No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2022-06-13 1,-',ITCHENER Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda Monday, June 13, 2022, 4:00 p.m. -8:00 p.m. Electronic Meeting The City of Kitchener has aligned with provincial changes to COVID-19 restrictions and City Hall is now open for in person services, but appointments are still being encouraged. The City remains committed to safety of our patrons and staff and continue to facilitate electronic meeting participation for members of the public. Those people interested in participating in this meeting can register to participate electronically by completing the online delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation @kitchener.ca. For those who are interested in accessing the meeting live-stream video it is available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. Please refer to the delegations section on the agenda below for registration deadlines. Written comments will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair: Councillor D. Chapman Vice-Chair: Councillor P. Singh Pages 1. Commencement 2. Consent Items The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as under this section. 2.1. None. 3. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. Delegates must register by 2:00 p.m. on June 13, 2022, in order to participate electronically. 3.1. None at this time. 4. Part 1 - Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act-4 to 5:30 p.m. This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. 4.1. Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA22/004/B/TS - 20 m 4 Modification to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 - 1525 Bleams Road - Mattamy (South Estates) Limited, DSD-2022- 257 (Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter.) 4.2. Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) 20 m 50 30CDM-22203 - 55 Franklin Street South - 55 Franklin GP Inc., DSD-2022-255 (Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter.) 4.3. Official Plan Amendment OPA20/006/WAP - 45 m 83 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA20/015/K/AP - 276 King Street East-276 King Street East Inc., DSD-2022-213 (Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter.) 5. Part 2 - Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act-6 to 8 p.m. This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. 5.1. Official Plan Amendment OPA21/011/V/ES - 120 m 192 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA121/017/V1ES - 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street- Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited, DSD-2022-263 (Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter.) 6. Information Items 6.1. Significant Planning Applications Update - Quarterly Report, DSD-2022- 498 273 6.2. Additional Dwelling Units (Detached) -Year 1 Review, DSD-2022-274 515 Page 2 of 520 7. Adjournment Sarah Goldrup Committee Administrator Page 3 of 520 Staff Report x�i _N I,I Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: May 11, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-257 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA22/004/B/TS Modification to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 1525 Bleams Road Mattamy (South Estates) Limited RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/004/B/TS for Mattamy (South Estates) Limited be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law", and "Map No. 1", attached to Report DSD-2022-257 as Appendix "A"; and, That the City of Kitchener, pursuant to Section 51 (44) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P 13 as amended, and Delegation By-law 2002-64, hereby modifies the conditions of draft approval for Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-08206, in the City of Kitchener, for Mattamy (South Estates) Limited, as attached to Report DSD 2022-257 as Appendix `B'. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation on the Subdivision Modification and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for subject lands located at 1525 Bleams Rd. The applications propose to add the lands located at 1525 Bleams Road into Stage 2 of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206. • Community engagement included: o circulation of a postcard to residents and property owners within 240m of the subject site; o installation of notice signage on the property; o postcard advising of the public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, and, o notice of the public meeting was given in The Record on May 20, 2022. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 4 of 520 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Mattamy (South Estates) Limited, the owner of the subject lands, is proposing to modify Stage 2 of the draft approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 and to change the zoning of the lands to allow the site to be developed with 6 single detached dwellings and 1 street fronting townhouse dwelling. q, ti r tfN (�O O� TA O N C7 Z N ny'X1 r u COMMONWEALTH CRSS BLEAMS go 11 SUBJECT AREA Figure 1 - Location Map: 1525 Bleams Road BACKGROUND: The South Estates Subdivision (30T-08206) was originally draft approved September 2, 2015, by the Ontario Municipal Board (case numbers PL140874 and PL140877). The subdivision represents a well-designed, contemporary subdivision having a mix of residential dwelling types including low, and medium density forms of housing, storm water management pond, park spaces, and open spaces. Since 2012, the subdivision has undergone one minor modification to the Draft Plan of Subdivision to change the boundaries of stages. The most recent minor modification was in 2021 removing a parcel of Land from Stage 1 and creating Stage 2. Stage 1 is registered, and Stage 2 is the last remaining stage of the Plan of Subdivision that is not registered. Page 5 of 520 Sle ams Ey i 1 �-�r i __ Lt-�[JJ{ U` ! ! ! `ItI ! ----- --� LI J L!LIJ I - His I °p�,, `13 ani-L]fa Trail n l TIT Taj- : 4 29.9 ry R°lei 1T1� C_T TI LS Multiple Residential \ F William T2� _L1 Trdor Sfraet L�J �w t:, If F__ Figure 2 — 30T-08206 Draft Plan of Subdivision. The subject lands will be added to Stage 2 of the draft approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206. The added lands are the former pumping station lands that have frontage onto Bleams Road at the north end of the South Estates subdivision. Stage 2 of the subdivision includes a small parcel of land which is draft approved and zoned for a low-rise residential development. When the lands are added to Stage 2, there will be a total of 6 new single detached dwelling units, and one street fronting townhouse unit created. The development will also result in the construction of the undeveloped portion of Histand Trail, providing a through connection for the portion of Histand Trail located within the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The proposed lots and built form are consistent with the residential uses approved in Stage 1. REPORT: The owner is proposing to modify Stage 2 of the draft approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 and to change the zoning of the subject lands to allow the site to be developed with 6 single detached dwellings and one street fronting townhouse unit. To facilitate the modification to Stage 2 of Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206, the owner is proposing the following zoning to apply to the subject lands: R-6 (Residential Six Zone) with Special Regulations 671 R, 672R, 673R, and 674R. The proposed zoning is the same as the rest of the subdivision that was approved through the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in 2015. Planning Analysis: Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS sets out policies to consider in order to sustain healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, including an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, and Page 6 of 520 infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to public transit, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed subdivision modification and Zoning By-law amendment will permit six additional single detached dwellings and one street fronting townhouse dwelling. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications are consistent with the PPS as they will facilitate the development of the subject lands with a mix of housing styles including single detached, and street-fronting townhouses. A variety of high-quality, publicly accessible park spaces and recreation features support a healthy and active community. Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested applications are consistent with the policies and intent of the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. To support the achievement of complete communities, the Growth Plan outlines that municipalities will consider the use of available tools to require that multi-unit residential developments incorporate a mix of unit sizes to accommodate a diverse range of household sizes and incomes. The Growth Plan requires a minimum of 50 residents and jobs per hectare within areas designated Urban Designated Greenfield Area. Municipalities must support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, to meet projected needs of current and future residents. The subject lands are located within the City's Urban Designated Greenfield Area, an area within the Settlement Boundary that is designated for growth. The proposed subdivision modification and Zoning By-law amendment will add residential uses, which aligns with the requirement to achieve minimum density targets. The proposed subdivision modification and zoning will support and provide housing options that will help make efficient use of infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Urban Designated Greenfield Areas in the ROP. This neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking-water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies support the development of complete communities having development patterns and densities that support walking, cycling and transit.The ROP requires a minimum density of 55 people and jobs per hectare in greenfield areas. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications (Appendix `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan as they propose to add an additional seven units to the plan of subdivision. Page 7 of 520 City of Kitchener Official Plan: Urban Area and Countryside The subject lands are Designated Greenfield Area on Map 1 of the City of Kitchener's Official Plan. Designated Greenfield Areas have a minimum density target of 55 residents and jobs combined per hectare. Urban Structure The subject lands are located within the `Community Areas' in the City's Urban Structure (Map 2). The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for residential uses as well as non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential areas. Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated Low Density Residential Two in the in the Rosenburg Secondary Plan within the 1994 Official Plan. The Low Density Residential land use designation permits a full range of low density housing types which may include single detached dwellings and street townhouse dwellings. Secondary residential units are also permitted on the same lot as single detached dwellings where appropriate. Housing The City's primary objective with respect to housing is to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Modification to the Draft Plan of Subdivision continues to provide for a range of dwelling units available in the city as lot areas, lot depths, and lot widths vary in size which will provide a range of dwellings that will vary in size and number of bedrooms. The development is contemplated to include six single detached dwellings and one street fronting townhouse. Policy Conclusion Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and modification to Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and to the Regional Official Plan and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are currently zoned Agricultural Zone (A-1) and Agricultural Zone (A-1) with Special Regulation Provision 1 R. The applicant has requested an amendment to Zoning By-law 85-1 to change the zoning on the lands as follows (and further detailed and shown on Map No.1): Area 1: From Agricultural Zone (A-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Regulation Provisions 671 R, 672R, 673R and 674R. Area 2: From Agricultural Zone (A-1) with Special Regulation 1 R to Residential Six Zone (R- 6) with Special Regulation Provisions 671 R, 672R, 673R and 674R. Proposed Modifications to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision: Mattamy (South Estates) Limited is proposing to modify the draft approved Plan of Subdivision 30T- 08206. The proposed modification is associated with a Zoning By-law Amendment, which required Council approval. The modification to the draft approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 applies to Stage 2 only. Stage 1 is registered, and Stage 2 is the last remaining stage of the Plan of Subdivision that is not registered Page 8 of 520 and remains draft approved. The conditions that were satisfied as part of the Stage 1 registration and not applicable to Stage 2 have been deleted from the proposed new conditions. The original draft approved plan for Stage 2 showed a small area of land zoned for low-rise residential. The intent was to add the subject lands to Stage 2 to develop the lands with a total of six new single detached dwelling units, and one street fronting townhouse unit. The development will also result in the construction of the undeveloped portion of Histand Trail, providing a through connection for the portion of Histand Trail located within the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The development of these lands with six single detached dwellings and one street fronting townhouse unit was always contemplated with the original development applications, but the lands were previously used for a temporary pumping station. As a result of infrastructure improvements, the temporary pumping station is no longer needed, and the lands can be incorporated within the plan of subdivision and developed as intended. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed street layout and lotting is appropriate for the development of the lands. Staff are supportive of the proposed modifications to the draft approved plan. The following condition has been added by the City of Kitchener: 2.30 That prior to registration of Stage 2 of the plan of subdivision, the SUBDIVIDER complete a Record of Site Condition (RSC) for all of the lands in Stage 2 accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. A copy of the completed RSC, acknowledgement from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and any other documents (e.g., Environmental Site Assessment reports) completed in support of the RSC must be forwarded to the CITY'S Directors of Engineering and Planning. The following conditions have been altered/added by the Region of Waterloo: 3.15 That if required by the Region, the Owner obtains a Regional Road Access Permit to close the existing access on Bleams Road (Regional Road 56). 3.16 That the Owner upon written request by the Region, or that the plan for final approval (whichever comes first), provide for road widening Block 8 (Stage 2), and any road widening dedication along the Bleams Road frontage identified through the Bleams Road environmental assessment project as deemed necessary by the Region, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 3.19 That prior to final approval, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the installation of a 1.5 metres high chain link fence along any lot properties fronting Bleams Road (Regional Road 56), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 3.22 a) That the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for Lots 1 to 4, Block 5, Block 6 and Block 7, all inclusive, to provide for the installation of a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed for the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupant. b) That the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for Lots 1 to 4, Block 5, Block 6 and Block 7, all inclusive, to include the following warning clause in all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks." Page 9 of 520 "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks." 3.25 That prior to area grading, servicing or final approval of all or any part of the plan of subdivision, the SUBDIVIDER complete a Record of Site Condition (RSC) for all of the lands in Stage 2 accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. A copy of the completed RSC, acknowledgement from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and any other documents (e.g., Environmental Site Assessment reports) completed in support of the RSC must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The RSC boundaries must exclude any land being dedicated to the Region for road widening purposes. Department and Agency Comments: Preliminary circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment and the proposed Modification to the Draft Plan of Subdivision was undertaken on February 7, 2022 to applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency. Additional consideration will be addressed through the site development approval process. Copies of comments are found in Appendix `D' of this report. The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Modification to the Draft Plan of Subdivision: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: GSP Group, August 2021 Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law Amendment and modification to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Staff recommends that the applications be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget—The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget—The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding the application posted to the City's website in February 2022. Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in The Record on May 20, 2022 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix `C'). CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Major Subdivision Modification were originally circulated to property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on February 7, 2022. In response to this circulation, staff received no written responses. Page 10 of 520 PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Regional Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 1994 & 2014 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A— Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Zoning Map Appendix B — Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval and Modified Draft Plan Appendix C — Newspaper Notice Appendix D — Department and Agency Comments Page 11 of 520 Appendix"A" PROPOSED BY—LAW 2022 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener —Mattamy(South Estates)Limited—1525 Bleams Road) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Numbers 64 and 65 of Appendix"A"to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto,from Agricultural Zone(A-1)to Residential Six Zone(R-6)with Special Regulation Provisions,671 R,672R,673R and 674R. 2. Schedule Numbers 64 and 65 of Appendix"A"to By-law Number 85-1 are hereby amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 2 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Agricultural Zone(A-1)with Special Regulation Provision 1 R to Residential Six Zone(R-6)with Special Regulation Provisions,671 R,672R,673R,and 674R. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 2022 Mayor Clerk Page 12 of 520 SUBJECTAREA(S) N INS-1 N �� �4 ",,. , c '41 AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 85-1 „ 2" - -' AREA 1- _�_ a FROM AGRICULTURAL ZONE(A-1) U� & OSR-2 _.`.,' TO RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE(R-6) WITH SPECIAL REGULATIONS 671R,672R,673R AND 674R Z � ~���tlf'� 73� CA -=--~ — " AREA 2- g _ 8R FROM AGRICULTURAL ZONE(A-1) A-1 WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISION 1 R 1R TO RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE(R-6) R- 0 S WITH SPECIAL REGULATIONS R _,-R.,.= 671R,672R,673R AND 674R _38 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2U _ _ _ _ _ _ _ EDU_L _ _ _ _ _ _ SCHEDULE 93_ 7 CHEbgL ( SCHEDULE 94 7 1% "1 BY-LAW 85-1 � `� ' P-3 A-1 AGRICULTURAL ZONE 24HSR HISTAND TRAIL I-1 a 1-1 NEIGHBOURHOOD INSTITUTIONAL ZONE SR P-1 PUBLIC PARK ZONE t R-6 671 R, `� `� ' P-2 OPEN SPACE ZONE 672R,674R \' R-6 759R P-3 HAZARD LAND ZONE 765R R-4 RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE ROUTLEY ST i R-6 RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE BY-LAW 2019-051 6dk INS-1 NEIGHBOURHOOD INSTITUTIONAL ZONE W'W�� NHC-1 NATURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION 1-1 4641.11 R-6 ZONE 81 H,24HSR oio 764R OSR-2 OPEN SPACE:GREENWAYS ZONE ILLIAM NADOR ST 765R y8R,1y31y y�y ZONE GRID REFERENCE FAPT s -6 ' R-6 765RP-2 SCHEDULE NO.64 AND 65 10 R, i 757R OFAPPENDIX'A' 7S \R�7 418U KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW85-1 AND 2019-051 23js A-1 69U9R S XONY ST i ZONE LIMITS i P-2 -6 1 �i65 i P-1 R-6 ` FLOODING HAZARD P-1 6 2R - SR MAP NO. 1 �0 50 100 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA22/004/B/TS METRES OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT N/A CITY OF KITCHENER SCALE 1:4,000 FLE. City of Kitchener 2!.-2004BTS_MAP, 1525 BLEAMS RD DATE: FEBRUARY 3,2022 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT,PLANNING mxd Modification to Conditions of Approval — December 2021 Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 Mattamy (South Estates) Limited *1 That this approval applies to Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 for Mattamy (South Estates) Limited as shown on the attached Plan of Subdivision prepared by GSP originally approved by the OMB on August 14, 2015, and revised by the City of Kitchener dated November 3, 2021 which shows the following: Stage 1 Units Lots 30, 47-52, Single Detached Res. 281 58-131,143-158, 164-182,202-232,236 273-279,297-422 Lots 249, 250 Semi-Detached Res. 2 Blocks 1-29,31-46, Street Town houses 139 53-57,132-142, 159-163,183-201, 233-235, 237-248,251-272, 280-296 Block 435 School Block 433 Park Block 436 Parkette Block 432,434 Hydro Corridor/ Park Block 437 Open Space Block 438,439 Habitat Protection Area Block 440 Open Space/Stormwater Management Blocks 425-430, 441, 447-454, Future Development- Single Semi-Towns Block 431 Walkway Block 423 Neighbourhood Institutional Blocks 424, 442-445 0.3m Reserve Block 446 Road Widening Stage 2 Lots 1-4 Single Detached Res. 4 Blocks 5-7 Future Development - Single Block 8 Road Widening 1. CITY OF KITCHENER CONDITIONS: *2.1 That the SUBDIVIDER shall enter into a City Standard Residential Subdivision Agreement, as approved by City Council, respecting those lands shown outlined on the attached Plan of Subdivision originally approved at the OMB on August 14, 2015 and revised on November 3, 2021 which shall contain the following additional special conditions: Modification to 30T-08206 Page 14 of 520 -2 - Part 2 -Part 2— Prior to Grading 2.10 a) Prior to registration, pre-grading or pre-servicing as required, n consideration of the wooded character of the subdivision lands and the CITY'S desire to minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval from the CITY'S Director of Planning. b) The Core Environmental Feature limits should be re-confirmed and surveyed concurrent with the design and development of these southern stages of the subdivision and at the time of the Detailed Vegetation Plan to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Planning. c) The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan (where applicable)showing the approved grading,to the CITY'S Director of Planning. d) The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation Plan (where applicable) and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER'S Environmental Consultant to the CITY'S Director of Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Cultural Heritage Coordinator that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY'S Tree Management Policy. 2.13 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement a detailed "pre-construction" monitoring program. The monitoring program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The "pre-construction" monitoring program will document current groundwater infiltration conditions, and will be used to provide baseline information to compare conditions through the "during" and "post' construction monitoring periods. Further, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit, obtain approval of and implement a detailed "during development' monitoring and response program. The program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The purpose of the "during development' monitoring program is to ensure that the groundwater infiltration measures satisfy pre-development infiltration targets specified in the Alder Creek Watershed and Upper Strasburg Creek Subwatershed Update CH2MHILL, 2008 report as well as the South west Urban Area Study, Comprehensive Storm Water Management Strategy Prepared by AMEC (June 22, 2011 as revised July 18, 2011) and that Chloride Impact assessments meet the Reasonable Use Criteria of the Alder Creek Watershed and Upper Strasburg Creek Subwatershed Update CH2MHILL, 2008 report as approved. The "during development' monitoring program is to extend until full build out of the subdivision to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the GRCA and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2.14 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit, obtain approval of, and implement a detailed "post development' monitoring program in accordance with the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Strategy Prepared by AMEC (June 22, 2011 as revised July 18, 2011) and the Alder Creek Watershed and Upper Strasburg Creek Subwatershed Update CH2MHILL, 2008 report as approved. The program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Modification to 30T-08206 Page 15 of 520 -3 - Regional 3 -Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The purpose of the "post development" monitoring program is to ensure that the stormwater management facility continues to satisfy the current pre-development conditions for infiltration and to identify any specific additional requirements that may be necessary to monitor, including but not limited to infiltration rates for quantity and quality, chloride impact assessments. The "post development' monitoring program will extend for 2 years after full build out of the subdivision to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the GRCA and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees to implement any remedial action deemed necessary (including monitoring for 2 additional years should chloride levels exceed the Reasonable Use Criteria of Alder Creek Watershed and Upper Strasburg Creek Subwatershed Update CH2MHILL, 2008 report as approved, including the design and installation of winter by- pass upgrades, if required) as a result of the aforementioned monitoring program at their sole expense to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the GRCA and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2.15 The SUBDIVIDER agrees that the recommendations of the Strasburg Creek Flood Control Environmental Assessment (EA) shall be implemented and the existing culvert at Fischer Hallman Road and Upper Strasburg Creek shall be replaced in accordance with the Strasburg Creek Flood Control Environmental Assessment, prior to any grading or servicing. Replacement of the existing culvert shall coincide with other engineering works in the area and area grading shall be coordinated in order to minimize disturbance to Strasburg Creek all to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, and Grand River Conservation Authority. The City is 100% responsible for the cost of these works. If sufficient money is not allocated from the appropriate CITY Development Charge Account(s) to permit the CITY to fund these works or the works are not a Development Charge eligible expense and the SUBDIVIDER wishes to proceed, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to provide and up-front the cost of these works. Should these works become a Development Charge eligible expense, the CITY agrees to recognize any monies paid by the SUBDIVIDER for any works or services normally paid out of the CITY'S Development Charge Account with such monies to be refunded or to be recognized as a credit towards any CITY Development Charge payable for each lot or block only within the registered plan in accordance with the applicable CITY Development Charge By-law and Policies in effect at the time the monies are paid by the SUBDIVIDER or the works become a Development Charge eligible expense, whichever shall be later. If the registration of the plan is staged, a Supplementary Agreement identifying each lot or block for which credits are payable shall be registered for each stage prior to the registration of each stage of the plan of subdivision, until there is no outstanding balance remaining. When no outstanding credit balance remains, then the Development Charges will be paid in the normal manner in accordance with the CITY'S By-law. If, following the registration of the entire plan of subdivision and issuance of all building permits, there is any outstanding credit balance, it shall remain with the lands to be used as a credit for future development,or alternatively,the CITY may enter into an agreement with the SUBDIVIDER, under Section 40 of the Development Charges Act,to enable the transfer of Development Charge credits to other benefiting lands within the community, subject to satisfactory arrangements being made between all parties. Modification to 30T-08206 Page 16 of 520 -4 - 2.16 4 -2.16 Prior to any site alteration, area grading, servicing or registration of any stage within this plan, the SUBDIVIDER shall obtain any necessary permits and approvals from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) related to species at risk identified on or contiguous to the subject lands in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Any measures required by MNR including but not limited to Overall Benefits Plans and/or Mitigation Plans shall be to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the City. *2.17 Deleted. 2.18 Prior to registration, pre-grading or pre-servicing as required, a Stewardship Management Plan should be developed, submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning in consultation with the Director of Parks and Cemeteries, the Region, and GRCA. The Stewardship Management Plan shall be in compliance with the Scoped Environmental Impact Study (Howes-Jones, December 2012), the Response Document (NRSI, April 10, 2014) and incorporate any requirements of the Ministry of Natural Resources. 2.19 During- and post-construction environmental monitoring plans should be developed, submitted and approved as part of the Detailed Vegetation Plan and Stormwater Management Engineering design. The monitoring plans shall address parameters outlined in the Response Document (NRSI, April 10, 2014) and incorporate any requirements of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Monitoring plans shall be approved prior to registration, pre- grading or pre-servicing (whichever comes first) and to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Engineering in consultation with the Director of Parks and Cemeteries the Region, and GRCA. The period of time after 90% build-out of the subdivision that monitoring will be required to be implemented by the SUBDIVIDER will be determined as part of the environmental monitoring plans to be approved. Any restoration or mitigation measures arising from monitoring and deemed necessary by MNR, the Region, the GRCA and/or the City will be the sole responsibility of the SUBDIVIDER. *2.20 Deleted. Part 3— Prior to Servicing *3.2 Deleted. 3.18 The SUBDIVIDER shall prepare a detailed Geotechnical/Hydrogeological Investigation Report which shall determine the suitability of soils to support lot level infiltration of roof water to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Region of Waterloo and the Grand River Conservation Authority. The design of the infiltration galleries should have a 20 % contingency to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. *3.19 Deleted. 3.20 Prior to Servicing of each stage requiring new stormwater management facilities, including stormwater management ponds, infiltration galleries and other related appurtenances, the SUBDIVIDER shall provide a letter of credit based on 60% of the estimated cost of the approved infiltration facilities, and 100% of the estimated cost of any contingency infiltration facilities to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services. Modification to 30T-08206 Page 17 of 520 -5 - The 5 -The Letter of Credit will be released two years after 95% of the pond catchment area is stabilized (meaning buildings are constructed and lot/blocks are sodded/vegetated) and the SUBDIVIDER's consulting engineer has certified the infiltration facilities are functioning as intended and approved to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services. 3.21 The SUBDIVIDER agrees that the extension of the Middle Strasburg Sanitary Trunk Sewer through this plan of subdivision is required and shall be in accordance with the Middle Strasburg Sanitary Trunk Sewer EA or any addendum thereto. It is acknowledged that these works, including design expenses, are included in the City's Development Charge By-law 99-106, as amended, and the City shall be responsible for 100 % of the costs of these works. It is further acknowledged, if there is a need to increase the size and/or depth of the Middle Strasburg Sanitary Trunk Sewer to facilitate servicing lands located outside of the Rosenberg Secondary Planning Community, the City will be responsible for 100% of the cost of these upgrades. If sufficient money is not allocated from the appropriate CITY Development Charge Account(s) to permit the CITY to fund these works or the works are not a Development Charge eligible expense and the SUBDIVIDER wishes to proceed, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to provide and up-front the cost of these works. Should these works become a Development Charge eligible expense, the CITY agrees to recognize any monies paid by the SUBDIVIDER for any works or services normally paid out of the CITY'S Development Charge Account with such monies to be refunded or to be recognized as a credit towards any CITY Development Charge payable for each lot or block only within the registered plan in accordance with the applicable CITY Development Charge By-law and Policies in effect at the time the monies are paid by the SUBDIVIDER or the works become a Development Charge eligible expense, whichever shall be later. If the registration of the plan is staged, a Supplementary Agreement identifying each lot or block for which credits are payable shall be registered for each stage prior to the registration of each stage of the plan of subdivision, until there is no outstanding balance remaining. When no outstanding credit balance remains, then the Development Charges will be paid in the normal manner in accordance with the CITY'S By-law. If, following the registration of the entire plan of subdivision and issuance of all building permits, there is any outstanding credit balance, it shall remain with the lands to be used as a credit for future development, or alternatively,the CITY may enter into an agreement with the SUBDIVIDER, under Section 40 of the Development Charges Act, to enable the transfer of Development Charge credits to other benefiting lands within the community, subject to satisfactory arrangements being made between all parties. *3.22 Deleted. *3.23 Deleted. *3.24 Deleted. *3.25 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to install black vinyl chain link fence, or other decorative fence that is not made of solid materials and provides visibility along Bleams Modification to 30T-08206 Page 18 of 520 -6 - Road, 6 -Road, along any property line rear and/or side of Lots 1 and 2 and Block 7, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services in consultation with Director of Parks and Cemeteries. 3.26 The SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that the servicing plan will indicate areas where the servicing (construction) trench will be located within a shallow or deeper groundwater system. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that mitigation measures must be identified and implemented so that subsurface infiltration adjacent to the wetland or watercourses and/or their buffers will not be interrupted and groundwater flows to the wetland or watercourse will be maintained with the pre-development conditions to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the GRCA and the MNR as appropriate. 3.27 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to coordinate the decommissioning of the temporary pumping station at Fischer Hallman Road and Bleams Road immediately following servicing to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 3.28 Prior to any site alteration, area grading, servicing or registration of any stage within this plan, the SUBDIVIDER shall obtain any necessary permits and approvals from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) related to species at risk identified on or contiguous to the subject lands in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Any measures required by MNR including but not limited to Overall Benefits Plans and/or Mitigation Plans shall be to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the City. 3.29 Prior to registration, pre-grading or pre-servicing as required the SUBDIVIDER agrees that a Stewardship Management Plan should be developed, submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning in consultation with the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer of Infrastructure Services (formerly Parks), the Region, and GRCA. The Stewardship Management Plan shall be in compliance with the Scoped Environmental Impact Study (Howes-Jones, December 2012), the Response Document (NRSI, April 10, 2014) and incorporate any requirements of the Ministry of Natural Resources. 3.30 During- and post-construction environmental monitoring plans should be developed, submitted and approved as part of the Detailed Vegetation Plan and Stormwater Management Engineering design. The monitoring plans shall address parameters outlined in the Response Document (NRSI, April 10, 2014) and incorporate any requirements of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Monitoring plans shall be approved prior to registration, pre- grading or pre-servicing (whichever comes first) and to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Engineering in consultation with the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer of Infrastructure Services (formerly Parks), the Region, and GRCA. The period of time after 90% build-out of the subdivision that monitoring will be required to be implemented by the SUBDIVIDER will be determined as part of the environmental monitoring plans to be approved. Any restoration or mitigation measures arising from monitoring and deemed necessary by MNR, the Region, the GRCA and/or the City will be the sole responsibility of the SUBDIVIDER. Part 4- Prior to Application of Building Permit in Each Stage *4.18 Deleted. Modification to 30T-08206 Page 19 of 520 -7 - *4.19 Deleted. Part 6—Other Timeframes *6.11 Deleted. *6.15 Deleted. *6.16 Deleted. 6.17 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to include a statement in all Offers of Purchase and Sale, and/or rental Agreements with home buyer that there is a planned transit route through the neighbourhood and to provide an information pamphlet or website address regarding Grand River Transit services. 6.18 Prior to registration, pre-grading or pre-servicing as required, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a functional design for the implementation of bicycle lanes, on-street parking and intersection curb extensions on both sides of Rosenberg Way to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering in consultation with the Director of Transportation Services. 6.19 The SUBDIVIDER shall warrant and guarantee all park and trail works against all defects of material and quality of work for a period of 24 months from completion and acceptance thereof by the CITY. 6.20 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to complete the detailed design and to implement the construction of that portion of the services identified in the Area Servicing Plan, as set out in Schedules "131", "132" and "133" to Minutes of Settlement dated August 17, 2015, which are located on the SUBDIVIDER'S land and which are included in the stage of the Plan of Subdivision that is being registered, that are required for the future development of the lands to the west in accordance with the approved Rosenberg Secondary Plan - Land Use Plan dated April 4, 2013 and the agreed-upon Area Servicing Plan. The dedicated storm sewer to be provided on the SUBDIVIDER's land shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate a minimum flow of 2.0 cubic metres/second from the lands located within Area 2 of the Rosenberg Secondary Planning Community. 6.21 Prior to registration, pre-grading or pre-servicing as required the SUBDIVIDER shall agree to prepare and have approved a boundary treatment plan, which may include fencing and/ landscaping or combination thereof for the southern boundary of the subject lands along Block 438 adjacent to the CITY's lands to the south (Williamsburg Cemetery) to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning in consultation with the Director of Parks and Cemeteries. *6.22 Deleted. *6.23 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to update the Noise Study prior to registration for Lots 1 - 4 and Block 5 and 7 to consider alternative mitigation methods including building design and orientation toward Bleams Road on site as well as the use of berms and appropriate construction materials. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees that should a modification to the plan be required to implement these design considerations and noise mitigation methods, to initiate a modification to the plan to ensure these Modification to 30T-08206 Page 20 of 520 -8 - recommendations 8 -recommendations are implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning in consultation with the Region of Waterloo. 6.24 Prior to occupancy of the first unit being granted, the SUBDIVIDER shall determine the locations of all centralized mail receiving facilities to the satisfaction of Canada Post, in consultation with the CITY's Director of Engineering Services and the CITY's Director of Planning. If required, the SUBDIVIDER shall provide temporary suitable centralized mail box locations that may be utilized by Canada Post until curbs, boulevards and sidewalks are constructed for the plan of subdivision. 6.25 The SUBDIVIDER shall include a statement in all Offers of Purchase and Sales Agreements, and/or rental agreements, which advises: a) that the home/business mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mail Box; and b) homeowners of the exact Community Mail Box locations. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees that the location of all Community Mail Box facilities shall be shown on maps, information boards and plans, including maps displayed in the sales office(s). *6.26 Deleted. PART 2.2 PRIOR TO REGISTRATION CONDITIONS That prior to final approval of the plan to be registered, the SUBDIVIDER shall fulfill the following conditions: 1. The City Standard Residential Subdivision Agreement shall be registered on title. 2. The SUBDIVIDER shall submit copies of the plan for registration to the CITY'S Director of Planning and to obtain approval of such applications therefrom. 3. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to commute all local improvement charges outstanding on any part of the lands and to pay all outstanding taxes on the lands. 4. The SUBDIVIDER shall install within the subdivision any required geodetic monuments under the direction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering, with co-ordinate values and elevations thereon and submit for registration the plans showing the location of monuments, their co-ordinate values, elevations and code numbers as prescribed by the Surveyor General of Ontario. 5. The SUBDIVIDER shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener Wilmot Hydro for the provision of permanent electrical services to the subdivision and/or the relocation of the existing services. Further, the SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that this may include the payment of all costs associated with the provision of temporary services and the removal of such services when permanent installations are possible. Modification to 30T-08206 Page 21 of 520 -9 - 6. 9 -6. The SUBDIVIDER shall make satisfactory arrangements for the provision of permanent telephone services to the subdivision and/or the relocation of the existing services. Further, the SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that this may include the payment of all costs associated with the provision of temporary services and the removal of such services when permanent installations are possible. 7. The SUBDIVIDER shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required for utilities and municipal services. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to comply with the following easement procedure: a) to provide copies of the subdivision plan proposed for registration and reference plan(s) showing the easements HYDRO, and telephone companies and the CITY'S Director of Planning. b) to ensure that there are no conflicts between the desired locations for utility easements and those easement locations required by the CITY'S Director of Engineering for municipal services; c) to ensure that there are no conflicts between utility or municipal service easement locations and any approved Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan; d) if utility easement locations are proposed within lands to be conveyed to, or presently owned by the CITY, the SUBDIVIDER shall obtain prior written approval from the CITY'S Director of Engineering, or, in the case of parkland, the CITY'S General Manager of Community Services; and e) to provide to the CITY'S Director of Planning, a clearance letter from each of the HYDRO and telephone companies. Such letter shall state that the respective utility company has received all required grants of easement, or alternatively, no easements are required. 8. The SUBDIVIDER shall dedicate all roads, road widenings and public walkways to the CITY by the registration of the Plan of Subdivision. *9. For Stage 2, the SUBDIVIDER shall convey to the City free of cost and encumbrances the following: Block 8 Road Widening 10. The SUBDIVIDER shall erect and maintain a subdivision billboard sign at each major entrance to the subdivision, in accordance with a plan approved by the CITY'S Director of Planning, in accordance with the following criteria: a) The sign shall be located outside the required yard setbacks of the applicable zone and the corner visibility triangle, with the specific, appropriate location to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Planning; b) The sign shall have a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres, a maximum height of 6 metres, and a maximum area of 13 square metres; Modification to 30T-08206 Page 22 of 520 _10 - c) 10 -c) Graphics shall depict the features within the limits of the subdivision including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, approved street layout, including emergency access roads, zoning, lotting and specific land uses, types of parks, storm water management areas, hydro corridors, trail links and walkways, potential or planned transit routes and bus stop location, notifications regarding contacts for school sites, noise attenuation measures, special buffer/landscaping areas, water courses, flood plain areas, railway lines and hazard areas and shall also make general reference to land uses on adjacent lands including references to any formal development application, all to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Planning; d) Approved subdivision billboard locations shall be conveniently accessible to the public for viewing. Low maintenance landscaping is required around the sign and suitable parking and pedestrian access may be required between the sign location and public roadway in order to provide convenient accessibility for viewing; and, e) The SUBDIVIDER shall ensure that the information is current as of the date the sign is erected. Notice shall be posted on the subdivision billboard signs advising that information may not be current and to obtain updated information, enquiries should be made at the CITY'S Planning Division. 11. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that all streets shall be named as shown on the Draft Plan. 12. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to obtain the appropriate land use plan, from the City of Kitchener, for the area being subdivided in order to satisfy Condition 1.22a) of the Subdivision Agreement. 13. The SUBDIVIDER shall prepare a Streetscape Plan to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning in consultation with the CITY's Director of Transportation Services, CITY's Director of Engineering Services and the CITY's Director of Parks and Cemeteries. The Streetscape Plan shall illustrate a consistent streetscape theme for the Priority Street showing: a) Design and construction details, with preference to low-maintenance, sustainable plantings and decorative streetscape elements; b) Conceptual street tree planting locations for Rosenberg Way C) Conceptual locations and type of flankage lot streetscape features, such as decorative fencing and landscaping between the side yard fencing and the property line of flankage lots; and, d) Potential locations of utilities. 14. Prior to Grading or Registration, whichever shall occur first, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit, obtain approval of and implement a detailed monitoring program to evaluate the performance of infiltration galleries (including pre-construction and post-construction phases) and to identity if the required water balance is met, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 15. Prior to Servicing or Registration, whichever shall come first, the SUBDIVIDER shall confirm whether decorative street signage and street lighting will be used to the satisfaction Modification to 30T-08206 Page 23 of 520 -11 - of the CITY'S Director of Transportation Services and Kitchener Wilmot Hydro. Should these decorative elements be utilized, they shall be installed at the appropriate time frame and to the SUBDIVIDER'S cost, including the provision of a one-time supply of 10% of the materials for future maintenance replacement, to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Transportation Services and Kitchener Wilmot Hydro. 16. Prior to the Servicing or Registration, whichever shall occur first, of each stage, the SUBDIVIDER shall prepare an On-Street Parking Plan to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Transportation Services, in consultation with the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services, in accordance with the CITY'S On-Street Parking Policy, as approved and amended. The On-Street Parking Plan shall be considered in accordance with the servicing drawings and shall generally provide for one on-street parking space for every two dwelling units where reasonable. Other options such as driveway length, garage space, communal parking facilities, and/or parking along the park frontage, may be considered in accordance with the CITY's Policy. *17. Deleted *18. Deleted 19. Prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER shall enter into an agreement with The City of Kitchener to ensure that the water balance completed to date be updated with the "as built' infiltration gallery data (based on soil suitability encountered during construction) and this this data be reported to the Region of Waterloo in the event that a ground water deficit results and mitigation measures may be required to maintain the existing water balance to sustain the wetland and ESPA features on the subject lands. 20. Prior to any site alteration, area grading, servicing or registration of any stage within this plan, the SUBDIVIDER shall obtain any necessary permits and approvals from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) related to species at risk identified on or contiguous to the subject lands in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Any measures required by MNR including but not limited to Overall Benefits Plans and/or Mitigation Plans shall be to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the City. 21. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that a Stewardship Management Plan should be developed, submitted and approved prior to registration, pre-grading or pre-servicing (whichever comes first) to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning in consultation with the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer of Infrastructure Services (formerly Parks), the Region, and GRCA. The Stewardship Management Plan shall be in compliance with the Scoped Environmental Impact Study (Howes-Jones, December 2012), the Response Document (NRSI, April 10, 2014) and incorporate any requirements of the Ministry of Natural Resources. 21 A. During- and post-construction environmental monitoring plans should be developed, submitted and approved as part of the Detailed Vegetation Plan and Stormwater Management Engineering design. The monitoring plans shall address parameters outlined in the Response Document (NRSI, April 10, 2014) and incorporate any requirements of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Monitoring plans shall be approved prior to registration, pre- grading or pre-servicing (whichever comes first) and to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Engineering in consultation with the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer of Infrastructure Services (formerly Parks), the Region, and GRCA. Modification to 30T-08206 Page 24 of 520 -12 - The 12 -The period of time after 90% build-out of the subdivision that monitoring will be required to be implemented by the SUBDIVIDER will be determined as part of the environmental monitoring plans to be approved. Any restoration or mitigation measures arising from monitoring and deemed necessary by MNR, the Region, the GRCA and/or the City will be the sole responsibility of the SUBDIVIDER. *22. Deleted. 23. Prior to Servicing or Registration, whichever occurs first, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a functional design for the implementation of bicycle lanes, on-street parking and intersection curb extensions on both sides of Rosenberg Way to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering in consultation with the Director of Transportation Services. 24. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to complete the detailed design and to implement the construction of that portion of the services identified in the Area Servicing Plan, as set out in Schedules "131", "132" and "BY to Minutes of Settlement dated August 17, 2015, which are located on the SUBDIVIDER'S land and which are included in the stage of the Plan of Subdivision that is being registered, that are required for the future development of the lands to the west in accordance with the approved Rosenberg Secondary Plan - Land Use Plan dated April 4, 2013 and the agreed-upon Area Servicing Plan. The dedicated storm sewer to be provided on the SUBDIVIDER's land shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate a minimum flow of 2.0 cubic metres/second from the lands located within Area 2 of the Rosenberg Secondary Planning Community. *25. Deleted. *26. Deleted. 27. Prior to Servicing or Registration which ever shall occur first, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to provide a detailed sanitary servicing report and to make arrangements satisfactory to the Director of Engineering for a sanitary servicing connection to the Middle Strasburg Trunk Sanitary Sewer. The SUBIDIVIDER further agrees that where any upgrades are required to any local sewers required to connect these lands to the trunk sewer will be at the sole cost of the SUBDIVIDER. A separate cost sharing and cooperation agreement dated August 17, 2015 has been entered into by the SUBDIVIDER and benefitting landowners which includes cost sharing arrangements respecting the Area 3 Sanitary Sewer as defined in that Agreement. 28. To expedite the approval for registration, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit to the CITY'S Director of Planning, a detailed written submission documenting how all conditions imposed by this approval that require completion prior to registration of the subdivision plan(s), have been satisfied. 29. Deleted. *30. That prior to registration of Stage 2 of the plan of subdivision, the SUBDIVIDER complete a Record of Site Condition (RSC) for all of the lands in Stage 2 accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. A copy of the completed RSC, acknowledgement from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and any other documents (e.g., Environmental Site Assessment reports) Modification to 30T-08206 Page 25 of 520 -13 - completed 13 -completed in support of the RSC must be forwarded to the CITY'S Directors of Engineering and Planning. 3. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CONDITIONS 1. That the plan for final approval may incorporate a lot pattern for all blocks in which single detached, semi-detached and townhouse lots are permitted, at a density not exceeding the density identified in the draft approval conditions. 2. That the owner agrees to stage the development for this subdivision in a manner satisfactory to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 3. That the subdivision agreement be registered by the City of Kitchener against the lands to which it applies, and a copy of the registered agreement be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services prior to final approval of the subdivision plan; 4a. That the owner enters into an Agreement for Servicing with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to preserve access to municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment services prior to final approval or any agreement for the installation of underground services, whichever comes first. Where the owner has already entered into an agreement for the installation of underground servicing with the area municipality, such agreement shall be amended to provide for a Regional Agreement for Servicing prior to registration of any part of the plan. The Regional Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services shall advise prior to an Agreement for Servicing that sufficient water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity is available for this plan, or the portion of the plan to be registered; 4b. That the owner includes the following statement in all agreements of lease or purchase and sale that may be entered into pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning Act, prior to the registration of this plan: "The lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement of lease or purchase and sale are not yet registered as a plan of subdivision. The fulfillment of all conditions of draft plan approval, including the commitment of water supply and sewage treatment services thereto by the Region and other authorities, has not yet been completed to permit registration of the plan. Accordingly, the purchaser should be aware that the vendor is making no representation or warranty that the lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement or lease, or purchase and sale will have all conditions of draft plan approval satisfied, including the availability of servicing until the plan is registered." 5. a) That prior to final approval, the Owner submit for review and approval a detailed functional servicing report for the entire plan, with such report to assess the need for pressure reducing valves; to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; b) That prior to final approval, the Owner agrees to submit for review and approval, engineering drawings which include the Kitchener Zone 4 750mm trunk watermain within the hydro-corridor easement and a section of Forestwalk Street; Modification to 30T-08206 Page 26 of 520 -14 - to 14 -to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; C) deleted d) deleted 6. Where pressure reducing valves are required in Condition No. 5 a) above, the Owner must enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such installation; and to include in all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements, a clause identifying the presence of such water pressure reduction device and advising that it may not be removed by the owner/occupant. *7. Deleted. 8. That prior to final approval, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to distribute source water protection and winter salt management information with all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 9. That prior to final approval, the Owner decommissions any monitoring and private wells (not used for long term monitoring) on the property in accordance with O. Reg. 903 prior to any grading on the property; and furthermore, that the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to decommission any long term monitoring wells no longer used for such purposes, all to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 10. That prior to final approval of all or any part of this plan of subdivision, the Owner submits an interim and/or final lot grading and drainage plan as deemed necessary by the Region, for review and approval by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The lot grading and drainage plan must include existing grades / profiles for Bleams Road and address the Region's requirements set out in its letter "Regional Transportation Planning Comments" dated January 15, 2014. Furthermore, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to secure completion and implementation of the above requirements. 11. That prior to final approval of all or any part of this plan of subdivision, the Owner submits an interim and/or final stormwater management report as deemed necessary by the Region, for review and approval by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The interim and/or final stormwater management report must: a) establish water quantity trigger levels and/or infiltration benchmarks, and propose a strategy for mitigating impacts in the event there is a shortfall meeting infiltration targets, consistent with the Water Management Strategy for the Rosenberg Secondary Plan; b) identify the design and location of infiltration facilities; and C) address the Region's requirements set out in its letter "Regional Transportation Planning Comments" dated January 15, 2014. Modification to 30T-08206 Page 27 of 520 -15 - Furthermore, 15 -Furthermore, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to secure completion and implementation of the above stormwater management requirements. 13. That prior to final approval, the Owner submits a boulevard restoration plan for Bleams Road, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 14. Deleted. *15. That if required by the Region, the Owner obtains a Regional Road Access Permit to close the existing access on Bleams Road (Regional Road 56). *16. That the Owner upon written request by the Region, or that the plan for final approval (whichever comes first), provide for road widening Block 8 (Stage 2), and any road widening dedication along the Bleams Road frontage identified through the Bleams Road environmental assessment project as deemed necessary by the Region, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. *17. Deleted. 18. Deleted. *19. That prior to final approval, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the installation of a 1.5 metres high chain link fence along any lot properties fronting Bleams Road (Regional Road 56), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. *20. Deleted. 21. Deleted. *22. a)That the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for Lots 1 to 4, Block 5, Block 6, and Block 7 all inclusive, to provide for the installation of a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed for the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupant. b)That the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for Lots 1 to 4, Block 5, Block 6, and Block 7 all inclusive, to include the following warning clause in all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning Modification to 30T-08206 Page 28 of 520 -16 - by 16 -by the occupant in low and medium density devlelopments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. 23. Deleted. *24. Deleted. *25. That prior to area grading, servicing or final approval of all or any part of the plan of subdivision, the SUBDIVIDER complete a Record of Site Condition (RSC) for all of the lands in Stage 2 accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. A copy of the completed RSC, acknowledgement from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and any other documents (e.g., Environmental Site Assessment reports) completed in support of the RSC must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The RSC boundaries must exclude any land being dedicated to the Region for road widening purposes. 4. OTHER AGENCY CONDITIONS: 4A Grand River Conservation Authority 1. As per Policy 5.2.6 of the Rosenberg Secondary plan, prior to any grading or servicing, the existing culvert at Fischer Hallman Road and Upper Strasburg Creek shall be replaced in accordance with the Strasburg Creek Flood Control Environmental Assessment (Stantec). Construction is intended to coincide with other works in the area to minimize disturbance to the creek. 2. Prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to registration of the plan, the owners or their agents submit the following plans and reports to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority. a) A detailed stormwater management report in accordance with the 2003 Ministry of the Environment Report entitled "Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual", the Alder Creek Watershed Study and the Upper Strasburg Creek Subwatershed Study update, and in keeping with the Preliminary SWM report and addendums prepared by Stantec. b) A detailed Lot Grading, Servicing and Storm Drainage Plan. The Lot Grading Plan must illustrate the location of community trails. The Servicing Plan should incorporate the final Middle Strasburg sanitary sewer alignment as approved in the Class Environmental Assessment or approved modifications. C) An Erosion and Siltation Control Plan in accordance with the Grand River Conservation Authority's Guidelines for sediment and erosion control, indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized, and silt maintained on-site throughout all phases of grading and construction. Modification to 30T-08206 Page 29 of 520 -17 - d) 17 -d) The submission and approval of a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit from the GRCA prior to any development within areas regulated under Ontario Regulation 150/06. e) As per Policy 5.2.6 of the Rosenberg Secondary Plan, the existing culvert at Fischer Hallman Road and Upper Strasburg Creek be replaced in accordance with the Strasburg Creek Flood Control Environment Assessment (Stantec). Construction is intended to coincide with other works in the area to minimize disturbance to the creek. f) Detailed water balance information showing how infiltration targets will be met will be provided. g) An erosion analysis and mitigation strategy for Strasburg Creek will be provided. A peer review may be requested, to be paid for by the proponent. h) A short term and long-term monitoring and maintenance plan for all of the infiltration facilities, on public and private lands, with access available to the City, will be provided. i) A monitoring plan to assess the performance of the cooling trench, including flow and water temperature, will be provided. D A pre, during and post construction monitoring program and reporting as outlined in the Environmental Impact Study will be provided. Remedial measures will be outlined the monitoring program and implemented if needed. 5. CLEARANCE CONDITIONS 1. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY's Director of Planning, the City of Kitchener is to be advised by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services that Conditions 3.1 to 3.23 have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The clearance letter from the Region shall include a brief but complete statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied. a. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY's Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro that Condition 2.2.5 and 2.2.7 has been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied. b. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY's Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the telecommunication companies (Bell, Rogers) that Conditions 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied. 6. NOTES Development Charges 1. The owner/developer is advised that the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 09-024 are applicable. Modification to 30T-08206 Page 30 of 520 -18 - Registry 18 -Registry Act 2. The final plans for Registration must be in conformity with Ontario Regulation 43/96, as amended, under The Registry Act. Updated Information 3. It is the responsibility of the owner of this draft plan to advise the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener Planning and Development Departments of any changes in ownership, agent, address and phone number. Regional Fees 4. The owner/developer is advised that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo has adopted By- Law 09-003, pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.13, to prescribe a tariff of fees for application, recirculation, draft approval, modification to draft approval and registration release of plans of 30T-08206. Identification of Applicable Planning Act 5. This draft plan was received on or after May 22, 1996 and shall be processed and finally disposed of under the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990, as amended by S.O.2006, c.23(Bill 51). Unobstructed Access to Units 6. The owner/developer is responsible to ensure that each dwelling unit has unobstructed access at grade or ground level, having a minimum width of 0.9 metres, from the front yard to the rear yard of the lot either by: i. direct access on the lot without passing through any portion of the dwelling unit; or, ii. direct access through the dwelling unit without passing through a living or family room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, or recreation room or any hallway that is not separated by a door to any such room; or, iii. access over adjacent lands which, if the lands are not owned by the City of Kitchener or the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, are secured by a registered easement prior to final approval of the subdivision plan. Regional Servicing Agreement 7. The owner/developer is advised that draft approval is not a commitment by The Regional Municipality of Waterloo to water and wastewater servicing capacity. To secure this commitment the owner/developer must enter into an "Agreement for Servicing" with The Regional Municipality of Waterloo by requesting that the Region's Planning and Culture Department initiate preparation of the agreement. When sufficient capacity is confirmed by the Region's Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services to service the density as defined by the plan to be registered, the owner/developer will be offered an "Agreement for Servicing". This agreement will be time limited, define the servicing commitment by density and use. Should the "Agreement for Servicing" expire prior to plan registration, a new agreement will be required. The owner/developer is to provide the Regional Municipality of Waterloo with two print copies of the proposed plan to be registered along with the written request for a servicing agreement. Registration Release 8. To ensure that a Regional Release is issued by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services to the City of Kitchener prior to year end, it is the Modification to 30T-08206 Page 31 of 520 _19 - responsibility 19 -responsibility of the owner to ensure that all fees have been paid, that all Regional conditions have been satisfied and the required clearance letters, agreements, prints of plan to be registered, and any other required information or approvals have been deposited with the Regional Planner responsible for the file, no later than December 15th. Regional staff cannot ensure that a Regional Release would be issued prior to yearend where the owner has failed to submit the appropriate documentation by this date. Airport Zoning 9.a) The Owner is advised that the lands, or a portion of the lands, are subject to the Region of Waterloo International Airport Zoning Regulations issued under the federal Aeronautics Act. The purpose of the Regulations is two-fold: 1) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Region of Waterloo International Airport site from being used or developed in a manner that is incompatible with the safe operation of the airport or an aircraft; and 2) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of facilities used to provide services relating to aeronautics from being used or developed in a manner that would cause interference with signals or communications to and from aircraft or to and from those facilities. It is the landowner's responsibility to be aware, and to make all users of the land aware of the restrictions under these Regulations which may include but not limited to height restrictions on buildings or structures, height of natural growth, interference with communications, and activities or uses that attract birds. 9.b) The Owner is advised that the lands, or a portion of the lands, may be subject to Canadian Aviation Regulations Standard 621.19 issued under the federal Aeronautics Act. This Standard allows aviation officials to assess individual obstructions, namely buildings, structures or objects, to determine if they are likely to constitute a hazard to air navigation and consequently require marking and/or lighting in accordance with the Standards. Persons planning to erect an obstruction, namely a building, structure or object, including a moored balloon, either permanently or temporarily, should contact the Regional Manager, Aerodrome Safety (Ontario Region), Transport Canada at (416) 952-0248 as early as possible and provide the necessary information on the planned obstruction using the Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance Form (#26-0427) issued by Transport Canada. Final Plans 10. When the survey has been completed and the final plan prepared, to satisfy the requirements of the Registry Act, they should be forwarded to the City of Kitchener. If the plans comply with the terms of approval, and we have received an assurance from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and applicable clearance agencies that the necessary arrangements have been made, the Manager of Development Review's signature will be endorsed on the plan and it will be forwarded to the Registry Office for registration. The following is required for registration and under The Registry Act and for our use: One Original mylar Four Mylar copies Four White paper copies Modification to 30T-08206 Page 32 of 520 _ Bleams� €m ���IT�T17—jn Road -- I IIIIIII Ildlll1l iTrn�7�1�;R.Rmo �eo; ___—� L ��jI 'J-0-di rail Q/77-71T[Tv 2- Routle w tr- T�Tet '�l ] �\ s7nare,Management �� MultPle Res tlential 1 —L_� L M,Itple Resid-n l `\ I J William N(d .T�T.� t Stree L �� A T w \ o s(1J�_UTJ n, ,- `� (T axony Street_ T_ i °3 �'�— E ' I T"-7-n-TI� c� Multiple Restlen0al els d'� `\ ----- \ N 1 I I I _ ll S � I l� II � 1 v\ ,v Pen: � I � Densryr sdenoel—- P-- � Histand Trail Lnw[Mea�m Denslryr sdenrel IIo I Sennnl �I -------------- 'N �� -- Pa ` nwn Mlxetl Use \ _ Parkett` Open Space` (-11 T _T T T Rosenberg Way �I Penrene M—dUse 1 Hammermeister St. l - �� E ` L_ ` "I LITT� _- � L�w[Medw Den Iryr sd�noei U C `v �- Mllt_�scnmidt std TATopen Q v Spe I -k— j, �f_LL1_L111:J I Forestwalk Street -n-,Ty —— Pret �Area x. Resrene�r Ham �11 a St--ter Management J / �— — S[omrvrater Management i WET/ANDS / S ` WET/ANDS i IIS 1 r• � t � �`� � LDw[Medl mDensryResmenoa Land Use Schedule �— LAND USE UNITS AREA r ` Lots1-4 Single Detached Residential 4 0.24 — — 'Hadlr�tProtert�on Area �.__� / Blocks 5-7 Future Development 3 0.05 Block8 Road Widening 0.01 J, open space� �— TOTAL AREA 0.35 ha. TOTAL UNITS 7 L -- -- -- --- -- 10 50 REVISIONS: SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-08206 02010 ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC08/35/B/JVW PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SCALE 1:5000 R.C.P. 1469, PART OF LOT 1 City of Kitchener CAD FILE I")NL� �ING 7 kdwg SOUTH ESTATES (KITCHENER) G.P. INC. DATE:November 3,2o21 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMEECrN , N NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Appendix fora development in your neighbourhood 1525 Bleams Road1 1carrm Have Your Voice Heard! Road Date: June 13, 2022 J r Time: 4:00 p.m. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting s To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to 17 wr .9 � appear as a delegation, visit: kitchener.ca/meetings f - To learn more about this project, Proposed Lot Concept including information on your p p appeal rights, visit: AM13k www.kitchenenca/ IMM15 ■ .�eplanningapplications ■w s��s� ■u '' � or contact: Tim Seyler, Planner Subdivision Low Rise Creation of i 519.741.2200 x 7860 Modification Residential 6 Residential Et Zoning Lots tim.seyler@ kitch ener.ca By-Law Amendment The City of Kitchener has received an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of the lands with 6 residential lots in conjunction with the adjacent approved plan of subdivision. The application proposes to change the zoning from Agricultural Zone (A-1) with Special Regulation 1 R to Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Regulation Provisions 671 R 672R 673R & 674R. Pag e34 of 520 Appendix "D" PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES N, Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Region of Waterloo Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone:519-575-4400 TTY:519-575-4508 Fax:519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterl oo.ca Shilling Yip (226) 753-1064 (C) File: C14-60/2/22004 May 11, 2022 Tim Seyler, MCIP. RPP Planner DSD — Planning Division City of Kitchener 200 King Street W. Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Seyler: Re: ZBA 22/004/B/ES and Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 Mattamy Homes 1525 Bleams Road CITY OF KITCHENER Region staff has reviewed the above-noted applications and provides the following comments for your consideration at this time. The subject property contains a decommissioned pumping station. The lands are zoned Agriculture One (A-1). The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and create 6 residential lots, which are proposed to be developed in conjunction with the Mattamy South Estates subdivision, file 30T-08206. To facilitate this development, the Applicant has requested that the zoning be changed to Residential Six (R-6) with special regulation provisions 671 R, 672R, 673R and 674R which align with the zoning for the existing subdivision, and would be the same zoning as the adjacent residential lots. Proposed modifications to the plan and conditions of draft approval for Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206 to include the subject lands are also proposed. Water Services The applicant should be made aware that no connection to the regional watermain on Bleams Road will be permitted. Corridor Planning Document Number: 4012882 Version: 1 Page 35 of 520 - 2 - Regional Road Dedication The subject property had direct frontage with Regional Road 56 (Bleams Road). Bleams Road has a designated road width of 30.480m (100ft) in accordance with Schedule `A' in the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The existing Bleams Road right of way width in this area is slightly deficient versus the designated road width. As such, a road widening dedication measuring 1.76m will be required. The road widening dedication width is the same as the requirement for the adjacent Plan of Subdivision 30T-08206. This section of Bleams Road is proposed for major reconstruction in 2024-2025, and additional land dedication for the subject property may be required in association with that project. This will be reflected in the conditions of draft approval for the subdivision. Access Permit/TIS/Access Regulation The subject property currently obtains vehicular access to Bleams Road via a single full movement access location. As the subject property will be re-developed for residential lots in association with the adjacent subdivision, vehicular access for the lots will be provided by the new municipal road (Histand Trail). A Regional Road Access Permit application (https://forms.regionofwaterloo.ca/Planning-and-Economic- Development/Close-an-Access-Access-Permit-Application) will be required for the closure of the existing access for the pumping station. There is no fee associated with the closure application. The formal closure of the physical access does not need to occur until the pumping station is decommissioned. Please remain in contact with Region of Waterloo Design & Construction staff as the removal of the access within the Bleams Road right of way may be completed in association with the future Bleams Road reconstruction. Stormwater Management & Site Grading The future grading and servicing for the subject property has been incorporated in the adjacent subdivision. A stormwater management report and detailed civil engineering submission completed by Stantec on behalf of Mattamy Homes have been submitted to the Region of Waterloo for review and approval. The future grading and servicing for the subject property must follow the final Region of Waterloo approved set of plans. Environmental Noise The subject property has been included in a previous Environmental Noise Study, "Noise Feasibility Study, Proposed Residential Development, South Estates, Kitchener, ON" (HGC, February 26, 2021). Implementation of the study recommendations shall be secured through the upcoming modifications to Stage 2 of the plan of subdivision to include the subject lands. Other As noted above, this section of Bleams Road has been identified in the Region's 10- Year Transportation Capital Program for reconstruction in 2023-2024. The project is Document Number: 4012882 Version: 1 Page 36 of 520 - 3 - currently going through the Environmental Assessment stage of development. For more information regarding the road reconstruction project please connect with the Region of Waterloo Engage website (https://www.engagewr.ca/bleams-rd). Source Water Protection Hydrogeology and Water Program (HWP) staff requests that the developer enter into an agreement to complete a Salt Management Plan (SMP) should multiple residential uses be proposed, to the satisfaction of the Region, at Site Plan control. As part of the SMP, HWP would encourage the proponent to incorporate design considerations with respect to salt management, including: • Ensure the cold weather stormwater flows are considered in the site design. Consideration should be given to minimize the transport of meltwater across the parking lots or driveway. This also has the potential to decrease the formation of ice and thereby the need for de-icing. • Directing downspouts towards pervious (i.e. grassy) surfaces to prevent runoff from freezing on parking lots and walkways. • Locating snow storage areas on impervious (i.e. paved) surfaces. • Locating snow storage areas in close proximity to catchbasins. • Using winter maintenance contractors that are Smart About SaltTM certified. • Using alternative de-icers (i.e. pickled sand) in favour of road salt. The proponent is eligible for the certification under the Smart About SaltTM program for this property. Completion of the SMP is one part of the program. To learn more about the program and to find accredited contractors please refer to: http://smartaboutsalt.com/. Benefits of designation under the program include cost savings through more efficient use of salt, safe winter conditions by preventing the formation of ice, and potential reductions of insurance premiums. Based on the modifications the plan of subdivision at this time, lots for single-detached dwellings fronting on a municipal street are proposed, therefore a SMP will not be required. Record of Site Condition A Record of Site Condition (RSC) is required according to the guideline as the former pumping station would be considered a high threat according to the Region's database. Note that an RSC would also likely be required according to O. Reg. 153/04 due to the proposed change in use from industrial to residential. As discussed with yourself and Mattamy Homes, the RSC can be addressed through a holding provision in the proposed zoning amendment, or alternatively through a future condition of draft approval for the subdivision. The latter approach is acceptable to Region staff, and has been included as new Region draft approval No. 25 attached. Document Number: 4012882 Version: 1 Page 37 of 520 - 4 - Archaeology A portion of the subject property at 1525 Bleams Road appears to not have been included in the 2008 Archaeological Assessment for the Plan of Subdivision (30T- 08206), further this portion continues to possess the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources due to the proximity to a watercourse, proximity to known Registered Archaeological Sites, proximity to historically mapped structures, its location upon a landform associated with the habitation of early people in the area, and its location along an historic road. Due to the small size of the site and the existing disturbance from underground infrastructure, the Region will not be requesting an Archaeological Assessment. The applicant, however, should be made aware that: • If archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the applicant will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and/or, • If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the applicant will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. Housing General The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. The Region's 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan contains an affordable housing target for Waterloo Region. The target is for 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 to be affordable to low and moderate income households. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site. Staff recommend considering other ways of providing a mix of housing types on the site, such as secondary dwelling units within or accessory to the proposed single detached dwellings. Affordability For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit, based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan, the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Document Number: 4012882 Version: 1 Page 38 of 520 - 5 - Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $368,000 annual household income for low and moderate income households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average $487,637 purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020). In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $368,000. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit, based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan, the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual $1,420 household income for low and moderate income renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the Bachelor: $863 average market rent (AMR) in the 1-Bedroom: $1,076 regional market area 2-Bedroom: $1,295 3-Bedroom: $1,359 4+ Bedroom: $1 ,359 *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2020) In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above. Please do not hesitate to contact Judy Maan Miedema by email at JMaanMiedema(a)regionofwaterloo.ca should you have any questions or wish to discuss in more detail. Modifications to Plan and Conditions of Draft Approval 30T-08206 Staff has reviewed the proposed modifications to the plan (dated November 3, 2021) and conditions of draft approval to include the subject lands which show 4 lots for single-detached dwellings, 3 future development blocks and a road widening block. Document Number: 4012882 Version: 1 Page 39 of 520 - 6 - Staff has no objection to the proposed modifications subject to the following modifications to the conditions of draft approval attached. Other Staff acknowledge the Region's required review fees for of the ZBA and proposed modifications to the plan and conditions of draft approval for plan of subdivision 30T- 08206 were received May 11, 2022. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (226) 753-1064 (C). Yours truly, Shilling Yip, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner Attachment cc. Brad Trussler/Alex Drung, Mattamy Homes Document Number: 4012882 Version: 1 Page 40 of 520 May 11, 2022 Subdivision 30T-08206 Stage 2 (Mattamy South Estates) Proposed Modifications to Conditions of Draft Approval Proposed modifications shown with asterisk (*) and in bold. 3. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CONDITIONS 1. That the plan for final approval may incorporate a lot pattern for all blocks in which single detached, semi-detached and townhouse lots are permitted, at a density not exceeding the density identified in the draft approval conditions. 2. That the owner agrees to stage the development for this subdivision in a manner satisfactory to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 3. That the subdivision agreement be registered by the City of Kitchener against the lands to which it applies, and a copy of the registered agreement be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services prior to final approval of the subdivision plan; 4a. That the owner enters into an Agreement for Servicing with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to preserve access to municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment services prior to final approval or any agreement for the installation of underground services, whichever comes first. Where the owner has already entered into an agreement for the installation of underground servicing with the area municipality, such agreement shall be amended to provide for a Regional Agreement for Servicing prior to registration of any part of the plan. The Regional Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services shall advise prior to an Agreement for Servicing that sufficient water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity is available for this plan, or the portion of the plan to be registered; 4b. That the owner includes the following statement in all agreements of lease or purchase and sale that may be entered into pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning Act, prior to the registration of this plan: "The lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement of lease or purchase and sale are not yet registered as a plan of subdivision. The fulfillment of all conditions of draft plan approval, including the commitment of water supply and sewage treatment services thereto by the Region and other authorities, has not yet been completed to permit registration of the plan. Accordingly, the purchaser should be aware that the vendor is making no representation or warranty that the lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement or lease, or Document Number: 4068703 Version: 1 Page 41 of 520 -2 - purchase 2 -purchase and sale will have all conditions of draft plan approval satisfied, including the availability of servicing until the plan is registered." 5. a) That prior to final approval, the Owner submit for review and approval a detailed functional servicing report for the entire plan, with such report to assess the need for pressure reducing valves; to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; b) That prior to final approval, the Owner agrees to submit for review and approval, engineering drawings which include the Kitchener Zone 4 750mm trunk watermain within the hydro-corridor easement and a section of Forestwalk Street; to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; c) deleted d) deleted 6. Where pressure reducing valves are required in Condition No. 5a) above, the Owner must enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such installation; and to include in all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements, a clause identifying the presence of such water pressure reduction device and advising that it may not be removed by the owner/occupant. *7. Deleted. 8. That prior to final approval, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to distribute source water protection and winter salt management information with all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 9. That prior to final approval, the Owner decommissions any monitoring and private wells (not used for long term monitoring) on the property in accordance with O. Reg. 903 prior to any grading on the property; and furthermore, that the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to decommission any long term monitoring wells no longer used for such purposes, all to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 10. That prior to final approval of all or any part of this plan of subdivision, the Owner submits an interim and/or final lot grading and drainage plan as deemed necessary by the Region, for review and approval by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The lot grading and drainage plan must include existing grades / profiles for Bleams Road and address the Region's requirements set out in its letter "Regional Transportation Planning Comments" Page 42 of 520 -3 - dated 3 -dated January 15, 2014. Furthermore, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to secure completion and implementation of the above requirements. 11. That prior to final approval of all or any part of this plan of subdivision, the Owner submits an interim and/or final stormwater management report as deemed necessary by the Region, for review and approval by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The interim and/or final stormwater management report must: a) establish water quantity trigger levels and/or infiltration benchmarks, and propose a strategy for mitigating impacts in the event there is a shortfall meeting infiltration targets, consistent with the Water Management Strategy for the Rosenberg Secondary Plan; b) identify the design and location of infiltration facilities; and C) address the Region's requirements set out in its letter "Regional Transportation Planning Comments" dated January 15, 2014. Furthermore, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to secure completion and implementation of the above stormwater management requirements. 12. That prior to final approval, or prior to commencement of any construction work within the Bleams Road (Regional Road 56) right-of-way, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to obtain a Municipal Consent and Work Permit from the Region for such works. 13. That prior to final approval, the Owner submits a boulevard restoration plan for Bleams Road, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 14. Deleted. *15. That if required by the Region, the Owner obtains a Regional Road Access Permit to close the existing access on Bleams Road (Regional Road 56). *16. That the Owner upon written request by the Region, or that the plan for final approval (whichever comes first), provide for road widening Block 8 (Stage 2), and any road widening dedication along the Bleams Road frontage identified through the Bleams Road environmental assessment project as deemed necessary by the Region, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. *17. Deleted. Page 43 of 520 -4 - 18. 4 -18. Deleted. *19. That prior to final approval, the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the installation of a 1.5 metres high chain link fence along any lot properties fronting Bleams Road (Regional Road 56), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. *20. Deleted. 21. Deleted. *22. a)That the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for Lots 1 to 4, Block 5 and Block 6, all inclusive, to provide for the installation of a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed for the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupant. b)That the Owner enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for Lots 1 to 4, Block 5 and Block 6, all inclusive, to include the following warning clause in all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. "This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density devlelopments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. 23. Previous condition deleted. *24. Deleted. *25. That prior to area grading, servicing or final approval of all or any part of the plan of subdivision, the SUBDIVIDER complete a Record of Site Condition (RSC)for all of the lands in Stage 2 accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. A copy of the completed RSC, acknowledgement from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and any other documents (e.g., Environmental Site Assessment reports) completed in support of the RSC must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development Page 44 of 520 -5 - and 5 -and Legislative Services. The RSC boundaries must exclude any land being dedicated to the Region for road widening purposes. Page 45 of 520 City of Kitchener Zoning by-law Amendment Comment Form Address: 1525 Bleams Road Owner: Mattamy (South Estates) Ltd. Application: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA22/004/B/ES Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Ashley DeWitt Email: Ashley.dewitt@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2600 x4182 Date of Comments: March 4, 2022 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ No meeting to be held 0 I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of a ZBA for the creation of 6 residential lots, which are proposed to be added to the Mattamy South Estates (30T-08206) Subdivision through a subdivision modification. Documents Reviewed: • Planning Justification Report • Subdivision Modification Report 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: .1 Parkland Dedication .1 Parkland Dedication requirements will be taken as cash in lieu of land. Parkland Dedication will be taken at the policy standard rate of 5%of the appraised land value, which is $9,200 per linear meter of frontage as per the Street Fronting Residential development land class for the new lots. See section 5. Anticipated Fees .2 Dedication requirements are subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of draft approval of subdivision. .3 Should any further revisions be made to the plan, a revised parkland dedication may be required. .4 In the event of a discrepancy between the parkland dedication calculation form and this memo, please contact the above-noted Parks & Cemeteries staff for clarification. .2 Street Trees .1 Street Trees relative to the proposed lotting have been accommodated in the Street Tree Master Plan for the South Estates Subdivision. A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community P °4'9 of 520 City of Kitchener Zoning by-law Amendment Comment Form 3. Comments on Submitted Documents No Comments 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: ❑X Parkland Dedication Policy ❑ Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law ❑ Parks Strategic Plan ❑ Cycling&Trails Masterplan ❑ Multi-Use Pathways&Trails Masterplan ❑X Development Manual S. Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication Payment of Parkland Dedication of 5% of the appraised land value, which is $9,200 per linear meter of frontage as per the Street Fronting Residential development land class for the new lots at the time of draft approval of subdivision modification. A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community PP9VeOV of 520 From: Jessica Conroy<jconroy@grandrive r.ca> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:45 AM To: Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] ZBA22/004/B/ES (1525 Bleams Road) -GRCA Comment Good morning, Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no objection to the approval of application ZBA22/004/B/ES. The subject property does not contain any watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, valley slopes or other environmental features of interest to GRCA. The property is not subject to Ontario Regulation 150/06 and therefore a permission from GRCA is not required. Sincerely, Jessica Conroy, MES PI. Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, PO Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2230 Toll-free: 1-866-900-4722 Email: jconroy(a)-grandriver.ca www.grandriver.ca I Connect with us on social media Page 48 of 520 From: Planning<planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 5:33 PM To:Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment-Zoning By-law Amendment (1525 Bleams Road) Good Afternoon Tim, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A)That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan.Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext.2355 Page 49 of 520 Staff Report x�i _N I,I Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: May 11, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-255 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) 30CDM-22203 55 Franklin Street South 55 Franklin GP Inc. RECOMMENDATION: That the City of Kitchener, pursuant to Section 51(31) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and By-law 2002-164 of the City of Kitchener, as amended, grant draft approval to Condominium Application 30CDM-22203 for 55 Franklin Street South in the City of Kitchener, subject to the conditions shown in Appendix "A". REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to provide a planning recommendation to approve the proposed Vacant Land Condominium for the property located at 55 Franklin Street South. • Community engagement for the Vacant Land Condominium included: o Circulation of a notice letter to owners of property within 240 metres of the subject property; o Staff received 1 neighbourhood response and corresponded directly with the member of the public; and, o Notice of the public meeting was advertised in The Record on May 20, 2022. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the property at 55 Franklin Street South is proposing to obtain draft approval for a 5- unit Vacant Land Condo (VLC) comprising of 4 mixed use buildings and a 1 storey parking structure. Staff is supportive of the proposed application that would allow the redevelopment of the subject site. BACKGROUND: 55 Franklin GP Inc. has made application to the City of Kitchener for a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 50 of 520 C7 34 31 55 PI4[: a rt 39 a f., 54 4 Subject Property Figure 1: Location map The subject site is located close to the Highway 8 expressway in the Vanier neighbourhood. The lands were previously used for industrial and office uses. The lands are surrounded by Low Rise Residential uses to the west, High Rise Residential uses to the south, and Commercial uses to the north and east. The lands have received site plan approval for 4 mixed use buildings containing a total of 256 affordable residential units with commercial units located on the ground floor. A 1 storey parking structure is also approved for the property. The subject site has a frontage on both Franklin Road South and Eighth Avenue with a lot area of 8125.1 square metres (0.82 hectares). In March of 2021, the property received minor variance approval by the Committee of Adjustment for reductions in rear yard setback, side yard setbacks and parking reductions. REPORT: The owner of the subject lands is proposing a vacant land condominium which will consist of a total of 5 units. Four of the units will each contain a 6 storey, 64-unit mixed use building with landscaped areas and surface parking. The 51" middle unit will contain a 1 storey parking structure. Internal drive aisles, walkways, and landscaped areas make up the common elements. The owner has received Site Plan approval (SP20/075/F/AP) and a building permit has been issued for the first building which is currently under construction. The property is designated Commercial in the City's Official Plan and zoned Commercial Two Zone (COM-2) in the City's Zoning By-law 2019-051. The residential development consisting of 5 units to be developed with 4 mixed use buildings, and 1 parking structure is permitted on the lands as per the policies in the City's Official Plan and regulations in the City's Zoning By-law 2019-051. The vacant land condominium application proposes to create units 1 through 5 and a common element area as shown on the Vacant Land Condominium Plan (attached as Appendix"A"). Page 51 of 520 The purpose of the vacant land condominium application is to permit the individual ownership (tenure) of each of the residential units within the property. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land. The PPS promotes building healthy, liveable and safe communities, the efficient development of lands and provision of a range of housing types and densities. Housing related policies in the PPS encourage providing an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based needs of current and future residents. The PPS also promotes directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are available to make efficient use of land. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan promotes development that contributes to complete communities, creates street configurations that support walking, cycling and sustained viability of transit services and which creates high quality public open spaces. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and targets in this Plan, as well as the other policies of this Plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the policies of the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP), 2010: The subject site is located within the Urban Area and Built-Up Area in the Regional Official Plan. Permitted uses of the Urban Area and Built-Up Area in the ROP include a mix of housing uses including condominium units. Regional policies support a diverse range and mix of permanent housing options including the housing style proposed through this application. The subject lands fall within the `built boundary' delineated by the Province in the Growth Plan and identified in the Regional Official Plan. Policy 2.C.2 sets a target of 45% of new residential development to occur within the Built-Up area (as opposed to an urban greenfield area). This proposal would contribute to that target and represents reurbanization within the built-up area that results in a higher density than existed previously. In addition, Policy 2.D.1 states that in reviewing development applications, the Region and area municipalities will ensure that development occurring within the urban area is planned and developed in a manner that: • is serviced by a municipal; drinking-water system and a municipal wastewater system • protects the natural environment, and surface water and groundwater resources • respects the scale, physical character, and context of established neighbouhoods in areas where reurbanization is to occur. Based on staff review and comments from the Region of Waterloo, staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. City Official Plan The subject property is designated as Commercial in the City's Official Plan (OP). Lands located within the Commercial designation in the Official Plan may include dwelling units, where appropriate, Page 52 of 520 provided they are located in the same building as compatible commercial uses and are not located on the ground floor. The City's Official Plan contains policies that speak to provision of housing, including redevelopment: Policy 4.C.1.22: The City will encourage the provision of a range of innovative housing types and tenures such as rental housing, freehold ownership and condominium ownership including common element condominium, phased condominium and vacant land condominium, as a means of increasing housing choice and diversity. Policy 4.C.1.9. Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is important in considering compatibility. Policy 4.C.1.12. The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. Based on the above housing policies, staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Official Plan. Department and Agency Comments: A copy of all comments received from the commenting agencies and City departments are attached as Appendix"C". There are no outstanding concerns with the proposed applications. Community Input and Staff Responses: Staff received 1 written response from a nearby resident (attached as Appendix "D"). The resident had questions about the timing of the application, as the first building was already currently under construction. Planning staff responded directly to the residents by phone to answer questions and listen and understand their concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this recommendation. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the committee meeting. A notice of the public meeting was placed in the newspaper on May 20, 2022 (Appendix "B"). CONSULT — The Application was circulated to property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on March 18, 2022 as per Planning Act requirements. This report will be posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Zoning By-law 2019-051 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • Regional Official Plan, 2010 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Planning Act, 1990 • A Place to Grow, Growth Plan, 2020 • Minor Variance A2021-011 Page 53 of 520 APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Appendix "A" — Draft Approval Conditions and Draft Plan of Condominium 30CDM-22203 Appendix "B" — Newspaper Notice Appendix "C" — Department and Agency Comments Appendix "D" — Neighbourhood Comments Page 54 of 520 Appendix "A" DSD-2022-255 DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM 30CDM-22203 55 Franklin Street South 55 Franklin GP Inc. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL That the City of Kitchener, pursuant to Section 51(31) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and By-law 2002-164 as amended, of the City of Kitchener, hereby grants draft approval to Condominium Application 30CDM-22203 for 55 Franklin Street South in the City of Kitchener, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this approval applies to Draft Condominium 30CDM-22203 owned by 55 Franklin GP Inc., dated May 24, 2022 proposing a Vacant Land Condominium Plan for 0.83 hectares of land comprised of 5 units and common elements. Units 1-4: Lots for Mixed use buildings. Unit 5: 1 storey parking structure Common Elements: Internal drive aisle, walkway, and landscaped areas. 2. That the final plan shall be prepared in general accordance with the above noted plan, with a copy of the final plan being approved by the City's Manager of Development Review. 3. That prior to registration, the Owner obtain approval form the City's Addressing Analyst of the following: A. An addressing plan showing the proposed units with Condominium Unit Numbering; and; B. A summary table containing the proposed Condominium Unit Numbering and assigned municipal addresses. 4. The Owner shall submit a draft Condominium Declaration, for approval by the City's Manager of Development Review and Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The said Declaration shall contain: i) provisions, to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services, regarding ownership details and rights and obligations for common elements including, but not limited to, access lanes, sanitary, storm and water services, and open space/amenity areas, if any. In addition, the Declaration shall contain specific provisions 4 ii) through 4 vii), as outlined below, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. ii) That private sidewalks, driveways and parking areas be maintained in a snow free condition and void of any obstructions 12 months of the year. iii) That the condominium corporation agrees to develop and maintain the subject lands in compliance with approved Site Plan. iv) That access rights to Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. facilities on the subject property will be maintained. Page 55 of 520 z v) That the home mail delivery will be from a designated Centralized Mail Box. vi) That easements, as may be required, for servicing and/or access across the condominium lands are to be conveyed to: City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, Bell Canada and any communication/telecommunication company. vii) That the Condominium Corporation and Unit Owners, would at their expense, be obligated to implement and maintain the approved Salt Management Plan related to winter snow and ice clearing. viii) That Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school. For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email plan ninga-wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. In order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. ix) In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. 5. That the Owner covenant and agree in writing to the City's Manager of Development Review to register a Condominium Declaration which shall include the approved provisions as required in condition 4 hereof. 6. That the Owner shall provide an undertaking that the new home purchasers will be advised in Offers of Purchase and Sale of the location of Centralized Mail Boxes. 7. That the Owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property to the satisfaction of the City's Revenue Division. 8. That the Owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements for utilities and municipal services. The Owner agrees to comply with the following easement procedure: (a) to provide reference plan(s) showing the easements to Hydro, communication/ telecommunication companies, and the City, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review; (b) to ensure that there are no conflicts between the desired locations for utility easements and those easement locations required by the City's Director of Engineering Services for municipal services; Page 56 of 520 3 (c) to ensure that there are no conflicts between utility or municipal service easement locations and any approved Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan; (c) if utility easement locations are proposed within lands to be conveyed to, or presently owned by the City, the Owner shall obtain prior written approval from the City's Manager of Development Review or, in the case of parkland, the City's General Manager of Development Services; and (d) to provide to the City's Manager of Development Review, a clearance letter from each of Hydro, Bell Canada and other pertaining communication/telecommunication companies. Such letter shall state that the respective utility company has received all required grants of easements, or alternatively, no easements are required. 9. That the Owner shall submit to the City of Kitchener a Letter(s) of Credit to cover 100 percent of the remaining cost of all outstanding and/or uncertified site development works as may be identified through the Site Plan process to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. i) The Letter(s) of Credit shall be kept in force until the completion and certification of the required site development works in conformity with their approved designs. If a Letter(s) of Credit is about to expire without renewal thereof and the works have not been completed and certified in conformity with the approved designs, the City may draw all of the funds so secured and hold them as security to guarantee completion and/or certification, unless the City Solicitor is provided with a renewal of the Letter(s) of Credit forthwith. ii) In the event that the Owner fails to complete the required site development works, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review, then it is agreed by the owner that the City, its employees, agents or contractors may enter on the lands and so complete and/or certify the required site development works to the extent of the monies received under the Letter(s) of Credit. The cost of completion of such works shall be deducted from the monies obtained from the Letter(s) of Credit. In the event that there are required site development works remaining to be completed, the City may by by-law exercise its authority under Section 326 of the Municipal Act to have such works completed and to recover the expense incurred in doing so in like manner as municipal taxes. iii) Other forms of performance security may be substituted for a Letter(s) of Credit, at the request of the owner, provided that approval is obtained from the City Treasurer and City Solicitor. 10. That the Owner confirms that sufficient wire-line communication/telecommunication infrastructure is currently available within the proposed development to provide communication/telecommunication service to the proposed development to the satisfaction of Bell Canada or other communication/telecommunication company. 11. That the Applicant/Owner agrees to stage development of this condominium in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services and the City of Kitchener, including any easements or other requirements as a result of staging; 12. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer enters into a development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide a consolidated list of conclusions and recommendations relating to noise mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; Page 57 of 520 4 13. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of Kitchener to secure the recommendations contained within the Noise Study entitled "Franklin Street GP Inc. 55 Franklin Street South Development Noise & Vibration Assessment' dated October 2020, prepared by SLR and an addendum dated April 11, 2021 (prepared by SLR)" and any further addenda thereto, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 14. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall provide a copy of the noise study entitled "Franklin Street GP Inc. 55 Franklin Street South Development Noise & Vibration Assessment" dated October 2020, prepared by SLR and an addendum dated April 11, 2021 (prepared by SLR)" and any further addenda thereto to Dare Foods Limited in accordance with the MECP NPC-300 noise guideline; 15. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following warning clause: "Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that all units in this plan of condominium are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and directional lighting along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals." 16. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer include the following noise warning clauses within the Condominium Declaration and all offers of Purchase and Sale/Lease/Rental Agreements, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services: All required warning clauses recommended in the accepted Noise Study in Conditions 2 and 3 above. "Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that all units in this plan of condominium are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and directional lighting along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals." 17. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer incorporate the approved recommendations for both the unit owners and the condominium corporation contained within the accepted Risk Management Plan for Salt Application (Plan # 00116, signed July 16, 2021; prepared by Michael Maxwell and MTE) within the Condominium Declaration to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 18. That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be provided with a copy of the registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener prior to the final approval of the condominium plan; and, 19. That prior to final approval, that the Condominium Declaration be forwarded to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services at the Regional Municipality of Waterloo prior to final approval of the condominium plan. 20. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on the title to the property that provides: Page 58 of 520 5 a. "All agreements of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home or a home to be completed on the Property must contain the wording set out below to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same." i. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." ii. "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planninp(5)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information." iii. "In order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right- of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." b. That in cases where Agreements of Purchase and Sale have already been executed, the Owner/Developer sends a letter to all purchasers which includes the above statements a) i., ii. and iii. c. Prior to final approval, the WRDSB advises in writing to the Approval Authority how the above condition(s) has/have been satisfied. CLEARANCES: 1. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the City's Manager of Development Review, the Owner shall submit a detailed written submission outlining and documenting how conditions 3 through 20 inclusive have been met. The submission shall include a brief but complete statement detailing how and when each condition has been satisfied. 2. That prior to signing of the final plan by the City's Manager of Development Review, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo shall notify the City's Manager of Development Review that Conditions 4i), vii), and 11 through 19 have been satisfied. NOTES: 1. The owner is advised that the provisions of the Development Charge By-laws of the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality will apply to any future development on the site. 2. The condominium plan for Registration must be in conformity with Ontario Regulation 43/96 as amended, under the Registry Act. 3. Draft approval will be reviewed by the Manager of Development Review from time to time to determine whether draft approval should be maintained. 3. It is the responsibility of the owner of this draft plan to advise the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Department of Planning, Development and Legislative Services and the City of Kitchener Development Services Department of any changes in ownership, agent, address and phone number. Page 59 of 520 6 4. The owner is advised that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo has adopted By-law 96- 025, pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, to prescribe a tariff of fees for application, recirculation, draft approval, modification to draft approval and registration release of plans of condominium. 5. This draft plan was received on February 19, 2022 and deemed complete on February 19, 2022 and shall be processed and finally disposed of under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended as of that date. 6. To ensure that a Regional Release is issued by the Region's Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services to the City of Kitchener prior to year end, it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all fees have been paid, that all Regional conditions have been satisfied and the required clearance letters, agreements, prints of plan to be registered, and any other required information or approvals have been deposited with the Regional Planner responsible for the file, no later than December 15th. Regional staff cannot ensure that a Regional Release would be issued prior to year end where the owner has failed to submit the appropriate documentation by this date. 7. When the survey has been completed and the final plan prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Registry Act, they should be forwarded to the City of Kitchener. If the plans comply with the terms of the approval, and we have received assurance from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and applicable clearance agencies that the necessary arrangements have been made, the Manager of Development Review signature will be endorsed on the plan and it will be forwarded to the Registry Office for registration The following is required for registration and under The Registry Act and for our use: Two (2) original mylar Five (5) white paper prints One (1) digital copy Page 60 of 520 WATERLOO VACANT LAND c s/TE py cerci CONDOMINIUM PLAN No. ` SURVEYOR'S CERnFlGiE ,.,.T �I§ II I� ;I ------------ LOT Cr I; // �g .„/ I 4�_;� _ ../_ ,. _•,.v LL s:;rs�a ers "I°I 215 loisa�w+o,Sz ,,;V o Ilal ,.ors 142,us.151 AND,55 e<, REGISTERED PW!NO.254 CNY OF KRCNENER _ lR4MKLlN STREETr _� RECIOW MUNICIPP OF WATERLOO a s�,.soo ag ,nn .". as ga$ $ UNIT 3 UNIT 2 `��a„ i•"* o-o�mx„a W ._;./ i 4: s zea r u/ar oEEI,Wnay.. .» ..."l ti COMMON as `-0 '•�`�_ „P4nr %,T §^-- EL NT - --- UNIT$5 !:T a ---T---,---- - rn -- .. Us .fit LOT S4 y g cN UN?4 1 w�xR x `; UNIT 1 EIGHTH AVENUE �RE RE Miix am-tea nn 8£ n"�' .,.q.�x..r.�.�xr wa�xo,�onawg LOT LLOT t CERIIFlGIE OF DECLWANr NOTES aM warax�r. wnwew vamrs a.,aomwa a u ar ar m me xuwxcp ,m.. _d.ar mu { 55 FRANKLIN C.P.INC. m m un mxc i,,ww.. mr mxrowrrox w me cm ar xnewrrme 55 gl FRANKLIN LP. iw ax,nna n,.e«uxwn M.,. man nr mmarcx mw rwa, 8 M-jMTE R„/- NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING fora development in your neighbourhood 55 Franklin Street South FRANKLIN S7RErr Have Your Voice Heard! +eu. Cil 7 Date: June 13, 2022 1+1RS wf [ F 2 i Time: 4.• 00 p.m. y � • 1 -i �i ; �' ; :. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting 45f�1wV,■ S k"F aTo view the staff report, agenda, ar " w, -sk find meeting details or to IF `. } }• 'r I WTI e IC appear as a delegation, visit: s ,i-- • - - __ —� e,l-� kitchener.ca/meetings EIGHTH AVENUE To learn more about this project, Proposed Lot Layout including information on your appeal rights, visit. www.kitchenenca/ p, planningapplications } or contact: Vacant Land Mixed 4 Buildings Tim Seyler, Planner 519.741.2200 x 7860 Condominium Use 6 Storeys Each tim.seyler@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener has received an application proposing a Vacant Land Condominium (VLC) which consists of 5 units representing each of the structures and a common element area. A VLC is like a plan of subdivision except the road is privately-owned rather than publicly owned and lots are referred to as "units" in a VLC. 4 of the units will each contain a 6 storey, 64-unit mixed use building with landscaped areas and surface parking. The middle unit will contain a 1 storey parking structure. Interrg I drive �'sle escaped amens area and walkways will make u the comrpi"cf�ggr��it�? u amenity � y P Appendix C PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Region of Waterloo Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY:519-575-4608 Fax:519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 1-226-752-8622 File: D1920/2/22203 May 26, 2022 Tim Seyler, BES, RPP, MCIP Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Seyler, Re: Proposed Vacant Land Plan of Condo 30CDM-22203 55 Franklin Street South GSP Group Inc. (C/O Brandon Flewwelling) on behalf of 55 Franklin GP Inc. CITY OF KITCHENER The Region has prepared the following comments relating to the above noted Vacant Land Plan of Condominium at 55 Franklin Street South in Kitchener. The purpose of these comments is to identify any items that need to be address prior to draft approval and those that can be imposed as conditions of approval. The applicant has proposed a vacant land plan of condominium consisting of five (5) units representing each of the structures permitted through the corresponding approved site plan. Four (4) of the units will each contain a six (6) storey, 64 unit mixed use building with landscaped areas and surface parking. The middle unit will contain a one (1) storey parking structure. Internal drive aisles, a landscaped amenity area and walkways make up the common elements. The subject lands are located in the Urban Area of the Region and Designated Built-Up Area in the Regional Official Plan. In addition, the subject lands are designated Commercial in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned COM-2 in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-01. This site has an approved Site Plan (SP20/075/F/AP) on the property. Document Number: 4081680 Version: 1 Page 63 of 520 These comments relate to the Vacant Land Plan of Condominium prepared by MTE Ontario Land Surveyors Ltd.; Project No. 45799-200-CD1.0: Regional Comments Community Planning The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built-Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and Commercial in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The site is zoned to permit residential uses and there is an approved site plan (File No. SP20/075/F/AP) with residential buildings under construction. Regional staff received an unsigned copy of the draft plan for review. Please be advised that both the Owner and Surveyor must sign the plan and the plan must include information pertaining to Section 51(17) of the Ontario Planning Act. Regional Staff have no objection to the application, pending the updates to the plan. In addition, Regional staff have the following technical comments and conditions for review: Environmental (Road and Stationary) Noise: Regional staff have received the report entitled "Franklin Street GP Inc. 55 Franklin Street South Development Noise & Vibration Assessment" dated October 2020, prepared by SLR and an addendum dated April 11, 2021 (prepared by SLR) and have the following comments at this time: At the time of release of these comments, the Region has not accepted the noise study and have followed up with the consultant. Regional staff are awaiting a response. Stationary Noise: The noise study and addendum indicate that Class 1 noise level objectives cannot be met as at-source mitigation and receptor-based mitigation are not possible. The report recommends that the approval authority accept a Class 4 noise designation and corresponding mitigation as outlined in the MECP NPC-300 guidelines. Regional staff have asked for clarification regarding a potential 2dBA exceedance of Class 4 noise objectives and are awaiting a response. The subject lands are zoned to permit residential uses, the site has an approved site plan and the development is under construction at this time. Given these circumstances, Regional staff have no objection to the Class 4 noise designation in principle, subject to the City of Kitchener accepting the Class 4 and implementing the recommendations contained in the above noted study through a Registered Development Agreement. The registered development agreement shall be between the Owner/Developer and the City of Kitchener as a condition of draft plan approval. Details regarding the recommendations to be included in the Development Agreement shall be provided under separate cover. Document Number: 4081680 Version: 1 Page 64 of 520 Should the Class 4 noise designation be accepted by the City of Kitchener, a copy of the noise study must be provided to the adjacent Industrial facility (Dare Foods Limited) pursuant to the MECP NPC-300 noise guideline. Road Noise: The above noted noise study recommends central air conditioning, special building components (e.g. STC 45 for building facades and other STC requirements for window glazing) and noise warning clauses to mitigate impacts from road noise on the residential development. As all adjacent roads are under the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener, a development agreement shall be required between the Owner/Developer and the City of Kitchener as a condition of draft plan approval. Regional staff will provide details regarding the recommendations to be included in the development agreement under a separate cover. Airport Zoning: Please be advised that the subject lands are located within the Regional of Waterloo International Airport Zoning regulated area and are located specifically under the take- off approach surface. The following noise-warning clause shall be required through a registered development agreement with the Region of Waterloo and incorporated into the Condominium Declaration and all Purchase/Sale and Lease/Rental Agreements as a condition of Draft Plan Approval: "Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that all units in this plan of condominium are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and directional lighting along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals." In addition, the applicant must complete and submit the necessary form(s) as required for the proposed buildings and cranes, and furnish the necessary information as required by NAV Canada as provided at the link below: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/products-and-services/Pages/land-use-program.aspx. Risk Management Official The Subject lands are located in a Part 4 Area of the Clean Water Act and they are located in Wellhead Protection Sensitive Area 8. The Risk Management Plan for salt application and stormwater management is satisfactory. Provisions for salt application for the unit owners and the condominium board must be included in the condominium declaration as a condition of draft plan approval. Document Number: 4081680 Version: 1 Page 65 of 520 Housing Services The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. The Region's 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan contains an affordable housing target for Waterloo Region. The target is for 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 to be affordable to low and moderate income households. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site. In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides a mechanism should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit (based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan), the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $385,500 annual household income for low and moderate income households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the $576,347 regional market area `Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables(2021). In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $385,500. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit (based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan), the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household income for low and moderate income $1,470 renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent Bachelor: $950 (AMR) in the regional market area 1-Bedroom: $1,134 2-Bedroom: $1,356 3-Bedroom: $1,538 4+ Bedroom: $3,997 *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables(2021) In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above. Document Number: 4081680 Version: 1 Page 66 of 520 Draft Plan of Condominium Conditions: The Region has no objections to draft approval of Vacant Land Plan of Condominium 30CDM-22203, subject to the following conditions of Draft Approval set out below: 1) THAT the Owner/Developer agrees to stage development of this condominium in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services and the City of Kitchener, including any easements or other requirements as a result of staging; 2) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer enters into a development agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide a consolidated list of conclusions and recommendations relating to noise mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 3) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of Kitchener to secure the recommendations contained within the Noise Study entitled "Franklin Street GP Inc. 55 Franklin Street South Development Noise & Vibration Assessment" dated October 2020, prepared by SLR and an addendum dated April 11, 2021 (prepared by SLR)" and any further addenda thereto, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 4) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall provide a copy of the noise study entitled "Franklin Street GP Inc. 55 Franklin Street South Development Noise & Vibration Assessment" dated October 2020, prepared by SLR and an addendum dated April 11, 2021 (prepared by SLR)" and any further addenda thereto to Dare Foods Limited in accordance with the MECP NPC-300 noise guideline; 5) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to implement the following warning clause: "Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that all units in this plan of condominium are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and directional lighting along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals." 6) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer include the following noise warning clauses within the Condominium Declaration and all offers of Purchase and Sale/Lease/Rental Agreements, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services: All required warning clauses recommended in the accepted Noise Study in Conditions 2 and 3 above. "Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that all units in this plan of condominium are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and directional lighting Document Number: 4081680 Version: 1 Page 67 of 520 along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals." 7) THAT prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer incorporate the approved recommendations for both the unit owners and the condominium corporation contained within the accepted Risk Management Plan for Salt Application (Plan # 00116, signed July 16, 2021 ; prepared by Michael Maxwell and MTE) within the Condominium Declaration to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 8) THAT the Regional Municipality of Waterloo be provided with a copy of the registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener prior to the final approval of the condominium plan; and, 9) THAT prior to final approval, that the Condominium Declaration be forwarded to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services at the Regional Municipality of Waterloo prior to final approval of the condominium plan. Fees The Region acknowledges receipt of the Plan of Condominium review fee of $3,650.00 (received May 17, 2022). General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner C. GSP Group C/O Brandon Flewwelling (Applicant) 55 Franklin GP Inc. C/O Mike Maxwell (Owner) Document Number: 4081680 Version: 1 Page 68 of 520 1 Internal memo r R [Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca Date: April 11, 2022 To: Tim Seyler, Planner From: Deeksha Choudhry, Heritage Planner cc: Garett Stevenson, Manager of Development Review Subject: Draft Plan of Condominium 30CDM-22203 55 Franklin Street South Heritage Planning Comments Heritage planning staff have no issues or concerns. Page 69 of 520 City of Kitchener Draft Plan of Condominium Comments Project Address: 55 Franklin Street South File Number: 30CDM-22203 Site Plan Application: SP20/075/F/AP Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: March 25, 2022 a. Transportation Services have no concerns with this application. Page 70 of 520 From: Carrie Musselman<Carrie.Mussel man@kitchener.ca> Sent:Thursday, March 24, 2022 9:43 AM To:Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Cc: Gaurang Khandelwal <Gaurang.Khandelwal@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment -Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-22203 (55 Franklin Street South) Hi Tim, Environmental Planning has no concerns with the proposed Draft Plan of Condominium so long as it is consistent with the approved Site Plan and Sustainability Statement. Regards, Carrie Musselman (she/her), BSc., Dip. Senior Environmental Planner I Planning I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7068 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 carrie.musselmana-kitchener.ca Page 71 of 520 Condominium Circulation Response Form The required parkland dedication associated with Site Plan application SP20/075/F/AP has been addressed through a Parkland Dedication Deferral Agreement that is registered on title for the property as WR1385926. The agreement allows parkland dedication to be paid prior to building permit issuance for each building phase of the proposed development rather than prior to final site plan approval. Parkland dedication has been paid for the first phase associated with the building at 55 Eighth Ave. The parkland dedication payments for the remaining phases of buildings will be due prior to the issuance of the respective building permits. RE: Notice of Application for Draft Approval - Plan of Condominium Condominium Application - 30CDM-22203 Site Plan application SP20/075/F/AP 55 Franklin St S 55 Franklin GP Inc Parks and Cemeteriesu�� � � Department/Agency Signature of Representative March 31 2022 Date Page 72 of 520 April 12, 2022 Re: Notice of Application for Draft Approval - Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) File No.: 30CDM-22203 Municipality: City of Kitchener Location: 55 Franklin Street South Owner/Applicant: 55 Franklin GP Inc. Dear T. Seyler, The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above-noted application that proposes a vacant land condominium consisting of 5 units representing each of the structures, including 4 units containing 6 storey, 64-unit mixed-use buildings, and a common element area. This development is currently under construction and was approved through site plan SP20/075/F/AP. The WRDSB offers the following comments. Student Accommodation At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools: •Wilson Avenue Public School (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6); •Sunnyside Public School (Grade 7 to Grade 8); and • Eastwood Collegiate Institute (Grade 9 to Grade 12). The WRDSB's 2020-2030 Long-Term Accommodation Plan projects available student accommodation at these facilities over the long term. Student Transportation Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)'s school buses will not travel privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick-up/drop-off students. Transported students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. STSWR may have additional comments about student pick-up point(s) placement on municipal right-of-ways. WRDSB Draft Conditions Concerning any future declaration or agreement, the WRDSB requests the following inclusions in the conditions of Draft Approval: 1. That the Owner/Developer shall include the following wording in the condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: a. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board(WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." b. "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planning(a-),wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information." c. "In order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (S TS WR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." 1. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on the title to the Property that provides: Page 73 of 520 a. "All agreements of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home or a home to be completed on the Property must contain the wording set out below to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same." i."Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board(WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." ii."For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planninp(a-)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information." iii."In order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STS WR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of- ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." 1. That in cases where Agreements of Purchase and Sale have already been executed, the Owner/Developer sends a letter to all purchasers which includes the above statements 2. a. i., ii. and iii. 2. Prior to final approval, the WRDSB advises in writing to the Approval Authority how the above condition(s) has/have been satisfied. The WRDSB requests to be circulated on any subsequent submissions on the subject lands and reserves the right to comment further on this application. If you have any questions about the comments provided, don't hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, *J67 Ql' Lauren Agar Manager of Planning T: 519-570-0003 ext. 4596 Waterloo Region District School Board 0 51 Ardelt Avenue Kitchener ON, NzC 2R5 T:519 570-0003 w:wrdsb.ca Page 74 of 520 From: Planning<planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 4:52 PM To:Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment-Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-21207 (55 Franklin Street South) Good Afternoon Tim, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A)That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). C)That the developer shall include the following wording in the condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." D)That the developer enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on the title to the Property that provides: "All agreement of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home or a home to be completed on the Property must contain the wording set out below to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same." "In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan.Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext.2355 Page 75 of 520 From: LANDUSEPLANNING <LandUsePlanning@HydroOne.com> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 1:58 PM To: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>;Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Kitchener- 55 Franklin Street South - 30CDM-21207 Hello, We are in receipt of your Draft Plan of Condominium Application, 30CDM-21207 dated March 23, 2022. We have reviewed the documents concerning the noted Plan and have no comments or concerns at this time. Our preliminary review considers issues affecting Hydro One's 'High Voltage Facilities and Corridor Lands' only. For proposals affecting 'Low Voltage Distribution Facilities' please consult your local area Distribution Supplier. To confirm if Hydro One is your local distributor please follow the following link: http://www.hydroone.com/StormCenter3/ Please select"Search" and locate address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the map ? q hydrAL" MENU HELP SEARCH one Customers Affected:0>5000 0 501-5000 0 51-500 © 21-50 a e=20 0 Multiple Crew — Service Area 0 u 1� z V OLtaW Montreal a 417 ® Q :iunt�5v1!e 427 400 t7 ° ® O���rUl�i..a111 Kawartha N Lakes 40� � 15 f3urllr O Peterhyrough ff�} Kin ®ell vine . • ° once°Ed— Wateoown V 40 4 N ,pram p o Toronto 0 arr© .o Kitchoe issisosa uga s , a Ilton o Rochester -. Ma data J2d�9 Goo le 50 km Terms of Use Re art a ma error If Hydro One is your local area Distribution Supplier, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e-mail CustomerCommunications@HvdroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre Thank you, Kitty Luk Real Estate Assistant I Land Use Planning Hydro One Networks Inc. 185 Clegg Road Markham, ON I L6G 1137 Email: landuseplanning@hvdroone.com Page 76 of 520 From: Chris Foster-Pengelly<cfosterpengeIly@grandrive r.ca> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:13 PM To:Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment-Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-22203 (55 Franklin Street South) Hi Tim, The subject property is not regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. As such, we will not be providing comments. Thank you, Chris Chris Foster-Pengelly, M.Sc., Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2319 Toll-free: 1-866-900-4722 www.grandriver.ca I Connect with us on social media Page 77 of 520 From: circulations@wsp.com <circulations@wsp.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:14 AM To: Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Draft Plan of Condominium (30CDM-22203), 55 Franklin St. S., Kitchener 2022-03-28 Attention: Tim Seyler Re: Draft Plan of Condominium (30CDM-22203), 55 Franklin St. S., Kitchener; Your File No. 30CDM- 22203 Our File No. 92945 Dear Sir/Madam, We have reviewed the circulation regarding the above noted application. The following paragraphs are to be included as a condition of approval: "The Owner acknowledges and agrees to convey any easement(s) as deemed necessary by Bell Canada to service this new development. The Owner further agrees and acknowledges to convey such easements at no cost to Bell Canada. The Owner agrees that should any conflict arise with existing Bell Canada facilities where a current and valid easement exists within the subject area, the Owner shall be responsible for the relocation of any such facilities or easements at their own cost." The Owner is advised to contact Bell Canada at planninganddevelopment@bell.ca during the detailed utility design stage to confirm the provision of communication/telecommunication infrastructure needed to service the development. It shall be noted that it is the responsibility of the Owner to provide entrance/service duct(s)from Bell Canada's existing network infrastructure to service this development. In the event that no such network infrastructure exists, in accordance with the Bell Canada Act, the Owner may be required to pay for the extension of such network infrastructure. If the Owner elects not to pay for the above noted connection, Bell Canada may decide not to provide service to this development. To ensure that we are able to continue to actively participate in the planning process and provide detailed provisioning comments, we note that we would be pleased to receive circulations on all applications received by the Municipality and/or recirculations. Please note that WSP operates Bell's development tracking system,which includes the intake of municipal circulations. WSP is mandated to notify Bell when a municipal request for comments or for information, such as a request for clearance, has been received.All responses to these municipal Page 78 of 520 circulations are generated by Bell, but submitted by WSP on Bell's behalf.WSP is not responsible for Bell's responses and for any of the content herein. If you believe that these comments have been sent to you in error or have questions regarding Bell's protocols for responding to municipal circulations and enquiries, please contact planninganddevelopment@bell.ca Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Ryan Courville Manager- Planning and Development Network Provisioning Email: planninganddevelopment@bell.ca Page 79 of 520 From: Ruiz, Ricardo <rruiz@kwhydro.ca> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 8:51 AM To: Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment-Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-21207 (55 Franklin Street South) Hi Tim, Please note KWHI has no concerns with respect to the draft plan of condominium for 55 Franklin St S. KWHI will require that access rights be protected by adding our wording to the condominium declaration. Regards, Ricardo Ricardo Ruiz (he/him), C.E.T. x�tc��" ' "��"°T Distribution Design Supervisor Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc Office: 519-745-4771 ext. 6304 Cell: 519-497-6221 Page 80 of 520 ELGLIMME MW From anywhere.. De par tout... to anyone jusqu A vous April 7, 2022 Tim Seyler Planner Planning Division City of Kitchener P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 Reference: Notice for Application for Draft Approval - Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) File Number: 30CDM-22203 Location: 55 Franklin Avenue South Owner: 55 Franklin GP Inc. Cross Reference: Site Plan Application: SP20/075/F/AP Ti m, Canada Post has the following comments regarding this new development in the City of Kitchener: Multi-unit buildings and complexes (residential and commercial) with a common lobby, common indoor or sheltered space, require a centralized lock box assembly which is to be provided by, installed and maintained by the developer/owner. Buildings with 100 units or more require a rear loading Lock Box Assembly with dedicated secure mail room. Independent/separate buildings with 50 or more units require a unique civic address. Please see the link below to Canada Post's Delivery Planning Standards Manual which contains information on Canada Post's requirements, delivery policies, and specifications. https://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/assets/pdf/business/standardsmanual en.pdf If the description of the project changes, please forward an update to our office so we can assess any possible impacts to mail delivery. Regards, Y­ Be,&e� Delivery Services Officer I Delivery Planning 955 Highbury Ave N London On N5Y 1A3 www.canadapost.ca www.postescanada.ca Page 81 of 520 Appendix D From: Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 12:54 PM To: Tim Seyler<Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 55 Franklin ave kitchener Good afternoon I received your letter for the construction on this property, I think its a little later being a they have already started construction and today I seen the road will be closed, my concern is that that property has a rat problem and now disturbing it, it is now going to be a problem for other home owners, especially ones with dogs. My property does not face this property but I am 1 block away. Thankyou Page 82 of 520 l Staff Re ort v-T R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext.7319 PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD INVOLVED: 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 31, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-213 SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment OPA20/006/K/AP Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA20/015/K/AP 276 King Street East 276 King East Inc. RECOMMENDATION: A. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA20/006/K/AP, for 276 King East Inc., requesting to add Site Specific Policy Area 5 to Map 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown)of the Official Plan and to add associated Site Specific Policy 15.D.2.68 to the Official Plan, to permit a mixed use building with a maximum floor space ratio of 4.8, and a maximum building height of 28.5 metres or 7-storeys, be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD-2022-213 as Attachment A, and accordingly forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for approval; and, B. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/015/K/AP for 276 King East Inc. be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" and "Map No. 1" attached to Report DSD-2022-213 as Attachment B; and, C. That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4) that applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/015/K/AP; and further, D. That the Urban Design Brief for 276 King Street East, prepared by GSP Group, dated May 2022, attached to Report DSD-2022-213 as Attachment C, be endorsed and provide general direction for future site plan development. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 83 of 520 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to provide a planning recommendation for an Official Plan Amendment Application OPA20/006/K/AP and Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA20/015/K/AP for 276 King Street East. • Community engagement included: o Circulation of a preliminary letter to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands; o Installation of two billboard notice signs on the property, one facing King Street East and one facing Eby Street; o A virtual Neighbourhood Meeting held on April 28, 2021; o Notice of the statutory public meeting was published in The Record on May 20, 2022; o A postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands and mailed (and/or emailed where an email address was provided) to all community members that participated in the application process. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In order to facilitate redevelopment of the subject property, addressed as 276 King Street East,with a mixed-use building comprising ground floor commercial uses and 29 dwelling units within the upper storeys, the owner (276 King East Inc.) is requesting an Official Plan Amendment to add a Site Specific Policy Area to Map 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and to add an associated Site Specific Policy to the Official Plan, to permit the building to have a maximum floor space ratio of 4.8 and a maximum building height of 28.5 metres or 7-storeys. A Zoning By-law Amendment is also requested to change the zoning of the whole of the property to `East Market Zone (D-2)' with a Special Regulation Provision to permitthe above noted permissions forfloor space ratio and building height, and to require a rooftop amenity area; to prohibit residential uses on the ground floor; to not require parking for motor vehicles; to require bicycle parking; to regulate front, rear, and side yard setbacks;and to prohibit outdoor storage(excluding display of goods for retail purposes). In addition, a Holding provision is proposed that requires the owner to submit a detailed stationary noise study to the satisfaction of the Region, prior to the establishment of residential or other sensitive land uses. Planning staff recommends that the applications be approved. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the intersection of King Street East and Eby Street North, in the Market District of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), and is addressed as 276 King Street East. The portion of the property closest to King Street is vacant, while the portion of the lands furthest from King Street contains a building originally constructed as a single detached dwelling. Planning staff understands that the dwelling is presently occupied. The surrounding area contains a wide range of land uses and building forms. The Kitchener Market is located immediately across Eby Street, to the east. The Yeti Cafe is located immediately to the north, on Eby Street. The lands to the west on King Street are occupied with commercial businesses. The subject lands are within a Major Transit Station Area, being located less than 250 metres from the Kitchener Market ION Station. The property has excellent access to LRT, bus transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. The subject property is currently split zoned under Zoning By-law 85-1, with the portion of the lands closest to King Street zoned East Market Zone (D-2) and the portion furthest from King St is zoned Market Village Zone (D-3). It should be noted that the City's Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy) does not currently apply to downtown, including to the subject lands. Planning staff notes that the proposed Urban Growth Centre (UGC) zones, drafted as part of CRoZBy, were withdrawn before being tabled at Council because of the Province's changes to the Planning Act, which removed bonusing provisions. Page 84 of 520 REPORT: The applicant is requesting approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to change the permissions related to the subject area (see Figure 1) to facilitate their proposed development concept: a 7-storey mixed-use building with ground floor commercial uses and 29 dwelling units within the upper storeys. The development concept does not propose any parking, but does include both long-term ("Class A") and short-term ("Class B")bicycle parking. A minimum 100 square metre rooftop amenity space is also proposed. i r` D U) Go ��4 �'' m C-D chi) /10 Qom' ��yr4z SUBJECT m ° S AREA \�O G Al CA/, ° CO0 °�j co 0 Sp/V CT) Figure 1: Subject Area: 276 King Street East Page 85 of 520 Official Plan Amendment The requested OPA would maintain the Market District land use designation and would establish Site Specific Policy 15.D.2.68 within the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) policies of the Official Plan. If approved, this policy would correspond to Area/Site 5 on Map 4 - Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). The purpose of the requested OPA is to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.8 and a maximum building height of 7-storeys or 28.5 metres. Currently, the Official Plan permits a Floor Space Ratio of 3.0. While there is no height limit specified,the Official Plan states that building and fagade heights may be regulated through the Zoning By-law. Zoninq By-law Amendment The ZBA application requests to rezone the whole of the property to D-2 Zone (from a D-2/ D-3 split) and to add a Special Regulation Provision (SRP)that tailors the zoning to the development concept (see Table 1). The requested zoning would: • Permit a maximum floor space ratio of 4.8, • Permit a maximum building height of 28.5 metres or 7-storeys, and • Require zero parking spaces (note that the current zoning does not require parking for the commercial use, but does require 29 spaces for the residential use — see below Parking section). In addition, the applicant is amenable to several additional zoning provisions that are recommended by staff that would benefit the residents of the development, for example. • OutdoorAmenity Area—to ensure that a minimum 100 square metre rooftop outdoor amenity space is provided for the residents of the development. • Prohibit dwelling units on the ground floor — to ensure that the ground floor is used only for non-residential uses (e.g., commercial uses). • Require a minimum of 33 secured, long-term bicycle parking spaces—to be used mainly for residents of the development. • Require a minimum of 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces —to be used mainly for visitors. Also, a Holding provision is recommended at the request of the Region, with the support of the applicant, that requires the owner to prepare a detailed stationary noise study to the satisfaction of the Region, prior to the establishment of residential or other uses. The Holding provision cannot be removed until such time as the Region of Waterloo has accepted the final noise study and recommended implementation measures. Parking As noted above, City's Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy) does not currently apply to the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) [UGC]. The proposed UGC zones were removed from CRoZBy when the province eliminated bonusing. Notwithstanding, UGC parking rates are included within By-law 2019-051 (the zoning by-law that implements CRoZBy). However, these rates will not apply until new UGC zones are tabled and approved by Council. In the meantime, the UGC parking rates within By-law 2019-051 do provide general guidance for this project and other projects within the city. In this regard, the UGC parking rate is zero parking spaces for both dwelling units and commercial uses.In addition, Transportation Services has commentedthat it does not have any concerns with the parking reduction request (see Attachment E). Accordingly, Planning staff supports the parking request and recommends this reduction be incorporated into the special regulation provision. Page 86 of 520 Table 1: High-Level Comparison - Current Official Plan Policy, Current Zoning, and Proposed Zoning Current Urban Current - Zone Proposed Zoning Growth Centre (in Zoning By-law 85-1) (Downtown) and Market District Official Plan Policies Maximum 3.0 [Policy 2.0 (D-2 Zone) / 0.75 (D-3 4.8 Floor Space 15.D.2.59] Zone) Ratio Maximum The building and Not regulated (D-2 Zone) / 28.5 metres or 7- Building fagade heights may 9.0 metres (D-3 Zone) storeys Height be regulated through the Zoning By-law [Policy 15.D.2.61] Building N/A No part of a building shall Not regulated Elevation be higher, measured from through zoning, but ("Angular finished grade level, than the proposed Plane") the dimension of its building generally horizontal distance from conforms to 45- the vertical projection of degree angular the street line on the plane (addressed opposite side of King within Urban Street ("45-degree angular Design Brief) plane"; D-2 Zone only) Location of N/A For lands abutting King Shall not be located Dwelling Units Street: Shall not be located on the ground floor / Residential on the ground floor, except Use for access (D-2 Zone only) Minimum N/A 10 per cent of lot area, but An outdoor amenity Outdoor Area not less than 20.0 square area shall be metres (D-2 Zone only) provided for any building containing residential use. The outdoor amenity area may be located on a rooftop and shall have a minimum area of 100 square m etres. Minimum N/A N/A Minimum of 33 Bicycle secured, long-term Parking bicycle parking spaces. Minimum of 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces. Page 87 of 520 Minimum N/A D-2 and D-3: No parking required Parking Spaces Commercial: No parking required Residential. Larger Units (28 units): 1 space/ unit Smaller Units (1 unit): 0.165 spaces/ unit. Total parking required: 29 spaces Design Concept and Urban Design Brief The purpose of the requested Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) is to facilitate redevelopment of the subject property with a seven-storey mixed-use building comprised of ground floor commercial uses and residential units within the upper storeys. The proposal has evolved significantly from the pre- submission consultation stage through to the applicant's final iteration of the Urban Design Brief (UDB) submitted in support of the Zoning By-law Amendment, which is now recommended for endorsement. Figure 2 shows the design concept when it was first submitted in February 2020, during the pre-submission consultation stage. In contrast, Figure 3 shows the design concept included in the final UDB (see Attachment C for the full document). Further refinements will be made through the future Site Plan Application process. I� -a Figure 2: Development Concept provided at the pre-submission consultation stage in February 2020. The final UDB shows the building positioned to continuously line the King Street and Eby Street frontages. Along King Street, the building's ground floor footprint continues the setback pattern of adjacent properties to the northwest. The building wall of the second through fourth storeys project over the ground floor and extend to the property line on King Street. Along Eby Street, the building sits largely at the property line, recognizing the ground recessions created for covered entranceways for the residential and main commercial doors. The upper storeys at the King Street and Eby Street corner recede slightly from the property line for relief. On the western side of the building, adjacent to 270 King Street, there is a 1.2 metre side yard setback containing a gated walkway. The building Page 88 of 520 is set back 4.2 metres from the rear (eastern) property line shared with 14 Eby Street North (Yeti Cafe). The proposed building is designed to respond to the slope on which it is built (Eby Street slopes downward from King Street). The proposed building expresses clear distinction and articulation in massing between the base, middle and top using horizontal and vertical projections along the street-facing building elevations. The scale and massing of the proposed building has been designed to ensure it is compatible with the adjacent properties and respects the overall streetscape by integrating stepbacks at the 61" and 71" storeys, a glass curtain wall from top to bottom to soften the building design, significant glazing on street-facing elevations, and recessed building entrances to reinforce human scale. Note that angular plane is sometimes used as a tool for determining appropriately scaled development in urban contexts. The proposed stepbacks ensure that the building generally maintains a 45-degree angular plane to the sidewalk on the opposite side of King Street (see Figure 4). Planning staff recommends that the UDB be endorsed, along with the approval of the ZBA and adoption of the OPA, to provide general direction for future site plan development. 10 0 �. Poo 1 11' ' Figure 3: Development Concept included in the final Urban Design Brief in May 2022. Page 89 of 520 Approximate 45 angular plane I I I a vR B I N i Q O I M { r 7 _ I & o • `06 _ 0 I a - I © I I R-1 P I AlI a i oa .k 0 0 0 o B i O Figure 4:Angular Plane Diagram Planning Analysis: Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS): The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Policy 1.1.1 states that "Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by: b) accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types (including ... multi-unit housing...), employment (including industrial and commercial)..." The proposed development is a mixed-use building that comprises multi-unit housing and commercial use. Also, policy 1.1.3.3 states that"Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment..." It should be noted that the proposed development is considered transit-supportive since it is compact, mixed-use development that comprises high-density residential use, in proximity to several LRT stations and transit routes. The proposed development would assist in making transit viable and it optimizes investments in transit infrastructure. Policy 1.4.3 states that "Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by: ...b) permitting and facilitating: 1. all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents...and 2. all types of residential intensification, including.... redevelopment...c) directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs; d) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation and transit in areas where it Page 90 of 520 exists or is to be developed; e) requiring transit-supportive development and prioritizing intensification, including potential air rights development, in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations;... The proposed development would assist the City in achieving the appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities contemplated by the PPS. The proposal represents redevelopment that provides a mix of high-density housing and commercial uses in a location where there are excellent levels of infrastructure and public service facilities. The proposal is considered transit supportive development because it would support the nearby ION and transit services and make use of active transportation opportunities in and near downtown. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested OPA and ZBA would facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed-use building that is sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding land uses and would make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads or services would be required to permit the proposed development. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of completeand compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including the urban growth centre major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.1.2 states that "Forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan will be allocated based on the following:... c) within settlement areas, growth will be focused in: i. delineated built-up areas; ii. strategic growth areas; iii. locations with existing or planned transit, with a priority on higher order transit where it exists or is planned; and iv. areas with existing or planned public service facilities". In this regard,the subject property is within the built-up area, within a strategic growth area (including the Urban Growth Centre and a Major Transit Station Area), in a location that is very well served by existing transit (including ION service). In addition, Policy 2.2.1.4 states that"Applying the policies of this Plan will support the achievement of complete communities that: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities;...c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes". In this case, the proposed development would assist in achieving a complete community, since it features a mix of residential and commercial("local stores") uses. It also helps to diversify the range and mix of housing options, by providing dwelling units in downtown within a mid-rise building form. Furthermore, Policy 2.2.3.2 states that"Urban growth centres will be planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum density target of:...b) 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare for each of the...Downtown Kitchener urban growth centres..." Also, the City's Official Plan has a greater minim um target of 225 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031. It must be emphasized that these targets are minimums to be reached within specific timelines. Indeed, there are good planning reasons to exceed both these targets. According to the 2021 Kitchener Growth Management Strategy Annual Monitoring Report (which uses data up to June 2021), the estimated density of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) was 212 residents and jobs in 2021. These figures have not been adjusted to account for changes in office and work from home trends brought on by the COVID-19 Page 91 of 520 pandemic.The extent to which pandemic-related changes will continue in the long-term is uncertain. Nevertheless, interest in residential development within the UGC has remained robust during the pandemic period. The Downtown Kitchener UGC is on its way and is expected to achieve the City's Official Plan minimum density target. The requested OPA and ZBA would facilitate the development of 29 dwelling units and ground floor commercial use. These uses will assist in achieving the above noted minimum targets. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff is of the opinion that this proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan, 2015 (ROP): Map 3a Urban Area of the ROP shows that the subject property is within the Urban Area. The ROP states that "Within the Urban Area, most of the region's future growth will be directed to Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors, Major Local Nodes and Urban Designated Greenfield Areas." Specifically, the property is identified as being within an Urban Growth Centre. Policy 2.D.3 states that, "...This designation identifies the region's primary business, civic, commercial and cultural centres that will be planned and developed: (a) to accommodate a significant share of the region's future population and employment growth; (b) as focal points for investment in institutional and regional-scale human services as well as commercial, recreational, cultural and entertainment land uses; (c)to accommodate applicable Major Transit Station Areas..." In this case, the proposed development will assist in fulfilling this policy by providing high density residential use and ground floor commercial use, within a Major Transit Station Area. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications, subject to a Holding provision that requires the owner to prepare a detailed stationary noise study to the satisfaction of the Region, prior to the establishment of residential or other sensitive land uses (see Attachment E for Department and Agency Comments). The Holding provision cannot be removed until such time as the Region of Waterloo has accepted the noise study and recommended implementation measures have been accepted. Planning staff is of the opinion that this proposal conforms to the ROP. Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 (KOP): Urban Structure Within the KOP,subject property is identified as being within two urban structure components: Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area. Urban Growth Centre Policy 3.C.2.12. states that "The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is the primary Urban Structure Component and Intensification Area. The planned function of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is to accommodate a significant share of the Region's and City's future population and employment growth." Also, Policy 3.C.2.13., states"The Urban Growth Centre(Downtown) is planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum density of 225 residents and jobs combined per hectare and assist in achieving the minimum residential intensification target identified in Policy 3.C.1.6." It must again be emphasized that this is a minimum target to be achieved within a specific timeline. As aforementioned, the Downtown Kitchener UGC has an estimated density of 212 residents and Jobs per hectare (as of June 2021) and is on its way to achieving the City's Official Plan minimum target of 225 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031. The proposed development would assist in achieving the City's minimum target. The KOP also states that"3.C.2.14. The Urban Growth Centre (Downtown)is planned to be a vibrant regional and citywide focal point and destination and is intended to be the city's primary focal point Page 92 of 520 for residential intensification as well as for investment in institutional and region-wide public services, commercial, office, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses." The proposal represents residential intensification and commercial redevelopment, noting that the site is largely vacant at this time. Major Transit Station Area Policy 3.C.2.17. states that "The planned function of Major Transit Station Areas, in order to support transit and rapid transit, is to: a) provide a focus for accommodating growth through development to support existing and planned transit and rapid transit service levels; b)provide connectivity of various modes of transportation to the transit system; c)achieve a mix of residential, office (including major office), institutional (including major institutional) and commercial development (including retail commercial centres), wherever appropriate; and, d) have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented." In addition, Policy 3.C.2.22. states that development applications that are submitted within MTSAs will be reviewed generally in accordance with the City's Planning Around Rapid Transit Station Areas (PARTS) Project Plan, until Station Area Plans are completed. For areas that are intended to be the focus for intensification, development applications will support the planned function of MTSAs and consider several factors, for example, the ROP and Transit-Oriented Development Policies, that redevelopment may be required to have appropriate pedestrian and public transit facilities, and that vehicular access points will be controlled to minimize disruption to traffic flow. In this regard, the proposed development would assist in accommodating the intended growth to support transit and ION service, is well placed to provide connectivity for various modes of transportation, and represents a pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented, mixed use development that will contribute to the streetscape on King Street and Eby Street. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment support redevelopment that conforms to the UGC and MTSA urban structure policies. Land Use Designation The subject property is designated Market District on Map 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). The Market District is located at the eastern entrance to the Downtown and functions as a unique village-like setting anchored by market uses. Policy 15.D.2.57 states that the Market District will permit a broad range of uses, specifically, "a) the predominant use along King Street will be commercial focusing on small retail outlets to provide for the day-to-day shopping needs with residential, restaurants, institutional and some commercial and office uses above. Mixed use buildings will be encouraged." In this case, the proposal would permit a mixed-use building with ground floor commercial use and residential dwelling units above. Also, policy 15.D.2.59. states that, "The maximum Floor Space Ratio for all new development and/or redevelopment, except those lands with frontage on Market Lane or Duke Street, will be 3.0" and policy 15.D.2.61. states that, "The building and facade heights may be regulated through the Zoning By-law." It should also be noted that the subject property is within the recommended focus area on Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) Phase 1 (2013) Station Study Area mapping. Moreover, the PARTS Central Plan (2016) suggests a maximum FSR of 3.0 and that "Building Heights on King Street will be limited to maintain the current pedestrian experience". In this regard, while the proposal is for 4.8 FSR, which is more than contemplated by the Market District and PARTS, Planning staff has undertaken an extensive review of the design and are of the opinion that it meets the objectives of the King Street streetscape, achieving a 45-degree angular plane through the use of stepbacks. Page 93 of 520 Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment align with the intent of the Market District land use designation policies of the City's Official Plan. Department and Aaencv Review: Circulation of the OPA and ZBA was undertaken February 1, 2021 to applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency and necessary revisions and updates to the proposal have been made through the application review process, including updates to the Draft Zoning By-law and Urban Design Brief. The Region is supportive of the proposal, subject to application of the aforementioned holding provision. Department and agency comments are included as Attachment E to this report. The following reports and studies were considered as part of the subject Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: • Arborist Assessment—Existing Trees Prepared by: GSP Group, November 30, 2020 • Functional Servicing Report Prepared by: GM BluePlan Engineering, October 2020 • Pedestrian Wind Assessment Prepared by: SLR, October 6, 2020 • Sustainability Statement Prepared by: GSP Group, October 16, 2020 • Environmental Noise and Vibration Impact Study Prepared by: dBA Acoustical Consultants Inc, October 2020 • Parking Review and Justification Prepared by: Salvini Consulting, September 29, 2020 • Planning Justification and Urban Report Addendum Prepared by: IBI Group, October2020 • Urban Design Brief Prepared by: GSP Group, May 2022 • Vegetation Management Plan Prepared by: GSP Group, November 25, 2020 Community Input & Staff Responses Staff received written comments from approximately 27 community members regarding the requested amendments (see Attachment F). The majority of the comments expressed support for the proposal. A petition in opposition to the proposal was also received. The petition contains the names of 9 community members who represent 4 households (including 4 residents of the existing dwelling on the subject property, addressed as 12 Eby Street). A Neighbourhood Meeting was hosted by Planning staff on April 28, 2021 and was attended by approximately 22 community Page 94 of 520 members. In addition, Planning staff followed up directly with many community members.Table 2 provides a high-level summary of what staff heard from the community, and staff responses. Table 2: High-level Summaryof What Staff Heard from the Community: What Planning Staff Heard Planning Staff Comment The City's Official Plan encourages intensification within Support for development and downtown for economic development purposes. Planning investment in the Market District staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to achieve this goal. Support for provision of housing Planning staff agrees that the proposed development supports the creation of housing in downtown. Transportation Services and Planning staff support the Support for zero parking requested parking reduction. The proposed development concept is pedestrian-friendly and transit-supportive. Planning and Urban Design staff worked with the applicant through numerous iterations of the plan to achieve the Support for the building design and design conceptshown in the Urban Design Brief, which will scale contribute to the downtown and ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. Planning staff recommends that Council endorse the Urban Design Brief to provide direction for the future site plan application. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed mixed- Support for mixed use within the use building will contribute positively to the Market District proposed building through appropriate residential intensification and provision of ground floor commercial use. It should be noted that the new zoning by-law already contains a zero parking requirement. This rate will be put into effect when the new downtown zones are applied. Parking relief is only required in this case because the Concern about lack of parking and subject property (and all downtown properties) is under the congestion older zoning by-law. Generally, the rationale for the zero parking rate is that downtown is well served by transit, cycling, and pedestrian facilities and contains numerous public and private parking facilities. It should also be noted that there are already much larger approved projects in downtown that do not propose any parking. Planning and Urban Design staff worked with the applicant through numerous iterations of the plan to achieve the design concept shown in the Urban Design Brief. Staff is Concern regarding proposed of the opinion that the concept will contribute positively to building height, massing, design the downtown and will ensure compatibility with adjacent uses. Planning staff recommends that Council endorse the Urban Design Brief to provide direction for the future Site Plan Application. Construction impacts are temporary, intrinsic to development, and necessary to achieve progress within a growing municipality. City by-laws and provincial Concern about construction impacts regulations mitigate and/or prevent some potential construction impacts. Transportation Services staff will ensure that any construction traffic is managed with the least interruption / inconvenience possible. Page 95 of 520 The proposed development concept represents a significant investment in the Market District. While it is greater in height than immediately adjacent development, Concern about impact on there are several developments in the area that are of the neighbourhood character same height or greater. Also, the proposed building achieves a 45-degree angular plane along the King Street frontage. It should be noted that Heritage Planning staff does not have any concerns with the proposal. The proposed residential units are not considered affordable housing and comprise one-bedroom units only. Concern about unit cost and size Staff agrees that it would be beneficial for a mix of unit types to be provided. However, there is no authority for the City to prescribe the unit mix or affordability at this time. Planning staff review each development application on its own merits, based on the specific context of the Concern regarding precedent neighbourhood, and in light of applicable legislation, policies, guidelines, etc. Permitting a development of a certain height or massing will not necessarily result in the development of other, similar projects within a given area. Planning staff is concerned about the loss of the existing Concern about demolition of the dwelling and its effect on the current tenants. The current existing dwelling and loss of housing dwelling is proposed to be demolished to facilitate the for current tenants subject proposal. Planning staff requests that the developer work with the current residents regarding future accommodation. Planning Conclusions Considering the foregoing, Planning staff support the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 276 King Street East to be developed with a 7-storey mixed use building. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendments are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conform to the Growth Plan, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represent good planning. Accordingly, Planning staff recommends that the Official Plan Amendment be adopted, the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved, and the Urban Design Brief be endorsed. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget— The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget—The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting.Two notice signs were posted on the property —one on each frontage — and information regarding the applications was posted to the City's website in February 2021. Following the initial circulation, an additional Courtesy Notice of the public meeting was circulated to Page 96 of 520 all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands, those who responded to the preliminary circulation, and those who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting on April 28, 2021. In addition, Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in The Record on May 20, 2022 (see Attachment D). CONSULT—The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were circulated to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands on February 1, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 27 households and a 9-person petition, which are summarized as part of this staff report and attached as Attachment F. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan, 2015 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 • Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy), 2022 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 REVIEWED BY: Stevenson, Garett — Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin — General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A— Draft Official Plan Amendment Attachment B — Draft Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment C — Urban Design Brief Attachment D — Newspaper Notice Attachment E — Department and Agency Comments Attachm ent F— Com m unity Com m ents Page 97 of 520 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 276 King Street East 1 Page 98 of 520 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 276 King Street East INDEX SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of June 13, 2022 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee - June 13, 2022 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council 2 Page 99 of 520 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 —TITLE AND COMPONENTS This Amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener. This Amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive. SECTION 2— PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend the Official Plan by adding Site Specific Policy Area 5 to Map 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and by adding associated Site Specific Policy 15.D.2.68 to the Official Plan. SECTION 3— BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT The subject lands are currently designated Market District on Map 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) of the 2014 Official Plan. Also, the lands are identified as Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and Major Transit Station Area on Map 2— Urban Structure of the 2014 Official Plan. The applicant is requesting an Official Plan Amendment to add Site Specific Policy Area 5 to Map 4— Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and to add associated Site Specific Policy 15.D.2.68 to the Official Plan. These amendments would permit a mixed use building with a Maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR)of 4.8 and a maximum building height of 28.5 metres or 7-storeys, which the applicant intends on constructing through future approvals. A `parallel' Zoning By-law Amendment is also requested. The Amendment would assist the City in achieving the densities contemplated by the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan. The Official Plan Amendment would facilitate a mid-rise development proposal that provides a mix of high-density housing and commercial use in a location where there are excellent levels of infrastructure and public service facilities. The proposal is considered transit supportive development because it would support the nearby ION and transit services and make use of active transportation opportunities in and near downtown. The City's Offical Plan states that the planned function of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) is to accommodate a significant share of the region's and the city's future population and employment growth. The requested Amendment assists in achieving the planned function. Moreover, Planning staff is of the opinion the proposed use of the subject lands is desirable and appropriate for this location and will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Policy 15.D.2.59. of the City's Official Plan states that, "The maximum Floor Space Ratio for all new development and/or redevelopment, except those lands with frontage on Market Lane or Duke Street, will be 3.0" and policy 15.D.2.61. states that, "The building and facade heights may be regulated through the Zoning By-law." It should also be noted that the subject property is within the recommended focus area on Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) Phase 1 (2013) Station Study Area mapping. Furthermore, the PARTS Central Plan (2016) suggests a maximum FSR of 3.0 and that "Building Heights on King Street will be limited to maintain the current pedestrian experience". In this regard, while the Amendment is for 4.8 FSR, which is more than contemplated by the Market District and PARTS, Planning staff has undertaken an extensive review of the design and 3 Page 100 of 520 are of the opinion that it meets the objectives of the King Street streetscape, achieving a 45- degree angular plane through the use of stepbacks. Planning staff is satisfied that the requested Amendment aligns with Provincial, Regional, and City policies. In addition, the Amendment is consistent with the policies and intent of the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan. Accorindingly, Planning staff recommends approval of the Amendment. SECTION 4—THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: a) Part D, Section 15.D.2. is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.2.68 as follows: 15.D.2.68. 276 King Street East Notwithstanding the Market District land use designation on lands municipally known as 276 King Street East, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.8 shall be permitted, and, generally, a maximum building height of 7- storeys or 28.5 metres shall be permitted. In addition, A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 will apply to prohibit any residential or other sensitive land uses until such time as a detailed stationary noise study has been submitted to and accepted by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. This Holding provision will not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services advising that such noise study and the recommended implementation measures have been accepted to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. b) Amend Map No. 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) by: i) Adding Specific Policy Area "5. 276 King Street East (Policy 15.D.2.68)", to the `Area of Amendment',as shown on the attached Schedule `A'. 4 Page 101 of 520 APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of June 13, 2022 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 276 King Street East Have Your Voice Heard! Date: June 13,2022 Time: 4:00 p.m. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to appear as a delegation,visit: kitchener.ca/meetin s g To learn more about this project, s including information on your Concept drawing appeal rights,visit: ,M13111k www.kitchenerca/ 0 n� a planningapplications 'M IMP or contact: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner 7 Storey Residential Commercial 519.741.2200 x 7668 Building Upper Floors Ground Floor andrew.pinnell@kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener has received applications to change the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 28.5 metre high (7-storey) mixed-use building with ground floor commercial uses and 29 dwelling units within the upper storeys. The building has a floor space ratio of 4.8. The applications request to not provide any parking for motor vehicles, but to require 33 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces. A holding provision is also requested to prevent development until a detailed noise study has been submitted to and approved by the Region. 5 Page 102 of 520 CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO MAP 4 URBAN GROWTH CENTRE(DOWNTOWN) N U� F p� Urban Growth Centre(Downtown) L..j Boundary ` Land Use Designation �kFST� w0 ® City Centre District ® Civic District f�jNG Market District STF Specific Policy Area ;�....i Boundary Area of Amendment To Add Specific Policy Area `=�;5.276 King St E 5 (Policy 15.D.2.68) C9 SCHEDULE W 0 1125 REVISED: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA20/006/K/AP METRES ZONING BY-LAWAMENDMENT ZBA20/015/K/AP 276 KING EAST INC. SCALE 1:4,000 City of Kitchener 6KA 276 KING ST E DATE: MAY 11,2022 opz000s ap_Mnpa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT,PLANNING PROPOSED BY — LAW OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend both By-law 85-1, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — 276 King East Inc. — 276 King Street East) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Number 120 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Market Village Zone (D-3) to East Market Zone (D-2) with Special Regulation Provision 778R and Holding Provision 93H. 2. Schedule Number 120 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 2 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from East Market Zone (D-2) to East Market Zone (D-2) with Special Regulation Provision 778R and Holding Provision 93H. 3. Schedule Number 120 of Appendix"A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 4. Appendix "D" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Special Regulation Provision 778R thereto as follows: "778. Notwithstanding Sections 6.1.2 and 14A of this by-law, within the lands zoned East Market Zone (D-2) and shown as affected by this provision on Schedule Number 120 of Appendix A, the following special regulations shall apply: a) The maximum floor space ratio shall be 4.8. b) The maximum building height shall be 28.5 metres or 7 storeys. Page 104 of 520 c) The minimum front yard setback abutting King Street shall be 0 metres for upper storeys of a building and 0.8 metres for the ground floor. d) The maximum front yard setback abutting King Street shall be 2.0 metres. e) The minimum side yard abutting Eby Street shall be 0 metres. f) The maximum side yard abutting Eby Street shall be 2.0 metres. g) The minimum side yard setback from the northwest property line (i.e., abutting 270 King Street East) shall be 1.2 metres. h) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 4.0 metres. i) Dwelling units shall not be located on the ground floor. j) An outdoor rooftop amenity area shall be provided for a building containing dwelling units. The outdoor rooftop amenity area shall have a minimum area of 100 square metres. k) No outdoor storage of goods, materials or equipment shall be permitted. This shall not, however, prevent the display of goods or materials for retail purposes. 1) The minimum number of secured, long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be 33. m) The minimum number of short-term publicly accessible bicycle parking spaces shall be 12. n) No off-street parking shall be required for any permitted use". 5. Appendix"F" to By-law 85-1 is hereby amended by adding Section 93H thereto as follows: "93. Notwithstanding Section 14A of By-law 85-1, within the lands zoned D-2 and shown as being affected by this Subsection on Schedule 120 of Appendix "A", no residential or other sensitive land use shall be permitted until such time as a detailed stationary noise study has been submitted to and accepted by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services advising that such noise study and the recommended implementation measures have been accepted to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo." Page 105 of 520 6. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No._, (276 King Street East)comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2)of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2022. Mayor Clerk Page 106 of 520 D-4 4 552R, 125U, SUBJECT AREA(S) AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 854 N 95R, D 114U 1 Q y` ,. D 1140za, G°R 12 '° 125U 1 R AREA 1- 5 FROM MARKET VILLAGE ZONE(D-3) S H D LE 121_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TO EAST MARKET ZONE(D-2) C E LE 120 _5 WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISION 778R 48 AND HOLDING PROVISION 93H ff�NG'S D- d 18.1 AREA 2- FROM EAST MARKET ZONE(D-2) p " 1,•a TO EAST MARKET ZONE(D-2) WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISION 778R -1 99R 7 `_•1 AND HOLDING PROVISION 93H D-1 1 BY-LAW 85-1 3 _ CR-1 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL ONE 5 D-2 750 CR-2 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL TWO D- Q CR-3 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL THREE C D-1 RETAIL CORE ZONE Q D-2 EAST MARKET ZONE D-3 MARKET VILLAGE ZONE b12 D4 OFFICE DISTRICT ZONE -5 8 CR-3 1 6 D-5 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL CR- 40 1-3 MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL MU MU-2 MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR a MU-2 ZONE CR- CR �. M 15H MU-3 HIGH INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR 364 RCS R-g 529R, ZONE 544R C R-5 RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE CR 9 3 MU3 R -2 R-6 RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE 136R 3 r UU l - R-7 RESIDENTIAL SEVEN R-8 RESIDENTIAL EIGHT 4'01U AMU 8 M1R R-9 RESIDENTIAL NINE R R 541 ZONE GRID REFERENCE �3 08R SCHEDULE NO.120 U-3 719R MU OF APPENDIX'A' 31R�5 4R- KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 -7 10BR U-3 ZONE LIMITS 5 MAP NO. 1 �0 50 100 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA20/015/K/AP METRES OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA20/006/K/AP 276 KING EAST INC. SCALE 1:4,000 City of Kitchener FKA 276 KING ST E DATE: MAY 11,2022 zenzoo m aP_mnP DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT,PLANNING 0000 000 Urban esi n Brief 276 King Street East Kitchener Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. Official Plan Amendment & Zoning By-law Amendment May 2022 GSPORCHARD group Page 108 of 520 Contents 1. Background & Purpose 1 2. Contextual Fit 4 3. Design Policy and Guideline References 8 3.1 Official Plan 8 3.2 Urban Design Manual 9 3.3 Central PARTS Plan 10 4. Site and Building Design Overview 11 4.1 Building Positioning 11 4.2 Building Scale and Massing 12 4.3 Access and Circulation 17 4.5 Loading and Service 17 4.6 Car Parking 17 4.7 Bicycle Parking 17 4.8 Building Materials and Articulation 18 4.9 Streetscape and Landscape Design 21 5. Microclimate Analysis 22 5.1 Shadow Analysis 22 5.2 Pedestrian Wind Analysis 23 6. Response to Policy and Guideline Framework 24 6.1 Response to Official Plan Policy 24 6.2 Response to Urban Design Manual Guidelines 24 7. Summary 30 Page 109 of 520 1 . Background & Purpose Scope Subject Site Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. ("the owner") is proposing a The site is approximately 484 square metres (0.0484 mixed-use development on the property at 276 King hectares) in size located at the northwest corner of King Street East ("the site") in Kitchener. This Urban Design Street East and Eby Street North. The site is a narrow Brief is prepared for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning site,measuring approximately 12 metres wide along King Bylaw Amendment applications for the proposed Street East and 35 metres of depth along Eby Street development, required per the February 2020 Pre- North. The site does flare out in the northwest corner Submission Consultation. The Kitchener Official Plan behind the abutting property on King. The site is defines an Urban Design Briefs as a "comprehensive currently an undeveloped lot at the corner of King and Urban Design document which may include urban Eby as well as 2-stored converted dwelling (former 12 design vision, principles, objectives, guidelines and Eby Street North). The site's grade along Eby Street strategies" and that "may be required of an drops approximately 2 metres from King Street to its rear owner/applicant in support of a development property line with an existing retaining wall along its Eby application". Street flankage. a �r � . Site Kitchener .1 Market • • 4 e 4 � T� i7 Kitchener Market Station tea. r Lff Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 110 of 520 OF :asPxAa 4 a-r k Site frontage looking from King Street East. f Site flankage looking from Eby Street North towards King Street East(exiting detached dwelling part of site off to the right) Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 111 of 520 The proposed development is a 7-storey mixed-use building with ground floor commercial uses and residential units in the upper storeys. The building contains 29 units in total in the second through seventh storeys, ranging generally from 550 to 650 square feet in floor space. The proposed development is a car-free building with no parking is proposed for the residential 00 units or commercial unit. Service functions for loading, storage and bicycling parking from the building's rear. 000 000 Content This Urban Design Brief is based on preliminary drawings 00 00, and materials available at this stage of the approval process. As work continues on the detailed aspects of design for Site Plan Approval, such as the completion of detailed site plans, lighting plans, landscape plans, elevation drawings,the detailed aspects of the proposed development will be refined and fully demonstrated. Based on the matters identified in pre-submission oil consultation record,this Urban Design Brief: • Describes the contextual relationships and fit with the surrounding area (Section 2), • Outlines the general Official Plan design policies and Urban Design Manual that are relevant to the site's and development's design (Section 3), • Provides an overview of the proposed site and building design (Section 4), • Discuss the building form and design aspects of the proposed development (Section 5), • Summarizes the microclimatic assessments, including shadow and wind impacts (Section 5), • Assesses how the proposed development's design responds specifically above policy and guideline basis (Section 7), and • Makes conclusions regarding the findings of the Urban Design Brief(Section 8). Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 112 of 520 M - i io +� slow _ ti .aJ• M r� .� L �4 • e l 2. Contextual Fit The Market District generally exhibits a lower rise pattern Downtown Kitchener Context of purpose-built commercial institutional, and residential The subject site is located within the eastern end of buildings (and mixed-use buildings) as well as many Downtown Kitchener. Downtown is the planned focal converted residential buildings for commercial purposes point for intensification within Kitchener and is intended surrounding the Market. This pattern of use also brings a to accommodate a significant portion of the city's growth variety of building form patterns, between "coarser" in a compact, dense and transit-supportive form. The Pattern of larger commercial, residential and Downtown core to the west has been undergoing a institutional/community buildings and the "finer" grain dramatic transformation with significant recent and associated generally with a main street form along King ongoing public and private sector investment,which has Street converted dwellings on side streets. begun to a lesser scale in the broader area surrounding Although the District and surrounding urban fabric the site. exhibits a lower-rise characteristic, there are numerous Downtown Kitchener is at the heart of the Region's ION examples of existing mid-rise buildings or under light rail transit system, containing 4 stations in both the construction tall buildings throughout. There is an westbound and eastbound routes. Immediately emerging cluster of high-rise buildings around the 8- surrounding the site, the eastbound/westbound ION storey Waterloo Regional Courthouse, including a 39- Kitchener Market sits approximately 300 to 400 metres storey mixed-use building at Frederick and Duke (under to the south, on the east side of the Charles and Cedar construction) and two 11-storey facing at Scott and intersection. Weber under construction and approved. Two existing mid-rise buildings (6 and 8 storeys) on the south side of The site sits within the Market District of Downtown King moving from the site up to Frederick. To the east, Kitchener, which forms the eastern entrance to the an emerging cluster includes mid-rise (7 and 8 storeys) Downtown. The site is central to this small pocket of and high-rise buildings(14/18 storeys)that are approved Downtown that stretches two blocks along King, Charles and/or under construction surrounding the King and and Duke Streets, generally between Scott and Cedar Madison intersection. Streets. The District, as its name implies, is anchored by the Kitchener Market facing the east side of the site. Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 113 of 5L0 T �� � ��' qtr ���7►V �� frNi, IV .� d 'Iwo, ! o � r • a. %� ,fir ,�`� •k �- � ., IA _C4.,� w�f a Q Number of Storeys '` k .� � j� �i�e�� �:__ •fie`- -- �_. 03 03 00 lk -C ap _ P n a P f O Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 114 of 5k Immediate Context East South The Kitchener Market (300 King) faces the site on the A 2-storey mixed-use building (287-289 King) faces the east side of Eby Street.The Market building sits centrally site at the southeast corner of King and Eby,with ground on the block is a two-storey height,one storey facing the floor commercial and residential above. A 3-storey (265 courtyard towards King Street and a two storey height to King) multi-tenanted commercial plaza faces the site at the rear with dropping grade. The Market's canopied the southwest corner of King and Eby, the building open air functions are on the Eby Street side of the narrow along King Street and deep facing a surface building. A two-storey, red-brick commercial building parking to the west. Both buildings are situated close to (290 King) sits at the corner of King and Eby, directly the street continuing the predominant pattern along King facing the site, positioned tight to both street edges with Street East. The south side of King Street East has a the building's length along King. Behind the Market relatively consistent 2 to 3 storey height in the area building, a 3-storey residential building (165 Duke, surrounding the site (recognizing the mid-rise buildings "Market Lofts") occupies the block's remainder, the identified above) and a mixed architectural character of building situated tight to all three street sides and finished traditional and more recent forms and styles. in a consistent fashion to the Market building and commercial building. ti � r r J r � y r" 40 i I � Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 115 of 520 West North The properties to the site's west are characteristically a Properties to the north along Eby Street North are 2-storey"main street"form with ground floor commercial converted residential buildings for commercial purposes. uses and buildings situated continuously close to the The properties beyond (14 Eby and 16 Eby) are 2-storey street edge. The immediately abutting property (270 converted dwelling containing a restaurant and business King) has a 2-storey building with ground commercial respectively, the former including an outdoor patio. and space above, recently renovated with a traditional Beyond this set of converted dwellings,Market Lane runs aesthetic. Attached to the west of this building, there is east-west between Scott Street and Eby Street North. a 2-storey building (254-262 King) also with ground floor Market Lane is a narrower laneway largely with a mixed commercial and space above. This building has ground character: largely with rear building walls and parking floor commercial entrances as well as entrances to the areas facing the laneway but also instances of flanking upper floors at the street. To the west of this property, converted buildings forming interior courtyard-like there is an access driveway from King connecting to a spaces. There are walkway facilities on both side of the parking area to the rear. laneway as well as streetscape improvements including paving, light standards and benches. 1' y Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 116 of 5k 3. Design Policy and Guideline polices identify the Market District as an area that "functions as a unique village-like setting anchored by References market uses". Along King Street, Section 15.D.2.57 .1 Official Plan directs that ground floor commercial (specifically smaller retail uses) with other uses above, including residential, General Downtown Policies will be the predominant use and mixed-use buildings are The site is part of the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) encouraged. Section 15.D.2.59 establishes a maximum designation in the Kitchener Official Plan. The Urban Floor Space Ratio of 3 for properties along King Street. Growth Centre is meant as Kitchener's focal point for employment growth, residential intensification and General Urban Design Policies region-wide community uses. The general policies have Section 11 of the Official Plan contains general urban several urban design directions: design policies that are used to evaluate movement • Contribution to the public realm through the design of patterns, the relationship between built form and open private spaces and buildings (15.D.2.11). spaces, integration of natural and cultural resources and • Building scale and height along King Street may be development impacts. They include: limited to ensure adequate sun exposure, pedestrian • General urban design policies speak to the city's enhancements, and a human scale (15.D.2.18). skyline, CPTED principles, fire prevention, barrier- • Priority to pedestrian, cycling and rapid and public free accessibility, and shade. transit modes over vehicular circulation (15.D.2.21). • Site Design policies speak to the building's street • Quality urban design for buildings, architecture and relationship landscaping to improve the streetscape; streetscapes, including encouragement for developments to improve aesthetic quality and be innovation and architectural excellence (15.D.2.27). safe, comfortable, functional and provide circulation for all transportation modes; and site servicing and \�GCO� utilities to be screened from view from the public realm. OO Building Design, Massing and Scale design policies • 'L� speak to human-scale proportions to support a `r Site comfortable and attractive public realm, including i attractive building forms, fagades and roof designs; complementary design of new buildings; and architectural innovation and expression. Section 17.E.10.5 identifies that urban design briefs/reports together with other design-related are 'n1ena""°ationAreas meant to be used to 4� urban Growth Centre(oowr,roon) Q m.prT-31 Station Area Cay Node a) demonstrate that a proposed development or Commonly Node qW Neiynbournood Node redevelopment is compatible; ` urban corridor \� Arterial Corrlmr b) address the relationship to and the privacy of Market District Policies adjacent residential development;and, Further to the above policies, the site is within the c) ensure compatibility with the existing built form "Market District" sub-designation of the Urban Growth and the physical character of the established area Centre. The eastern entrance to Downtown, these and/or neighbourhood. Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 117 of 520 3.2 Urban Design Manual Official Plan and guidelines of the Urban Design Manual PART A-Design Guidelines and are meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Part A contains design guidelines on various land uses, built types, geographic areas, and urban structure PART C-Design Standards elements. The following topics of design guidelines are Part C contains design standards with specifications on relevant to the site and the proposed building. technical details. Several standards are applicable to the proposed development, including those for parking a) City-Wide structures, access, surface parking, outdoor lighting, The City-Wide design guidelines apply to Kitchener as a barrier-free accessibility, pedestrian and transit- whole.The main objective of these guidelines it to ensure supportive development, rooftop mechanical equipment, emergency services, landscaping and natural features, Kitchener is designed as an inclusive, safe, accessible, storm water management facilities and landscape comfortable and appealing place to live, work and play. design. These technical aspects of the detailed design Guidelines are divided into Community Design and Site will be evaluated at a later stage of the review process Design. The Community Design guidelines are primarily through Site Plan Approval. used by the City in designing the form and structure of communities through the application of design best practices in a range of topics.The Site Design guidelines address built form, open space and site functionality. b) Downtown The Downtown design guidelines apply to properties within the Urban Growth Centre. They have general .1kb- Downtown guidance for the entirety of the area as well as area- specific guidelines applying to the four design districts. The site is within the Market Design District (UG4). This district is the smallest of the four design districts, generally bound by Charles, Cedar, Duke and Scott. c) Major Transit Station Areas r The Major Transit Station Areas guidelines apply - generally for areas surrounding ION Stations. The site is within such an area, being 300 to 400 metres to the - _.- -... ----------- Kitchener Market Station. Although the guidelines indicate they do not apply to sites subject to the Mai ' Downtown guidelines,they are germane to the proposed development and inform design. - -- —- - d) Mid-Rise Buildings !` The Mid-Rise Buildings guidelines guide the design of t mid-rise buildings in the city, which are defined as those y between 4 and 8 storeys in height. These guidelines are -- meant to be read in conjunction with the policies of the - Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 118 of 520 3.3 Central PARTS Plan Kitchener's Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) plans provide a more land use and design direction for each of the ION Station Areas within Kitchener. They are meant to provide more specific land use policy direction from that of the general Major Transit Station Area policies in the Regional Official Plan and the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. The PARTS Central Plan was approved by City Council in 2016, which includes the subject site. Largely a land use planning document, three parts of the PARTS Central Plan, include urban design references for development within the area: • Section 4 contains broader objectives including place-making directives, • Section 8 contains urban design considerations for new development, and • Section 9 contains design intent for different streetscapes within the area, including King Street and Eby Street. ..-Y [ .. � r Urean Growers centre. 5.0 Preferred Plan ciry^Pw:,:r frrnarolron l7+:;rr" Land use Map Site Ma nP.D&Y,: d �a�nEmpr y neat d rnarnurhna+ AOmd Use med—i sm. i Lvn[awa E3 f AkardanGe+ ED Li V Medum F. Aeri6 3 xatvre+xenlage E2 ' bm-Za"ftIxy Area WWdp+amI EM I !mn Hn T-1 SlnSpedf AotkyAma C � ' s,.z�rc Urban Design Brief Revised I 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 119 of 920 4. Site and Building Design Overview 4.1 Building Positioning The building is positioned to continuously line the King Street and Eby Street edges. Along King, the building's ground floor footprint continues the pattern set by the abutting property (270 King), set back between 0.8 and 1.4 metres generally. Above, the building wall of the 2nd through 4th storeys along King project over the ground floor, extending to the property line. Along Eby, the building sits largely at the property line, recognizing the ground recessions created for covered entranceways for the residential and main commercial doors and the upper storeys at the King and Eby corner pull back from the property line for relief. On the western side, there is a general 1.2 metre setback to the northern property line containing a gated walkway. The building is set back 4.2 metres from the eastern property line shared with 14 Eby Street North. _ 33'52'35"E z 3.389 a P }fAT•15i1 r V f v I� N32•04'20'Eo00,9CD —I CONC_WALKWAY _ .'... z •M V O rs re i 111 k1/ � � II 7 STOREY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING �- PRINCIPAL 0a ENTRANCE v 4 Fv` FN 4ANti'F F1 �n ENTR E i6 BU'S4 k3 r AL zm N3734'35"E 22.397 ..., .��. N32°34'35'E 1 .497 e,m D%. CONC.SIDEWALK wrex wauwme EBY STREET Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 120 of 920 4.2 Building Scale and Massing The apparent scale and massing of the proposed The proposed development has been redesigned to building has been redesigned to ensure that proposed better integrate with surrounding properties. The development is compatible with the adjacent properties proposed building mass has a smaller building ground and respects the overall streetscape by integrating floor footprint of approximately 330 square metres, stepbacks at the 6th and 7th storeys(including mechanical measuring generally 10.75 metres wide by 30 metres Penthouse stepped back further), glass curtain wall long, owning to the narrow footprint of the subject site. systems from top to bottom to soften the building design, At the King Street edge, the building is 23.92 metres to increased appearance of glazing on street-facing top of 7th floor roofline (plus 3.65 metres to recessed elevations and recessed building entrances to reinforce mechanical penthouse). The northeast corner of the human scale. A clear distinction and articulation in building along Eby Street sits up to 1.9 metres lower than massing of the proposed building is expressed between the King Street ground floor given the dropping grades the base, middle and top (mechanical penthouse) using from the King Street intersection. horizontal and vertical projections along the street-facing building elevations. Other than the western side along King and surrounding the corner of King and Eby, the building's upper storeys The proposed building maintains the recommended 45- have the same footprint as the ground floor. Along King degree angular plane to King Street (far side-sidewalk), Street, most of the building wall of the upper storeys with step-backs at 1.0 metre and 3.6 metres to the glass projects 1.2 metres above the ground floor footprint as railing and building's edge, respectively for the 6th storey an overhang of the pedestrian realm. Extending around and an additional 5.5 metres for the 7th storey. The fully corner, the upper storeys project past the recessed enclosed mechanical penthouse is positioned entirely ground floor at the corner, which sits 2.25 metres and outside of that angular plane with further step-backs from 1.15 metres, respectively, at their shallowest from the the 7th storey rooftop of more than 5.5 metres. King and Eby ground walls. Approximate 45 angular plane I LevEL 8 2797P rLE -�- - I O r LEVELS Lazo „ Wk LE L' - 0 LEVIELA 1 iC920 — — —— � III rie '— r LEVEL 24420 6 LEVEL r— - - — —�- �1Pasv_ f .1310 _-�-- -�- r LEVEL I Low -1900 Urban Design Brief Revised I 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 121 of 920 King Street facing side I I � O , l a I " O rr- 7—T-1 rFF_ a o I I I I I {7 I � I - � I Corner of King Street and Eby Street facing side 10 000 00 71 Urban Design Brief Revised I 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 122 of 920 Eby Street facing side I c-- i 7420 1 176 lEVee 4 _ PSI I 9920 7TIt — - I 787Q _ O I =1 �""20 - O 141- 1 TRYLL - - - -�- m --O I —�— I 1Eva uow i � O O (�--- `19o0 i I i Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 123 of 8L0 Frederick Street facing side I /�y 'a LEM a ♦ -- (D S O O r 1006670 Q I iEVEL 0 ♦ -- _ 4'J I>/M LEVEL 5 �� Q a •ti70 /�ryy INK LEM I 0910 LEM7670 ♦ O e1 420 4 s /110 D ` LOBBY - iEVEL 1 LCVV , r_I9 '420 M ,110 Q o _ o Duke Street facing side LEVELS 016Q DUO 7 O F, -] LE 'LE 0670 YELj_7 1. O O ;♦ LEVEL8 1 7.0 0 0 >. LEVEL O "70 ® _ IEVEL4 0920 LEVEL ,91 1 - - Q ` 767 0 _ (D fl♦ iEVEIJ_, EL4 7 0 _ _ _ ♦ LEVEL I i 0 ♦ LOBBY 49 .1 3,0 LEVEL I Low,1E, dwo BASEMENT 01 .4120 7 Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 124 of 920 Upper Storeys and Rooftop Articulation 1 yr , II �I � I I i r I it I! ' i l J �man— Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 125 of 920 4.3 Access and Circulation 4.6 Car Parking Pedestrian entrance to the main commercial unit is The proposed building will be a car-free development situated at the site's corner of King and Eby, easily with no parking for cars provided on site, instead relying accessed by both public sidewalks. The entrance to the on proximity to the ION Grand River station, bus routes residential lobby is mid-building on the eastern side, and active transportation infrastructure nearby. accessed directly from the Eby public sidewalk (and co- located with stairwell egress and a second entrance to 4.7 Bicycle Parking the main commercial unit). The entrance to the smaller An indoor bicycle storage room (33 spaces) is in the commercial unit is located on the building's northern building's northwest corner with access internally side, accessed from a concrete walkway lining the through the lobby as well as externally by way of the building leading to the Eby public sidewalk. walkway along the northern building edge. Additionally, two outdoor racks (12 spaces) provided in the northwest The only vehicular access to the site will be a single corner near the end of the loading space. loading space from Eby Street North, per the below. Cyclists will access the site by the concrete walkways lining either the northern (from Eby) or western (from King) sides of the building. These walkways provide Second access to the outdoor or indoor bicycle parking, per the commercial unit below. entrance 4.5 Loading and Service Bicycle storage One loading space is provided along the northern end of entrance the building, providing access to the building interior (through the bicycle storage area) and the two deep well collection enclosures in the northwest corner of the site. I Residential entrance j Main commercial unit entrance I .= BICYCLE STORAGE I E LEV STAIR HOIST. I I LOBBY I 0 FUTURE FUTURE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 1449 m' 4- I Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 126 of 50 4.8 Building Materials and Articulation The proposed design employs a contemporary aesthetic The corner of King and Eby is pronounced in the regarding the selection and application of materials.Core architecture with a continuous glass feature through the cladding materials includes clear glass and metal siding building height to the ground floor,the above recessions panels with other accenting materials throughout. Clear and the main commercial unit entrances and ground glass is predominant for most of the public-facing floor overhang. A series of cornice lines capped with elevations interposed with darker spandrel panels for darker aluminum cap horizontal lines mid-building and accent effects. The ground floor facing King and Eby is along the roofline. entirely a glass treatment. Projecting patterns of lighter grey aluminum cladding frame window bays above the Darker aluminum cladding ground moving up the mid-rise form. for mid-and roofline cornices Continuous clear glass element (with darker spandrel accents) Projecting elements of lighter through building height as grey metal siding through mid- corner feature �P xv""x portion of building (King & Eby) Rhythm of clear glass window Clear glass bays with dark ground floor � \�,��. spandrel accents (King & Eby) predominately with spandrel panel accents Clear glass entrance door --- and windows Urban Design Brief Revised I 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 127 of 920 i II Q r/i 5 I 2 I I LErH 5 _ IEVF'i4 4420 & � I I I EVFi 2 s RP s ae ® 0 — T — I (D (DSouth Elevation (facing Eby) 0 T_ 0 a® MATERIALS LEGEND ', - lO CORRUGAIED METAL SIDING O4 PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANEL QQ oe G ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL. O TEMPERED GLASS GUARD Q � (D SEALED DOUBLE GLAZING SET IN THERMALLY BROKEN CONCRETE COLUMN PREFIN[SHED EXTRUDED ALUMINUM FRAMING GTYPE A-VISION PANEL�CLEAR O POURED CONCRETE WAIL �} 38 TYPEB-SPANDREL PANEL G PREFINISHEDALUMINUM SUN SHADE Ll o West Elevation 1- (facing King) i Urban Design Brief Revised I 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 128 of 920 O - O O ; East Elevation ` (facinq loadinq space) Fo 1 F1 o - -o Q G o Q Q ♦ MATERIALS LEGEND ® lO CORRNGATEO METAL SIDING O PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS O O ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL OS TEMPERED GLASS GUARD O3 SEALED DOUBLE GLAZING SET IN THERMALLY BROKEN O6 CONCRETE COLUMN s O - PRE-FINISHED FXTRDDED ALUMINUM FRAMING - x c O TYPE A-VISION PANEL-CLEAR O7 POURED CONCRETE WALL x __ 3B ttPEB-SPAHORELPANEL O PREFINISHEOALUMINUM SUNSHADE t LEVEL North Elevation Q ° , �� o (facing interior) x 23920 Q Q z ►LEVEL �. Q -. Q 20670 a i z I..LEVEL6_ Q 17420 LEVEL 5 -- Q 14170 I s Q - L LEVEL 4_ L'J 10920 t LEVEL 3_ `V 7670 Ir - -O R LEVEL 2 _ E -i 4420 QC R I � 5� lL0111,_ -1340 t LEVEL 1 L. � 1400 Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 129 of 620 treetscape and Landscape Design The building's footprint on this small, narrow site limits opportunity for plantings and streetscape elements. Detailed plans have not been explored at this time. The building positioning, ground floor commercial units, and glass transparency support an animated streetscape along King Street and Eby Street. There are opportunities for movable planters along the building's King Street overhang and coordination of paving treatments with public sidewalk along this area. There are similar opportunities in the recessed space surrounding the main commercial entrance at King and Eby, as well those for modest furnishings and distinct pavement treatment for delineation of the private and public realms. , I ZT— i Urban Design Brief Revised 276 King Street East GSP Group,May 2022 Page 130 of dk 5. Microclimate Analysis 5.1 Shadow Analysis Shadow Analysis is a complete application submission The below analysis of equinox conditions (and Summer requirement per the site's Pre-Submission Consultation Solstice for reference) demonstrates the impacts are meeting. The Mid-Rise Building guidelines identify that acceptable and provide sufficient sun exposure per the shadow analysis should demonstrate how the proposed Mid-Rise Guidelines guidance. In summary, the building maintains "daily access to at least 5 hours of proposed building: cumulative direct sunlight under equinox conditions" on Maintains more than 5 hours of sunlight on the nearby public spaces, open spaces and sidewalks, as Kitchener Market Plaza across Eby Street and does well as targeting same for adjacent low-rise properties. To demonstrate this, shadow impact graphics are not affect any other public open spaces. provided in Appendix A for March 21, June 21, . Maintains more than 5 hours of sunlight on affected September 21 and December 21 from 10am to 6pm (or public sidewalks on both sides of King and Eby. 2pm for December 21). • Respects the intended target of 5 hours of sunlight, generally, for adjacent low-rise properties recognizing that tight urban form and as-of-right shadow impacts. BUILDING Kitchener Market King Sidewalks Eby Sidewalks Adjacent Low-Rise IMPACTS Plaza Properties ON: March 21 None between 10am Opposite—None Opposite—None 270 King—None between to 4pm periods (7+ between 10am to 6pm between 10am to 4pm 4pm to 6pm (likely 4 hours) periods (9+ hours) periods (7+ hours) hours) Adjacent—None Adjacent—None 14 Eby—None at 10am; between 12am to 6pm between 10am to 2pm generally none in rear periods (7+ hours) periods (5+ hours) yard at 4pm and 6pm; minimal in rear yard at 12pm June 21 None between 10am Opposite—None Opposite—None 270 King—None between to 4pm periods (7+ between 10am to 6pm between 10am to 2pm 2pm to 6pm (5+ hours) hours) periods (9+ hours) periods (5+ hours) 14 Eby- None at 10am Adjacent—None Adjacent—None and 12pm; generally none between 12am to 6pm between 10am to 2pm in rear yard at 4pm and periods (7+ hours) periods (5+ hours) 6pm September None between 10am Opposite—None Opposite—None 270 King—None between 21 to 4pm periods (7+ between 10am to 6pm between 10am to 2pm 4pm to 6pm (likely 4 hours) periods (9+ hours) periods (5+ hours) hours) Adjacent—None Adjacent—None 14 Eby—None at 10am; between 12am to 6pm between 10am to 2pm generally none in rear periods (7+ hours) periods (5+ hours) yard at 4pm and 6pm; minimal in rear yard at 12pm Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 131 of qk 5.2 Pedestrian Wind Analysis SLR Consulting prepared the Pedestrian Wind Study as part of the complete application requirements for the proposed development. The Assessment investigated the potential wind comfort and safety conditions resulting from the proposed development, based on a qualitative numerical analysis of existing and proposed conditions, and recommends mitigation measures as necessary. A detailed wind study will be undertaken during the site plan review process and mitigation techniques identified through the detailed wind study will be implemented through detailed building design and site plan review process. The Study makes the following conclusion. • The wind safety criterion is predicted to be met in all locations in both the Existing and Proposed Configurations. • Wind conditions at the main and secondary entrances to the proposed building are expected to be suitable for the intended usage throughout the year. • On the sidewalks surrounding the proposed development, wind conditions are anticipated to be suitable for the intended usage throughout the year. • In the nearby Kitchener Market and Yeti Cafe, wind conditions are predicted to be similar between the Existing and Proposed Configurations. Predicted Wind Comfort I ❑ Sitting C7 i Z - 7 STOREY COMMERCIAL ❑ Standing Y i RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ❑ Leisurely Walking PRINCIPAL ❑ Fast Walking ENTRANCE ❑ tt Uncomfortable OResidential Entrance J13 Commercial Entrance EBY STREET NORTH 0 secondary Entrance/Exit Figure 5,Summary of predicted wind comfort conditions—Grade Level Worst case—Winter Season global environmental and advlsory soluli.,i . S L R" ' Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 132 of 620 6. Response to Policy and Guideline Framework 6.1 Response to Official Plan Policy 6.2 Response to Urban Design Manual Guidelines The proposed design responds to the design direction of Inclusive Design the Urban Growth Centre(Downtown)designation in that CITY-WIDE the proposed mid-rise building: �) ,v"' MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS • Infills an existing void in the King Street streetscape MID-RISE BUILDINGS with a new building that is positioned, articulated, and Direct connections between the building interior and containing ground floor commercial uses to support residential or commercial spaces and the abutting the public realm of King Street. public sidewalks on King and Eby. • Fits within the existing and emerging context, scaled Pedestrian-scale lighting to be defined at detailed to respect the proportions of King Street through design stage. upper storey stepbacks and demonstrating no • Uninterrupted sight lines from the building faces to adverse shadow or wind impacts. public sidewalks along King and Eby, featuring a • Prioritizes walking and public transit use with no highly transparent building elevations at the ground parking provided in the building and generous bicycle floor and above for natural surveillance purposes. parking facilities. • Ground floor commercial units fronting directly onto • Provides a quality, articulated and contemporary King Street or Eby Street, animating the street with building architecture that complements the people and activity. surrounding area. • Prominent, protected entrance vestibules to the main The proposed mid-rise building does not compromise commercial units and residential lobby with generous the Market District's ability to maintain the "unique outdoor landing area. village-like setting anchored by market uses". Rather, it • Accessible routes that will be universally designed at complements this function with an appropriately scaled the time of detailed design. intensification that infuses new residents in this portion of Downtown Kitchener with ground floor commercial uses • Provides smaller one-bedroom units catering to the in keeping with the Market District policies. specific market set looking for urban lifestyle options in an accessible location without the need for parking. The proposed mid-rise building is designed in keeping with the design policy direction of Official Plan Section Public art installations, either in the building or on the 11, as further explored in detail as part of the Urban site, have not been explored at this time. Design Manual analysis in the following section. • Common outdoor rooftop terrace atop the 7th floor for use by all residents. This Urban Design Brief, per Official Plan Section 17.E.10.5, demonstrates that the proposed development is a compatible addition to the Market District,as outlined Smart City Design below and that there are no expected privacy impacts CITY-WIDE given the abutting properties are converted residential • Details of building interiors and building/site dwellings for commercial purposes (together with the infrastructure not known at this time. fact that no proposed residential units face onto the interior northern property line). Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 133 of 6L0 Site Function Design for Sustainability CITY-WIDE CITY-WIDE MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS MID-RISE BUILDINGS MID-RISE BUILDINGS • No parking proposed for the building, eliminating any • Compact intensification of undeveloped site within an design considerations for access and screening. area that is served by existing transit,commercial and • Proposed design provides for on-site utility community uses. equipment and elements to be in rear or side area • Site is within walking distance (300 to 400 metres)to behind the building and away from public frontage, the two-way ION Kitchener Market station and near which is to be addressed at the time of detailed multiple stops of a higher frequency transit route design. (Route 7). • Private realm along King Street frontage between • Site is connected to employment, residential and building and public sidewalk to be coordinated institutional locations in the immediately surrounding surface treatment for additional pedestrian space. area and throughout Downtown Kitchener. • Main commercial unit entrance located prominently at • There are multiple active transportation connections corner of King and Eby, recessed on the ground floor in the vicinity with sidewalks and bicycle facilities,plus to provide weather protection and landing space for the Iron Horse Trail is situated approximately one entrance and exit. kilometre to the southwest. • Residential entrance located prominently mid-point • No parking, surface or structured, proposed for the on the Eby Street side, also recessed on the ground building reducing associated heat island effects and floor to provide weather protection and landing space emissions. for entrance and exit. Indoor bicycle storage rooms and outdoor bicycle • Functional areas (garbage, loading, moving) racks providing secure locations and supporting positioned away from the King Street frontage and active transportation opportunities. corner interface with Eby Street. Stormwater on the site will be controlled through on- • Deep well garbage/recycling facilities access through site measures to reduce peak flows to existing site walkways without need to cross loading space. conditions levels, limiting pressures on the existing on • Interior bicycle storage room and outdoor bicycle the Eby Street sewer. parking racks in the building's northwest corner co- • Architectural features(such as canopies and building located in a secure and easily accessible location. overhangs) shown on plans, while building envelope • Entrances and landing spaces in front of entrance to considerations (Increased insulation, high- be designed to universal accessibility standards. performance glazing, and lower window-to-wall ratio) to be explored through detailed design. • Material choice and detailing addresses bird collision avoidance guidelines, which can be further explored through detailed design. • Deep well waste and recycling collection areas to encourage the collecting and recycling of waste produced by residents and tenants. Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 134 of 620 Design of Outdoor Comfort Parks and Open Spaces CITY-WIDE CITY-WIDE MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS MID-RISE BUILDINGS • These guidelines are not relevant for the subject site. • The Pedestrian Wind Assessment demonstrates acceptable safety and comfort conditions around Compatibility building entrances, on sidewalks, at the Kitchener CITY-WIDE Market and on surrounding commercial properties. MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS • The Shadow Analysis demonstrates acceptable sun MID-RISE BUILDINGS exposure conditions for affected sidewalks, public The proposed building is placed and massed to both spaces, and adjacent low-rise properties. public street frontages, with architectural response to • Building design addresses pedestrian weather the corner intersection through a recessed corner protection through recessed vestibules from public entrance and glass corner feature in the upper sidewalks and generous covered landing spaces. storeys. • Lighting and landscape plans at the time of detailed Proposed building setback along King Street aligns design will address pedestrian comfort guidelines. generally with the abutting property (270 King) with cantilevered upper floors projecting past and Shared Spaces covering the space below. CITY-WIDE The proposed building's upper storeys along King MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS Street Is massed to respect a general 45 angular MID-RISE BUILDINGS plane to King Street(far-side sidewalk) respecting the • A rooftop outdoorterrace(129 square metres in area) desired urban proportions. atop the 7th storey will provide shared amenity space The proposed mid-rise form fits within the mixed for residents. context of low-rise main street forms, larger scale • Balconies are not provided on the building. community, commercial and office buildings, and converted low-rise residential buildings for Street Design commercial uses. CITY-WIDE Human scaled-relationship along King Street and Eby MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS Street achieved through ground floor height, uses • Detailed landscaped design will explore opportunities and activities, and exterior wall transparency as well for blending surface treatments between private as covered pedestrian entrances and areas. property and public sidewalks. The contemporary architectural style, detailing and • Consideration of movable planters and furnishings in materiality is meant as a complement rather than certain locations to add to the streetscape will be replication of styles and materials in context, explored through detailed design. particularly given the mixed nature of styles and materials. • Juliet balconies are proposed for every unit,plus a full balcony for the 7th level unit fronting King. There are no existing or planned mid-rise or tall buildings affecting the site from a Relative Height or Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 135 of 620 Separation perspective (addressed in Building intent of the 45 angular plane from King Street from Component below). far-side sidewalk(3.6 metres to 5.5 metres per step) Cultural &Natural Heritage • Architectural expression at most prominent King and CITY-WIDE Eby intersection created by depth of projections and MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS recessions, glass curtain wall system feature, and MID-RISE BUILDINGS main commercial entrance oriented to the corner. • There are no immediate or relevant heritage . Design employs a contemporary aesthetic for resources affecting the site's design. selection and application of materials. • There are no natural heritage areas in the vicinity. Core cladding materials includes clear glass and • Some existing trees along western property edge metal siding panels with other accenting materials (abutting 270 King building) on the subject throughout.Clear glass is predominant for most of the undeveloped, which would have to be removed for public-facing elevations interposed with darker construction. spandrel panels for accent effects. Built Form • Ground floor elevations facing King and Eby are highly transparent with an entirely glass treatment. CITY-WIDE MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS • Projecting patterns of lighter grey aluminum cladding frame window bays above the ground moving up the • Proposed building provides a respectful. mid-rise form and provide variety and depth to contemporary architectural form that complements building mass. the existing traditional styles, more recent additions • A series of cornice lines capped with darker and emerging character in the broader Market District aluminum cap horizontal lines mid-building and along and surrounding area. the roofline. • The proposed building footprint continuously lines the King Street ad Eby Street edges to the property's full Building Components(Ground Floor Design) extent except for the side walkway along King Street MID-RISE BUILDINGS and loading space entrance along Eby. • Ground floor respects intent of guidelines with taller • Building footprint is massed intimately with the King ground floor height, ranging between 4.42 metres Street and Eby Street property edge, the former set along King Street up to 6.32 metres along Eby Street. back 1.1 to 1.4 metres with projecting upper storeys • Most of the ground floor facing King Street and Eby and the latter set at the property line. Street is designed as commercial space, with the • Building form "carved out" at the corner of King and remainder as the active residential lobby entrance. Eby for sightlines purposes and architectural effect at • Ground floor design "flows" from building interior to the prominent corner. streetscape through ground floor commercial uses, • King Street-facing upper storeys project 1 metre past coordinated surface treatment and continuous ground floor footprint (to the property line generally) window treatment. for weather protection and providing to building elevation. • Uppermost floors(6th 7th and Mechanical Penthouse) from King Street edge stepped back to respect the Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 136 of dk Building Components(Base Design) Separation to northern property line abutting 270 MID-RISE BUILDINGS King Street is not achieved; however, there are no • Proposed building base is narrow (11 metres) and units proposed with windows facing that direction and short (29 metres) in keeping with the guidelines. the challenges of main street form and limitations would limit development. • Proposed building base picks up grade through taller • Stepbacks provided on the principal King Street ground floor heights. corridor respecting 45 degree angular plane from far- • Visual variety of the building base is achieved through side sidewalk. a combination of architectural depth created through • Rear and side stepbacks are not proposed given the projections of materials and architectural elements, narrow lot size and unique nature of proposed recessions of building entrances and canopies, and a coherent and continuous pattern of materials building floor plans. throughout the building base. • Integrated mechanical penthouse positioned away • The rhythm of divisions and fenestration on the street- from the King and Eby intersection and will be surrounding by communal outdoor rooftop terrace facing elevations respect the fine-grained rhythm along King Street generally. atop the 7th floor. • Servicing elements and utility equipment, where Building Components(Materials and Details) required, can be accommodated in the rear area MID-RISE BUILDINGS away from the King and Eby street edges. • The architectural design incorporates contemporary, • Recessed entrances and projecting upper storeys cohesive, and clean palette of attractive and durable along King Street provide weather protection for materials. pedestrians. • Durable glazing and metal materials are the core • Balconies for individual units were not prudent given materials in a modern aesthetic of grey colours. the unique nature of the narrow building. • Materials are used to accentuate the depth of the • Structured parking is not proposed for the building. building elevations coinciding with projecting • The proposed building base is set to align generally elements. with the existing pattern established to the north along King Street(270 King). Market District Specific DOWNTOV" Building Components(Building Design) • Proposed building form fits with the stated character MID-RISE BUILDINGS featuring "a variety of building types, uses, sizes and • Proposed design includes a"single-loaded"floor plan styles". with no units facing into the lot interior to the north. • Proposed ground floor uses, and exterior • Physical Separation calculation per guidelines for transparency contributes the intended primary retail proposed building is 4.1 metres (27.3 metres height and pedestrian function of King Street continuing the times 29.91 metres length). established pattern on this undeveloped lot. • Separation to the eastern property line abutting 14 • King Street continues to act as a primary retail and Eby Street North is achieved. pedestrian/cyclist route. Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 137 of 620 • Proposed building scale contributes to the desired priority for a "mid-rise connective fabric along King Street" with a compatible form per the discussions above and contributing to the pedestrian experience along King and Eby. • Proposed height accommodates the desired "low-to- mid rise human scaled built form along streetscapes" while accommodating compatibility matters. • New vehicular access is not proposed from King Street per the guideline direction. PARTS Central Specific MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS • The proposed building fills in the existing streetscape void on King Street resulting from this undeveloped lot with a street-oriented, transparent building form that provides for attractive, safe, and comfortable pedestrian movements. • The proposed building is generally aligned with the building to the west (270 King), continuing the streetscape pattern. • Except for coordinated paving treatments and movable planters and furnishings on the private property,there is limited opportunity for public realm enhancements given the building pattern. • The proposed building (on a site on the north side of King Street) reinforces pedestrian activity through building placement, design, and architectural finish. • The proposed building (on a site on the north side of King Street)supports transit given its proximity to the ION station, bike parking facilities and no parking provided • The proposed building (on a site on the north side of King Street) provides a mid-rise building form that is compatible with the surrounding existing and emerging context, as outlined above. • No structured parking or vehicular access is proposed along King Street. Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 138 of 620 7. Summary The proposed 7-storey mixed-use building with ground floor commercial uses and residential units in the upper storeys. The building contains 29 units in total in the second through seventh storeys, ranging generally from 550 to 650 square feet in floor space. The proposed development is a car-free building with no parking is proposed for the residential units or commercial unit. Service functions for loading, storage and bicycling parking from the building's rear. Based on the assessment in this Urban Design Brief,the proposed mid-rise building is appropriate and reflects good urban design. It respects the design policy and guideline direction of the Kitchener Official Plan and the multiple layers of the Kitchener Urban Design Manual, most particularly the Downtown (and Market District) guidelines and the Mid-Rise Building guidelines. Particularly,the proposed design: • Embraces the site's context of excellent transit proximity to ION Kitchener Market Station and local bus routes through a street-oriented building form and a car-free building with ample bicycle parking facilities. • Adds further ground floor commercial activities to supports for Kitchener Market and surrounding business environment, together with upper storey residential uses to use these businesses. • Provides a distinct proposed building form on a narrow void within the King Street streetscape. • Establishes street-oriented design at a prominent corner site with building massing lining both public streets, street active ground floor uses and activities, and ground floor transparency elevations. • Provides massing that respects urban street conditions along King Street with upper storeys of building set back to respect angular plane considerations to the street. • Employs a contemporary architectural aesthetic of form and materials that complements the existing and emerging district as part of Downtown Kitchener. Urban Design Brief Revised 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,May 2022 Page 139 of _1�20 APPENDIX A Shadow Impact Graphics Urban Design Brief 1 276 King Street East I GSP Group,April 2022 Page 140 of 520 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Attachment D fora development in your neighbourhood 276 King Street East Have Your Voice Heard! u 7 .. Date: June 13, 2022 � Time: 4:00 p.m. , r, Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting _ -= To view the staff report, agenda, find meeting details or to r-� appear as a delegation, visit: -� s kitchener.ca/meetin g i . To learn more about this project, including information on your Concept drawing appeal rights, visit: 11 al www.kitchener.ca/ planningapplications or contact: Andrew Pinner Senior Planner 7 Storey Residential Commercial 519.741.2200 X 7668 Building Upper Floors Ground Floor andrew.pinnell@ kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener has received applications to change the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 28.5 metre high (7-storey) mixed-use building with ground floor commercial uses and 29 dwelling units within the upper storeys. The building has a floor space ratio of 4.8. The applications request to not provide any parking for motor vehicles, but to require 33 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces. A holding provision is also requested to prevent development until a detailed noise stud has been submitted to and approved by the Region. Page 141 of 920 Attachment E - Department & Agency Comments Andrew Pinnell From: Sandro Bassanese Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 3:41 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: 276 King St E Design Brief Hey Andrew The following changes are required to the design brief. • Pg 12.The angular plane is not taken from the centerline of road it is to be confirmed that it was taken from the adjacent property line across the ROW and the accurate width of the ROW is to be noted as well. • The wind study section is to have the following note added: A detailed wind study will be undertaken during the site plan review process and mitigation techniques identified through the detailed wind study will be implemented through detailed building design and site plan review process. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Regards Sandro Bassanese Supervisor Site Plan I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7305 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 sand ro.bassanese(cDkitchener.ca 1010010000 0 1 Page 142 of 520 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 276 King Street East Application Type: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability)—City of Kitchener Commenter's name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7068 Written Comments Due: March 5, 2021 Date of comments: February 25, 2021 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • Sustainability Statement, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, 276 King Street East. October 16, 2020. GSP Group. 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the supporting documentation (as listed above)to support an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a 7-storey mixed use building with ground floor commercial uses, with no parking at 276 King St. E. and provided the following: • Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is progressive, going forward all developments will need to include energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target. • It is recommended that the applicant explore programs or measures best suited to the site and development that go beyond the OBC to further energy conservation,generation, operation and would benefit future residents/tenants. • Program certification is not required but is encouraged. Programs (or components of) that could be explored are: a. Energy Star for Buildings (15% more efficient then OBC) b. R-2000(50% more efficient then OBC), c. Net Zero Ready(80% more efficient then OBC) d. Net Zero (100% more efficient then OBC) e. LEED (equivalency rating would be sufficient if not seeking certification) Based on my review of the supporting documentation the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment can be supported. 1IPage Page 143 of 520 3. Conditions of Approval in Principal (AIP) and Full Site Plan Approval: Conditions of Approval in Principal • A revised sustainability statement incorporating comments provided. Conditions of Full Site Plan Approval • The Sustainability Statement is approved. 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.4. Development applications will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City, through the completion of a Sustainability Report/Checklist in accordance with the Complete Application Requirements Policies in Section 17.E.10, that the proposal meets the sustainable development policies of the Plan and that sustainable development design standards are achieved. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy consumption. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated. Such studies may include, but not limited to an Energy Conservation Efficiency Study, a Feasibility Study for Renewable or Alternative Energy Systems, District Heating Feasibility Study, and the completion of a Sustainability Report/Checklist in accordance with the Complete Application Requirements Policies in Section 17.E.10. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the potential for implementing district energy exists. 5. Advice: • As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability- initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise). • The ENERGY STAR' Multifamily High-Rise Pilot Program for new construction is a new five-year certification program in Ontario that recognizes buildings that are at least 15% more energy- efficient than those built to the provincial energy code and meet other program requirements. More information can be found online at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy- efficiency/buildings/new-buildings/energy-starr-multifamily-high-rise-pilot-program/21966 21 Page Page 144 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Michelle Drake Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 2:04 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Sandro Bassanese; Barbara Steiner;Victoria Grohn Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (276 King Street East) No heritage planning concerns. M. From:Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, March 15, 202112:58 PM To: Sandro Bassanese<Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>; Barbara Steiner<Barbara.Steiner@kitchener.ca>; Victoria Grohn <Victoria.Grohn@kitchener.ca>; Michelle Drake<michelle.drake@kitchener.ca> Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment-OPA/ZBA(276 King Street East) Hi Sandro, Barbara, and Victoria/Michelle, Please let me know if you have any comments regarding the attached/below OPA/ZBA. If you think it would be helpful to meet to discuss this proposal, please let me know and I'll set up a meeting. Thanks! Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell(a-)-kitchener.ca Page 145 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Mike Seiling Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:12 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: 276 King Street East - RSC & building permit issuance Hi, Building Division; no comments related to redevelopment at 276 King St E. Mike Page 146 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Dave Seller Sent: Thursday,June 24, 2021 3:37 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: Updated - Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment Application Comments: 276 King Street East Hi Andrew, For Class A bike parking: Min 29 spaces, if they provided the 33 as noted below from their submitted plan, great. BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREVEIVTS; Rf:r4JIREn: RE SIDENTRL; LONG TERM CLASS A Sz�ACE.S; d SPACE,/NIT - 1 x 2.-9 UNITS — 29 SPACES SHOW TERM CLASS B SPACES: 6 SPACES (MORE THAN 20 UNffS) RESTAURANT: LONG TERM CLASS A SPACES: 1.0 SPACEf TO0m2 GFA = 311.5/100 = 3A = 4u:..E SHORT TERM CLASS B SPACE'S VRESTAURAW m 2 x 3. = 6 SPACES P;2QMQF E LONG TERM CLASS A SPACES: 33 SPACE'S (PROVIDED INTERNALLY ADJACENT TO ELEVATORS. VERFrII AL '5MPAGE SPACES 0 600mm x S GOrnm) SHORT PERM CLASS S SPACES: 12 SPACES (PROMOED OEHIND LOADING AREA) Other TDM options, while not mentioned in Salvinis Parking Review and Justification (September 29, 2020) as an option, a bike fix it station internal to the building. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.sellerC�kitchener.ca 0— From:Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent:Wednesday,June 23, 202111:47 AM To: Dave Seller<Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Updated -Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment Application Comments: 276 King Street East Hi Dave You provided these comments back in March and I am just communicating them back to the applicant now.This site is under the old 85-1 Zoning By-law,which doesn't speak to bike parking requirements. It sounds like secure bike parking is something you want me to bring into this ZBA(and I agree). How many secure spots do you want?Also, are there any other TDM measures besides secure bike parking that you want me to bring into this ZBA? Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell(aDkitchener.ca Page 147 of 520 From: Dave Seller<Dave.SelIer@kitchener.ca> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 20219:26 AM To:Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Subject: Updated -Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment Application Comments: 276 King Street East City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment Application Comments Project Address: 276 King Street East Comments of:Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: March 16, 2021 a. Transportation Services offer the following comments, regarding the Parking Review and Justification submitted by Salvini Consulting (September 2020). The analysis indicated that 29 parking spaces are required for the residential component under the City of Kitchener's 85-1 zoning by-law, where zero parking is being proposed. While the commercial portion of the building requires zero parking under the City of Kitchener's 85-1 zoning by-law.Therefore, a parking shortfall of 29 spaces exists. The site is located within the D2 zone (downtown) and Salvinis analysis indicated that different alternative modes of transportation is available to reduce vehicle trips to the site such as; existing Grand River Transit, existing ION rail, shared on-street bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkability. Should someone wish to drive to the site,there are several off-site parking options.Two parking garages, one at the Kitchener Market and the second at Charles/Benton.There is also free 2 hour on-street parking available in the area. The analysis also noted that the City of Kitchener s future zoning by-law permits zero residential and commercial parking in the downtown.Therefore, Salvini Consulting has demonstrated through their analysis that the proposed parking rate for this site is reasonable and therefore,Transportation Services can support the parking reduction being sought. b. Recommend that when units are being sold/rented to tenants, that the tenants are notified prior to signing any agreements, that there is no on-site parking being provided for this development. c. The corner visibility triangle (King/Eby) noted on the submitted drawing, A1.1 Site Plan is acceptable. d. Ensure that the Class A indoor secure bicycle parking noted on drawing A2.1 First Floor Plan, conforms to the below dimensions on Illustration 5-2. 2 Page 148 of 520 Illustration 5-2; Bicycle Parkins# Stalls and Access Aisle Dimensions PWnvWw u srr' JA iriff.UM 'ter LMW MW �r I f�C�ii �ISti �� i4lMIMl411 y ,;4 sed. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.sellerCakitchener.ca 040 () 000000 3 Page 149 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Katie Wood Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:39 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: 276 King St E Attachments: 420079_FSR_276 King Street-2020-10-13 - eng comments.pdf Hey Andrew, Engineering and KU have reviewed the application and we support the following applications: • OPA20/006/K/AP • ZBA20/015/K/AP I do have some notes on the Functional Servicing Report provided. Although it doesn't change my position it may be something to share with the consultant and developer, to get them moving in the right direction. Let me know if you need anything else from me at this time. Sincerely, Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood(s:bkitchen er.ca IMI i Page 150 of 520 City of Kitchener Application Comment Form Project Address: 276 King Street East Comments due: March 5, 2021 Application Type: ZBA&OPA Comments Of: Parks &Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Ashley DeWitt Email: Ashley.Dewitt@Kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2600 x4182 Date of Comments: February 10, 2021 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑X I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments& Issues: No Comments. 2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application: No Comments. 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: No Comments. 4. Advisory Comments: No Comments. 5. Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication - Parkland dedication would be deferred to time of Site Plan application is this case, however the site is also located within the City of Kitchener Downtown Core Area and is currently exempt from parkland dedication. - Please note that any changes to the exemption area affecting future site plan applications may require a review of parkland dedication requirements. Choose an item. Page 151 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Melissa Mohr <MMohr@regionofwaterloo.ca> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 5:38 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Shilling Yip Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Stationary noise comments for 276 King Street East Good Afternoon Andrew, I have been able to connect internally with Regional staff on the stationary noise concerns. Shilling has indicated that the noise consultant has been in touch regarding the Region's comments on the noise study and that an addendum will be provided within the next few weeks. As such, staff has no objection to proceeding with a recommendation on the applications at this time, subject to the use of a holding provision to obtain a detailed stationary noise study to the satisfaction of the Region. Please be advised that the holding provision shall not be lifted until such time the Region of Waterloo has accepted the Noise Study. I trust the above is of assistance, but please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding the above. Kind Regards, Melissa Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner Confidentiality Notice: This email correspondence (including any attachments) may contain information which is confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) listed above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or have otherwise received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by replying via e-mail, and destroy all copies of this original correspondence (including any attachments). Thank you for your cooperation. Page 152 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 1:34 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (276 King Street East) Hey Andrew, This is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comment. Thanks, � IV Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority theywood@grand river.ca %W�nri; From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday,January 29, 20214:18 PM To:Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell -c/o WSP<circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller<Dave.SelIer@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz<David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; DSD - Planning Division <DSDPlannineDivision@kitchener.ca>; Feds<vped@feds.ca>; Planning<plannine@erandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplannine@hvdroone.com>;Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; K-W Hydro -Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Lesley MacDonald <Lesley.MacDonald@kitchener.ca>; Linda Cooper<Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiline@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@ope.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Parmi Takk<Parmi.Takk@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlannineApplications@reeionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator(SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; UW-SA <Steven.amirikah@uwaterloo.ca>; WCDSB- Planning<plannine@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB- Board Secretary (elaine burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine burns@wrdsb.ca>;WRDSB- Planning<plannine@wrdsb.ca> Cc:Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment-OPA/ZBA(276 King Street East) Please see attached—additional documentation can be viewed at https://kitchener.sharefile.com/home/shared/fo83c8ea-7d55-49fO-a61c-09384412f5e6. Comments or questions should be directed to Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner(copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca 0 40 4) 0 0 0 0 0G 1 Page 153 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Wang, Shaun <SWang@KWHydro.ca> Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 4:36 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Theriault, John; Stewart, Gary, Cameron, Greig; Sandro Bassanese Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (276 King Street East) Andrew, Front yard setback is not a concern for us. We don't have any hydro wire on King St. However, the side yard setback (on Eby St) requirement may impact our design choice. Regards, Shaun Wang, P. Eng. System Planning & Projects Engineer Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. P: 519-745-4771 x6312 F: 519-745-0643 swan g(cD kwhyd ro.ca K *1-1 From:Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent: Monday, March 1, 20214:21 PM To:Wang, Shaun <SWang@KWHydro.ca> Cc:Theriault,John <JTheriault@KWHydro.ca>; Stewart, Gary<GStewart@KWHydro.ca>; Cameron, Greig <GCameron@KWHydro.ca>; Sandro Bassanese<Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment-OPA/ZBA(276 King Street East) EXTERNAL EMAIL. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click links, open attachments or provide credentials Hi Shaun 1 Page 154 of 520 We're not sure what we would propose yet for the maximum front yard setback and maximum exterior side yard setback. However, it looks like the existing building on the property next door (i.e., 270 King St E) has a setback of about 1.0 metre. I could see it as a possibility for us requiring a similar setback to keep a consistent street wall. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell(a-kitchener.ca II YOU 1 From:Wang, Shaun <SWane@KWHydro.ca> Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 20211:07 PM To:Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Cc:Theriault,John <JTheriault@KWHydro.ca>; Stewart, Gary<GStewart@KWHydro.ca>; Cameron, Greig <GCameron@ KWHydro.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment-OPA/ZBA(276 King Street East) Andrew, Currently Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro has only a secondary pole line on Eby St. Depending on their load demand, we will supply the property in different ways, thus different setback requirements. If the load is less than 250kW, we may install an off-site 3-phase overhead transformer on Duke St with long secondary wires to the property. If the load is more than 300kW,we'll request an on site transformer room or space for a pad-mounted transformer. What are the setbacks that the City plans to impose for this lot? Regards, Shaun Wang, P. Eng. System Planning & Projects Engineer Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. P: 519-745-4771 x6312 F: 519-745-0643 swan g(cD kwhyd ro.ca K Wfli 2 Page 155 of 520 From:Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 202112:18 PM To:Wang, Shaun <SWang@KWHydro.ca> Cc:Theriault,John <JTheriault@KWHydro.ca>; Stewart, Gary<GStewart@KWHydro.ca>; Cameron, Greig <GCa meron @ KW Hydro.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment-OPA/ZBA(276 King Street East) EXTERNAL EMAIL. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click links, open Iattachments or provide credentials Hi Shaun Would there be any concerns with the City imposing maximum setbacks to the front and external side lot lines through this ZBA process? If so, what maximum setbacks could KW Hydro accept? Thanks, Andrew Pinnell, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x7668 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 andrew.pinnell(a-)-kitchener.ca A '0- 4T f From:Wang, Shaun <SWane@KWHydro.ca> Sent: Friday, February 5, 202110:29 AM To:Andrew Pinnell <Andrew.Pinnell @kitchener.ca> Cc:Theriault,John <JTheriault@KWHydro.ca>; Stewart, Gary<GStewart@KWHydro.ca>; Cameron, Greig <GCa meron @ KW Hydro.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment-OPA/ZBA(276 King Street East) Hi Andrew, We have reviewed the proposal and have the following comments: The developer shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener Wilmot Hydro Inc. for servicing before approval 276 King E is currently supplied by the OH transformer on Eby St. For the proposed development, a 3ph service will be required. Depending on the capacity, Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro may require an on-site transformer room and a HV switchgear room. Regards, Shaun Wang, P. Eng. 3 Page 156 of 520 System Planning & Projects Engineer Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. P: 519-745-4771 x6312 F: 519-745-0643 swan g(aD-kwhydro.ca kl LNOT T . Iry z. ZZ, Page 157 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:21 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (276 King Street East) Good Afternoon Andrew, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the above application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A)That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan.Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr,Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 1 Page 158 of 520 City of Kitchener PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION COMMENT FORM Project Address: 276 King St. E. Date of Meeting: unknown Application Type: 0PA/Zl3A Comments Of: WRDSB Commenter's Name: Nathan Hercanuck Email: nathan hercanuck@wrdsb.ca Phone: 519-570-0003 x4459 Date of Comments: February 24, 2021 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑X I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: 2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application: 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: 5. Anticipated Fees: Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Waterloo Region District School Board's Education Development Charges By-law 2016 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Education Development Charges for these developments prior to issuance of a building permit. A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 159 of 520 Attachment F - Community Comments Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:31 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Condominium Hi Andrew, am not a fan of the 276 King St E proposal. I believe the building is too large for this small neighbourhood and the historic Kitchener Farmer's Market. Additionally, no parking units available for the proposed 29 unit building? What is the target demographic of this new build? I don't think this proposal should be allowed to move forward with the City's permission. It is breaking two by-laws 1) increasing size limit & 2) lack of parking spaces. More importantly I believe that it takes away from affordable housing to the area that is desperately needed. Please include my information in your report. I can see this impacting my desire to visit the Kitchener Farmer's Market. Thanks, Concerned citizen, Page 160 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 8:31 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: King Street East proposal Hello I am writing with my concerns about the 276 King Street East proposal. I am greatly concerned that this 29 unit building proposal is in contravention of two bylaws including the increased size limit and no proposed parking. To constantly seek exemptions for by-laws to allow such builds to go forward takes away from development plans already in place for the city. I do support the need for more equitable and supportive housing but I do not feel that this project meets these criteria and that the density level will have a negative impact on the Kitchener Farmer's Market, and surrounding neighbourhood. Sincerely, i Page 161 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 7:24 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St E Proposal Hi Andrew, I am not a fan of the 276 King St E proposal. I believe the building is too large for this small neighbourhood and the historic Kitchener Farmer's Market. Additionally, no parking units available for the proposed 29 unit building?What is the target demographic of this new build? I don't think this proposal should be allowed to move forward with the City's permission. It is breaking two by-laws 1) increasing size limit& 2) lack of parking spaces. Please include my information in your report. I can see this impacting my desire to visit the Kitchener Farmer's Market and the small businesses on King street. Thanks, Concerned citizen, i Page 162 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12:09 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St E Approval Hi Andrew, I wanted to show our support for the new building plans at 276 King St E Kitchener. Application #OPA20/006/K/P. The Braun family has been involved in downtown since 1925 with multiple properties in the downtown core. We are very excited to see a nice new fresh change to 276 as it has been long overdue. This will help give us more households to support the small businesses in the area and with its high quality design it is a nice fit. Let me know if you require any more information from me. Thanks and have a great day! Braun's Locksmith i Page 163 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 9:59 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King Street East Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application Feedback c/o The Kitchener-Waterloo Racquet Club 138 Duke Street East Kitchener, ON N2H 1A7 519-745-6108 email: manager@kwracquetclub.com Hi Andrew, Thanks for keeping us in the loop with potential development in our community. The Kitchener-Waterloo Racquet Club has witnessed many changes over the 58 years we've been in business in this district. We are in support of the official plan and zoning amendments. The proposal to develop 276 King Street East into a multipurpose property is another positive step for our community. This property helps serve the need for more housing in the area and it compliments the much-needed investment in the Market District. It will provide more traffic to the local business community and based on the information you provided it's a significant upgrade to the vacant lot there now. Take Care, Kitchener-Waterloo Racquet Club i Page 164 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 10:32 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St E Importance: Low Hello. First, I wanted to say that the new style of signage for the application for development(image below) is a master-class in clear communication and light years ahead of the old style.Well done. Second, I wanted to express my support for the project proposed at 276 King St E. I think the project is at a great scale for the setting; we need more of these 4-8 storey buildings and fewer of the 20-30+ storey buildings. Further, I am really happy to see the no parking requirement; in fact I wish that the city would adopt a parking maximum policy city-wide. No parking will help to keep the cost of the building down, provide for a more active streetscape, and speed construction time. Finally, I think the mixed use is another great attribute for this project. I hope that the proposed zoning change does not get push-back from the neighbouring owners and wish that the city would "up-zone" the whole city and put the onus on the builder to prove the need for lower-density housing options.This would also speed development completion and would help to increase the housing supply we so desperately need. i Page 165 of 520 APPLI ( ls� rr( �i i, i ,\N i � R IN YC PROPOS- E i Concept Dra" 4 7-Sig rear F BuiLding U z Page 166 of 520 I've copied my ward's councillor even though this development is right on the ward 9/ 10 boundary so that she is also aware of my support for this project and for my thoughts on these many interconnect city policies. Thank-you for time. Kitchener, Ontario 3 Page 167 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 5:52 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St E proposal Hi Andrew, I am not a fan of the 276 King St E proposal. I believe the building is too large for this small neighbourhood and the historic Kitchener Farmer's Market. Additionally, no parking units available for the proposed 29 unit building? What is the target demographic of this new build? I don't think this proposal should be allowed to move forward with the City's permission. It is breaking two by-laws 1) increasing size limit &2) lack of parking spaces. Please include my information in your report. I can see this impacting my desire to visit the Kitchener Farmer's Market. Thanks, Concerned citizen, i Page 168 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 12:36 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King str east amendment Sent from my Galaxy As owner of 341and 343 King str east property I am in favor to accommodations for new developments on King str downtown area. i Page 169 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 10:31 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Neighbourhood concern Hi Andrew, I am not a fan of the 276 King St E proposal. I believe the building is too large for this small neighbourhood and the historic Kitchener Farmer's Market. Additionally, no parking units available for the proposed 29 unit building?What is the target demographic of this new build? I don't think this proposal should be allowed to move forward with the City's permission. It is breaking two by-laws 1)increasing size limit&2) lack of parking spaces. Please include my information in your report. I can see this impacting my desire to visit the Kitchener Farmer's Market. Thanks, Concerned mother, i Page 170 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 9:57 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St E concern! Hi Andrew, am not a fan of the 276 King St E proposal. As a mother with 2 young children, I believe the building is too large for this small neighbourhood and the historic Kitchener Farmer's Market. Additionally, no parking units available for the proposed 29 unit building? What is the target demographic of this new build? I don't think this proposal should be allowed to move forward with the City's permission. It is breaking two by-laws 1) increasing size limit & 2) lack of parking spaces. Please include my information in your report. I can see this impacting my desire to visit the Kitchener Farmer's Market. Thanks, Page 171 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:35 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at King & Eby Hi Andrew, I own The Yeti cafe, on Eby St. N in Kitchener. I am writing to express my support of the proposed apartment building next door(276 King) I feel our area needs more density. It will be good for business and increase the vibrancy of downtown. All the best, Victoria THE YETI Tel+519-729-5242 theyeticafe.com Best Breakfast in KW 2018, 2017, 2016, 2014 The Community Edition Best of the Best Restaurants of 2013 -The Record Winner of the 2012 Downtown Kitchener customer service award @theyeticafe CAFKA 1 Page 172 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 9:48 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for 276 King re-zoning Dear Mr. Pinnell, I came across the re-zoning for 276 King and I'd like to voice my support for it. I live in a similar style of mid-rise building near the area and I regularly walk to the market with my partner and our dog. From observing on our walks, it's pretty clear that the eastern part of Kitchener's downtown hasn't really seen the same level of development and investment compared to the section closer to city hall: I believe that buildings like the proposed one will go a long way towards bringing more businesses and people to the area who have a long term stake in the local economy. Best regards, vmmffi� 610-399 Queen Street South Kitchener, ON N2G OC4 1 Page 173 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 5:33 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Neighbourhood Meeting Follow-up and Engagement Survey - 276 King Street East Hello, here is my feedback based on the presentation: As a downtown resident who formerly lived around 100m away from the site (on Duke St) I believe that the 276 King E project will benefit downtown and help improve access to housing for a larger number of people near the market area than currently exists.The current mix of housing, increase in housing costs and influx of new residents has made it more difficult and competitive to find a housing unit in the market area. Having more housing options in walkable areas served well by transit will help give a greater number of people access to amenities in the area than currently exist. After learning about the height and massing factors I support the design as-is as I believe a reduction would be a waste of valuable vertical and horizontal space in downtown, possibly lead to a reduction in the size and/or number of units, and result in the demolition of a brick century home for little gain for present and future residents. If a century home is going to be demolished then it should be for a project which will make it count and improve the area while also giving more people convenient access to things like the Kitchener Market. I am highly supportive of the zero-parking plan as I believe any amount of parking would by definition bring vehicles to Eby Street,which is quiet and market-adjacent and sees a large number of pedestrians on market days, as well as being the location of a cafe business with an outdoor streetside component, as well as that stretch of King Street,which is already difficult to cross due to the lack of an official and lights-controlled pedestrian crossing at King/Eby,which encourages jaywalking by giving fewer legal and convenient crossing options to pedestrians. Bringing more vehicle traffic to the area would not help and would only make the area more hectic, congested, and dangerous.Therefore I support as little parking as possible for this development and fully support the zero-parking initiative. I believe there is a latent demand for zero-parking buildings from non-car owners and consider the indoor and outdoor bicycle parking to be a useful amenity I would like to see more of in residential buildings as a cyclist and bicycle owner. I believe the presence of a nearby parking garage as well as street parking in the area should be more than sufficient. Similarly I also support the ground-floor commercial unit(s) as I believe with the presence of the market and the amount of pedestrian traffic, the units would be well-located and increase the amount of commercial space available in the neighbourhood. A mixed-use building with commercial space is the kind of development I would like to see more of in the city as it would help bring businesses closer to people as well as people closer to businesses. Thank you for your work and take care, Page 174 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:06 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on 276 King St E proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments Hello Andrew, I'm writing about the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments at 276 King St E. I live nearby at the Market Lofts, behind the Kitchener Market at 165 Duke St E. I just want to voice my support for the current proposal. I think this proposal is good for increasing the density in the area, and improves the streetscape down this part of King St. I love how this new development will also bring more people to this area to enjoy. It's nice to see further development on this part of King St. I think the removed parking requirement is fine,with transit options and extra parking availability in the vicinity. I believe the incorporated ground-level commercial space is integral to the proposal, and I hope it will not be removed throughout the process. I think it is needed to tie the proposed building to the existing street, especially King St, to better integrate the building into the community. With previous examples of buildings dropping their ground-level commercial space during the process (for example, 63 Scott Street), I hope this will not be the case with this proposal. I suspect you don't hear a lot of positive feedback from proposed plans and zoning by-law amendments, so here is one on the good side! Have a great day! 1 Page 175 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 10:57 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King East Comments Hi Andrew, My name is and I run Workhaus Coworking at the corner of King and Eby Streets in Downtown Kitchener next to the proposed development by Pioneer Tower Homes at 276 King Street East. I am getting in touch to express our support for the project in principle. On behalf of my employer, I strongly commend any development in the Downtown King East area as it is sorely needed to bring the area in line with its King West counterpart. The new developments — including 276 King East— will also indirectly address issues such as crime, prostitution, and otherwise poor behaviour that often is associated with the area. In Late February, I had a call with Marko at Pioneer Tower Homes. I explained that I supported the project for the reasons listed above but I had concerns regarding noise caused by the construction of the development. The property is approximately 10-15 meters from our main entrance, lounge, kitchen, and boardrooms. As a professional office space with paying members, my concern is that if there is too much noise caused by construction (drills, trucks backing up, hammering, workers, etc), our members will complain and there will be nothing I can do resulting in yet another major loss of business after rebuilding post-pandemic. This is simply unsustainable and may result in yet another established business leaving Downtown Kitchener. Marko has assured me that Eby will only be closed as necessary and much of the building will be precast concrete allowing it to go up quickly. He has also been clear that he wants to be a good neighbour and work with everyone and that's very much appreciated. If you need clarification on anything above, please let me know. Best, i Page 176 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 7:19 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St E proposal Hi Andrew, am not a fan of the 276 King St E proposal. I believe the building is too large for this small neighbourhood and the historic Kitchener Farmer's Market. Additionally, no parking units available for the proposed 29 unit building? What is the target demographic of this new build? I don't think this proposal should be allowed to move forward with the City's permission. It is breaking two by-laws 1) increasing size limit & 2) lack of parking spaces. Please include my information in your report. I can see this impacting my desire to visit the Kitchener Farmer's Market. Thanks, Concerned citizen, Sent from my Whone i Page 177 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:52 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pioneer Town Home Zoning OPA20/006/K/AP Hi Andrew, I hope you're doing well today and are safe. I received a letter in the mail in regards 7 storey mixed used building that is being built on King St E. I'm the property owner of Tiffany LN Corp at 206 King St E. I am just concerned about parking. Since on the application they're requesting not to include any parking for commercial use. Not to mention the current zoning doesn't require parking for residential use either. I believe that there should be dedicated parking for both commercial and residential. Whether it be surface or underground. King St is already very congested. With the development of the property more local traffic will congest the streets. By not including any additional parking spaces in their plan this will significantly impact local traffic. Considering this building will have a higher density of people and no additional spaces to park. Making it much harder to park in an area that is already hard to find parking. Even if they do include parking within their plan, they should make an effort to include EV charging stations. As there isn't much/or any EV charging stations in the area. This would be a great opportunity to introduce it in the area. I hope my comments will be of some use. Kind regards, 1 Page 178 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:00 AM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St East - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Hi Andrew, Hope you and your family are staying safe and healthy during these times. I received a letter in the mail regarding this property since my company owns the property at 293 King St East across the street. I had a few questions. Can you tell me how many units will end up being in this building if it gets approved ? and also the size of the units proposed ? Finally can you tell me when the meeting dates will be for these ? I assume they will be on the Cities youtube channel ? Thanks very much and I look forward to hearing back Cheers Mortgage Agent Mortgage Alliance ftl7 BrokerTm-fthtMortgageO -RightP/aceTm DISCLAIMER:This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named.If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate,distribute or copy this e-mail.Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing,copying,distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. 1 Page 179 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Friday,July 2, 2021 4:01 PM To: Andrew Pinnell; Subject: [EXTERNAL] remove sign from 12 eby st N Hi Andrew, I am one of the residents at 12 eby st N our landlord is Marko, we cant get a hold of him lately and he did nt even notify about the sign that this will be torn down. We would like it removed ASAP because now are windows are getting smashed out, our front window on the door got smashed out so we would apprciate that you remove that sign. They are damaging the house because they know it will be torn down. You can put it back up if the house is vacant. Also Marko said to my husband Bill that he wouldnt sell this house because he just bought it 6 months ago at that time. So we had no idea what Marko was up to. We put so much work into this house Marko had no right do to what he did. 1 Page 180 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:18 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King Street East Dear Andrew, I'm writing to express my support for the 7-storey mixed-use building proposed at 276 King Street East, and the corresponding Official Plan Amendment Application OPA20/006/K/Ap and Zoning Bi-law Amendment Application ZBA20/015/K/AP. As a downtown resident, an athletic club member, and a market district commercial landlord, I live,work, and play within walking distance of the market district.As a stakeholder in the neighbourhood, I believe that the market district has largely been overlooked by private developers and additional investment is required in order to increase the vibrancy of this gateway to downtown. Both the City and the Region have made significant investments in the Kitchener Market and the ION Light Rail in recent years, so it makes good sense to be encouraging additional private investment by welcoming higher density, pedestrian oriented developments to this neighbourhood. After all, the area is an Urban Growth Centre in A Place to Grow and higher density is suitable. The rendering of the proposed building is modern and attractive, and Downtown Kitchener is in need of quality mid-rise residential building developments like this one. A building of this size and scale fills a gap for those who want to enjoy pedestrian-friendly condo living in the core, without having to share busy elevators in the high-rise skyscrapers of Duke Tower Kitchener, Young Condos, and Charlie West. I look forward to watching the continued progress of Downtown Kitchener. Sincerely, mmn� 200 King St E., Kitchener ON N2G 21-1 1 Page 181 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 6:51 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Neighbourhood Meeting Follow-up and Engagement Survey - 276 King Street East Hi Andrew, Thanks for the follow up. I attended the meeting last night and didn't say anything then, but just wanted to provide my thoughts in writing before the next steps. Overall I'm in support of the project. I think it's a perfect size for the community and I think a building with one bedroom units and no parking will fit a demographic that wants to live in this area. Some reservations however, are the lack of affordable units and the ground level interactions with King and Eby street. In this neighbourhood in particular there is a great need for affordable housing-is there nothing we can do to request the developer include a set proportion of units as below market value? I'm somewhat familiar with zoning or by-law amendments and think I've heard of negotiations with developers to allow them to build higher but in return, provide something the city needs. Could something like that be possible in this case for a few affordable units? Slightly less importantly, I am concerned with how the building will fit with the particular scene on Eby St, particularly on Saturday mornings. I understand there will be commercial on the ground floor, but will it just be a plain glass corporate box right at the property line, or will it activate and spill out onto the street like The Yeti and the market/Market Lane do? I would echo another attendee's concern about the building materials as well: I would like to see something that does make an attempt to blend in with perhaps more brick than glass and metal To summarize, I would say that while extremely supportive of a development of this size and style in general at this location, I do worry about affordability for CURRENT residents of the area and would like to see a building that is influenced by-and meaningfully adds to -the very unique streetscape of Eby/King. Thanks for an informative and helpful meeting. I don't necessarily need a response to any questions above,just wanted to place them theoretically in case relevant discussions occur down the line. Cheers Page 182 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 5:48 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St E Proposal Hello, I am the owner of 154 Duke St E., Kitchener ON N2H 1A7 and I received your letter re: 276 King St E and the proposal for zoning changes. I would like to write my support for this zoning change. More density downtown is a good thing and this seems to be a good fit for the neighbourhood and well in scale with other developments a block down at King and Cedar. i Page 183 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:10 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King St Hello Andrew, While at the Market, I saw the application sign up at 276 King St. I'm writing to lend my support. I own a unit in a similar building downtown. This area of downtown is badly in need of investment, and modern buildings like this one would go a long way. It would also bring more people to the market, and surrounding restaurants. My property is located at 101-399 Queen St S - Barra Condos Thank you kindly Sir Ae Broker Real Mort a e Associates OnlinP-m4cieOicati 1 Page 184of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:53 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King Street East Hi Andrew, I am emailing you to provide my strong support for the proposed project at 276 King Street East. I grew up in Kitchener-Waterloo and have owned 118 Weber Street E, in the near vicinity, for the past 4.5 years. For several decades, King Street East and the surrounding area has been rough and filled with derelict buildings. It was a very undesirable area to say the least. However, in the past few years we have seen many exciting and positive changes in the area! Public investment spearheaded by the Region and City with projects like the Kitchener Market and the LRT has been successful in attracting investment from the private sector.We can see this with the many new developments that have been completed and those that are currently underway. I strongly encourage the City to continue to welcome this development in Kitchener. Developments like the one at 276 King Street East will bring more people, more businesses, more transit users, and more vibracy to our area.The work to improve our downtown has only just begun and we must not take this sort of development for granted. Should we stand in opposition to these sorts of developments we will find that all of the great groundwork done by the Region and City will quickly erode.We must continue the positive momentum. Furthermore, the housing crisis that we are experiencing is top of mind for many people. Housing prices and rents have never been higher in our Region. It is concerning. I encourage the City to continue to allow projects like the one at 276 King Street East to ensure that we grow the necessary supply of housing so that we may alleviate this crisis rather than exacerbate it. If the City is sincere in its stance on affordable housing then we must allow the housing supply to increase. If ou would like to connect with me regarding my support for this project you can contact meat the following: Mailing Address: 108 Garden Tree Court Waterloo, ON N2L 5Z1 Best, 1 Page 185 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 9:15 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] 276 King Hi Andrew, Thanks to you and everyone else at the city who ran the meeting tonight. It was very helpful. I wanted to provide my feedback. Overall I'm in support of the project. I especially like that it is purpose built rental, because I think there is very little of that being built and added to the housing stock lately. At the same time, housing is becoming increasingly expensive, and at market rents sadly these units will be out of reach of many. Given that the developer is seeking variances,which will financially benefit them significantly, I think it would be fair for them to share that benefit with the city, by which I mean that the variances should be granted on the condition of some of the units being set aside as affordable housing rentals. The councillor mentioned that affordable housing was a top priority of council. And for the same reasons that the developer gave for not needing parking, this would be a great location for affordable housing, because it is on transit and connected to the cycling network.The developer also gave one justification for the lack of parking being that a zoning change that's in the works would have the whole area no longer require parking, so by that same logic we can look at the inclusionary zoning that's in the works as well. Perhaps the city can do a rough calculation of how much financial gain the variances will grant and use that to determine how many units should be set aside with a 50/50 split of the extra gain?Or perhaps it can be determined by looking at the inclusionary zoning targets that are in development or the numbers used by other municipalities that already have inclusionary zoning in place? Generally I believe that developers should strive for a good mix of unit size, but I think the developer's point about the small lot size and awkward shape is fair, so for this particular development I think it's better to focus on getting more affordable units. As a final note, I will say that the developer lost trust with me when during the meeting they first stated that the site had been vacant for 10 years, and one of the attendees called them on it and they admitted a family is currently living there. I understand that sometimes people are displaced, and 1 family shouldn't take priority over 29, but I think it was dishonest of the developer to claim it was vacant when it was not, and that reflects very poorly on the developer in my opinion.That makes me worry that perhaps other aspects of the proposal are intentionally inaccurate. But I trust city staff to ensure that, if approved, they are held to their commitments. Thank you very much for considering my feedback. i Page 186 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 7:25 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Family unfriendly Hi Andrew I am writing you today,to share my concerns over the proposed development at 276 King Street east. I feel that the addition of 29 units without parking will cause an increase in street parking and street congestion. As a mother this is concerning when trying to access the kitchener market. I also find it concerning that your proposal does not include and family sized units.This is an older area of downtown with a rich history. I believe that your proposed development will jeopardize the sense of community this area provides. Especially with a lack of any family sized units. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration. Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new. —Albert Einstein i Page 187 of 520 Andrew Pinnell From: Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 8:23 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: Re: 12 Eby Street North Proposal Attachments: Re-zoning Concerns 12 Eby St. N..pdf Hi Andrew, I did not find Joanne McCallum linked in the present email. I will attach the updated version of our petition and the emails of those who would like to be present at the meeting: Thanks, Page 188 of 520 CONCERNS RE: 12 EBY ST. N. KITCHENER RE-ZONING PROPOSAL April 5, 2021 Primer Eby Street, and the Market District itself, is an important neighbourhood that symbolizes both past and present for the City of Kitchener. Although the area is both commercial and residential, its century homes and heritage architecture, both new and old, offer much charm to the popular downtown core. The area is increasingly known as an attraction to both residents and visitors with offerings like the popular Kitchener Market and an ever-growing restaurant and "foodie" hub. We as a community of residents, homeowners, and small-business owners, present a list of concerns regarding the proposal presented by Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. We collectively believe the long-term consequences of this project would outweigh the short-term benefits gained by such a venture. Re-zoning to allow a maximum building height of 28.5 meters from the currently allowed 17.5 meters and allowing for design completely detached from the present heritage architecture, as the new project proposes, would set a potentially perilous precedent encouraging a destruction of the historical aesthetic of the neighbourhood and limit the appeal and popularity to the growing numbers of visitors to the benefit of short-sighted profit-driven developers. The proposed changes would also cause a significant decrease in the enjoyment of property of Market District land owners due to noise pollution, privacy concerns, aesthetic concerns, amongst other complaints. One only needs to go to the bustling Toronto Kensington Market or Montreal Jean-Talon Farmers' Market to understand the potential for the growth and tourism appeal of the Kitchener Market District. These pedestrian focused urban ecosystems are in harmony with the surrounding century homes, green-spaces and heritage architecture with emphasis on building height and materials. The Market District is rich with heritage, history, and culture and its future is bright as evidenced by the growing number of restaurants, cafes and businesses. It is our assessment and request that the building height increase be denied and any future buildings in this area should be representative of and respectful to the historical aesthetic of the area. We must look to the potential and future of the Market District area and promote it to the best of our ability lest we lose it to the monolithic landscapes of charmless cities devoid of character with their backs to history. Concern 8 One must question —does the benefit of demolishing what should be a heritage home and replacing it with architecture disrespectful to the area's history outweigh the benefit of preserving a pedestrian-focused and historically rich ecosystem? If this proposal gains ground, will the precedent set forth of increasing allowances for building height maximums then lead to a slippery-slope of ever-increasing building heights surrounding the Kitchener Market District and disrupting the 140 years of history this area has prospered from as a local place of business, life and tourism? 1 Page 189 of 520 Consequences 8 Neighborhood aesthetic; Any future proposals or new buildings should aim to be shaped, scaled, and designed to maintain and enhance livability and express the character of the area in which they are located. The proposal in question makes, in our opinion as neighbours, a ridicule of the Market District and its current aesthetic charm. The area is populated with century-old double brick homes that are well maintained. Additionally the present condominiums, The Market Lofts, attached to the Farmers' Market fit the style of the Market District quite well and blend in with their brickwork and allocated height, which is capped at less than half of this new proposal. Height impact: By allowing an increase in building-height neighbouring homes and businesses will be negatively impacted through limited sun access; decreased sense of privacy; potential wind impacts; traffic congestion and limited parking spaces. Noise Pollution: The Market District prides itself in promoting a pedestrian first effort and minimizing automobile traffic through small streets. As a bonus, residents of this community have an ironic benefit of low noise-pollution being so close in proximity to King St and the downtown core. A proposal of this scale infringes on the local resident's rights to enjoy their leisure time without unnecessary noise pollution. Local small-business impact: Construction disruption along with road closures may negatively impact local businesses. The Yeti Cafe, the next door neighbour to this proposal may experience a disruption of normal business flow as a cause of this unnecessary project. The Kitchener Farmers' Market may also experience a short-term loss of business as patrons aim to avoid active construction zones —further exacerbating the pandemic related lull in business activities. Environmental impact: How will the demolition efforts aim to mitigate any potential damage regarding physical and occupational health to neighbouring homes and patrons during the process? Concluding Remarks 8 We, residents, homeowners, and small-business owners in The Market District, find the proposed re-zoning change unfavourable and perilously setting up a precedent of taller and larger condominiums infringing and disrupting our unique ecosystem. We ask that the century-old home be respected as if a recognized heritage home and that the property not be changed or significantly altered in any way. However, in the unfortunate event that the new corporate owner, Pioneer Tower Homes Inc. would like to proceed with the demolition of this unprotected piece of history, we request that the zoning of The Market District remain respected at the present maximally allowed height and any building materials and design should be consistent with the aesthetics of the neighbourhood. This would ensure the future preservation of this culturally significant area. That this is a proposed condominium, does not necessitate that the building must be built in ways that are inconsistent and disrespectful to the Market District; the example of the Market Lofts is one of meaningful and harmonious contribution to this area. Thank you for this opportunity in addressing our concerns surrounding the proposal for the mid-size condominium project at 12 Eby Street N., Kitchener. 2 Page 190 of 520 MARKET VILLAGE ZONE STAKEHOLDERS Name Title Date Homeowner and resident Mar 5 2021 16 Eby St, N. Kitchener Homeowner and resident Mar 5 2021 16 Eby St, N. Kitchener Homeowner and local business owner Mar 5 2021 7 Moyer PI. Kitchener Homeowner and local business owner Mar 5 2021 7 Moyer PI. Kitchener Resident, Mar 5 2021 14 Eby St. N. Kitchener Resident, Apr 5 2021 12 Eby St. N. Kitchener Resident, Apr 5 2021 12 Eby St. N. Kitchener Resident, Apr 5 2021 12 Eby St. N. Kitchener Resident, Apr 5 2021 12 Eby St. N. Kitchener 3 Page 191 of 520 Staff Report x�i _N I,I Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante - Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 9 DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-263 SUBJECT: 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment OPA21/011/V/ES and ZBA/21/017/V/ES Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited RECOMMENDATION: That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA/21/011/V/ES, for Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited requesting to add Site Specific Policy Area 6 to Map 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) of the Official Plan and to add Site Specific Policy 15.D.2.69 to facilitate a mixed use development having 1,124 residential units and 1,750 square metres of commercial space with a Floor Space Ratio (FSR)of 11.7, be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD-2022-263 as Attachment `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for approval, and That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/017/V/ES for Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1', attached to Report DSD-2022-263 as Attachment `B'; and further That in accordance with Planning Act Section 45 (1.3 & 1.4), applications for minor variances shall be permitted for lands subject to Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA21/017/V/ES. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the lands located at 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street. It is Planning staffs recommendation that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment be approved. • Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site; o installation of 2 large billboard notice signs on the property; o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; o reoccurring meetings with a community member group; o Neighbourhood Meeting held on February 8, 2022; *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 192 of 520 o notice advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation; and those who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting; o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on May 20, 2022. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Planning staff is recommending approval of the requested Official Plan Amendment to add Site Specific Policy Area 6 to Map 4 and Policy 15.D.2.69 to the text in the Official Plan to allow for an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 11.7. Planning Staff is recommending approval of the requested Zoning By-law Amendment application to change the zoning from being split zoned (MU- 1 and MU-2) with special provisions 401U, 1R, 524R, 525R, and 526R in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `MIX-3' with Site Specific Regulation 341 and a new Holding Provision 36H in Zoning By-law 19-051 to permit a 3-tower mixed use development with an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR), reduced front and exterior side yard, require a minimum amount of non-residential floor area, increase in minimum amount of street line fagade width and fagade openings, reduction in parking and a Holding Provision to require remediation of the site contamination. BACKGROUND: The City of Kitchener has received applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment from Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited (a company owned by DOV Capital) for a development concept that includes 3 towers with heights of 38, 36, and 25 storeys on a 4-6 storey podium that in total contains 1,124 residential units and 1,750 m2 of commercial space. The lands are within the `Urban Growth Centre' and designated `Mixed-Use' in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The proposed Official Plan Amendment is to add a Site-Specific Policy Area 6 and Policy 15.D.2.69 to increase the Floor Space Ratio to 11.7. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would remove the subject lands from Zoning By-law 85-1 and move the lands into the new Zoning By-law 2019-051. The zoning of the land varies, with some parcels having either Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-1) or Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-2) as base zones. There are also a range of special regulations that apply to individual parcels. The proposed zoning in Zoning By-law 2019-051 is Mixed Use Three (MIX-3) with site specific provision 341 and Holding provision 36H. Site specific provision 341 includes special regulations for front yard and exterior side yard setbacks, building height in metres and storeys, an increased floor space ratio (FSR), minimum non-residential floor area, street line fagade width, fagade openings, parking rate, and prohibition on geothermal wells. Holding Provision 36H is proposing to prohibit residential occupancy until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) has been completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Site Context The subject lands are addressed as 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street and are situated within the City of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre (Downtown). The subject lands are located on the northerly side of the corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street. The subject lands have a lot area 0.9 hectares (2.22 acres) with a frontage of approximately 87 metres on Victoria Street South and a frontage of approximately 99 metres on Park Street. The subject lands are comprised of 7 parcels that contain various 1-3 storey buildings, including single detached and Page 193 of 520 duplex dwellings, as well as commercial buildings containing warehousing, a printing shop, and other commercial uses. The surrounding neighbourhood contains a variety of uses including high-rise mixed use, commercial, and low-rise residential buildings. To the north, the subject lands abut the City-owned Bramm Yards property at 55 Bramm Street. J os�p/y ST 41 SUBJECT AREA ��G' Al �`O Mi�y� q�fi T T Al Sz �7 Z� 0�1 d� Figure 1 - Location Map: 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street REPORT: The applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands with a 3-tower (38, 36, & 25 storeys), mixed use building containing 1,124 residential dwelling units, 1,750 square metres of commercial floor space on the ground floor, with 3 green roof/outdoor amenity areas on top of a 4-6 storey shared podium, 699 vehicle parking spaces and 675 secure bicycle parking spaces located underground and in an above-grade parking structure in the podium. The principal entrance is proposed to be located at the pedestrian plaza on the corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street. Ground floor commercial unit entrances facing Victoria Street South are accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Three vehicular accesses are proposed; one on Victoria Street South, one on Park Street (primary vehicular entrances) and one on Bramm Street (service/loading entrance). The proposed development is located in close proximity to the Huck Glove building (now called GloveBox), which has been converted to office uses. The proposed development includes a 6 storey podium (base) which is sensitive in scale, massing and comparable to the height of the GloveBox building which is located to the north. Through the review and evaluation of the application, a revised development proposal has been prepared. The original concept proposed 1,150 dwelling units with a vehicle parking rate of 0.54 spaces per unit and a bicycle parking rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. The original development concept contained 1- and 2-bedroom units only. In response to comments received from City staff and the Page 194 of 520 public, the applicant has amended the proposal to 1,124 dwelling units, a vehicle parking rate of 0.6 spaces per unit, a bicycle parking rate of 0.6 spaces per unit, and has included 3-bedroom units in the proposal. To facilitate the redevelopment of the subject lands, an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are proposed. The Official Plan Amendment would add Site-Specific Policy Area 6 and Policy 15.D.2.69 to allow for a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 11.7. The Zoning By-law Amendment would remove the lands from Zoning By-law 85-1 and move the lands into Zoning By-law 2019-051. It would change the zoning from the split zoned `Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone/Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone' (MU-1/MU-2) to `Mixed Use Three Zone' (MIX-3). The proposed amendment would also apply a new site specific provision (341) for minimum front yard and exterior side yard setback, maximum building height in metres and storeys, maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR), minimum non-residential floor area, minimum street line fagade width, minimum fagade openings, minimum vehicle and bicycle parking rate, and a prohibition on geothermal wells. The Zoning By-law Amendment would also establish a new Holding Provision (36H) to prevent the development of the site with sensitive uses, including residential uses, until the site contamination has been remediated. Planning Analysis: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25. Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q)The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with Page 195 of 520 other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed designation and zoning facilitate a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options including bus and rapid transit and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks.The lands are serviced and are in proximity to cycling networks, multiple parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. The proposed mixed-use development represents an attainable form of market-based housing with a mix of unit types. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed-use development that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make efficient use of the existing infrastructure. The proposed development will create more housing options in the Downtown within walking distance to jobs and amenities. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit this amount of intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including Urban Growth Centres and major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policies 2.2.3 1 (a) (b) and (d) identifies that Urban Growth Centres will be planned as focal areas for investment in regional public service facilities, as well as commercial, recreational, cultural, and entertainment uses, that Urban Growth Centres plan to accommodate significant population and employment growth, and that Urban Growth Centres are to accommodate and support the transit network at a regional scale. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; Page 196 of 520 ii. public service facilities, co-located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly-accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated Urban Growth Centre (UGC), and within a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for both the Victoria Park Ion Station and the Central Ion Station. Urban Growth Centres plan to accommodate significant population and employment growth. The Region of Waterloo has commenced the Regional Official Plan Review (ROPR) project and as part of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council. These lands are located within the Regionally endorsed MTSA boundary. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. The proposed development directly implements Policies 2.2.3 1 (a) (b)and (d)which identifies that Urban Growth Centres will be planned to accommodate significant population growth. The mixed use development is also proposed to include several unit types that vary in sizes, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated `Urban Growth Centre' and `Built-Up Area' on Schedule 3a in the ROP. The Region's Urban Growth Centres are to be planned and developed to accommodate a significant share of the Region's future population and employment growth. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking-water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.2 of the ROP as the development promotes higher density development close to transit stops, promotes an appropriate mix of land uses, and supports a compact urban form that locates transit supportive uses within a comfortable walking distance within a Major Transit Station Area. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications or to higher density within the MTSA area and Urban Growth Centre of the Region as the type of high-density development proposed on site supports the Planned Community Function of the ROP. (Attachment `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the ROP. Page 197 of 520 City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community. Official Plan policy 17.E.12.6 of the OP notes that the City will consider all applications to amend the Zoning By-law and will provide notice of such application in accordance with the provisions and regulations of the Planning Act. Urban Structure The OP establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas are targeted throughout the Built- up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre (UGC), Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), Nodes and Corridors, in this hierarchy, according to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within the UGC. The UGC (Downtown) is the primary Urban Structure Component and Intensification Area. The planned function of the UGC is to accommodate a significant share of the Region's and City's future population and employment growth. Section 3.C.2.13 of the OP indicates that the UGC is planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum density of 225 residents and jobs combined per hectare and assist in achieving the minimum residential intensification target identified in Policy 3.C.1.6. The UGC is planned to be a vibrant Regional and Citywide focal point and destination and is intended to be the City's primary focal point for residential intensification as well as for investment in institutional and Region-wide public services, commercial, office, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses. The site is also within the Central Station Area and within 800 metres of both the Central and Victoria Park ION stops. In accordance with Policy 3.C.2.17 of the OP, the planned function of the MTSAs is to provide densities that will support transit, and achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional and commercial uses. They are also intended to have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian- friendly and transit-oriented. Policies also require that development applications in MTSAs give consideration to the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) policies contained in Section 13.C.3.12 of the OP. Generally, the TOD policies support a compact urban form, that supports walking, cycling and the use of transit, by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to transit stops, to support higher frequency transit service and optimize transit rider convenience. These policies also support developments which foster walkability by creating safe and comfortable pedestrian environments and a high-quality public realm. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will help to increase density in an area well served by nearby transit and rapid transit while being context sensitive to surrounding lands and provides excellent access to off-road pedestrian and cycling facilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment will support a development that complies with the City's policies for the UGC and MTSA. Page 198 of 520 Room to Grow go l j !ar r• r iy By area, 25% of Kitchener's MTSA lands are currently occupied by buildings. Compare that to the 50% of lands that are occupied by paved surfaces, which are primarily surface parking lots. This map shows a portion of the Central Station MTSA, with orange representing buildings and blue representing paved surfaces. Source: City of Kitchener Figure 2- Infographic of Current Land Coverage in MTSA's in Kitchener Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated as Mixed Use' (Map 4, Urban Growth Centre) in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Mixed Use land designation is intended to be flexible and responsive to land use pattern changes and demands and permit a broad range of uses and intensities. The mix of uses within the same building is preferred. Redevelopment of properties will be encouraged to achieve a high standard of urban design, be compatible with surrounding areas, be transit supportive and cycling and pedestrian friendly. Inclusion of commercial and retail uses, rather than solely residential developments, are encouraged to contribute to the vibrancy of the surrounding area. Lands designated Mixed Use have the capacity to accommodate additional density and intensification of uses. The primary residential uses permitted are medium and high rise residential uses. Policy 15.D.2.3 states that the Urban Growth Centre will be planned to accommodate and support major transit infrastructure, and that transit supportive uses are vital to the downtown. Objective 15.4.4 encourages the retention and support of a viable retail and commercial presence within lands designated Mixed Use. The proposed development contemplates 1,750 square metres of retail and commercial space on the ground floor of the podium facing Victoria Street South. Objective 15.4.5 indicates that lands designated Mixed Use shall be transit supportive, walkable, and integrated and interconnected to the rest of the City. The proposed development is located on lands within a Major Transit Station Area (800m of an Ion Station stop), and bus transit options (Route 20) are located directly across from the subject site on Victoria Street South. The proposed Page 199 of 520 development is also proposing to include a large pedestrian plaza at the corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street, leading to the primary entrance. The pedestrian plaza and entrance helps to create a human scale, and an inviting atmosphere for pedestrians and cyclists interacting with the site. Objective 15.4.6 speaks to ensuring that uses, built form and building design are compatible with surrounding low rise neighbourhoods. The proposed towers are to be set back from the street and built atop a 4-6 storey podium. The podium height is similar to surrounding existing buildings (such as the GloveBox building) and will act as a buffer between the street edge and the proposed towers. The podium will be actively animated, with glazing and storefronts at street level that help to provide a human scale and inviting ground floor street presence. As shown below on excerpts from the City's Official Plan, the lands on the opposite of Park Street (Victoria Street Secondary Plan) and the lands on the opposite side of Victoria Street (Victoria Park Secondary Plan) are designated as Mixed Use Corridor and are planned to be redeveloped over time and will serve a transitional function between lands within the UGC (including the subject lands) and lands developed with low rise residential uses. The subject lands are shown in grey on the plans below. VICTORIA STREET NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN FOR LAND USE MAP 16 ` SECONDARY PLAN Legend Low Rise Multiple Residential � f i! Low Density Multiple Residential y Mixed Use Corridor �+ A Open Space Boundary of Secondary Plan \ 5..,.. Special Palicy Area Primary Arterial Road Secondary Arterial Road Major Colleclor Road Connector Road J Page 200 of 520 VICTORIA PARK. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN FOR LAND USE MAP 14 SECONDARY PLAN • 41xra Ohe ersrrdr� „✓ • f `l,, tir 9aundary al Semrrdary F%an `�r SPera+M F'dsc1-Ansa i Fkmary AMenal Road Secoman,Anenai Hord MRX C)110=r RoaG r Gamocior ltaao \ Scw%c-MwWW R=d PARTS Central Plan The subject lands are located within the PARTS Central Plan which is a guiding document that made recommendations for land uses within and around rapid transit station stops. The PARTS Central Plan made recommendations for amendments to the Secondary Plans within the MTSA, which have not yet been implemented. Objectives outlined for the vision of the PARTS Central area include: • Promote redevelopment on underutilized lots • Support compact and sustainable development patterns to make efficient use of Central's land and resources • Support a range of services that appeal to a broad range of users to encourage a vibrant and safe environment • Support active transportation by improving connectivity, convenience, access and mobility to and from ION stops, destinations and amenities • Inspire and promote creative, high quality design through the encouragement and support of architectural excellence The proposed applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment seek to redevelop underutilized lots, support compact development with high density, provide a range of services in ground floor commercial space, promote active transportation with prioritized pedestrian design, and achieve high quality architecture. Page 201 of 520 ___ ION Station Stops LRT + NORTH aBRT L--J IGO ION Route Meters V LRT Stage 1 %/ LRT Stage 2 w ,,^1 a6RTS€age t Major Transit Station Area �800m Draft Recommended Boundaries Draft Recommended Focus Area Draft Recommerded Influence Area Roads and Corridors Highways Major Roads ' - Rail Corridor -- - Hydro Condor • - -7— •-....Rivers and Lales Figure 3- Parts Central Plan excerpt showing subject lands area Urban Design Urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's Official Plan. The design policies intend to achieve a high standard of urban design, architecture, and place-making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability, and economic viability. The policies acknowledge that urban design goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of individual buildings and also considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of strengthening complete communities. The applicant submitted an Urban Design Report with the applications to outline and address the proposal in relation to the City's urban design policies in the Official Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines. In the opinion of staff, the proposed development meets the intent of these policies including those related to: Streetscape; Safety; Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. Site Design, Massing and Scale — The building base is situated to provide a strong urban edge to Park Street and Victoria Street. The building base provides active uses at the ground floor and encourages activity and interaction. The pedestrian plaza located at the corner of the site is intended to provide a safe, comfortable and functional entrance and provide circulation for pedestrians accessing the site. Loading and service areas are internalized in the development, away from the primary entrances. Access for service and loading is provided along Bramm Street. Universal Design and Safety-The proposed layout ensures safe and comfortable movements to and through the subject site, including walkways designed for universal accessibility. Emergency signage and appropriate lighting will address safety on site. Wind Study A pedestrian wind impact study has been prepared by the applicant to assess potential wind comfort and safety conditions on and around the subject site. Wind conditions are expected to be suitable in the summer months, but could be less comfortable in the winter months around the building corners. Areas on one of the outdoor amenity areas on the 7th floor are also less comfortable but can be mitigated with wind control features. Further mitigative measures will be reviewed through the detailed site plan review process. Page 202 of 520 Shadow Impact Study A Shadow Impact Study has been prepared by the applicant to supplement the Urban Design Brief. Through the public engagement, an error was identified in the orientation of the site and an updated Shadow Impact Study was prepared to correct the error. Staff have reviewed the revised Shadow Impact Study and are satisfied that it meets the minimum requirements (daily access to at least 5 hours of cumulative direct sunlight under equinox conditions) regarding shadow impacts as outlined in the City's Urban Design Manual. Tower Design The 3 proposed towers are all classified as "Compact Point' towers as their floorplates are 850 square metres or less and have a length-to-width ratio of below 1.6. Compact Point towers are the preferred type of tower overall, and particularly in multi-tower developments. Each tower includes stepbacks and architectural effects to break up the tower height, and uses varying materials to articulate the elevations. Tower placement and orientation was designed to consider overlook and adequate building separation. The tower heights have variation as preferred to articulate the skyline. All 3 towers contain top features that offer distinct perspectives from different vantage points, and strive to achieve a positive contribution to the skyline. Tall Building Guidelines Staff has reviewed the proposed development for compliance with the City's Tall Buildings Guidelines. The objective of this document is to: • achieve a positive relationship between high-rise buildings and their existing and planned context; • create a built environment that respects and enhances the city's open space system, pedestrian and cyclist amenities and streetscapes; • create human-scaled pedestrian-friendly streets, and attractive public spaces that contribute to livable, safe and healthy communities; • promote tall buildings that contribute to the view of the skyline and enhance orientation, wayfinding and the image of the city; • promote development that responds to the physical environment, microclimate and the natural environment including four season design and sustainability; and, • promote tall building design excellence to help create visually and functionally pleasing buildings of architectural significance. The proposed development concept has taken the guidelines and considerations of the Tall Building Guidelines into account in the layout, placement, and design of the proposed 3 compact point towers. City staff has reviewed the proposed development and can confirm that it meets the overall intent and objectives of the City's Tall Building Guidelines. Transportation Policies: The Official Plan recognizes the relationship between transportation and land use. The plan and policies strive to cultivate an integrated transportation system that is made more efficient when complemented by appropriate built form and density. Transportation policies establish a framework for an integrated transportation system which incorporates active transportation, allows for the movement of people and goods and promotes a vibrant, healthy community using land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a wide range of transportation choices viable. The subject property is located within a Major Transit Station Area and is walking distance to the Central ION Station and Victoria Park ION stations for access to Light Rail Transit. Bus transit is Page 203 of 520 easily accessible with a stop for GRT Route 20 available on Victoria Street South across from the subject site. The subject site has excellent access to walking and cycling trails, such as the Iron Horse Trail and the downtown cycling grid. The location of the subject lands, in the context of the City's integrated transportation system, supports the proposal for transit-oriented development on the subject lands. Policy 3.C.2.22 states that until such time as Station Area Plans are completed and this Plan is amended accordingly, in the interim, any development application submitted within a Major Transit Station Area will be reviewed generally in accordance with the Transit-Oriented Development Policies included in Section 13.C.3.12 The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications support a denser residential development in the City of Kitchener's primary intensification area (UGC). The location of the proposed building results in a built form that fosters walkability in a pedestrian-friendly environment, which allows walking to be a safe, comfortable and convenient form of urban travel. As part of the future site plan approval process, the design of the site will feature a high-quality public realm to enhance the identity of the area and create gathering points for social interaction, community events and other activities at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street South. Additionally, secured and visitor bicycle parking is required as part of the Zoning By-law. Housing Policies: Section 4 of the City's Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. Objective 4.1.2 states that the City shall ensure that the City's housing supply is consistent with our needs and in accordance with the Kitchener Growth Management program. Objective 4.1.4 states that the City shall locate and integrate housing opportunities with local stores and services that are accessible by active transportation and public transit. Policy 4.C.1.3 states that the majority of new residential growth will occur within intensification areas. Policy 4.C.1.6 encourages residential intensification, redevelopment, and infill opportunities in order to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure. Policy 4.C.1.12 states that the City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city and within neighbourhoods. The proposed development increases the supply and range of dwelling units available in the City. Census data from Statistics Canada reveals that 55% of private dwellings in the Kitchener CMA area are single detached dwellings, whereas just 11% of dwellings are apartment units within a building of 5 or more storeys. Further, in Kitchener 26% of dwellings are occupied by one person and 32% are occupied by two persons, meaning that 58% of all dwellings are occupied by two or fewer persons. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one, two, and three-bedroom units.The wide range of units will appeal to a variety of households. The development is proposing commercial space on the ground floor, which will provide retail and service opportunities accessible by active transportation and public transit. Page 204 of 520 Sustainable Development Section 7.C.4.1 of the City's Official Plan ensures developments will increasingly be sustainable by encouraging, supporting and, where appropriate, requiring: a) compact development and efficient built form; b) environmentally responsible design (from community design to building design) and construction practices; c) the integration, protection and enhancement of natural features and landscapes into building and site design; d) the reduction of resource consumption associated with development; and, e) transit-supportive development and redevelopment and the greater use of other active modes of transportation such as cycling and walking. The proposed development represents a compact development with an efficient built form. Sustainable transportation options such as public transit and active transportation are widely available surrounding the subject site. The proposed development is seeking a parking reduction of 0.6 spaces per residential unit, and unbundled parking to encourage alternative modes of transport. Environmentally responsible building design has been accounted for with use of highly isolated concrete-based cladding, lower window-to-wall ratio in the tower to optimize heat loss and gain and energy efficiency, and double glazed Low-E windows. Nine electric vehicle spaces and 9 electric bicycle spaces will be provided immediately upon construction. 20% of the proposed parking spaces will be `future EV spaces', fitted with conduits to allow for future installation of electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed high-density development represents an opportunity to accommodate population growth with minimal land consumption and lowered infrastructure cost. The land area and financial savings potential from high density development can be seen in Figure 4 below. Financial Sustainability I i High-Density Low-Density People/Units 790/494 790/494 Land Area Used 0.3 hectares 32 hectares Linear Infrastructure 53m 4,400m Lifecycle Cost $265,000 $22,000,000 Tax Revenue $1.5m/yr(est) $1.2m/yr(est) Here we see the same number of people living in a detached subdivision and a high-rise.The high-rise uses 106x less land and 83x less linear infrastructure, while generating slightly more tax revenue.High-density development can be critical to ensuring a City's finances remain in good shape over time. Sources:City of Kitchener Figure 4- Infographic regarding Financial Sustainability Page 205 of 520 Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are split zoned in Zoning By-law 85-1. A summary of the current zoning is below. Current Zoninq (Zoning By-law 85-1): Address Base Zoning Special Provisions 146 Victoria Street South Low Intensity Mixed Use 1 R, 525R, 401 U Corridor Zone (MU-1) 148 Victoria Street South Low Intensity Mixed Use 1 R, 525R, 401 U Corridor Zone MU-1 150 Victoria Street South Medium Intensity Mixed Use 1 R, 524R Corridor Zone (MU-2) 154 Victoria Street South Medium Intensity Mixed Use 524R Corridor Zone MU-2 162 Victoria Street South Medium Intensity Mixed Use 526R, 401 U Corridor Zone (MU-2) 92 Park Street Medium Intensity Mixed Use 526R Corridor Zone MU-2 100 Park Street Medium Intensity Mixed Use 524R Corridor Zone (MU-2) 102 Park Street Low Intensity Mixed Use 401U Corridor Zone MU-1 106 Park Street Low Intensity Mixed Use 401U Corridor Zone (MU-1) 110 Park Street Low Intensity Mixed Use 401U Corridor Zone MU-1 710829411,4fy i q L,rt `kms 66fl R,294U;463 U, T o_ 120 its A®1.- Ri 248 SSR,pias / aiss 770 7a4`ry .7'' Ing 15a U too T 115 704 145 : 199 21 .:. 7� 10.5 9 M _. 7n1 MUS 1L s� nz, 161 47 Figure 5: Current Zoning on Subject Lands Page 206 of 520 The existing zoning permits a wide range of commercial and residential uses, including multiple dwellings. The maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for lands with the MU-1 base zone is 2.0, and the maximum FSR for lands with the MU-2 base zone is 4.0. The applicant has requested a Zoning By- law Amendment to move the lands from Zoning By-law 85-1 to Zoning By-law 2019-051. The applicant has proposed a base zone of Mixed Use Three (MIX-3) with a site specific provision (341) and a holding provision (36H) within Zoning By-law 2019-051. The lands are within the Urban Growth Centre (UGC). Lands within the UGC are within Zoning By- law 85-1 as new zoning categories and regulations have not been approved yet for this area. With the applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, the applicant is proposing to bring the lands into the new Zoning By-law to reflect current development standards and regulations. The proposed base zoning of MIX-3 would facilitate the development by allowing the multiple dwelling use, as well as a large range of commercial uses such as retail, personal services, and health offices to be permitted in the proposed commercial space on the ground floor. The proposed zoning (Zoning By-law 2019-051): Address Base Zone Site Specific Provisions All properties consolidated (to Mixed Use Three (MIX-3) 341, 36H be merged into one lot The applicant is seeking to establish a new Site Specific provision (341) to provide specific development standards for the proposed development. Proposed regulations for Site Specific provision (341) are below: a) the minimum front yard setback to Park Street shall be 0 metres. b) the minimum exterior side yard setback to Victoria Street South shall be 0 metres. c) the maximum building height shall be 122 metres. d) the maximum number of storeys shall be 38 storeys. e) the maximum floor space ratio shall be 11.7. f) the minimum amount of non-residential gross floor area shall be 1,750 square metres. g) the minimum ground floor street line facade width as a percent of the width of the abutting street line shall be 70%. h) the minimum percent street line fagade openings shall be 70%. i) the minimum required rate of vehicle parking spaces for Multiple Dwellings shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit. j) the minimum required rate of Class A bicycle parking spaces for Mulitiple Dwellings shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit. k) geothermal wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is a well defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground-source heat pump systems, geo- exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including open-loop and closed- loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five metres unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation. Page 207 of 520 Official Plan policies indicate that where special zoning regulations are requested for residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the site specific zoning regulations will consider compatibility with existing built form; appropriate massing and setbacks that support and maintain streetscape and community character; appropriate buffering to mitigate adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy; avoidance of unacceptable adverse impacts by providing appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area. Planning staff have evaluated the development concept and the requested special zoning regulations to consider their impact. The purpose of regulations a) and b) is to address the street and provide an active streetscape. The 0 metre setback would be represented by the 4-6 storey podium, and the three (3) proposed residential towers would be set back at least 3.0 metres from street lines. The 0 metre requested setback represents a decrease from the typical 1.5 metre required setback in the base `MIX-3' zone. Staff acknowledge that a road widening of 2.13 metres to 3.04 metres on Victoria Street South will be taken by the Region of Waterloo at the Site Plan Stage and will increase the width of right-of-way on the streetscape, which will provide wider sidewalks than those that exist today. The Region of Waterloo would also require a 7.62 metre by 7.62 metre corner visability triangle on the corner of the site to ensure adequate visibility for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. Further, the corner of the site is designed as a pedestrian plaza with large openings at the bottom (illustated below in Figure 7), which will enhance the streetscape. Staff are of the opinon that the requested regulation for 0 metre street fronting setbacks will maintain and enhance the streetscape and community character. 38 STOREY d 121 .75m w IZ , T qa J Lli I z.om Q ° w 24.2m r J I ° MECH 129.25m - I I I I I I I _ I } I F-7 J ON [DASHED LINE DENO U� CANOPY AT 5TH ST ROA wIQE P & 5 ET _ 16. 69 N42-15,35"E VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD 55 Figure 6- Site Plan Drawing showing Daylight Triangle, Sidewalks, and Pedestrian Plaza Page 208 of 520 E i i za n. 1 it' +�I �� �� q S? �• a Figure 7- Rendering showing Pedestrian Plaza The purpose of regulations c) to e) is to establish a maximum height and density standards based on the proposed development concept to permit a maximum building height of 38 storeys and 11 metres and a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 11.7 . This represents a requested increase from the typical maximum of 10 storeys and 32 metres and maximum Floor Space Ratio of 4.0 permitted in the proposed base `MIX-3' zone. Staff recognize that the applicant has consolidated ten parcels to create a large (0.9 hectares), deep (90 metres from each street frontage) corner site with 3 access streets that is within the UGC and that does not direclty abut low-rise residentially zoned or desginated lands. These features, characteristics, and location within the primary intensification area in the City create conditions to support high density and tall buildings in an appropriate and compatible manner. Staff have reviewd the proposed design and can confirm that it meets the intent of the City's Tall Building Guidelines. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed massing and building height are appropriate for the use of the subject lands. The purpose of regulation f) is to establish a required minimum for non-residential (retail/commerical) space for the development. This represents a decrease from the typical minimum of 20% of floor area (which would be 20,550 square metres in this case) required to be non-residential in the base `MIX-3' zone. Staff acknowldge that viability for non-residential space is typically along the street front on the ground floor level where it is visible to foot traffic. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed 1,750 square metres of non-residential space on the ground floor will achieve the City's objective in promoting a compatible mix of uses within the same building and provide adequate commercial and service opportunities to the surrounding neighbourhood. The purpose of regulations g) and h) is to establish minimum street line fagade width and fagade openings. This would represent an increase from the typical 50% for both regulations required in the base `MIX-3' zone. Planning staff are looking to enhance the streetscape and urban design of the site by applying a more stringent requirement for fagade width and fagade openings than is permitted in the base zoning. This would result in a streetscape that is highly activated and will ensure that a greater fagade width and percentage of openings will be provided on the street edges. The purpose of regulations i) and j) is to establish minimum vehicle and bicyle parking rates for the proposed developent. For vehicle parking, this represents a decrease from the typical required 1 vehicle parking space per dwelling unit. For bicycle parking, this represents an increase from the Page 209 of 520 typical 0.5 spaces per unit in the base `MIX-3' zone. Given the location of the site within a Major Transit Station Area, staff is supportive of the request to decrease the minimum required vehicle parking rate. This is consistent with Provincial, Regional, and City policies that promote the use of transit and active transportation over personal vehicle ownership. Based on comments from staff and the public, the applicant has proposed to increase the minimum bicycle parking rate from 0.5 spaces per unit to 0.6 spaces per unit, to provide a greater number of total secure bicyle parking spaces. The purpose of regulation k) is to prohibit a geothermal well on site. This regulation was requested by the Region of Waterloo to acknowledge potential contamination on site and to ensure no adverse effects are caused by a geothermal well on site. City staff do not have concerns with the requested prohibition on geothermal wells on site. Staff offer the following comments with respect to Holding Provision 36H: Official Plan policies indicate that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to facilitate the implementation of the`MIX-3'zone and Site Specific provision. The City will enact a by-law to remove the holding symbol when all the conditions set out in the holding provision have been satisfied, permitting development or redevelopment in accordance with the zoning category assigned. Holding Provision 36H Planning staff are recommending the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment: No residential use shall be permitted until such time as a Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the MOECC advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. There are multiple environmental threats located on and adjacent to the subject lands in accordance with the Region's Threats Inventory Database (TID) due to past and current land uses. A Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. Until such time that the RSC and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have been received by the Region, residential redevelopment of the site is not permitted. Community Benefits Proposal The applicant has provided a letter detailing the proposed community benefits package that they are offering: 1. Affordable housing contribution - The applicant has proposed to donate $500,000 to a non- profit, local affordable housing provider to support the development of off-site affordable housing projects in Kitchener. 2. Affordable housing units - The applicant has committed to providing 50 on-site dwelling units that would meet the definition of affordable home ownership as per the Provincial Policy Statement and the Regional Official Plan. Page 210 of 520 3. Public amenity space - The applicant is proposing that the proposed pedestrian plaza at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street South be publicly accessible, and that it could include public seating, landscape, and outdoor amenity features. 4. Amenity space for neighbourhood associations -The applicant is committing to providing the use of on-site indoor meeting space to be used up to twice a month for both the Victoria Park and Cherry Park Neighbourhood Associations for their monthly meetings at no cost. 5. 3-bedroom units - The applicant has revised the original concept to include at least 13 3- bedroom units within the development, with the potential of up to 30 based on market demand. Full details of the community benefits package can be found in `Attachment F'. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment to change the zoning to `MIX-3' in Zoning By-law 2019-051, add Site Specific provision 341 and Holding provision 36H represents good planning as it will facilitate the development of a high intensity mixed use development that is compatible with the Urban Growth Centre neighbourhood; which will add visual interest at the street level and skyline; provide enhanced landscaping that will contribute to the streetscape; and which will appropriately accommodate on-site parking needs. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Attachment "A". Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the OPA and ZBA was undertaken in November 2021 to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency and any necessary revisions and updates were made. Copies of the comments are found in Attachment "D" of this report. The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by: GSP Group, August, 2021 • Urban Design Report Prepared by: GSP Group, August, 2021 • Community Benefits Package Letter Prepared by: GSP Group, April 1, 2022 • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report Prepared by: WalterFedy, August 31, 2021 • Sustainability Statement Prepared by: GSP Group, September 3, 2021 • Pedestrian Wind Assessment Prepared by: RWDI, September 10, 2021 • Noise and Vibration Study Page 211 of 520 Prepared by: RWDI, September 10, 2021 • Vegetation Management Plan Prepared by: GSP Group, September 29, 2020 • Arborist Assessment Prepared by: GSP Group, May 28, 2021 • Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study, and Transportation Demand Management Plan Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, August, 2021 Community Input & Staff Responses Staff received written responses from 100 residents with respect to the proposed development. These may be found in Attachment `E'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on February 8, 2022 and was attended by approximately 105 residents. In addition, staff had followed up with one-on- one correspondence with members of the public, and participated in regular meetings with the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association Development Subcommittee. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment The applicant is proposing to provide 1655 m2 of outdoor amenity space on rooftop terraces on the podium. This space Victoria Park can be busy on nice will include active and passive areas for socializing and dining days, this development will make outdoors, and will include landscape areas containing large the park busier planters. The provision of outdoor amenity space on site will help to reduce any increased demand on nearby existing park infrastructure. Staff have evaluated the proposed shadow impacts as it relates to our standards included in the City's Urban Design Guidelines. The proposed shadow impacts meet the City's Shadow Impacts could have requirements and provide a cumulative minimum of 5 hours adverse impacts on the of sunlight during equinox conditions. A resident identified surrounding neighbourhood. that the applicants' initial shadow study was not oriented correctly; and as such the applicant revised the shadow study and staff reviewed once more to ensure that it met the City's standards for shadow impacts. Staff received numerous emails and phone calls in support of the proposed development. Residents expressed that more Residents support the housing of all types is needed in Kitchener and are welcoming development to potential new residents and neighbours. Residents expressed excitement in the revitalization of downtown and the return of the downtown becoming a destination. Page 212 of 520 The proposed development contains 50 dwelling units that meet the definition of affordable home ownership in the Provincial Policy Statement and Regional Official Plan. The Affordable housing should be applicant has also committed to a donation of$500,000 to a Provided. local, not-for-profit affordable housing provider to contribute towards affordable housing projects that will provide deeply affordable units in conjunction with regional, provincial, and federal funding for affordable housing projects. The proposed building heights of 38, 36, and 25 storeys are consistent with other proposed tower developments that have been constructed or are proposed in the City's Urban Growth The height of the buildings is too Centre. Staff have evaluated the impacts of building height tall. such as shadow impacts, wind, and transition to low rise residential lands and consider them to be acceptable for a development of this type. The three towers meet and exceed the City's design for tall buildings guidelines in the Urban Design Manual. In response to public comments,the applicant has revised the development to include 13 larger three-bedroom units. The applicant has also designed an area to be flexible that can Three bedroom units should be combine one-bedroom and two-bedroom units into a three- provided rather than just all one bedroom unit. This creates the potential for 17 more three- and two bedroom units. bedroom units for a potential total of 30 three-bedroom units. The City's Zoning By-law does not regulate the number of bedrooms in a unit, but staff are supportive of the inclusion of more three-bedroom units to provide a greater mix and choice of unit types that could result in a more diverse pool of potential future residents in the development. The original development concept proposed a parking rate of 0.54 parking spaces per residential unit. The applicant has increased the amount of vehicle parking to a rate of 0.6 spaces per unit. Further, the development is proposed to be Not enough parking for vehicles is transit oriented and the provision of dwelling units without provided. vehicle parking spaces will encourage alternative modes of transportation over personal vehicle use. The location of the site in regard to access to Light Rail Transit, Bus Transit, and a variety of walking and cycling trails provides justification for the reduction in vehicle parking. The original development concept proposed a parking rate of 0.5 secure bicycle spaces per unit, which would represent the minimum for the proposed MIX-3 zone under the 2019- Not enough parking for bicycles is 051 Zoning By-law. In response to public and staff provided. comments, the applicant has increased the rate to 0.6 secure bicycle spaces per unit. The applicant has also proposed 9 electric bicycle spaces to provide charging and storage abilities for residents using E-bikes. Page 213 of 520 Victoria Street at Park Street can be a place of high traffic due to the fact that it narrows to one lane south of the intersection. The applicant has provided a Transportation Impact Study that has been reviewed by City and Regional Traffic on Victoria Street is already Transportation Staff and deemed acceptable. One of the bad, and this development will best ways to mitigate traffic is to provide transit oriented exacerbate the issue. development such as this proposal, and to reduce parking as this proposal has done. The proposed reduction in parking to 0.6 spaces per unit would provide relief from traffic impacts compared to if the development had provided the required minimum of 1 parking space per unit. The proposed development site does not directly abut low rise residentially zoned lands. The surrounding lands are zoned Mixed Use and Warehouse District Zone. Lands across Victoria Street South are zoned Mixed Use. Lands on The proposed development does Park Street abutting the subject site to the North and across not represent a good transition to the street are also zoned Mixed Use. The planned function surrounding low rise residential of these areas can support additional density and mixed residential and commercial functions in the future. Transition neighbourhoods. to the streetscape is provided with the 4-6 storey podium that wraps the street edges. The closest residentially zoned lands are over 50 metres from the site, separated by the Victoria Street South Regional Road and other Mixed Use lands on the southeast side of Victoria Street South. Some residents were not aware that a 3.0 metre+ sidewalk will be provided between the street and that the 0 metre Proposed 0 metre setback on setback does not mean that the building will go right to the street edges will not leave room edge of the travelled portion of the road. Staff explained the for walking and cycling public right of way width contains space for vehicles, infrastructure such as traffic lights and utility poles and sidewalks. Planning Conclusions In considering the foregoing, staff are recommending approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the subject lands to be developed with a 3-tower mixed use development. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020); conforms to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan; represents good planning and is in the public interest. The City of Kitchener's Urban Growth Centre is the ideal place for this level of intensification. It is recommended that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through the delivery of core service. 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 214 of 520 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional Courtesy Notice of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was posted in The Record on May 20, 2022 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Attachment B). CONSULT—The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were circulated to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on November 6, 2021. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 100 residents, which were summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails. Planning staff met with the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association Development Subcommittee on a regular basis following the initial circulation. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. PA 3 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan, 2015 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • PARTS Central Plan • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 • Census Profile, 2016 Census, Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo CMA, Statistics Canada REVIEWED BY: Stevenson, Garett— Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A—Official Plan Amendment Attachment B — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment C — Newspaper Notice Attachment D — Department and Agency Comments Attachment E — Community Comments Attachment F — Community Benefits Letter Page 215 of 520 Attachment"A"DSD-2022-263 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street Page 216 of 520 Attachment"A"DSD-2022-263 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER CITY OF KITCHENER 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street INDEX SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee of June 13, 2022 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee - June 13, 2022 APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council Page 217 of 520 Attachment"A"DSD-2022-263 AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER SECTION 1 —TITLE AND COMPONENTS This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener. This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive. SECTION 2— PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend the Official Plan by adding Site Specific Policy Policy Area 6 to Map 4 -Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) and by adding associated Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.2.69 to the text of the Official Plan. SECTION 3— BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT The subject lands are currently designated as Mixed Use within the Urban Growth Centre (UGC). The lands are identified as Urban Growth Centre in the urban structure of the Official Plan. Planning staff are recommending to add Site Specific Policy Area 6 to Map 4 (Urban Growth Centre). The planned function of the Urban Growth Centre is to accommodate a significant share of the region's and the city's future population and employment growth. The subject lands are located within the City's delineated Urban Growth Centre (UGC), and within a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the 2014 Kitchener Official Plan. In the City's Official Plan on Map 2 — Urban Structure the lands appear within the MTSA circle for both the Victoria Park Ion Station and the Central Ion Station. Urban Growth Centres plan to accommodate significant population and employment growth. The Region of Waterloo commenced the Regional Official Plan Review (ROPR) project and as part of that work, revised MTSA boundaries were endorsed by Regional Council. These lands are located within the Regionally endorsed MTSA boundary. The proposed development represents intensification and will help the City achieve density targets in the MTSA. The proposed zoning will support a higher density housing option that will help make efficient use of existing infrastructure, parks, roads, trails and transit. The proposed development directly implements Policies 2.2.3 1 (a) (b) and (d) which identifies that Urban Growth Centres will be planned a to accommodate significant population growth. The mixed use development is also proposed to include several unit types that vary in sizes, increasing the variety of housing options for future residents. Staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the Growth Plan. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a mixed- used development that is compatible with the surrounding community and will make efficient use of the existing infrastructure. The proposed development will create more housing options in the Downtown within walking distance to jobs and amenities. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit this amount of intensification on the subject lands. Staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. 3 Page 218 of 520 Attachment"A"DSD-2022-263 Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment conforms to the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Regional policies identify that Urban Growth Centres are to be planned and developed to accommodate a significant share of the region's future population and employment growth. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.1 of the ROP as this neighbourhood provides for the physical infrastructure and community infrastructure to support the proposed residential development, including transportation networks, municipal drinking-water supply and wastewater systems, and a broad range of social and public health services. Regional policies require Area Municipalities to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. The proposed development conforms to Policy 2.D.2 of the ROP as the development promotes higher density development close to transit stops, promotes an appropriate mix of land uses, and supports a compact urban form that locates transit supportive uses within a comfortable walking distance within a Major Transit Station Area. The subject lands are designated as Mixed Use' (Map 4, Urban Growth Centre) in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Mixed Use land designation is intended to be flexible and responsive to land use pattern changes and demands and permit a broad range of uses and intensities. The mix of uses within the same building is preferred. Redevelopment of properties will be encouraged to achieve a high standard of urban design, be compatible with surrounding areas, be transit supportive and cycling pedestrian friendly. Inclusion of commercial and retail uses, rather than solely residential developments, are encouraged to contribute to the vibrancy of the surrounding area. Lands designated Mixed Use have the capacity to accommodate additional density and intensification of uses. The primary residential uses permitted are medium and high rise residential uses. SECTION 4—THE AMENDMENT The City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: a) Part D, Section 15.D.2. is amended by adding Site Specific Policy Area 15.D.2.69 as follows: 15.D.12.69. 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street Notwithstanding the Mixed Use land use designation on lands municipally known as 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street, a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 11.7 shall be permitted. A Holding provision pursuant to Section 17.E.13 will apply to residential uses, day care uses and other sensitive uses. The Holding provision will not be removed until such time as a Record of Site Condition has been acknowledged by the Province and a release has been issued by the Region." b) Amend Map No. 4 — Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) by: i) Adding Specific Policy Area "6. 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street (Policy 15.D.2.69)" to the `Area of Amendment', as shown on the attached Schedule `A'. 4 Page 219 of 520 Attachment"A"DSD-2022-263 APPENDIX 1- Newspaper Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 146-162 Victoria Street South Et 97-110 Park Street KI"IV] fl-.NER Have Your Voice Heard! Gate: June 13, 2022 { Time: 6:00 p.m. } Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report,agenda, find meeting details or to appear as a delegation,visit: . kitchener.ca/meetings _ J To learn more about this project, Concept drawing including information on your appeal rights,visit: www.kitchener.ca/ � � = f planningapplications or contact: V Eric Schneider, Senior Planner Mixed 38 Storeys, Floor Space 519.741.2200 x 7843 Use 122 Metres Ratio of 11.68 eric.schneider,,d kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener has received applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning by-law Amendment to facilitate a mixed-use, multi-tower development consisting of a shared mid-rise podium b storeys in height,with 3 residential towers atop of the podium each proposed to be 2S, 36 and 38 storeys in height, having 1,124 dwelling units, 1,750 square metres of ground floor commercial space, 699 car parking spaces and 67S bicycle parking spaces. 5 Page 220 of 520 CITY OF KITCHENER O OFFICIAL PLAN Q AMENDMENT TO MAP 4 URBAN GROWTH CENTRE(DOWNTOWN) Fp N Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) 4 Boundary �Cb Cb Land Use Designation �P Innovation District Mixed Use Specific Policy Area s' qF '•~••; Boundary Sp Area of Amendment To Add Specific Policy Area y 6. 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St (Policy 15.D.2.69) X2,9 <,LGT S�. SCHEDULE W o tze REVISED: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/011/V/ES INNOVATION PARK KITCHENER LIMITED; METRES ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/017/V/ES INNOVATION DEVICTORIAVELOPMENTS KITCHENER LIMITED; SCALE 1:4LIMITED 1936026 ONT ,000 File. City of Kitchener OPAZ,o„�E5_MAP4 r146-162 VICTORIA ST S&92-110 PARK ST DATE: MAY 12,2022 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT,PLANNING mxd DSD-2022-263 Attachment "B" PROPOSED BY — LAW 12022 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended and By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-laws for the City of Kitchener - Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited, Innovation Park Kitchener Limited, 162 Victoria Limited and 1936026 Ontario Inc. — 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Number 73 of Appendix"A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by removing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 2. Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on Map No. 1 attached hereto, and by zoning the Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 lands thereafter as Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX-3) with Site Specific Provision (341). 4. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 5. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (341) thereto as follows: Page 222 of 520 DSD-2022-263 Attachment "B" "341. Notwithstanding Tables 5-5 and 8-2 of this By-law within the lands zoned MIX-3 and shown as affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 73 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: a) the minimum front yard setback to Park Street shall be 0 metres. b) the minimum exterior side yard setback to Victoria Street South shall be 0 metres. C) the maximum building height shall be 122 metres. d) the maximum number of storeys shall be 38. e) the maximum floor space ratio shall be 11.68. f) the minimum amount of non-residential gross floor area shall be 1,750 square metres. g) the minimum ground floor street line facade width as a percent of the width of the abutting street line shall be 70%. h) the minimum percent street line facade openings shall be 70%. i) the minimum required rate of vehicle parking spaces for Multiple Dwellings shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit. D the minimum required rate of Class A bicycle parking stalls for Mulitiple Dwellings shall be 0.6 spaces per dwelling unit. k) geothermal wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is a well defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground-source heat pump systems, geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including open-loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five metres unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation." 6. Section 20 of By-law 2019-51 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision (36) thereto as follows: "(36). Notwithstanding Section 8, of this By-law within the lands zoned MIX-3 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 73 of Appendix "A", no residential redevelopment shall be permitted until such time as a Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks or any successor Ministry ("MECP"). This Page 223 of 520 DSD-2022-263 Attachment "B" Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region of Waterloo is in receipt of a letter from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to the satisfaction of the MECP." 7. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _ (146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 2022. Mayor Clerk Page 224 of 520 D-6 439U;;a -6 SUBJECT AREA(S) AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 N AREA 1- 59Fg 6608: �� FROM LOW INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR o ZONE(MU-1)UNDER BY-LAW 85-1 M-2 tib D-6 D-6 1R,71 OR WITH SPECIAL USE PROVISION 401 U 294U,463U TO MIXED USE THREE ZONE(MIX-3)UNDER BY- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _SCHEDULE 74_ _ _ _ _ _ p LAW 2019-051 SCHEDULE 73 �� m - WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS(341),(36H) h¢ AREA 2- V/n_ FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE D-6 1 R,710 CORRIDOR ZONE(MU-2)UNDER BY-LAW 85-1 294U,463 WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISION 524R M -1 402U 43H,8 TO MIXED USE THREE ZONE(MIX-3)UNDER BY- D-6 1 R, LAW 2019-051 U-1 U-1 294U,50H i WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS(341),(36H) 1 5 6 AREA 3- 6 FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE R 5 M -1 401 52 h¢ CORRIDOR ZONE(MU-2)UNDER BY-LAW 85-1 1-1 1R WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISION 526R llJJ LTO AW 0 MIXED USE THREE ZONE(MIX-3)UNDER BY- MU I39 U -051 EA AREA 2 ��F qs 1R{52� 1-1 R, 3W WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS(341),(36H) qs - ,, '�Nr i AREA 4- MU-1 -1 1 R FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE 462U CORRIDOR ZONE(MU-2)UNDER BY-LAW 85-1 n3 - WITH SPECIAL USE PROVISION 401 U 1-1 1R, AND SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISION 526R Q Q AREA 4 399 93R, TO 0 MIXED USE THREE ZONE(MIX-3)UNDER BY- MU 051 WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS(341),(36H) AREA 5- �^ FROM MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR ZONE(MU-2)UNDER BY-LAW 85-1 BY-LAW 85-1 R WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISIONS 1R, D-0 WAREHOUSE DISTRICT ZONE W� 524R TO MIXED USE THREE ZONE(MIX-3)UNDER BY- 1-1 NEIGHBOURHOOD INSTITUTIONAL ZONE ^" z LAW2019-051 M-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE �^ �� WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS(341),(36H) MU-1 LOW INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR Ua1 ZONE GRID REFERENCE AREA 6- ZONE SCHEDULE NO.73 FROM LOW INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR MU-2 MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED USE CORRIDOR OF APPENDIX'A' ZONE(MU-1)UNDER BY-LAW 85-1 ZONE KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 WITH SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISIONS 1R, R-5 RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE 524R R-0 RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE ZONE LIMITS AND SPECIAL USE PROVISION 401U BY-LAW 2019-051 TO MIXED USE THREE ZONE(MIX-3)UNDER BY- FL MIX-3 USE THREE ZONE FLOODING HAZARD LAW 2019-051 W TH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS(341),(36H) MAP NO. 1 �0 25 50 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA21/017/V/ES INNOVATION PARK KITCHENER LIMITED; METRES OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA21/011/V/ES INNOVATION DEVELOPMENTS KITCHENER LIMITED; SCALE 1:2,000 /'► 162 VICTORIA LIMITED 19360260NTARIOINC. City of Kitchener FILE: 146-162 VICTORIA ST S &92-110 PARK DATE: MAY 12,2022 zeAz,o,mxdds_MAP, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT,PLANNING NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Attac"mentC fora development in your neighbourhood 146-162 Victoria Street South Et 92-110 Park Street Have Your Voice Heard! * , Date: June 13, 2022 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting To view the staff report,, a , . P g find meeting details or to appear as a delegation, visit: P kitchener.ca/meetings 3 To learn more about this project, Concept drawing including information on your appeal rights, visit: - www.kitchenenca/ rs planningapplications or contact: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner M ixed 38 Storeys, Floor Space 519.741.2200 x 7843 Use 122 Metres Ratio of 11.68 eric.schneider@ kitchener.ca The City of Kitchener has received applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning by-law Amendment to facilitate a mixed-use, multi-tower development consisting of a shared mid-rise podium 6 storeys in height, with 3 residential towers atop of the podium each proposed to be 25, 36 and 38 storeys in height, having 1,124 dwelling units, 1,750 square metres of ground floor commercial space, 699 car parking spaces and 675 bicycle parking spaces. Page 226 of 520 Attachment D PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Nik Community Planning VV 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Region of Waterloo Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY:519-575-4608 Fax:519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Melissa Mohr 226-752-8622 File: D17/2/21011 C14/2/21017 March 29, 2022 Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Schneider, Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/11 and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/017 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street GSP Group (C/O Kristen Barisdale) on behalf of DOV Capital (C/O Steven Ruse) CITY OF KITCHENER GSP Group Ltd. on behalf of DOV Capital (Steven Ruse) has submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a development proposal at 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing a multi-storey mixed-use tower consisting of a shared mid-rise podium of 6—storeys in height with three (3) residential towers atop the podium. The three (3) residential towers are proposed to be 25, 36 and 38 storeys in height and contain a total of 1,150 residential units. The development also consists of approximately 1,770 square metres of ground floor commercial space. In addition, 667 vehicular parking spaces and 592 bicycle parking spaces have been proposed on site. The applicant has submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development. The Official Plan Amendment is required to permit a Special Policy to permit an increase in FSR of 11.6 to the Mixed Use designation. The Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the lands from the Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-1) Zone and Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2) Zone with Special Use Provision 401 U and Special Regulation Provisions 1 R, 524R, 525R and 526 R to the Mixed Use Three (MIX-3) Zone with site Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 227 of 520 specific regulations and special use provisions to retain the existing 1 R special regulation for the portion of the lands affected by the GRCA regulations, extend the 401 U special use provision for the entirety of the subject lands (relates to the Record of Site Condition requirements), remove special regulations 524R,525R and 526R and add a special use regulation for yard setbacks, the maximum height, storeys, fagade treatments, increased FSR as well as the number of parking spaces/dwelling unit. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Regional Comments Community Planning The subject lands are located in the "Urban Area" of the Region and are designated "Urban Growth Centre" and "Built-Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The subject lands are designated Mixed Use in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-1) and Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2) Zone with Special Use Provision 401 U and Special Regulation Provisions 1 R, 524R, 525R and 526 R. Regional staff understand the applicant has proposed a Site-Specific Policy to permit an increase in the FSR from 5.0 to 11 .6 and to rezone the site to the Mixed Use Three (MIX-3) Zone with special use and zone regulations to facilitate the development. The majority of the Region's future growth will occur within the Urban Area designation with a substantial portion of this growth directed to the existing Built-Up Area of the Region through reurbanization. Focal points for reurbanization include Urban Growth Centres, Township Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Reurbanization Corridors and Major Local Nodes (ROP Section 2.13). Transit Oriented Development Policies/Urban Growth Centres/Major Transit Station Areas Regional staff understand that the proposal is for a higher density development that is located within the Urban Growth Centre. In addition, the subject lands are located within 500-800 metres of the Central ION stop/Innovation District ION Stop in Kitchener. The Region's Urban Growth Centres are to be planned and developed to accommodate a significant share of the Region's future population and employment growth. Furthermore, the development will contribute to the minimum gross density of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare required within the Urban Growth Centre of Kitchener. Land Use Compatibility Regional staff acknowledge that there are lands designated General Industrial Employment within 300 metres of the subject lands. The lands designated General Industrial contain Class II industrial land uses and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) recommends a minimum separation distance of 70 m from Class II industrial land uses and sensitive land uses. The subject lands are located approximately 100 m + from lands that are designated General Industrial Employment within the City of Kitchener Official Plan. Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 228 of 520 Environmental Threats/Record of Site Condition: As indicated previously, there are multiple environmental threats located on and adjacent to the subject lands due to past land uses in accordance with the Region's Threats Inventory Database (TID); therefore, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter shall be required in accordance with the Region's Implementation Guidelines. The Region shall require a holding zone until such time that the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement letter have been received to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. In addition, please ensure that the lands to be dedicated to the Region for the road widening and daylight triangle are excluded from the Record of Site Condition. See the note below about Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments. Further to the above, the Region does not support the use of geothermal energy on site due to the environmental threats located on and adjacent to the subject lands. Regional staff require a prohibition on geothermal energy systems and recommend the following wording for the prohibition: Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is a well defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground-source heat pump systems, geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including open-loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five metres unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation. Corridor Planning: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Stage: Transportation (Road) Noise.- Regional oise:Regional staff have received the study entitled "Victoria and Park Street Redevelopment, Kitchener, Ontario Noise and Vibration Impact Study" dated September 10, 2021, prepared by RWDI in support of the Official Plan and Zoning By- law Amendment and have no objection to the Transportation Noise aspects of the report at this time, however the noise study must be updated at the Site Plan stage. Regional staff will provide additional comments at the site plan application stage. Please be advised that the accepted mitigation techniques (e.g. building fagade components, installation of Air Conditioning and noise warning clauses) shall be implemented through a Regional Agreement at the future plan of condominium stage and incorporated into the design of the building at the site plan stage. Furthermore, the Noise warning clauses shall be included in all offers of Purchase and Sale and the Condominium Declaration(s). Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 229 of 520 Stationary Noise.- Regional oise:Regional staff have received the study entitled "Victoria and Park Street Redevelopment, Kitchener, Ontario Noise and Vibration Impact Study" dated September 10, 2021, prepared by RWDI in support of the Official Plan and Zoning By- law Amendment and are satisfied with the conclusions and recommendations of the stationary noise impacts of the study. The accepted conclusions and recommendations are: 1 . The potential for vibration influences on the site due to the nearby CN spur line were evaluated and the calculated levels were below the acceptable limits. No mitigation measures are recommended; 2. At this stage, the impact of the development on itself and the surroundings could not be quantitatively assessed; however, the potential noise impact on both the building itself and its surroundings is expected to meet the applicable criteria through best-practices for acoustical design; 3. Regional staff recommend that the building design is evaluated during the detailed design/site plan stage to ensure that the acoustical design is adequately implemented in order to meet the applicable criteria prior to building occupancy; 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector certifies that the noise attenuation measures are incorporated into the building plans. Upon completion of construction, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector will certify that the dwelling units have been constructed accordingly; and, 5. The Owner/Developer shall be required to enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener through the future Condominium Application for all units in the proposed development to ensure the following warning clause shall be included in all agreements of Offers of Purchase and Sale, Lease/Rental Agreements and the Condominium Declaration(s): "Purchasers/tenants are advised that noise from the adjacent commercial and industrial facilities and the Metrolinx and CN Rail Layover Sites may at times be audible and might sometimes interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants." Stormwater Management & Site Grading.- The rading:The report entitled "Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report" dated August 31 , 2021 , completed by WalterFedy is acceptable to Region staff relative to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage. The report notes that there are a number of existing sanitary services and water services within the Victoria Street South right-of-way. Regional staff will comment on the removal of existing connections at the detailed design/site plan stage. Regional staff will provide technical comments on the proposed storm sewer connection, sanitary sewer and water service connections through the detailed design/site plan stage. In addition, please be advised that this section of Victoria Street South (regional Road 55) is planned to be reconstructed in 2029 as per the Region's 10-Year Capital Program. Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 230 of 520 TIS/Access The Transportation Impact Study and Transportation Demand Study (TIS/TDM) entitled "Victoria Street & Park Street Redevelopment Kitchener, ON Transportation Impact Study, Parking Study & Transportation Demand Management Plan" dated August 2021, completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions has been reviewed and Regional staff have no objections at this stage (Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage). The subject lands currently have vehicular access to Victoria Street South via three full moves accesses. In addition, there are numerous existing accesses along Park Street, which is a street under the jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener. The concept plan provided with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment propose a single full movement access to Victoria Street South and a single full moves access to Park Street, with a connection between both main access points. Regional staff have no objection to the access at the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment stage. Please note that more detailed comments relating to access will be provided through a subsequent Site Plan Application and the developer will be responsible for any financial and property requirements associated with the accepted road improvements. Please be advised that Grand River Transit (GRT) currently operates Route 20 along this section of Victoria Street South with existing transit stops in close proximity to the subject lands. GRT staff have also been circulated the application and will provide comments through the site plan review. Regional Road Dedication.- Based edication:Based on the concept plans provided with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, a road dedication and daylight triangle is shown, but it is difficult to tell if the road dedication and daylight triangle have been shown according to the Region's requirements. As per the pre-submission comments on this proposal, an approximate road widening of 2.13m (7ft.) and 3.048m (10 ft.) along Victoria Street South and a daylight triangle of 7.62m x 7.62 m (post road widening) is required. Please ensure the Zoning By-law Amendment takes into account dedication and is shown on the site plan at the detailed design stage. In addition, the plans provided with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment appear to show a number of building features that are within the Victoria Street South right-of-way. Please ensure any proposed building features (including any door swing) are located completely within the private side of the property and are not included in the lands to be dedicated to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo through the site plan process. Site Plan Application Stage: Access Regulation A Regional Road Access Permit and fee for the proposed Victoria Street South access shall be required through the future site plan application. Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 231 of 520 Regional Road Dedication: The above noted road dedication and daylight triangle must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo as part of the Site Plan Application, free of charge and free of encumbrance. Prior to the transfer, a draft reference plan prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) must be submitted to the Region of Waterloo. In addition, a Phase 1 ESA (and possibly a Phase II ESA) shall be required for the portion of the lands to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo. Please ensure the lands to be dedicated to the Region are excluded from the required Record of Site Condition. Housing Services: The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. The Region's 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan contains an affordable housing target for Waterloo Region. The target is for 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 to be affordable to low and moderate income households. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site. Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs. In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, a mechanism should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit (based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan), the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $368,000 annual household income for low and moderate income households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the $487,637 regional market area "Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables(2020). In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $368,000. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit (based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan), the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 232 of 520 A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household income for low and moderate income $1,420 renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent Bachelor: $863 (AMR) in the regional market area 1-Bedroom: $1,076 2-Bedroom: $1,295 3-Bedroom: $1,359 4+ Bedroom: $1 ,359 *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables(2020) In order for a unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area, as listed above. Should affordable housing as described above be proposed, please contact Regional staff to discuss further. Fees: By copy of this letter, the Region of Waterloo acknowledges receipt of the Region's Official Plan, Zoning By-law Amendment and TIS Review fees totalling $7,400.00. Conclusion: Regional staff are supportive of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment subject to the inclusion of a Holding Zone for the Record of Site Condition to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and a prohibition on geothermal energy systems as described above. Other Regional requirements as detailed in this letter shall be implemented through the future plan of condominium and/or site plan applications. General Comments: Any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Finally, please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Youllrsl truly, �} Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner C. DOV Capital C/O Steven Ruse (Owner) GSP Group Inc. C/O Kristen Barisdale (Applicant) Document Number: 3993309 Version: 1 Page 233 of 520 I Internal memo Development Services Department www;kitchenerca Date: December 2, 2021 To: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner From: Victoria Grohn, Senior Planner (Heritage) cc: Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/017/V/ES Official Plan Amendment OPA21/011/V/ES 146-162 Victoria Street South & 91-110 Park Street Heritage Planning Comments The subject lands municipally addressed as 146-162 Victoria Street South and 91-110 Park Street are located adjacent to 142 Victoria Street South which is listed as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The subject lands are also located within close proximity to 163-165 Victoria Street South (listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register) located within the Warehouse District Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) as identified in the 2014 Cultural Heritage Landscape Study approved by Council in 2015. A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was not required as part of a complete application because the subject lands are not located adjacent to protected (i.e. designated) heritage property as defined by the Provincial Policy Statement. Protected heritage property within proximity to the subject lands include one Part V designated district: the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District. Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest, which includes the conservation of significant features of architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of Council be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Policy 2.6.1 of the PPS states that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. Regional and municipal policies and guidelines also address the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The Regional Official Plan contains policies that require the conservation of cultural heritage resources. The City's Official Plan contains policies that require development to have regard for and incorporate cultural heritage resources into development. Planning Justification Report, August 2021, GSP Group Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the Planning Justification Report and, with respect to heritage conservation, summarize as follows: • Presence of the subject lands within the Warehouse District CHL and in close proximity to other heritage properties is acknowledged; and • Clarification is warranted with respect to the Warehouse District CHL not being approved. While the CHL does not yet have formal protections in place, the Warehouse District CHL was identified as part of the approved 2014 CHL Study. Page 234 of 520 I Internal memo Development Services Department www:kitchenerca Urban Design Brief, Auqust 2021, GSP Group Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the Urban Design Brief and, with respect to heritage conservation, summarize as follows: • Presence of the subject lands within the Warehouse District CHL and in close proximity to other heritage properties is acknowledged; • Discussion around the redevelopment of the abutting site is included and there is presumption that the building at 142 Victoria Street South will be demolished. This has not yet been determined and consideration of this listed building as part of this proposal is to continue to apply. • Proposed contemporary design and application of materials draw inspiration from and respect the surrounding fabric, including red brick, transparent glass, dark metal panels, and inset balconies; and • Building is designed with a similarly scaled mid-rise base (6-storeys) and tight positioning to Park and Victoria Streets, fitting the similar context established by the nearby Huck Glove, Kaufman Lofts, and Tannery buildings. Heritage Planning staff provide the following comments for consideration as part of the OPA/ZBA: • The total height of the podium should be in keeping with the height of the surrounding Huck Glove, Kaufman Lofts, and Tannery buildings. The maximum height should be regulated via a special provision regulation in the zoning by-law. Heritage Planning staff provide the following comments for consideration as part of a future Site Plan process: • Heritage Planning staff will require a 3D massing model and elevation drawings as part of a complete application; and • Heritage Planning staff and Urban Design staff will review and approve the elevation drawings. Page 235 of 520 City of Kitchener ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT COMMENT FORM Project Address: 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St Date of Meeting: No meeting, email circulation Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Steve Ryder Email: steven.ryder@kitchener.ca Phone: (519) 7412200 ext. 7152 Date of Comments: December 17, 2021 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments & Issues: • TIS comments: o Due to Victoria St and the Victoria/Park intersection falling under the authority of the Region of Waterloo, the majority of the traffic impact analysis will be deferred to Region staff for review and comments; o Given the lack of traffic control at Victoria/Bramm St intersection, it is highly recommended that the majority of parking should be accessed from Park or Victoria St; o Section 3.2.1—Access Location notes that the Park St access is 5m deficient of the recommended distance from an intersection (55m) at a distance of 50m; ■ Given the early concept design (Figure 3.1) of the proposed development and the Park St driveway access, it is possible to modify this access in order to provide some more distance from the Victoria St intersection; • Parking Study&TDM comments: o This site is approximately a 600m walk/bike ride to the ION station located at King & Victoria, as well as the future transit hub; o The o Transportation Services is willing to consider support for a reduced parking rate similar to the proposed rate of 0.54 space per unit, as noted in the Paradigm study that was A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 236 of 520 submitted with the ZBA application; however, there are several items that need to be clarified before any support can be given; o Currently, the proposed site falls under ZBL 85-1, which requires 1.25 parking spaces per unit (visitor parking is 20%of required parking); o The Parking Study notes that the development requires 1,085 parking spaces as per zoning by-law 2019-051 (CROZBY); ■ Section 5.2 outlines the breakdown between residential and commercial parking required for the proposed development but there is no mention of the required 0.1 visitor parking spaces per unit on top of the 0.9 spaces per unit for residents; ■ The development description notes that the site may consist of"up to 1,200 units"—if this is a possibility, the parking study should be completed on that basis (or should at least include analysis for that number in addition to the proposed 1,150 units as per the ZBA application) as the required parking spaces would equal the following: • 1,080 resident spaces, plus 120 visitor parking spaces • 50 commercial parking spaces; o If the proposed site fell under ZBL 2019-051,the required parking spaces (based on 1,200 units) would equal 1,250 parking spaces; ■ Class A (0.5 spaces per unit without private garage) and Class B (6 spaces) bicycle parking rates would also apply as a minimum; ■ EV parking would also be required; ■ Depending on the number of required Class A bicycle spaces required for non- residential uses, shower and change facilities may be required (section 5.5 of ZBL 2019-051); o Section 5.5—Estimated Parking Demand (page 43 of PDF) states that the proposal includes 520 parking spaces at a rate of 0.46 spaces per unit—this needs to be clarified/corrected; o In order to properly evaluate the request for a reduced parking rate for this proposed development the applicant/developer will need to confirm the TDM measures that will be included in their proposal and will be required to enter into an agreement registered on title to provide said TDM measures (if applicable); ■ Measures listed in Section 5.4 of the study were noted as considerations for the development; ■ The TDM Checklist provided as Appendix J in the Paradigm study indicates several tangible measures that would help justify a reduction in vehicle parking: • Additional, secured (Class A) bicycle parking above the minimum rate (0.5 spaces per unit); • Additional space to shower& change facilities for employees; • Car share & Ride share spaces (have any preliminary discussions taken place with a car share provider at this time?); • Subsidized transit passes (amount, duration?); A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 237 of 520 • Unbundled parking ■ These measures need to be confirmed at this stage in order to provide justification for the proposed reduction in parking; o Long-term bicycle storage/parking: ■ TDM Checklist option allows for some reduction in parking for going above the required bicycle parking (which is 10%of required parking for total site under ZBL 85-1)—however, given the proposed reduction in parking is below the minimums required under ZBL 2019-051, the Class A bicycle parking minimum from ZBL 2019-051 should be met before the TDM Checklist provisions come into place (ie. Class A spaces should be a minimum of 0.5 spaces per unit before Checklist provision is calculated) ■ It is strongly recommended that the developer considers provision of dedicated space to accommodate users of larger bicycles, such as e-bikes and cargo bikes; ■ Providing electrical outlets to charge a-bikes is encouraged to promote the use of such modes of travel; ■ Strong consideration of how residents will enter and exit secured bicycle parking areas with ease and convenience should be given during the design of this site; ■ Providing easy and unobstructed access to and from the site for cyclists will encourage residents to utilize this mode of travel rather than rely on a vehicle; ■ Secured access rooms provide assurance that residents bicycles are safely stored; ■ Push-button (secured) access with wider doors to accommodate different styles of bicycles is strongly recommended; ■ Details of the bicycle storage facilities will be required as part of the submissions for a complete site plan application in the future; o Given the location of the site, visitor parking needs to be provided on-site given that there is insufficient supply of short-term parking options in close proximity to the proposed development; ■ The Bramm St Yards parking lot(City-owned and operated) currently offers paid, hourly parking but cannot be counted on long-term to provide parking; ■ On-street parking should not be considered a viable source for visitor parking for a development of this nature; ■ Visitor parking considerations need to be included in any updates/revisions to the parking study o Applicant to provide revisions/updates/clarifications regarding the above comments before Transportation Services can support the proposed parking reduction requested through this ZBA application; 2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 238 of 520 3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval: • None 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • N/A 5. Anticipated Fees: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 239 of 520 � . a a = o a & 24 \ m ] M . E ; . � �■ � / & & * ] a) _ # � / � \ � ? \ 7r- 73 k § � _ » F \ . � . � 6 ! A City for Everone Working Together—G rowing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 240 0 520 City of Kitchener ZONING BYLAW AND OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT COMMENTS Project Address:146-162 Victoria St S - 92-110 Park St Application Type: ZBA/OPA Comments of:Urban Design Commenter's Name: Sandro Bassanese Email: sandro.bassanese@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7305 Date of Comments: January 17, 2022 ❑X I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Site Specific Comments& Issues: The following comments relate to the documents provided in support of the above noted application: Urban Design Brief: Urban Design staff have reviewed the design brief and provide the following comments: I reviewed the tower massing proposal with Adam Clark who provided comments on the previous application and would like to convey that the majority of staff comments related to massing, and site layout have been taken into consideration. Staff are very appreciative of this and are looking forward to working with the consultant team and applicant to further refine and improve the site design and architecture. Design Overview and Response: Base design: The base design as depicted in the urban design brief provides good, activated space at the street level and generous setbacks along the corner of Park and Victoria St. The primary view between towers B and C (see image below) to the site is to be considered as a focal point and a potential public art location or have upgraded cladding as it is above grade parking. Vision glass into the parking garage is not acceptable. A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 241 of 520 I I eR I �9a[vic+i 'CKFn`iLdK RETAIL Separation/Overlook: Separation distances as well as overlook generally meet the intent of the City of Kitchener Tall Building Design Guidelines (TBDG).The applicant has made sufficient changes to the design (changes include tower locations and orientation, narrowing of floor plates on upper portions of the tower) and placement of the towers to meet the intent of the tall building design guidelines on site. Staff will work with the applicant to review balcony placement and design to further address issues of overlook on site as the site plan process progresses. Off-site separation to Tower A will be addressed through a limiting distance agreement(as discussed and agreed to by planning staff)to ensure that the intent of the TBDG is met with any future development on the adjacent property. Details of how air rights will be secured are to be provided to staff for review. As well the applicant is to provide a draft of the legal agreement describing how air rights will be addressed as part of the site plan approval process. Offsite separation to tower B is sufficient to allow a potential midrise form to develop as the site is too small to support a tower form. This has been reviewed and confirmed by staff internally. Overlook is mostly mitigated successfully between the towers on site. Staff request that a further shift of tower A be considered to bring it into closer alignment with tower B (see image below). T6.vER R B50 SAI PLA wEExx� U = 'e'TORE llnD RP NITY s;CSS MECH II"3&n r BSTpRLY l,ABQVEGR) LO.ti'.xn M—) �— NPPER MECH * 0. �•' ROOT♦y LEVEL � - - �17 RL INDOOR - 9 EJNTYI fly/ CFC Z 1 Ow TOWERA m `�.._ �__ _ _ 2S SLOREr • M1� ' 1dECH ipMER p Tf9SM PIATE � as sroRev - - � _ I 0-AMEM, iso b o --------------- I , � •. fiSTORGV ln\ • A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 242 of 520 Although not crucial this shift would not impact tower A or B and further reduce overlap to any future proposed development on the adjacent site. Amenity Areas: The applicant is advised that common roof top amenity areas are to be designed to ensure sitting wind speeds during spring and summer time periods and standing wind speeds during fall and winter. This is to be confirmed through detailed wind tunnel analysis as part of a revised wind study (further comments on the wind study will be provided in the next section of comments). The noise study provided has confirmed that roof top amenity areas fall within the acceptable noise criteria as per RMOW standards. Staff request that further noise mitigation be explored at the North and East corners of the podium amenity areas (as identified in the noise study) to further reduce noise impacts as both areas are close to acceptable noise limits. At grade proposed streetscape elements (trees within the ROW and streetscape elements) are to be reviewed and coordinated with Regional and Parks and operations staff. The applicant is advised to prepare a composite utilities plan as the development progresses through the site plan process.The applicant is also advised to contact Urban Forestry and Parks and Operations staff to coordinate required infrastructure (i.e., silva cells, raised planters, irrigation etc.) as well as maintenance agreements to facilitate planting in the Regional and City owned rights of way. Shadow Analysis: The shadow analysis provided meets criteria for 5 cumulative hours of sun on all time periods save and accept December 21ST. Due to limited impacts (approximately 6 residences) in the December time period coupled with existing shadows cast by vegetation and existing structures coupled with limited rear yard use during the winter time period the impacts are deemed acceptable. Wind Study: The proposed conditions at ground level are to be brought to a sitting condition for summer periods and standing strolling during winter conditions. The applicant is advised that a detailed wind tunnel analysis is to be provided in combination with a revised wind study to inform building design through the site plan process. The applicant is also advised to provide sufficient sensors in the rooftop amenity locations to insure an accurate representation of wind speed impacts. Tree Inventory Plan: Prior to any works (including but not limited to: pruning, grading, shoring, fence installation, demolition etc.) being undertaken that may impact trees in common ownership or off property consent from adjacent property owners is to be provided by the applicant to City staff for review. A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 243 of 520 There are numerous street trees and city owned trees that will be removed and due to the proposed development application. The applicant is to contact Park's and Operations staff(Lenore Ross, lenore.ross@kitchener.ca)to confirm compensation planting rates, locations, or cash in lieu amount. The property line is to be clearly defined on the tree management plan and confirmation is to be provided by the applicant that all trunks and driplines have been accurately survey and located on the plan. A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Page 244 of 520 C>�and R��,�� Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.J. Box 729 Cambridge,ON N1 R 5W6 C7 ,� Phone:519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax:519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca 0 ation PLAN REVIEW REPORT: Eric Schneider City of Kitchener DATE: FILE: November 9, 2021 OPA - 146-162 Victoria St S and 92-110 Park St RE: Official Plan Amendment Application OP21-011-V-ES Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application ZBA21-017-V-ES 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street Innovations Developments Kitchener GRCA COMMENT*: The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has no concerns with the proposal. BACKGROUND: 1. Resource Issues: Information currently available at our office indicates that the subject lands contain the Schneider Creek / Victoria Lake floodplain. 2. Legislative/Policy Requirements and Implications: Due to the presence of the floodplain, the GRCA regulates a portion of the property under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). Any future development within the regulated area (as shown in yellow on the attached map) will require a permit from the GRCA pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The floodplain in this location is in the flood fringe portion of a designated Two-Zone Policy Area. Provincial, municipal and GRCA policy allows for development provided that the applicant demonstrates that it satisfies all policy requirements outlined in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan. The topographic survey (Van Harten Surveying, revised September 28, 2020) demonstrates that the floodplain minimally affects the subject lands' southeast edge. Page 1 of 2 Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River Page 245 of 520 Based on the functional grading plan (WalterFedy, revised August 31 , 2021), the site will be floodproofed. As such, we have no concerns with this application. 3. Review Fees: This application is considered a minor official plan / zoning bylaw amendment, and in accordance with the GRCA's 2021 Plan Review Fee Schedule, the applicable fee is $430. We will send an invoice to the applicant. A separate fee will be required for a GRCA permit. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 519-621-2763 ext. 2292 or theywood(a)grandriver.ca. Sincerely, Trevor Heywood Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority Attachment C.C. Kevin Muir, GSP Group Page 2 of 2 Page 246 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Mike Seiling Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 10:15 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (146-162 Victoria Street South &92-110 Park Street) Attachments: Agency Circulation Letter.pdf Building comments; Aside from a Record of Site Condition (RSC) will be required for this development as former gas station site, Building has no additional comments at this early stage of the development. A RSC may already be completed for this site. Mike From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent:Thursday, November 4, 202111:07 AM To: CNR <proximity@cn.ca>;_DL_#_DSD_Planning<DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell -c/o WSP<circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz<David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Feds<vped@feds.ca>; GRCA(North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; GRCA(South Kitchener) -Chris Foster-Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One- Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>;Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson @kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K-W Hydro-Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling<Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator(SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>;WCDSB- Planning<planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB- Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>;WRDSB- Planning<planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment-OPA/ZBA(146-162 Victoria Street South &92-110 Park Street) Please see attached - additional documentation available in ShareFile. Comments or questions should be directed to Eric Schneider, copied on this email. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter(c-Dkitchener.ca 00000000 0 i Page 247 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Niall Melanson Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 1:35 PM To: 'Josh Zehr' Cc: Eric Schneider; Tyler Keller; Angela Mick Subject: RE: 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St, ZBA21/017/V/ES & OP21/011/V/ES - FSR Engineering Comments Good afternoon Josh The revisions are acceptable. Eric—Please take this email as notice that Engineering and KU can provide our clearances for the ZBA& OPA. Cheers. Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 Ext. 7133 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 niall.melanson@kitchener.ca From:Josh Zehr<jzehr@walterfedy.com> Sent:Thursday, November 18, 20212:02 PM To: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Cc: Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>;Tyler Keller<tkeller@walterfedy.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 146-162 Victoria St S& 92-110 Park St,ZBA21/017/V/ES& OP21/011/V/ES- FSR Engineering Comments Hi Niall, Thanks for the compliment. I have passed it along to our project team as well. We went ahead and just made the minor revisions quickly to the report and plans. Attached is the revised set for your sign-off on the zone change. We will take a closer look at the water servicing during the detailed design too in coordination with the mechanical consultant to ensure we provide the best solution there in the long run that works both internally to the building and externally through the spiderweb that is Victoria Street. Let us know if you have any additional comments. Thanks again, Josh Josh Zehr, P.Eng., CAN-CISEC Project Manager,Civil WALTERFEDY 675 Queen St. S., Suite 111 Kitchener, ON N2M 1A1 519.576.2150 x407 1 Page 248 of 520 WalterFedy and AEC Developments have taken the step to protect our employees and clients and have closed our offices. Employees will be working remotely and you can continue to connect with us via phone and email.Although our office is closed,we will still be working regular office hours to best serve our clients. MIMI '20 i148LL•INDIUM U .OW1E The information contained in this email is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.Its contents(including any attachments)may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use,disclose,disseminate,copy or print its contents.If you receive this email in error,please notify the sender by reply email and permanently delete the message. Information,opinions or conclusions contained in this message that do not relate to the official business of WalterFedy will be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. From: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Sent: November 12, 202110:19 AM To:Josh Zehr<izehr@walterfedy.com> Cc: Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: 146-162 Victoria St S& 92-110 Park St, ZBA21/017/V/ES &OP21/011/V/ES- FSR Engineering Comments Good morning Josh Great work on the FSR but I would request the following minor revisions per the attached. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 Ext. 7133 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 niall.melanson(@kitchener.ca 2 Page 249 of 520 City of Kitchener - Comment Form Project Address: 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street Application Type: Official Plan Amendment OP21/011/V/ES Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/017/V/ES Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability)—City of Kitchener Commenter's name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7068 Written Comments Due: December 6, 2021 Date of comments: November 30, 2021 1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application: • 92-110 Park Street & 146-162 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application, Sustainability Statement. September 3, 2021. GSP Group 2. Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a proposed multi-tower, mixed use development consisting of 1,150 residential units, approximately 1,770 square metres of ground floor commercial space, 667 car parking spaces and 592 bicycle parking spaces and provided the following: ➢ The sustainability statement should be revised to address Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8 more adequately. Specifically, how energy is being conserved or low energy generated. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy consumption. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated. • Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the potential for implementing district energy exists. 1IPage Page 250 of 520 4. Advice: ➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability- initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise). ➢ The ENERGY STAR' Multifamily High-Rise Pilot Program for new construction is a new five-year certification program in Ontario that recognizes buildings that are at least 15% more energy- efficient than those built to the provincial energy code and meet other program requirements. More information can be found online at https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy- efficiency/buildings/new-buildings/energy-starr-multifamily-high-rise-pilot-program/21966 ➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under 'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement 21 Page Page 251 of 520 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 138-162 Victoria St S, 92-110 Park St Owner: DOV Capital Corporation Application: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA21/017/V/ES and Official Plan Amendment OP21/011/V/ES Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore.ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Dec 06 2021 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) 0 No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: a. OPA/ZBA Agency Circulation Letter dated November 03 2021 b. Architectural Site Plan Package dated August 31 2021 26 pages c. Noise and Vibration Study—RWDI - dated September 10 2021 d. Pedestrian Wind Assessment dated—RWDI - September 10 2021 e. Planning Justification Report—GSP Group -dated August 2021 f. Urban Design Brief—GSP Group—dated August 2021 2. Site Specific Comments& Issues: I have reviewed the above noted documentation submitted to support an OPA/ZBA to permit a multi- tower, mixed use development consisting of a shared mid-rise podium of 6 storeys in height with 3 residential towers atop the podium. The 3 residential towers are proposed to be 25, 36, & 38 stories in height and contain a total of 1,150 residential units. The development also consists of approximately 1,770 square metres of ground floor commercial space. The development proposal contains 667 car parking spaces and 592 bicycle parking spaces. The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the OPA and ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval according to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of the site plan application. The property is located within the Expanded Downtown Core Boundary and is currently exempt from Parkland Dedication fees. Should any changes to the current policy exemption occur or revisions be made to the preliminary site plan, a revised parkland dedication assessment may be required. Parkland dedication requirements are subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy current at the time of the site plan application. Please be advised that the City of Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy is currently under review. A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community aUb-A� of 520 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form 3. Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at this time. 1) Noise and Vibration Impact Study (NVIS)—RWDI - dated September 10 2021 a) Pg 8 — Section 3.1.4 Representative Receptors. The Outdoor Living Areas are all indicated as OLA-1 and should be revised b) The site plan indicates private terraces on the second-floor level along the northeast property line that appear to meet the criteria for OLAs;these should be included in the NVIS assessment c) The NVIS should be updated to reflect the final site plan application and any specific mitigation requirements reflected on the site plan and required subordinate plans. 2) Pedestrian Wind Assessment—RWDI -dated September 102021 a) As noted in the report, physical scale-model test in a boundary-layer wind tunnel or more detailed transient computational modelling should be conducted on the refined site plan proposal to develop and validate specific architectural and landscape wind control solutions. b) Predicted winter wind conditions at the Victoria St S and Park St corner are expected to be elevated to an "uncomfortable" level and mitigation is required.Summer winds are also expected to be elevated to "strolling" category where the renderings illustrate a restaurant patio and mitigation should be provided. c) Snow deposition should be included in the analysis and assessed for on-site areas as well as the adjacent public realm, roadways and immediate neighbouring properties. Public sidewalks and roadways should not have negative impacts. d) While the site is technically within the Cherry Hill Planning Community, it also borders two other neighbourhoods:The City Commercial Core and the Victoria Park communities.The availability of active local park space varies greatly across these three neighbourhoods and the provision of functional on-site amenity space —with low or mitigated wind impacts - will be critical not only for the success of the project but also to minimize impacts to the existing neighbourhood public park spaces and residents. e) A final Pedestrian Wind Assessment and snow deposition analysis should be conducted using a physical scale model test or more detailed CFD model for the ultimate site plan proposal and include specific architectural and landscape mitigation measures. 3) Urban Design Brief and Planning Justification Report—GSP Group—dated August 2021 a) Both documents briefly reference proposed streetscape plantings along both Victoria St S and Park St. Victoria St S is a Regional road, and while the City of Kitchener would support and encourage street tree planting Victoria St. S all comments regarding streetscape plantings on Victoria St S will be deferred the RMOW. b) As noted in Parks & Cemeteries presubmission application comments regarding this development proposal, street tree planting will be required along Park St. It is noted that planters are included in the preliminary site plan layout within the Park St right of way and this is positive. Tree planting shall conform to Section M of the Development Manual. Tree planting is to be approximately one large stature tree (LS) per 10 lineal meters of frontage with the intent of creating a continuous tree canopy. The number of proposed street trees is subject to required minimum soil volumes which should be augmented by the use of soil cell technology A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Id of 520 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form and coordinated with on-site landscaping. The plantings and construction details will be finalized through the site plan application and coordinated with on-site landscaping; a Street Tree Planting Plan will be required along with legal agreements related to on-going maintenance arrangements. c) The PJR should include an analysis and discussion of how the proposed development will impact the existing neighbourhood including compatibility with adjacent land uses and neighbourhood; the availability of services and infrastructure related to parks, open space, urban forests and community facilities relative to the change in planned function and significant increase in density specifically referencing the objectives and policies and in Part C Section 8: Parks, Open Space, Urban Forests and Community Facilities. 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan - Section 8.C. Parks, Open Space, Urban Forests and Community Facilities • Kitchener Parkland Dedication Policy • City of Kitchener Development Manual • PARTS Central Plan • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Parks Strategic Plan • Urban Design Manual S. Anticipated Fees: • Parkland Dedication paid as cash in lieu of land according to the density and use approved through the OPA/ZBA and the Parkland Dedication policy in place at Site Plan application. Due priorto final Site Plan approval. • Legal agreement fees and disbursements associated with on-going maintenance of streetscape elements. A City for Everyone Working Together—Growing Thoughtfully—Building Community Id of 520 Eric Schneider From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 2:27 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Circulation for Comment - OPA/ZBA (146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) Good Afternoon Eric, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the above application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A)That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). B)That the developer and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to the Board's specifications) affixed to the development sign advising prospective residents about schools in the area. C)That the developer shall include the following wording in the site plan agreement/condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "in order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." D)That the developer co-ordinate and reach an agreement with the Waterloo Catholic District School Board and Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region regarding the provision and maintenance of infrastructure for school bus pick-up and drop-off locations. If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan.Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr,Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 From:Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent:Thursday, November 4, 202111:07 AM To: CNR <proximity@cn.ca>;_DL_#_DSD_Planning<DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Aaron McCrimmon-Jones <Aaron.McCrimmon-Jones@kitchener.ca>; Bell -c/o WSP<circulations@wsp.com>; Dave Seller <Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz<David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Feds<vped@feds.ca>; GRCA(North Kitchener) - Trevor Heywood <theywood@grandriver.ca>; GRCA(South Kitchener) -Chris Foster-Pengelly <cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One- Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>;Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson @kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K-W Hydro-Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Linda Cooper <Linda.Cooper@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling<Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation i Page 255 of 520 <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator(SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; Planning<planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB- Board Secretary(elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB -Planning<planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment-OPA/ZBA(146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street) Caution - External Email -This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or provide your username and/or password. Please see attached - additional documentation available in ShareFile. Comments or questions should be directed to Eric Schneider, copied on this email. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca 01090000100c) Disclaimer-This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged or copyright information. You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board. 2 Page 256 of 520 Attachment E Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 3:37 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria Street South -ZBA21/017/V/ES Hi Eric, 'm sure you receive many emails about projects across Kitchener. I just wanted to share my initial reaction to the supporting documents for the project at 146 Victoria Street South — specifically the Truck Turning Plan. I honestly thought at first that it was a plan from the developer to address trucks getting stuck under the CN bridge on Park Street. Unfortunately, it seems to be just about how trucks will navigate the property. I was really excited there for a minute there :). Thanks for keeping us all informed on these projects- really appreciate it! MobilE Page 257 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 6:18 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development Hello, Thank you for the flyer in my mail today about the "Application for Development in your Neighbourhood" regarding the 146-162 Victoria Street South, 92-110 Park Street proposed complex. Here are my thoughts: - I live right across the street a'. and I would not be happy if a massive building were to be built across from us. There are multiple huge condo/apartment buildings being built just down the street and throughout downtown Kitchener, and the construction is very frustrating, loud, and causes so many traffic issues. - I've also noticed that many buildings that are supposed to be mixed-use in the area can never rent out the mixed- use spaces successfully. - I hope that these apartments would be affordable for the people in KW, rather than high-priced condos that are going up everywhere. But I doubt they will be priced for the average KW resident. - If this building is approved, I will be moving out of the area. I love the neighbourhood I live in, but I feel like a 38 storey complex will destroy the community and the small businesses. - I would consider moving into a unit, but I will most likely not afford a unit in the building.This gargantuan building will probably drive the price of rent in the neighbourhood higher, I will likely be priced out of the neighbourhood in the near future. I would be far happier if the space were used for affordable housing or the community or a shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Sincerely, Page 258 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:01 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Neighbourhood development at Park and Victoria St. Good Day, I received a card in my mail box today about the proposed new development at the corner of Victoria and Park streets. It looks like quite a building and it will be interesting to see how it effects the neighbourhood.The one thing that stands out to me in the very little bit of information that the card holds is that there will be only 667 car parking spots for 1150 residential units,which I suppose would not include and parking for the other uses that are also in the building. It would seem that that would leave a lot of people without a parking space in an area where parking does not seem that plentiful. It would also seem that any commercial enterprises in the building would have a hard time accommodating customer parking and I wonder what effect that may have on the ability of any business to succeed. I would be interested in attending a meeting or hearing more about the details of what is happening with this development. Thank you, Page 259 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 5:00 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback on Application for Development (146-162 Victoria) Hello Eric, I'm writing in response to the request for comments on an application for development in my neighbourhood --the application in question is for 146-162 Victoria. Thanks for soliciting feedback. What I like about the proposed development: The fact that it's mixed use • The emphasis on bicycle parking(although I am curious how this would be implemented) • Its location Overall I'm happy to see densification happening close to central station, which was part of the strategy for building the LRT My concerns about the developments: • How many units will be affordable housing?And how will the city hold the developer accountable to ensure that the units are rented at actual affordable rates? ■ The floor space ratio is not great and could be improved. This an incredibly tall building to put up directly next to single detached dwellings. It seems like a development that should be closer to downtown. I think that medium density would be more appropriate for this location. • I hope that the city plans bicycle infrastructure to connect this development with the downtown bicycle grid (at Victoria and Joseph) and the planned multi-use trail that will connect Cherry Park to central station. (It's great to have bicycle parking but that stretch of Victoria is not friendly to cyclists, and neither is Park St really.) + 1 hope that current tenants--ex.Taste of Seoul --are given preferential treatment for leasing in the new location, ideally with a limit to the increase on their current lease Lastly, I have a concern that is much broader. I wonder how this development application will accommodate the announcement made by the Haudenosaunee Hereditary Chiefs Council regarding a declared moratorium on land development on the Haldimand Tract,which of course includes the City of Kitchener.. I believe that the Six Nations of the Grand River have a legitimate legal basis for their declaration.The City of Kitchener should accommodate this declaration because: e it is a moral duty (much of the land on the Haldimand Tract was stolen from Six Nations or the money paid was mismanaged by government trustees); 9 collaboration with Six Nations on land development review and strategic directions is step toward advancing Indigenous sovereignty in Canada; and Six Nations review of land development proposals will help ensure that the land is developed in ways that are sustainable and environmentally friendly. I direct your attention to this quote from the HHCC website: i Page 260 of 520 "The Haudenosau nee intend to exercise our jurisdiction over our lands and waters in away that maintains the delicate balance between Creation and humans,focusing on sustainability and responsiveness to climate change to protect waterways and ecologically sensitive areas." How does the City of Kitchener plan to accommodate this moratorium in respect to this development application? Since you asked for feedback, I'll add my two cents on what I see as productive steps on a path forward: • The City should arrange for political representatives and staff from the Development and Construction department to meet with the HHCC to discuss how current policies could be adjusted to accommodate the moratorium (i.e. how to direct new and ongoing land development proposals, such as the one in question,to the HHCC for review); ■ File City should announce upcoming changes to its land development application and review proceduros, citing its commitment to Canada's TRC Calls to Action for the recognition of sovereignty and self-determination of First Nations; • In consultation and collaboration with representatives of the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations, the City should explore integrating the values and principles of the Dish with One Spoon Wampum into the city's guiding frameworks for sustainable and ethical land development. Thanks for your time, - Traditional territory of the Neutral,Anishinaabe, and Haudenosaunee peoples Page 261 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:07 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria Park street application Hello Eric, I'm reading the urban design report for the proposed Park&Victoria development. The document indicates that the property is currently zoned MI..)1 Mu , ,-after a great deal of research I understand that the max1mum floor space ritii, :-, 2 and 4 respectively and the max building height is 13.5 and 24 meters respectively. Can you confirm that these are the current regulations for this site? Would It be correct to assurne that the developers have been In conSLPItatiOn with the city planning department prier to their application for a fsf of I I.& Also is a public information meeting planned? i Page 262 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:53 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; Berry Vrbanovic Cc: Tyler Subject: [EXTERNAL] Did not receive the notice for the Park and Victoria development Hello, My neighbour a few houses down from me on Theresa Street alerted me to a notice they received about the development at Victoria and Park. We did not receive the notice, and our property will be impacted by the shadows that the building will cast(as will the whole of Theresa Street). I inquired with Ms. Debbie Chapman who said that all properties within 240 m of the development should have received a notice. I measured on google this morning, and that would mean all properties on: -Theresa Street, - Park Street, - Henry Street, - Michael Street, -as well as one of the Victoria Place towers, should be provided a notice if the edge of the development is the point of measurement. My property is only 120 m from the development; not being provided with notice to provide comment is a frustrating oversight. I am glad my neighbour thought to reach out, but otherwise I would have not known about a development that would have large impacts on the sunlight over my property and traffic patterns of my neighbourhood. The remaining people who are entitled to be provided notice should be provided notice post-haste, and if there is a delay the period of consultation should be extended. Page 263 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November iu, zuz i ,):uz PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St S at Park St. 38 stories!! 1150 residential units equals approximately 2300 more people in this neighborhood. Already the traffic going up Victoria towards Westmount is congested because the neighborhood between Belmont and Lawrence fought against expanding the road to 4 lanes and won. What will this look like with another 2300+ people in the hood along with the business owners? Where will you put more green spaces in this neighborhood for this highrise and the other 3 that are currently under construction and are in very close proximlty to eine another??Cherry park Is super small and the only other park is Victoria.These 2 parks will be overrun with people looking to enjoy a green space and walk their dog. A nicer neighborhood is great because we have been the victim of lower class living for far too long but this development is sending our population off the charts. The Iron Horse Trail is extremely busy. During the height of the pandemic, it was so congested it was dangerous for the old folks with walkers and canes to even be on it.This will only get worse. Using up real estate in the core is a good idea now that so many factories are no longer operational but where are all of these people suppose to enjoy their neighborhood?? Respectfully, Lived here since 1983 Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada's largest network. Page 264 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 1:51 PM To: Eric Schneider; Dabbie.chapman@kitchener.ca; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park development (146 Victoria Street South) proposal in Kitchener Hello, It has come to my understanding that there are some neighbourhood association groups and individuals who are or are planning to object to allowing this project to be approved as it is, either with aims to severely reduce building height or cancel it all together. I won't bother to share their grievances here as I am sure they will do that on their own accord, However, I would nonetheless like to instead offer my support for thls project. I'm an artist who works at the intersection of art, architecture and urbanism, working with many institutions and projects in the past. I like to think that I have good knowledge on urban development issues as a result. Ulrimateiy, I believe this pro ie;.t Inok- K,rv8t. The location could not hij any better-Victoria Street is growing to become an important street in downtown Kitchener and I believe it to be one of the best places the city/region can begin to densify with projects such as these (although the street itself may need revamping at some point to enhance the pedestrian experience; it may also one day provide a good east-west LRT line when needed, perhaps connecting YFK to the Boardwalk). Architecturally, these buildings look fantastic. IBI Group did a good job and this is a step above many of the current projects that have so far been built here. I'm a fan of contemporary architectural design that has an aesthetic cohe;ivcness to it, whereas unfortunately, many projects decide to "cheap out" on fts ,inpurtant factor, beconrinx eyesores that blight the skyline for the rest of our lifetimes, such as the Duke Tower project or anything else SRM Architects gets involved in. That the building complex itself offers a very grand vision: 1150 one and two bedroom units constructed downtown -so close to the future train station, LRT, bus routes, nearby businesses- is a big deal. More commercial space is also very desirable and will continue to be so as we come out of this pandemic and people seek to start new businesses, More homes are needed to help this ho using crisis atrc}ss the ndLion. To provide ovr~r one thousand homes, in a beautiful building complex, so dose to daily needs, is nothing but great. The density of so many people living here will also add to the streetlight of downtown which would also contribute economically to surrounding businesses, be them restaurants, entertainment venues, parks, shops and also contributing to the overall vibrancy of downtown street life regardless of the time of day. Whilst I could write a lot more, I'l I try to beep this short. Avera 11, 1 hope that the City of Kitchener is able to approve this project as it is now-with no reduction in height, increased parking etc ... whatever NIMBYs may complain about-as it will provide so much to the city from homes,to jobs, to new commercial spaces to adding to our growing skyline and helping to prove that Kitchener-Waterloo Region as a whole - is now an important major Canadian city/region for businesses, residents, our educational facilities and so much more. We need to appreciate the fact we're growing rather than find this alarming and immediately yearn for conservatism. Growth and evolution is the key to most things. I'm happy to have witnessed the transformation of this area in the last 2 decades car so, going frorn a fairly insignificant place to one of the nations most important cities for everything Prow, technology to education. As long as our elected officials and developers can continue to develop this place we call home by allowing these wonderful new projects to get built and grow our city,then we can become even more proud of the place we live. i Page 265 of 520 It i5 my hope that the City of Ki[chener+will approve this projucr and many more after t1 pis, regardless of height or density: if it's a good proposal, it should be approved.As the old adage goes in architecture/urbanism: "build up, not out" (and build transit to match it, of course!). It's the only way you can build a truly livable city and repair the last century of poor car-oriented-planning that left most if not all North American cities in ruins due to poor urban planning and policy decisions in the 20th century. It's time all the cities in Waterloo Region make this place a truly unique, desirable and great place to live. Thank you, Page 266 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 2:10 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Proposed Development of 146-162 Victoria St. S &92-110 Park St . Dear Sir: As a former long time resident of Kitchener who moved away for many years in retirement and then chose to return several years ago , I find myself watching 'development' with dismay . I carefully selected the downtown area as my permanent home as it offers both charm & vibrancy . Progress and development are inevitable but somehow the buildings, both proposed and currently under construction, are getting taller and taller . This particular proposal involving a building of 38 stories is overwhelming & leaves me wondering if there is some kind of contest going on among developers . I see several other proposed buildings also in the 35 storey range . Too high for Kitchener to retain a sense of good taste and welcome . There are also several buildings in the mid 20 storey range which I do consider acceptable and reflect a modern but manageable community , something that still has eye appeal . Do we want to be another Toronto ? I suspect that the majority of our residents would say "No" ! We still have the opportunity to be Kitchener - independent , unique and a wonderful place to live . Sincerely, Page 267 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 9:04 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] re development at Victoria and Park I currently reside at In Kitchener ( for the past 20 years), almost across the street where this monstrosity of a development will be going in. I am very concerned about the height of the towers as well as the traffic flow on Victoria. I would like you to decrease the height of the towers drastically. I pay taxes and The height would affect the amount of light on my house and also severely increase the traffic flow to an unmanageable level. With the current construction of Victoria at Joseph and Victoria, we have already lost privacy, and light, not to mention a increase of property taxes. Adding buildings at this height is highly unreasonable. We are NOT TORONTO. I implore you to reconsider the height so as to fit in to this HERITAGE AREA!! The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria. For example, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, at 38 storeys would be like both the towers at the One Hundred development staked on top of each other. Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established neighbourhoods, not taller. The following are suggested to reduce the impacts to nearby residents: - Reducing the heights of the towers, a mid-rise scale (5-11 storeys) or small high-rise such as the Iron Horse towers (15 storeys), which is set next to historical homes on Schneider Street, - Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. - Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Page 268 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 8:34 AM To: Eric Schneider, Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria St S proposed development Hi Eric & Debbie, I received in mail a postcard indicating that a developer would like to add an 1150 unit complex on Victoria St S and Park St. To be clear, I am against any rule changes that favour increased density for a particular development including this one. We already have traffic issues in this area. Turning onto Victoria St S from just south of the proposed buildings is cumbersome already.There are at least three new buildings that are not entirely finished within a kilometre of the proposed site (add that to the traffic study).The 4 way stop in Victoria park is often backed up and the light at Queen St is also a congestion point. When you add the new residents from the buildings currently under construction I suspect we are in for gridlock. A minor accident at Park and Victoria the other day snarled traffic for hours, emergency vehicles have a hard time getting through. Every time you add more residential units you there will be more traffic and yet the traffic study is dated 2016 so it's likely out of date.The plan can't be simply we will attract people without cars. (although Im sure the LRT will get some uplift) The proposed parking spaces are totally inadequate. The average number of cars per household in Canada is 1.5 the proposal is 0.54 not including parking for retail proposed. In the parking executive summary it is very clear they had to go to Hamilton to find an example of a building with similar cars per unit and an old apartment near the library.These are not urban examples they are more like residences for single seniors. I understand we need to grow as a city but there needs to be more impact studies,traffic planning and realistic proposals. I suspect the developer knows there will be push back and are willing to go to a 25 story building instead of 38 with maybe only 800 units but that too will be beyond the road carrying capacity once all the buildings in the area are filled up. I think we are quickly becoming dense and letting developers get us all denser is not really a good idea. Please add me to the list of people who would like to hear about the "notice of decision". Thanks for reading and feel free to comment if I am missing any important information. (for example is Victoria St being widened to 4 lanes, more stop lights etc.) Page 269 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 11:35 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development: 146-162 Victoria Street Hello Eric, I've recieved the notification if the development application fire Victoria and Park. I live at How can I get further information on the pre-submission meetings between the owners and the city? I'm looking for attendees, minutes, any and all documentation related to the discussions. Thank you, Page 270 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 11:47 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re the proposed development property at the corner of Park and Victoria St. S To whom it may concern I am a resident in the community. I am in favour of downtown intensification and therefore support the building of multi use complexes. My question has more to do with the nature of the use. What we knew before the pandemic and what is even clearer now, is the growing disparity between the "have's" and the "have nots." In this city,we see the growing challenge of homelessness and affordable housing. How will this complex respond to this situation? In New York City,for example,when new large multi storey buildings happen, a certain percentage of those are designated for folks on the lower income bracket, making some units affordable. While this proposal says that it is for "mixed use," will there be affordable rental units, or is the project there simply to put money into the hands of the developers? I would like to think that with every proposal,the City would look at the housing needs of the entire community. Regards, s Page 271 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 10:19 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: ebbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at 146 Victoria St S Hello, As a resident of the neighbourhood I have the following comments and questions on the application for development at 146 Victoria St S (Park and Victoria St): 1. Impact on existing community members: What plans have been made for safety and comfort of pedestrians and cyclists in the area re wind tunnels at the corners, changes in snow deposition, and shadows from the building? How has mitigation of additional traffic in the area for existing houses been addressed? 2. Affordability: No mention of affordable units is made at all. I strongly feel all developments should have more affordable units as part of their mix given the number of homeless and precariously housed people in the Region to add to the affordable housing supply. "There are 1,150 one-bedroom and two- bedroom units". Affordable rental options for different sized families should also include some 3 bedroom units. Units that also facilitate work from home should be considered. Many families attending nearby schools are living in rental housing, children should be considered too for amenities. How many of the units would be considered affordable? 3. Accessibility: for people with mobility challenges, it is mentioned "Walkways will be designed for universal accessibility" but it doesn't indicate if units themselves are designed for universal accessibility as well. Are the units universally accessible? 4. Sustainability: a. (green space) The current design really seems to lack green space at street level, though the green roof is an excellent addition. Ground level green space and tree planting is important to mitigate heat island, wind, and stormwater issues as well as provide green space for community members. The area is low on tree canopy -the City of Kitchener's Urban Forest mapping shows this area(Cherry Park neighbourhood) has only 20%tree canopy which is lower than desired- so more should really be mentioned and included for trees and greenspace beyond "The landscape plan proposes a regular spaced pattern of deciduous.trees lining the site's Victoria Street South frontage and along the internal perimeter boundaries, contributing to the urban tree cover. Soft-scoped spaces elsewhere at-grade and on podium rooftops providing additional plantings for the site." It is hard to visualize the spaces at-grade in the conceptual drawings. Can more green space and trees be added? A parkette (for example similar to the one on the Trio development bordering Gage and Belmont and the Iron Horse Trail) would create the above-mentioned benefits on the north side of Victoria St. b. (climate change) Greenhouse gas emissions not mentioned at all in the urban design brief (although some of the design sustainability items would be related). Green energy generation may be a missed opportunity as it is stated "Alternative or renewable energy systems are not proposed" and "Solar PV installations are not proposed". Could solar installations be considered as an explicit option in the initial design? c. (Recycling) "innovative waste management using systems that encourage the collecting and recycling of waste produced by residents" sounds reasonable. However, compostable collection i Page 272 of 520 is not mentioned at all, this should be explicitly designed into their waste management system from the beginning. d. (Stormwater infiltration) "Stormwater on the site will be controlled through connections to the existing sewers on Victoria Street South and Park Street, per the submitted functional engineering drawings. "Opportunities for incorporating landscaping elements and surface treatment that promotes stormwater infiltration will be explored at detailed design". The conceptual drawings show very little of those opportunities considered so far, I would like to see much more on this to improve the climate resiliency of the area instead of relying on existing sewers that would not have been designed with increased intensity and duration of precipitation given climate change. Pervious surfaces and rainwater capture for landscaping purposes could be options. e. (Other sustainability issues) i. -Good that the parking is underground, and they have considered the roofing to reduce heat island effects. ii. -Good they have considered energy conservation in their window-to-wall ratio. iii. -Infrastructure for EV charging stations in the parking garage is provided from the outset. (Good, but how many EV charging stations?) Regards, 2 Page 273 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 12:32 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments -Application for Development - 146-162 Victoria St. S. & 92-110 Park St. Hello Eric, My name is id I live with my husband three children rn We are writing to you with significant concern about the proposed development at 146-162 Victoria St. S.&92-110 Park St. We received the application for development notice in our mailbox earlier this week and it has certainly initiated a conversation amongst our family as well as neighbours in the community. We understand that one of our neighbours emailed in May with concerns for the proposed developments in the downtown core (30 Francis&20 Queen St.). We feel that they were quite articulate,thoughtful and concise in pointing to various concerns with high-rise developments like those ones and now this current application for Victoria St. S. & Park St.: unaesthetic cityscape; small units do not allow for diverse households;throwaway buildings; place making along with densification. I will not repeat their arguments here but suffice to say we feel the trend continues with this project at Victoria St. S. & Park St. We would like to upfront acknowledge that we're sure receiving an email opposing an application for development comes off as NIMBYism at its finest.To be clear—we are not opposed to development and intensification in the downtown core. We agree in principal with the goals and strategies of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (along with the various urban design manuals); Region of Waterloo Official Plan; 2019 Growth Plan; 2020 Provincial Policy Statement; and Planning Act provided they are enacted with a long-term vision for what is best for the type of City and community we are shaping for the future. As Chris Hume of the Toronto Star notes, "There are two types of heritage, let's not forget:one we inherit;the other we bequeath." In that vein, we are looking for the City of Kitchener to guide thoughtful and appropriate development and increased density in the downtown core—added height and density in and of themselves will not automatically result in healthy, livable,safe and attractive communities.The absurd juxtaposition of three high-rise buildings of the proposed sizes directly adjacent to the low-rise mature neighbourhoods of the Victoria Park Area Heritage Conservation District and Cherry Hill does not speak to careful, sustainable,thoughtful and appropriate planning but instead to short-sighted, short-term, and profit oriented thinking. We sincerely ask that City Councillors challenge this application for proposed development to acknowledge genuine design concerns posed to characteristics of the community and quality of life by this type of built form. Certainly there must be a more "Goldilocks" proposal for this space. Are high-rise infill developments of this size the only way to increase density? Certainly not. Can we not learn from the experiences of other Canadian cities and cities around the world (e.g. Vancouver, Paris, Barcelona,Amsterdam, etc.) who have and are confronting the challenge of intensification with other built-forms (i.e. mid-rise buildings of 5-11 storeys high)to increase density in a way that is more harmonious with the community in which they exist:human- scaled in terms of size;fits into the character of the neighbourhood;animates sidewalk culture;offers a diverse range of units including family-sized options to attract a more diverse population;provides greater flexibility as a building type in order to be more resilient to future modification and adaptation(a key sustainability factor). Page 274 of 520 We have read and reviewed the Planning Justification Report(PJR)forth is proposed development submitted by the Applicant (Kevin Muir, GSP Group). Although, in his opinion,this development "ticks all the boxes" we fail to see how this development "'respect[s]the existing scale, height, building length and massing of the neighbourhood"(from City of Kitchener Design for Residential Infill In Central Neighbourhoods, Urban Design Manual). We realize that"the site technically falls into a "Mixed-Use Zoning" but the application is seeking exemptions from several zoning compliance regulations which would actually be appropriate for a site that is directly next to low-rise residential communities along Park St.,Theresa St.,and Victoria St. For instance: MAX building height of 32M (applicant proposing 82.8m, 115.25m, and 121.75m); MAX number of storeys of 10 storeys (applicant proposing 25, 36 and 38 storeys—above podium!).These heights rival the tallest buildings in the region (DTK Condos at 39 storeys and Charlie West at 31 storeys)which are also arguably too tall but at least do not directly abut low-rise residential neighbourhoods. These proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park—20-32 storeys higher! As referenced in the PJR, the Kitchener Official Plan Section 11.C.1.31 intends that new buildings are designed and existing buildings are reworked to "enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale,create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places" as well as Section 4.C.1.9 which directs that residential intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is to be designed to respect existing character with a "high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context"—we argue that these proposed towers fail to appropriately acknowledge the surrounding context in an insatiable desire for increased floor space and thus profit.The scale, massing, and transition are completely inappropriate for this location and we fail to see how "the proposed building height and scale can be achieved without creating unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood resulting from the taller building form" (PJR, p.42). The application also references the housing diversity perspective and that it further diversifies the housing stock in DTK with options in unit types and sizes.To be clear, it is offering a "mix" of mostly one-bedroom (two-thirds of inventory) and two-bedroom (one-third of inventory) like most of the other high-rise residential buildings that have recently gone up. Is this really increasing housing diversity?A small one or two bedroom unit in a high-rise building is seldom considered a life-long address for a vast majority of the North American population. So what type of community is the City of Kitchener interested in creating? It would appear one that is more geared to transitory populations who can afford the high price of these units (the small number of affordable units provided aside -all of which are one-bedroom). These are certainly not geared to families or even those looking to downsize. We would argue that a greatersupply of mid-rise, medium-density housing options can better solve the affordability,supply, and density needs of our community while fitting into the character of the neighbourhood(at locations throughout the City and Region)and creating a vibrant, healthy, livable,safe and attractive community. With a development of this scale of course we are concerned by a variety of factors such as increased vehicular traffic (poorly accounted for in the PJR and an issue we currently struggle with on in terms of speeding and wrong- way traffic), shadow and wind impacts (truly concerning shadow mapping in the Urban Design Brief from GSP), loss of privacy, pressure on existing services and amenities, change of neighbourhood character, decrease of property values, and further intrusion of high-rise development into low-rise areas. As the issue of urban density is not new it has been the subject of both debate but also research for decades and we urge City Council to seriously weigh the pros and cons of approving a development of this scale for both the community and those who occupy these units which can actually be isolating from daily urban life and the activity that takes place on the streets. To reiterate—we are definitely not opposed to increased development in DTK and applaud some of the more appropriate mid-rise developments that exist, have been re-worked or have recently been completed like the Arrow Lofts and Barra on Queen as just a couple of examples.There is absolutely room for more to enjoy what DTK has to offer but this proposed development,for the reasons outlined above, is not the way forward. Our sincere thanks for your time and attention to this matter. With respect, Page 275 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 8:45 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on Development at Victoria and Park Street Dear Mr. Schneider and Ms. Campbell, My name is and I live with my husbana and We are contacting you regarding the new proposed development at the intersection of Park Street and Victoria Street. We are proud to call downtown Kitchener our home. Although we do think that the parcel of land at Park and Victoria is prime land for redevelopment, we were completely taken aback by the scale of the proposed development. Although there are several existing towers near Victoria Park, these are generally not near low rise homes, or are much shorter where they are near low rise homes. The proposed Victoria and Park Towers are much taller than any existing tower near Victoria Park, 20-32 storeys higher! Several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South since 2016. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street toward low rise established neighbourhoods. 1 Victoria — 19 storeys —completed in 2016 [1] One Hundred Tower A—21 storeys — completed in 2020 [1] • One Hundred Tower B — 17 storeys —completed in 2020 [1] • Garment St Condos —28 storeys—complete in 2021 [1] The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably taller than any of the recently completed buildings along Victoria; the tallest tower would be equivalent to the two towers at the One Hundred staked on top of each other! Currently the tallest tower in Region is DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys [1]. However, DTK Condos is located in the core of downtown, and is not located near low rise residential areas. The Park and Victoria development would place two similarly tall towers within throwing distance of the Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods, and to our knowledge would be the largest development in the downtown to date. One would hope that in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to surrounding residential areas, new developments would be getting shorter as they approach low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. In addition to being very tall, the proposed development will be very close to the street and the towers will have little set-back from the edge of the podium. The impact on the street scape would be very imposing and incongruous with the nearby land use, and so we strongly question the logic of the placement of such a large development where it is currently proposed. In our mind, a midrise (5-10 storeys) would be much more complementary to the existing nearby neighbourhoods; furthermore, a development 10 storeys or less would follow current zoning regulations. As residents of Theresa Street we have several concerns: • Increased Motor Vehicle Traffic • Shadows Page 276 of 520 • Community Vitality • Pedestrian and Cycling Landscape • Overuse of Existing Nearby Amenities and Lack of Place Making Increased Motor Vehicle Traffic Located at the corner and Park and Victoria, this development will place more stress on an already heavily trafficked corner. We are concerned about how the new development will impact traffic patterns along Victoria Street and Park Street, through the park on Jubilee and throughout our neighbourhood. Our street already has a big issue with aggressive, fast and wrong way drivers (our street is a one-way street). It is a perennial issue that has been getting seemingly worse over the years, and one for which many of our neighbours consistently send complaints to the City. We fear that this development would only exacerbate the problem. Shadows We are very concerned about the impact these towers will have on the enjoyment of our home. In late summer and early fall, most our all of our street will be in the shadow of these towers in the late afternoon and early evening. Our street has a strong community: neighbours sit out on'their porch in the evening to soak up the sun and chat with passersby, children play together on the sidewalk, and people converse on the sidewalks as they wind down after work. These shadows will make the street darker and colder which will make our street less inviting and risks damaging the social fabric of our neighbourhood. Community Vitality While we agree in principle with city's plan for greater density in the downtown core, we expect that like most things, when it comes to density more is not always better. It is understood that increasing the density beyond the existing condition at the site of the proposed development can surely contributes positively to the livability and vitality of the community within and surrounding the development. However, at some point further increases to size of a development will start to have negative impacts that outweigh the initial benefits. The goal of increasing density in the core should be to create healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities, not simply more housing at any cost. To that point, we are concerned about the quality of housing that this development will create. Like most of the other high-rise residential buildings that have been built recently, this development is offering mostly one- bedroom (two-thirds of inventory) and two-bedroom (one-third of inventory). In a one-bedroom apartment singles cannot comfortably share their space and costs with a roommate, and one-bedrooms apartments are not ideal options for families or even downsizing couples. If the goal is densification, we need to consider the quality of the units not just the number of the units. This type of construction will not alleviate the current housing crunch we are experiencing in this City as it does not appeal to diverse households, and is not a viable alternative to detached and semi-detached homes. Although it is understood that land is at a premium in the core, which leads to proposals that try to maximize the number of units on a property's footprint. As more people can comfortably live in a unit with more rooms, it stands to reason that buildings with a greater proportion of units with two of more bedrooms could result in more densely occupied buildings than buildings with a greater proportion of one-bedroom units, even though there would be less units. More units per building are more profitable for developers though. We (residents of Kitchener) will be living with these towers for a very long time, long after the developers are gone. Therefore, short term goals such as fast densification and maximizing the profitability of developers should not be the leading concerns in considering such developments. Pedestrian and Cycling Landscape According to the design report there will be an entrance for parking off of both Park Street and Victoria Street, the development will only have car parking for approximately 60% of units and there will be bicycle parking However, the design of the development is still strongly car centric. For example, there does not appear to be a separate or protected entrances for cyclists to access bicycle parking. Only confident able-bodied cyclists would be able to use such parking, riding along a parking garage Page 277 of 520 with cars would discourage less able bodied or confident cyclist and is certainly not appropriate for children. Such a large development should be inclusive to a wide demographic of people, including families. Additionally there appears to be little consideration for the experience of pedestrians in the building design, which is apparent in reviewing the wind impact study. Air flow around the building would create uncomfortable conditions around the building for any one not standing still right at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street both in the winter and the summer. This is notably the area where architectural renderings propose outdoor seating, and is where pedestrians would be required to wait in order to cross the road. Overuse of Existing Nearby Amenities and Lack of Place-Making Lastly, new developments are being built faster than the City is building new amenities for the new residents such as green spaces, trails, parks, squares, schools, and daycares. By concentrating so much development in one place without equal investment in communal space, we risk overuse of existing amenities. How will Victoria and Cherry Parks cope with an additional 1000+ residents at its doorstep? Will these parks be expanded and/or have further amenities added to compensate for increased use? Sales materials for new condos often list all the amenities that new residents can take advantage of, but these large developments should ideally be contributing to place making in our street-scapes, not just taking advantage of our existing places. The Bauer Lofts is a great example of a condo development that included placemaking in their design; we need more thoughtful design like the Bauer Lofts! The podium design of the proposed development excludes non-residents of the towers from taking advantage of the shared outdoor space, and although there will be retail on the lower levels of the podium, available retail space in of itself does not result in place making. The lower levels of 1 Victoria and the One hundred towers are a testament to this. Summary In summary, we suggest that a midrise (5-10 storeys) would be much more complementary to the existing nearby neighbourhoods, as stated a midrise would also follow current zoning regulations. A smaller development would better integrate into the existing fabric of the surrounding neighbourhoods by placing less stress on the traffic in the area, including through Victoria Park and a smaller development would not cause large shadows over entire existing low rise heritage neighbourhoods. In our case, we are very concerned of the impacts of increased traffic and shadows on the enjoyment of our home and neighbourhood. The goal of densification in the core of downtown Kitchener should be to create healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities, not simply more housing. At some point further increasing density will start to have a negative impact that outweigh the initial benefits of a new development. While the number of new housing units is an important consideration in increasing density, the quality of those units should be an equally if not more important consideration. Units with two more bedrooms are more appealing than one-bedroom units to a larger more diverse set of households and are a better alternative to semi or fully detached homes. Furthermore, more people can comfortably live in a unit with more rooms, reasonably complexes with a greater proportion of units with two or more bedrooms could result in more densely occupied buildings than buildings with a greater proportion of one-bedroom units. With the exception of some proposed retail space on the ground level, the new development does not plan on contributing to the placemaking at street level. It would also the pedestrian experience near the building less comfortable due to increased wind speeds, particularly at the corner of Park street and Victoria street where pedestrians would need to wait to cross the road and where architectural renderings suggest an area of outdoor seating. Finally if the City wants to densify the core, it also needs to create more common space for residents to gather; otherwise, there could be added stress on and overuse of existing amenities such as Victoria and Cherry Parks. Our sincere thanks for your time and attention to this matter. With respect, Page 278 of 520 [1] https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest 'buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipality Page 279 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:29 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Development at King and Park Attachments: Letter to City re New Development.docx Hi Eric, Hope you are having a great day! I have attached a letter stating my concerns for the new development going up at King and Park. I think the new development will be great for DTK but I mention a couple concerns I have with regards to increased traffic on the street I live on (' ) and the reduced safety as a result, as well as the height/size of the new development. Please have a read as these concerns are shared by many of my neighbours and the surrounding community. Many thanks, This email message(including attachments,if any)is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,proprietary,confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient,you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Thank you. Page 280 of 520 Hello, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development,a multi-tower development(38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid-rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. As a resident of Theresa Street I am not opposed to the development but I am deeply concerned about how the new development,if built the way it is proposed,will impact the street I live on and the city I live in. First of all, it's too tall for where it is located! In the DT core a building like that makes sense. But this tower is in very close proximity to 2 storey housing near Cherry Park and Victoria Park. Tower heights should be reducing further from the core,not increasing! My main concern is the safety of the children and others living on our street if the development is allowed to be as high and house as many people as proposed.As a one way between Park and Victoria,Theresa Street is already often used as a short cut to beat the light or traffic at Park and Victoria.This leads to fast, aggressive drivers coming down Theresa Street.There are over 20 children living on this street and it is only a matter of time before someone inadvertently drives too fast down our street and severely injures someone.The new development's main entrance is right across from Theresa Street. If the development goes ahead as large as proposed there will only be an increase in speeding and aggressive driving on our street. I am also concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street,which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park(see a summary below); however,these are generally not near detached homes,or are much shorter where they are near detached homes.The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. • 1 Victoria- 19 storeys-completed in 2016 m •- One Hundred Tower A- 21 storeys-completed in 2020m One Hundred Tower B- 17 storeys- completed in 2020m Garment St Condos-28 storeys-complete in 2021m The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example,at 38 storeys,the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development,would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally,in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. Page 281 of 520 With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: • Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid-rise scale (10-15 storeys)which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. 0 Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road,taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place 1 - 7 storeysizi 205 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place II -9 storeys[3 241 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys 243 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 - 6 storeys <� Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South- Iron Horse Towers- 15 storeys 310 Queen Street South-Victoria Park Towers- 14 storeys 6� 290 Queen Street South-Victoria Place Retirement Community- 7 storeys« 214 Queen Street South-the York- 6 storeys =, South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen- 6 storeys 307 Queen Street South- Bread and Roses-6 storeys[7) 221 Queen Street South-Conestoga Apartment Towers- 17 storeys iij Sources: 1. https:,//en.wikipedia.orglwiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipa ji,y 2. https://www.drewlohoIdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-i 3. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii Page 282 of 520 4, Counted manually S. https:I/www.drewloholdings.com f apartments-for-rent f iron-horse-towers 6, https:[fwww.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7, httl2s:/Iwww.breadandroses.coop/ 8. https:[fbarracondos.com/about-barraL Page 283 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 12:32 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria - Park development Eric, Right now this development is simultaneously going through an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-Law Amendment. For zoning,the FSR allowed is 5.0 and they are requesting 11.6? Somewhere the max. building height is 24m and they are requesting 122m? Is the above correct? Why are there Zoning requirements in place if no one adheres to them? Did the planners who created the zoning get it wrong? Does the City of Kitchener hire incompetent staff? Or are the Developers smarter and know what is best? I think a 4-6 storey podium will be too big beside the small neighbours to the East on Victoria. 2 of the 3 towers are considerably taller than the Garment Condos and the 100 Victoria towers. Mixed use is great. Housing and intensification is good. But the towers are too tall (as seen in the Architectural drawings Renderings A5.1 and A5.2). I see amenity space for the residents but what are they providing for the neighbourhood/community? I've visited the Kitchener Planning Applications website and listed is "Council Meeting Information". When I click there it just takes me to the general council meeting page. Is there a targeted Council meeting for this project and if so when? Thank you for your time, Page 284 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 2:43 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park &Victoria development proposal Dear Mr. Schneider, On the information card we recently received concerning the abovementioned development proposal, it is stated that a neighbourhood information meeting will be scheduled, "if required". We humbly suggest to you that a development proposal of this magnitude absolutely necessitates public consultation to preserve some semblance of democracy and transparency on the City's and Developer's parts. We hereby request that a neighbourhood information meeting be scheduled. Please acknowledge receipt of this message by return email. Sincerely, Page 285 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:20 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:Victoria and Park Tower development Cheers Eric, am writing to endorse the height of the proposed Victoria and Park town development. I came across a petition to reduce the height, and I wanted to make sure that you know some Kitchener residents (I am close, at 410 Duke St W) approve of high rises. I believe Kitchener/Waterloo to be a city on the rise, and I want to see development going up and not out. Preserve the farmland surrounding us, move the humans into the sky. Page 286 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 9:42 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park Towers Attachments: Victoria and Park Towers - Letter.docx-eric.docx Hi Eric, Please see attached letter with my concerns dream...create...inspire... I believe all animals are entitled to live their lives and avoid all form of abuse and suffering Page 287 of 520 Hello, Mr.Schneider I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development,a multi-tower development(38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid-rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region, DTK Condos,which is 39 storeys.Unlike the DTK Condos,though,it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys;the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline.According to the design report,the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood,along Park Street,as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of , I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property,.which will be in the shadow of the tower. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street,which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street,through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park(see a summary below); however,these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes.The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy,livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. - 1 Victoria- 19 storeys- completed in 2016 N - One Hundred Tower A- 21 storeys- completed in 2020[ll - One Hundred Tower B -17 storeys-completed in 2020 N Garment St Condos-28 storeys- complete in 2021 N The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example,at 38 storeys,the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development,would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Page 288 of 520 Ideally,in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents,new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods,not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: - Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid-rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. - Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road,taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place I-7 storeys[2] 205 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys [31 241 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys [4] 243 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1-6 storeys[4) Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South- Iron Horse Towers- 15 storeys 151 310 Queen Street South-Victoria Park Towers- 14 storeys [6) 290 Queen Street South-Victoria Place Retirement Community- 7 storeys [41 214 Queen Street South-the York- 6 storeys [4] South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South- Barra on Queen- 6 storeys 1e1 307 Queen Street South-Bread and Roses- 6 storeys [7] Page 289 of 520 221 Queen Street South-Conestoga Apartment Towers— 17 storeys M Sources: 1. https:f_/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipa lity 2. https:/Zwww.drewloholdings.com apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-i 3. https:/,Lwww.drewloholdin s� com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually S. https://www.drewloholdings.comlapartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. https://www.drewloholdin2s.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. https://www.breadandroses.cooli,/ 8. https:/.Ibarracondos.com/about-barra/ Page 290 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 11:52 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria St South Development Hey Eric! Hope your day is good, I am a resident of Kitchener further down on Victoria St S, I will be able to see this building from my intersection. I was reviewing the supporting documentation for the site plan approval for the Victoria and Park development that was recently submitted and wanted to give any feedback, for what its worth. I don't know much about planning, other than the obvious housing supply crisis which I'm sure you are well aware of, I must say architectural and aesthetically speaking I think this is the most promising application in the Region. Many developments in the Region are known for their lacklustre architecture (not the City's fault) and cheap materials due to cutting costs (Eg. University district which looks like the buildings are 80's Soviet buildings) I know this is up to the developer to bring forth this quality of proposal,and the city doesn't get too involved in the quality etc. This is something that worries me with all of the upcoming developments downtown and would not want our Downtown to be an eye sore. From the massing and materials documents,this development brings a big of flare, something that we will need to consider to keep reviving our downtown and attracting talent. As for the height, I think it is the perfect height. We need to build up if anything is going to get solved. (The Station Park phase 3 development is 156m and right around the corner and I suspect developments will continue to rise, being we are the 10t' largest CMA in Canada) Thanks for your time have a great one! "Life's brighter under the sun" This e-mail message(including attachments,if any)is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,proprietary,confidential and exempt from disclosure.If you are not the intended recipient,you are notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately. Le present message electronique(y compris les pi6ces qui y sont annex6es,le cas 6ch6ant)s'adresse au destinataire indiqu6 et peut contenir des renseignements de caract6re privb ou confidentiel.Si vous n'6tes pas Ie destinataire de ce document,nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de le diffuser,de le distribuer ou de Ie reproduire.Si ce message vous a 6t6 transmis par erreur,veuillez en informer 1'exp6diteur et le supprimer imm6diatement. Page 291 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 9:02 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Application for Development of 146-162 Victoria St S in Kitchener Good morning and warm wishes. Thank you for the invitation in your "Application for Development" to respond to the proposed development on Victoria St S in Kitchener. You will see from my current address (below) that we live only one block from the proposed development. I would like to offer these brief observations and questions: 1. Whereas I fully support intensification and its benefits for this immediate area, does this area have the capacity to embrace the increased flow of people and cars? Will it in effect "flood" Victoria Park and the nearby trails? It will serve as a boon for small businesses and that is positive. 2. The footprint and impact on the immediate community will be immense. Already the traffic flows on Victoria are heavy, especially in peak flow times...the early morning and late afternoon. Already it is a challenge to gain access to Victoria from our address at 205 Victoria at these times.There is an accident waiting to happen. 3. Of the 1150 Units, how many will be designated for low income housing? 4. What is your assessment of what such a tall structure might have on the sun breaking in on folks in the vicinity? 5. What is the makeup of the 1150 Units? Are these rental Units or Condos or a combination? 6. 1 assume you are assuming underground parking, right? Thank you for this opportunity to offer response and counsel. I appreciate your good work in planning for a sustainable and attractive city. Best. Canada Page 292 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 12:14 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 146-162 Victoria Street South &92-110 Park Street Importance: High Hi Eric and Debbie, I received a "notice of development" card for Victoria Street South & Park Street. As a neighbour going to be affected by this; I thank the City of Kitchener for the information. Hopefully the city will share the outcome of the concerns and feed-back and not fast-track its plan to build without meaningful public input. I would like feedback on what our Kitchener Fire and Ambulance services feel about this. As it is now any emergency (especially with firetrucks)on Victoria Street South one lane of traffic,there is absolutely no place for vehicles to move over. Add dump trucks/cranes/service vehicles(for this development) on Victoria and Park Streets and we are doomed. I am not in favour of adding another 1150 units to an already congested area in Ward 9. There are at least three new buildings within a km of this development that are not entirely finished. There is another development"just outside Kitchener's downtown" Station Park condo's with 2 towers 18 and 28 Storeys high which will add almost 1000 residential units!Just like that, ambitious out of town developers are causing local, life-time residents of Kitchener to absorb 2,150 residential units with no regards to traffic concerns. I did review the planning application, and I have comments/suggestions/concerns. I have attached pictures that were not addressed in the TIS (Transportation Impact Study) Tower A= 25 Stores Tower B=36 Stores Tower C=38 Storeys for a total of 1150 Units and 667 vehicle parkin « 1150 units will add to traffic congestion nightmare with home deliveries and couriers • All 3 towers not to exceed 25 Storeys • 3 bedroom units should be offered in each tower,there is a need for larger accommodations • Hundreds of residents, some with mobility restrictions able to evacuate these towers in case of fire or other emergencies? Traffic congestion—logistic issue adding another 667 vehicles? 1150 units will add to traffic gridlock with home deliveries and couriers Transportation Impact Study project#200387 This study is missing very important facts. From 199 Victoria Street South to just pass 280 Victoria Street South there is hourl gridlock.The traffic and parking study submitted is dated 2016. Victoria Street is a Regional Road yet there is no study included.The information below will show my traffic study. CN Spur line (as indicated in a report) causes stopped traffic in both directions on Victoria Street South. This backs up traffic flow at the lights at Victoria Street South &West/Strange Street and the lights at Page 293 of 520 Victoria Street South and Park Street. As I write this (November 18/21 @2:55 pm )there was a train that crossed Victoria Street South at Walnut Street. It was a long train and lasted for 2 minutes&24 seconds. I timed it while I waited to turn right from Victoria Street South to Walnut Street. The only mention in the study about railway crossings was how often the "noise of signals" would impact future residents.. nothing about traffic flow. TrO a ylsto p, Fie 0 On Victoria Street South just passed lights at West/Strange Street intersection, heading towards Belmont Ave.,the Iron Horse Trail meets Victoria Street South. Drivers stop for pedestrian traffic(no flashing yellow activated pushbutton here)and drivers (following behind) are forced to stop in the middle of this intersection when the light changes to red. 13 No flow of traffic if a driver stops in either direction for pedestrians AND a train is crossing at Victoria Street South and Walnut Street. 0 199 Victoria Street South Dan's Windows and Doors. Very busy business.Transport, 5-ton ,vans, and company vehicles coming and going 6 days a week.There are a number of times M-F that transport trucks block Victoria Street South.There is a large dumpster through the week,that has to be emptied. With all these vehicles, plus garbage trucks(for two apartment buildings behind Dan's) Victoria Street South cannot absorb any more vehicle traffic. r Page 294 of 520 e I ;tnH Iow of Cruc-ks Thank you for taking the time to read my input. I would like to be added to a list about 1) a meeting with all of Ward 9 people to meet with this developer 2) if a traffic study with be re-visited 3)when a decision has been made. Regards, Page 295 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:30 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on the Proposal for a Development at Victoria Street and Park Street Attachments: Park Victoria development.pdf Hello Eric, My comments on the proposal for a development at Victoria Street and Park Street are in the attached document. Page 296 of 520 Comments with respect to Notice of Development Application for 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street. I'm glad that the city planning department and council will consider feedback from the public on the proposal for the development at the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street. As with most recent intensification developments in downtown and midtown Kitchener, the interests of the developer, council and residents are likely to be in conflict. I hope that in this case councilors from outside the affected ward will respond to the concerns of residents with the same consideration and support they give to the residents of their wards when faced with development concerns. It is daunting for residents like myself to fully understand the Urban Design Report prepared by the developer. The background information needed to assess the report takes a great deal of time and doggedness to acquire. It is difficult to comment on things like appropriate yard setbacks and tower offsets. What is easy for anyone to understand is that this is a massive development which raises a1 fundamental question: should a three tower F development of 38 stories be allowed in this location? My position is no. This is notar OW r' a matter of negotiating the to r r r g g piling off of a �- `. �r.�� '� r few stories to appease the concerns of T M II - Ir residents. This a matter of planning fora ;r l: ' �� a'. more appropriated midrise development. - J.- FAULM1 �tw"` Great mid-rise buildings are a vital component to any well-designed city. They are the bonding agent that links together downtowns with central neighbourhoods and intensification areas with low-rise communities. They create and reinforce the urban fabric in ways that make a city feel seamless, contiguous and crafted to the scale of the human experience. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Page 1 6 Page 297 of 520 Zoning Regulations for the Site. The developer's report fails to include details on the current zoning of the properties. It does state that the properties are in the Urban Growth Centre and zoned MU-1 and MU-2. Here are some of the regulations for both the old and new mixed use zones. Regulations MU-1 MU-2 MIX-2 MIX-3 Minimum front yard 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 setback Minimum exterior 9,5 1.5 1,5 I'S side yard setback Minimum rearyard 7,5 7.5 7,5 75 setback Minimum yard 7,5 715 7.5 setback abutting residential zone Maximum building 13.5 24 25 32 height Maximum number of 8 10 stories Maximum number of 5 6 stories in the base of a mid-rise building or tall building. Minimum street line 3 stepback for mid-rise buildings and tall buildings Maximum floor space 2 a 2 ratio Minimum landscaped 10 10511 15 area In addition to these regulations, the City of Kitchener Official Plan— Mixed Use district policies support a mid-rise development on the site. 15.D.4.19. maximum Floor Space Ratio of up to 4.0 will apply to individual properties where higher density development or redevelopment is desirable and appropriate. 15.D.4.20 City may, provided that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied, consider a maximum Floor Space Ratio up to 5.0 if the development or redevelopment: a) is designed to LEED certification standard or equivalent building rating system;, b) incorporates a below-grade parking structure, public amenity area, cultural heritage resource and/or public art; and/or, c) contains a food store located internal to a mixed use development. 15.D.4.22. Generally no building will exceed: a) 10 storeys or 32 metres in height,whichever is greater, at the elevation, on lands designated Mixed Use identified as a City Node,or Community Node on Map 2. b) 8 storeys or 25 metres in height, whichever is greater at the highest grade elevation,on lands designated Mixed Use as a Urban Corridor on Map 2. c)4 storeys or 14 metres in height.whichever is Page 298 of 520 greater, at the highest grade elevation on lands designated Mixed Use identified as a Neighbourhood Node on Map 2. 15.D.4.23. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.4.22,the City may consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units. It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base, appropriate massing along the streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied. Obviously, the proposed development doesn't comply with the current zoning and exploits every inch/cm of the site. The developer is applying for a floor space ratio of 11.6 and the project design includes towers 215 meters in height. This is not surprising based on the other developments that have been permitted on Victoria Street. Unlike the other developments on Victoria Street, this site requires a mid-rise design which provides a transition to the new high-rise developments on Victoria and the low-rise nature of Park Street both above and below Victoria Street. What this corner doesn't need is another 1 Victoria Street; a development that was touted as the Majestic Entrance to Downtown and that resulted in a bland, featureless, windswept corner that pedestrians detest. Due to the strong seasonal winds and the effect of corner acceleration, wind conditions are expected to be less than ideal near building corners during the winter. Urban Design Report. Innovations Developments. Kitchener Limited. August 2021. Page 34. The site is within the mixed-use corridor which is planned to transition to different intensities of mixed use-development. The proposed development fails to provide a transition either to the developments west nor a transition to the residential streets that lead to Victoria Park. The Urban Design Report fails to recognize Victoria Park, the Victoria Park Neighbourhood and the Cherry Park neighbourhood as part of the surrounding context of the development. The impact on the neighbourhood is made worse by a design that positions the tallest buildings on Park Street, this being done to maximize the future development of an additional property on Victoria. Park Street is treated as a side alley. _ Which Way to Appropriate a'T I ' Transitions? �i T nc-I� � �` Bi la L+riV Image Source:PARTS Urban Design Brief Page 3 6 Page 299 of 520 Trees and Green Space The Urban Design Report acknowledges that nearly all of the 51 trees on the site are to be removed. The Arborist Assessment from the GSP Group in a letter to the city, dated May 28, 2021, reports that the removal of trees from the site will be compensated for, in the form of planting on site, on city property adjacent to the site and cash in lieu. The city's practice of accepting cash in lieu of landscaped green spaces provides no benefit to the residents in the downtown and midtown neighbourhoods. Healthy trees provide multiple benefits including cooling the air through evapotranspiration, absorbing radiation and heat with the leaves during the hottest months with the highest UV index, and absorbing, reflecting, scattering, and transmitting income UV rays prior to reaching the paved surfaces under the tree. They offer other benefits as well, such as reducing the amount of storm water that enters the municipal waste water system... On Shade and Shadow: A case study on the impacts of overshadowing by tall buildings on Toronto's greenspaces. Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition. 2018. There are no trees planned for Park Street, a design that is detrimental to what is currently a tree lined street. Tree lined is a salient characteristic of Park Street and this should not be compromised especially by accepting cash in lieu. The city's Urban Forest Strategy spotlights the importance the urban forest on private lands yet this developer offers little in that regard. The urban forest is important for heat mitigation and carbon reduction. .51 The Urban Design Report does not measure the area of the development that will be landscaped. (Zoning Regulations require 10% ) Several design features indicate that ground level landscaping will be the least possible. These include: deficiencies in separation between towers, Page 300 of 520 • the building base situated at the property line on both Victoria Street and Park Street, + the building base situated tight to the eastern and northeastern property boundaries • a continuous concrete paved design stretching the private property line The Victoria Park Neighbourhood is deficient in greenspace. In the Staff Report: Infrastructure Services Department Report to Council, the city's staff concluded that Without significant intervention, the parkland deficit in these already deficient communities will worsen. Using policies and regulations in place, city planners and councillors can ensure that the development on the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street contributes to the urban forest and greenspaces in the downtown and midtown neigbourhoods. All sites are to be comprehensively landscaped including substantial tree planning, generous landscape buffers, and planting beds which provide screening between pedestrian pathways and drive aisles, parking areas and site function and servicing elements. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Intensification. The need for housing is pressing and this proposal is compelling in that respect. But this project exploits that need.The Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2021 Annual Monitoring Report shows that the city is on target to meet residential and employment growth targets. Notably, the number of residents and jobs per hectare in the Urban Growth Centre is 212 RJs/ha, surpassing the provincially mandated target of 200RJs/ha by 2031. In addition,the City's current intensification level of 67% exceeds the Regional intensification target and existing land use and density policies support future intensification practices. That is, a development with a floor space ratio of 11 is not needed to address the intensification goals of the city. The site at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street should be developed in accordance with current zoning regulations, that will limit the vertical clutter that is now becoming the city's skyline, add to the missing middle of mid-rise buildings in downtown and midtown Kitchener, and, in a city now dominated by black glass condo towers, provide a more human scale design for the gateway to Victoria Park. ...it's up to council to balance a reasonable level of intensification without disrupting communities. Councilor Davey. Kitchener Record. June 2021 F S [ 6 Page 301 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 11:24 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria St. S Development Eric, As a resident of downtown Kitchener for the last 12 years, my husband and I have been huge supporters of the DTK and the development around us. We live on Oak St. and have endured at least six years of steady construction noise, not to mention the dirt and debris in our yard, our windows, our solar panels, cars, etc.. ( 1 Victoria,the LRT, Google, Deloitte and the 3 condo's in the Garment district). Even with the constant noise and inconvenience of lane closures on Victoria St,we are excited about the growth of DTK and the foot traffic that will surely support the restaurant and shop owners. That being said,with my husband retiring soon, we purchased a Garment street condominium and carefully selected our unit to maximize the view and enjoy the sunlight/setting sun and enjoy an easy lifestyle. Enter the application for 146 Victoria St. and that now turns our dreams to dust. I am sure many other(Westmount facing) condo owners will react with dismay when they learn of this 38 story building that will put us all in the shade and take away the views. Not to mention several more years of construction noise and dirt directly outside our balcony. Very upsetting. With all the Covid-19 restriction delays we haven't even moved in yet, but the excitement we felt is fading away. Currently there over 10+ high rise buildings on the go, so I don't see the point of another large condominium in this area. Victoria Street is already a nightmare and pinches to a one lane right at the end of our street due to construction at the Huck Glove. I am constantly watching condo residents struggle to get out of the driveway as it is. I see too many close calls as I am waiting myself to get out of my street. ( Let me insert here that turning Joseph St. into a one way has been a nightmare for us. We are forced out on to Victoria St.to turn either right or left now. It is horrible. We are very close to the traffic light at Joseph and it is hard to get out. Why the city changed the street direction for a bike lane is beyond me. Cyclists already had the right of way on Joseph St. with green, painted signs on the road. I have not seen one bike use the lane between Victoria and Linden Streets. Why would a cyclist even consider venturing out onto Victoria Street? It's not safe. We always used Joseph and Francis St. as our route to avoid Victoria St. and for a matter of 6-8ft,we cannot use Francis St. It is extremely frustrating and just adds to the congestion on Victoria St. Now special snow plowing will be required $$$). The list goes on. It's time for the city to be considerate of the downtown locals, but we know this will not happen. This development will keep moving forward regardless of any feedback from the residents. Case in point, we opposed the Joseph St. bike lane that didn't need to happen, really. I've seen a few cars in the bike lanes so people are confused by it. Sadly, we will contemplate selling our condo when this plan gets approved. Sincerely, i Page 302 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:51 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 146 Victoria St. S. OPA 21/011/V/ES and ZBA21/017/V/ES Dear Eric and Debbie, I am a resident of downtown kitchener and I am in support of developments such as this. I have seen a petition circulated and directed to the addresses to whom this email is directed.Their main concerns are shadows, height, and traffic and I would like to refute the issues they bring up because for one, I believe that these concerns are opposite to mine and my community's interests, and because I believe these concerns are, at least in part, argued in bad faith. While I do have concerns regarding the provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities and provision of family sized units, I recognize that this is an important development. We are in twin housing and climate crises. We absolutely must build a huge number of new houses, and we have to do it in a transformative way that encourages active transportation. If we only take half-measures,we won't have accomplished anything. First, I would like to refute complaints about shadows, height, and traffic because I believe these are bad-faith arguments: 1. Shadows:This development is on the North corner of the intersection, meaning that shadows are already mitigated. I also find that I seek out shade in the blazing heat of the summer, especially on wide barren roads like Victoria. Sure,the idea of having sunlight on the street is great, but in practice people prefer shade. I get it, but also:tree-lined streets are shaded and desired; narrow streets in the old parts of European towns are desired. I don't think the anti-shade argument is cohesive, and I prefer shade. If I want to absorb sunlight, I will go to the park. I think that living downtown carries with it the expectation that you might have to grow shade-loving plants in your garden. 2. Height: I would prefer if this was 15 storeys or something, but to put in the same number of units at 15 storeys, in our current planning regime would be a long process, and physically disruptive for longer and in more places. Having 4 equally sized lots for 15 storey structures would receive just as much pushback,which we see constantly in Kitchener (Belmont, Queen/Mill, Weber/Queen).This lot is also perfectly placed for height.To the north is a parking lot and other towers,South west along victoria is going to be more development, and existing 10 storey towers in the park, and north west is train tracks.The argument against height is often effectively that it is an eyesore,which I could say for 90%of suburban commercial development and roadways, but oddly we never hear about. 3.Traffic. Victoria is a busy street. However,this street goes straight through the heart of downtown, and will lead directly to the transit terminal,the centre of pedestrian transportation. Expanding road access to cars when we also want it to be used by pedestrians and transit users does not make sense.To make traffic better,we must encourage more pedestrians and cyclists by making the pedestrian space along victoria better, by reducing car speeds even more, and continuing to provide residential buildings that do not provide parking. The amount of singles, professionals, young people and otherwise who don't want or need a car,who can work at a tech company downtown or commute to school who could live here is great. Drivers who want to go fast have alternate routes, if they want to be downtown,they can slow down. In sum,the problem they identify that traffic is getting worse is that they won't be able to drive as fast, which is in conflict with mine and every other pedestrian's need for safety. Increasing "traffic" (slowing cars down) is what I want for this area. 2016 Census data shows that roughly 1/3 commuters in Wards 9 and 10 (downtown Kitchener) commute by active transportation, a statistic that does not include children, or those who do not commute. Other miscellaneous things that I've seen against development like this: Page 303 of 520 Cars will park in the neighbourhood: I don't have a car and would love to live here. If people have a car and choose to live here,they would probably also figure out a more permanent parking solution than street parking. Also, street parking is legal. Residents don't have a personal claim to on-street parking How will they get groceries without a car:there's loads of options to get food downtown. If not downtown,the bus takes you directly to several grocers from this location. There are some arguments against development like this that I agree with.This development should be required to have provisions for more 3+ bedroom units. Families need these units and there currently is barely any of that being made in apartments downtown. I would also argue that these larger units can be more affordable for renters.two or three bedrooms units are more affordable for people to share and split the costs with a roommate than it is for them to afford a single bedroom apartment. It's also more flexible throughout the life of a renter or owner. I also want to see more for bikes, both within the building and in the roadways around it.There should be more spaces provisioned for safe bike storage than for cars. Lots of people will have more than one bike (for winter and summer), and families or roommates each require personal bike spots. Also,there should be space for different types of bikes, like cargo bikes. Additionally,this lot is in the centre of the developing cycling network. If the city didn't ask for at minimum 1:1 bike parking to units(or 1:1 bike parking to bedrooms),this would be a huge missed opportunity.This lot is less than 800 metres from central station, but victoria feels like a dangerous place to be.The new route behind the Home Hardware almost doubles the distance. Make the street safer, slower, and better for pedestrians and bikes. With a modest growth forecast of the 2009 Regional Official Plan of around 2%,or around 5000 new residents a year, we would need two or three developments like this every yearjust to keep pace with population growth and still not alleviate the housing crisis. If we required developments like this to be a third the height and number of units,we would need 6 to 9 more developments.The resistance to these is often based on bad faith reasons, like the above arguments against shadows, character, and traffic, and these arguments would be presented even if the heights were reduced, as can be seen in similar developments, like the one on Weber Street which is only proposed to be 19 storeys, or on Belmont which is smaller still.These arguments, I think, have become a shorthand or buzzword to say that people don't like it, and that is simply not productive. Similar ones were used for the Mill and Queen development, even though a tower of nearly equivalent height was across the street and has been for decades. I don't want to defend mega developments.They don't need me to do that. My ideal solution would be to only have 5-6 storey developments with 20-50 units and little to no parking to accommodate all the new residents, but this would require 100 new developments every year all over downtown for the foreseeable future,which is simply not likely. Unless those arguing against tall towers actively support and help expedite developments like this,tall towers like this are the best option. I apologize for this long rant, but my purpose is to provide a counter-voice to all the NIMBY opposition to housing, which does nothing to improve the city except maintaining the status quo for those who are already comfortable. I'm frustrated at how discussion around height and traffic drowns out substantive discussion around livability, safety, and confronting the dual crises of housing and climate. Let's frame this proposed development, and every one that follows, on those things. If you would like to talk more about my comments, I'd be happy to discuss Thank you for taking the time to read. Page 304 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:09 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria development In response to the mail out we received last week about this development, we wonder why such a misrepresentation of the plans passed any scrutiny. The picture shows 2 towers and possibly a third tower if one were to interpret the left hand side of the larger tower, not as balconies as shown on the right side, but as a hidden third tower. The words below the picture imply that the development is only one tower with 38 stories so we can assume that the second tower in the picture is not part of the development. We also wonder how any developer can cram over 1100 residential units into 38 stories unless they are tiny units, suitable only for one person per unit at the most. According to the VPNA newsletter which came only days after this mail out, the development is actually 3 towers of different heights with the highest projected to be 38 stories. This seems much more likely if one were to try to fit in 1150 units but there is no mention of 3 towers in the official mail out from the planning department. Is the planning department not aware of the proposed smaller towers? It seems that the normal negotiation dance between developers, planners, politicians and the public is underway. The developer asks for far more than they think will realistically be allowed and they need zoning and planning changes so that the project is viable. After all the sham public consultations are completed, the developer then makes some concessions to make it look like they have responded to the planning departments' concerns and the usual public outcry. We realize that this is a rather cynical view of the planning process but this process seems to be the normal course of events recently. The misrepresentation of the actual plans in this mail out can only contribute to public cynicism regarding the ongoing development in Kitchener. It doesn't seem very difficult to have a picture with 3 towers and a short description of their heights and unit capacity unless the intent was to mislead the people receiving the mail out. More than likely there will be many concerns expressed by people who live close to this project and it seems even more likely that people will have even more concerns about the whole process when the true scale of the project becomes known. Why would the planning department set themselves up for greater public outcry? Page 305 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 1Z:5b Fivi To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St. South/92-110 Park St. Good morning Eric, I recently received the notification about the proposed development listed above. I am the owner of a house a1 After studying the proposed plans for the corner site,while I have no objections to development, I do strongly feel the height of the three buildings should be reassessed and definitely reduced to a more logical height to suit the circumstances. I do believe we will be facing a traffic nightmare in this area - not only during construction - but also afterwards due to the constriction created by the narrowing lanes on Victoria Street and the limitations existing on Park Street. While I do not fully agree with this development being situated here, I am also aware that available housing is a critical issue locally and my one voice is not going to dramatically change the 'tides of development'. However, I do believe that some common sense should be applied in this situation and consideration given to constructing a cluster of buildings that are not 'skyscrapers' in the middle of a residential neighborhood!! Yours truly, Page 306 of 520 Comments with respect to Notice of Development Application for 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street. I'm glad that the city planning department and council will consider feedback from the public on the proposal for the development at the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street. As with most recent intensification developments in downtown and midtown Kitchener, the interests of the developer, council and residents are likely to be in conflict. I hope that in this case councilors from outside the affected ward will respond to the concerns of residents with the same consideration and support they give to the residents of their wards when faced with development concerns. It is daunting for residents like myself to fully understand the Urban Design Report prepared by the developer. The background information needed to assess the report takes a great deal of time and doggedness to acquire. It is difficult to comment on things like appropriate yard setbacks and tower offsets. What is easy for anyone to understand is that this is a ' massive development which raises a 'o fundamental question: should a three tower development of 38 stories be allowed in this I location. My position is no. This is nota matter of negotiating the lopping off of a r " few stories to appease the concerns of residents. This a matter of planning fora more appropriated midrise development. ' ' �`. Great mid-rise buildings are a vital component to any well-designed city. They are the bonding agent that links together downtowns with central neighbourhoods and intensification areas with low-rise communities. They create and reinforce the urban fabric in ways that make a city feel seamless, contiguous and crafted to the scale of the human experience. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Page 1 1 6 Page 307 of 520 Zoning Regulations for the Site. The developer's report fails to include details on the current zoning of the properties. It does state that the properties are in the Urban Growth Centre and zoned MU-1 and MU-2. Here are some of the regulations for both the old and new mixed use zones. Regulations W-1 Mu-2 M[X-2 MIX-3 Minimum front yard 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 __setback Minimum exterior 4.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 side yard setback Minimum rear yard 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 setback Minimum yard 7.5 l.5 7.5 setback abutting residential zone Maximum building 13.5 2.1 25 32 height Maximum number of S 10 stories Maximum number of l`. 6 stories in the base of a mid-rise building or tall building. Minimum street line _ 3 stepback for mid-rise buildings and tall buildings Maximum floor space 2 ratio Minimum landscaped x09b !".. 15% Z. In addition to these regulations, the City of Kitchener Official Plan —Mixed Use district policies support a mid-rise development on the site. 15.D.4.19. maximum Floor Space Ratio of up to 4.0 will apply to individual properties where higher density development or redevelopment is desirable and appropriate. 15.D.4.20 City may, provided that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied, consider a maximum Floor Space Ratio up to 5.0 if the development or redevelopment: a) is designed to LEED certification standard or equivalent building rating system;, b)incorporates a below-grade parking structure, public amenity area, cultural heritage resource and/or public art; and/or, c) contains a food store located internal to a mixed use development. 15.D.4.22. Generally no building will exceed: a) 10 storeys or 32 metres in height,whichever is greater, at the elevation,on lands designated Mixed Use identified as a City Node,or Community Node on Map 2. b) 8 storeys or 25 metres in height,whichever is greater at the highest grade elevation, on lands designated Mixed Use as a Urban Corridor on Map 2. c)4 storeys or 14 metres in height. whichever is Page 2 16 Page 308 of 520 greater, at the highest grade elevation on lands designated Mixed Use identified as a Neighbourhood Node on Map 2. 15.D.4.23. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.4.22,the City may consider increases to the permitted building height of up to 50 percent of the permitted building height where a development or redevelopment provides a mixed use building containing residential units. It must be demonstrated that a pedestrian scale base,appropriate massing along the streetscape and compatibility with adjacent lands is achieved and that all the applicable policies within this Plan are satisfied. Obviously, the proposed development doesn't comply with the current zoning and exploits every inch/cm of the site. The developer is applying for a floor space ratio of 11.6 and the project design includes towers 122 meters in height. This is not surprising based on the other developments that have been permitted on Victoria Street. Unlike the other developments on Victoria Street,this site requires a mid-rise design which provides a transition to the new high-rise developments on Victoria and the low-rise nature of Park Street both above and below Victoria Street. What this corner doesn't need is another 1 Victoria Street; a development that was touted as the Majestic Entrance to Downtown and that resulted in a bland, featureless, windswept corner that pedestrians detest. Due to the strong seasonal winds and the effect of corner acceleration, wind conditions are expected to be less than ideal near building corners during the winter. Urban Design Report. Innovations Developments. Kitchener Limited. August 2021. Page 34. The site is within the mixed-use corridor which is planned to transition to different intensities of mixed use-development. The proposed development fails to provide a transition either to the developments west nor a transition to the residential streets that lead to Victoria Park. The Urban Design Report fails to recognize Victoria Park, the Victoria Park Neighbourhood and the Cherry Park neighbourhood as part of the surrounding context of the development. The impact on the neighbourhood is made worse by a design that positions the tallest buildings on Park Street,this being done to maximize the future development of an additional property on Victoria. Park Street is treated as a side alley. Which Way to Appropriate Transitions? 0015 I+� h � r re Image Source:PARTS Urban Design Brief Page 3 6 Page 309 of 520 Trees and Green Space The Urban Design Report acknowledges that nearly all of the 51 trees on the site are to be removed.The Arborist Assessment from the GSP Group in a letter to the city, dated May 28, 2021, reports that the removal of trees from the site will be compensated for, in the form of planting on site, on city property adjacent to the site and cash in lieu. The city's practice of accepting cash in lieu of landscaped green spaces provides no benefit to the residents in the downtown and midtown neighbourhoods. Healthy trees provide multiple benefits including cooling the air through evapotranspiration, absorbing radiation and heat with the leaves during the hottest months with the highest UV index, and absorbing, reflecting, scattering, and transmitting income UV rays prior to reaching the paved surfaces under the tree. They offer other benefits as well, such as reducing the amount of storm water that enters the municipal waste water system... On Shade and Shadow: A case study on the impacts of overshadowing by tall buildings on Toronto's greenspaces. Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition. 2018. There are no trees planned for Park Street, a design that is detrimental to what is currently a tree lined street. Tree lined is a salient characteristic of Park Street and this should not be compromised especially by accepting cash in lieu.The city's Urban Forest Strategy spotlights the importance the urban forest on private lands yet this developer offers little in that regard. The urban forest is important for heat mitigation and carbon reduction. L} " 3 4J' The Urban Design Report does not measure the area of the development that will be landscaped. (Zoning Regulations require 10% ) Several design features indicate that ground level landscaping will be the least possible. These include: deficiencies in separation between towers, Page 310 of 520 • the building base situated at the property line on both Victoria Street and Park Street, • the building base situated tight to the eastern and northeastern property boundaries • a continuous concrete paved design stretching the private property line The Victoria Park Neighbourhood is deficient in greenspace. In the Staff Report: Infrastructure Services Department Report to Council, the city's staff concluded that Without significant intervention, the parkland deficit in these already deficient communities will worsen. Using policies and regulations in place, city planners and councillors can ensure that the development on the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street contributes to the urban forest and greenspaces in the downtown and midtown neigbourhoods. All sites are to be comprehensively landscaped including substantial tree planning, generous landscape buffers, and planting beds which provide screening between pedestrian pathways and drive aisles, parking areas and site function and servicing elements. City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual. Intensification. The need for housing is pressing and this proposal is compelling in that respect. But this project exploits that need. The Kitchener Growth Management Strategy 2021 Annual Monitoring Report shows that the city is on target to meet residential and employment growth targets. Notably, the number of residents and jobs per hectare in the Urban Growth Centre is 212 RJs/ha, surpassing the provincially mandated target of 200RJs/ha by 2031. In addition, the City's current intensification level of 67%exceeds the Regional intensification target and existing land use and density policies support future intensification practices. That is, a development with a floor space ratio of 11 is not needed to address the intensification goals of the city. The site at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street should be developed in accordance with current zoning regulations, that will limit the vertical clutter that is now becoming the city's skyline, add to the missing middle of mid-rise buildings in downtown and midtown Kitchener, and, in a city now dominated by black glass condo towers, provide a more human scale design for the gateway to Victoria Park. ...it's up to council to balance a reasonable level of intensification without disrupting communities. Councilor Davey. Kitchener Record.June 2021 516 Page 311 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 3:48 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Neighbourhood development at Park and Victoria St. Good afternoon Eric, I took some time and looked over the submission by the planners regarding parking at the new development at Park and Victoria. I understand what they've written and how they're justifying the number of spaces they've planned for residential use but I still disagree.They have picked a few buildings in various places where fewer tenants have cars, or maybe there hitt never was space for them, I don't know how they picked those particular buildings. Presently I live at less than a block from the proposed new development. I spoke to the building manager here about their experience with parking and find that there is one underground parking space per unit,some of which are tandem spaces able to hold two cars.The demographic in the two buildings here, 205 and 215 Victoria St. S., is more of the older retired age and I know of a few that don't drive any more, however younger couples and families are moving into the building and they often have two cars. Fortunately there is some surface parking here that can accommodate those needs and those of visitors. My comments here are selfish and I won't try to hide that. It has happened in the past that surface parking here has been taken up by people who don't belong here are taking space that might be needed for visitors that are here legitimately. As I'm sure you're aware,there is very little parking in this area other than the municipal lot off Park St. It's kind of awkward to tell visitors that they have to pay the city for parking when spaces they should have been able to use are taken by people who haven't properly planned for in a development. The other thing that crosses my mind is what the target demographic might be in the mind of the developer of this project? I don't imagine that they are planning a low rent building by the look of all the amenities and such,so I would guess that they are targeting the up and coming of the area, perhaps people coming from Toronto. Will those people not have cars? It seems far fetched to believe that people in that demographic would move here where, although we have Grand River Transit,the intercity options are limited and cumbersome without having a vehicle. I realize that the world is changing but I wonder how fast that will happen? The other issue to consider is traffic and with the increased number of vehicles using this stretch of Victoria St., specifically from Joseph St.-Strange St., because of the vastly increased number of residential units along this stretch of street.This particular development will add significantly to a situation that can be difficult at times, and that's before the buildings currently under construction have been occupied.The present situation has been exacerbated by the lane closure that is in effect but in the long term the traffic is going to get difficult to manage without the additional buildings that are in development now. I suppose infrastructures will also have to be updated, likely sooner than later,to accommodate the new growth so there will be extreme traffic issues while that happens. Thank you for listening to my thoughts. >On Nov 10, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>wrote: >Thanks for providing comments for this application. i Page 312 of 520 > I can provide some more details about the applicants proposal for parking: >667 Total Car Parking Spaces > 617 for residential units >50 for Commercial units. >So there are parking spaces proposed to be provided for the commercial units on the ground floor. > More information can be found on the StoryMaps section of our website, linked below.This has all of the documents that the applicant submitted so that residents can review. The Planning Justification Report contains many more details about the parking. https:Hurldefense.com/v3/_https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bb2db3e6lbd043209clfl6dl6a3cedOc/J!!E1 9_NBbORQ!V4fyVdgkeFJler4MIGvOk6gORrArP6g7BsF3oM_b9eOk2hLlxrZeJjCFgSa2QkheL4LH6sc$ > I hope that helps in addressing your concern, but please reach out if you have any additional questions.Thanks again for providing comments for this application. > Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP >Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener > (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca > >-----Original Message----- • From: >Sent: Monday, November 8, 20218:01 PM >To: Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] Neighbourhood development at Park and Victoria St. >Good Day, > I received a card in my mail box today about the proposed new development at the corner of Victoria and Park streets. It looks like quite a building and it will be interesting to see how it effects the neighbourhood.The one thing that stands out to me in the very little bit of information that the card holds is that there will be only 667 car parking spots for 1150 residential units,which I suppose would not include and parking for the other uses that are also in the building. It would seem that that would leave a lot of people without a parking space in an area where parking does not seem that plentiful. It would also seem that any commercial enterprises in the building would have a hard time accommodating customer parking and I wonder what effect that may have on the ability of any business to succeed. I would be interested in attending a meeting or hearing more about the details of what is happening with this development. > >Thank you, Page 313 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 7:55 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Development Victoria & Park Streets Attachments: letter re Victoria & Park Streets Development.docx Please see attached letter Warmlv, Page 314 of 520 Hello Eric Schneider, Debbie Chapman and Kevin Muir, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi-tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid-rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region, DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos, though, it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline. According to the design report, the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of 205 Victoria Street South, I am very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street, through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park (see a summary below); however, these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes. The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. + 1 Victoria — 19 storeys—completed in 2016 + One Hundred Tower A—21 storeys— completed in 2020 N One Hundred Tower B — 17 storeys— completed in 2020 N • Garment St Condos —28 storeys— complete in 2021 N The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid-rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Page 315 of 520 Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South —Victoria Park Place I — 7 storeys[21 205 Victoria Street South —Victoria Park Place II — 9 storeys 131 241 Victoria Street South —Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 — 7 storeys 141 243 Victoria Street South—Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 — 6 storeys 141 Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers — 15 storeys [51 310 Queen Street South —Victoria Park Towers — 14 storeys [6] 290 Queen Street South —Victoria Place Retirement Community — 7 storeys 141 214 Queen Street South —the York— 6 storeys [41 South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen —6 storeys [8] 307 Queen Street South — Bread and Roses — 6 storeys [71 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers — 17 storeys M Sources: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo_Regional_Munici aliFy 2. htt s://www.drewloholdin s.com/a artments-for-rent/victoria- ark- lace-i 3. https://www.drewloholdin sg com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually 5. https://www.drewlohol_dings.com/apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. htts://www.drewloholdin s.com/a artments-for-rent/victoria- ark-towers 7. https://www.breadandroses.coop/ 8. https://barracondos.com/about-barra/ Page 316 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 9:45 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria Street South &92-110 Park Street Hi Eric, A couple of weeks ago I received the application for development post card regarding the proposed development on the corner of Victoria and Park. I normally don't provide my opinion,but while going for a walk today I noticed someone defaced the proposal development sign objecting the proposal.After seeing this I felt I needed to express my approval of this development and it should not be compromised by a handful of people. I find its always a small vocal population that are not directly impacted are usually the individuals who put the brakes or compromise good proposed developments in this city, especially in the downtown area. Based on the information, I would say this one is one of the better ones. I like to think I am pretty knowledgeable about this city, especially the downtown core. I was born and raised in this city. I have seen it go through a lot of changes in 34 years. I grew up in the Auditorium area. I have great memories of walking downtown as a child to visit the market and the many retail shopes that once lined King during the tailend of their existence.Attended the downtown St. Mary's High School location in its final year before having to head to the Charles Street terminal everyday to catch the bus to the new location on Block Line. My part- time job from 15 to 20 years of age was at the now extinct New Dominion Bakery on 110 Victoria Street South and now I currently live on the same plot of land. I have witnessed the downtown go from an enjoyable place to walk around in the early 90's to a depressed ghost town.Things have improved over the years,with a slight road block due to the pandemic.Unfortunately, most people I talk to still think of the downtown as a depressed, drug addict ridden,dangerous,sketchy, nothing to do area regardless of the positive changes. Many of these people continue to choose Uptown over Downtown even though it is the further option. I for one prefer Downtown,but I am in the minority. For the Downtown to get back to the former glory days of the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's when the streets were full of foot traffic the Downtown needs to become a destination. In order to get there,more people need to live in the downtown core.A higher population base will attract more sought after businesses.With more sought after businesses in the area, others from outside the core will want to visit,which will lead to a more sustained stream of people walking the streets.With more people walking the street,the safer the general public will feel. I feel this proposed development is another piece of the puzzle to bring more people downtown and help the downtown economy. (On a side note, all the new businesses and housing can't cater to the same economic demographic.There needs to be a healthy mix or the area will feel artificial and boring. Much like Uptown Waterloo is becoming in my opinion.) Another big reason why I think this development needs to happen and not get scaled back is because there is a housing crisis in this city.More supply in the market should theoretically help slow down how quickly real estate prices are increasing.Also, condos are providing many people with the opportunity of property ownership, because home ownership is becoming a distant dream for many in this city. My only concerns are with more and more people living downtown,Victoria Park will get over crowded on those nice days.The city core will need more outdoor spaces.You can't expect people to be confined to their 500 sgft condo all day, Also, not so much about this development,but future developments should have more affordable housing incorporated into them.When I say affordable I am talking government subsidized level housing. Having all low i Page 317 of 520 income housing together In an area just creates a ghetto which leads to worse living conditions,higher crime rates and crime flowing into neighbouring areas. Low income should be mixed with other economic classes. (I know this is a unpopular idea.) Sorry about the long winded email and thank you for your time. Kind Regards, 2 Page 318 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:11 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria & Park Development Hello Eric, I am writing to you regarding the proposed development at Victoria & Park. As a young professional who is hoping to continue to live in the Kitchener area,this development is welcomed as I believe we need more housing and further densification within the downtown core. I don't want to get priced out of my hometown, and I hope we can continue to build supply at an equivalent rate of the increase in demand in this city in order to allow young folk like myself the opportunity to continue to live here. Thank vou, Page 319 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:57 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park Hi Eric and Debbie, I just wanted to reach out and voice my support for the Victoria and Park project. I am a homeowner nearby(Station Park), also grew up not far from this area. This project is both ambitious and necessary for the growing downtown core.The plans are really interesting and exciting and I look forward to following construction and showing my support for the project. Hoping for some good retail and greenspace within the public realm being created here! If there is anything more I can do to support, please let me know. Thank you, Page 320 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 12:49 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; Subject: (EXTERNAL] Victoria Parks Towers Hello Eric et al I would like to take this opportunity as a citizen of Kitchener to offer a few personal comments on this project. This project as it is currently presented including the design renderings which I have viewed should be supported by the city without any change. The project is both aesthetically pleasing, necessary and functional. Our city is experiencing immense growth which has resulted in a huge deficit of living space. We are becoming a victim of our own success as a city. This is a desirable community that many people want to come and join. It is imperative that we bring as many residential units on stream as soon as possible. This project in my personal opinion, can help the city to meet housing targets. In addition to housing,there is a commercial component on the street level which brings the functional part of the project to my mind. While we need to keep the movement on residential space,we need to encourage and keep providing commercial opportunities as well. The streets of downtown Kitchener(DTK) are rapidly changing, and for the better I add. We need to look to the future and ensure we provide a balance of commercial opportunities in developments along with residential, for future business and a healthy work life balance. I know that there will be objections from a few people in the neighbourhood because it changes their space. However, change is going to happen. We have identified in our Regional and City Master plans that the way to develop is through intensification,which I agree with. Sometimes collateral damage will be at the expense of a few single dwelling homes. I am mindful of these concerns however, change is inevitable.To make subtle changes, like lowering a few floors, or whatever ideas come up is simply an attempt to appease a few at the cost to the developer. Instead of forcing the developer to lower the floors, I say tell them to raise the number of floors and sell more units but include units that are befitting of"affordable housing". In addition, push for more street level experiences through more functional space for the community. I don't want to take too much of your time, but I am tired of the constant"nimbyism" championing change or all out cancelation of projects for selfish reasons. I felt and feel a need to start speaking up on behalf of the many members of this community that want to see progress and change. We want to see our city grow into a progressive city that is the envy of the country. I witnessed a transformational change of our DTK and I want to keep the change happening. It is my goal in the future to live in the DTK, so although I am not there now, I look to the future when I will be. Please consider other perspectives on development and allow this project to move forward as is or even bigger... Thank you, i Page 321 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 1:47 PM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Cc: kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146- 162 Victoria Street proposal Hi there, I wanted to add my voice in support of this proposal.As someone who currently rents in downtown Kitchener, I would love the opportunity to actually own my own property at some point in the future. Due to demand for property,we need to intensify the downtown and build up, not out. This proposal,while imperfect,would help us reach the goal of providing housing to people while preserving the countryside. To improve the proposal I would request more height and units in return for : -a minimum percentage of 3 bedroom units. -a minimum percentage of affordable units. -sustainable heating and cooling,which means no fossil fuels except maybe as back up. -green roofs - no parking minimums -contribution to creating a second downtown park somewhere nearby. I would really appreciate it if my voice can be added to those in support of this necessary development. Let me know if you have any questions or if I can help in any way. Thanks, Sent from Gmail Mobile on Whone Page 322 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 8:56 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Park and Victoria Development -Victoria Street Road Widening ---------- Forwarded message--------- From: Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 at 20:49 Subject: Park and Victoria Development-Victoria Street Road Widening To: <ericschneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: Debbie Chapman<debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca> Hello Mr. Schneider and Ms. Chapman, My husband and I have already provided a comment about development at 92-110 Park Street& 146-162 Victoria Street South, but in rereading the planning justification report, I am very concerned about the lack of setback from the road proposed, especially along Victoria Street. The report notes a required road widening of Victoria Street in section 2.1 (p.3), but then it does not seem to be discussed again. It describes a required widening of 250 square meters along Victoria Street, and that the property has 70.9 meters of frontage along Victoria street which would equate to an average of 3.5 meters; approximately another lane of traffic. In Section 8.3,Table 1, states that one of the exemptions sought is to have no setback (0m) along both Park and post- widened Victoria St. From the rendering in Figure 9,that would leave pedestrians with only the space under the cantilevered section of the podium. Figures 5 to 7 show a plan view of the development with the required road widening. This would be very dangerous for pedestrians, and reasonably also to the building. With little setback there is little to no space to escape if a fast moving car were to lose control along this road. The region's plans of having Victoria Street as a fast through road are seemingly at odds with the City's plans to have a less car centric, more walkable and densely inhabited city core.The proposed design of this development is also at odds with creating a more pedestrian and cycling friendly space, as it leaves very little space for pedestrians and cyclists, and there is no planned green space. One of the justifications for having fewer parking stalls than required by zoning is that there will be a lot of bicycle parking, but the development is not contributing to a bicycle friendly streetscape. Even the trees along Victoria Street that are shown in the rendering are impossible to have; as per Figure 9 of the planning justification report,they are shown to either be planted at the edge of the sidewalk or in the road, but even these will be removed when the road is widened. Overall there are so many issues with the proposed development,that it really needs to be drastically rethought to be appropriate for this property. Kind regards, e Page 323 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 1:18 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] development at Victoria S and Park St. We have lived at 1 for over 30 years.We are concerned about the speed and volume of traffic that this development will incur.The volume will cause more dirt and affect the air quality. The volume of traffic will also make it more difficult to access the park and to get out of our driveway. (Since Joseph St. has become a one way street we are already seeing more traffic on our street.) In winter vehicles tend to come down the hill too quickly and will often slide through the intersection. With the increase in traffic the incidents will become more frequent and more severe.Any pedestrians standing at the bottom will be even more at risk. In summer families with strollers trying to gain access to the park from the geared to income townhouses on have issues crossing the street. (Myself I just look both ways and run quickly to cross) Several years ago I contacted the city about this and they banked the road so that the vehicles could round the curve even quicker. Page 324 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:06 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park St. &Victoria St. Development Hi Eric, Just attended the Victoria Park/Cherry Hill NA meeting regarding this development, and they said to email you here to be added to the distribution list for public notifications. Thank you! Page 325 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 8:57 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroupca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria Park development. Some comments and concerns regarding the application for Development. FSR of almost 12 is unprecedented and way too much. The urban intensification set by the province is already above 2030 levels. Therefore, we would like to see any development on this property much lower 2 to 5 or 6 FSR. Zero setback seems like it will make the corner more dangerous. Park/green space is already very low. Will the developer commit to funding new park/green space that anyone can use. Will there be any long-term affordable housing included? Not attainable housing in this project. Will these condos have any family size units with larger sq ft. and multiple bedrooms. I've noticed there is only roughly 500 parking spots or for half the units proposed. Government of Canada has called for no more combustion vehicle sales by 2035. How many parking spaces will be roughed in for ev charging. It's a huge expense after the building is complete if spots are not roughed in during construction. look forward to hearing from you. Page 326 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 9:40 AM To; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria Park towers development Hello, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development,a multi-tower development(38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid-rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region, DTK Condos,which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos,though,it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline.According to the design report,the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street,as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property,which will be in the shadow of the tower. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street,which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. I am concerned the shadows will greatly impact my ability to grow vegetables and cast shadows on my gardens which have been established here for over 50 years. I am concerned with my family's health and wellbeing as in the winter months I am only left with a 3-hour window of sunlight if it is even sunny during those hours. In turn, l am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street,through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. I am concerned about the placement of the driveways to enter and exit the buildings. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park(see a summary below); however,these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes.The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! To take a mix3 proposed FSR of 2 and jump it to an FSR of 11.8 for this project is too much for our neighbourhood. I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself.Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016,several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. • 1 Victoria- 19 storeys- completed in 2016 oi • One Hundred Tower A- 21 storeys- completed in 2020 • One Hundred Tower 8- 17 storeys- completed in 20201,1 • Garment St Condos- 28 storeys- complete in 202111 The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys,the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development,would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! 1 Page 327 of 520 Ideally,in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents,new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods,not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: + Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid-rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. ■ Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. • Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road,taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street. Sincerely, Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place I 7 storeys=, 205 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place II -9 storeys t3� 241 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys,< 243 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 - 6 storeys <, Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers- 15 storeys 5� 310 Queen Street South-Victoria Park Towers- 14 storeys 6 290 Queen Street South-Victoria Place Retirement Community- 7 storeys m 214 Queen Street South-the York- 6 storeys 4� South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South- Barra on Queen- 6 storeys m 307 Queen Street South- Bread and Roses- 6 storeys[7 221 Queen Street South- Conestoga Apartment Towers- 17 storeys«, Sources: 1. https:Ilen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipality 2. p is:/�www,drLw1oholclings,1 t a if'tmeiits-Far- ria ar€- a e-' 3. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually 5. https://www.drewloholdin s.com apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-tower- 6. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent victoria-park-towers 7. https:,I/www.breadandroses.cooiill Page 328 of 520 8. f barracondpg.,co 17/aholit- Page 329 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 10:52 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on Project: 146 Victoria St S (Application#ZBA21/017/V/ES) Hi Eric, Hope you are doing well. I just wanted to provide comment on the proposed project for 146 Victoria St S(Application#ZBA21/017/V/ES). I'm a property in Victoria Park &the Civic center. 1100%support this project and any other project like it in the downtown core. We need to focus on density rather than urban sprawl & hope to see more projects like this coming to the downtown area. I know you likely get a lot of angry"not in my backyard" types and thought its important that you hear from neighbors that also support these projects.Thanks for the work you do to keep growing our city in a responsible way. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. Please advise if you require reasonable accommodation or assistance. Page 330 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 1:46 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria Proposed Development I strongly object to the proposed Victoria and Park towers development,a multi-tower development(38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid-rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region, DTK Condos,which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos,though,it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline.According to the design report,the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood,along Park Street,as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of Cherry Street, I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property,which will be in the shadow of the tower. It will totally block my view of the morning sunrise which I have enjoyed for the oast 21 years living here! I am concerned about the encroachment of multi unit developments into an area of historically significant single dwelling homes....If this allowed it sets precedence for future developments and land encroachment. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street,which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street,through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. Also the elan states that only 667 parking spaces will be allotted for the 1150 proposed units. It's a huge assumption that only one vehicle is required for every two units! There is already a shortage of parking available in this area and this will only compound the issue! It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densifjy the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Paris(see a summary below);however, tliesf� are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where trey are near detached homes.The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Parr; 20-:32 storeys Higher! Also these Urtit5 are typira�ly, not 1py.rchased by eo le n to 'v them hu Q- 75° nese ani urchas as irtves trt by non 1 resid pnts for yenta I R tj rposes Dryly atyd du nothing tri help tris with our current hag crisis to Qrn_v__ de reasonable rent- Tbgy-Are being rented out at Mtes mmit€anvil ies cannot afford or bei g used for}1 f i2BNB renta15, Is there a speciced nua&er of unitU5 in these b s that will be used for geared to ine ie re11taIs? The Cityt�f I jtr hetier really riet ds t€r stagy t rnandati. Cltis on these new€lev _lopmcMtsm The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 88 storeys,the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development,would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally,in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods,not taller. i Page 331 of 520 With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street)to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the he oblits of the towers to a mid-rise scale (5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmopieusly with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. • Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. • Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road,taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Virus-free. www.avq.com l Page 332 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 4:25 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park Victoria Towers development Eric; Can you add our names to the fist so that all future correspondence regarding tihis develo p rneilt is sent to my wife end L We have receWed the initial develraprnent flyer and hope to be kept in the loop of further updates as f do not feel this development meets the needs of Land owners in the fmmedi,ate area, I am concerned with traffic flaw,access to Victoria Street(from Theresa Street in particular), shadow restrictions to our neighbourhood and overaII density factor. I do not feel that a development approaching 38 floors is an acceptable exception to the current density zoning- s Page 333 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 2, 20214:56 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria/Park Towers proposal Hello Eric, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. It is of concern to me that this proposal (like so many others) does not adhere to either the current (or the new, yet to be implemented)Zoning regulations. I support intensification if it abides by the planning and zoning regulations that are in place to protect neighbourhoods. This location is most appropriate for intensification under the above circumstances. The size of the current proposal concerns me for the following reasons: * It will dwarf all of its surroundings * It will create a wind tunnel * It will create shade for neighbouring properties * It includes no green space, and, like all of the other downtown developments, depends on Victoria Park to fulfil that requirement. There is a limit before the park is exhausted. * Traffic on Jubilee is often congested. This will add to that. NOTE: I am not sure when the most recent traffic survey was done, but I recall it being done in the summer and included a long weekend, both factors which contribute to lighter traffic volumes. I appreciate the consultation process and look forward to further discussions. Page 334 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 5:06 PM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at 92-110 Park Street- comments Good afternoon, J am a little nervous offering comments on the proposed building at 92-110 Park street as I am not a city planner nor someone with vast building experience. However, here are my thoughts: -one of the things that drew me to move here to kiitchener/waterloo was it's unique features: I liked the low building profile,the many green spaces,the historical buildings, the green/mature beside tete highway,the crops growing in city spaces(who does that? love itl)- I know change is normal and a sign of economic growth, but it would be a shame to miss out an that integration of nature while densifying each property. -when I took at the proposed developrnent, it does not loops like there will be roorn for the green spaces artistically rendered in the drawing-there is a tree drawn where there is actually a street-victoria to be precise (misrepresentation of both space available, the light around it, artd the proximity to nature) this is a shame to lose that connection to nature. One of the points of densification is to preserve natural spaces- it is good. It is important to incorporate this into land development and property development. I do NOT seen fitting in with the beautiful nature of Victoria Park- I see it over shadowing and spoiling the view from the park-perhaps a shorter building would lessen the impact on the park. -another issue:the 1150 proposed units is a lot-the traffic on victoria and on park is already very high- how will this issue be dealt with? -parking: the proposed development only has parking for approximately 50% of the units to have a single vehicle-this is a vehicle driven city; people drive-the surrounding neighbourhoods cannot support that much on street parking. The building should support it's own parking. Externalising that cost to the rest of the neighbourhood residents is immoral. height; 38 storey;;eerns taller than everything else near by-this is an excessively high Floor space ratio for this area. -aesthetics -so far the buildings that have gone up in this stretch of Victoria street have not been beautiful (with the exception of the pharmacy building-that is very appealing and interesting) -the new high rises on Victoria are tall and grim and gray- if you are going to build, at least build something that as a city we can be proud to look at and that reflects the history of our city in some way. For the developer, this is a project that Jasts them a couple years before they move an and do other things. For those who actually live here, the lack of parking, higher traffic, irtcreased wind, decreased sunlight, and grim construction will be here until we die of old age - not appealing, but appalling. Nevermind the impact of construction on daily quality of life.... Sincerely, Page 335 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 8:30 PM To; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development on Park and Victoria Dear Eric Schneider, I am writing to address the overwhelming number of concerns I have with the proposed development on the corner of Park and Victoria st. I have read the proposal in it's entirety, and ask that you please do the same with this letter. To begin,the building is far too tall for The Cherry Hill neighbourhood. In the proposal it describes this area as being mixed residential and commercial, but as someone who lives in the neighbourhood and works on Park st., I find this to be misleading. Most of the commercial spaces are actually located in older established homes. These giant buildings will be right in-between Victoria and Cherry Park and as you can see in the drawings is completely surrounded by homes. Buildings should not be getting taller the further they move from the downtown core. My next concern is regarding traffic and parking.This is already an extremely busy intersection. If you add in 1,150 UNITS(not resident's)there is going to be constant congestion, making the area more dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Not to mention all the inconveniences while the construction is taking place, especially due to how close it is to the street. I understand that there is not adequate parking for the residents in order to encourage not having a vehicle but I find it hard to believe that to be the case. I think a lot of people will simply turn to parking on the streets in an area that is already severely lacking parking. Our transit system,while useful, is not a replacement for owning a vehicle, I would know as I have had to rely on it for many years.Anyone spending a large sum of money on a condo likely has a car to leave the city in. The plans to add retail space also baffles me.The current retail building that stands there always have units available for lease. Not to mention downtown King st.Which has countless empty retail storefronts; including Market Square in it's entirety! Everything else seems to be a Cannabis shop.When I first moved to Kitchener I would walk downtown every week to shop at all the local stores with unique clothing and handmade goods. Now there is no reason to venture downtown.We DO NOT lack retail space,we lack stores that can sustain it. Even the Walper Barbers and Tobacco shop have moved from the actual Walper. This will not be a beneficial use of space!The focus should be on building up downtown not residential neighbourhoods. Affordable housing.This proposal talks about having 50(out of 1,150)one bedroom units for$368,000. I'm not really sure how this is considered"affordable". Perhaps for a bachelor working at Google sure, but I don't believe that is the target audience of affordable housing. If the average 1 bedroom in Ontario is 660 square feet that would put the price to$558/square foot plus whatever exuberant condo fees you have to pay each month.These units do nothing to support the need for affordable housing.They will likely serve as investment properties or house people coming from Toronto or other big cities, not helping the people who already live in Kitchener and desperately need housing they can actually afford. If anything,they will just drive up the prices of houses and rentals even more.Anyone who can spend half a million dollars on a condo is not in a housing crisis. One of my largest concerns is the wind produced from the buildings. My first apartment in Kitchener was by Fairview Park Mall and to get to it I had to walk between two high rise apartment building. It was my absolute most dreaded part of every day ESPECIALLY in the winter.The wind was so intense it felt like you were going to fall over if you didn't put all your strength against it. Even at The Bauer buildings it feels at times as though you are in a wind tunnel.The proposal's studies on wind say"in the summer...wind speeds are predicted near certain edges and corners on Level 7 outdoor amenity areas resulting in undesired comfort conditions."And"... wind conditions are expected to be less than ideal near building corners during the winter." Do we really want to build a structure a block away from the downtown's largest area of green space with"less than ideal"wind conditions for pedestrians and surely bicyclists as well. This brings me to one of my largest concerns.The complete lack of green space.This building has no plans of adding any green space only uprooting 50 viable trees. Our city is already severely lacking green space and only seems to have plans to take more away, add additional residents to the city,while not putting any back in the downtown area. I go to Victoria Park nearly every day and in the summer it is absolutely jam packed. During the pandemic many of the elderly ones I know that live beside the park didn't even feel comfortable utilizing it because they didn't think proper social distance could be kept between themselves and others. I also had to leave a park this past year(during a lockdown no less)because it was so busy I could barely move around with my stroller.Victoria Park is lovely but it isn't endless. It has size limitations.The City's plan for Green Space is from 2010. This city has grown dramatically since then and as far as in my neighbourhood I have not noticed any plans on expanding green space. Our Government elect is the only elected green party member in Canada so really we should be setting the example when it comes to green space and the environment and it feels as though we are falling more and more behind. In addition to lack of green space is the need for more healthcare services as well. It took me 11 years to get a Family Doctor here.There have been times when I have reached out for certain specialists and not been able to even get on a wait list to see one. No daycare even reached back to me. Having houses for people is one small part of the issue. Being a livable city means just that.You need all the resources in order to support a successful life and well being. My final concern is with the overall design of the building, I understand this is subjective but it is quite important to me because if it is built as per set out it will pretty well be the only thing I can see from my backyard. I don't believe it was designed with any thought to it's surroundings 1 Page 336 of 520 and The Cherry Hill neighbourhood. It is not a timeless design and will look horribly dated in 10 years as well as sticking out vastly from the 100 year old brick homes surrounding it. In summary, I support increasing housing in this city.This should be done in a way that actually assists those who need true affordable housing. It should include increased green space and amenities for residents. It should not negatively impact current neighbourhoods homeowners, pedestrians,and bicyclists. Please be reasonable with the size of these projects. Let's focus on building up the DOWNTOWN, not overtaking the few historic neighbourhoods left in this city. Kitchener used to be cute and have a personality. Now it merely has condos, construction, and cannabis, Let's make this city worth the price we all pay to live here. Sincerely, 2 Page 337 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 2:08 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] PArk&Victoria Towers These towers will destroy a heritage neighbourhood. This is a low rise neighbourhood. The traffic on Park St. will be terrible with all the new people living in. these towers, not to mention the traffic in Victoria Park. There is no way this project should be approved under its current design. i Page 338 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 2:09 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed towers at Park and Victoria Hello, I'm writing to voice our concerns regarding the proposed towers at Victoria and Park. As homeowners on Park street between Jubilee and Victoria,this proposed development would directly affect us. 38 storeys is MUCH too high for this neighborhood for both the large shadows it would cast, as well as the traffic this would cause at this already busy intersection. Although development of this area would be welcome, we propose limiting the number of stories- ie no higher than 10 stories. In addition, I am concerned that there is no consideration towards helping our community to achieve family friendly affordable housing. Families need 3 bedrooms as families grow and I see no mention of these unit types in the proposals. I also would urge the city of Kitchener to partner with a community organization (ie Habitat for Humanity) in order to create some percentage of affordable housing units within these large new developments to make sure that working families who can't enter the traditional housing market still have an avenue towards homeownership. I would also urge the city of Kitchener to look at models that exist in other Canadian cities (ie Vancouver)where condo developers must also provide some public art for the city where they are building. Many thanks for your attention towards the concerns of the affected homeowners. Page 339 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 3:40 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed development Hello, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development,a multi-tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid-rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region, DTK Condos,which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos,though,it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys;the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline.According to the design report,the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood,along Park Street, as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood. As a resident of Park Street I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property,which will be in the shadow of the tower. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street,which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street,through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown;there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park,however,these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes.The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself.Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy,livable,safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. ■ 1 Victoria- 19 storeys- completed in 2016 t ■ One Hundred Tower A-21 storeys-completed in 2020m ■ One Hundred Tower B- 17 storeys- completed in 2020t1i ■ Garment St Condos- 28 storeys- complete in 2021 The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example,at 38 storeys,the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development,would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally,in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents,new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods,not taller. t Page 340 of 520 With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid-rise scale (5-11 storeys)which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. • Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. • Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road,taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, r Page 341 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 1:25 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria St Development Proposal Hi Eric, I arr. and am a resident of DTK. Let me tell you a bit about myself. I live a- with my husbanc ind our 13 year old daughter My husband and myself are self employed and have lived and worked locally for over 20 years. We have lived on for 12 years and absolutely love the diversity and vibrancy of DTK. I am are writing to you with significant concern about the proposed development at 146-162 Victoria St.S. &92-110 Park St. I received the application for development notice in the mailbox earlier a few weeks back and it has take me some time to digest the information. This letter may sound similar to others you have received from my neighbours-we have done a lot of research in this matter and have shared our resources with one another. I am confident that you are receiving many emails in regards to this application for development, but I hope you understand that I am not opposed to development and intensification in the downtown core. I agree in principal with the goals and strategies of the City of Kitchener Official Plan (along with the various urban design manuals); Region of Waterloo Official Plan; 2019 Growth Plan; 2020 Provincial Policy Statement; and Planning Act provided they are enacted with a long-term vision for what is best for the type of City and community we are shaping for the future. I am looking for the City of Kitchener to guide thoughtful and appropriate development and increased density in the downtown core—added height and density in and of themselves will not automatically result in healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities. The absurd juxtaposition of three high-rise buildings of the proposed sizes directly adjacent to the low-rise mature neighbourhoods of the Vitoria Park Area Herita a Conservation District and Cherry Hill duos nots eak to careful sustainable, thoughtful and appropriate planning but instead to short-sighted, short-term, and profit oriented thinking. sincerely ask that City Councillors and planners challenge this application for proposed development to acknowledge genuine design concerns posed to characteristics of the community and quality of life by this type of built form. Are high-rise infill developments of this size the only way to increase density?Certainly not. Can we not learn from the experiences of other Canadian cities and cities around the world (e.g. Vancouver, Paris, Barcelona,Amsterdam, etc.) who have and are confronting the challenge of intensification with other built-forms (i.e. mid-rise buildings of 5-11 storeys high)to increase density in a way that is more harmonious with the community in which they exist:human- scaled in terms of size;fits into the character of the neighbourhood;animates sidewalk culture;offers a diverse range Page 342 of 520 of units including family-sized options to attract a more diverse population;provides greater flexibility as a building type in order to be more resilient to future modification and adaptation(a key sustainability factor). I am familiar with the Planning Justification Report(PJR)for this proposed development submitted by the Applicant (Kevin Muir, GSP Group). Although, in his opinion,this development"ticks all the boxes" I fail to see how this development ""respect[s]the existing scale,height, building length and massing of the neighbourhood"(from City of Kitchener Design for Residential Infill In Central Neighbourhoods, Urban Design Manual). I realize that the site technically falls into a "Mixed-Use Zoning" but the application is seeking exemptions from several zoning compliance regulations which would actually be appropriate for a site that is directly next to low-rise residential communities along Park St.,Theresa St.,and Victoria St. For instance: MAX building height of 32M (applicant proposing 82.8m, 115.25m, and 121.75m); MAX number of storeys of 10 storeys (applicant proposing 25, 36 and 38 storeys—above podium!).These heights rival the tallest buildings in the region (DTK Condos at 39 storeys and Charlie West at 31 storeys)which are also arguably too tall but at least do not directly abut low-rise residential neighbourhoods.These proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park—20-32 storeys higher! As referenced in the PJR, the Kitchener Official Plan Section 11.C.1.31 intends that new buildings are designed and existing buildings are reworked to "enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places" as well as Section 4.C.1.9 which directs that residential intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is to be designed to respect existing character with a "high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context"—I argue that these proposed towers fail to appropriately acknowledge the surrounding context in an insatiable desire for increased floor space and thus profit.The scale, massing, and transition are completely inappropriate for this location and I fail to see how "the proposed building height and scale can be achieved without creating unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood resulting from the taller building form" (PJR, p.42). The application also references the housing diversity perspective and that it further diversifies the housing stock in DTK with options in unit types and sizes.To be clear, it is offering a "mix" of mostly one-bedroom (two-thirds of inventory) and two-bedroom (one-third of inventory) like most of the other high-rise residential buildings that have recently gone up. Is this really increasing housing diversity?A small one or two bedroom unit in a high-rise building is seldom considered a life-long address for a vast majority of the North American population. So what type of community is the City of Kitchener interested in creating? It would appear one that is more geared to transitory populations who can afford the high price of these units (the small number of affordable units provided aside -all of which are one-bedroom). These are certainly not geared to families or even those looking to downsize. I would argue that a greater supply of mid-rise, medium-density housing options can better solve the affordability,supply, and density needs of our community while fitting into the character of the neighbourhood(at locations throughout the City and Region)and creating a vibrant,healthy, livable, safe and attractive community. With a development of this scale of course I am concerned by a variety of factors such as increased vehicular traffic (poorly accounted for in the PJR and an issue we currently struggle with on Theresa St. in terms of speeding and wrong- way traffic and turning Left onto Victoria from Theresa Street is next to impossible already), shadow and wind impacts (truly concerning shadow mapping in the Urban Design Brief from GSP), loss of privacy, pressure on existing services and amenities, change of neighbourhood character, decrease of property values, and further intrusion of high-rise development into low-rise areas. As the issue of urban density is not new it has been the subject of both debate but also research for decades and we urge City Council to seriously weigh the pros and cons of approving a development of this scale for both the community and those who occupy these units which can actually be isolating from daily urban life and the activity that takes place on the streets. To reiterate—I am not opposed to increased development in DTK and applaud some of the more appropriate mid-rise developments that exist, have been re-worked or have recently been completed like the Arrow Lofts and Barra on Page 343 of 520 Queen as just a couple of examples.There is absolutely room for more to enjoy what DTK has to offer but this proposed development,for the reasons outlined above, is not the way forward. My sincere thanks for your time and attention to this matter. With respect. Page 344 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 2:12 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development application 146-162 Victoria &92-110 Park Good afternoon, I live in the Victoria Park neighborhood and I would like to register my concern with this development application. While I support the City's decision to intensify in the core, and the corner of Victoria & Park is obviously well-suited to residential towers,the scale of the project concerns me with 1,150 additional residential units and 38 stories Specifically, I worry about the additional vehicular traffic: * Many office workers are still working from home so the volume of traffic will increase as they head back to the office * The new residential towers that have been built are not yet occupied so we haven't yet experienced the increased traffic that they will bring (Charlie West, Station Park,The Otis, Ophelia, Mill St., new towers on Victoria St., etc.) The addition of bike lanes to downtown streets is already limiting the flow of traffic: one-way traffic on Joseph St; closure of Gaukel St. with a proposal to make that permanent; closure of David St. (although I believe this is temporary) * Eastbound traffic on Jubilee Drive is often backed up waiting for the light at Queen St. and Courtland, because of the short stretch between David St. and Queen St. It is not uncommon for traffic to be stopped by geese crossing Jubilee Drive In addition to the vehicular traffic I worry about the stress on Victoria Park itself. We are already seeing a dramatic increase in park usage these past 2 years due to COVID. Once all of these residential towers are occupied there will potentially be several thousand people using the park as it is the only green space nearby. Downtown Kitchener is a wonderful place to live and is getting better all the time. But it's a balancing act to keep the features that make it a wonderful place to live and still add density. I worry that as more and more people live here, and as older homes are torn down to make way for more residential towers, we will lose our heritage,which is the essence of what makes it a great place to live. Sincerely, Page 345 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:04 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park&Victoria Towers My name is and I have lived a for 45 years. The proposed height of the buildings is too high. They should not be higher than other buildings nearby. For inspiration, have a look around the universities to see the architect's work. We also need more colours other than grey and black. It is very difficult to exit or enter my driveway at any time, not just rush hours. I have seen ambulances held up in heavy traffic trying to get to the hospital. I can't enjoy sitting on my porch because of the noise and dirt from the traffic. With all the traffic it is difficult crossing the street to get to Victoria Park. (Maybe another crosswalk is needed) I have no computer so my neighbour is helping me express my concerns. Thank you for hearing my concerns. Page 346 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:08 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St S, 92-110 Park St Hello Eric. Our questions and concerns re: the above proposed development: 1. There is no green space visible from the street. Anything planned for the rooftop is not green space. Victoria Park is already overcrowded. 2. There will be increased traffic on Park St. which was not designed for the current traffic. We have lived on Park St for 40 years, and have witnessed the gradual increase in traffic, especially since the opening of the LRT. We cannot use our balcony at the front of the house, due to the noise level and dust. 3. According to the Planning Justification Report,there will be 50 so called "affordable housing"units, all small one bedrooms at a cost of$368,000.This report was written in 2020.What will the cost be by the time these units are move in ready?When is this city going to do anything about affordable housing for families? Please put us on the mailing list for any further information, notice of future meetings etc. Than.kyou, Page 347 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:33 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria Street Development Mr.Schneider, Ms.Chapman, and Mr.Muir, I am writing you today regarding the application for development at the corner of Victoria Street& Park Street. As a 15 year resident on Cherry Street, I can say that hearing of this development truly shocked me. The thought that the city would even consider allowing this development to go ahead simply doesn't make sense for this community. The other large condo buildings that have already been allowed on Victoria Street, have increased traffic and caused construction chaos. This development, which I am to understand would be the largest yet would not just change the face of our established residential neighbourhood but also change the landscape of Kitchener's most beautiful area, Victoria Park. I cannot begin to imagine walking out my front door and having 38 stories, 3 towers staring down at me as a view! Sunlight would be blocked,traffic on Cherry Street has already increased since the first condos went up so I cannot imagine the nightmare this development would create. In speaking of traffic...where are the 483 cars that are not provided by the development going to park?? 1150 Residental Units vs. 667 Parking Spots. I implore the city to decline this development! Debbie this is your community,your view will be the same as ours! These are our homes, our green spaces, a community that has thrived for over 70 years, please don't turn us into a mini Toronto. Sincerely, Sent from my Galaxy i Page 348 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:33 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; Mayor Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria Street South &92-110 Park Street - Development Application Attachments: Response to the Park-Victoria Development.pdf Hi Eric, Attached are my comments on the proposed development at the corner of Park&Victoria Streets. Page 349 of 520 Response to the Park-Victoria Development I oppose this development because it is contrary for the Official Plan for Kitchener. The Kitchener Official Plan was created over several years of discussions and consultations, and carefully crafted to balance the need for intensification in the inner core to protect our valuable farmlands and our water table, and the need to protect our established downtown residential neighbourhoods and the character of our city. It was decided at that time to restrict the high-density developments to certain streets only, or portions thereof. It was also decided that it was necessary to include transition zones between the high-density areas and the lower-density areas, so as not to devalue and destroy the people's right and ability to enjoy their own properties. The area in discussion was deliberately designated a transition zone and limited to low to medium density development. This was not an oversight or an accident of planning. The proposed development goes completely against the vision and reasoning for the existence of this zone. Having read the justification report by the developer, I found no convincing reason to abandon the Official Plan and its accompanying zoning. By its own surveys, the City has already met its intensification targets for 2030 with the projects already built or in progress, so the need for more intensification is not relevant. It is true that there is a lack of affordable housing in the City at this time, but none of the units proposed in this project would help in this matter. The developer deems units at 80% of market value for their proposed development to be affordable. Traditionally, affordable housing meant no more than 1/3 your monthly income for rent, or no more than 3 to 4 times the median yearly income for buying a home/condo. The current median income for Kitchener Centre is $47,129, which would put the proposed units way above affordable. Plus the majority of the units in the proposal are only for 1,2 or 3 people at the most per unit, making them not suitable for the majority of families. Canada needs families with at least 2 children to even come close to a stable population. This development would actually deepen the affordability problem in the area as it is destroying 5 homes and one low-rise apartment building which houses 11 people on disability pensions or with low incomes. None of these people would be able to afford even a one-bedroom unit in the proposal. Add to this the fact that none of the so-called "affordable" units have means to keep them at that price. They could very easily be all bought up by an investor and re-sold at the market rate. The developer may argue that they can't make a profit making truly affordable units or larger units, but this is not believable as other developers are building new homes all around in our neighbourhood. They are not losing money, or they would not be doing it. A far more suitable development for this location would be stacked townhouses, like the ones on Gage Avenue or the lovely mixed-use development at 150 Caroline Street in Waterloo. These developments did not lose their developers money. Such developments would fit the Official Plan and the Zoning for this proposed area. They also did not create parking and traffic nightmares for the surrounding area. Page 350 of 520 I would regard it as a betrayal of the purpose of the Planning Department of the City of Kitchener and of the citizens of this city, to allow this proposal to go forward. To break our Official Plan and our Zoning By-laws, just to enrich a private developer, would destroy all credibility for the City in the eyes of the people. It would also set a very dangerous precedent, and all other developers would demand similar concessions. This developer has already lied to the people who live in the buildings that they want to raze. They have told them that there is no purpose in protesting, as it is already a "done deal". So, either the developer is lying to the people or the Planning Department is lying to us when asking for our comments and objections. Some people have said to me that I can only mention planning issues in these comments and nothing b1se. I reply to them, that the whole purpose of public consultation is to hear about pertinent issues that developers and planners may not have considered because they are working in silos, and may not see the bigger picture about how this development affects other areas of concern for our city, country and planet. First, a foreword as to what comes next. I am a retired church minister, and now in my retirement, I work as a volunteer with our local Neighbourhood Association trying to build community, connections, inclusion, and neighbourhood spirit. I do this, to give back and to do my part to make this a livable city. This gives me a difference perspective than some people, a different way of speaking, and perhaps a different vision. I tend to express myself in story & narrative form and to see things in the long perspective. A story of a city called Kitchener I wasn't born here. I didn't grow up here. I have lived all over Canada, in urban areas and rural areas, in the north and in the south. I have worked with the poor and the rich, the included and the excluded, the native born and the immigrant, the broken and the healthy, the indigenous and the settler. I think this helps me to see the history of Kitchener in a special way. I moved here in 1992, and have learned about the history and life of this city through the eyes and words of its residents and from people in the rest of Canada. When I told people that I was moving to Kitchener, I was told some interesting tidbits: - The population of Kitchener has always had more men than women, so it is a great place for a single woman to find a good husband. They have a great Oktoberfest festival with good food, good music, and great beer. - The German culture is really big and alive here. People still speak German on the streets - They have a fabulous Farmer's Market; and Page 351 of 520 - It is a city that still feels like a town, were among some of the comments. When I moved here, I observed that these comments were true. In fact, I did meet my husband, get married, and settle down here. Kitchener did still retain the town feel of family and neighbourhoods. It was an industrial town, that worked hard and valued family and friends. It was a religious town. It had more churches per capita than any place I have every lived. It was still close physically, mentally and emotionally to the farmland that surrounds it. Most of the residents grew up on farms, or their parents or grandparents did. Which probably explains their ethic of hard work. They were a working-class town and proud of it. The culture and identities of Kitchener and Waterloo were quite distinct. But life has changed very dramatically over the last 30 years, not just for Kitchener, but for all of Canada, even all of North America. The rise in the power and influence of Corporate America (this includes Bay Street along with Wall Street) changed all our worlds. Corporations, by the very rules of their existence, place more value on money and power, than on people and the planet. At first, the insidious evil of this premise was concealed under a veneer of civility. Remember that evil is defined in faith life, as placing the value of things (power, money, fame, etc.) & self, above the value of God, people, and creation. Under the guise of"Good Business Practice", almost all our industries were out- sourced, moved out of Canada to other countries, where things can be made cheaper, with fewer rules regarding fair & safe labour practices or the environment. After all, "The lowest price is the rule of the land". This practice gutted the heart and soul of cities and towns like Kitchener. Empty and abandoned buildings & properties filled city centres across North America, and Kitchener was not immune. Leadership in our city floundered for years. Much of North America sunk into despair, frustration and anger. Note the rise in mental illness and addictions, with its accompanying death rate, as well as the rise of poverty, homelessness and helplessness. Some political leaders even tried to use this anger to their personal advantage. But money, profit, and development are not intrinsically evil. They only become such when they are prioritized over people. Non-profit corporations, renounce the profit motive in their terms of existence, and seek to serve people and their needs. Democratic governments by their definition — of the people, by the people, for the people — should intrinsically be good, if their leadership is not co-opted by other forces. have hope for Kitchener, for Canada, for our world. I believe that Kitchener has come through this despair and is on the road to a bright future, if we are careful not to lose our way again. Page 352 of 520 How did Kitchener find its way out of this mess? I believe it was through our farmers and our indigenous people. Both these peoples know hard times and a multitude of setbacks, of being looked down upon, overlooked and undervalued, yet they continue. What gives them their strength? What feeds their souls & hearts? They have never lost touch with the importance of the land, and the importance of people. Without people and without land, we lose our way. Neither culture believes in the perpetual growth myth that "Corporate Culture" touts. They believe in the sustainable economy. They know that resources are finite, and that the sustainable world balances the needs of all — all types of people and all life on our planet. We are all inter-connected. If we do not defend all, all will suffer. One of our greatest resources is the creativity of the human mind and determination of the human soul. Kitchener started to look beyond our city limits. Being amalgamated into a regional government did not hurt, but helped. We started to look at what can we learn from our rural townships and what we can learn from our sister cities of Waterloo and Cambridge. Our zeal for defending our rural lands grew, and with it a determination to stop urban sprawl. We did not want to become just like Toronto (the figurative heart of corporate culture). I believe it was this renewed understanding of our interconnectedness, that helped to pilot our Official Plan. It is also why I do not want corporations from Toronto telling us how we should develop our City. I want our City to tell corporations what type of development that we want here. We want development that serves us and our needs. Corporate greed is not a new thing. It has been with us a long time. But when we care about each other and work together, much good can be accomplished — like the co-op movement, credit unions, work unions, civil rights movement, and the environment movement. Let's keep Kitchener positive. Let's keep Kitchener for all the people, not just the wealthy. Page 353 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 4:58 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Zoning By-Law Amendment Re Victoria Park South Attachments: Park Victoria.pdf Hi Eric as a resident of Heins avenue in Victoria Park I am submitting the attached comments in regards to the proposed development at the corner of Victoria South and Park Street. This email is confidential. If you received it in error, notify the sender by reply email,then permanently delete it and make no copies Unsuscribe Page 354 of 520 December,5th, 2021 City of Kitchener Eric Schneider,Senior Planner Eric I am submitting the following comments to be considered for the property describe as 92-110 Park Street and 146-162 Victoria Street South. I am opposed to the proposal to rezone the block from MU-1 & MU-2 to MIX-3 Zone. 1. The current zone for this property MU1 and MU2 was, researched,wisely planned for, a public process and implemented to meet City's unique vision of the future for downtown Kitchener. I do not see a need to change that now on this corner. Particularly when there is opportunity for many other developments on sites in the immediate and surrounding area that will have less negative impact on nearby neighbourhoods. 2. The Bramm yards is an excellent example of future development opportunities for increased density and height with minimal negative impact on surrounding neighbourhoods. 3. The scale and intensity need not be three buildings, 25 storeys, 36 storeys and 38 storeys to better utilise the infrastructure and facilities in the downtown core.The intensity need not to be 1150 units to optimize the use of the land and to contribute to transit and housing objectives and policies. 4. 1 am very concerned about the negative effects such as wind and shadowing will have on the immediate neighbourhood,Victoria Park a Heritage District Neighbourhood. Traffic:the residents of Victoria Park if coming home anywhere from north on Victoria St. have lost access to Joseph and Water Street to one way traffic resulting in travelling 4 more blocks to Park St or 5 blocks to Queen Street.Victoria South is already a bottleneck and travelling south on Queen through the core is not any better. Sincerely, Page 355 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 7:55 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: debbie.chaoman@kitchener.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria Towers Hi, Regarding the proposed zoning change and building for the Park and Victoria intersection. I live about from this proposed location and as a citizen and homeowner, Here are my questions and comments, in no particular order. It's too tall! I'm all for development and know we have a strategy for intensification in the core, but it abuts low-rise heritage... I'm glad there much bike parking. Has there been a traffic study done?That many more cars in an already busy area concerns me for congestion and safety with my kids being on the sidewalk on Park St. Will the streets be widened to accommodate, especially considering all the recent construction imminently nearby? How long would it take for construction? King to Park along Victoria has already been slow for traffic due to construction of nearby buildings. Where will the shadow from the building reach? I believe it'll cast shade on my house, in a low rise heritage neighborhood... What will the ground floor have? I'd like some retail or restaurant space. At least something for the public. Ideally however not something with nightlife that attracts loud crowds late at night. Will there be some affordable housing units?Will there be greenspace?Will the parking be visible from the street? Exactly Which existing buildings would be demolished for this? Overall, it seems too tall for what I'd like which would cast shadows over my property and make it less private with new residents peering down into my yard, and I'm concerned about traffic flow. These aren't good for the border of my heritage neighborhood. Please lower the height considerably. Thank you, i Page 356 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 8:12 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; Dr Lisa Simpson McQuarrie Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park proposed development Hello Eric Schneider, I appreciate your work in planning and making our city the best that it can be while preserving our personality and heritage. Understanding that it must be a bit of a moving target given our rapid growth. I appreciate your time to fully review the following thoughts and substantial concerns about proposed the development 146-162 Victoria St S and 92-110 Park St. As a lifetime resident, business owner and parent I really concerned for this community and my neighbouring businesses,families and households. I believe that Councillor Chapman has passed along some initial thoughts (I really appreciate that consideration and effort)—however there have been several more thoughts/concerns that have come to light after the community information meeting that was held this past week. Traffic • It was pointed out that the majority of the traffic study was conducted during the COVID lockdown (supported by the proposal document), obviously swaying the results and not giving a proper or remotely accurate assessment of the current traffic volumes. It is clear that the traffic study needs to be conducted again at bare minimum. • I would love to gain a clear understanding on how the region/city is establishing the overall traffic impact of the buildings that are currently being constructed and not yet occupied, and the buildings that are proposed. • Found it concerning that there wasn't study conducted on the neighbouring streets or anything reflecting the impact of traffic on those streets Parking/traffic impact • .5 parking spaces for each unit? another proposed amendment that seems short sighted. • Making the assumption that people will only work from home or want to take indirect public transit(21 minute trip) to get basic groceries is optimistic. Google is building an office building at Moore and Breithaupt st.just to have people work from home? FSR • During the meeting this past week I gained a basic understanding FRS rating—however given the proposed FSR rating of 11.6 is close to 6 times what the property is currently zoned for is frankly alarming. I personally understand and appreciate the need for more residential density in the downtown core. However there seems to be some glaring discrepancies between the City of Kitchener Official Plan; Region of Waterloo Official Plan; 2019 Growth Plan; 2020 Provincial Policy Statement; and Planning Act and the Planning Justification Report(PJR) for this proposed development submitted by the Applicant(Kevin Muir, GSP Group). Although in Mr Muir"s opinion,this development"ticks all the boxes" we fail to see how this development "respect[s] the existing scale, height,building length and massing of the neighbourhood"(from City of Kitchener Design for i Page 357 of 520 Residential Infill In Central Neighbourhoods, Urban Design Manual). We realize that the site technically falls into a "Mixed-Use Zoning" but the application is seeking exemptions from several zoning compliance regulations which would actually be appropriate for a site that is directly next to low-rise residential communities along Park St., Theresa St., and Victoria St. For instance: MAX building height of 32M (applicant proposing 82.8m, 115.25m, and 121.75m); MAX number of storeys of 10 storeys (applicant proposing 25, 36 and 38 storeys—above podium!). These heights rival the tallest buildings in the region (DTK Condos at 39 storeys and Charlie West at 31 storeys)which are also arguably too tall but at least do not directly abut low-rise residential neighbourhoods. These proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park—20-32 storeys higher. As referenced in the PJR,the Kitchener Official Plan Section 11.C.1.31 intends that new buildings are designed and existing buildings are reworked to "enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places" as well as Section 4.C.1.9 which directs that residential intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is to be designed to respect existing character with a "high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context"—we argue that these proposed towers fail to appropriately acknowledge the surrounding context in an insatiable desire for increased floor space and thus profit.The scale, massing, and transition are completely inappropriate for this location and we fail to see how"the proposed building height and scale can be achieved without creating unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood resulting from the taller building form" (PJR, p.42). With a development of this scale of course we are concerned by a variety of factors such as increased vehicular traffic (poorly accounted for in the PJR and an issue we currently struggle with on Theresa St. in terms of speeding and wrong- way traffic), shadow and wind impacts (truly concerning shadow mapping in the Urban Design Brief from GSP), loss of privacy, pressure on existing services and amenities, change of neighbourhood character, decrease of property values, and further intrusion of high-rise development into low-rise areas. As the issue of urban density is not new it has been the subject of both debate but also research for decades and we urge City Council to seriously weigh the pros and cons of approving a development of this scale for both the community and those who occupy these units which can actually be isolating from daily urban life and the activity that takes place on the streets. In my opinion there seems to be many assumptions made in the PJR—the biggest one being the impact on already high traffic congestion. Nowhere in the report does it take into account of the traffic generated by the other towers in existence but are not yet occupied. And to make the assumption that people aren't going to have vehicles and walk or take public transit—is again in my opinion a stretch. Something as simple as basic groceries not accessible by foot and to think that the market that this building will attract (based on the surplus of one bedroom units it is safe to assume young professionals)will take indirect public transit to it? possible? perhaps, Likely? I think that is optimistic, I urge you to come stand on that street corner at pretty much any time of the day and get an understanding of the volume that exists now(if you haven't done so already) and think about what it will be with an increased density(between the 3 proposed towers and the 3 existing) of 3000+ people (conservatively) Again, I am not opposed to growth or increased density—but it needs to be done responsibly at a pace that is manageable —and frankly put—in accordance to the plan put together by the city of Kitchener. Really would appreciate hearing that you have received this. I truly appreciate your time and look forward to your response Page 358 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, LUL I o:4/ rNl To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park Towers Hello, I have several concerns regarding the planning application for the proposed towers to be built at Victoria and Park. My concerns are as follows: -Traffic: it is already nearly impossible to get out of my driveway, sometimes taking 10 minutes just to back out due to traffic on Park st. In addition driving to and from my daughters daycare can take anywhere from 10-20 minutes driving down Victoria due to traffic, that may not seem like a big deal however when you also have a 10 month old who is screaming in the back seat that extra 10 minutes can seem like an hour. There will be disruption not only while the building is constructed (as exemplified by the towers being constructed on Victoria st) but ongoing increased traffic in the area due to increased number of residents living in a smaller square footage. -Exposure to dust, debris and pollution during construction and from an increase in number of vehicles in the area: I am very concerned about my young children being exposed to increase levels of dust and pollution as this building is being built. There are countless studies regarding exposure to dust and pollution can negatively impact a child's health and development. (More than 90% of the world's children breathe toxic air every day (who.int)). Types of Construction Pollution -Toronto Environmental Alliance. Health Impacts of Air Pollution in Canada 2021 Report-Canada.ca -Character: This building will be a detriment to the character of the area/This is a residential area with many century homes that are beautiful to look at. This building will take away from that. -Shade: This building will cast a significant shadow on our home. Our children will be unable to play in sunlight past 5pm during parts of the year. The lack of sunlight will also affect plant growth. -Noise: We will be exposed to noise pollution due to construction which can affect hearing long term. -Damage to our property: Dust from construction will cover our home, our home still has original lathe and plaster walls and the vibrations from construction will cause our walls to crack, requiring repairs that will come out of our pocket. -Privacy: People in the building will have a direct line of sight into our side windows resulting in little privacy for us. I hope you will reconsider the height and placement of buildings for the benefit of residents who have spent their hard earned money purchasing a home in a RESIDENTIAL area. I am very concerned about the area that I had been looking forward to raising my children in. Thank you for vour time, Page 359 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 10:21 PM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and park towers development proposal Good evening, I'm writing regarding the proposed development at Victoria and Park St by the GSP Group. I have witnessed and welcomed much change since I r°novied to this nelghbourhood 13 years ago. It has been encouraging to see new life brought into abandoned buildings and to see an increase in investment to kitcheners downtown core. I however have been disappointed to see our beautiful, historical Victoria Park continue to see an increase in drive thru traff[c with rare adherence to speed lirn[ts. This traffic increased when the loN was 'being built (never returning to normal levels after it was done) and jumping up yet again with the last 2 years' development of the 100 Hundred towers on Victoria St and the reduced lanes or sometimes outright road closures.The proposed towers by GSP group would put even more car traffic on this collision prone corner as well as through the park. I also find the proposed height obnoxiously tall when compared to its surroundings-whether that be the homes who will now have the towers in their sight or even compared to its neighbouring towers on Victoria St. I would like to see the towers be no taller that what has already jumped up on Victoria St given its residential neighbours-whom I think the city would like to keep as it adds to the charm of the neighbourhood and park setting. I personally would seriously consider leaving this neighborhood if I had a 30+floor tower peering into my backyard. Therefore I strongly propose that the development application be amended. Page 360 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December b, LU?-I IZ:U4 HIVI To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria St and Park St development Attachments: City of Kit Itr re local develop ment_Dec21.docx Please find attached my input regarding the proposed development. Thank you. e Page 361 of 520 I live at' very close to the proposed development at Victoria St. and Park St. I was absolutely stunned and dismayed to learn that a development of staggering magnitude might soon be wedged in along the same short, crowded stretch of Victoria St. S. as the several other recently constructed high-density, multi-storey buildings. Many concerns came to mind: Can the infrastructure, particularly the sewers, accommodate such a large increase in usage?With even the finest of ventilation systems, is a structure of that size and design healthful, especially given the recent surge in respiratory illness?Where could a child who lived in that building play outside or learn to ride a bike? Is Victoria St. becoming a tunnel? How could the fire department handle an emergency in a 38-storey building?Will the current car insurance surcharge I have to pay as a result of living within this postal code area increase significantly with thousands more residents moving into the area? The issue that would affect me most directly is the impact the proposed project would have on traffic. Perhaps some people living in towering apartment/condo complexes may not use a car regularly, or at all, but in the absence of a car, particularly if they work from home, many will be heavily reliant on other vehicles (i.e., couriers, service vehicles,taxis, fast food and grocery deliverers, etc.)to come to them, so commercial traffic will increase. Kitchener is already rapidly becoming very difficult to traverse with more and more traffic lanes being sacrificed for light-rail tracks, bike lanes and centre-turn lanes, one-way streets, dead-end streets, and pedestrian-only routes. I'm all for sharing the road but many of the changes seem poorly designed and some seem unnecessary. (For instance,the Krug St. bike lanes and parking lanes work well and don't impede anyone. On the other hand, the Queen St. bike lanes and centre-turning lane cause buses and couriers to block traffic, make the route around St. Mary's Hospital more complicated, and make the entry to The Laurentian building more dangerous while there is seemingly very low usage of the centre lane and bike lanes. When Queen St. had two lanes in each direction, traffic could easily and safely flow around buses, cyclists, and vehicles turning left. It's also hard to imagine that two-way traffic on reasonably quiet Joseph St. was not conducive to bike riding. Now, with a single one-way lane on the left side of the road and an inordinately high curb penning cars in,Joseph St. travel must be very challenging for large vehicles like ambulances, fire trucks, moving vans, and cars with trailers.) Vehicular traffic on Victoria St. S. between King St. and Strange/West St. already has many strikes against it, due to the negative effects of the following: ■ the Ion track on King St., which necessitated prohibition of left turns (except for buses)from Victoria St. onto King St. in both directions ■ the 1 Victoria St.S. condo tower parking garage driveway situated just a couple car lengths from both the King St. intersection and the Charles St. intersection, which leads to dangerous traffic stoppages caused by cars turning left into the building and results in other cars being unable to advance through a green light or being able to advance but then becoming temporarily stranded in an intersection or on the Ion track at either intersection ■ the Ion track crossing diagonally through the Charles St. intersection, which necessitated four-way red lights and prohibition of right turns on red lights when trains cross Page 362 of 520 ■ the lack of a designated left-turn lane onto Charles St., which causes left-turning vehicles to routinely block southbound traffic on Victoria St. because the advance green light is insufficiently long ■ the dearth of exit routes from Victoria St.: • cars cannot turn onto Charles St. from either direction when the Ion is crossing • Joseph St. is a non-through street to the west and one-way street the wrong way to the east • Arthur PI., Bramm St., Oak St., and Michael St. are non-through streets • Theresa St. is one-way the wrong way • Park St. is barricaded during some events in Victoria Park ■ the temporary but longstanding narrowing of southbound Victoria St.from one lane to two lanes to accommodate the Glove Box construction access needs, which causes a bottleneck. Presumably, construction of the proposed development will create a similar long-term bottleneck. ■ the Glove Box parking garage driveway/main entrance, which leads to significant traffic delays caused by cars turning left into the complex, as well as very poor egress for vehicles attempting to leave the complex (both of which will only worsen as the complex gains additional occupants) ■ the narrowing of Victoria St.from two lanes to one lane near Park St., which causes a bottleneck ■ the railway crossing on Victoria St. near Walnut St.,which halts traffic when a train is crossing and which currently causes northbound vehicles to rapidly decelerate and/or veer into the oncoming lane to avoid tracks that are in a state of significant disrepair To demonstrate the effects of these obstructions, I timed my travel a few times recently: • Monday November 15/21,southbound Victoria St., late afternoon • 4:08 pm, stopped at red light at King behind three cars, a bus turning left, and one more car. When light turned green, first three cars advanced; bus turned left without delay; fourth car advanced; my car advanced, barely fitting into the remaining space in the stationary line-up;two more cars followed mine and were stranded in the intersection while the Ion turned onto Charles. When clear, several cars turned left onto Charles and I had to stop at a red light at Charles. • 4:13 pm (five minutes after being at red light at King), as first car in line,finally crossed Charles on green light, only to immediately stop at red light at Joseph. • 4:15 pm, crossed Joseph along with several cars jockeying to merge from right lane due to construction blockage. Car immediately ahead of mine turned right into Glove Box driveway and, simultaneously, a U-Haul truck barreled out of the driveway (understandably taking advantage of the only break in traffic)to turn left onto Victoria. Fortunately, I did not T-bone the U-Haul or run down the Skip the Dishes delivery man who ran in front of my car from the opposite side of the road while my view was obscured by the U-Haul. . 4:18 pm, finally crossed Park St. on a green light. Summary- 10 minutes to travel about half a kilometer with two near-misses. • Thursday November 18/21, southbound Victoria St., mid-afternoon . 2:13 pm, 12th vehicle in line at red light at King. On green light, seven vehicles advanced before light turned red again. On second green light, my car squeezed in as last of five cars to advance. • 2:15 pm, crossed Charles • 2:18 pm, crossed Joseph Page 363 of 520 • 2:21 pm, crossed Park Summary—8 minutes to travel half a kilometre, with no left-turning bus or Ion in the mix. • Monday November 29/21,westbound Courtland/Jubilee/Park St., mid-afternoon Unable to cross Benton on green light due to long line of traffic stopped by red light at Queen. After advancing to David St., was only car in any direction able to proceed through intersection into park because traffic was backed up from red light at Queen all the way back to Boathouse, and David St. traffic was blocked by construction barrier. Immediately after exiting the park, had to stop on Park St. since commercial vehicle blocked the oncoming lane while making a delivery to a home and oncoming traffic did not yield right of way. In short,traffic on the downtown portion of Victoria St. is clearly problematic much of the time and has become much worse consequent to recent developments. The introduction of a huge new residential building to the area will surely compound the problem and perhaps discourage current residents (myself included)from living in and/or frequenting the downtown area. I don't see this type of massive development as a plus for my neighbourhood or any other in Kitchener. Everywhere you look, there are cranes and towers looming. Single-family homes in established neighbourhoods are being segmented into rental units. Many in my early retired/newly retired/soon-to- be-retired circle are planning to move to smaller, quieter locales with pleasant, easily accessible outdoor spaces, shopping, and restaurants because Kitchener now feels too crowded and inaccessible. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my thoughts. I trust that this requested input from me and others in the neighbourhood will be given full consideration. Sincerely, Page 364 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 10:00 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on the development of 146-162 Victoria St. S & 92 - 110 Parks St. Good Morning I would like to start my comments with words GPS uses to describe their work ethics, how they plan a development and how they see themselves as a company. GPS - What We Do Planning Responsible planning understands and "respects" the relationship between people, buildings ands aces. I don't see how this new development project that GPS is planning, actually takes any consideration, understanding or respects the relationship of people, buildings and space in the area. The neighbourhood has been in a construction for the last 10 plus years, with trucks,traffic, dust, noise and the disruption of nature around us. I was always under the impression that Victoria Park was the jewel in the City of Kitchener. A place that hosted cultural celebrations, and family events put on by the city. dating back to when the city was known as Berlin (100 years ago) and now Kitchener. I've owned my home for more than 20 years and have lived through much of the development of the downtown core. This new GPS development is not the "downtown core." This lovely proposed GPS building would be better suited for King and Victoria, with the LRT right at the door step. Or develop toward the train station on all the available land. I've seen people airnost get hat crossirig the street due to the current level of traffic in the area . People ride their bicycle on the sidewalk because they don't feel safe on the road. This causes people on the sidewalk to have to dodge cyclists.The traffic races along Park street all hours of the day, and at peak hours it's bumper to bumper traffic. If you don't back into your driveway you don't get out in the morning to go to work. Ambulance race along the street because going down King street in any kind of emergency is a joke. Where is a car to pull over.? Onto the LRT track? I truly question the planning of these streets. And now you want to disrupt the area with this monster of a building that will be looking into the back yards of the houses now on the street. Residents will have no privacy when it's completed, and in addition will have three to four years of noise, and dust and trucks during the construction. I just can't believe the city you would allow this to happen in a residential neighborhood. I had heard that there were townhouses proposed at the corner by Victoria Park and I thought that would be nice fit with the neighborhood.The new proposal does not fit in the neighbourhood. It's time to build on the other side of King and give us a break. Or at the very least lower the height of this building to better fit to 10 to 15 story. Please. Thank you i Page 365 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 12:54 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Development - Victoria/Park Streets Attachments: 211206 Letter to Developer&City - Final.docx Hello Eric, Please find attached a letter from the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association's Development Subcommittee, concerning the proposed development at the corner of Victoria and Park Streets. I am copying this letter to our Ward 9 Councillor, Debbie Chapman, and to the Developer's Applicant, Kevin Muir. We would like to be kept informed of any opportunities to participate in consultation and planning of this development. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Page 366 of 520 December 6,2021 Eric Schneider Senior Planner City of Kitchener PO Box 1118 Kitchener,ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr.Schneider, I am writing on behalf of the Development Subcommittee of the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association(VPNA)in response to the proposed development at the corner of Victoria and Park. Although this development is located in the Cherry Park Neighbourhood,many Victoria Park residents are within the 125 meter radius,and both neighbourhoods will be affected,as will others living and working in the downtown area. At a recent Residents'Information Meeting,Jointly organized by Cherry Parc and Victoria Park Neighbourhoods,we heard many residents express concerns about the potential impact of this new development on the downtown community. Concerns included the need for affordable units and units built for families,the height,and the need for increased amenities to meet the needs of the growing downtown population,especially the need for more green space. We would like to stress that most residents welcome and understand the need for,and benefits of, urban intensification. We prefer to see our surrounding farmland and wildlife habitats preserved,rather than disappear under urban sprawl. What we need is a more diverse approach to intensification,and a healthy mix of housing options that will continue to accommodate people from a different range of backgrounds,incomes,and family compositions, The VPNA's Development Subcommittee has four priorities: affordable housing,green space,building with climate change in mind,and community engagement in the development process. To that end,we would like to recommend that the Victoria/Park development include, 1. At least the same number of affordable units as the number of households that are being displaced by this development,with affordability defined as inhabitants making a fulltime income based on minimum wage; 2. A specific number(to be determined)of two and three-bedroom units; 3. Designated lands or cash-in-lieu to increase downtown parkland,based on the City of Kitchener's optimum of 15 meters/person;(This is particularly important,given that the City's current standard is 15 meters/person,while their recent Places and Spaces Report dated August 18 2021 notes that green space in the Victoria Park area is less than 1 square meter per resident.) 4. Building materials and standards based on environmental sustainability; Page 367 of 520 5. A Citizens'Engagement Committee composed of residents from affected neighbourhoods, including Victoria Park,the developers'representatives,and City Planners to ensure ongoing consultation and communication throughout the development process. We are committed to a positive and collaborative approach to development Tn our neighbourhood. We want to work with developers,city staff,and other neighbourhoods to continue to make our City a healthy,vibrant,and inclusive place to live. We are pleased that the developer has reached out to the VPNA,asking for an opportunity to meet to discuss their proposal. We would like to be informed of all opportunities to contribute to this development process.Thank you for your consideration of our input;we look forward to hearing you. Sincerely yours, c4r- Councillor Debbie Chapman,City ofkitchenert Debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca Commented[PSI]: Kevin Muir,GSP Group,(Applicant),kmuir@gspgroup.ca Page 368 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 1:24 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria Street South & 92-110 Park Street - Development Application Hello Mr. Schneider, Councillor Chapman I am writing to express my objections to the proposed development at the corner of Park and Victoria. I have several concerns with the proposal, many of which I know are shared by my neighbors: • Deviation from the official plan and zoning that identify this location as a transition between the higher density urban growth center and low rise residential. • The lack of appropriate transition from the same. These would be the tallest buildings yet in this area, where they should be shorter than the developments already constructed to the east. ■ The seemingly ridiculous increase in FSR. By comparison, I understand that providing a LI=ED Certified design would allow a bonus of 1 FSR. What does this project include that would warrant such a generous deviation from the intended FSR? • The layout of the site positioning higher towers nearest the streets to facilitate the future development of other lots. ■ The loss of mature trees, and lack of new greenery being possible with a 0 m setback. • The continued unchecked growth of the neighborhood population without a proportionate increase in public amenities such as green space. While I am not opposed to this location being redeveloped, it seems like what is being proposed does not align with existing plans or guidelines, Something that meets appropriate transition to adjacent neighborhood; and is more forward thinking in terms of environmental design (both in maintaining trees on the street and promoting the implementation of LEED or similar standards) would be welcome. Best regards, Page 369 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:04 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] re: Mixed-Use Redevelopment application at 92-110 Park Street & 146-162 Victoria Street South Dear Mr Schneider, Councillor Chapman, I am writing in response to the notice of Application for Development at the corner of Victoria Street and Park Street. Similar to many of our Victoria Park neighbours, I would like to express questions/concerns related to the proposed Mixed-Use Redevelopment application at 92-110 Park Street& 146-162 Victoria Street South. To start, I am trying to better understand what does the City of Kitchener consider to be a Mixed-Use development? Based on the supporting material submitted with the application, the subject site is currently designed as 'Mixed Use' in the City's Official Plan and the applicant is looking to change the current zoning designation to a "High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MIX-3) in By-law 2019-051 with special regulations. However, the proposed Development-Zoning Compliance Summary Table (on page 29 of the Planning Justification Report) shows non-compliance with significant aspects of the MIX-3 ZONE designation - in particular as the development relates to the maximum number of storeys, maximum building height, maximum floor space ratio and minimum percent of non-residential gross floor area. The application requests an increase in height to 121.75m, 115.25m and 82.8m (from allowable 32m height), increase in maximum number of storeys to 38, 36 and 25 (from allowable 10 storeys) and increase in FSR to 11.53 (from allowable 2.0). In particular, the proposed non-residential GFA for the development is to be reduced from existing allowance of 20% minimum to proposed less than 2%. The site statistics included in drawinq A0.1 of the Architectural Site Plan Package package further underline this point- out of the total proposed GFA (101, 400 sm), only 1,750 sm is commercial (1.7%), while the majority is comprised of 82,150 sm residential (81.0%) and 17,500 sm above grade parking (21.3% ). This does not paint a very convincing picture of a mixed-use development, but rather of a very dense cluster of residential towers. Does the development replace/increase or decrease the amount of commercial area that is currently accommodated on the premises? Could the City/Applicant provide the public with a comparative building massing study of what is currently allowable, as per the City's Official Plan; what the proposed MiX-3 zoning would allow, and what the applicant is proposing with the Special Provisions it seeks to have applied to the site?A comparative illustration would demonstrate a lot more clearly what the level of compliance and fit of the proposed development is within the proposed zoning/ building context. Since one of the primary justifications offered in the application for this drastic increase in height and density at the corner of Victoria and Park is largely based on precedent projects -the proposed development being 'consistent with other approved applications and developments throughout the Kitchener Urban Growth Center in recent years" (as per Section 4.1 of the PJR, p.22) - it is highly concerning that the proposed development itself will likely set a new precedent and place undue pressure for high intensity redevelopment in the "Mixed Use" zone at the edges of the Downtown. This zone now serves as a transition area/a buffer between the highly intensified Downtown land use context and the stable residential fabric around it, in Page 370 of 520 particular, Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District to the south and Cherry Park Neighbourhood to the west. The supporting Studies included with this application, in particular-the Transportation Impact Assessment, Pedestrian Wind Study, and Shadow Impact Analysis Graphics included within the Urban Design Brief, also do not seem to address or respond to the cumulative, overall impact of the existing and probable future intensification projects in the Mixed Use area as well as the larger adjacent Downtown Innovation District immediately to the north and east of the development property. In particular, Section 2.4 of the PJR (page 7) states that the Bramm Yards lands, abating the Subject Site's northern property line at 55 Bramrn and currently owned by the City of Kitchener, "are intended for a higher infensity mixed-use development with employment and residential components per the Urban Growth Centre (Innovation District) designalion that applies to the land."Although there is no reference to an intended master plan for this site, based on its current zoning designation, the future Bramm Yards development will I.ikely surpass the height and density that is requested for 92-116 Park Street & 146-162 Victoria Street South, if this were approved. Could the City/Applicant demonstrate how the proposed development application would fit within the anticipated developable context of the Bramm Yards Lands to the north, the already dense, recently built Garment Condos to the east, as well as other sites in the vicinity of the subject property that could accommodate denser developments/towers?What will the corner of Victoria and Park Street look like / how will it function when the proposed 38, 36 and 25 storey towers are placed not far from the Garment Condo towers (ranging from 28, 21 and 17 storeys) and the future Bramm Yards Lands towers? How many point towers can this urban block accommodate? What other sites within the surrounding Mixed Use zone could become assembled and intensified in a similar fashion if this application were approved? Could a more comprehensive Master Plan / Block Context Analysis be explored to capture ALL the known and probable intensification projects in this area, including potential ramifications and pressures the project might place on other sites in its vicinity? Having a clearer understanding of the overall, long term vision for Victoria and Park Street would help paint a more complete picture of how the proposed development will fit within the urban context of present and future projects. Thank you, a Page 371 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:33 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter of Concern re: proposed development at Park&Victoria Attachments: letter of concern - park &victoria.docx Dear Sirs and Madam, Please find attached my letter of concern regarding the proposed development at Park and Victoria Streets in Kitchener. I look forward to your response. Thank you, Page 372 of 520 Monday December 6, 2021 Attention: City of Kitchener Eric Schneider, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x7843 Eric.Sch neider@Kitchener.ca Ward 9 City Councillor Debbie Chapman 519.741.2798 Debbie.chapman(a)kitchener.ca Applicant Kevin Muir, GSP Group 519.569.8883 Kmuir ,gspgroup.ca Dear Mr. Schneider, Ms. Campbell and Mr. Muir, My name is and I am contacting you regarding the new proposed development at the intersection of Park and Victoria Streets. I am proud to call downtown Kitchener my home; not only did I grow up here, but I have chosen to stay and raise my family here as well. When I heard through friends about the redevelopment plans for the parcel of land at Park and Victoria, I was completely taken aback by the scale of the proposed development. Although there are several existing towers near Victoria Park, these are generally not near low rise homes, or are much shorter where they are near low rise homes. The proposed Victoria and Park Towers are much taller than any existing tower near Victoria Park, 20-32 storeys higher! Several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South since 2016. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street toward low rise established neighbourhoods. • 1 Victoria — 19 storeys— completed in 2016 [1] •One Hundred Tower A—21 storeys — completed in 2020 [1] •One Hundred Tower B — 17 storeys— completed in 2020 [1] •Garment St Condos —28 storeys — complete in 2021 [1] The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably taller than any of the recently completed buildings along Victoria; the tallest tower would be equivalent to the two towers at the One Hundred stacked on top of each other! Currently the tallest tower in Region is DTK Condos, which is 39 storeys [1]. However, DTK Condos is located in the core of downtown, and is not located near low rise residential areas. And even so, I cannot understand why the City let that developer build so high. We have ended Page 373 of 520 up with a massive condo tower that is incongruent with the existing streetscape, and that dominates and obfuscates one's view from all directions. The Park and Victoria development would place two similarly tall towers within throwing distance of the Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods, and to our knowledge would be the largest development in the downtown to date. One would hope that in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to surrounding residential areas, new developments would be getting shorter as they approach low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. In addition to being very tall, the proposed development will be very close to the street and the towers will have little set-back from the edge of the podium. The impact on the streetscape would be very imposing and incongruous with the nearby land use, and so I strongly question the logic of the placement of such a large development where it is currently proposed. In my mind, a midrise (5-10 storeys) would be much more complementary to the existing nearby neighbourhoods; furthermore, a development 10 storeys or less would follow current zoning regulations. As a nearby resident I have several concerns: . Increased Motor Vehicle Traffic •Shadows •Community Vitality * Pedestrian and Cycling Landscape .,Overuse of Existing Nearby Amenities and Lack of Place Making Increased Motor Vehicle Traffic Located at the corner and Park and Victoria, this development will place more stress on an already heavily trafficked corner. I am concerned about how the new development will impact traffic patterns along Victoria Street and Park Street, through the park on Jubilee and throughout our neighbourhood. Shadows I am also very concerned about the impact these towers will have shadows over nearby homes. The design report shows large shadows are cast over nearby low-rise neighbourhoods for much of the year. These shadows will make the street darker and colder, which will make these streets less inviting and impact the residents that live there. Community Vitality While I agree in principle with the city's plan for greater density in the downtown core, I expect that like most things, when it comes to density more is not always better. It is understood that increasing the density beyond the existing condition at the site of the proposed development can surely contribute positively to the livability and vitality of the community within and surrounding the development. However, at some point further increases to the size of a development will start to have negative impacts that outweigh the initial benefits. The goal of increasing density in the core should be to create healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities, not simply more housing at any cost. Page 374 of 520 To that point, I am concerned about the quality of housing that this development will create. Like most of the other high-rise residential buildings that have been built recently, this development is offering mostly one-bedroom (two-thirds of inventory) and two-bedroom (one-third of inventory). In a one-bedroom apartment singles cannot comfortably share their space and costs with a roommate, and one-bedrooms apartments are not ideal options for families or even downsizing couples. If the goal is densification, then the quality of the units, not just the number of the units, should be considered. This type of construction will not alleviate the current housing crises in this City as it does not appeal to diverse households, and is not a viable alternative to detached and semi-detached homes. More units per building are more profitable for developers though, which unfortunately seems to be driving much decision-making as of late. We (residents of Kitchener) will be living with these towers for a very long time, long after the developers are gone. Therefore, short term goals such as fast densification and maximizing the profitability of developers should not be the leading concerns in considering such developments. Pedestrian and Cycling Landscape According to the design report there will be an entrance for parking off of both Park Street and Victoria Street, the development will only have car parking for approximately 60% of units and there will be bicycle parking. However, the design of the development is still strongly car centric. For example, there does not appear to be a separate or protected entrances for cyclists to access bicycle parking. Only confident able-bodied cyclists would be able to use such parking, riding along a parking garage with cars would discourage less able bodied or confident cyclists, and is certainly not appropriate for children. Such a large development should be inclusive to a wide demographic of people, including families. Additionally there appears to be little consideration for the experience of pedestrians in the building design, which is apparent in reviewing the wind impact study. Air flow around the building would create uncomfortable conditions around the building for any one not standing still right at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street both in the winter and the summer. This is notably the area where architectural renderings propose outdoor seating, and is where pedestrians would be required to wait in order to cross the road. Overuse of Existing Nearby Amenities and Lack of Place-Making Lastly, new developments are being built faster than the City is building new amenities for the new residents such as green spaces, trails, parks, squares, schools, and daycares. By concentrating so much development in one place without equal investment in communal space, we risk overuse of existing amenities. How will Victoria and Cherry Parks cope with an additional 1000+ residents at its doorstep? Will these parks be expanded and/or have further amenities added to compensate for increased use? Sales materials for new condos often list all the amenities that new residents can take advantage of, but these large developments should ideally be contributing to place making in our streetscapes, not just taking advantage of our existing places. The Bauer Lofts is a great example of a condo development that included placemaking in their design; we need more thoughtful design like the ground floor of the Bauer Lofts! The podium design of the proposed Page 375 of 520 development excludes non-residents of the towers from taking advantage of the shared outdoor space, and although there will be retail on the lower levels of the podium, available retail space in of itself does not result in place making. The lower levels of 1 Victoria and the One hundred towers are a testament to this. Summary In summary, I suggest that a midrise (5-10 storeys) would be much more complementary to the existing nearby neighbourhoods, as stated a midrise would also follow current zoning regulations. A smaller development would better integrate into the existing fabric of the surrounding neighbourhoods by placing less stress on the traffic in the area, including through Victoria Park and a smaller development would not cause large shadows over entire existing low rise heritage neighbourhoods. The goal of densification in the core of downtown Kitchener should be to create healthy, livable, safe and attractive communities, not to simply open the door for a deluge of high-end condo towers. At some point, further increasing density will start to have a negative impact that outweigh the initial benefits of a new development. While the number of new housing units is an important consideration in increasing density, the quality of those units should be an equally if not more important consideration. Units with two more bedrooms are more appealing than one-bedroom units to a larger more diverse set of households and are a better alternative to semi or fully detached homes. Furthermore, more people can comfortably live in a unit with more rooms, reasonably complexes with a greater proportion of units with two or more bedrooms could result in more densely occupied buildings than buildings with a greater proportion of one-bedroom units. With the exception of some proposed retail space on the ground level, the new development does not plan on contributing to the placemaking at street level. It would also make the pedestrian experience near the building less comfortable due to increased wind speeds, particularly at the corner of Park street and Victoria street where pedestrians would need to wait to cross the road and where architectural renderings suggest an area of outdoor seating. Finally if the City wants to densify the core, it also needs to create more common space for residents to gather; otherwise, there could be added stress on and overuse of existing amenities such as Victoria and Cherry Parks. My sincere thanks for your time and attention to this matter. With respect, Kitchener, ON [1] https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipality Page 376 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:13 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Victoria & Park development Hi, Eric, Thank you for your availability to receive feedback on the proposed development at 92-110 Park and 146-162 Victoria. For the most part, this seems well aligned with the direction of appropriate land use given that the site is adjacent to the downtown core and within walking distance of the future passenger hub. Here are some of my initial thoughts on the project: - It looks like retail access at street level will keep the sidewalk relatively animated. Is there a way to ensure that this will be the case, such as mandating windows in those areas? I hope that further wind mitigation techniques can be used to keep the sidewalk environment pleasant and safe. My experience at other condominium sites indicates that parcel areas are often insufficient and difficult to retrofit well, so encouraging oversizing of that feature may be helpful. -Often,towers do not incorporate compost in their waste stream planning, and I hope this could be addressed. - Reduced motor vehicle parking provision seems appropriate for a transit oriented site. However, I'd like to see some EV charging capacity from the beginning, and latent capacity(at every parking space and in the power supply engineering) to provide universal charging availability in future. This has proven a near impossibility to retrofit in existing multi-unit buildings, for legal and technical reasons, and I expect this building will long outlive the widespread use of internal combustion engine vehicles. This prevents residents from seeking out and crowding charging sites in the community,which would be a serious inconvenience to them and their neighbours. -The bicycle parking provision seems very low. I would hope for something closer to two spaces per residential unit. As cycling expands in the city, I wouldn't want residents to find themselves discouraged to be a part of that shift. This can also lead to use of elevators and balconies for bicycle transport and storage. -As high density development expands along Victoria in both directions from King, and given the location of the transit/rail hub, I can imagine Victoria serving as a rapid transit corridor in future. Will the site plan accommodate future provision of BRT(and eventual LRT) station at Park? It seems to be a logical location. - I hope that this plan does not introduce any constraints on future use of the former Bramm Yards for civic and institutional uses. I can imagine that the health campus expansion,the addition of a downtown fire station,and future need for a major public venue (arena, convention centre, etc.) may be sited there eventually. I look forward to hearing more about the project and any public meetings. In general, I am happy to see Kitchener adding more residential development in a manner that brings in additional density to support transit and a vibrant downtown. All the best, Page 377 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:22 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at 146 Victoria Street Re: Victoria and Park Development Application at 146 Victoria Street South Dear Mr Schneider I apologize for writing such a long response to the development application. I am a resident of the Victoria Park area and have seen a number of highrise developments in the area. I have also had the opportunity to speak with many neighbours about the impact developments around the Victoria Park Heritage District. I have written to Tina Malone Wright, participated in secondary plan reviews and I have also spoken to Council about over-development in the Victoria Park area. I also understand the concern of people who think that we need to build up to save farmland and increase housing supply. Highrise developments have been increasing in height from about 20 storeys to those of 30 and 40 storeys. However, there are other options to building up and we need a vision for our city about how that should be done. Currently we are faced with application after application for very tall buildings that many people believe will preserve our farmland and solve the housing crisis. However, there are other ways to build density and we need better tools to accomplish that. So, while there is a need for housing so we do not pave over more agricultural land, these highrise developments overwhelm the people who live here. They are proposed one after another and we need to step back or they will literally overshadow us in number and size. They are too expensive for the people who need housing. Building more of these does not help but rather destroys the low rental areas. We need to house people densely, but that can be met with low rise builds in areas where there are now factories with huge, underutilized car lots. Many warehouses are single floor structures and there is a movement to build and re-build warehouses to multi storey buildings due to high costs of land. We have a great deal of under-utilized land in Kitchener with one storey warehouses and huge parking lots. We also allow building in ways that require cars rather than building where you can get transit or walk for your groceries and essentials. So, can we think about a more fundamental change? The alternative is to have developers decide that they want to build on a property. I can think of only a couple of applications in recent years where the city or the community asked for serious adjustments (242 Queen and Mill Street). Also, whereas previous builds have been in the 20-storey range, we now have applications for 30-to 40- storeys. Is the only solution to build up higher and higher? Is this what we really want to happen? As I said, there are other options. What we need is to re-imagine our community and re-think how to create a community where living can be maintained on a human scale. Having said that, I have specific comments to make. Page 378 of 520 1. I'm in favour of a broader spread of medium density builds on areas that are non-residential such as old factories, which have large unused parking lots (see "5 Ways to Add Density Without Building High-Rises"). 2. It has been argued by Anthony Paletta that High Rises Are Not High Density. Planners staff have said in the past that high rise density in the core will actually save the low- rise neighbourhoods. 3. The city has been inundated with inappropriate housing. Three quarters of the proposal at 30 Francis are one-bedroom units. What about the missing middle? Affordability?There is a lack of variety in development proposals with almost no 2- or 3-bedroom condo units that might house a family. This leads to a uniformity in income with little lifestyle variety. I have been told by planning staff that the city cannot address the type of units that are planned. A proposed rental building can later be changed to condos. 4. Do the demographics show that there is a need for one-bedroom units?The region undertook a study of demographic trends and found that there is less need for single detached builds. Fine. But one-bedroom units of 600sf may not meet the need either. The report also stated that 50% of the in- migrants are in the 15-24 age group (Region of Waterloo Long-Term Population and Housing Growth Analysis, December 2020). Will this age group buy one-bedroom condos? 5. Where will all these people go for recreation and natural landscapes? 6. What are the social consequences of living in high rises? There are studies that suggest that it is not good and can lead to urban anomie and social conflict (See Robin Mazumder). I could cite several academic studies which show how dense building will actually harm the social fabric. 7. What obligations does the city have for providing amenities for food, entertainment and the necessities of life? While the nearby hardware will serve some needs, the closest supermarket is 15- to 20-minute walk or transit ride. Transit is deemed an attractive part of this development, but will people use it? 8. If density targets are being met already, then why are we being pressured into building more inappropriate and high-cost housing?The city does not track whether condo units are owner- occupied and so are we just serving investors and our tax base? We really have no idea how many condos are owner-occupied since we do not keep track. A resident of Kaufman Lofts estimated that a quarter of the condos are not occupied by owners. 9. Covid also shows that as people work from home, they now realize that there is not enough space in their one-bedroom, 600 sf condos. I've been told that people work on their beds or in a corner of their bedrooms. The amenities and desire to avoid commuting that drew people to the centre are no longer a factor, so they move anywhere they can have a bigger space. 10. Will condos be only an investment? A recent report in Ontario shows that a quarter of all property purchases were from investors who are also buying houses and driving up the cost of housing. Do we need a municipal non-occupancy tax? Shortly after 30 Francis was being proposed an investment site popped up advertising units for$300,000. Are we building for need or investors? What about a non-resident tax? Is the amount of non-resident ownership being studied? 11. Finally, will low-income residents be displaced? Can we do something about it? I would like to offer that we cannot do so if we continue to allow few conditions on the rental units and prices. Can low- or even medium-income people afford these units? Clearly not and we do have a plan in place to increase affordable housing. Or do we?They do not meet the housing needs of our city: affordability and size of units, housing for the missing middle, displacing low-cost housing, all leading to gentrification. Page 379 of 520 You may think that I have many criticisms and few solutions. I am not an expert but I do live in the downtown area and I have been increasingly concerned about the way we are going. So, I can offer some suggestions that planning staff can work on. • We need to address what high rise development does to people. World famous Gehl Architects focus on how architecture connects people and puts health and well-being as the focus. A local expert which the City of Kitchener has consulted, Robin Mazumder could help develop planning with the ecology and mental well- being integrated into future developments. + How you can build attractive low rise high density and still meet targets and hold the line. The article "The Future of Social Housing: 7 Low-Rise, High-Density Developments shows how we can achieve density without building up. We can limit developments to the zoning that is set for the area. Zoning is not something that can just be put in place after years of planning and community input and then set aside. Zoning regulations are made to be followed. If nothing else, the plan needs to be altered to conform with the law as set out in 85-1 regulations as amended. I have observed over the past 5 years that many builds have been proposed and built around Victoria Park. These developers advertise "overlooking Victoria Park". The problem is that the people who use Victoria Park will find that they could have a tall building border rather than a tree border when the visit it. Even New York City has height limits around the long arms of Central Park (about 12 storeys). In 2019, the heights of buildings around Victoria Park did not rise above the trees. Now, we can see several developments which rise above the trees surrounding the Park. As far as I can tell, there will be about 10,000 new residents within a 10-minute walk of Victoria Park. They will use this space because there is less than 1 square metre per resident right now in the areas around downtown Kitchener where these new residents will be living. So, stop building around the Park. a The proposal by Polocorp for a 12-storey condo tower on Mill street was changed because it was not suitable for the neighbourhood. In that case, heritage was involved because it bordered on the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District and was next to a Part IV designated house. After many discussions with residents, the developer decided to build a complex of 1 and 2 bedroom stacked townhouses of 500 to 1300 sf. The proposal at Victoria and Park is inappropriate for the neighbourhood. A 40-storey building at 30 Francis is very tall but there will be less impact on the low- rise neighbourhood around it. While heritage can be a low prineority in planning, the VPHCD is also Page 380 of 520 set out in a bylaw and the heritage provisions should be considered. The zoning on the West side of Joseph between Francis and Water has a lower height limit so there is less impact on the HCD across the street. Why is this not the case with the Victoria and Park development? The current zoning should be retained rather than allowing the requested FSR of 14.2. Current FSRs are less than 1.0 FSR (I calculated the property at 106 Park at .7 FSR. In other words, the proposed development is over 20 times as high! • So, can we develop high density at this lot with adequate protection for the`lowrise residential neighbourhood? Yes. If we do something different with the land. An example from the article by Cloe Logan "The hidden carbon footprint of highrises." We can do more and also reduce the carbon impact. In the development alternative (see photo) we can see that the streetscape is retained and the build is setback and is lower. The carbon retained by old buildings can never be recovered and by various means, new buildings can reduce the carbon deficit by as much a 40%. This development asks for zero setbacks on the East, West and South borders. Will there be any sidewalk left? Will it harm the social and visual fabric of the community?Yes. It is not up to me to re-design this development; it is up to the developer to come up with a plan that is acceptable to the neighbourhood and to the City of Kitchener. 161 s� I hope that you will consider these comments. I am sure that members of the community are willing to meet with the city and developer and see what can be done to make it a better plan. Sincerely, cc: Debbie Chapman, Councillor Ward 9 i Page 381 of 520 I am committed to reconciliation, and acknowledge that I live on the Haldimand Tract,promised to the Six Nations in 1784, land of the Neutral,Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee. Page 382 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 7:17 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment Submission re Victoria Street and Park Street development Attachments: Comments o- re proposed project at Victoria and Park.pdf Sincerely, F= Nk This communication,including attachments if any,is confidential.It is intended only for use by the addressee and contains information that may be protected by lawyer-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution,copying or use of this email or the information it contains is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message. Page 383 of 520 Dear Eric Schneider, Senior Planner for City of Kitchener I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development,a multi-tower development(38 storeys,36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid-rise podium (4 to 6 storey)located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. I am writing to voice my opposition to the project as it is currently planned. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region,DTK Condos,which is 39 storeys.Unlike the DTK Condos,though,it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys;the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline.According to the design report,the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood,along Park Street,as well as within the Cherry Park neighbourhood, As a resident of __.— I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property,along with the damage to the community. No-one can argue that this building is in keeping with the character of the area or any of the development plans of Kitchener or the Region. I am also concerned about the impact of traffic.As access to my street must be done either through Jubilee or driving north on the one way on Joseph. The issue I greatly fear is that as I use Park to access Jubilee,there will be considerable traffic problems presented by this project. As I understand it,the traffic study that was conducted was done during a time of COVID-19 when traffic was much lower than average. Further, I am increasingly seeing the issue of speeding and aggressive driving as people are using Jubilee and then increasingly using Heins as a cut through to get to King Street West. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown;there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park(see a summary below); however,these are generally not near detached homes,or are much shorter where they are near detached homes.The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself. Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy,livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016,several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South.Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. ■ 1 Victoria-- 19 storeys-completed in 2016 • One Hundred Tower A- 21 storeys- completed in 2020t,i One Hundred Tower B- 17 storeys-completed in 20201, Garment St Condos- 28 storeys complete in 202111 The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street.For example,at 38 storevs,the tallest tower in the Victoria and Pi1rk Towers deyelnumen w.o ld be like h-i both the: towers at the One Hundred d=JoVnient stacked on top of each other! Page 384 of 520 Ideally,in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents,new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods,not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form,I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: + Reducing the heights of the towers to a-mid-rise scale (5-11 storeys)which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. • Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road,taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place I - 7 storeys 205 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place II -9 storeys 3 241 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2- 7 storeys 4) 243 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 -6 storeys«� Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers- 15 storeys s 310 Queen Street South-Victoria Park Towers - 14 storeys m 290 Queen Street South-Victoria Place Retirement Community- 7 storeys 141 214 Queen Street South -the York- 6 storeys m South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South -Barra on Queen- 6 storeys 307 Queen Street South-Bread and Roses - 6 storeys 171 221 Queen Street South -Conestoga Apartment Towers- 17 storeys w Page 385 of 520 Sources: 1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest buildings in the Waterloo Regional Municipa it I https://www.drewloholdings com/�artments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-i 3, https://www.drewloholdings com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually 5, https://www.drewloholdings com/apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. https://www.breadandroses.coQI21 8. https://barracondos.comZabout-barra/ Page 386 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 8:02 PM To: Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hello, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park towers development, a multi-tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a mid-rise podium (4 to 6 storey) located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest towers rival the tallest building in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region, DTK Condos,which is 39 storeys. Unlike the DTK Condos,though,it is located near established low rise neighbourhoods. The current buildings occupying the land parcel that will be developed are only 2 storeys; the proposed development will be a substantial departure from the current skyline.According to the design report,the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, along Park Street,as well as within the Cherry Park neiahh-1-1-ood. As a resident of, am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of my property,which will be in the shadow of the tower. I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight on my property and my street,which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my home and neighbourhood. In turn, I am concerned about the value of my home and the loss of the heritage feel of my neighbourhood resulting from being so close to such a large imposing development. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street,through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee; my neighbourhood already has an issue with high volumes of drivers and aggressive driving. It is understood that these towers will be built in order to densify the downtown; there are already many existing towers near Victoria Park(see a summary below); however,these are generally not near detached homes, or are much shorter where they are near detached homes.The heights of the proposed towers are much taller than any existing tower beside Victoria Park: 20-32 storeys higher! I am also concerned about how such dense development will affect the fabric of the City itself.Added height and density in the downtown core will not automatically result in healthy,livable, safe and attractive communities. Since 2016, several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South. Each development got progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street. • 1 Victoria- 19 storeys- completed in 2016 [1] • One Hundred Tower A- 21 storeys -completed in 2020[1] i One Hundred Tower B- 17 storeys -completed in 2020 R] Garment St Condos- 28 storeys- complete in 2021[ll The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria Street. For example, at 38 storeys,the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development,would be like having both the towers at the One Hundred development stacked on top of each other! Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to current residents, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach established low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. With the understanding that this parcel of land will be redeveloped in some form, I would ask that the heights of the proposed towers be greatly reduced (particularly those facing onto Park and Victoria Street) to better fit the current streetscape of the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. I suggest: Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid-rise scale(5-11 storeys) which would fit in more harmoniously with the existing neighbourhoods nearby. Increasing the set back of the towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. Stepping back of the towers (shorter near the road,taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Sincerely, Page 387 of 520 Height of existing buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place I - 7 storeys[z] 205 Victoria Street South-Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys [3] 241 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys [4] 243 Victoria Street South-Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 - 6 storeys [4] Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South- Iron Horse Towers- 15 storeys[5] 310 Queen Street South-Victoria Park Towers- 14 storeys [6] 290 Queen Street South-Victoria Place Retirement Community- 7 storeys [4] 214 Queen Street South-the York- 6 storeys [4] South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen- 6 storeys [8] 307 Queen Street South- Bread and Roses- 6 storeys [7] 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers- 17 storeys [1] Sources: 1. ftLLps:,//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of tallest huilding_s in the Waterloo Regional Municipality 2, htt,2s:J www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rentfyictoria-park-place-i 3, h, ttps:f bMw.drewloholdings.com/apartments-tier-rent/victoria- ark- lace-ii 4, Counted manually 5_ h=s:s:llwww.drewloholdings com/apartm(-rets-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. IUs:I/www.dr-ewloholdings.comfanartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. h s://www.breadandroses.coopf 8. hitp,I f'barracondos.com/about-Barra/ Sent from my Galaxy Page 388 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 10:27 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback: 146-162 Victoria St./92-110 Park St. Hi Eric, I am writing today to provide feedback on behalf of my household (Walnut St.) near the new Victoria & Park development proposal. In general, I am strong supporter of redeveloping these properties and appreciate what appears to be an overall high quality and ambitious proposal by the developer that makes efforts to integrate with a key intersection and corridor at the junction of the Innovation District and nearby neighbourhoods. I understand that a development of this intensity and in a location that is near(at least for now) low-rise homes is likely to receive substantial pushback, however I foremost want to express a pro-intensification position. This block and many of the- my view-wasteful surface parking lots in downtown are ripe of bring new residents to the core that can re- invigorate our mainstreet businesses and at times quiet and emptied downtown centre. On a positive impression of the proposal itself: -Quality visual appeal and architecture that looks achievable (at least, as rendered -sincerely wish more developments maintained their proposed appearance). -Appealing podium design, substantial balconies on the tower, a townhouse units. - High degree of engagement with sidewalks and the public realm at the corner, including a small plaza at the intersection. Ground floor commercial space (securing a small grocer or similar would be even better!). Directing parking garage traffic to the rear off Bramm St. Pavers and greenery incorporated into the central drop off area, as well as (proposed at least) greening on the 7th floor amenity level. Some improvements (at least rendered)to the pedestrian spaces. Replacing otherwise low engagement commercial and parking areas with an active and modern street wall. - Intensification within 600m of our transit and employment centre of the city, improving transit access and walkability for a large set of new residents. Areas that I would look to improve in the proposal: - Extremely tight setbacks on Victoria and Park; I am concerned that this immediately precludes, at the intersection especially, future space for AT or mass transit in the Victoria St. corridor.This street is already an unpleasant walk given the high traffic volumes and speeds and a limited sidewalk area will not make this better. - Driveways on both Park and Victoria. Not sure why the driveway is needed at Victoria,which will be a busy pedestrian area and near the intersection. I foresee, particularly exiting cars, blocking the sidewalk. Could this either be entry-only or closed to cars (i.e. bikes and ped access only)? Page 389 of 520 -Similarly, more bike parking would be a minor loss of vehicle parking in exchange for a substantially larger number of bike spots per unit. On a similar note though - I am supportive of maintaining low parking allocation per unit. If local residents are concerned about car volumes, let's keep them low and encourage residents to use alternative modes! -A lack of 3-bedroom units, or at least 2+1 configurable units being noted and available for families, at least in the podium/townhouse levels. Perhaps this isn't the development for these, but I continue to ask where those developments will come from to reduce pressure on the SDH market in town. Its evident the 1-2 bed unit focus is an attraction to investment buyers. -As with Garment St/ 100 Victoria,the lack of any substantial rear lot engagement leaves me wondering what the plan for Bramm St parking lot is and if this is the right way to build these facades, at least for the ones that are abutting this city land. The wind studies are a little concerning, especially for winter months at what may become a busy pedestrian corner. I would encourage asking for more from the developer that could reduce the wind impacts, especially at the corner where there will be substantial wait times for those out in the elements (may require input from the city and region on their ROW?). - More information on the use of low carbon footprint and high efficiencv materials appliances and HVAC would be welcome, as this wasn't really addressed in a substantial way. Stating LEED features without a certification is, frankly, a bit of a dodge. Would help to know what those are! On the topic of intensity and height: I am a proponent of building upwards more intensively if that means leaving more space for green area and parks, land for higher occupancy/family units in low to mid-rise buildings, and affordable/co-op housing. I don't find the idea of this building near downtown heritage neighbourhoods concerning as my view is those homes are the designated outliers. The city has zoned for transition around here and this a minor step outside the downtown zoning area. I'm certain this will be a major concern from local residents (particularly long term residents) and while the proposal was probably made planning to accommodate some adjustment for appeasement, I don't fundamentally think this criticism is consistent with their own living style. Many of these same residents are concerned with affordable housing while living at a peak of luxury in land value and access to amenities downtown in SDHs. I say build more at all levels of the housing market, however... Areas that 1 remain concerned about for the city/ region: -The affordable housing accommodations in this building, while in line with some manner of local standard,are just not useful to solve the problem. I don't know why some proponents look to cash charges as a bad thing when the allocated units could easily be bought and flipped, achieving zero benefit to the community while still impacting the developer bottom line too. If they aren't to be rent-controlled, fixed units owned by the city or a non-profit I don't think they are even worth including when the developer should instead just put funds (substantially so)towards a city/regional/non- profit housing that truly helps the unhoused or lowest earners. Maybe an argument is these charges from other developments are too small, but that is another issue. -Above-zoning developments that are geared towards investor buyers are not helping our housing crisis in the region. As above, I'm not anti-development,but there is little being done to make these lucrative investment condos pay a price for that upside that benefits affordable housing or as development incentives to rental or low-rise, family oriented developments. Creative approaches to incentivize this kind of development are lacking but seem possible in the same way that the ION corridor was incentivized for intensification. What can be done at a municipal level? Page 390 of 520 - Many new developments along the Victoria St. corridor which,while in regional hands, leaves me concerned.These sidewalks are quite narrow, in poor condition, and next to busy and hard to engage traffic corridor. More needs to be done to make this a route that can service moving people to downtown and the transit hub. - Park space and urban greening remains a shortcoming of DTK, both by metrics of space per resident and a simple eye test. Meanwhile, we have huge swaths of parking space you could safely shoot a gun through after 5pm such as the Bramm St lot. I am eager to know more about what the city and region have planned for these areas and why we can't be actively engaging these new developments to mesh with that future land use and vision. Could we add more green space?Afford ourselves a bold, new pedestrian oriented urban neighbourhood in the city core near transit? It seems like we're missing an opportunity to be wholistic in design here! Thanks and apologies this got a little long (and for any planning illiteracy within). Excited for this development to add to our city, but do think we can still do better,to say nothing of major changes we still have to make to enable our city to be liveable for all. That latter problem being a bit bigger than any one development, though they are often the centre of focus. Page 391 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 4:21 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Victoria and Park St tower development Hello, I'm a resident who lives on near where 3 new towers are to be built. I just want to voice my support for this sort of development. I saw an article in The Record about "concerned residents". https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/12/08/multi-tower-development-proposed-for-park-a nd- victoria-streets-in-kitchener.html As a resident of the area I want to voice my support for these developments. I think more density is what this area needs. We're so close to downtown,this space feels wasted on single family dwellings. Their petition,which I'm sure you've seen, suggests cutting the towers from 25+storeys to 5. That's stupid. Kitchener desperately needs more housing, 5 storeys won't cut it.This is prime land near transit. We need to densify along transit, not put down a 5 storey walk-up. I think it's incredibly unfair of local residents to assume they matter more than the hundreds of families who could live in this development. I strongly disagree with their concerns, too. Shade?Who cares,you might even need to run your AC less.Traffic? It's only going to have 600 parking spots. I'm sure we can handle 600 more cars in the area, plus I'm sure young people living near transit will use transit. I know I do. The "concerned residents" claim to care about affordable housing "We don't need it. We don't want it,"said lane Harding, who lives on Michael Street. "We don't need more condos. We need more affordable housing. We live downtown. We see it,"she said. but their petition only calls for the building to be made smaller, and have setbacks,and does not call to include any more affordable/subsidized/off market housing. If this was anything more than selfish nimbyism there'd be meaningful requests for low income housing.And if you check their petition (I'm sure you've been sent it by now)there's nothing of the sort. htt s: ou.leadnow.ca etitions reduce-the-hei hts-victoria-and- ark-towers So, I just want to say. Build more. Build bigger. Build faster. Kitchener/Waterloo is growing and it's already desperately short on places to stay. I've only been in town for 7 years, and I've seen housing costs skyrocket dramatically with no signs of slowing down. We need housing far more than we need to appease selfish busybodies who are upset about shade. Page 392 of 520 It would be great to see more affordable housing, more subsidized housing, more off market housing, but the path to that is not cutting the top 20 floors off this development. It would also be nicer to see larger units. More 3+ bedroom units. Places to raise a family, not just bachelor pads, but again... the path to that is not to cut the top 20 floors off this development. Thanks, Page 393 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 5:Ly AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Mayor; Debbie Chapman; KRedman@regionofwaterloo.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Three tower condo proposal at Victoria and Park Street I'm writing to express my opposition to the three tower condo development at Victoria and Park Streets in Kitchener. I want to be clear that I'm not opposed to growth in this region. However, I think unlimited growth and a business model for growth is harmful. The pattern that is emerging by developers is to propose a building, or buildings that completely ignore the existing zoning by laws, and then see how much of their proposal they can push through.They are mostly comprised of one bedroom units (more profitable), do not include affordable units (although we have no definition of what 'affordable' is), and do not aim high for environmentally sustainable design (such as net zero, solar, geothermal, wind, less harmful building materials, grey water, etc.). The concerns are always the same: large shadows on neighbouring houses, gardens and parks, increased traffic,wildly out of proportion in scale with the existing neighbourhood, not enough parking, no family sized units, no or very few affordable units,too many one bedroom units,tree removal, lack of green space, etc. Those of us who voice our concerns are made to feel foolish and out of touch with the times. When I look at Toronto, which I think is a disaster in terms of development, it reminds me of what people in the 50's, 60's, and 70's thought future cities would look like. As a child I was perplexed by these depictions of a sterile, greenless city, full of boring towers, monorails, and assorted flying modes of transit.These were the fantasies of people who thought radiation, asbestos, chemical pesticides, and preservative laden processed food were markers of progress. The over 'condo'd' city looks remarkably similar to these fantasy depictions of the future. Like the proposal at Victoria and Park Streets,the buildings are devoid of character.There's a disorienting lack of sense of place.There's no evidence of craftsmanship, artistry, imagination, balance with nature, or sensitivity to human nature (our need for nature, privacy, security, community). The design for the towers at Victoria and Park Streets look so similar to so many other condo proposals in Kitchener, it's becoming more and more difficult to keep them straight. It's obvious there's no effort put in to integration with the existing neighbourhood. We're being unceremoniously shoved out of the way to let 'progress' proceed. We're living in a time where profit is everything. We've normalized food banks, homelessness, and the marginalizing of large groups of people. Our cities are being designed for people with money. I'm not convinced our region is going to grow as rapidly as has been forecast. It's no longer a city that's affordable. Its small town appeal is disappearing rapidly. Our future is likely to be populated by climate refugees, not single young people in the tech sector who don't seem to mind living in sterile boxes. My conversations with people who favour these ugly high rises is always the same...'It's good for business.' I feel we've lost our humanity. I'm disappointed that KW has not been more unique, inclusive, careful, respectful of the environment, and skeptical of following the latest trend when it comes to growth. We are valuing the wrong things. fear our communities will have a future of endless protracted fights to try to preserve a shred of our identities. Page 394 of 520 The Victoria and Park Street proposal should be aiming for beauty, compatibility, and environmental sensitivity.This proposal looks like the usual money grab that has become so depressingly common here in our region. Please, enough of this harmful development. It's very difficult and costly to correct these mistakes. You must think more deeply and carefully about the long term future of this region. You can and must do much better. Kitchener Sent from my Whone Page 395 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 4:39 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Petition to Reduce the heights of the Victoria and Park Tower development Attachments: red uce-the-heights-victoria-and-park-towers_December_9_2021.pdf Dear Mr. Schneider and Ms. Chapman, Please see a petition to reduce the heights of the proposed Victoria and Park Tower Development attached. Kind Regards, Page 396 of 520 Signed by 251 people First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2G 1M2 N2G1M2 N2g1m1 N2G 1M1 N2J OE7 N2J OE7 NOB2M1 VON 1V1 L6KOJ 1 N3C2V3 N2k 1W2 L1M2M2 M6P 4138 NOB2M1 NOb2N L7S 2H7 NOB 2M1 N2G1M1 N2L2N6 VON 1v1 N2G 1Z4 N2G 1M2 N2K3B8 N2T1V3 N2G 1.15 N2G1M1 N2G 1M1 N2K 1W2 N2G1M1 N2G 1M1 N2a2n4 N2G 1M1 N2G 1 M 2 Too much traffic volume for narrow one way streets, nota heritage design, way too gigantic for this corner,takes away privacy N2G 1M2 N2G 1M1 n2g1k4 n2g1k4 N2M 3S3 N2G 11<7 Building is way too high for the neighbourhood. It should be lower to match other residential towers recently built nearby. N2G 1M1 N2G 1M2 N2G 1P9 N2G 1P9 Page 397 of 520 First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2L 5P5 N2V1H4 N2H3L5 N2M 3V7 N2G 2C2 N2H 3R3 N2G 1Z5 N2G 1P3 N2G 4K3 N2h3h6 N2H2B6 N2M 2A9 N2M2B4 N2h2r9 N2H 6S3 N2G 4T7 N2G2S7 N2B 2Z2 N2G4M1 N2C1Y9 N2L5G6 N2G1Z7 N2H2T1 I would like to see better integration into the existing streetscape. Mid to small high rise would be more favorably received in regard to size. Rein in developers who want to erect these massive structures. N2G1R2 N2G2C7 N2M 2MB N2G 1Z4 N2m 2b1 N2T 2E1 N2G1M2 N2N3E3 N2H 1K7 N2K 1P2 N2M 3H1 N2G2G2 N2g 1z8 N2H 3H7 N2h5j9 Design needs to be improved (heritage design), green space should be incorporated. N2g1m7 N2H 3B N2M 1W9 N2H 2G1 Page 398 of 520 First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2H1S1 N2G1M7 N2G 2T5 n N2H 4H8 N2G 4X6 protect our heritage space for us whom live here now and for our future generations N2G 1Z7 These towers are out of control in this area. No more park land is given. Victoria Park is suffering from over use already. Tiny condos are not homes---just a place that people stay in for a while. N2G2E9 N2H 1S7 erts N2G 2E8 I agree with the comments that new developments should be getting shorter as they approach low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. N2E 1S8 N2G 4V1 N2H 5A3 What is needed is affordable housing, not more high rises. N2N 1P7 N2H 41<3 Jamming hi-rise units into the downtown core is marring the KW skyline & impacting the quality of living for us all. So much looming intensification is not being balanced with integrated green space for outdoor recreation. The environmental impacts are also a sizeable concern. Fact is, families are not attracted to in living in these trumped up corrals - now or ever! Scale them down. n2e1s8 N2G 11<2 This would be a monstrosity sitting among the quaint single dwellings in the area not to mention a blight on the park! N2T 1S9 N2G 3E4 The Cities say they want to preserve farmland. Then explain why FischerHallman south of Bleams, Fairway east of Zeller and Waterloo west of Erbsville Rd nothing but detached single family homes. These areas would be a better fit for tall condos with the surrounding development instead of ruining neighbourhoods that have been around for 60+years. Infilling is a way for developers to maximize profit at the expense of residents. N2G 1Z5 Proposed towers will threaten and help destroy the two residential communities of Victoria Park(heritage area) and Cherry Park...2 areas council has committed to protecting/preserving. N21-6n2 N2G2G5 N2G 1Z7 Page 399 of 520 First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2L 2C4 These towers do not promote community building or a sense of belonging. These are cheaply made boxes in the sky that do not respond to the needs of KW residents. N2H 1N5 N2G 1Z5 Once again, this is a proposed development that does not comply with existing zoning or the City's official plan. It is time that developers abide by the rules. N2G1P8 Here are seven good reasons: https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollectiv e/7-reasons-why-high-rises-kill-livability/561536/ N2b 2s5 There are so many abandoned/derelict properties around like the old White Rose store that I feel before destroying heritage areas, lets€'ms clean up those deserted lots; make them have purpose again. Leta CTM s revitalize those sites before destroying farm land,forests and history. N2H 3J9 N2H 1L6 N2G3H6 S N2G 1Z5 N2L 1C3 N2HOA N2G OC4 n2g1z5 Everywhere you look, all you see is condos jammed into a small downtown core. With all the new bike lanes and one way streets,traffic is already a nightmare....so much for living in a nice quiet heritage area near the park. Seems like nothing is protected anymore and the developers seem to have more say then the actual hardworking tax payers that live in the area. The condo Heights keep changing and getting higher and higher....do we really even have a say anymore ??? N2G 2138 N2L 1134 N2H2J4 N2H 2X6 N2G 4t7 N2H 6R7 N2G 3H3 N2G 3133 N2H 5N3 N2G 2X6 N2G 2S9 N2133139 N2M 3S7 N2H4B7 N2L 2T8 Page 400 of 520 First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2H 5S5 I signed because livable cities are no place for monster towers that dominate green spaces and historic downtown neighbourhoods. Four to six story buildings as in European cities are conducive to medium density human scale architectural design. N2B 2T6 N2G1M2 N2g1m2 N2E 4H2 N2B 2L3 N2H 6R8 N2E 4H2 N2H2X9 N2G1M2 N2G 2136 N2b 1w8 N2E 3N7 Those towers will ruin heritage area and need wider roads and more green space to avoid polution N2H 6G3 N2H2N9 N2m1j5 N2G4Z6 I live in a high rise near Victoria & Park Streets. It's almost impossible to turn left in or out of our driveway now, let alone with all the added traffic from this development. N2G 2C6 N2m3e1 The towers are way to tall for the area. It is also a high traffic area already,the other towers that was just built is sufficient for the area. Leave the Victoria Park and cherry st area for smaller single dwellings. Put the high rises outside the inner city. N2M1X1 N2M1x1 N2M2T4 N2G 4Z6 n2g4z6 N2G 1Y2 N2G4Z6 N2m5e8 N2H 2R8 N2G 4Z6 N2G 4Z6 The existing buildings on Victoria are high enough. Traffic already is heavy. All those residents will only add to the congestion. N2N 2A2 N2e1w2 Page 401 of 520 First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2G4z7 This street cannot accommodate any more traffic! It's very dangerous as it is N2G4Z6 Victoria Street traffic is already too busy and hazardous, especially since it's one lane each way right after Park heading west. Tall developments don't fit into neighborhood character. N2G 2C6 N2G4Z6 traffic too congested already, N2G1Z5 The height of these buildings massively exceeds the zoning (MU1) developed with the city and the neighborhood. N2G1Z5 The sheer size of these buildings has only one purpose and that is to maximize the profit of the developers. Adding to their profit-they do not pay any development or other infrastructure costs. These costs will be paid by the taxpayers. N2B 2T6 Traffic grid lock N2G 1M2 N2G 1P4 N2G 1Z5 Please be respectful of the neighbours in the Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods and reduce the height of the planned development at Victoria and Park Streets. N2G 1M2 N2G1R3 The City says it wants to protect established downtown residential neighbourhood,and this building is in the what is supposed to be the transition zone from high density building to the low density residential areas. N2M3S1 N2G1M1 Not trusting of the studies done by the developer and unsure if they meet our residential concerns N2g1m3 N2G 1M3 N2g1m3 N2G 4Z6 1. Corner of Park and Victoria is already a traffic nightmare. 2. Victoria Park Place residents already sit for many minutes trying to get out of their driveway. This will make the problem worse. 3. Not being able to see the sky for low level housing is awful. 4. Traffic through the park has already crowded traffic on Victoria. Now it will be worse. N2b3s2 N2G 1M3 The towers are a eye sore N2G 1M4 N2G 1M3 to much traffic N2G 1M4 N2G1M4 Page 402 of 520 First Name Last Name postcode Tell us why you signed N2G1M4 KW is losing its identity and becoming another Toronto. N2G 1P3 N2G 1P3 N2M3T9 Absolutely ridiculous project at the entrance to a heritage neighbourhood. N2G 1M3 n2g2b7 Nob2hO N2n2a2 N2k2r8 N2B 2A8 N3C4G2 N2B2S8 N2N 2A2 E4H 2G1 n2a3z4 N2E 4J8 N2G1M3 There is already too much noise. Neverending construction. Too much traffic. Something of this size on that corner will literally shadow other buildings and homes, which is incredibly unfair to residents. N1G1M2 KOA 1LO This is two doors away from my friend. This high rise is not needed in this neighbourhood NOG 1PO 20175 N2A 2S3 We can't destroy the culture that is already here. N2G3E9 N2G 1M4 N2G1M4 N2G1M4 N2G1M4 N2a2n4 My mother lives there. This will destroy the beautiful sky line views!!! N2G 1M1 N2M 5M7 N2g 1M4 Part of the history and charm surrounding Victoria Park are the historical homes and their quiet streets. A development of this height in a residential neighborhood like ours compromises that and risks pushing out the families that call this neighbour hood home. N2g 1m4 N2G 1Z8 This height is all about profit. I agree that density in the downtown core is good, but when you have something this high,thats not density its profit making. N2P 2K3 Page 403 of 520 postcode Tell us why you signed N2G1M4 N2G 1Z4 Part of the history and charm surrounding Victoria Park are the historical homes and the quiet streets. These monstrous buildings are ruining that and will cause more traffic along with the already ridiculous traffic caused with the boom of development around Victoria Park. These buildings should not be the height they are proposingM I have lived in Victoria Park for almost 20 years this makes me so sad/mad they are ruining this beautiful historic area. N2ROP5 N2H 3W5 N2n3g4 N2H 3L9 N2B2N9 N2h4j8 N2H 1T8 N2G 2E9 N2g 1z5 N2C1C8 Because I am helping my friends who have homes all around Victoria park N2rOh9 N2g2c7 LOR 1CO N5C3C3 N2e2y4 N2M 5G7 N3C 3K9 N2H 4J1 Too tall,too much, not enough affordable housing, traffic issues on Victoria - it's already congested at that corner, does not fit into neighbourhood, oh,the list goes onH N2M 1W1 We need low income housing. N2M 1G6 N2h5s3 N2M 2W4 N2G 1K5 N2G1L8 Page 404 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2021 11:31 AM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria Street 92-110 Park Street Proposal. Good day. I have lived in the Cherry Park ward for 35 years and have seen a lot of change. I am not opposed to change. But I am concerned with the current proposal building such enormous housing complexes and the impact the volume of new people/vehicles will have on our local resources such as schooling, recreation, and most importantly safety. Currently the schools in our ward are over crowded and have little green space available. St.Johns school relies on access to Cherry Park for their daily required exercise breaks.The speed and volume of traffic currently risks our children safety crossing Strange Street to get to the park. Adding such an enormous volume of new residents and vehicles will only add to this danger. Cherry Park is also utilized for sport activities which also bring many Kitchener-Waterloo residence to our neighbourhood.There is limited parking available and these families are required to cross at pedestrian cross walks currently available.Thank goodness those have been placed on Strange and Park. Due to the large volumes of traffic currently Cherry Street is used as a throughway when traffic backups or Victoria due to sheer volumes, accidents which happen regularly at Park and Victoria currently as people run yellows and reds to keep moving from the backup of volumes currently. It is ridiculous. What is the plan to reduce the traffic that will ultimately be seen on Cherry and Walnut street as the additional vehicles are jntroduced to our neighborhood. We have an elderly population who are not always able to outrun a vehicle booking up Cherry St to avoid the traffic delays on Victoria street. It has become a dangerous situation now yet alone once adding these volumes will introduce. While we have elderly people we also have an increased volume of young families,toddlers who are not always aware of the speed of the cars. Children who are unable to judge the speed of these vehicles and attempt to cross the road. I could go on and on. I believe and certainly hope you understand our concerns and will provide SOLUTIONS to ensure the safety of the residents in YOUR ward. What are the traffic calming initiatives on the table? We have been begging for this for years and it has fallen in deaf ears. SLOW DOWN signs are not the answer. We EXPECT solutions! We DESERVE solutions. Page 405 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2021 8:05 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park St development Eric, I'm sending a note to express my opinion on the proposed development at this corner based on the information posted. A) I think the height should be capped at the adjacent towers heights not taller. B) I think the parking should be higher to meet min 1 per residential unit and sufficient for business space proposed. If you look a the student places along Albert in Waterloo almost all the ground level business' are vacant. Not just pandemic.. no parking is not good for business. If you look at Vincenzo-Bauer development it has lots of parking... and has good transit too.. both are important Q since with this development will mean there are 6 towers in 1 city block..) think the city needs to commit to turning their yard to parkland.. there needs to be better trail connectivity between these new buildings and cherry st/Joseph/Victoria trails... D) what about light industrial space in this new build? We need some car repair places uptown.. or at least the ability to have one. E) kudos on the bike parking F) ratio of family residential needs to be higher than in other towers...there are too many lbedrooms in these towers typically ..there is a shortage of family housing 2 and 3 bedroom units need to be 75%of the units available. We need diversity in downtown population... not just young or old.. I think that is it. I look forward to more information.. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Page 406 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:33 PM To: Sarah Marsh; Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Cc: Mayor; Scott Davey; Dave Schnider;John Gazzola; Kelly Galloway-Sealock; Paul Singh; Bil loannidis; Christine Michaud; Margaret Johnston; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca; Rosa Bustamante Subject: [EXTERNAL] Housing mix at Victoria and Park Streets Hello city councillors and staff, I was glad to learn about the plan for three high-rise residential towers at the corner of Victoria and Park Streets. I support the move to intensify and provide housing near downtown Kitchener.This location seems good for new high- rises, even if I do sympathize with the height impacts on nearby detached homes. I was puzzled and disappointed to see these buildings will again feature mostly one-bedroom condo units. I understand this plan comes from the for-profit developer. I ask city staff and councillors to consider creative ways to encourage larger two-and three-bedroom units that accommodate families with kids. Our city has seen many, many one-and two- bedroom units added near downtown -which is great! But it's not the only thing Kitchener needs. Well over half the home-seekers I know are couples with kids (or will soon have them). Many of them (like my own family) prefer to live near downtown amenities and transit. Where are the options for them? Our community clearly needs larger spaces, and these could be located in multi-unit towers. I believe there is demand for more family living space near downtown and not only in Kitchener's suburban outskirts. If I'm wrong, I would be happy to see data that shows one-and two-bedroom condo units are disproportionately undersupplied in Waterloo Region. Park Street, being close to other family homes and Victoria Park, would be a great spot for much-needed family housing. What can the city do to encourage or require developers to include more of these units? Do we need financial incentives? Zoning requirements?Trade concessions when we give developers exemptions for zoning, set backs and floor space ratio? On a related note,the old Electrohome factory site on Shanley Street will soon be turned into a multi-unit building. I welcome the intensification in my own neighbourhod. Here,too, I hope we'll see a mix of unit sizes that can house both families and single folks. Thanks for your work, Page 407 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 10:03 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at Victoria and Park Good morning, I am writing regarding Victoria and Park development(on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener). We just moved very close by,to the North end of Theresa street,this past summer.We love the neighbourhood for the park and proximity to the downtown core.We knew there were high rise buildings nearby to be completed but trusted that since we were part of the historic district,that they wouldn't come any closer. We see there is a proposal for an almost 40 storey tower(as well as 2 others of similar heights)at the end of our street.A neighbour informed us it's zoned for a 10 story building so I don't understand how the plan can be for a building so much taller to go there.Can you explain to me how the plan can be for a much taller set of buildings when the Zoning is for 10 stores? We were also disappointed to learn that the towers will cast long shadows over homes located in the Victoria Park neighbourhood. I am concerned about how the new development will impact the enjoyment of our backyard,which will very likely be impacted by the shadows. I am worried about the loss of sunlight,which will greatly impact the enjoyment of my neighbourhood. One of the reasons we bought our home was that it was located in the heritage district. I am concerned being so near such a large development and the loss of the feeling of the heritage district. I am also very concerned about the traffic patterns around Victoria Street and Park Street,through Victoria Park along Jubilee and along residential streets that connect to Jubilee,as well as the end of our street. Its already going to have a large increase of traffic due to the other large towers going up and its currently quite busy and very difficult to turn left at the end of our road. I think it would be much better for the neighbourhood to keep these towers to what they are currently zoned at, 10 stories,maximum. Large towers like the plans suggest,would be a much better fit in the downtown core, nearer taller buildings that already exist. Best, Page 408 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 11:35 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Mixed-Use Redevelopment on Park &Victoria Hello Mr Schneider, As we were walking down Park street the other day, we passed the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street where an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are being proposed to allow for multi-tower mixed-use redevelopment. As a resident of Kitchener living near to the site of the proposed Special Policy Area, we want to voice our support for the proposed development and for similar mixed-use development in our neighbourhood. Continuing intensification like this is an important step in the right direction for Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo. With the proposed development offering 1150 residential units, this will increase the supply of housing around downtown Kitchener and help address the growing housing affordability crisis. It will also allow for more residents to live within walking distance of the plethora of amenities available in downtown Kitchener. In particular,two elements of the proposal we especially support are the removal of minimum setbacks and increased floor space ratio. These regulations unnecessarily restrict the efficient use of space and prevent the levels of intensification necessary to address the climate crisis. Kitchener has the potential to grow into a world-class,walkable, and sustainable city. High-density mixed-use development like this is necessary to make that a reality. Sincerely, Page 409 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 8:07 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Signage for Park and Victoria Proposed Development Hello Eric, Can you tell me what the requirements are for the posting of signs alerting the community to a proposed development? And tell me, is it the city's responsibility to post and maintain the signs or the developers. I feel that the signage for the proposed development at the corner of Park and Victoria is inadequate. The sign advertising office space for rent on the corner is much more along the lines of what I would expect for a development of this scale. Also one of the two signs that I'm aware of it propped up against a house and not even on the front lawn. This doesn't seem like fair public notice. Page 410 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday,January 25, 2022 3:23 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] apartment buildings @ 146-162 Victoria St. S and 92-110 Park St. Mr. Schneider, I received the neighbourhood meeting announcement in my mailbox today. Since the WIFI connection is not alway stable in this building, I have chosen to send my comments and question to you which I hope you will add to "the pot". I realize there may be answers to some of my questions already so I will be happy to read your answers. I am sure if I sat for long enough I could think of lots more comments and questions to ask. These seem to be the most important. These 1150 residential units are being added to an area that already has a large amount of people living on Victoria St. South. Parking issues: will there.be underground parking? If so, I still fear the extra large group of people who will be traveling on Victoria St. and Park St. And with a large portion of Victoria St. S. only being 2 lanes, how will these 2 lanes be affected by the extra traffic. • Coming out of 205 Victoria St. S. driveway is already very difficult. Sometimes it takes 5-10 minutes already to get out of the driveway. With more traffic on the street we will have much longer waits to turn out of our lane way. How are the residences on Park St. that will be sitting in the shadow of these new buildings be compensated for the decrease in the value of their properties? And how will the large number of heritage homes in this area survive? Thank you, Kitchener ON PS I certainly hope that answers and concerns to these new towers will be reported in the newspapers, etc. for all to read! Page 411 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday,January 26, 2uZ2 iu:54 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St S & 92-110 Park St I'm sure you're likely to hear mostly negative feedback from nearby residents, so as someone who lives about a 10 minute walk away I would like to register my support for this project. Kitchener still needs more high quality high-rise residential development.This project is displacing very little (e.g., a former print shop and its surface parking) and is within a kilometer of Central Station, and thus very consistent with the City's plans to develop intensity in the downtown area and near public transit. This attractive building has the potential to be a great addition to the area and to bring more residents to make transit and business in downtown Kitchener even more vibrant. I'm sure you're already aware of this piece in The Record showing that I'm not alone in this: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/12/10/building towers in neighbourhoods is desperately-needed-to-add-more-housing-for-people-wanting-to-live in waterloo region html Page 412 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday,January 27, 2022 9:21 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria & Park Development Hey Eric, I'd like to voice my support for the proposed development at the corner of Victoria St and Park St in Kitchener. Regrettably, I am unable to attend the community meeting planned for the evening of February 8th. I think that this project is important for the future of our city, and it should be able to be constructed. I live in the "Central Fredrick" neighbourhood now, having moved here from an address in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, so I feel like I can understand how this development might impact the lives of the local residents. I do understand the frustrations that residents have, that these tall buildings don't "fit" alongside the single- family homes on its surrounding sides. However, I also understand that this stretch of road will eventually look much different. Would it be possible to know what the city's vision for this area is, bounded by the rail tracks/Park/Victoria/Joseph, so that residents can understand how this development will fit within the future context of the city rather than the present? Thanks! Page 413 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday,January 27, 2022 3:07 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Development Eric Schneider,Senior Planner Dear Eric, Thank-you for inviting us to respond to the proposed development in our neighbourhood at Vlctoris S and Park St. I'm not opposed to development. My very serious concerns are twofold for our area and for the entire city: 1. In view of the crisis in affordable housing,this and other new apartment buildings need to provide the majority of units for middle and low income. Instead of having 9 or 12 units for low income, make it the reverse with that number for higher income residents. Surely the crisis is clear. I encourage you to be courageous in allocating enough residences for the middle and low income earners,those with disabilities and yes,the homeless. The suffering and hardships they endure take priority over the preferences of those with money. That is socio-economic ethics 101. 2. Traffic on Victoria just south of Park is already tough. Trying to make a left turn frn from our apartments (215 and 205 Victoria) is more than difficult already. Imagine what another large building will do. Thank-you for ways you will be creative to actually DO something about these issues. Respectfully, Barbara I invite you to visit my website,www.artoflivingpeacefully.com From the sacred,traditional land of the Anishnaabe, Haudenosaunee and Neutral peoples. Let us respect and be grateful for the history, languages, and cultures of the First Nations, Metis, Inuit, and all First Peoples of Canada, whose presence continues to enrich all. In South Sudan, high school girls rejoiced, "Enough is a feast" as they were grateful to get food that day, a plate of beans of rice.. www.ssnd.or THANK-YOU to all who support Solidarity with South Sudan and others in need. www.solidarityssudan.ora; Page 414 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday,January 28, 2022 8:21 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146-162 Victoria St. S &92-110 Park St Good Morning Eric, I just want to express my support for the proposed development at 146-162 victoria & 92-110 Park St.This is the exact thing the city of kitchener/region needs to approve. It is a well thought out design from an out of town developer/ architect. Approving this will show larger Toronto area developers that Kitchener is open for business,which will encourage a more diverse number of projects and ensure developers that want to do business in Kitchener better propose quality designed buildings. This will hopefully discourage another DTK type building being constructed downtown. NIMBIES are loud on projects like this, but they are not the majority of residents. I hope their voices are heard, but the city understands that those against change are always the loudest. More housing is what we need in this region and we needed it yesterday.This project alone will not solve our issues, but it is a start. Thanks, Page 415 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 11:38 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman; Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park &Victoria Streets Development Attachments: Letter to Developer&City- CPNA.pdf Hello Eric & Kevin, The Cherry Park Neighbourhood Association Board met on January 25th to discuss the proposed development at the corner of Park&Victoria Streets. After much discussion we finalized the attached letter for the developer and the City planner. We felt it was important that we have an official response to the development from our Association. It is important that you are aware that we are following and studying the development process and that we do have concerns. Sincerely, CPNA President Page 416 of 520 January 28, 2022 Eric Schneider Senior Planner City of Kitchener PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr.Schneider, I am writing on behalf of the Cherry Park Neighbourhood Association (CPNA) in response to the proposed development at the corner of Victoria and Park. At a Residents' Information Meeting,jointly organized by Cherry Park and Victoria Park Neighbourhoods,we heard many residents express concerns about the impact of this development on the community. We would like to stress that most residents understand the need for, and benefits of, urban intensification. We prefer to see our surrounding farmland and wildlife habitats preserved, rather than disappear under urban sprawl. Concerns included the need for affordable units and units built for families,the height, and the need for increased amenities to meet the needs of the growing downtown population, especially the need for more green space. To that end,we recommend that the Victoria/Park development: 1. Preserve more of the mature trees on the lot(s); 2. Follows the intent of the official plan for this location (transition from the UGC/Innovation district); 3. Includes at least the same number of affordable/attainable units as the number of households that are being displaced by this development; 4. Provides specific number(to be determined)of two and three-bedroom units; 5. Designated lands or cash-in-lieu to increase parkland in the core; 6. Building materials and standards based on environmental sustainability; 7. Works with a Citizens' Engagement Committee composed of residents from affected neighbourhoods, including Cherry Park,Victoria Park,the developers' representatives, and City Planners to ensure ongoing consultation and communication throughout the development process. Page 417 of 520 We are committed to a positive and collaborative approach to development in our neighbourhood. We want to work with developers, city staff, and other neighbourhoods to continue to make our city a healthy,vibrant, and inclusive place to live. We would like to be informed of opportunities to contribute to this development process.Thank you for considering our input; we look forward to hearing you. Sincerely yours, CPNA President CC' Councillor Debbie Chapman, City of Kitchener, Debbie.chapman(kitchener.ca Kevin Muir, GSP Group, (Applicant), kmuir@gspgroup.ca Page 418 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Saturday,January 29, 2022 9:06 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Victoria/Park condo building Hiya, I live on Schneider avenue, been here since 2002. I'd like to add a letter of support for this project. I think the attitude that a large building will ruin the neighbourhood to be completely ridiculous. When they built the Iron Horse towers on Queen st. it was a big improvement to the neighbourhood and a lot of people now have a decent place to live. ars also kind of sad to hear that the project on tl-e i cofner of Mill & Queen was scaled back due to opposition from these neighbourhood associations. I would like to say that they don't speak for everyone that lives in this neighbourhood and some of us would gladly welcome more people into this great part of the city. It seems like these folks are opposed to everything and they have time and financial resources to shout their perspective over that of anyone else that lives here and doesn't have the time/money/know-how to setup a website and attend the community meetings. regards Page 419 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 7:44 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria St S pedestrian/cyclist safety concerns Dear Mr. Schneider, Me and my family live on Theresa St, nearby the proposed development, and we have some concerns related to pedestrian/cyclist safety. With the proposed development,there we imagine the use of a few new pedestrian and cyclist travel routes, for example... 1. Development residents may want to cycle or walk to Central Station to connect to public transit 2, Development residents may want to cycle or walk to the Iron Horse Trail (likely at the Victoria St crossing)for travel or recreation 3. Development residents may want to cycle or walk to Victoria Park 4. Development residents in Grade 7 or 8 may want to cycle to Courtland Avenue Public School 5. Neighbourhood residents may want to cross Victoria St to shop or dine at the development businesses 6. Development residents may want to walk to Downtown Kitchener to shop or dine In addition, a child in our family will be attending King Edward Public School, and the best walking route is along Park St. These routes involve pedestrians and cyclists moving along Victoria St, Park St, and Jubilee Dr, and crossing at the Victoria/Park intersection. Our concern is that pedestrian/cyclist safety in these areas could use improvement, and we believe both development and neighbourhood residents would benefit from these improvements, especially given the development's 5!)2 bicycle parking spots and its close proximity to local amenities. How does the development fit in with or affect plans in these areas to improve pedestrian/cyclist safety?Are these areas already considered in the new Cycling&Trails Master Plan?Would any improvements be possible to implement during development? Here are some ideas we have for safety improvements: Victoria St: space for a multi-use trail,to enable this arterial road to carry pedestrians/cyclists along with the cars and transit (route 20, iExpress 204) it already supports i. Jubilee Dr: separated bike lane, for safe bike access to Victoria Park Park St/Victoria St: separated entrance/exit lanes to the development with a pedestrian island between,for safer sidewalk use (at each stage pedestrians would only need to check for cars exiting or cars entering, not both) 4. Park St/Victoria St: full sidewalk visibility at development exits for turning cars 5. Victoria/Park intersection:Accessible Pedestrian Signals for pedestrians with disabilities and extended walk signal during pedestrian crossing 6. Victoria/Park intersection: ban "right turn on red" to improve pedestrian safety and make development car exits easier Our family's current experience is that the Victoria/Park intersection feels rather dangerous to cross as a pedestrian (especially with "right turn on red") and that the risk of cycling on Victoria St or Jubilee Dr is far too high for us. As this Page 420 of 520 area of the city sees new development and more people and businesses, we hope that everyone can enjoy life here and travel safely regardless of mode of transportation. Thank you, Page 421 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 5:41 PM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria - LVP - Meeting with Developer Attachments: LPV_Notes_Meeting.pdf, LPV_Presentation_DOV_Capital.pdf Good Afternoon Mr Schneider and Ms. Chapman, As you may be aware, a group of residents in the Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods have started a new group called Livable Park and Victoria (https://Iivableparkandvictoria.com/).The goal of the group is to advocate for a livable, compatible and inviting development at the corner of Park and Victoria. The developers, DOV capital, were kind enough to meet with us this afternoon, and we were able to have a good discussion about our concerns. Please see the summary notes of the concerns we expressed to the developers and our presentation attached. Kind Regards, Page 422 of 520 Response to the Park-Victoria Development I oppose this development because it is contrary for the Official Plan for Kitchener. The Kitchener Official Plan was created over several years of discussions and consultations, and carefully crafted to balance the need for intensification in the inner core to protect our valuable farmlands and our water table, and the need to protect our established downtown residential neighbourhoods and the character of our city. It was decided at that time to restrict the high-density developments to certain streets only, or portions thereof. It was also decided that it was necessary to include transition zones between the high-density areas and the lower-density areas, so as not to devalue and destroy the people's right and ability to enjoy their own properties. The area in discussion was deliberately designated a transition zone and limited to low to medium density development. This was not an oversight or an accident of planning. The proposed development goes completely against the vision and reasoning for the existence of this zone. Having read the justification report by the developer, I found no convincing reason to abandon the Official Plan and its accompanying zoning. By its own surveys, the City has already met its intensification targets for 2030 with the projects already built or in progress, so the need for more intensification is not relevant. It is true that there is a lack of affordable housing in the City at this time, but none of the units proposed in this project would help in this matter. The developer deems units at 80% of market value for their proposed development to be affordable. Traditionally, affordable housing meant no more than 1/3 your monthly income for rent, or no more than 3 to 4 times the median yearly income for buying a home/condo. The current median income for Kitchener Centre is $47,129, which would put the proposed units way above affordable. Plus the majority of the units in the proposal are only for 1,2 or 3 people at the most per unit, making them not suitable for the majority of families. Canada needs families with at least 2 children to even come close to a stable population. This development would actually deepen the affordability problem in the area as it is destroying 5 homes and one low-rise apartment building which houses 11 people on disability pensions or with low incomes. None of these people would be able to afford even a one-bedroom unit in the proposal. Add to this the fact that none of the so-called "affordable" units have means to keep them at that price. They could very easily be all bought up by an investor and re-sold at the market rate. The developer may argue that they can't make a profit making truly affordable units or larger units, but this is not believable as other developers are building new homes all around in our neighbourhood. They are not losing money, or they would not be doing it. A far more suitable development for this location would be stacked townhouses, like the ones on Gage Avenue or the lovely mixed-use development at 150 Caroline Street in Waterloo. These developments did not lose their developers money. Such developments would fit the Official Plan and the Zoning for this proposed area. They also did not create parking and traffic nightmares for the surrounding area. Page 423 of 520 Livable Park and Victoria is a resident group advocating for a livable, compatible and inviting development at the corner of Park Street and Victoria Street, Kitchener. We have several concerns about 146 Victoria that we would like to discuss, these are: a Housing affordability and creating housing for diverse households 9 Compatibility of tall buildings will the surrounding existing low rise neighbourhoods Adverse impacts of the building to microclimate on the surrounding streetscape and neighbourhoods. The loss of tree canopy, especially along Park Street. Housing affordability and creating housing for diverse households Two thirds of the units are proposed as one-bedroom units, with the remainder being two-bedroom units. In order to welcome a wider range of households, we would like to see a larger portion of units be two-bedroom units, and the inclusion of three-bedroom units. * In an article in The Record, Steven Ruse stated that the project could consist of a mix of condo and rental. In the interest of providing housing that is off limits to speculators, we would like to see at least a third of the development consist of a purpose built rental building. Compatibility of tall buildings with the surrounding existing low rise neighbourhoods * The building is surrounded by existing low rise neighbourhoods. We would like the design and scale to reflect the context. There is little in the current design that acknowledges the surrounding low-rise context with regards to massing and scale. Adverse impacts of the building to microclimate on the surrounding streetscape and neighbourhoods * The lack of set back and scale of the building results in adverse effects on the surrounding microclimate: Wind modeling of the development shows that wind conditions around the development will be substantially less comfortable than current conditions. Shadow studies indicate that some neighbouring properties will be in the shadow of the development for hours a day. For example, some properties to the south will be in the shadow starting at 2pm until sunset during the equinoxes, a period of 5 hours. 0 We ask that set backs be increased to allow space for wind mitigation measures including soft landscaping like trees and shrubs. 0 We ask that towers be reconfigured to reduce shadows on neighbouring residential properties to a maximum of 1 hour a day during the equinoxes (the standard in Mississauga). Page 424 of 520 The loss of tree canopy, especially along Park Street. We would like Park Street to remain tree-lined and for Victoria Street to become a tree lined street. o We ask that setbacks along Park street be increased to retain the existing mature trees. That cash in lieu be provided to the City for all the trees on site that are not retained. Page 425 of 520 A Livable Park and Victoria Presentation to Developers and City Planners Livable Park and Victoria values intensification equally with other policy priorities. Livable Parkand Victoria Page 426 of 520 Agenda Compatibility with surrounding neighbourhoods 0 Inviting streetscape U Park Street as a green corridor. Affordable nousing Tor diverse households Livable Park and Victoria Page 427 of 520 Park d .� Victoria Located on the edge of the , urban growth center • Within a Mixed-Use Corridor ��, s • Currently zoned for low and medium intensity mixed use • Part of Cherry Park neighbourhood and across the street from Victoria Park neighbourhood Image From the City of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual—Part A—City Wide Livable Park and Victoria Page 428 of 520 25 Design for 19 Transition "Designing for transition is a key part of creating a compatible tall building fabric. • Proper compatibility creates harmonious relationships between a tall building and its surroundings • Sensitively transition to surrounding urban contexts, accounting for both the existing context and the planned vision for an area" From the City of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual—Part B—Design for Tall Buildings Livable Park and Victoria Page 429 of 520 "Tall buildings should not interrupt or impose upon an existing Design for or planned neighbourhood character or the public realm" Transition From the City of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual—Part B—Design for Tall Buildings IF 50 y 3:apm 5.01Dpm 7:00pm September 21 Livable Park and Victoria Page 430 of 520 Mixed-Use "New development should maximize development opportunities, Corridor yet be compatible with surrounding land uses and built form." City's Guideline for Victoria Street South Corridor Building Design:Attention to detail and scale. Emphasis on ground lour articulation, compatible roo�`lines and sirnilar building materials. Balance residential scale with industrial character." I. "Streetsca e: Reinforce residential mixed use character with articulated ground floor facades and -� compatible building design. Create strong visual connection to Victoria Park and create green corridor along Park Street." s_ivabie Park and Victoria From the City of Kitchener's Urban Design Manual—Area Specific Guidelines for Mixed-Used Corridors Page 431 of 520 Example of Midris11 i Building rMK � �. TTIil SQ at Alexandra Park(Toronto) Mid-scale PINV4 • Stepped design . F Ulm - w 11 • Street trees • Soft landscaping on ground floorIn- • 241 units Livable Park and Victoria Page 432 of 520 i ° Q Exampl� �f L � z . � R _ f 7 II 144 Park(Waterloo) Small highrise Townhouses on •wer storeys Trees Soft landscaping on ground floori -- - _ - 149 units Livable Park and Victoria .•- 433 of Exam of • i OAK � � 4 Of Mixed � rll `.111�1C� Of^' ��_4�III�III _�-*jW Y--Ilii1+ � Baker Street(Guelph) • Midrise at street level • Stepped design �• • Trees , • Mixed use (New Central Library) #� 300 units Page 434 of 520 Example of Park Street Streetscape ?. � PIL Park and Allen • Setback • Grass buffer to street • Trees • Benches • Median Livable Park and Victoria Page 435 of 520 Example of Park Street Streetscape Park and Iron Horse Ar ; • Setback = �` • Grass buffer to street `• �, ... • Trees nXrWif r • Public space • Landscape features , `� Livable Park and Victoria Ll Page 436 of 520 Park street - " T r r r '1. .•- 437 of 520 Exampleof ` Park Street Streetscape Park and Wood _ * Large setback je * Fits with adjacent single family + - homes � - _�. � n Livable Park and Victoria 1 Page 438 of 520 f Park • Victoria• How to preserve mature trees • How to improve pedestrian I•-. a.r J i Ill f'. experience Livable Park and Victoria .•- 439 of 520 setbacks * No landscape +j * No trees Livable Park and Victoria Page 4 of 0 -W ss Pedestrian Comfort "Due to strong seasonal winds and the effect of corner acceleration, wind conditions are expected to be less than ideal near building corners during the winter". Livable Park and Victoria Page 441 of 520 Predictable Intensification Y . • The Official Plan provides direction to guide intensification _ _ • Intensification targets can be attained under these directions *+- • Predictability in development tannin r E planning is a reasonable expectation of residents. I . R Livable Park and Victoria Page 442 of 520 ■ Livable IMAGE View of Subject Site(146 Victoria and 92 to 106 Park)looking from Park Street Development r Values intensification equally with h other Official Plan policies and priorities like: r neighbourhood context and compatibility • a mix of building types and sizes • the urban forest and the — conservation of trees age and family friendly - development Livable Park and Victoria Page 443 of 520 1 t " 77 1 -` Age and family I I �It Itti r friendly housing 7 C 4 • Two-thirds of units proposed are 1 bedroom This will not address - current housing crisis and _ is not a viable alternative for family housing • More 2 and 3 bedroom units need to be included Image http://www.home-designing.com/2014/07/3-bedroom-apartment-house-3d-layout-floor- Livable Park and Victoria plans Page 444 of 520 Housing or investment? • Speculative investment in real estate is increasing 415 • We need non-market Neter,�e tmpstoaro.definied as bnrr=-,��vho obtain a mort- age to pirchase a protoer/ithile mairtaininE a forms of housing that mortgage on another Fcoperr;.Irrvecrment pronervies include those-,hazz are rented out or'ler-,vacant,excluding speculators cannot profit vacatlon D'opeme'.The shar?of purchas,,s asso<tated vith jdjeqOrs is compd(eO using a I�mojth mlmg slim G: mortgage from S..rc,:T—Wri—regulatory filings of Canadian banks and Sank of Canada ca!rutat ons Last obsewartow February 2021 • A rental tower and increased social housing will enhance affordability https:Hvvvvvv.ban kofca na da.ca/2021/05/f i na ncia I-system-review-202 1/ Livable Park and Victoria 211 Page 445 of 520 A livable, compatible and inviting development: • Transitional in scale between low and high rises Our Vision for I Comfortable microclimate at street level J Victoria o Wind mitigation (including soft landscaping) • Reduce adverse microclimate impacts on neighbours Open SSpans ep—says o Maximum shadow of 1 hour on residential properties Op • Park Street to remain tree-lined and for Victoria Street to 9 g become a tree lined street I yt k Retain mature trees on Park Street i Fa • Housing for a wide range of households o More 2 and 3 bedroom units Image from City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual.Part B.Design for Tall Buildings '13 rental (off limits to speculators) Livable Park and Victoria Page 446 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:08 PM To: Eric Schneider,Garett Stevenson Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Requesting a cnai Feb. 3, 2022 Dear Eric and Garett, It was good to meet you at the January 12th meeting with Dov Capital about the proposed development at Park and Victoria. A number of us have taken on the responsibility of participating with groups that reflect our interests and commitment to our neighbourhood and the City as a whole. Our groups, Victoria Park Development Committee, Cherry Park, and the Liveable Park and Victoria Group, have been burning the midnight oil to read the Official Plan, the Secondary Plan, the Tall Building Guidelines, and the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual, to name a few. We have been asked by each of our groups to communicate with the City in an effort to better understand and participate in future developments in our area. As long-time residents of downtown, we feel that we have made special contributions to our neighbourhoods which have added to Kitchener being a vibrant, friendly, and exciting place to live. We appreciate that we are in the midst of a housing crisis and we support the intensification of the city with the aim of providing much needed housing for a wide range of individuals. But we are confused. We believe that the guidelines and by-laws laid out in the City documents do not fit with the proposed development by Dov Capital. We would like your help in understanding your perspective. We would also like to get advice from you on how to move forward with some of our priorities such as green space, affordability, compatible and predictable development in ensuring we maintain liveable and diverse neighbourhoods in downtown Kitchener. We would appreciate a chat with you some time after the Neighbourhood Information Meeting on Feb. 8th. We are a group of four engaged community members who represent a broad range of residents in the downtown core. We suggest a meeting in the afternoon (perhaps around 1 or 2 pm?) on Feb.10 or Feb. 14- 17. If those days/times don't work for you, please propose some others. These are just starting points. Many thanks for considering our request, Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association Development Committee Page 447 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 5:09 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Development at Park and Victoria Attention Eric Schneider Regarding Proposed Development at Park and Victoria Hello Eric, Prior to the meeting on February 8,we want to summarize our thoughts regarding this development. While we support intensification at this site,we believe it should comply with the City of Kitchener's official plan,the City's design guidelines and current zoning. Our concerns include the following: 1.Specifically,the City Of Kitchener's Urban Design manual regarding tall buildings,states that designing for transition "creates harmonious relationships between a tall building and its surroundings" It also states"Tall buildings should not interrupt or impose upon an existing or planned neighbourhood or the public realm." The current design violates these guidelines in several ways. 2.An example of the above, is the creation of sun shadows by this development which would affect hundreds of surrounding homes and properties for up to five hours a day. 3. Further,the plan includes the loss of at least 50 mature trees at a time council is vowing to increase the city tree canopy. 4.There are no development setbacks compatible with surrounding housing/communities. 5. It is impossible to justify inflating the FSR for the proposed high-rise towers on the site up to 11, at least three times the original, allowing drastic increases in height/density 6. Only one-third of the units would be appropriate for family housing, and none are rental units. Both of these issues have been identified as critical, especially in the core area. 7. Insufficient park/green space offered by the developer at a time existing parks are under increasing stress. 8. Unlike local developers whose development history is familiar to the city,we have limited knowledge of this developer and are curious about their history regarding such multi-million-dollar developments. We have also sent this to Councillor Chapman. Thanks, Page 448 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 3:22 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria Mr. Schneider This is a bunch of bull crap. How long do the citizens of Kitchener have to put up with this? This "project" will probably have Park and Victoria lanes reduced once again causing traffic jams and vehicles forced onto secondary streets such as Strange. We have endured all the construction on Victoria St and the Pink Elephant called the ION for the past 10 years. It is time for us to have a break. BUILD THIS 38 STORY PLUS MONSTROSITY IN YOUR BACKYARD!!!! Page 449 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:40 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Park St. &Victoria St. Development Hi Eric, Thank you for the wonderfully informative meeting tonight regarding the Park&Victoria development. I'm writing to provide my official comment to be included in the proposal. Overall, I am very impressed with the thought and consideration that went into the design of this building. I initially had concerns regarding the 0 setback, but after learning about the design of the building and the pedestrian focused approach I no longer have concerns with it. I feel that the materials and design chosen were thoughtful in terms of the look and feel for the city, access to the building (3 entrances), retail space, wind, etc. and I know it is going to really revitalize a very ugly corner of my neighbourhood.The wide walkways and corner plaza are particularly attractive and welcome features. Having said that- it's just too tall. Period. It's my understanding that the city is already exceeding its targets for building housing for our growing population and while I completely agree that we need more housing in Kitchener I don't see the need for this particular building to be so tall given its location. No amount of"it is stepping down towards Park and there's a railroad right there to transition" can justify the density and height that is being proposed. I'm not saying it needs to be 20 stories, but even 30 would be more fitting than 38.The fact that so few units are 2 bedroom units and there are no 3 bedroom units included is also concerning to me. With the rising cost of housing in Ontario and single family homes becoming increasingly out of reach,families who choose to or need to live downtown need comfortable places to live. Our housing strategy cannot be one that forces families to move further and further outside of downtown areas if we truly want to achieve a diverse and welcoming city. Additionally, I wish the traffic study would have included Jubilee, and would encourage an additional traffic study to be done that includes it.This street runs through a busy park, has multiple pedestrian controlled crossings, and also has a lot of animal crossing. I frequently need to stop my car to wait for geese or ducks to cross the road. This can cause a little bit of a "traffic jam" and with increased traffic I worry about safety and congestion through the park. As a resident on Victoria St. very close to the site being proposed, I am not concerned with the increase of traffic on my street.Yes it's hard to get out of my driveway already, but I know regardless of this proposal traffic will increase as it's a main thoroughfare. But I am concerned about increased traffic through the park! In summary, I am in nearly full support of this proposal and I am excited for the changes. This proposal is well thought out, but too tall, and I urge the city to consider reducing the height of the building and further investigating traffic impacts of the proposal. Thank you! On Wed,Jan 26, 2022 at 3:59 PM --ote: Thank you Eric! I will be there. On Wed,Jan 26, 2022, 3:51 PM Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>wrote: Hello, Page 450 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:49 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Shadows Attachments: Whole year 2 slow.mp4 I'm convinced that the developer's shadow studies are incorrect. At no point during the year can the proposed towers cast a shadow on Henry Street as shown in their study. Attached please find my own study for your consideration. Sincerely, Page 451 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 9:02 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria Development Hi Eric, I wanted to share my main concern with you for the Victoria and Park project after attending the neighborhood meeting tonight. Traffic on Jubilee and small side streets around Victoria Park, such as Theresa Street where I live, are already busy. Some cars use these side streets as short cuts to beat traffic to Victoria and speed down these side streets. During construction of the Garment condos, cars have been speeding down Theresa Street at 80+ km/hr and even going the wrong way down the one way, which has led to physical altercations between neighbours and cars speeding down the street.Jubilee and Victoria Park side streets are family friendly, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods.There will inevitably be a large increase in the use of Jubilee and therefore more cars taking shortcuts. In the meeting they mentioned they did not do a traffic analysis for Jubilee or any streets around Victoria Park. There absolutely needs to be traffic analysis through and around Victoria Park as there will be increases to traffic flow through Victoria Park.The Victoria Park area needs to be a family and pedestrian friendly neighborhood. It should consist of a busy road or quick short cuts through the city that make it an unsafe place to live or visit. Potential changes to traffic flow through and around Victoria Park may be necessary to keep the Park and surrounding neighborhoods safe and family friendly.Thank you, Page 452 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 y:ju vm To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria @ Park development I received a postcard in my mailbox yesterday-just over 24 hours before the "neighbourhood meeting'to discuss the proposed three-tower development. I would preface my comments by saying I hardly consider this adequate notice. There is much to like about the specifics of this development-the renderings show an attractive building;the inclusion of indoor and outdoor bike parking; reduced parking spaces for automobiles, and infrastructure (whatever that means) for charging electric vehicles, and mixing commercial at ground level with residential above. The existing streetscape, particularly along Victoria, is nothing about which one would likely write home. My concern is that this adds substantially to the density of this portion of Kitchener. While I support the principle of densification, I feel it has its limits, and there have been quite a few high rise buildings built and currently under construction that are dramatically increasing the density. What we lack is any increase in the green space. Victoria Park is a lovely park, but it is the only park of its kind in the city, and pre-pandemic, it was clearly at capacity on any nice summer day. We have already added many more residential units over the last two years (including those still under construction)for which the nearest green space of any appreciable size is Victoria Park. My understanding is that the official plan does not include the extent of densification we are now seeing, and it is time to think hard about the other amenities required to make the core of Kitchener a liveable space. A significant part of the zoning change and official plan amendment they are requesting is for increasing the density well beyond what the plan allows. There is a reason for the limits that were put in place and it should be respected. Page 453 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 1:16 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:Victoria & Park Development Hey Eric, I was able to attend the meeting tonight, where I again voiced my support. I noticed today that the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force report was released. While I haven't read through the whole report as it is a tad late and I just finished up work, I did look at the main ideas proposed - most of which would support this development and many others proposed in the city. I'm sure you and your team will be having a good read through it in the coming days and hopefully it can be used as further support to increase density in Kitchener's urban core. All the best, Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2022, at 4:02 PIN Hi Eric, Thanks for passing this along- looking forward to it Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2022, at 3:49 PM, Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: am writing to inform you of the Neighbourhood Meeting for this development application. Physical postcards have been mailed out, here is a copy of the digital version with the meeting details. Page 454 of 520 Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneiders(,,kitchener.ca From I> Sent: Friday, November 26, 202111:11 AM To: Eric Schneider<Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria & Park Development Hello Eric, I am writing to you regarding the proposed development at Victoria & Park. As a young professional who is hoping to continue to live in the Kitchener area,this development is welcomed as I believe we need more housing and further densification within the downtown core. I don't want to get priced out of my hometown, and I hope we can continue to build supply at an equivalent rate of the increase in demand in this city in order to allow young folk like myself the opportunity to continue to live here. Thank you, Page 455 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 4:38 AM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Towers at Park and Victoria Eric: I attended the online meeting yesterday about the proposed development at Park and Victoria,which I found very well organized and very informative, and I want to register some comments: I think the proposed height is excessive. It will look out of place compared to the surrounding and the transition to the adjacent neighborhood will be too abrupt.There are also serious concerns about shadows cast on other buildings which would in part be addressed by lowering the height of the development. There were some very good questions about affordability. Unless the city and the region, working together, put in place a plan to ensure that some units will be affordable, they simply won't be, as was noted by one of the participants.The form this can take is open for debate, one option could be to let the region buy some of the units to offer as affordable rentals. This lack of affordability and having only 1 and 2 bedroom units will change the demographics of the downtown. Proposed developments should include larger units (3 bedroom)suitable for young families, so that there continues to be a varied demographic mix downtown. The parking ratio is insufficient.There is a push to move people away from cars, and this is very good, but people still do use cars and, as pointed out by one of the participants,the experience with existing buildings is that parking space is generally under-estimated. Finally (and this is not specific to this particular building) one of these new towers in the downtown area should include a full supermarket at the ground floor(as is done in some buildings in Toronto). People in the building will have little supermarket choices except, well, supermarkets outside of the downtown area,which means they will need to drive there, which of course goes against the benefits of intensification. Thanks and best regards, Kitchener Page 456 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:24 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Park and Victoria development proposal I don't see any beauty in these towers. I see a money grab by developers. I see the same disregard for zoning bylaws as other developers in our city...though our dictatorial Premier is set to abolish zoning bylaws in his quest to fill his crony's pockets. I see investments, not homes. I see tokenism in the low number of affordable units, although they are still out of reach to many. I see the same fatuous comments about viability, when it is evident by the six storey condos and apartments on King,that giant sized behemoths are not necessary for viability. This frenzy to strike while the iron's hot has left many of us in a depressed state.The greed is disgusting. The specious arguments about intensification,when we've already exceeded targets, is insulting. I've lately found myself thinking,with palpable relief,that at least I'm closer to the end of my life, and I won't have to see the worst of this disastrous rampage on our city. Something's terribly wrong when city planners create such a mess that citizens begin to think death isn't such a bad thing. It's pretty pathetic that the thirst for money has been so brutal on its citizens.The lack of thoughtfulness, philanthropy, generosity,sensitivity, creativity, has left many of us in a state of profound helplessness and depression. I don't have much hope that the planners give a damn about us.The meetings feel like an empty ritual, and those opposed feel unjustly targeted and belittled by those who think this is progress. What's that saying?..he knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I just wanted to express my thoughts, because I don't know if I have the stomach to fight against this overwhelming, destructive tide. Kitchener Sent from my iPhone Page 457 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 8:42 AM To: Eric Schneider; Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] 146 Victoria Attachments: ShadowStudiesFinal_Feb2012.pdf Hi Eric and Debbie, After the neighbourhood information meeting last week, I was really disheartened to hear some of the answers from the City staff and developers consultants. It appears that Victoria Park and the Victoria Park Neighbourhood are being given very little consideration in terms of assessing the adverse impacts of a building of this size: -The traffic study did not include Jubilee Drive, which is getting busier and busier every year and it currently treated as a throughway despite being in the middle of a park -The traffic study did not include the one way roads (Henry and Theresa Streets), which will very likely incur more traffic. Especially Theresa Street as it lines up with the entrance to the development along Victoria. -The shadow standards used by the City will allow properties south of Victoria Street in the Victoria Park neighbourhood to be in the shadow of the development for up to 5 hours a day on September 21, without considering that an impact. Jurisdictions such as Mississauga limit the number of hours that a shadow from a tall building can be on a neighbouring property. (see their standard attached). -When asked about transition and compatibility,the planner from the City that responded focused on the proximity to Cherry Park neighbourhood, and completely neglected to consider the Victoria Park neighbourhood to the South. -Why can't best practices like the 45-degree angular plane be applied here? How are almost 40 storey towers within 60 meters of a conservation neighbourhood (an area that will not upzone) reflective of well considered and holistic planning policies. - I'm perplexed as to why the recommendations in the urban guideline for mixed use corridors,which has a specific section of the Victoria Street corridor can be largely ignored other than to call the development a gateway.That guideline says: Built Form: Maintain existing built form pattern (2-4 storey form) in corridor with opportunities for mid-rise form (4-8 storeys) on large redevelopment sites. Building Design: Attention to detail and scale. Emphasis on ground floor articulation, compatible rooflines and similar building materials. Balance residential scale with industrial character. I understand that the core is growing, but all the planning documents that I have read did lead me to anticipate that a development of this scale would be planned at this location. Given its: proximity to low rise homes it's zoning it's being earmarked as a mixed-use corridor, + and the fact that it is on the edge (or on some maps not even included in) the urban growth zone, i Page 458 of 520 I understand that this parcel of land was meant to be transitional.Transitional in purpose, scale, massing and height. Yet it is larger than the high rises located in prime locations within the urban growth zone to the east that are further from low rise residential areas. Overall, although I appreciate the attention to detail and the design of the proposed development, I think it simply too big for the proposed location. Something like 144 Park in Waterloo,would be much more appropriate as a transitional building at this location. I also wonder if it is wise to allow such a large building to be built at this location before the City forms it's plans for the Bramm yards. (which I hope will be turned into a park), but will be greatly affected by the shadows of this development, which could limit redevelopment possibilities on this parcel of land. Kind Regards, Page 459 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:25 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Debbie Chapman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Cherry Park/Victoria Park—92-110 Park& 146-162 Victoria Good Afternoon. I took part of an interesting meeting regarding the development proposed for Cherry Park/Victoria park area. It is great that there is so much interest in our city from neighboring cities, but this city needs to get it right. These buildings will not only impact our neighbourhoods and city today, but 50, even 100,years down the road. Proposals this huge, need to be considered carefully,to ensure the impact it will be making, will be a good one. The most obvious issue with this proposal is not the height itself, but the shadow study that comes with it. The shadow study spreads for blocks. With everything rising in todays world, how can we remove the right to the owners/tenants, in any building,to grow their own vegetables to produce their own food. How can we remove the right for daylight for 5 hours,when there is limited time in the year when people enjoy being outside,getting vitamin D, exercise, and not to mention affecting one's mental health, and the ability for them to reduce their grocery. The other thing worrisome is the amount of traffic this will bring to that area.To go from King, all the way down to Victoria,to the park, is ridiculous with the amount of stoplights and pedestrians using that artery.There is no quick in and out of that area, and adding that many people, cars, bikes, in that small area is a recipe for disaster. No amount of bonusing for this project will ever make up for what this city will be losing. I hope you consider the people who will have to live with what gets approved,for the rest of the project's direction, and beyond. Kind Regards Life long resident of Kitchener Page 460 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 4:58 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Neighbourhood meeting on Feb. 8 for proposed development at Victoria & Park Eric, I appreciated having the chance to learn more about the proposed development at Victoria and Park at the Zoom meeting on Feb. 8. 1 am not sure what the next steps in the process are, but as a resident in the area, I wanted to share the following three concerns and questions: 1. If I understood correctly,the traffic impact study for this project did not consider the impact on Park/Jubilee southwest of Victoria. Having travelled through this intersection for the past several years taking children to and from school in the morning and afternoon, I have observed that there is a significant connection between the traffic on Park on both sides of Victoria. Will this gap in the traffic impact study be addressed? 2.There was frequent mention of the appropriateness of the height of the proposed buildings given the nature of the land to the northwest and northeast of the property,and the anticipated uses to the southwest. It seems like the biggest impact is actually to the properties to the southeast (i.e. on the other side of Victoria). Why is this not a factor? It seems, for example, that the neighbouring Garment Street development provides a model for addressing this concern by having the largest towers toward the back of the property rather than right on Victoria. 3. In response to concerns about green space, the proximity to both Victoria and Cherry Parks was noted. Given that Victoria Park in particular is already very busy (if not over-busy) and several thousand new residents will be living in the area before this particular development opens,this strikes me as an inadequate response. What studies or standards does the city utilize to determine adequate park space for new developments? I am concerned that we are not being more proactive about the need for green spaces, and not leveraging current interest in new private sector development downtown to address future public space needs. Thank you for your engagement with the community. Page 461 of 520 Eric Schneider From: <s@scottmcquarrie.com> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 8:58 PM To: Debbie Chapman; Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] Victoria and Park development Hello Eric and Debbie, I hope all is well I wanted to send you some more thoughts about the Victoria and Park st development. Considerable concerns resulting in some extra research, and some considerable objections from the community consultation. (Please forgive the delay, put some extra research into the plans, and neighbouring jurisdictions requirements.) As the FSR (11.6) is the concern for neighbouring residents that leads to the following: • As I see in the plans the tower floorplates (floor area of each storey in the towers as I understand it) are proposed at 770, 850 and 850 square metres. In Toronto they aim for a maximum of 750 square metres. This makes the towers less bulky and reduces shadow impacts. There may also be an impact to wind levels at the street level. Surprising to think there would be a possibility that we would approve this design and it falls out of Canadas largest cities restrictions • At further examination there is above ground parking proposed—it is my understanding that Toronto doesn't even support that.And have that in conjunction with the zero setbacks and excessive FSR—the development seems rather self serving. Cheaper above ground parking, no set backs and high FSR seems to be a rather greedy attitude. From the call: • It was very concerning to me that when the .54 parking spaces was brought up by a neighbouring condo resident the architect simply replied "if the mafket demands it—we will simply build more parking spaces" Concerning on many levels, but biggest being the main justification to this development is public transit use, and limited traffic. Concerning. • The developer is"committed to building better neighbourhoods". It is hard to believe that he is not just in this for the business. (Which I understand). But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt—why can't he commit to it? Commit funds to: Green space and parks, a day care space, library, dog park? dog walking floor in his building?Why is there no commitment on his part? I would encourage the city to be negotiating for some of them at bare minimum. Given the developers commitment to neighbourhood—I would be interested to hear what community projects he has supported In hls other developments.Affordable housing, community initiatives,green space etc. • It was simply laughable that the one gentlemen mentioned that there would only be a road closure for a "week"—we all know that Is ridieulou5. I am not sure what he would accomplish In a week.The closures will be considerable. Again a lack of commitment. Simply not building trust with the community. • Considerable traffic concerns—and the woman that represented the developer simply passed the buck back to the city saying that"we are waiting to hear back from the city. Seems rather convenient and again doesn't instil trust. Along with the traffic study was done during the covid lockdown. How can this not be a concern? • Zero transition to the neighbouring neighbourhoods (2 floors on Park and Victoria)to 38 floors. i Page 462 of 520 Full disclosure—I reached out to a good friend of mine who is a planner who works for the city fo Toronto.Some of the above questions and considerations he brought to my attention. But also found it pretty surprising that Toronto would even question this developments proposed density and plan. Thanks for your consideration and time to read this. I will be sure to give you a call this week once you have had some time to review things thanks again Page 463 of 520 Eric Schneider From: Sent: Thursday,April 28, 2022 7:41 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: [EXTERNAL] New proposed hirises Victoria and park I think this is a wonderful development for the park area and downtown Page 464 of 520 Reduce the heights of the Victoria and Park Tower development To: City of Kitchener The proposed Victoria and Park towers are a multi-tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a 4 to 6 storey podium located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. Residents have until December 6th to have their concerns heard. Don't know what do write? Check out some example letters to get you started: https:Hdocs.google.com/document/d/17pxc7OkTuFOBEVOjiz3GHK5NDMOtHEzC/edit?usp=sharing &ouid=111132142338214838875&rtpof=true&sd=true Comments to be sent to: City of Kitchener Eric Schneider, Senior Planner 519.741.2200 x7843 Eric.Schneider@Kitchener.ca 0 Additional Contacts Ward 9 City Councillor Debbie Chapman 519.741.2798 Debbie.chapman@kitchener.ca0 Applicant Kevin Muir, GSP Group 519.569.8883 Kmuir@gspgroup.ca Why is this important? The proposed the Victoria and Park towers are a multi-tower development (38 storeys, 36 storeys and 25 storeys) sitting atop a 4 to 6 storey podium located on the north-east corner of Victoria Street South and Park Street in Kitchener. The tallest building in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region is DTK Condos is 39 storeys[1]. DTK Condos, however, is located in the core of downtown, and is not located near any low rise residential areas. In contrast, the Victoria and Park towers would place two towers of similar heights as well as a third tall tower on a heavily trafficked corner surrounded by heritage low rise neighbourhoods. This development will cast large shadows on the surrounding Victoria Park and Cherry Park neighbourhoods (see Urban Design Report for details), and would place additional stress on an already heavily trafficked corner at the gates of Victoria Park. There are existing towers near Victoria Park (a summary is provided below), but these are generally not near low rise homes, or are much shorter where they are near low rise homes. The height of the proposed Victoria and Park Towers are much taller than any existing tower near Victoria Park, 20-32 storeys higher! Several towers have been completed along Victoria Street South since 2016. Each development getting progressively taller as new developments moved westwards from the intersection of King Street and Victoria Street toward established heritage neighbourhoods. -[� Victoria - 19 storeys - completed in 2016 [1] -Une Hundred Tower A - 21 storeys - completed in 2020 [1] -Une Hundred Tower B - 17 storeys - completed in 2020 [1] -garment St Condos - 28 storeys - complete in 2021 [1] Page 465 of 520 The Victoria and Park Towers are considerably higher than recently completed buildings along Victoria. For example, the tallest tower in the Victoria and Park Towers development, at 38 storeys would be like both the towers at the One Hundred development staked on top of each other. Ideally, in order to better integrate into the existing streetscape and minimize negative impacts to surrounding properties, new developments should be getting shorter as they approach low rise neighbourhoods, not taller. The following are suggested to reduce the impacts to nearby residents: - Reducing the heights of the towers to a mid-rise scale (5-10 storeys), or possibly a small high- rise such as the Iron Horse towers (15 storeys), which is set next to historical homes on Schneider Street. - Increasing the set back of any towers from the road to reduce shadows on neighbouring properties. - Stepping back towers (shorter near the road, taller near the back) similar to the One Hundred Towers development along Victoria Street Residents have until December 6th to have their concerns heard (see contact and example letter a bove). ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ Urban Design Report https:Happ2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/Open Data/AMANDADataSets/637062_Urban%2ODesign%2OBri ef.pdf Height of existings buildings surrounding Victoria Park Victoria Street South 215 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place I - 7 storeys [2] 205 Victoria Street South - Victoria Park Place II - 9 storeys [3] 241 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 2 - 7 storeys [4] 243 Victoria Street South - Willowside Housing cooperative Building 1 - 6 storeys [4] Queen Street South North side of Queen Street 560 Queen Street South - Iron Horse Towers - 15 storeys [5] 310 Queen Street South - Victoria Park Towers - 14 storeys [6] 290 Queen Street South - Victoria Place Retirement Community - 7 storeys [4] 214 Queen Street South - the York - 6 storeys [4] South site of Queen Street 379 Queen Street South - Barra on Queen - 6 storeys [8] 307 Queen Street South - Bread and Roses - 6 storeys [7] 221 Queen Street South - Conestoga Apartment Towers - 17 storeys [1] Sources: 1. https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List-of- of_tallest buildings_in_the Waterloo_Regional_Municipality 2. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-i 3. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-place-ii 4. Counted manually 5. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/iron-horse-towers 6. https://www.drewloholdings.com/apartments-for-rent/victoria-park-towers 7. https://www.breadandroses.coop/ 8. https:Hbarracondos.com/about-barra/ Residents have until December 6th to have their concerns heard. Don't know what to write? Please see example letters which you can send as is or amend with your specific concerns about the proposed development. In addition the petition will be sent directly to the City of Kitchener on December 6th, 2021. Page 466 of 520 �AGSP "g r o u p SHAPING GREAT COMMUNITIES May 17, 2022 File No: 19272 City of Kitchener Planning Division, 6th Floor 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Attn: Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Dear Mr. Schneider: RE: Supplementary Commentary and Updated Community Benefits Proposal Official Plan Amendment OPA 21/11/V/ES Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 21/017/V/ES 146-162 Victoria Street South &92-110 Park Street Further to the submission of the above-noted applications in September 2021 and ongoing discussions and correspondence with City staff, please accept the following supplementary commentary and updated Community Benefits Proposal as it relates to the provision of amenity space, enhanced streetscape, vehicular and bicycle parking, and affordable housing. The final proposed development is a multi-tower, mixed-use redevelopment with ground floor commercial floor space along the Victoria Street South and a portion of the Park Street frontage. The proposed development includes the following: • A total of three (3) high-residential towers with a total of 1,124 dwelling units and maximum Floor Space Ratio ("FSR")of 11.6 as follows: o Tower A(eastern edge of site)with a total building height of 25-storeys (82.8 metres)and 253 dwelling units o Tower B (northwest portion of site)with a total building height of 36-storeys (115.25 metres)and 440 dwelling units o Tower C (southwest portion of site)with a total building height of 38-storeys (121.75 metres)and 411 dwelling units • A 6-storey podium connecting the three towers including the following: 0 1,750 m2 of retail and commercial space along Victoria Street South and a portion of Park Street o Lobbies, mail rooms, loading and delivery areas for each of the residential towers on the ground floor as well as common private amenity space for residents o Bicycle and vehicular parking o Residential dwelling units atop the 2nd floor PLANNING I URBAN DESIGN I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 72 Victoria Street South,Suite 201,Kitchener,ON N2G 4Y9 519 569 8883 162 Locke Street South,Suite 200, Hamilton,ON L8P 4A9 905 572 7477 gspgroup.ca Page 467 of 520 • Private outdoor amenity space atop the 6-storey podium • A large outdoor commercial plaza located at the southwest corner of the site (base of Tower C)with enhanced streetscape for commercial and retail spaces along Victoria Street South and Park Street • Outdoor amenity space and landscape features associated with principal entrance from Park Street A copy of the final proposed development concept has been appended to this correspondence. The initial application for Zoning By-law Amendment proposed Special Provision Regulations to reflect the specifics of the proposed development concept. The following provides a summary of the original Special Provision Regulations as requested and confirmation of the updated Special Provision Regulations: Special Regulation Original Current Minimum front yard setback, Park Street 0.0 metres 0.0 metres Minimum exterior yard setback, Victoria Street South 0.0 metres 0.0 metres Maximum building height 122 metres 122 metres Maximum number of storeys 38 storeys 38 storeys Maximum Floor Space Ratio 11.6 11.6 Minimum amount of non-residential gross floor area 1,500 m2 1,750 m2 Minimum ground floor street line fagade width as a percent of the 70% 70% width of the abutting street Minimum percent street line fagade openings 70% 70% Minimum required rate of parking space for multiple dwellings 0.54 0.60 Minimum required rate of Class A bicycling park space for 0.50 0.60 multiple dwellings 0 Indicates modified from original application The proposed development will comply with Section 5.8 (a)of Zoning By-law 2019-051, which requires a minimum of 20 percent of the parking spaces required for multiple dwellings to be designed to permit the future installation of electrical vehicle supply equipment. Furthermore, the proposed development will include the immediate provision of nine (9)electrical vehicle charging stations and nine (9)electrical bicycle charging stations. The proposed development will also include the immediate provision of three (3)designated car share vehicle sparking spaces for residents. Finally, the proposed development will include unbundled parking. The Planning Justification Report(dated August 2021)included a summary of proposed community benefits in support of the proposed increase in maximum FSR. Since the initial submission of the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Community Benefits Proposal has been refined to include the following: GSP Group 1 2 Page 468 of 520 1. Affordable housinci contribution: The Owner is committing to a financial contribution of$500,000 to a non-profit, local affordable housing provider to support the development of off-site affordable housing projects in Kitchener. This contribution is meant to complement charitable funding commitments by other donors to local affordable housing providers so it may be combined with government matching and/or subsidy programs for the provision of City-wide affordable housing. 2. Public amenity space: The Owner is providing ground floor amenity space at the base of Tower C that will be available for use by the public as well as patrons of the future ground floor retail and commercial units. The proposed public outdoor plaza space is approximately 265 m2 in size and can be accessed from sidewalks along Park Street and Victoria Street South.While the use or design of this space has not been finalized at this time, it may include public seating, landscape and outdoor amenity features, enhanced surface treatments and appropriate weather screening. In addition to the public outdoor plaza, the Owner intends to provide enhanced streetscapes along Victoria Street South and a portion of Park Street. While the use and design of the streetscape has not been finalized at this time, it may include superior surface treatments, mature street trees (where possible), public seating, hardscape features and enhanced landscape beds and planters. It is important to note that in addition to the provision of public ground-level amenity space and enhanced streetscapes, the proposed development provides for a broad range of both outdoor and indoor private amenity space for use by future residents, alleviating pressures on surrounding public amenity and recreational spaces. This private amenity space includes the following: • Approximately 1,655 m2 of outdoor amenity space, including a terrace atop 6-floor podium to be accessed by all residents. While the use and design of the space has not been finalized at this time, it may include active and passive areas for socializing and entertaining, enhanced surface treatments, landscape areas (planting beds and large planters)and the use of appropriate furniture and screening to mitigate potential wind impacts. • Approximately 1,455 m2 of indoor amenity space to be accessed by all residents. While the design of the indoor amenity space has not been finalized, it will include gathering and amenity spaces for residents in a range of sizes to serve a number of social, entertaining, administrative and community purposes. GSP Group 1 3 Page 469 of 520 3. Amenity space for neighbourhood association(s): The Owner is committing to provide for the use of a meeting room or other comparable amenity space by the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association and/or the Cherry Park Association for a maximum of 10 hours per month based on the same terms and conditions applicable to future residents of the building. Provisions for use of such amenity space by Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association and/or the Cherry Park Association will be included as part of future condominium corporation documents. 4. Unit type/number of bedrooms: The Owner is committing to provide thirty(30)three-bedroom units as part of initial site development and construction, including thirteen (13)traditional three-bedroom units and seventeen (17)two-bedroom and one-bedroom units available for purchase that could be combined, designed and constructed as three-bedroom units. 5. Affordable housing units: The Owner is committing to provide dwelling units on-site as part of the proposed development that would meet the definition of affordable home ownership as per the Provincial Policy Statement("PPS")and Regional Official Plan ("ROP"). The proposed development includes a total of 1,124 residential units comprised of bachelor, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The dwelling units will range in size from 376 ft2 to 1,098 ft2 with a considerable number of units sized that could be purchased at a price considered affordable ownership as per the PPS and ROP, based on current market rates (currently, 50 dwellings meet this definition). As noted above,the Owner has also committed to a significant financial contribution to a local affordable housing provider to ensure the effective provision and long-term availability and management of affordable rental housing. I trust that the above-noted supplementary commentary is sufficient for your review and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require anything further. Sincerely, GSP Group Inc. Bares d aa Kristen Barisdale, MCIP, RPP Associate, Senior Planner GSP Group 1 4 Page 470 of 520 cc. Steven Ruse and Shmuel Zimmerman, DOV Capital GSP Group 1 5 Page 471 of 520 DRAWING LIST A 01 CONAttachment G A 0.1 CONTEXT PLAN AND STATISTICS A 1.0 SITE PLAN A 2.0 GROUND FLOOR PLAN A 2.1 GROUND MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN A 2.2 LEVEL 02 FLOOR PLAN A 2.3 LEVEL 3 AND 4 FLOOR PLAN A 2.4 LEVEL 5 AND 6FLOOR PLAN A 2.5 LEVEL 07 FLOOR PLAN A 2.6 LEVEL 08 FLOOR PLAN A 2.7 TYP TOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A 2.8 TYP PENTHOUSE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A 2.9 P1 PARKING LEVEL PLAN A 2.10 P2 PARKING LEVEL PLAN A 3.0 SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION A 3.1 WEST BUILDING ELEVATION A 3.2 NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION A 3.3 EAST BUILDING ELEVATION A 4.0 BUILDING SECTION 01,VIEST-EAST A 4.1 BUILDING SECTION 02,NORTH-SOUTH A 4.3 BUILDING SECTION 03,EAST-WEST A 4.4 BUILDING SECTION 04,SOUTH-NORTH A 5.0 RENDERING 01-VIEW OF VICTORIA STREET ELEVATION A 5.1 RENDERING 02-VIEW OF CORNER AT VICTORIA AND PARK STREET A 5.2 RENDERING 03-VIEW OF PARK STREET ELEVATION A 5.3 RENDERING 04-PODIUM VIEW OF CORNER AT VICTORIA AND PARK STREET µ P ys r DC N,� :;t r IBI .... h� :9- Toa A AND PARK DEVELOPMENT '—- COVER 15 e — —.� sTs°nssgk s VICTORIA AND PARK DEVELOPMENT a. REISSUED FOR REZONING 123432 AQ.0 SITE STATISTICS PROVIDED SURVEY INFO. USE MIXED USE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY VAN HARTEN SURVEYING INC.LAND SURVEYORS.PND SITE AREA 8.999 sm INCLUDING 205 sm R.OAV ENGINEERS,DATED 09128120 INCLUDES PRIVATE LANEW.AY LOTS12,34.5,6&9AND PARTOF LOT II REGISTEREDPLAN 143 AND PARTOF NET SITE AREA 8 794 sm EXCLUDES 205 SM R.O.W LOTS 1,2&3 REGISTERED PLAN 423 CITY OF KITCHENER REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY INCLUDES PRIVATE LANEWAY OF WATERLOO - HE R112,ESIDENTIAL ESIDENTIAL GFA Il MMERCIAL GFA 1 iso sm (INCLUDES RETAIL AND PERMISSIVE RETAIL EAB) ABOVE GRADE PARKING AND 20,000 sm � a - LOADING GFA FSI 11.88 m RESIDENTIAL FSI 9.21 (EXCLUDESCOMMERCIAL,ABOVE GRADE PARKING AND LOADING AREAS) NON-RESIDENTIAL F51 2.47 (INCLUDES COMMERCIAL,ABOVE GRADE PARKING PND LOADING ARE,gS) SETBACKS O VOESTH m Om1 AST 0 m ESTABLISHED GRADE SN ASCONTEXT PLAN COVERAGE SM % xrs BUILDING HEIGHT g55HOWN BUILDING FOOTPRINT 5900 SM 67.0°b PAVEDAREA 12905M .]°b LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE 1601 SM ie 3°b TOTAL(NET SITE AREN PROVIDED INDOOR AMENITY 16055M OUTDOOR AMENITY 16555M OADING 4 WINGS NIT COUNT TOTAL BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C 4.4% 9S°b 34.9% 12% PROPOSED PARKING REQUIREMENTS Dc DW GAl'lIML TOTAL UNITS 1124 PARKING eREAKD04VN RESIDENTIAL PARKING RATIO .585 LEVEL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED RESIDENTL 658 SURFACE I GROUND 22 (INCL 22 CV,1'TYPE qBE 1'TYPE B'BE IBI PARKING 157(INCL 6 CV,9 EV-3 C-h—PARKING SPACES) a LL SPACES P2 168(INCL.1'TYPE BF q' ,1'TYPE B'BF] VISITO .,>....-..... PARKING RATIO 5 .ABOVE GRADE-MEZZANINE 22 (INCL 22 CV,1'TVPE q'ST.1'TYPE EI BF) (BASED ON COMM (BASEDERCIAL PARKING 62(INCL.1'TVPE P'BF.1'TYPE BI ER REQUIREMENTS,SEE IT 62(INCL 1'TY B'BFT ABOVE GRADE-LEVEL 03 PE BF,1'TYPE ° ISITOR u"�~ 3 5o ABOVE GRADE oe s2(INCL rTYPE.a'BR rTVPE B'er� °•.•..^" °.,- °.• °""�� PARKING .ABOVE GRADE LEVEL 05 62(INCL 1 TYPE A BF,1 TYPE MER CPPCEG ABOVE GRADE LEVEL DS 62(INCL 1 TYPE A BF,1 TYPE B'BF7 ZT8RA AND PARK DEVELOPMENT TOTAL PARKING RATIO .6' TOTAL fi99 TOTAL PARKING 708 CPR SHARE PARKING 13(REDUCTION OF 9 PARKING SPOTS) PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING SPACES ^ TOTPL NET PPRKING K. REQUIRED PROVIDED LOCATION LONG TERM RESIDENTIAL 675(0.6 UNITS) 675 15 LEVEL 01-GROUND CONTEXT PLAN AND STATISTICS REQUIRED PROVIDED EVIL I'l SIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES 7 5 09 u SHORTTERIA RESIDENTIAL 6 6 SRL VISI OR S—ES LONGTERM . N COMMERCIAL m(4) 4 01-GROUND 1135 SM COMMERCIAL SHORT TERM COMMERCIAL 1 m(7) ] 7 LEVEL 01 OR SURFACE fJ ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS t°'*+.. w✓ 111111*2%1=13.98=16 BARRIER FREE AccE551 ILE PARINI IPAIDI18'TYPEA'ANTI TYPED') 123432 � AO.1 General Notes: o 1.rna,asledvarsodsyslamsorsorter a.Rorarrotarroara;ngaPIT l=ammgm z.o d rf LatR,1111t 11119 TmnaportetenSdnfon L Idroramo-wrrns F ' ellactton ferleake]cg d b'na add eeseddg safe 5 ThooN,pelhoftheaolleaonvenale,;1Ihavea EXISTING N m II Ata A9�1 backepmadewers of the C'rys sold,este refuse thi,—Tier nceef It laest49m(ncluJng untler I I BUILDING 0000�on Kende ma ovemaatl aoor(. m NN 3. All'­y,antl peaeggomeys prevd' sa ng aaceto 6.Ell resdadtalIt,g-R-)a,dvsmr(shorc term) Naenzax11,1,'Evearv� ala Ne s the Type G lontl'ng space ro bo cSTMN dto the IN,spaces.refer to am,Ig A01 s LI City IGtal,....Sng Cotla,,,III ].Forged g tl d by miormaton referee elmvadceill Giryof NlchacerbLlkliha E,bin Th.b ldiNg antl by Vlattertl Fatly Engineering w TOWERB vehmle loadmgwlthlmpadfeotors,it-t yarem9.Thohpl,G vAlbsapdnlder1 850 SM PLAT be belnas supported stmctwev.mesvedare can e.me type 2.oO'%ngapeconntleellealonpetl well ba It —GREEN ROOF safey suppolt a fully loatleticollection ximum2.0°h slope,conrtructetl of 200mmof 3].3m Z vehicle( 000 kilograms)antl cenforma to the remforcetl concrete antl hesenenencumbered H Z N w ^, Onterle Bulltling Cotla.Gedgn Loatl antl Impact vxrOcal clearance of at least 8.l maters over Ne m MECH m 36 STOREY g 0ED _ FaetoranaaonformamthIfthil mg. eIn led 13.0 meters. INDOOR AMENITY g I"� 115.25m z 122.75m ¢rn N.Goalgn cotlo-ornano ewNmg cotlo 10.Th,sagmg area lalwdl�-z°yl,la cedawuea of Ism BSTOREY (ABOVEGROUND C7,.— b.eoaigneoaa-clly bm ILvohidamatlamen 2eomm reldfHi,6.odarate,add hasavertlral 90.65m PARKING) O w Bwlamgcotlorogniromoms deamnaa or mm.s.lm. O 0� I.Impact Faceor-5%mrm vablcelar 1t.An assess tltluewaya ror aouoramn vehicle ill eetls to l5 kmlh antl 30%for nine, laud antl within 2%aloe. _ UPPER MECH 7 STOREY m �P e P H I ends 1z.Tho anln ill mammin oowex mlrmra on alto Om Q D P 9 125.25m ROOF@ LEVEL 7 0 Inclutling bm noulmitetl m:•„here tmrec musumvel 9(2 ST INDOOR mentlasornac a ntlauhotormmeeonoforrydma IN I I AMENITY) aisles,pee edea in Laham a eFE >am 31.05m ' w ' ' Th.I 'n d fo11i.1Idgv«d vE J 13 Thede t i Ni Ike slang the 18 STOREY � A9.0 daadop t)f Ig avi�be Holt to lho 61.15m I„o sararact nofiho Gry antlatno oeatroma 0 mericparry — \ o a.z w TOWER A m \ j 850 SM PLATE LIMITING EISTANGE ¢ _�Pe AIR RIGHTS 25 STOREY 82.80m -- -- ----- m E H �RaVATE LANEWAY ` a I LOADING ,. w F- 2 m Lu E zo a �t &LIMITING aaoaEan LINE `G \ DISTANCE cC AIR RIGHTS Q V I r � � MECH I m .71 TOWERC 90.30m ltsm U o 770 SM PLATE I Y III 38STOREY li a Dc � v _ I ` a - o 121.75m w novc+ermc EE wz.0m0 Io FUTURE p w fFi7 APPLICATION. IBI ,,, ,•„ pr za.zm NOT PART OF m w I APPLICATION MECH OUTDOOR AMENITY a .. O sm rEK 129.25m 1245 SM _J 13m 8.3mm .,,," ° -o 6 STOREY Lu a r T y a.omm oRAANO PARK DEVELOPMENT 3 23.95m I i TI p s.omm SITE I TE PLAN 1 aaaeoea�,aea we°aer�4STOREYo e�INOPY o gCSp„ ° s r a e : e -..gip so * PROPERTY LINE 2 s E o r � NT h ( e s VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL — ROAD 55 123432 A1.0 General Notes: o Pe o "i7°rs :Pae o 1.0,D,amedv ItIff system sDiisorter 4.RerertoTIN,o,Sol— o ingafL toot gm 2.Wilton.,ira i-jod,fmust bepresemawng Th,CN,On Mfth,ns1 led for& itarns colec,pforAckeyngoi b'nsand ensunng safe 5 %U1l Ipath or theeollemonv LTII l ,do, Ata A9.1 back up maneuvers of the C'rys sold,aste refuse vat5celclearanceof It laest4dm(ncluJng antler co11ecl0nseh cle the averheetl tlaor(. v u '^`^. 3. AldrvawesUnd pae g 1 P idigD t B.For resd tI� gl ) tivsior(,L-Rrm) t the Type Gloetl'ngrob 1 ih IN,sp f [d -fA01 ____ t _ req 1 fth OO l b 1QCod,Td g] F ad gg tl y g i rmaton referto el to,Cry ofl:lh Wk tl l,I AT-'ng p p d by 11tiIiFetly Eng naenng •� za ra ra 21 Td p N t lfa l h N y 1 e Th,xbu ltl 9 'lib p'de d b b R D r[d sm Th t du B Th Rp d'g G p d co11—ped till be shy pDd fly loatletl.11— mu U 2.0%Ip, 200—med or 200of 1en'cla(3s 000 klograma)and conr0rms to the nrorod Increta Dntl has en Unencumbered Gniarl.Builtl'mg Code.Design LIM antl lmpacl vertical clearance or ai least 6.1 metersorer Ne n , FDalOr antl UTRI e to the follouving. entire li of 13.0 meters. Area e Dsgn COtle-Ot B ldi,g Cotle 10 Tho stag ng area's le,d(�2°bl,'s consWUed of Nc I Des gn Loed-Crybull;Irtvehideln atld ton 200mm re'nforced concrete.and hasaveri cel - -L_ BUI In Cotler ants II.If mm 61m - - a egnaDm deaan atkss I.Imaci Famor-s°b for maetmum vehicular 11.All aaas6drlvewasfor colleml0n vehlde will be p e,eT kH s DervT.,, 0 p,di to l5 kmlh antl 30°b for higher laud antl within 2%slope. 0 �LtiE. ds 12.The atlan will maintain convex mvrors on site ..,..�. sD P 9 A 22 COMMERCIAL/VISITOR 0 e ,ar �Es 26m Incutling but not lmi[etl ia.Where traffic must Imve PARKING SPACES roUntla<ornac Uprov Idache termmanon or Un to Y _ Fat�FB1s� I aisles,positioned in such a manneras to idetlfi�D - g wllnadearvl,•e,UfDeaDmm 1arr�G 13.The nlew racanattvctetl sidewalks along iha A4.o devdOpment eta homages wl be built to the sanaramlen afroscllr antlatno alrome municlpefiry e` aA T 1 1 1 IIA111-U111 1U, ----- 0 - / � aaoPERttuNE Y� H ' APPLICATION. W a e �_ s tL NOT PART OF APPLICATION p p Enc aLE -- - LEVEL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED U) M —_ SURFACE IGROUND 22 (INCL.22 CV,I-TYPE ABF,1'TVPE B'CV Q 0bsx� ">acE N v,wce 1'. 1 1 1 - PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING SPACES �� W.u. vn 0rvoa Ttit e OL cncr REQUIRED IPROVIDED LOCATION E D z LONG TERM RESIDENTIAL 675(0.6 UNITS) 675 15 LEVEL 01 GROUND _ reF J EL SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL LONG TERN COMMERCIAL vGROUND SHORT TERM COMMERCIA 7 LEVEL01 GR SURFACE UcREE ACE IBI P izfl0 eHGEND`"a rva VI 3 VIII I,aV n.r xa.or" x.e rvrv�Tt m Vii` "e'n { PARKING SPACES PROVIDED x u�u MGRADE-MEZZANINE 22(INCL 22 CV,1'TYPE ABF,1'NPE PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING SPACES y PROVIOEO LOCATION ;el LONG TERM REGIOENTIAL fiR]5EQ(0.6UIREUNITS)D 6]5 5 LE EL 01-GROUND --2e --ie --e-- ---3P- Vi E aE s�o✓e LEGEND of Tl ove j o AY A G P * ® 7.3ma .�. 22 COMMERCIAL/VISITOR .em ce PARKING SPACES =o DR 000 oB w: lcvi 1 11 1 cv lcvi 1 i c� a; ,max 1 11 i 1 1 i 1 1 .. Ir1 I- _I - - LL V rl IRo—_ nwiry neanT "'N neanrzsm neionT lsm ---- — ----- — ,B PRIVATE LANEWAY w Lu ,. 0-H-E 5azafi M FUTURE APPLICATION. NOT PART OF Dc WWIW9HNW WWWNNN aRAGE �� APPLICATIONBIKE w - e - - a. IBI - _ --� +AaBl ow� - .... E ara i � r BEL B g - D a R R R BE1o� TORPM IAAND PARK DE—OENT E ® zc. J NaeGROUND MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN 7 P 4 Pa��. �__ v o E — _io0.5 «1 � __ ---- �.v _ PROPERTY LINE VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD 55 123432 A2.1 LEVEL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED x ueu ABOVE GR4DE-LEVEL o2 62(INCL 1 TYPE ABF,I TYPE B'BFB EXISTING A4'3 BUILDING y �R*_15—__—__—__—__—__ P E o s/ove t jp LEGEND Ell, 1 i 1 A o a �a 62 TOT AL FARKI SPACES.INCLUDES1'TYPE i AND 1'TYPE PE B'BF PARKING SPACESPIK. , A' P11-11ce ➢zl v V cA4.0 ry IRou ------ L111E 1. ----- - J - �I PRIVATE LANEWAY w Lu e 'm PROPER, 1- - --- a o > w - - - - FUTURE -O I - -- APPLICATION. n 0 NOT PART OF APPLICATION Dc „,„„,,„,,,,,w a '�” no✓cAermc 'zem 1.4m IBI ➢ � 2 m ` I I e /vIR, ,wl ..o Pr r ^l 0 IK O Z 8. AANDPARKDE-O-EN LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN ,w� A oEA- PI IPT II /s sn e o ss� .369 s - _ _ _ - __ __ Nae zi oo'E �N 11 13E7 12 112'I'll'E A1434 PROPERTY LINE - VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD 55 123432 A2.2 121 LEVEL !PA RtVSPACES PROVIDED o uy &6LS ABOVE GR,4DE-LEVEL03 62(INCL I'TYPE A'BE,1'TYPE B'BFT ABOVE—DE-LEVEL 04 fit(INCL 1'TYPE ABF 1'TYPE B'BFT EXISTING A4'3 BUILDING y �R*_ E6 �—__—__—__—__—__ Rry SL[lPE s�o✓e LEGEND �� E , �,,,, ip ve�uwuRPerewNasrwTs o c ik A ,o wa a m.a 2.6m r �e 6cE P ].Sm ➢zl v � V c � ���� ' A4.0 ry rl IRo— ER T=sm MN Aa Tzsm ER'T,sm 62 TOTAL PARKING I PACES.�MLUDES 1'TYPE A'AND 1'TYPE q'BRPACES P _ — N38-20 55�E LINE .u.a PRIVATE LANEWAYLu i w Tam PROPERTY LINE Y, vv N3B�2'ssE s'azlEl a6 _ r --- I —w U) p — - LuFUTURE Dc 0 a I APPLICATION. 'zs. 1AP NOT PART OF APPLICATION e N� .5 _ _ __ Prc JE l \\ g oRIAANO PA R6 DE-0-ENT ..a LEVEL 3AND 4 FLOOR PLAN A® P os .369 rvez,ess EL �TRI __ _ jk PROPERTY LINE - e -. ` VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD 55 123432 A2.3 LEVEL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED x , ABOVE G—E-LEV— 62(I NCL I'TVPE ABF,1'TVPE B'BFT "—"—"—"—"—"—" ABOVE G—E-LEVEL 06 162(IN CL I'TVPE A'BE 1'TVPE B'BFT EXISTING A4'3 BUILDING y �R*_ Ee l—__—__—__—__—__ Bry SL[lPEsEo✓e LEGEND o c ik zsm11K. 11-N-111 �.a IE 2.6. " - TVP z6m f rI IRo— k" � T_, "'N_'12 B10—E T,t 'Eo'T". 62 TOTAL\PARKING PACES�VNCLUDES 1'TYPE " A'AND 1'TYPE BA PARjKING SPACES _ E 11-1-111E u.a " � H w SPT 10,21P 1 K - I I I lam aROPEarruNE � ——— ¢ F w H O- FUTURE Dc a APPLICATION. NOT PART OF p - — zem aam IBI APPLICATION e A K T8aA AND PARK DEVELOPMENT LEVEL 5 AND 6 FLOOR PLAN 4STO�REY ,���� w _ was --oma— Ro>ow oEP ND —211 — __ 162,66E sE,6.369 Na2,6 sse �__ �s ----- - -- PROPERTY LINE 1l2'1'11'E A1434 VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD 55 123432 A2.4 I s yi s Y ROLINE DENOTES EPTENT 2m J° IGH GLASS GDARDRAIL 2 ST INDOOR AMENIi 1455 SO I I Aa.D LINE DENOTES EXTENT OF sl 2m HIGH GD55 -------------- GUARDRAIL "ae PRIVATE LANEWAY I w Lu 77 m PLATE SIZE PROPERTM°"E SEI Os 1--55'E sn2a6 s ° - -- - - - _o- - FUTURE APPLICATION. NOT PART OF DC 'w APPLICATION = o TDRAAND PARK DEVELOPMENT LEVEL 7 FLOOR PLAN STOREY — _ ©I oEN I Iono-o-� Ro _ �_J� PAo, "DI nom E"ND IN -2111 o:wo 1E— s�. a 's� Pa�s<. �__ " m�e2o s'e,ries "tz,s �_ —_ Naes,LI �ex l _.- Sl AL' 141�2'1'55'E A1434_—_—_ — -- -- PROPERTY LINE -- -- I fs"/4',"J� VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD 55 123432 A2.5 I s aa. i ewe o� ai om INDOOR AMENITY BELOW w o co °I o } "3 PRIVATE LANEWAY, w w LL' 55 O a w F— m 1770 smIPLATE SIZE u) PROPERN°"E m— - - e --- w — 1 r~nFUTURE O } _ APPLICATION. �C -�.µuw° o- w 1$m - I NOT PART OF v ,F O 1 APPLICATION p I,BI } w . I = w , o w f a 6 STOREY roreina"o care"oeveio"Mehr I _ LIQ 11 Y�o °,yID° e,or o°rI, ILo�aLE,ILNlaftnw LEVEL 8 FLOOR PLAN \ 4 STONEY below cano R a°,of""° —° — "°n°w°E""° _ wcs PE — �� °�� 21 eYe IN ��k23, PROPERTL ----- - -- -- YINE VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD55123432 123432 � AL.6 EXISTING A4'3 BUILDING 0 GREEN ROOF 7 STOREY w 1 ROOF n LEVEL 0 Sam 9(2 ST INDOOR AMENITY) I A4.0 850 sm PLATE 51ZE sl 2e 6" E 4PRIVATE LANE Lu IrvoDErv��rvE770 sr PLATE'�SIZE F------'a �a - -„, -_ FUTURE m w APPLICATION. NOT PART OF _ w ,� A APPLICATION 17c p IBI 13.0m 1e 81b0 sm PLATE SI E s e e O L o 6STOREY �__�� �co rosin AND PARK o2veLOPnneNr \ o LANE OE 1-NE E—II �� � a o s�Eo ry r�Eso �ooaE'���-- �—�i saE r— lig TYP TOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A 4 STOREY o;�t; �--- RAO,oER rvO —Ori— Ro„Ow OEry rvO — wvs N - s9 _ '2M �— _____ _ __ PROPERTY LINE VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD 55 �1 123432 AL .7 NES o EXISTING A4'3 BUILDING Px_Tv uN__ ;s', L o Som I o w , 7 STOREY OLJ i I I � 770 sm PLATE SIZE Iqo 38-20 55�E LINE PRIVATE LANEWAY Luw - e PIDE—LINE co 64 Ism PLATE SIZEED ' r J) Jy — I w — T RE ',w FU U K 0 -- O - - - APPLICATION. Dc _ cn - NOT PART OF novc±ermc APPLICATION .�- IBI �ia.om 'a e 7 0 sm PLIATE SIZE- Lu .-. w w ryO 6 .�p E e x s — - - ,.., 6 STOREY n VICTORIA AND eNT r 3 - v 3TYPLPENTHOUSE LEVEL D1111N LINE OENI—.1—E 1-1 LE 11L I INI Ia�� a,�:` ��__m 4ISTORE'�'below�anopy �o D; _ _L� PAo,oEN NoI ROAov,o�N Ro„ow oEN ND °Gy �N r 3 5 � P�&�— st. ,zm, v 5 �__sE,s.ss rvaz,5s'E _ �" _____ N3ez�oo'E �121 PROPERTY LINE k� VICTORIA STREET REGIONAL ROAD 55 123432 A2.8 121 ry LEVELPARKING SPACES PROVIDED aaxuc aaxueu 115171 CL6CV,BEV-d3C She PARKING SPACES) 1.2m 77 11 n 0 55' ry 2l.om x LEGEND rex 7.3m cJ1�c I x " ].3m i rerev m I 1-1--1E gill 31 - ].3m rci reooM "`_`_ 11 L IRo iniv nr7arvrzem iLL niry nr7anrzem neaLL m l.e� iry El 7.- $I smRaPR NP - e1 E,v ].3m ].3m ECI II t xoom �a.w IBI ...,,,,. 157 TOTAL PARKING roaw AND PARK OE—oPnnENr SPACES E 11i 11i 11i 11i 1i111i �o�E� renre a��LL ` I 1 PARKING LEVEL PLAN 11 111 11 �1 � v 11 11 11 11 11 1 s� -_____________�_________________________ �D xu�sCo�e. - rv�e so sse,ases Naz le sse �1—ss rvz a 7, aem aa.�.�q--au/c/%, `�O �N .w�_123432 =..,A2.9 ry LEVEL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED aaxuc aaxueu 188(INCL TYPE A'BF,1'TYPE B'BFI _ 1.2m 77 inE 11 4,2 163 n �"— �ocvEres Y g LEGEND rex 1r m m m I v.rerixlrvx sv.,cE —L T Iq� iuvnE,cLET.smLL iurvnEicnrz.smLL neicnr lSTLL �ry 2— pl ].3m ].3m Dc = 15 6 IBI q I .. 188 TOTAL PARKING I I T8R A AND PARK DE—O-ENT SPACES 11 i 11 11 i 11 i1 1 P2 PARKING LEVEL PLAN - s�� A 111 �i 11i 11i 1i 111 i 11 1i 111 1i 11i 111 11i 11i 11 �____ ______ _________________—_____ us ° �N —2111E16 «s .369 15 D--M-E +--1-z3 -Nva-E--- ..•.123432 =..,A2.1 D r + II I T ' z' 21— 21 „ 22 j _ t Dc w IBI _ —- - r8RAAND PARK OE-O-ENT i SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION ■ I cuww ®rev: wtrx vue �nssq,4 iI I ...23452 ..,,A3.0 sio z 6 DC .. .......:..... V TORA AND PARK DEVELOPMENT -- - WEST BUILDING ELEVATION 123452 .�A3.1 n° i d K DC n. z IBIS Z�A AND PARK DE-O-ENT NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION r '123432 :_A3.2 i HI rsaar u � � zs eer i � M e r e rt N I - DC a — — I,BI IN � roR�AAND PARK DEVELOPMENT 6E E,.. — —— — — —— EAST BUILDING ELEVATION 23452 :.•..,A3.3 i ad aec� i K-H - Dc - j T8RAAND PARK OE-0-ENT "BUILDING SECTION 01, *axa eemuxce rowan -- -- - WEST-EAST ..�lop 7%' e 123432 A4.0 i A- - - - m DC k — Ba 1r8R A AND PARK OE—O-ENT.. � 8UILDING SECTION 02, r�cn .oxs+n amnce -- -- -- -- NORTH-SOUTH 12 e 123452 A4.1 .sil.IIl� I _ v — is d s I I 0. 23 v' iz irz Dc d J d I,BI v.0 a iM%rTi u.Bum I 8�A AND PARK V TPMENT UILDING SECTION 03 B - I ru�cn .oweAcemw.ce I EAST-WEST 123432 .�A4.2 nd I I Llox�C ioN9iB � � I.EiiL PuB -i Baur I B9CR �I d'a a T n I mo ax. zz y. I tlAxlHO � e a > F 11 DC .. ......:..... AND PARK DE-oPMENT BUILDING SECTION 04, Bucxcn I SOUTH-NORTH I 123452 A4.3 121 mi r •. DC IBI r8RAANo PARK DE—O-ENT 3 01 op l - �:.. .... ...,[.. 123452 IIID G- I .. 1 •• 11`Ij' J 1 •• ��"� ii li l ilii • � �� - ����� it 111 iillll •••� - ����� ii lil 11 . 111 III Ii • �" �� II 111 lil 11 '�" 11 111 III II� -'+�i•m.� �Illlf III II IIII ,..7®I 11111•= II 11 1 �ilili II ill Ill ii IIII .jai 1111 III II IIII ,�I■I un V I I I II 111; III a nn cul 1111. i I I I I it fi 1 Ilul nn ulrnnlr iihl{ 11.111... Ileo nn •y,l AEl;• - _ iI'IIlil I �kllela'. - - - 11 II • '. n i III —._Irv- il 11 - 1 k. I � Illllill �t7�i - IIIIU IIIIU NnAi n r�! _ 1111111 n i1llllf NO l Illlif. /iii I, I - -- ,Illil Ilii n dllll._pili i• *illil nil e. , }11111..ilii i - _ . ,. —nQlil ilii i '• •. i ,. �••n4�i:.iia i ... .. ,.,. K,9J1�,ilii l �^�ilEli3 two l ••• •• . . . ��911 i ■iii i .. . . . �n ql�i viii i .... .. ... . nil i R 91113 viii i - �91i1i ■ii■■ . ®®® ■iii■■ "',,.. -. °111 .....�� ■,■n' •# 3 c -:� ..�..nr.� ■ ■ �Ill ill���iiii c' - E■iE3n11 ii■� fT 1 � IIIIIIII Not 4 -4, d _ — W s ACCESSORIES gismo REST, 1RANT 1 � �/ ¢� � f ° •��-tel' �' _-v®�®� r f Staff Report x�i _N I,I Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Bustamante, Rosa - Director of Planning 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Stevenson, Garett - Manager of Development Review 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards DATE OF REPORT: May 20, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-273 SUBJECT: Significant Planning Applications Update - Quarterly Report RECOMMENDATION: For Information BACKGROUND: Planning staff provide a quarterly update report every March, June, September, and December of each year of all current significant development applications. It is important to be providing greater transparency on significant development applications with the community and Council. REPORT: Attached to this report, the Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q2 2022) provides a summary of the current Planning applications under review at the time of the preparation of this report. The current significant development applications section includes Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendments that have not received final approval. These are the bulk of the applications that Planning Staff consult with the community on an application specific basis. Significant development applications include property specific proposals as well as new greenfield communities (subdivisions). Additional details on the development applications can be found using the online mapping tool available at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. 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. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 498 of 520 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT — Significant development application specific engagements are undertaken for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law, and Subdivision applications. Engagement includes mailing postcards to property owners and occupants of all buildings within 240 metres of the subject lands, publishing a newspaper notice when the application is first circulated and when the statutory public meeting is scheduled, as well as informal community meetings including Neighbourhood Meetings and/or site walks. A large plain language sign is also posted on the property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. APPROVED BY: Justin Readman — General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A—Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q2 2022) Page 499 of 520 Attachment A—Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q2 2022) Current Significant Development Applications (Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment) WARD 1 528 LANCASTER ST W Proposal: A development with 5 multiple residential buildings of varying heights (i.e., 26, 20, 20, 16, and 10 storeys), and commercial uses on the ground floor of the 16-storey building. File Number: OPA21/010/L/AP Description: The main purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to re-designate the whole of the lands to Mixed Use and modify the Specific Policy Area to allow a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.8 and a maximum building height of 83m 26 storeys). Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/015/L/AP Description: The main purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to re-zone the whole of the lands to MIX-2, and to modify the site- specific provisions to allow an FSR of 5.8, a building height of 83m (26 storeys), a parking rate of 0.72 spaces per unit, among other requests for relief. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 20, 2022 Owner: 528 LANCASTER STREET Applicant: WEST INC, 550 LANCASTER INC MHBC PLANNING Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on January 20, 2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. 104 WOOLWICH ST Proposal: Two 3.5-storey multiple dwellings (stacked townhouses) with 24 dwelling units each (total of 48 dwelling units). File Number: OP18/007/W/AP Description: The owner is requesting a Site-Specific Policy to allow an FSR of up to 0.9. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA18/009/W/AP Description: The owner is requesting to change the zoning from Agricultural (A-1)to Residential Six Zone (R-6) along with a Site Specific Provisions to: a) reduce the minimum front yard from 4.5 metres to 1.0 metres, b) eliminate the requirement for Private Patio Areas for at-grade dwelling units, c) increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 0.6 to 0.9, and d) reduce the required parking from 1.75 spaces per unit to 1.2 spaces per unit. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: 1238455 ONTARIO LIMITED Applicant: GSP GROUP INC Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. Page 500 of 520 507 FREDERICK STREET, 40-44-48 BECKER STREET Proposal: An addition to the existing funeral home is proposed with a crematorium, as well as an expanded parking lot along Becker Street. File Number: OP17/003/F/GS Description: To change the land use designation of the three Becker Street properties from Low Rise Residential to Commercial, and to add a special policy in the Official Plan to permit a Crematorium/Cremator as a permitted use. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZC17/010/F/GS Description: To change the zoning of the three Becker Street properties from Residential Six (R-6) with Special Use Regulation 362U to COM-2 (General Commercial), and to add special regulation provisions to all properties to define the front yard (due to multiple street frontages), permit a reduced Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.17 (a minimum of 0.6 is required), to permit a 0 metre setback from Becker Street, and to permit 11 off-site parking to be included in the development, and to add a new Special Use Regulation in the Zoning By-law to permit a crematorium/cremator on site. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: November 23, 2021 Owner: Henry Walser Funeral Home Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Technical studies responding to comments at the Neighbourhood Meeting are under review. 26 STANLEY AVENUE & 31 SCHWEITZER STREET Proposal: The Site is proposed to be developed with a residential subdivision consisting of 42 single detached dwelling lots, 12 semi-detached dwelling lots (total of 24 dwellings)and a 5-unit street-townhouse block totaling 71 residential units. The Proposed Development will be accessed by a future municipal road connecting to Stanley Avenue. File Number: 30T-21201 Description: A residential plan of subdivision consisting of single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and townhouse dwellings, totaling 72 units. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/19/S/BB Description: To rezone the Site from Residential Four (R-4) and Residential Five (R-5)to the Low Rise Residential Five (RES-5)Zone with the a Site-Specific Provision to permit a maximum building height of 12.5 metres. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: May 31, 2022. Owner: Newo Holdings Limited Applicant: GSP Group Inc. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting has been scheduled for May 31, 2022. Page 501 of 520 WARD 2 1157 WEBER ST E Proposal: A mixed-use development consisting of a building with a 15 and 18 storey tower with a total of 378 residential dwelling units and ground floor commercial units. File Number: OPA21/007/W/BB Description: To change the land use designation from Commercial Corridor to Mixed Use with a Special Policy Area. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/010/W/BB Description: To change the zoning of the lands from Commercial Two to High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor with Site Specific regulations Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Owner: M K G HOLDING Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. CORPORATION Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. 42 WINDOM ROAD Proposal: A stacked three storey town/multiple dwelling building containing 22 residential units. File Number: ZBA20/017/W/ES Description: To remove special regulation provision 744R (maximum 5units) to permit 22 units, FSR increase to 0.75, and a parking reduction from 1.75 per unit to 0.95 per unit Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Eric Schneider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: WINDOM KW INC Applicant: IBI Group Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. 142 FERGUS AVE Proposal: A 7 storey building consisting of 78 residential units with associated surface and underground parking. File Number: OPA22/002/F/BB Description: To redesignate the property from Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan to Medium Rise Residential with Special Policy Area to permit a maximum FSR of 2.3. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/017/V/ES Description: The purpose of the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment is to rezone the Site to the RES-6 Zone with a Site-Specific regulations to permit a maximum FSR of 2.3, reduced side yard and rear yard setbacks, and a reduced vehicular parking rate. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: May 25, 2022 Owner: 2467491 ONTARIO INC Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting has been scheduled for May 25, 2022. Page 502 of 520 WARD 3 4396 KING ST E Proposal: An 8-storey residential building located on the property at 25 Sportsworld Drive and a high-density, mixed-use building featuring 18 and 30 storey towers with ground-floor commercial uses on the property at 4396 King Street East, with a total of 616 dwelling units and 1,378 m2 of commercials ace. File Number: OPA21/009/K/AP Description: The Official Plan Amendment requests to redesignate the property from Commercial Campus to Mixed Use with a Specific Policy Area. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/014/K/AP Description: The applicant proposed to rezone the property from Commercial Campus (COM-4) to Mixed Use (MIX-3) and establish a Site-Specific Provision to allow a maximum building height of 99 metres (30 storeys), maximum Floor Space Ratio of 6.2, reduced parking rate of 0.85 spaces per dwelling unit (580 spaces), non- residential gross floor area reduction, among other matters. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: March 31, 2022 Owner: SPORTSWORLD SHOPPING Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. CENTRE LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. 4220 KING ST E & 25 SPORTSWORLD CROSSING ROAD Proposal: Three buildings are proposed including a 14-storey, 158-unit residential tower oriented towards Sportsworld Crossing Road, an 18-storey, 156-unit residential tower located towards King Street East, and a 14-storey, 212-unit residential tower designed in an `L' shape with stepbacks to frame the intersection of King Street East and Deer Ridge Drive. File Number: OPA22/003/K/CD Description: To redesignate the Site from `Commercial Campus' to `Mixed Use' to permit the proposed high-density residential mixed- use building with a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 4.0. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/005/K/CD Description: To change the zoning to MIX-3 with special regulations to permit a FSR of 4.0, whereas the Zoning By-law currently limits the FSR to 2.0 for`MIX-3'zones; to permit a maximum building height of 18-storeys (68.6 metres) for the Site, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 10-storeys (32 metres); to permit a podium with a minimum height of 2-storeys, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum height of 3-storeys; and, to permit a minimum ground floor building height of 3.5 metres, whereas the Zoning By- law requires a minimum ground floor building height of 4.5 metres. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 7, 2022 Owner: The Tricar Group Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting has been scheduled for June 7, 2022. Page 503 of 520 New Applications 82-84 WILSON AVENUE & 210 FOURTH AVENUE Proposal: The Region of Waterloo is proposing to demolish the existing 2 storey apartment building on the portion of the site to facilitate construction of a 6-storey apartment building that will provide 48 affordable housing units for seniors. The redevelopment would result in intensification of the site and provide an additional 32 affordable housing units for a campus total of 155 units. The first floor of the proposed development will contain 203 square metres of office space, an amenity area for residents, a commercial kitchen server, and lobby. File Number: ZBA22/007/W/ES Description: The applicant is requesting a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement site specific exemptions from the RES-6 zone to reduce the residential parking rate and allow parking to be located in the front fa ade of the building. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Eric Schneider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: Region of Waterloo Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This is a new application and is in circulation. Page 504 of 520 WARD 4 448 NEW DUNDEE RD Proposal: A condominium development with 24 single detached houses with frontage onto a private condominium road. File Number: ZBA20/003/N/AP Description: the application requests to change the zoning from R-1 Zone (allows single detached dwellings on lots with a min. lot area of 4,000 m2 and min. lot width of 30 m2) to R-6 (allows single detached dwellings on lots with a min. lot area of 235 m2 and min. lot width of 9 m2). Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: November 25, 2021. Owner: HAYRE PROPERTIES INC Applicant: GSP Group Inc. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Additional technical study is underway. 86 PINNACLE DR Proposal: A two storey 16-unit senior-oriented residential building. File Number: ZBA19/003/P/KA Description: To change the zoning to Residential Six (R-6) to permit a multiple residential dwelling. Application Type: ZBA Status: On hold at the request of the Owner Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Sept. 10, 2019 Owner: A & F GREENFIELD HOMES Applicant: IBI Group LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. Page 505 of 520 WARD 5 161 GEHL PL Proposal: A new community with up to 235 residential dwelling units and open space blocks. File Number: OP18/006/G/GS Description: Proposing amendment to the Rosenberg Secondary Plan to revise land use designations for various lands to implement the proposed plan of subdivision. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA18/007/G/GS Description: The proposed amendment to the Zoning By-law is to apply new zoning to the lands to implement the Rosenberg Secondary Plan (also proposed to be amended) to implement the proposed plan of subdivision. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: 30T-18202 Description: A proposed Plan of Subdivision with up to 235 residential units and open space blocks. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: N/A Owner: 2079546 ONTARIO LIMITED Applicant: SGL PLANNING & DESIGN INC Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. 1801 BLEAMS RD Proposal: A new community with 2607 residential units, a school, green space, and parkland. File Number: OP18/005/B/GS Description: Proposing amendment to the Rosenberg Secondary Plan to revise land use designations for various lands to implement the proposed plan of subdivision. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA18/006/B/GS Description: The proposed amendment to the Zoning By-law is to apply new zoning to the lands to implement the Rosenberg Secondary Plan (also proposed to be amended) to implement the proposed plan of subdivision. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: 30T-18201 Description: A proposed Plan of Subdivision with up to 2607 residential units, a school, green space, parkland, as well as multiple residential and mixed-use blocks. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: N/A Owner: 2079546 ONTARIO LIMITED Applicant: SGL PLANNING & DESIGN INC Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. ROCKCLIFFE DR (FREURE SOUTH) Proposal: A new community with 471 new residential units including single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings. Parkland open sace & stormwater management facilities are also proposed. File Number: OP16/001/R/KA Description: To change the designation of the easterly portion of land to high rise residential, designate a future park area as open space, and to adjust the limits of wooded areas designated as open space. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Page 506 of 520 File Number: ZC16/009/R/KA Description: To change the zoning from Restricted Business Park (B- 2) to residential and natural heritage conservation zones. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: 30T-16201 Description: The plan of subdivision includes single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings along with parkland open space & stormwater management facilities. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: FREURE DEVELOPMENTS Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD LIMITED Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. Archeological assessment work continues. 1525 BLEAMS ROAD Proposal: To demolish the existing building and create 6 residential lots, which are proposed to be added to the Mattamy South Estates (30T-08206) subdivision through a subdivision modification File Number: ZBA22/005/K/CD Description: To rezone the property to Residential Six as well as apply Special Regulations 671 R, 672R, 673R and 674R. Application Type: ZBA Status: Planning staff will be presenting their recommendation at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting scheduled for June 13, 2022. Staff Contact: Tim Se ler Neighbourhood Meeting Date: N/A Owner: Mattamy (South Estates) Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. Limited, City of Kitchener Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This application is scheduled to be considered by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting on June 13, 2022. Page 507 of 520 WARD 7 1593 HIGHLAND RD W Proposal: A mixed-use development consisting of a 13 storey building and 16 storey building, with a total of 403 dwelling units, 1,052 square metres of ground floor commercial space, and 2 levels of underground parking. File Number: OPA20/001/H/AP Description: The Official Plan currently state that only commercial- type uses are permitted on the above properties; residential uses are not permitted. The owner is requesting to change the OP to permit up to 403 residential dwelling units within buildings containing commercial uses. Application Type: OPA Status: This application was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal in August 2020. The OLT appeal was held from January 24 — February 3, 2022. No decision has been received. File Number: ZBA20/004/H/AP Description: The Owner is requesting to permit up to 403 residential dwelling units within buildings containing commercial uses. Additional commercial uses are requested. The owner is also requesting to reduce front, side yard, and rear yard setbacks, increase lot coverage, and reduce parking requirements. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal in August 2020. The OLT appeal was held from January 24 — February 3, 2022. No decision has been received. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: N/A Owner: M DEVELOPMENTS Applicant: IBI GROUP (KITCHENER) INC Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This application was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal in August 2020. The OLT appeal was held from January 24— February 3, 2022. No decision has been received. Page 508 of 520 WARD 8 400 WESTWOOD DR Proposal: To demolish the existing house and create four new lots for single detached dwellings. File Number: ZBA21/012/W/ES Description: To rezone the developable portion of the lands to site specific Residential Four (R-4). Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Eric Schneider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 13, 2022 Owner: NASIR BROMAND, ZAKIA Applicant: IBI GROUP BROMAND Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on January 13, 2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Page 509 of 520 WARD 9 146 VICTORIA ST S Proposal: A multi-tower, mixed use development consisting of a shared mid-rise podium of 4-6 storeys in height with 3 residential towers atop the podium, with heights of 25, 36, & 38 storeys and containing a total of 1150 residential units and 1770 square metres of commercials ace. File Number: OPA21/011/V/ES Description: Proposing a Special Policy Area to increase maximum floor space ratio to 11.6 to permit a mixed-use development with commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Application Type: OPA Status: Planning staff will be presenting their recommendation at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting scheduled for June 13, 2022. File Number: ZBA21/017/V/ES Description: To increase maximum floor space ratio to 11. 6 and a maximum building height of 38 storeys and 122 metres to permit a mixed-use development with commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Application Type: ZBA Status: Planning staff will be presenting their recommendation at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting scheduled for June 13, 2022. Staff Contact: Eric Schneider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: February 8, 2022 Owner: 1936026 ONTARIO INC Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: These applications are scheduled to be considered by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting on June 13, 2022. 321 COURTLAND AVE E Proposal: A new mixed-use community with residential, commercial, and employment uses. Three existing buildings are proposed to remain, including the six storey office building, the large distribution warehouse building, and the former maintenance garage. The remainder of the buildings are currently being demolished. The existing buildings will be repurposed for a mix of employment uses. New buildings are proposed to range from three storeys along Stirling Avenue South, to five-to-seven storeys along Courtland Avenue East, and between twenty-three and thirty-five storeys along the rail line. In total, approximately 2818 residential units are proposed in various forms throughout the site. File Number: OP19/002/C/GS Description: An Official Plan Amendment is requested to implement new land use permissions for the proposed development. The existing land use designation for the subject lands is General Industrial with a site-specific policy in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Secondary Plan. An amendment is requested to change the land use designations to Mixed Use, High Density Multiple Residential, and Neighbourhood Park. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA19/005/C/GS Description: The proposed subdivision application contains two medium density residential blocks, a high-density residential block, a medium density mixed use block, a mixed-use employment block, a park block, a street townhouse block, and two future development blocks. Road widening blocks are proposed along Courtland Avenue East. The blocks are arranged along a new proposed road to be named Olde Fashioned Way, running parallel to Courtland Avenue East from Palmer Avenue to Borden Avenue South. Palmer Avenue and Kent Avenue are proposed to be extended through the site to intersect with the proposed road. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: 30T-19201 Description: The Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to implement the proposed land use designations with corresponding zoning. The Page 510 of 520 proposed zoning is Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone MU- 2 (a medium intensity mixed use zone that permits residential and commercial uses), Residential Nine R-9 (a high-rise residential zone), and Public Park Zone P-1 (a zone that is applied to public park spaces). Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Jul 15, 2019. Planning Staff will be holding a second digital information meeting to provide an update on this application as issues are resolved. Owner: 321 COURTLAND AVE Applicant: GSP Group Inc. DEVELOPMENTS INC Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. 1001 KING STREET E & 530-564 CHARLES STREET E Proposal: A 30 storey building that is 92.0 metres in height with 461 square metres of commercial space and 486 residential units. File Number: OPA22/001/K/KA Description: The requested Official Plan Amendment, proposes a special policy area for the subject lands on Map 10 of the King Street East Secondary Plan to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 8.27. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22-001/K/KA Description: The main purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to add Special Provisions to the existing High Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-3) to permit a maximum floor space ratio of 8.27 instead of 4.0; a dwelling unit to be located at grade (along Charles Street for live work units) in a mixed use building; and a parking rate of 0.54 spaces per unit, visitor parking at 4% of required parking, and to permit parking for a Plaza complex to be 0. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: March 23, 2022 Owner: King-Charles Properties Applicant: MHBC PLANNING Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on March 23, 2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. 95-101 CEDAR ST. S. Proposal: A 24 unit stacked townhouse complex. File Number: OPA21/013/C/KA Description: To re-designate lands from Low Rise Conservation to Low Density Multiple Residential. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/022/C/KA Description: To change the zoning from Residential Drive (R-5) to Residential Seven R-7 with special regulation provisions. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: March 29, 2022 Owner: St George Inc. & St Pola Applicant: MHBC Planning Inc. Group Inc. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on March 29, 2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Page 511 of 520 New Applications 368-382 OTTAWA STREET SOUTH & 99-115 PATTANDON AVENUE Proposal: A 152 unit, 8 storey multiple dwelling unit building. File Number: OPA22/005/0/CD Description: To re-designate lands from Low Rise Residential to Medium Rise Residential with a site specific policy area to permit an 8 storey building. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/008/0/CD Description: To allow for a 8 storey building with 152 residential units and an increased floor space ratio of 2.5 rather than 2.0, reduced front and exterior side yard setbacks of 4.4 metres rather than 6.0 metres, a reduced on-site parking rate of 0.9 spaces per unit for multiple dwellings, and a reduced visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces per unit. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 16, 2022 Owner: St Mary Coptic Orthodox Applicant: Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. Church Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This is anew application and is in circulation. A Neighbourhood Meeting has been scheduled for June 16, 2022. 130-142 VICTORIA ST S Proposal: A 25 storey mixed use building which includes 249 dwelling units and 4 retail units on the ground floor. File Number: OPA22/004//V/KA Description: The applicant is requesting a new Site Specific Policy be added to the current Mixed Use designation to permit a maximum FSR of 12.73. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/006/V/KA Description: The applicant is proposing to add Special Regulations to the existing MU-1 proposes an FSR of 12.73, a height of about 86 metres, as well as reductions to setbacks and reduced parking. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: 1936026 ONTARIO INC Applicant: IBI Group Update Since Last Quarterly Report: This is a new application and is in circulation. Page 512 of 520 WARD 10 276 KING ST E Proposal: A 7-storey mixed-use building. Ground floor commercial uses are proposed along with six storeys of residential above. File Number: OPA20/006/K/AP Description: To increase the Floor Space Ratio to 4.8 from 3.0. Application Type: OPA Status: Status: Planning staff will be presenting their recommendation at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting scheduled for June 13, 2022. File Number: ZBA20/015/K/AP Description: The property is currently split zoned D-2 (King St) and D-3 (former house facing Eby St). Numerous changes are required, but the main changes are to change the zoning of the whole property to D-2,to allow FSR of 4.8 (currently, the max permitted is 2.0/0.75), to allow maximum building height of 28.5 metres (currently, the max is 17.4m in D-2 and 9.Om in D-3), and to allow zero parking for the building (currently zero parking is required for commercial, and 29 spaces for residential). Application Type: ZBA Status: Planning staff will be presenting their recommendation at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting scheduled for June 13, 2022. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: April 28, 2021 Owner: 276 KING EAST INC Applicant: GSP GROUP INC. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: These applications are scheduled to be considered by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting on June 13, 2022. 1668 KING ST E Proposal: Two 23 storey buildings consisting of 616 residential units. File Number: OPA21/008/K/CD Description: The Official Plan Amendment requests an increased Floor Space Ratio of 7.2 rather than 4.0. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/013/K/CD Description: The Zoning By-law Amendment is requested to allow a mixed-use development for two 23 storey buildings, consisting of 616 residential units, 204 square metres of commercial space with an increased Floor Space Ratio of 7.2 rather than 4.0, reduced rear yard setback of 12.0 metres rather than 14.0 metres, and reduced on-site parking to permit parking at a rate of 0.7 spaces per unit for Multiple Dwelling Units greater than 51.0 square metres in size, rather than 1.0 spaces per unit. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 17, 2021 Owner: 2806399 ONTARIO INC Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. Page 513 of 520 22 WEBER ST W Proposal: A 19-storey multiple residential building with 162 units, including 25 barrier free units. A total of 24 parking spaces are proposed at grade. File Number: OPA20/005/W/JVW Description: The applicant is now proposing to amend the designation to High Density Commercial Residential with a Special Policy Area in order to permit a floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.8. Application Type: OPA Status: A fifth Case Management Conference is scheduled for September 30, 2022 at 10:00 am and the hearing is scheduled to begin on March 13, 2023. File Number: ZBA20/013/W/JVW Description: The subject lands are currently zoned Commercial Residential Three (CR-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing the same base zone with site specific special regulations to permit; an increase in height to 19 storeys, an increase in Floor Space Ratio to 7.8, To require a minimum ground floor fagade height of 4.5m, to reduce the required minimum landscaped area required from 10% to 8%, to reduce front and rear yard setbacks, and to reduce the required on-site parking to 24 spaces, including 8 visitor parking spaces. Application Type: ZBA Status: A fifth Case Management Conference is scheduled for September 30, 2022 at 10:00 am and the hearing is scheduled to begin on March 13, 2023. Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Sept. 8, 2021 & March 3, 2022. Owner: 30 DUKE STREET LIMITED Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A fourth Case Management Conference was held on April 4, 2022. A second Neighbourhood Meeting was held on March 3, 2022. The HIA was presented to the Heritage Kitchener Committee on March 1, 2022. A fifth Case Management Conference is scheduled for September 30, 2022 at 10:00am and the hearing is scheduled to begin on March 13, 2023. 20 OTTAWA STREET NORTH Proposal: Redevelop the subject property as a mixed-use commercial and residential development comprised of three buildings, ranging in height from six to 26 storeys. The proposed development will provide a total of 464 units with 306 parking spaces and vehicular access to Ottawa Street via a private driveway. File Number: OPA21/012/0/CD Description: The subject property is designated Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centres in the King Street East Secondary Plan, which forms part of the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The land use policies of the Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centres designation permits multiple unit residential use with a floor space ratio of 1.0. The proposed development is proposed to have a floor space ratio of 3.0. Application Type: OPA Status: These applications were recommended for approval by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting on May 16, 2022. File Number: ZBA21/018/0/CD Description: The proposed amendment is to change the current Neighbourhood Shopping Centre (C-2) to the Commercial Residential Four Zone (CR-4) to permit dwelling units as well as a variety of commercial uses. Application Type: ZBA Status: These applications were recommended for approval by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting on May 16, 2022. Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: February 24, 2022 Owner: 20 Ottawa GP INC. Applicant: MHBC Planning Ltd. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: These applications were recommended for approval by the Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting on May 16, 2022. Page 514 of 520 Staff Report x�i _N I,I Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 13, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante - Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Richard Kelly-Ruetz, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7110 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards DATE OF REPORT: May 25, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-274 SUBJECT: Additional Dwelling Units (Detached) —Year 1 Review RECOMMENDATION: For Information. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • This report updates Council on an approved 2021 Zoning By-law Amendment which allowed Additional Dwelling Units (Detached) and Semi-Detached Duplexes. • Between June 2021 and the date of this report, 30 building permits have been issued: 21 for Semi-Detached Duplex units, and 9 for Additional Dwelling Units (Detached). This report focuses on the latter. • Surveys were sent to applicants and residents to gather feedback. The approvals process and zoning are generally effective though timing could be quicker. Nearby residents were somewhat supportive of backyard homes and shared specific impacts. • Staff will continue to monitor the uptake of Additional Dwelling Units (Detached) in Kitchener including exploring opportunities to simplify zoning and streamline the approvals process. BACKGROUND: In 2021 , Council approved a Zoning By-law amendment (DSD-2021-9) which permitted the following "Additional Dwelling Units" in Kitchener's Zoning By-laws: 1. Additional Dwelling Unit(Detached). Backyard home, tiny house, garden suite, etc. 2. Semi-Detached Duplex. This is when one `half' of a semi-detached dwelling adds a second unit, typically in the basement. The amendment fully implemented 2019 changes to the Planning Act (Bill 108) which required municipalities to allow additional dwelling units in single detached, semi-detached, and street townhouse dwellings. In Kitchener, these uses are now permitted in the applicable low-rise residential zones of Zoning By-law 85-1 (older zoning) and Zoning By-law 2019- This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 515 of 520 051 (newer zoning). Staff committed to Council to return after 1 year with an update report on uptake and observations on Additional Dwelling Units; that is the purpose of this report. REPORT: As of the date of this report, a total of 30 building permits have been issued since the new zoning came into effect on June 1, 2022. Specifically: • 21 building permits for Semi-Detached Duplex units have been issued. Most were within existing Semi-Detached Dwellings where a new basement unit was added. • 9 building permits for Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) have been issued. Around 20 more are in the approvals process. 30 building permits for new semi-detached duplex and additional dwelling(detached) units have been issued as a direct result of the zoning by-law amendment approved by Council in 2021. This is a rate of about 1 new unit every 2 weeks. The remainder of this report will focus on the uptake and observations of Additional Dwelling Units (Detached), referred to herein as "backyard homes" constructed since June 2021 . Backyard Homes The City has a two-step approvals process for backyard homes: (1) Site Plan and (2) Building Permit. When the site plan is approved, a courtesy letter is mailed to properties within 30 metres advising them of possible upcoming construction. Scoped Site . compliance*Confirms zoning (setbacks, .. - etc.) *Reviews building and parking layout affected -- emergency acc ss Building '- (costs *Reviews plans d drawings to confirm requirementsthe Building Code are met To understand how the process and rules for backyard homes were working for applicants and surrounding residents, the following questions were asked through a survey that was sent to all applicants who have applied for a site plan and to all property owners who live within 30 metres of two completely constructed backyard homes. • How is the site plan application process and zoning regulations perceived by applicants and staff? • How are backyard homes perceived by surrounding residents? Page 516 of 520 This report summarizes the feedback obtained through the survey, staff's observations on the process and rules for backyard homes, and next steps. Applicant Feedback: Site Plans for Backyard Homes (9 responses received) • Two thirds of respondents generally found the site plan submission requirements `clear'. Specific feedback was provided to clarify the application form and these changes have already been made. • Nearly all respondents (7 of 9) found the backyard homes webpage to be helpful as they navigated the approvals process (www.kitchener.ca/backyardhomes). • 4 of 9 respondents felt the site plan application process "took too long". In the feedback section, the need for a "streamlined" process was highlighted several times. • Overall, there were mixed views of the site plan application process for backyard homes. 4 respondents rated it less favourably, and 5 respondents provided a favourable review. The length of time and/or "unnecessarily complicated" requirements were noted as additional feedback. Applicant Feedback: Zoning Requirements for Backyard Homes (9 responses received) • Most applicants were able to meet the 13.1 metre lot width (frontage) requirement. Several respondents asked that this minimum be reduced as it is not clear why it is in place. One respondent noted that they limited their property search to only properties which met the 13.1 metre frontage requirement. • No concerns were raised with the minimum lot area requirement of 395 square metres. One respondent noted it "seems appropriate". • The zoning requires the main house to have a 1.2 metre setback on both sides. Some commentary was provided questioning why this requirement is in place. Most respondents did not have an issue with this requirement. 2 respondents noted they had trouble finding a property which met this requirement. • No issues were raised with the requirement that the backyard home must be setback 0.6 metres from the side and back property lines. • The square footage of the backyard home is limited to 50% of the side of the main house to a maximum of 80 square metres. Most respondents (6 of 9) had mixed or negative views on the 50% regulation; where the main house is small, the size of the backyard home is constrained, even if it is a large lot. • The maximum building height for backyard homes is 4.5 metres measured to the midpoint of the roof. Feedback on this requirement was mixed, with several comments noting that some additional flexibility would allow a usable second storey / loft space under the Building Code. Page 517 of 520 • Most respondents did not have an issue with the 1.1 metre walkway requirement from the sidewalk to the backyard home which allows emergency access to the unit. One respondent noted it "adds extra costs to our project". • Satisfying parking requirements was not an issue for any respondents. One comment asked that more parking exemptions be provided. • Some concerns were raised that the site plan process considers Building Code requirements such as spatial separation (the distance between the main house and the backyard home) at the site plan stage rather than at time of Building Permit. This is done because the spatial separation calculation can impact the physical location of the backyard home on the property. Since the site plan application shows the physical location of the backyard home, it is worth confirming spatial separation during the site plan stage to avoid site plan revisions at the time of Building Permit. Resident Feedback: Impact on Neighbourhood (5 responses received) • Most respondents (4 of 5) remembered receiving the courtesy notice when the site plan was approved and would like to continue receiving the courtesy notice if another backyard home is approved. • 3 out of 5 respondents described the impact of the backyard home on their neighbourhood as "high". The primary concern from respondents is focused on backyard homes being used as a short-term rental (i.e. an Airbnb) and associated challenges with the operation of a short-term rental (i.e. property maintenance, garbage pick-up, traffic, etc.). Staff notes that tenancy and short-term rental units are not currently regulated by the City of Kitchener. • Some verbatim responses about the neighbourhood impact of backyard homes are: o "Feels like another house fit into existing spaces for good and bad". o "Looks great, I think it's a great idea. Was very interesting watching the construction occur". o "Increased garbage and traffic in neighbourhood". o "Short-term rentals should not be allowed in the neighbourhood". o "Glad they're approved. I think it's great both for housing opportunities in an ever-growing population and for an income helper in a tough economy". Staff Commentary: Year 1 • 26 site plan applications for backyard homes have been received (-r2 per month). 14 of these have been approved and can proceed to Building Permit. To-date, 9 of these have had building permits issued. Page 518 of 520 • The average approval time for the site plan application is about 10 weeks; excluding three outliers, the average time is about 7 weeks. There has been a high variance in the quality of applications submitted, ranging from excellent quality to poor quality. • As a general observation the quality of the original submission is highly correlated with length of time the approvals process will take. Staff was intentional in not requiring a "standard template" that each site plan had to be submitted on to increase flexibility for homeowners. In practice, this meant that a wide variety of templates were submitted (from computer-drawn to hand drawn) resulting in a range of staff review time. Staff intend to provide example documents to help guide applicants with the submission of quality drawings. • When a site plan is submitted that does not meet all submission requirements, applications must be revised and resubmitted before they can move forward. This has caused several applications to be paused and/or delayed pending revisions. There are opportunities to scope submission requirements and further assist applicants with an understanding of the requirements up front to help bridge this gap. • Administratively, the site plan process has facilitated the subsequent building permit by "clearing" all zoning requirements ahead of a building permit application. • As this is a new process for the City, some requirements changed mid-way through the year. For example, the Fire department added a new requirement for physical signage on the property. As these changes happened, initiated by other departments, it did have some impact on timelines. Staff are confident that the requirements now in place are the ones that will continue moving forward • A few applicants would have liked to have added an attached garage to their backyard home. This is challenging without exceeding the maximum floor area rules. Staff will explore flexibility in the floor area maximums to facilitate a small, attached garage. Ensuring the overall scale/massing of the unit remains secondary to the main house would be a key consideration. • Overall, the zoning regulations in place for backyard homes are achievable on most applications, though some minor variances have been required for rules such as lot width and setbacks. In the coming years, simplification of zoning regulations is worth exploring to expedite the application process and provide more design options. Next Steps Staff has heard from applicants who responded to the survey that there is a strong desire for a "more streamlined" approach to approving backyard homes. Staff has also observed that the site plan application process can be administratively challenging, particularly where applications do not meet submission requirements. Staff will continue to explore efficiencies in the approvals process for backyard homes. As site plan applications are approved, a courtesy notice is mailed to property owners within 30 metres of the approved backyard home to advise them of the approval. Depending on the neighbourhood, between 5 and 20 letters would be mailed. Residents generally seem Page 519 of 520 to appreciate the courtesy letter. From staff's perspective the courtesy letter is a minor process inefficiency as it is an additional step. Staff will continue to monitor. Overall, the City of Kitchener is still in the early days of permitting backyard homes. Staff and applicants continue to gain more experience navigating the approvals process. Staff continue to strive for a streamlined approach, while balancing other factors such as ensuring the units can be safely accessed by emergency services and confirming that all zoning requirements are met. Going forward, future refinements to zoning may help facilitate a quicker approvals process and staff will continue to monitor progress. 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: This update report primarily utilized the themes of "INFORM" and "CONSULT" from the City's Community Engagement Policy. The following summarizes the community engagement: ■ This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. ■ An online survey was sent by email to each of the 26 applicants who have applied for a site plan application for a backyard home. Staff received 9 responses. ■ A mailed letter with a link to an online survey was sent to properties within 30 metres of the 2 backyard homes whose construction is largely complete to gather feedback on their perception of the backyard home in their neighbourhood. Several responses were received which provided input to this report. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • DSD-2021-9 Zoning By-law Amendment - Additional Dwelling Units • DSD-2021-76 Zoning By-law Amendment — Additional Dwelling Units, Parking Requirements Near LRT Stations REVIEWED BY: Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy and Research APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: N/A Page 520 of 520