-100 - Mt. Hope Neighbourhood - Triplexes and Related Matters1 Kd LR Development& Technical Services 6 REPORT Report To: Development & Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: June 26, 2006 Submitted By: Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning 741 -2325 Prepared By: Cory Bluhm, Planner 741 -2776 Jeff W i l l m e r, 741 -2325 Ward(s) Involved: All Date of Report: June 20, 2006 Report No.: DTS -06 -100 Subject: Mt. Hope Neighbourhood Triplexes and Related Matters RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Report DTS -06 -100 be received for information. 2. That Planning staff be directed to proceed with Alternative 1 as set out in Report DTS - 06 -100, namely, to take no immediate action to prohibit triplexes but continue as directed in Report DTS -06 -026: to present the findings of the February 2006 Triplex Report to the Safe & Healthy Communities Advisory Committee and to discuss future public engagement; to introduce new tools to the development review process which will ensure that any new additional triplexes (city -wide) will be designed to better minimize impacts on neighbourhoods; to review municipal plan policies and zoning provisions for specific streets and neighbourhoods as identified in the study; to continue to solicit feedback from all stakeholders (residents, landlords, owners, tenants, etc.). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is written in response to the concerns raised at the May 29 Council meeting regarding triplexing in the Mt. Hope neighbourhood. Five alternatives are set out, and advantages /disadvantages identified for each alternative. REPORT Background In the 1980s and early 1990s the City prepared and approved a series of Secondary Plans for inner city neighbourhoods. These plans set the direction for future land use in the central neighbourhood areas, identifying lands where redevelopment would be encouraged in order to promote intensification, establish a critical mass to support downtown business, create a transit - supportive density, and make use of public investment in existing infrastructure — not only roads and sewers, but parks, schools, and social infrastructure as well. The Secondary Plans also identified substantial areas where the existing low rise residential building stock should be conserved. In 1994, as part of Stage 6 of the City's Comprehensive Zoning By -law, the "areas of change" along arterial roads leading into the downtown were zoned Commercial - Residential, and the "areas of stability" within the interior of the residential neighbourhoods were zoned Residential R -5. In 2003 the Regional Municipality of Waterloo adopted the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS), which adopted a balanced approach to growth including some outward expansion of the urban area and a moderate level of reurbanization within the existing urban area. A substantial amount of additional population and employment was forecast for the re- urbanization areas throughout the region. In 2004 -2005 Kitchener conducted the Built Form Review to assess whether the official plan and zoning already in place throughout the broader re- urbanization area (not only the downtown and central neighbourhoods, but extending southeast to include the Fairway Road Primary Node and the Gateway Planned Commercial Campus. This review was presented to Committee and Council in May 2005, concluded that the zoning already in place within designated "areas of change" is sufficient to accommodate projected growth targets of the RGMS. As such, interior neighbourhoods do not necessarily need to intensify. The Cedar Hill Land Use and Social Environment Study was conducted in 2004 -2005. It analyzed a wide variety of socio- economic indicators to determine whether Cedar Hill was measurably different from other Central Neighbourhoods. It concluded that Cedar Hill was more significantly in need of special treatment in regards to land use matters. Through that study, each of the central neighbourhoods was also subject to the same quantitative analysis. No other neighbourhood was determined to be in need of such special treatment. In January 2006 Planning staff conducted a public consultation process to solicit feedback on the appropriateness of allowing new additional triplexes within established residential neighbourhoods. This was brought to Council as Report DTS -06 -026 "Triplex Dwelling Open House." While the consensus of the consultation was that there is not a strong case to be made for prohibiting new triplexes or new conversions to triplex throughout the Central Neighbourhoods, valuable concerns were raised, which staff were directed to explore certain initiatives, including the official plan review. These included: - Review of the development process (zoning, site plan control, etc.) to ensure new triplexes do not negatively impact existing neighbourhoods; - Review specific neighbourhoods and streets that may currently be experiencing development pressures (particularly KW- Hospital and Mount Hope -Huron Park); and, - Continuing to solicit feedback so that staff can gain a balanced perspective on triplex issues (such as ensuring tenants have an opportunity to comment). Staff worked with University housing representatives to prepare a Student Housing Strategy which is to be finalized before Council in August or September of this year. 14 Knowing the neighbourhood awareness and concern, we already advise potential investors that these are neighbourhoods where significant opposition can be expected. Tends to redirect to elsewhere; path of least resistance; At the Council meeting of May 29, 2006 the Mt. Hope Neighbourhood Association presented to Council its concerns regarding investors speculating in residential property and the negative effect on the community if such properties were converted to triplex uses. Council directed staff to report back in June. Discussion One of the key concerns that gives some urgency to this issue is the coming of two university campuses to Downtown Kitchener. Wilfrid Laurier University's School of Social Work is to open in September 2006 and the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy is to open in September 2007. Some investors hoping to rent housing to students are showing interest in residential real estate in certain central neighbourhood locations. Through our observation and community reaction it appears that the areas of interest are those residential areas within a reasonable (i.e. 10 -20 minute) walking distance of the downtown campuses, and where real estate values are more modest. The Mt. Hope neighbourhood — particularly that part of it closest to the downtown — is one such area. There are a number of factors to be considered. • The student housing strategy and other studies have demonstrated that the type of housing preferred by undergrad students is not converted houses in mixed residential neighbourhoods, but student - oriented apartment -style or townhouse -style housing developed and operated specifically as a student community; • While the campuses will require housing for 600 -700 students by 2011, much of this will be provided in a future UW residence, the `Block that Rocks' redevelopment, and in existing apartment units Downtown. • The MHNA delegation expressed the concern that speculators who are unable to find student tenants are likely to convert to triplex in the alternative; • Regardless of the approach taken on triplexes, any number of students may reside in a house as one household, as Ontario law does not allow for housing units to be regulated on the basis of the number or relatedness of occupants; • When potential investors inquire, Planning staff are already discouraging investment for converting neighbourhood housing stock to triplex in areas where variances are required and neighbourhood opposition is known. Alternatives Alternative 1: Take no immediate action to prohibit triplexes, but continue as directed in Report DTS -06 -026. Alternative 2: Initiate a study to determine whether triplexes should be prohibited, and pass an interim control by -law which would temporarily prohibit triplexes, in those areas of the Mt. Hope neighbourhood that are zoned R -5. Alternative 3: Direct staff to advertise for a public meeting and prepare a by -law for the purpose of prohibiting triplexes by rezoning R -5 lands to R -4 in that portion of the Mt. Hope Neighbourhood west of Margaret Avenue. 3 Alternative 4: Direct staff to advertise for a public meeting and prepare a by -law for the purpose of prohibiting triplexes by rezoning R -5 lands to R -4 on all lands within a defined 1.0 to 2.0 kilometre radius of the downtown campuses. Alternative 5: Direct staff to advertise for a public meeting and prepare a by -law for the purpose of prohibiting triplexes by rezoning R -5 lands to R -4 throughout the Central Neighbourhoods. Comparison of Alternatives ALTERNATIVE 1 I Advantages I Disadvantages I • Consistent with action taken in February • Does not prevent speculators converting 2006. houses to triplexes. • Does not pit opponents of triplexes against supporters of triplexes in a political forum. • Allows for comprehensive consideration in a city -wide planning context. ALTERNATIVE 2 Advantages Interim control by -law is immediate as no prior notice is required. This approach would buy time (1 to 2 years) during which no new or converted triplex could be established in the study area. Disadvantages • Expensive, time - consuming, redundant. • Such a study, examining all central neighbourhoods including Mt. Hope, has already been done (i.e. the Cedar Hill Study) and does not identify the Mt. Hope neighbourhood as warranting different treatment from other central neighbourhoods. • The interim control by -law itself is appealable, and without clear support for the study, such an appeal would have a strong likelihood of success. ALTERNATIVE 3 I Advantages I Disadvantages I • By -law could be passed as early as • August, which is 1 year in advance of the scheduled opening of the UW School of Pharmacy. • The limited geographic extent should limit the magnitude of the anticipated There is limited justification for treating this particular area differently from the rest of the Central Neighbourhoods disagreement between supporters and opponents. ALTERNATIVE 4 I Advantages I Disadvantages I • By -law could be passed as early as • August, which is 1 year in advance of the scheduled opening of the UW School of Pharmacy. Treats equally all R -5 lands within reasonable walking distance of the downtown campuses. Advantages Limits opportunities for rental housing more significantly than #3. Broader geographic extent (compared to #3) should expand the magnitude of the anticipated disagreement between supporters and opponents. note: unless radius is at least 1.75km this approach would not affect the York Street area, which has been identified previously as an area of concern] ALTERNATIVE 5 By -law could be passed as early as August, which is 1 year in advance of the scheduled opening of the UW School of Pharmacy. • Treats equally all R -5 lands within the Central Neighbourhoods. • Treats low rise residential lands within the central neighbourhoods very similarly to low rise residential neighbourhoods in the suburban area (i.e. west of Westmount and outside the expressway loop). FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS None at this time COMMUNICATIONS Disadvantages • Limits opportunities for rental housing more significantly than #3 or #4. • Much broader geographic extent should likewise expand the magnitude of the anticipated disagreement between supporters and opponents. A copy of this report is being sent to the Mt. Hope Neighbourhood Association representatives, as well as all those who participated in either one of in the triplex open house meetings January 12 or 19 2006. 5 If staff are directed to proceed with Alternative 3, 4 or 5, a newspaper ad will be placed at least 20 days prior to the required public meeting. Cory Bluhm, BES Planner Attar:hmPnt.q Report DTS -06 -026 Jeff Willmer, MCI P, RPP Director of Planning